Infertility and the gospel: My story

By Jana Howerton

Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table (Ps. 128:3).

Recently, our young church has been filled with days of rejoicing for many mothers—Mother’s Day, hospital visits to a groundswell of precious newborns, child dedications, gender reveal parties. These are days of rich joy for many, but due to the effects of the fall (Gen. 3), they are days of deep pain for many others. The desire, longing and love to be a mother is there, and yet the olive shoots have not come.

My heart hurts for the woman who is experiencing the pain of infertility.  Infertility is a topic that people discuss very little, but I’ve read as many as 1 in 8 couples struggle with it. Infertility may not affect your family, but chances are you know and love someone it does.I understand and know the struggle because I have experienced the pain of infertility, as well.

The wait and the wondering

Every month, an eager bride excitedly waits to find out if this will be the month (finally!) she sees that beautiful little + sign. She spends her time dreaming of diapers and of the sweet little blessing God is surely going to add to her family. Be fruitful and multiply, right? Her doctor is so certain that she’s going to be able to get pregnant that she is starting to believe it, too. The thought of motherhood and babies is all too exciting, and her heart overflows with the dreams of what life will be like with children.

As the months pass and are then swallowed up into years, her doctor’s optimism starts to fade, and she is told that she will likely never conceive a baby without a miracle. She desperately tries to hang on to hope, believing she might be the exception. More time passes. Eventually, her enthusiasm and hopes fade, too, and she is met with the sorrow, shame and the extreme loneliness of it all. Questions fill her head: Who do I talk to about my heartache? Can anyone truly understand what I’m going through unless she’s experienced this herself? Why doesn’t God want me to have a baby? Is there something wrong with me? What does faith look like in my situation?

This may not be your story, but it is part of mine. The pain and shame I felt over not being able to give my husband a biological child was heart wrenching at times. It is a quiet pain that is often very lonely. But, in his timing, God does make everything beautiful. As God has worked in my heart, I can tell you that the story he is writing is our lives is full of his kindness, grace and mercy. He is good, and he can be trusted.

If you are struggling through the pain of infertility, please let me encourage you with a few ways that God has encouraged me.

1. We must counsel our hearts according to truth. Ask yourself: What does God’s Word say about you? What does God’s Word say about him? What is true and real? According to God, your infertility does not define you—his Word does. The cross says you are loved and accepted. You are not broken, and God is good all the time.
2. Don’t damage your friendships because you are in pain. You may be feeling hurt or jealous when you see others getting what you want. In this case, it’s a baby. Ask God to give you a heart that will rejoice with those who rejoice—one that is sincerely happy for others. And ask him for a friend who is able to weep with you as you weep (Rom. 12:15). Keep in mind that a friend loves at all times (Prov. 17:17), even if we are in pain; let us be people who give this unconditional love and who are able to receive it.
3. Reach out to a trusted friend. Sometimes, we might be tempted to think that if we don’t talk about it, it’s like it’s not real. I kept my pain and struggle hidden for many years, and it wasn’t until I starting talking about my sadness and being honest about it that I was able to start to allow God to deal with it and find peace in him. As I confessed all that was going on in my heart, God used the words of wise women and friends to bring healing to my heart (Prov. 12:18).
4. Jesus is our treasure. As much as we would like to think that if God would just answer our prayer for a child, we would always be happy and our longing would be satisfied, it just isn’t true. Yes, children bring joy and happiness, but they can never be the absolute focus of it without becoming idols. Jesus is meant for that place in our hearts and our lives. He must be the ultimate treasure of our hearts. Sometimes in his kindness, God allows us to continue without the thing we so desire because with it, we might not see Him; but, in our pain and longing our hearts might be turned to him.

Tim Keller says, “You’ll never realize God is all you need until God is all you have.” My prayer for you if you’re struggling through the pain of infertility is that you allow this time of longing for what God has not given you to draw you nearer to him. Our circumstances may not change, but we can allow God to change us, grow us and bear fruit in him.

You Can’t Have a Culture of Life if You Have No Culture at All

By Anthony Esolen
Crisis Magazine



It should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a moment that it is always far easier to destroy than to create.  One bomb or wrecking ball can shatter in an instant the cathedral that it took human hands and minds fifty years to build.

What is true of buildings is true of culture generally.

During the early and dark days of World War II, when the British army at Dunkirk had the sea behind them and the Germans before them, they sent a message back home consisting of three words: But if not. 

It was a brilliant message, because even if the Germans managed to intercept it and decode it, it wouldn’t have done them any good. “But if not” … what?

But the army knew that their countrymen would understand. It was more than a message regarding strategy.  It captured the heart of the war itself, a battle for the survival of European culture and civilization against the diseased fantasies of the Third Reich.

 

The reference comes from the story of the Hebrew youths Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in captivity in ancient Babylon, who refused to bow down in worship before the statue of King Nebuchadnezzar.  The king summoned them before him in a fury and demanded their submission, lest he cast them into the fiery furnace.  Their reply was manly and direct:

If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. BUT IF NOT be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

 

The British people then roused themselves to action—ordinary men, anyone with a boat and a heart that beat warmly for God and country.  They crossed the channel in defiance of the enemy and rescued more than three hundred thousand men.

The incident reveals more than a common language.  It reveals a common way of life, and a common view of life.  The sterling words of the old King James Bible, a work of the highest culture, had long come to inform and vivify the ways of ordinary people.

That message could not now be sent, either to England or America. It would be incomprehensible.  That is not because the culture has changed.  It is because it has been destroyed, and the most energetic destroyers have been the very people whom we charge with its care: teachers, professors, statesmen, and artists.

Thomas Molnar had this to say about it:

Culture has come to mean … anything that happens to catch the fancy of a group: rock concerts, supposedly for the famished of the third world; the drug culture and other subcultures; sects and cults; sexual excess and aberration; blasphemy on stage and screen; frightening and obscene shapes; the plastic wrapping of Pont-Neuf or the California coast; to smashing of the family and other institutions; the display of the queer [that is, bizarre], abject, the sick.  These instant products, meant to provide instant gratification to a society itself unmoored from foundation and tradition, accordingly deny the work of mediation and maturation and favor the incoherent, the shapeless and the repulsive.

 

All in a day’s work at your local school, CBS, the BBC, the CBC, The New York Times, the Guggenheim, Broadway, Harvard, Hollywood, Cosmopolitan, the Playboy Channel, Princeton, your local school, Young Adult Fiction, the halls of Congress, Planned Parenthood, the “Adult” bookstore with no windows, your local school.

We want to raise up young people in a culture of life. Well and good. But that means that we require a culture, and that doesn’t happen by itself, especially not now, when all the forces of “education” and mass entertainment are ranged against the very possibility of a culture.

Imagine a scene of wholesale destruction. Every old and venerable structure has been reduced to rubble. People relieve themselves in the street. Sometimes they copulate there, too. Their “music” is little more than grunting and groaning. Their rulers are on the take. There are hundreds of thousands of old books in the mountain of stone and mortar that used to be the library. Most of those books are far beyond the capacity of the people to read. They sneer and snort at Shakespeare, because they can’t understand him. They’ve never even heard of Virgil. A lot of these people have taken to cannibalism.

Now then—you have retained some vague memory of a more noble way of life.  You have therefore arrived at a great truth. It’s perfectly obscure to most of your fellow rubble-pickers, who mock you and call you a prude, a Neanderthal, a medieval monk, a madman, a hater of the hungry, and so forth. Your precious truth is simply this: it is wrong to eat human flesh.

Well, that is no great burst of enlightenment, but it is a beginning. So what do you do?  Will you be content to say, “My children will do everything that everyone else is doing, but they will not eat human flesh?” They will be subhuman and subcultural, but their taste in dining will be restricted just a little?  Is that all?

Will you say, “Our family is not anthropophagous, but we will send our children to be taught by the same fellow that all the other parents use,” the one with the squalid leer, dabbling in excrement, contemptuous of any wisdom from the past?

That is where pro-life parents find themselves now.

Should we expect any help from places like Yale? Those places sponsor weeks for show-and-tell by whores and peddlers of sex toys. Any help from your local school? That would be like expecting Belial to lead you in prayer. There is no help from “the culture,” because there is no longer any culture; only the rubble of what used to be a culture.

What do you do, then?  Turn back, O man.  It’s time to recover and rebuild.

What does it mean to be made in God’s image?

By David Closson

The Christian faith and worldview is predicated on a set of nonnegotiable truths. One of these is that human life is inherently valuable. Christians have articulated and acted upon this transcendent understanding of human dignity throughout history, whether opposing infanticide and child abandonment, fighting against chattel slavery or engaging in civil disobedience to protest segregation. The powerful idea that every single person has inherent value is rooted in the image of God, a doctrine expressed in the opening chapter of Genesis.

Although “image of God” has become ubiquitous in Christian literature and conversation in recent years, it has not been robustly defined. Perhaps this is due to the lack of agreement throughout church history on what exactly constitutes image of God, which no doubt stems from the fact that Scripture declares but does not elaborate on the axiom in detail.

But much can and should be said. The fact that human beings are created in God’s image shapes the Christian worldview and affects how we see God, the world and one another. It informs how we understand the rest of the Bible’s story and provides a theological foundation for ethics and engagement. In short, a proper understanding of the image of God should animate everything we do, and as a result, we should endeavor to define it biblically; this will enable us to then survey what issues Christians should care about.

Different understandings of the image of God
Throughout church history, there has been universal agreement that image of God is a significant theological concept. But debate has abounded regarding what the image fundamentally refers to.

Some have argued in favor of a structural view that believes man’s ontological (the nature of being) qualities, such as rationality and cognitive capacity, constitute the image of God. These qualities distinguish man from the rest of creation. Early church leaders, such as Irenaeus and Augustine, as well as John Calvin, held variants of this view.

Another position is the relational view that stresses the importance of man’s relationships. Emil Brunner and Karl Barth advocated this approach, where being made in God’s image fundamentally entails living in relationship with God and others.

A third view is the functional or “vice-regency” position that posits man’s derivative authority to rule on behalf of God defines the image. Unlike the rest of creation, it is man that functions as God’s chief representative in the world. This view stresses the command to exercise dominion (Gen. 1:26-28).

The image of God and Ancient Near Eastern culture
It is evident in Genesis 1 that the Bible is content with simply asserting that man is somehow like God. Further elaboration is not provided. Why is this? As Bruce Ware has noted, technical terminology in speaking or writing is usually introduced and not explained in contexts where the audience is already familiar with specialized language. It seems fair to assume Moses was operating with this expectation. Therefore, considering Genesis 1 in light of the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) usage of image of God might be helpful.

A seminal study on ANE images is David J.A. Clines' The Image of God in Man. Clines argues that ANE literature contains three commonalities in accounts that utilize image symbolism. First, a deity imputes a substance to an earthly king, enabling him to represent the divine. Second, the empowered king represents the deity by ruling as vice-regent. Third, only the king is ever given this privilege.

Applying this to Genesis, it is reasonable that Moses had this background in mind. First, God breathed into Adam the breath of life. Divine empowerment was requisite to function as God’s image. Second, man is tasked with exercising dominion and ruling as God’s vice-regent. Clines' third characteristic, however, does not apply. The Bible surprises us at this point by affirming that everyone bears God’s image. Clines' reconstruction of the ANE background is helpful and may account for why Moses did not furnish a more precise definition. His original readers would have had a framework to interpret image language and its connotations.

Through the lens of the ANE background, it is clear that certain aspects of the structural, relational and functional perspectives provide a holistic understanding of what it means to be made in the image of God (i.e., the structural serves the purpose of the functional carried out in relationship).

The image of God, therefore, includes both who man is and what he does. Ontological capacities and functionality are inseparably tied because the human person as a created whole is the image of God.

Man is like a statue erected by an ancient king—as the statue bore the image of the king and signified rulership, man bears God’s image in the cosmic temple of the world, representing his authority and dominion. Man is the visible representation of the invisible God. If one wants to know what God looks like, simply look at man, the crowning jewel of creation and the only creature made in God’s image and likeness.

The image of God and cultural engagement
One of the tragic results of sin is that man no longer properly images God; the remnants of the image have been marred. The relationship with our Creator is broken, and redemptive history bears witness to man’s inability to obey and honor God.

But the glorious truth of the New Testament is that restoration is possible through Christ, the perfect image of God (Col. 1:15), whose redeeming work restores the image to repentant sinners and establishes them as co-heirs with Christ.

In this light, the Biblical understanding of man’s creation in God’s image has stunning implications for Christian ethics. Not only is everyone created in God’s image, but every human being is a potential future ruler of the universe.

C.S. Lewis poignantly remarked: “It is a serious thing . . . to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.”

In the new creation, God will once again set up his image bearers. But this time, God’s vice-regents will be perfect because of their union with Christ. Paradoxically, the new creation has already begun. It was inaugurated when Jesus was raised from the dead and will be consummated when he returns.

And as Christians waiting patiently for this day, we will endeavor to treat people made in God’s image with dignity and respect irrespective of gender, race, age, nationality or economic status because we remember our King’s words that as we did for “the least of these my brothers, you did also to me” (Matt. 25:40).

Thus, we will care for those caught in the vice grip of poverty. We will fight against human trafficking. We will uphold the dignity of the elderly and disabled. We will advocate on behalf of immigrants. We will work for religious liberty and conscience freedom. We will stand for marriage. We will promote racial reconciliation. And we will fight the culture of death in all its ugly forms.

We will do all this out of love for God and concern for those that bear his sacred image.

Evangelism Is Not Enough to Change the World

by Hugh Whelchel

Although it has been written out of most secular accounts, historical evidence demonstrates that Christians have had a culture-shaping influence on Western Civilization. Sociologist Rodney Stark writes,

The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.

Despite this historical influence, James Davison Hunter notes in To Change the World that Christians have employed several failed tactics in an effort to influence cultural change. Hunter specifically mentions evangelism as one of these failed tactics. For many people, evangelism is not only about saving souls. It’s a strategy for changing hearts and minds. When hearts and minds change, culture changes.

Except that, over the last 100 years, evangelism has failed to be an effective strategy for shaping culture. The reason why is found in Genesis 1.

God gives Adam and Eve their job description in Genesis 1:28. He tells them they were created to fill the earth with his images and subdue it, making it useful for the benefit and enjoyment of humans. The gospel of Jesus Christ redeems us, empowers us, and calls us back to this original calling.

It is important to understand both parts of this calling and see the difference between them. The church has been faithful to the first part of this calling to fill the earth with God’s (redeemed) images. This is evangelism and discipleship. These are vital activities.

But the church has forgotten to subdue the earth. Carrying out this second responsibility changes culture. Shaping, changing, and directing culture results from the work of our hands. It is not what we believe but what we do that transforms our institutions, communities, and families.

As I write in IFWE’s new booklet, All Things New, we have reduced the gospel. We have made it all about us. To quote Dallas Willard, “We have turned the gospel into the gospel of sin-management.” God did not save us, as Richard Pratt writes, “to forgive our sin, make our souls sparkle, to sprinkle us with peace and joy so we can sprout wings when we die, grab a harp, and join the eternal choir.”

God brought each of us out of darkness and into the light so we might be the light of the world (Matt. 5:14-16). He intended for us to impact the world with the truth of the whole gospel. This is why having a correct view of work is so important.

In an essay titled “Catechesis, Preaching, and Vocation,” Gene Veith writes*,

The task of restoring truth to the culture depends largely on our laypeople.

He then says:

To bring back truth, on a practical level, the church must encourage Christians to be not merely consumers of culture but makers of culture. The church needs to cultivate Christian artists, musicians, novelists, filmmakers, journalists, attorneys, teachers, scientists, business executives, and the like, teaching its laypeople the sense in which every secular vocation…is a sphere of Christian ministry, a way of serving God and neighbor that is grounded in God’s truth. Christian laypeople must be encouraged to be leaders in their fields, rather than eager-to-please followers, working from the assumptions of their biblical worldview, not the vapid cliches of pop culture.

The work of Christians down through the ages has built the great architectural structures of the West, constructed hospitals, founded schools and universities, abolished slavery, created great inventions, and written and painted and composed the incredible works of art civilization has enjoyed for centuries. These Christians saw all this work as part of subduing the earth.

Evangelism and discipleship are vitally important. Nothing we build matters without a personal relationship with the One who built the universe. But once we know him, everything we do is filled with a special purpose, a calling to use our work to glorify him, serve the common good, and further his kingdom. In other words, to radically impact our surrounding culture through the work of our hands.

God put us here to change the world. We have a lot of work to do.

*The original version of this post was published with these quotes mistakenly attributed to J. Gresham Machen. We regret the error. Veith’s essay can be found in Here We Stand: A Call from Confessing Evangelicals for a Modern Reformation, a collection of essays edited by James Montgomery Boice and Benjamin E. Sasse. Our version of the collection is P&R Publishing Company’s 2004 reissue. Veith’s quotes can be found on page 95. 

College Kids Can’t Explain Why a Short White Man Isn’t a Tall Asian Woman

by David French

From the Family Policy Institute of Washington comes this amusing video, where a conversation about gender-neutral bathrooms turns into something a bit more interesting:

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/434158/watch-college-kids-cant-explain-why-short-white-man-isnt-tall-asian-woman

Watch as the students struggle to explain why an adult male shouldn’t enroll in a first-grade class, why he’s not a woman, why he’s not substantially taller, or why he’s not Asian.

 

This isn’t moral relativism, it’s a completely fact-free new moral code, one based entirely on consent and harm. Or, I should say, immediate harm. Essentially the new morality is “you do you — so long as it doesn’t hurt me or someone else in a way that I immediately recognize.” The new immorality is any act of “intolerance” that purports to interfere with this radical autonomy.

 

The fascinating and disturbing thing is that a generation that so prizes its alleged love of “science” continues to hold to this primitive harm-based morality in spite of oceans of evidence that years of far more basic departures from traditional morality have caused (and are causing) enormous social problems and human suffering. Years ago no-fault divorce was a no-brainer, a recognition of individual free will. Fast forward two generations and broken families are a prime factor in virtually every negative economic, emotional, and cultural development in the United States.

 

More recently, cohabitation is a new norm, and couples who wait until marriage to live together are seen as odd. Yet cohabitation often causes young children to experience extreme family instability, exposes children to greater risk of physical and sexual abuse from non-parent boyfriends, and often leaves single mothers facing serial abandonment.

 

And we’ve barely dipped our toe in the water of the brave new world, where it’s totally cool if men believe they’re female dragons. But there’s no trace of regret or humility in the cultural revolutionaries — the people who’ve so profoundly influenced the young people on the video above. Just keep doing what you want. If you get hurt, it’s probably some Christian’s fault. Only intolerance can stop utopia now.

Of Bedrooms and Boardrooms

By Niall Gooch
Quadrapheme.com

A common criticism levelled at those on the political right is that there is a contradiction between on the one hand their preference for maximal freedom in the economic sphere, and on the other a more restrictive attitude to personal freedoms. As the Democrat Josh Lyman says to a Republican adversary in the liberal-leaning TV show The West Wing, “I like you guys that want to reduce the size of government, make it just small enough so it can fit in our bedrooms.”

It’s a good line, but is it anything more than that?

There is actually a strong logic behind the combination of social conservatism and laissez-faire economics, and it is this: if you want a relatively limited state then you need strong families that produce law-abiding individuals who look after each other and believe in self-reliance. You need a robust civil society and a population that values self-control, deferred gratification, and restraint. That wise old bird GK Chesterton wrote that “if men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they will be governed by the ten thousand commandments”.

If we do not impose internal constraints on our behaviour, then the government will do it for us – indeed it will have to, because there are vast costs to a morally chaotic society. A 2011 estimate suggested that family breakdown and disintegration cost the UK as much as £100bn annually, if the costs of crime, courts, policing, welfare and so on are taken into account. Even if this estimate is much too high, even if it overstates the case by three or four times, we are still looking at tens of billions of pounds. Chesterton’s point is also demonstrated by the elaborate “affirmative consent” codes being introduced on US university campuses. Instead of the simple clarity of the traditional morality—abstinence before marriage and fidelity afterwards—we have muddled and contradictory verbiage, introducing suspicion and conflict into male-female relationships where there should be joy and the thrill of developing romance.

It’s also worth noting that Lyman’s comment cuts both ways. If it is illogical in principle to favour laissez-faire economics but strict personal morality, then surely it must be equally illogical to favour a more controlled economy but a libertarian personal morality? One is reminded of another common progressive rhetorical trick, which questions the consistency of anti-abortion people who favour the death penalty; it may be true that this position is inherently inconsistent (though I’m not sure), but is it not equally or even more inconsistent to be pro-abortion but anti-death penalty? It is true too that progressives’ commitment to getting the government “out of the bedroom” can sometimes seem a little patchy: the Obama administration has fought long and expensive legal battles to force employers to provide contraception to their workers under healthcare plans, and here in the UK liberals are very attached to state funding of abortion and contraception.

Besides which, as a matter of fact, many social conservatives are sceptical of free markets and “small state” economic liberalism for the very same reasons they are sceptical of social liberalism. Free markets can be extremely difficult and unforgiving places for those who, for whatever reason, find it hard to flourish in them. It is not difficult to think of examples. Many people—often through no fault of their own—do not have the kind of skills that are valuable in modern advanced economies and so can never earn enough money to ensure a secure lifestyle. Some have poor judgment, or poor impulse-control, and so find it hard to do things like live within a budget or save adequately for a rainy day. Others have physical or mental disabilities which limit their participation in the economy. Market adjustments, of which economists talk so glibly, can be brutal even for workers who are not in any of the above categories. One thinks of the thousands of steelworkers currently being laid off from British steel mills.

In short, not everyone is equally well-placed to benefit from economic freedom, and for many people economic freedom is actively damaging to their own interests, with the result that the state needs to take an important role in regulating behaviour, especially the behaviour of the powerful, and creating norms and expectations about how people should behave toward each other in the economic sphere. It does not take a huge leap of imagination to see how this might also be true of sexual freedom. Making poor decisions about your sexual life can be life-changingly disastrous, but not everyone is equally well-placed to avoid these bad decisions and not everyone is equally well-placed to recover from the consequences. Some people, e.g. those who possess the various traits that make up sexual attractiveness and are able to make good decisions, are much more powerful players than others.

Being abandoned to bring up three children by an unreliable partner is bad for any woman; but an intelligent, well-educated woman with good earning potential and a large and supportive network of family and friends is much better placed to make a fresh start than a woman of less ability with few qualifications and little social capital. It is the latter kind of woman for whom the old “repressive” sexual and social morality was in many ways highly beneficial. It limited her sexual exposure to predatory, commitment-phobic men; by making divorce legally difficult and socially stigmatised it made stable relationship formation more easy. The widespread expectation of lifelong fidelity also freed both sexes—but especially women—from the necessity of having to be constantly concerned with maintaining an unrealistic level of sexual attractiveness (the freedom to deprioritise the maintenance of sexual attractiveness is an under-discussed benefit of a society where lifelong monogamy and sexual restraint are the norm). As CS Lewis put it in the last essay he ever published, “a society in which conjugal infidelity is tolerated must always be in the long run a society adverse to women.”

The old dispensation was not perfect, by any means. It created its own miseries and damaged lives. Nevertheless, it is hard to look at the casualties of sexual “liberation” and not conclude that we have replaced an imperfect sexual culture with a ruinous one. It seems far from obvious to me that the sexual liberalism of the last half century has increased net happiness or contentment in Britain. How many people are left miserable because they buy into the seductive promise that you can play the field in young adulthood without worrying about long-term commitment, and then suddenly find themselves in their mid-thirties with no lifelong partner on the horizon and so much time, energy and idealism exhausted?

Romantic relationships between humans are moulded and menaced by powerful forces—love, desire, fear, jealousy, infidelity—and the constraints, both internal and external, by which those relationships are managed need to be equally powerful. Women in particular have been sold a crock by the sexual revolution, because it has made it far easier for men to get sex without commitment and discard women when it suits them. As conservatives always pointed out, and as we are now having confirmed by high-profile investigations into historical sex offences, sexual exploitation by men was embedded in almost every part of the Sixties/Seventies counterculture, from hippy communes to rock bands. Free love turned out to be neither free nor very loving.

All cultures provide “scripts” for how people ought to live their lives, a web of expectations, attitudes and norms. Our current script for sex makes individual choice (personal whim, really) its god and pretends that the only moral issue in sexual relationships is consent. This is entirely hopeless. And those broadly on the left should recognise this hopelessness because they rightly identify the inadequacy of the “consent alone” script when it is applied to the field of political economy and public policy.

Just as economic libertarians tend to overestimate the extent to which all employer-employee and buyer-seller relationships are entered on terms of equality and free choice, sexual libertarians tend to do the same for personal relationships. The very availability of certain choices shapes people’s desires and expectations, supply creating demand as well as fulfilling it, and there are serious conflicts created by the unthinking conflation of sexual freedom and sexual equality, just as economic freedom and economic equality are often directly opposed, and form the two poles around which nearly all debates about politics and economics ultimately revolve.

The French Revolution may have been the first occasion on which radicals glibly proclaimed “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” without any apparent reflection on the eternal conflict between those ideals, but sadly it was not the last.

Roger Lundin (1949-2015)

“In human life, our goal can’t be to go back to the innocence that was lost. The way back is barred. The Christian life is about the way forward—but the way forward is the way forward through the cross, and the empty tomb. The older I get the less nostalgic I become, and the more I become oriented towards the future. T. S. Eliot says it in Four Quarters. He says, ‘Old men ought to be explorers…’” - Roger Lundin, from Regent College's video to promote his class on modern literature.