Curing Breast Cancer or Keeping Abortion?

Yesterday I "shared" a cartoon on my Facebook page got lots of "likes" and positive comments. It showed a funeral chapel with lots of empty chairs and a woman whispering to the man next to her, "He had over 2,000 Facebook friends. I was expecting a bigger turnout." I can't recall that last time I got this much response.

Today I "liked" "Komen Get It", today's "Best of the Web" by James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal's WSJ.com [tip o' the hat to my Facebook friend, Pr. Rich Heinz]. I expect this one will not get so positive a response, but it's worth reading anyway. Taranto begins:

Susan G. Komen for the Cure actually is what Planned Parenthood advertises itself as being: a charity whose main concern is women's health. Komen was founded in 1982 by Nancy Brinker and is named for her sister, who died of breast cancer two years earlier. Until this week, it was probably best known for its fund-raising runs and walks known as Race for the Cure.

Now Komen has provoked the fury of Planned Parenthood, whose self-description as a women's health organization is at best tendentious. In truth, Planned Parenthood is America's leading provider of, and one of its most zealous advocates for, elective abortion. It is also a recipient of government largess; federal funds it receives are not supposed to pay for abortions, but they make it a political lightning rod all the same. And it is one of the most powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party. In last spring's budget deal, funding for Planned Parenthood was the one subject on which President Obama refused to compromise.

Taranto has more to say, then concludes,

Planned Parenthood's bitter campaign against Komen--aided by left-liberal activists and media--is analogous to a protection racket: Nice charity you've got there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it. The message to other Planned Parenthood donors is that if they don't play nice and keep coughing up the cash, they'll get the Komen treatment.

There's one crucial difference, however. In a real-life protection racket, the victim never pays voluntarily. The threat is present from the get-go. By contrast, Komen presumably was not under any duress when it made its grants--and it could have avoided all this nasty publicity by never dealing with Planned Parenthood in the first place.

Thus smart prospective donors--especially ones that are apolitical, like Komen--are getting the message that supporting Planned Parenthood is a trap. Give once, and you will give again--or else you will pay.

Following the Komen-PP controversy of the last couple of days -- the mass media are either actually or playing ignorant of just how controversial that relationship has been for years -- I keep thinking of this past Sunday's Gospel (St. Mark 1:21-28), which begins:

²¹And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and was teaching. ²²And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes. ²³And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, ²⁴"What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God."

That's the thing about the Devil. He'll say anything to entrap you in his lies and deception; he'll even say the truth or do good works, when he can say it in a way to lead you away from the truth and good. And that's been my experience with Planned Parenthood, both nationally and locally here in Peoria; they will say and do anything -- even very good things -- as long as it profits and protects the abortion business. Threaten that, and watch out.

Thomas Peters, who blogs as the American Papist over at CatholicVote offered this comment just a little while ago to reports this morning that "Komen caved" in to the PP blitz. "No, they didn’t," he begins.

I’ve received a crash-course education in the foundation over the past couple days and I can say without doubt that one thing motivates their President Nancy Brinker: ending breast cancer. That’s why she decided to cease funding Planned Parenthood, because they are about the lousiest group to help if you are serious about ending breast cancer. Second, that’s why their President is worried about the damage to the Komen brand being done by Planned Parenthood and it’s pro-abortion allies. President Brinker knows if Komen is weakened it will be less able to pursue it’s objective of ending breast cancer. She’s not throwing pro-lifers under the bus, she’s trying to save an organization she built to honor the memory of her sister (who died from breast cancer) and prevent it happening to others.

That’s why we need to make common cause with Komen and support their pro-woman goals. That’s why we need to expose Planned Parenthood’s scurrilous move to destroy Komen.

I mean, just pause for a moment: if Planned Parenthood is so serious about protecting women’s health how does it justify leading a crusade to destroy the world’s leading breast cancer research foundation over these past days?? It’s simply incredible, and we need to make sure it’s never forgotten!

One last thing: we need to remember the big picture. Over the past 48 hours, not only did Planned Parenthood reveal itself as willing to seriously damage and attempt to destroy the pro-woman Komen foundation, but also, thousands and millions of people potentially learned for the first time that Komen doesn’t believe Planned Parenthood is an ideal provider of health care for women. So even if Planned Parenthood wins this battle (an outcome very much in doubt), I would argue they have seriously weakened themselves for the wars ahead. This will be a long fight, so take the long view.

Here’s what you can do to continue to support Komen in the short term:

1) email news@komen.org and say “Thank You for Defunding Planned Parenthood” and promise to buy products bearing the pink ribbon. Encourage them directly in other ways.

2) sign the petition at www.IStandWithKomen.com (this is not an effort to harvest emails, you only have to supply your name and location) and invite your family and friends to do the same.

3) blog/facebook/tweet/email/write op-eds about this. Get the word out any way you know how.

In a few moments, this blog post will make it to my Facebook page. My (currently) 859 Facebook friends really are all over the place on faith, morals, politics, and philosophy, as are those who regularly read Pastor Zip's Blog. We'll see what kind of reaction this gets.

[See comments for update. Zip+]

Marriage and Religious Freedom: An Open Letter

The following statement, Marriage and Religious Freedom, was issued today by leaders of some of the largest religious communities in the US, joining together in an open letter to all Americans to voice their shared concern for marriage and religious freedom. Signatories include leaders from Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Lutheran, Mormon, and Pentecostal communities in the United States. (The Lutherans are LCMS President Matthew Harrison and NALC Bishop John Bradowski.) Below the signatures to this fine letter I'm posting the "Executive Summary." Pastor Zip

Hat tip to James Gale at ALPB Forum Online.

Marriage and Religious Freedom:

Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together
pdf verson here
An Open Letter
from Religious Leaders in the United States
to All Americans
Released January 12, 2012
Dear Friends:

The promotion and protection of marriage—the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife—is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community. It is a universal good and the foundational institution of all societies. It is bound up with the nature of the human person as male and female, and with the essential task of bearing and nurturing children.

As religious leaders across a wide variety of faith communities, we join together to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society. We also recognize the grave consequences of altering this definition. One of these consequences—the interference with the religious freedom of those who continue to affirm the true definition of "marriage"—warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole. For this reason, we come together with one voice in this letter.

Some posit that the principal threat to religious freedom posed by same-sex "marriage" is the possibility of government’s forcing religious ministers to preside over such "weddings," on pain of civil or criminal liability. While we cannot rule out this possibility entirely, we believe that the First Amendment creates a very high bar to such attempts.

Instead, we believe the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct. There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result.

These conflicts bear serious consequences. They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of "marriage" does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once. By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status—such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation—will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage. That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries—including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others.

So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly "married." Religious marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in support of same-sex "married" relationships. Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex "spouses." Religious employers would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action—no matter how modest—against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil "marriage" with a member of the same sex. This is not idle speculation, as these sorts of situations have already come to pass.

Even where religious people and groups succeed in avoiding civil liability in cases like these, they would face other government sanctions—the targeted withdrawal of government co-operation, grants, or other benefits.

For example, in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist-run boardwalk pavilion used for religious services because the religious organization would not host a same-sex "wedding" there. San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex "domestic partnerships" in its employee benefits policies. Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex "domestic partners" as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds.

In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil "marriage" is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage.

Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honored definition of marriage, and so avoid threatening the religious freedom of countless institutions and citizens in this country. Marriage and religious freedom are both deeply woven into the fabric of this nation.

May we all work together to strengthen and preserve the unique meaning of marriage and the precious gift of religious freedom.

Sincerely Yours:

Rev. Leith Anderson President National Association of Evangelicals Johann Christoph Arnold Senior Pastor Bruderhof Communities Randall A. Bach President Open Bible Churches Dr. Gary M. Benedict President The Christian and Missionary Alliance The Rev. John F. Bradosky Bishop North American Lutheran Church Glenn Burris, Jr. President The Foursquare Church Bishop H. David Burton Presiding Bishop The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Dr. Ronald W. Carpenter, Sr. Presiding Bishop International Pentecostal Holiness Church Rabbi Abba Cohen Vice President for Federal Affairs Washington Director Agudath Israel of America Most Rev. Salvatore J. Cordileone Bishop of Oakland Chairman, USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage Nathan J. Diament Executive Director for Public Policy Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan Archbishop of New York President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Dr. Barrett Duke Vice President for Public Policy and Research Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission The Most Rev. Robert Duncan Archbishop, Anglican Church in North America Bishop, Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh Rev. Jim Eschenbrenner Executive Pastor General Council of Christian Union Churches Dr. William J. Hamel President Evangelical Free Church of America Rev. Dr. Ron Hamilton Conference Minister Conservative Congregational Christian Conference Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison President Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod John Hopler Director Great Commission Churches

Dr. Bill Hossler President Missionary Church, Inc. Clyde M. Hughes General Overseer International Pentecostal Church of Christ Rev. Kenneth D. Hunn Executive Director The Brethren Church David W. Kendall Bishop Free Methodist Church USA Dr. Richard Land President Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission Most Rev. William E. Lori Bishop of Bridgeport Chairman, USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty Dr. Jo Anne Lyon Chair Board of General Superintendents The Wesleyan Church James W. Murray Executive Director General Association of General Baptists Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades Bishop of Ft. Wayne - South Bend Chairman, USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth Commissioner William A. Roberts National Commander The Salvation Army Rocky Rocholl President Fellowship of Evangelical Churches Rev. Samuel Rodriguez President National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference David T. Roller Bishop Free Methodist Church USA Matthew A. Thomas Bishop Free Methodist Church USA Dr. Joseph Tkach President & Pastor General Grace Communion International Berten A. Waggoner National Director Vineyard USA W. Phillip Whipple Bishop United Brethren in Christ Church, USA Dr. John P. Williams, Jr. Regional Director Evangelical Friends Church, North America David P. Wilson General Secretary Church of the Nazarene Dr. George O. Wood General Superintendent Assemblies of God

---

Executive Summary:

We, as representatives of a broad array of faiths, join together to affirm that marriage, the union of one man and one woman, must be promoted and protected for its own sake and for the common good. We also agree that redefining marriage will incur grave consequences, including a deleterious impact on religious liberty. Altering the definition of marriage will change not just one law but hundreds, even thousands, of laws. There will be government mandates, requiring the recognition and accommodation of so-called same-sex "marriages," that pose a critical threat to institutions and individuals who for reasons of faith and conscience will resist the law’s compulsion. Cases involving criminal and civil penalties and the denial of grants and other government benefits are already occurring and will only increase in number and severity if more jurisdictions redefine marriage. The law not only will coerce and impose disincentives, but will also teach that religious objectors must be marked as if they were bigots. We encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans if marriage is redefined. May all of us work together to strengthen and preserve the unique meaning of marriage and the precious gift of religious liberty.

Signatories come from the following communities:

Agudath Israel of America Anglican Church in North America Assemblies of God The Brethren Church Bruderhof Communities The Christian & Missionary Alliance The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Church of the Nazarene Conservative Congregational Christian Conference Evangelical Free Church of America Evangelical Friends Church, North America Fellowship of Evangelical Churches The Foursquare Church Free Methodist Church USA General Association of General Baptists General Council of Christian Union Churches Grace Communion International

Great Commission Churches International Pentecostal Church of Christ International Pentecostal Holiness Church Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod Missionary Church, Inc. National Association of Evangelicals National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference North American Lutheran Church Open Bible Churches The Salvation Army Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission United Brethren in Christ Church, USA United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America Vineyard USA The Wesleyan Church

Church on Friday? It's the Epiphany!

Celebrate the Revelation
of Jesus Christ to All People!

The Epiphany of Our Lord
(The Festival of the Three Kings)

Friday, January 6, 7:00 pm

Candlelight Cathedral Vespers
and
Holy Communion

Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church of Peoria


1534 S. Easton Avenue (at Hayes), Peoria
1 block west of Jefferson & Western
www.zionpeoria.org
(309) 637-9150

The Epiphany of Our Lord celebrates the manifestation of Christ to the world, recalling the visit of the Magi to the infant Jesus at the Holy Family’s home in Bethlehem. This day begins the concluding season of the Christmass cycle (Advent — Christmass — Epiphany) which focuses on the Incarnation — God becoming human in Jesus.

Next to Easter and Pentecost, Epiphany is the most ancient festival of the Church year, having been observed on January 6 in the Christian East since the third century (or earlier) AD — pre-dating the observance of Christmass by a century. The date was derived from the date of the Resurrection (April 6 according to a calendar used in the eastern Mediterranean), which was also taken to be the date of Jesus’ conception. The theological emphasis of Epiphany was not so much the birth of Christ, but the beginnings of his ministry — that is, his baptism, his first miracle (at Cana), and his revelation as the Savior to all — Jews and Gentiles.

The English word "epiphany" comes from the Greek word epiphaneia, which means "manifestation" or "appearance" — especially that of a sudden force that rescues an army from defeat. It was the word used when a king or emperor would make an official visit to a city of his realm, particularly to show himself publicly to the people. "Epiphany" is also a word used to describe the moment of revelation, insight, or clarification — the "a-ha!" of sudden understanding.

On the Epiphany of Our Lord we see with the Magi that the Infant Jesus, son of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is God the Son come into the world to reveal himself and rescue all humanity (and creation itself) from our Sin. In recognizing the Lord, we humbly offer our gifts to him — and Jesus offers the gift of himself to us. Join us in worship!

Two Christmas Messages

Two messages for Christmas offered, one by the President of the United States with his First Lady, and one by Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom and Head the Commonwealth, to their people.

First, because I am a citizen of the USA, the President.



And then the Queen.



Isn't it good that, in lands where the "reason for the season" is downplayed or even set aside, particularly in the public realm, these heads of State both remind us who is at the center of his holiday ("holy day").

Merry Christmass to you, as we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.

Celebrate His Birth!

You are invited to join the congregation of
Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church of Peoria
in celebrating

The Nativity of Our Lord

Christmass Eve Service of Carols and Candlelight
with Holy Communion @ 7:00 pm

Christmass Day Communion @ 9:00 am

at
Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church
1534 S. Easton Avenue, Peoria
(at Easton and Hayes, 1 block west of Jefferson and Western)

Phone: (309) 637-9150

The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS, Pastor

And in the meantime (or if you cannot join with us or your own congregation), take time to hear the sacred music of the Christmass season on Lutheran Public Radio online.

Repost: Marriage and Our Culture

Retired ELCA Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom has chimed in on the "same-sex marriage" debate in Minnesota via an op-ed in the Minneapolis StarTribune in the form of a fraternal letter to the Catholic Bishops in Minnesota. I've posted on this matter a few times in this blog -- click the Catagory Label for "Marriage" that appears down the right column of this blog to find all my posts related to the subject.

I invite you to check them out, particularly J. Budziszewski's "So-Called Marriage" and Religion, Reason, and Same-Sex Marriage. There are others, too, but the most important one I'm reposting -- again -- below.

Secularists and "progressive" Christians (like Bishop Chilstrom) would have us to believe that this is solely a "religious" issue being imposed on our society. It is not. Rather (as I wrote the first time I re-posted this), their claim

relies (and apparently successfully) on the common ignorance of the history of Western Civilization and American law.

Marriage is important to our society. Here you will get a reminder of just how key it is.

---

Talking about Marriage and our Culture (originally posted 17 May 2008, with links updated)

I meant to post this several months ago, but in the light of the California Supreme Court's redefinition of "marriage" this week and the conversation it is eliciting in some segments of the Church, it seemed more urgent to transcribe this portion of an interview with John Witte, Jr., from a recent edition of Mars Hill Audio. In the interview, which draws upon his book God's Joust, God's Justice: Law and Religion in the Western Tradition (Eerdmans, 2006), Prof. Witte addresses why law needs to be understood in the context of its relation with other practices and disciplines, including religion.

Ken Meyers' last question in the interview is:

"One of the areas in which there's a lot of contention about morality and law right now are marriage laws. I know you've spent a lot of time studying marriage and family -- history of marriage and family. It seems that in some circles there's a reluctance to assert that our laws concerning family, what constitutes a family, what constitutes a marriage, should be based in some moral vision, that that itself is seen as a transgression of the Social Contract for a kind of pluralism. You think that it’s entirely possible to make moral arguments in the construction of laws governing family."

Witte responds:

"I think those are absolutely imperative to offer as alternatives in the discourse.

"It’s important to remember that the architects of our understanding of a social and government Contract (people like John Locke or Jean Jacques Rousseau and some of their American followers and contemporaries) had as their First Contract -- before the contract of society and the contract of government -- the First Contract was the Contract of Marriage. In Locke’s First and Second Treatise that’s presupposed. In Jean Jacques Rousseau’s work that’s presupposed. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both presupposed that as well.

"The Marital Contract is the First Contract. It's the First School of Justice. It's the first chrysalis in which nurture, education, and habits of citizenship are encouraged in the population. It's only on the strength of that contract, from atavistic individuals in nature to this first institution, that we can then begin to build a notion of a Social Contract and, beyond that, a Government Contract.

"And that's an ancient insight that goes all the way back to Aristotle, that goes back to his "Politics" in Nicomachean Ethics, where he said the first institution of the polis is the family.

"So if that is the presupposition in Western understandings of how we organize our polities, it seems to me that it is a non-starter for us to be debating the essentials of marital and family norms, and procedures and policies, and exclude from that discourse all of the rich cultural, philosophical, and theological traditions that have helped to cultivate our understanding of marriage and family, and how it works within the broader polity.

"And religious communities that bracket their theological discourse, that choose to forego a deep reflection on the goods and the goals of what marriage and family life are all about in an attempt to be politically correct, or an attempt to avoid a political fence -- or in an attempt to First Amendment-ize themselves per the caricature of the separation of Church and State -- in my view, both are engaging in theological bracketing and trimming that's unnecessary. What they're ultimately engaging in [is] an omission from the discourse that's going to harm the polity in the long term.

"And that’s not to say that there's a preordained result about how these marriage and family debates are going to work out at the State level. But it is to say that, if we're going to have a real, serious discourse about changing 2500-year-old patterns about how marriage and family life come together in the West, we better do that with full ventilation of all of the philosophical, theological, moral, economic, sociological issues at stake."

Thus far, I see few signs of a "real, serious discourse" in my "religious community."

John Witte, Jr., is the Jonas Robitscher Professor of Law and Ethics at Emory Universty, where he is also serves as Director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion. You can download or purchase the entire interview here. While you're at it, subscribe to Mars Hill Audio.

---

The Day We've Been Waiting For!

The day for what? The day for Laurel & Hardy: The Essential Collection.


More highlights can be found here. This collection is supposed to have all of The Boys' surviving talkies (shorts and features) produced by the Hal Roach studios -- except for The Devil's Brother, Bonnie Scotland, and Babes in Toyland (which are available in other collections. Here's the producers' press release from last summer:

UNIVERSAL CITY, CALIF. – Celebrating the genius of the most beloved comedy team of all time, "Laurel & Hardy: The Essential Collection" debuts in a stunning 10-disc set on October 25, 2011 from RHI Entertainment and Vivendi Entertainment. With a comedic style that defined an era and created a legacy that is still celebrated today, 58 of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy´s talking shorts and feature films, produced under legendary movie mogul Hal Roach from 1929 through 1940, are now available for the first time in the U.S. all together in one magnificent collection.

Transferred in high definition for the first time and digitally enhanced for home viewing in the finest quality available to date, the set contains favorites that have been enjoyed for generations including "Helpmates," "Hog Wild," "Another Fine Mess," "Sons of the Desert," "Way Out West," and the Academy Award winning film "The Music Box."

"Laurel & Hardy: The Essential Collection" comes housed in collectible, book-style packaging with an extensive, detailed film guide. The set also boasts over two hours of special features including exclusive, never-before-seen interviews with comedy legends Dick Van Dyke, Jerry Lewis, Tim Conway and more, who discuss the enduring impact and influence of Laurel and Hardy.

Additional features include commentaries by Laurel and Hardy aficionados, along with a virtual location map that allows viewers to take an interactive tour of the iconic places in and around Los Angeles where Laurel and Hardy filmed. Available for the suggested retail price of $99.98, "Laurel & Hardy: The Essential Collection" showcases some of the most cherished and hilarious films in cinema history and is a must-have for comedy fans and collectors everywhere. Run time is 1,941 minutes; SRP is $99.98.

Having grown up on Laurel & Hardy, this is going to be fun!