This controversy is another great example of two irreconcilable views on the basic principles that define American society and government. More on that later.

It has been claimed by some, including Senator Merkley of Oregon, that allowing employers or insurers to refuse coverage for free contraceptives without co-pay would be tantamount to denying essential health care to women, and it would lead to the denial of any number of procedures or products based upon the whim or prejudice of an employer or insurer. This claim is demagoguery, an appeal to the emotions of the public instead of reasoned discussion. It's also based on at least two fallacies.

In the first place, an employer or insurer who refuses to pay for a product (especially an inexpensive one like the most common contraceptives) does not thereby prevent the employee from obtaining it. In a free society, that employee is still able to prioritize his or her own spending and buy the product. If I don't buy you a beer, I'm not coercing you to refrain from drinking. In this case, there are some who claim that free contraception is a basic human right, and therefore it can't be denied. I wish that I could say the same for beef jerky, but I fear it would be hard to prove.

Secondly, if an employee is unhappy with the limits of his health care plan, that employee is also free to find a different one, or even to find a different employer. This may not be welcome news, but it does raise the question of priorities. What's more valuable: free contraceptives or a particular job with its own health insurance? It's the employee's choice, because there will be another employer or insurer who doesn't have the same objection.

Finally, the objection to contraceptives, especially those that can end a newly-conceived human life instead of merely preventing the conception, is a deeply-held moral objection based upon natural law and religion. This is no convenient whim or prejudice. It's based upon both good science and well-founded, long-accepted moral principles. There are even multiple things at issue here, including the moral principle of protecting fragile human life, but also the future well-being of our society and nation. That future requires naturally-married men and women to beget and raise virtuous children in stable families. Therefore, government should promote this, instead of hindering it by undermining the purpose and benefit of natural marriage. But there is a view of society that places little value on such things, which leads us to our main point.

The Progressive Movement was popular through the first quarter of the 20th Century. Its champions included Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. Lyndon Johnson later followed the same path. Progressivism carried a lot of momentum during the administration of FDR, even as its echoes carried through the ranks of the avant-garde in 1930's Germany, Great Britain, and probably other places too. Its influence is widely felt today across party lines, though it's really the Democratic Party that has officially embraced it. The present controversy is only one example where we can clearly see the difference between the Progressive concepts of liberty and justice on one hand, and the same concepts as proposed in the founding of the United States on the other hand. These are the two worlds colliding over free contraceptives.

The founding principles of the United States are listed in the Declaration of Independence. It asserts that these principles are self-evident, so that they stand without proof. Each leads into the next, though, so that they build upon one another. Here are the five propositions upon which the nation is founded:

• That all men are created equal.
• That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
• That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
• That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
• That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Notice that the last proposition describes the intent of the Framers, "laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form...." The principles upon which the Constitution was framed, and the reason for its built-in limitations upon the powers of federal government, are the very principles listed above.

First, all men (a classic term for all humans, used also in the Nicene Creed) are created equal. This is an equality of kind, requiring that every human creature be accorded the same respect and dignity. Some will argue here that many of the Founders were slave-owners, so that this proposition is nullified by their hypocrisy. That argument is unsustainable. First, hypocrisy in a speaker or writer does not determine the truthfulness or value of what he says. Second, a number of the Founders worked to end slavery, on the same principles listed in the Declaration. The fact that their work did not come to fruition until four score and seven years later does not negate the principles under which they labored. In fact, it shows great foresight and humanitarian idealism on their part. Some of them considered it to be a greater cruelty to release slaves unprepared to live on their own at that time, than to care for them as fellow human beings until conditions were right for them to enjoy their liberty. It's hard to judge that decision when we are over 200 years distant from its circumstances.

Others will point to the awful treatment of the Indians (the native inhabitants of America at the time of Columbus) by Americans in later years. Laying aside the fact that this treatment was often based upon particular wars waged between the Indians and the Americans, and that the butchery of war was two-sided, we should recognize again that the Founders attempted to establish relations with the Indians based upon their status as equal human beings. To some degree, it was successful. To the degree that other Americans helped to destroy that cordial relationship by contradicting or ignoring the principle of equality, it must be pointed out that the abuse of a good thing does not destroy its value and use. (Abusus non tollit usum.) The principle of equality stands, despite the sins of those associated with it.

Proceeding from the universal equality of human beings, the Declaration says that every human individual is endowed with unalienable rights. Remember that these rights are connected to each individual human creature, by virtue of its humanity. The rights are called unalienable, which means that they can never be separated from the human individual, since they are attached to his or her very nature. The three rights listed are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The right to life is trampled when someone else kills the individual. The right to liberty says that an individual ought to be free from coercion by anyone else. The only exception to this is the case of children, who are under the guardianship of others until they are capable of exercising the liberty inherent in their own nature. Finally, each human being has the innate right to pursue happiness: to take advantage of his or her own labor and receive the benefits that come with it. The chief tangible benefit is material possessions. The right to pursue happiness, then, is the right to convert your own work into property, and to enjoy the ownership of that property with its advantages.

It bears repeating that these rights exist because every human being is created equal. There is no difference based upon intelligence, race, gender, or any other distinction that may be in vogue. Simply by being human, an individual possesses these rights alongside every other human being. By the same token, justice between human beings must be blind to all of those distinctions, and laws must apply equally to every citizen.

The Declaration builds upon these basic rights by saying they are the reason government is necessary. Government's purpose is to secure and protect these individual rights as much as possible. In that respect, the Declaration provides the reasoning behind the design of the United States Constitution. Since government can only accomplish its work through coercion, but its purpose is to protect the liberty of each individual, it operates under a compromise. The Declaration calls it "the consent of the governed." Government must be limited in size to minimize the coercion it imposes upon its citizens, and to maximize the protection it affords against such coercion by others. That explains the Constitution's separation of powers and other limits upon the growth and operation of the federal government.

The Bill of Rights expands upon the three rights listed in the Declaration. The first nine Amendments to the Constitution are all about protecting the liberty of the individual against abuse by the government. (The Tenth Amendment does the same for the autonomy of states within the union.)

Because individual rights in the Constitution limit the sway of government, Progressives disparagingly call them "negative rights." By contrast, they would like to see the addition of "positive rights." Examples proposed by Franklin Roosevelt include the right to a job, the right to a house, and others. Another example would be the right to free contraception, which supports a right to engage in sexual activity without the risk of becoming a parent. Though this "right" undermines natural marriage and our free society, Progressives are happy to include it into their family of new, "positive rights." This new type of right may also be distinguished from the classical liberties of the nation's founding in that the Progressive rights are not for individuals to enjoy because of their identity as human beings. Instead, they are "collective rights," which an individual possesses inasmuch as it belongs to a certain group of people identified by government as in need of protection.

The reason for advancing these collective or positive rights, is not to safeguard the liberty of individuals, but to provide security and opportunity for groups of people judged to be at a disadvantage. A common word for such groups is "minorities." The Progressive position on free contraception is to characterize the debate in just those terms. To the Progressive, the debate is all about the rights of women as a minority group (though they actually outnumber men slightly; go figure). They can even make their argument sound like it's about individual liberty, saying that government should not coerce women in their health care decisions. But the lie becomes evident when they do not afford liberty of conscience to those who must pay for the collective "right" of women to receive free contraception.

For the Progressive, the positive right for women to engage in sexual activity without risk of parenthood is far more important than the individual liberty of anyone to live according to his conscience. The Progressive sees the role of government being to coerce individuals into providing all that is necessary for the securities and opportunities identified in the collective rights that Progressivism promotes. This ends up being enormously expensive, requiring a massive bureaucratic government, but more importantly, it runs roughshod over the principles upon which the nation was originally founded. It disregards and destroys the individual liberties of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness in exchange for the promise of equal security and opportunity. It exchanges the classical notion of blind justice for justice that favors various groups that are considered to be minorities or disadvantaged.

From the perspective of the Declaration of Independence, Progressivism turns liberty into the tyranny of every individual who would like to stand on his own merits and work. It's no wonder that Progressives would like to do away with the Constitution's limits upon the powers of federal government. Those limits still safeguard the liberty of individual Americans, to some degree, and restrain the Progressive agenda.

It's also noteworthy that the Progressive ideal is utopian in nature. Harrison Bergeron is one critique that demonstrates some of the problems. Progressivism shares many features of communism and socialism. This should not be surprising, since it was born and matured in the same world-wide echo chamber as Germany's national socialism and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. It's not far off the mark when conservatives today accuse Progressives of being socialists. In a sense they are socialists, even if the label is not an exact fit.

This controversy about mandatory free contraceptives is only the tip of the iceberg. It's a skirmish in a much larger war for the soul of the United States. If the classic liberal principles of individual liberty that were incorporated into the foundation of America will endure, then American citizens need to learn the true nature of this debate, and what's really at stake. Progressives may really want to provide a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway, and the idea may appeal to many citizens, but the cost of such a vision for America is the individual liberty that has been America's greatest heritage and blessing for almost 236 years. May God continue to bless the United States by awakening her citizens to the dangerous and precipitous loss of liberty that could result from the next few election cycles.

"After Proposition 8 was struck down, it seemed that California would finally be ready to accept us for who we are. Certainly our love for each other is genuine. But marriage discrimination really hurts." Clearly, the memory was fresh in Miss Newman's mind, and the pain was real.

Jan Newman and her partner John have been committed to their life together for five years. In a world where about half of marriages end in divorce, and where many state governments are now allowing homosexual marriages, they are frustrated by the hypocrisy they have encountered. To avoid discrimination, they have had to relocate twice to larger, more progressive-minded cities. Yet each time, it has continued to affect them.

The most recent example began when they were at the office of their local county clerk. Since they now live near San Francisco, known for its acceptance of nontraditional couples, Jan and John were not expecting the discriminatory bombshell they received.

John recalls how the attendant noticed with interest that they shared the same last name. "Have you already been married?" he asked.

"No, we haven't." John replied. "But we're glad that neither of us will have to change our name."

"You still could, if you like," quipped the attendant. "We have a brochure here about The Name Equality Act of 2007. It allows both of you to change middle or last names in the marriage process."

But his friendly, accepting attitude fell apart when they answered one fateful question. "Are you related to each other? Cousins, or closer?"

John suspected that the old discrimination would arise again, and was hesitant to answer the question. But Jan felt comfortable, perhaps because of the rainbow-colored LGBT pin on the attendant's lapel. "Yes, we're actually twins. Fraternal, of course." That's when John's fears were realized. The attendant refused to proceed, and they were unable to obtain a wedding license. But worse still, they heard the "I-word" that John and Jan regard as a personal attack: incest.

Apparently, it's still a felony crime in California for consanguine couples to marry. The county clerk was happy to explain the law to John and Jan, and the reason why they were being denied the right to marry.

In our meeting, Jan explained her frustration. "Why should the state care about children born from a consenting, consanguine relationship? The science shows a high probability that they will be perfectly normal! But the central issue, I think, is that the government has no place in the bedroom. These are our decisions to make, and we know that our love is completely natural."

John added, "True marriage equality should allow anyone to marry anyone else. We're not asking for anything ridiculous, like marriage to pets or livestock. But I think we should have the same rights as any heterosexual or homosexual couple out there. It's simply unjust. We can't stop being who we are any more than a hispanic or a homosexual." Later, he wryly suggested that perhaps the LGBT movement should remove one of the colors from its rainbow pins, if it is not willing to accept and promote consanguine relationships together with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-gendered.

Clearly these two people share a deep love for each other, made only deeper by the fact that they grew up in the same household. Their plight raises some important questions about the continued intrusion of society into the personal lives and choices of individuals. If California's laws can embrace and recognize committed LGBT relationships, then should they not also embrace consanguine relationships in exactly the same way? After all, it is not unusual for LGBT marriages to produce children, and we no longer question that such children can be just as healthy as those raised in heterosexual marriages.

Should age-old concerns about "the I-word" be allowed to hinder loving couples like John and Jan from enjoying the full rights and privileges of marriage? Even as LGBT freedom-fighters rejoice in their recent victories, the example of Jan and John Newman shows that our society's progress toward a brave, new world has only begun.

(The Newmans' names have been changed to protect them from further harassment and discrimination.)

This is a blessing especially because it requires me to exercise self-discipline at a time when my physical state makes it particularly challenging. At that time, it's hard to be content with the amount of rest I've been given through the night, but the reward is that I have a few productive pre-dawn hours when I can be ready for the day, while enjoying a sleeping baby on my arm.

It's rare to have a glimpse of how God blesses us through the little crosses we bear, but I thank Him for that glimpse. Those crosses indeed become precious companions for the Christian, as they serve to discipline the flesh and focus our attention upon the grace and mercy of God through Jesus Christ.

What wondrous love is this, O my soul! O my soul!
What wondrous love is this, O my soul!
What wondrous love is this
That caused the Lord of bliss
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul, for my soul
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.

-- C.S. Lewis, from his introduction to Athanasius' The Incarnation of the Word of God

He notes that most of these praise songs used in worship are characteristically not didactic in nature. That is, they don't teach anything. Instead, he calls them mystical in nature, meaning that it's meant to induce an internal (emotive or psychic) experience of the presence of God, rather than about any objective act of God for us. Here are the criteria:

1. Is Jesus mentioned? By name or concept?
2. Is the song clear? Does it use sentences or sentence fragments?
3. Is it objective or subjective? About what God has done or about what is happening inside me?
4. Are law and gospel present and rightly divided?
5. Is there any false teaching? (Or any teaching at all?)

For look at Paul, who says about himself (1 Cor. 2:3): “I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling.” Likewise (2 Cor. 7:5): “Fighting without and fear within.” Do you speak this way, Paul? This does not behoove that chosen instrument (cf. Acts 9:15) who has the promise that he should carry Christ’s name before the Gentiles, does it? Where are you going, Paul? Into the prison of hell, fear, and despair? Where are we going to remain if you have doubts and are almost diffident concerning your completely certain calling? But this is how it must happen even with the greatest saints. For the divine promises are not given to make us smug; but, as Paul says in another place: “A thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me” (2 Cor. 12:7). Why? “Lest the magnitude of the gifts of the grace and mercy of God elate me.” Therefore God sends wrestlings, trials, and struggles in order that from day to day we may understand and cling to the promises of God more clearly and certainly. This would not happen if the saints always practiced that heroic fortitude. Indeed, in the end they would become smug and lose the promise and every expectation. Therefore they must be disciplined, in order that they may retain faith, hope, and the expectation of the promises. And it is precisely this that edifies and consoles us, when we see that the patriarchs and the prophets were like us, that they were tried by weakness, by doubt, and almost by despair and the loss of faith.

What can be set forth to us that is more useful and more suitable for consolation than the example of Peter? He advances on the water to meet Christ. And when he stepped out of the boat, he first walked on the water to come to Jesus. As the evangelist says, he ran with great impetuosity, with heroic and special spirit, because he knew that Christ was there; and he had the Word and the promise of the Word for his petition: “If it be Thou, bid me come to Thee on the water” (Matt. 14:28). But soon, when a little wind blows, he wavers and sinks. What now? Where is that great spirit? Why did you doubt? But it pleased Christ that he should be tried in this way. For if he had not been tried, he would have been puffed up. But it is better to be tried than to be puffed up. For in this way the promises are retained, and in this way we learn to understand those sobs of the saints, as in Ps. 6:1: “O Lord, rebuke me not in Thy anger.” For David, too, was such a great man that God gave him the testimony: “I have found in David, the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My will” (Acts 13:22; cf. 1 Sam. 13:14). Yet he prays in this way and struggles with the trials of unbelief and despair.

In this way we, too, have been called, and we have promises that are much clearer and more glorious than those the fathers had. Thus Peter praises this good fortune of ours when he says (2 Peter 1:19): “And we have the prophetic Word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place.” Grace and eternal life have been promised and offered to us in a much more glorious way than to them. For the Son has come, and all the promises have been fulfilled. We hear the Son Himself; we have the sacraments and absolution; and day and night the Gospel proclaims to us: “You are holy. You are holy. Your sins have been forgiven you. You are blessed, etc.” But what do we do? We still tremble, and we cling to our weakness throughout our life. But why are we not aroused by the example of the patriarchs, who believed to complete perfection? I reply that they, too, were weak, just as we are, although we have richer promises than they had. But it comes to pass as God’s voice says to Paul: “My power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). For God could not retain and fulfill His promises in us if He did not kill that stupid, proud, and smug flesh in us.

Luther, M. (1999, c1968). Vol. 5: Luther's works, vol. 5 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 26-30 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (5:254). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

It is a sad mistake to stay away from church even for a season. Many a Christian has lost his faith by starting to skip church services only occasionally. Loss of faith seldom comes from a blowout. It is usually from a slow leak.

"not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together [in worship], as is the manner of some..." Hebrews 10:25

Now, if the school were not an arm of the government, but a private school instead, then the teacher would be subject to the terms of his employment contract. The Bill of Rights, including the protection of free speech, is not meant to limit the behavior of private citizens or employers. It's meant to limit the behavior of government, in order to protect the innate rights of individuals.

It's ultimately the mother and father's responsibility to teach their children, but the civil government has undertaken this responsibility (among many others) because of its interest in future generations. Unfortunately, the civil government is in no position to teach all that children need to learn. In the United States, government is also prohibited by the First Amendment from teaching that a particular religion is truth. That's a good thing as far as law, order and justice are concerned, but it means that government education is necessarily inadequate. Most people don't understand this inadequacy, though, concluding that religious instruction is inessential to a complete education. This conclusion could not be more wrong.

This case illustrates another shortcoming of public education. Though it is supposed to reflect the mores of society in general without favoring one tradition over another, the inevitable compromise will not only impoverish the education program, but also blur the basis on which teachers may be disciplined. Opportunistic idealogues will leap into the breach in an effort to impose their own views upon society through the influence of government. That's what's being attempted in this case, leaving the destruction of this individual's First Amendment right and his teaching career as collateral damage.

The solution for Christians is to establish and support our own schools. We can use a curriculum in harmony with God's Word, and we will be free to run the schools in accord with the principles of our faith. If our statist neighbors succeed in destroying the protections of the First Amendment, our schools would have to close. In that case, Christian education would have to proceed in the home, and maybe even behind closed doors. (It's happened before, under other statist regimes.) But for now, the best solution is to support our own Christian schools.

Otherwise, most of my spare time is spent this summer and fall in preparing our house for the arrival of twins, expected in December. Meanwhile, I'm trying to prepare as much October-through-December parish work as I can, anticipating a lack of opportunity to fulfill this aspect of my vocation as other demands take over.

There is much work yet to be done.

Okay, now to see shades of Schechter, see the recent news about the USDA vs. evil rabbit-raising hobbyists. Makes me glad there's someone to protect us from such people. They probably have big pointy teeth.

But seriously, I'm glad that there are elected officials who care enough to keep the USDA in check. Who would have thought that the Food and Drug Administration would tyrannize American citizens that way? Defense department, maybe. DHS, CIA, FBI, or NSA, perhaps. But the USDA? Thank God for representation in Washington! May it always work so well.

Updated 5/25: s/FDA/USDA/g That's what happens when writing a post when I should already be asleep. The difference only makes the point stronger! The Department of Agriculture? Wow.

Popped amaranth.

Overly-toasted amaranth seeds. (stayed in the hot pot too long, at too low a temperature) I think the yellow background in the center of the plate is an artifact from jpeg compression.

We've been trying some new kinds of food at home. When I say "we," I mean mainly myself and my eldest daughter. She's going for Japanese foods, and I've been investigating grains and some legumes. (Sprouting is fun!) Today I picked up some amaranth seed/grain, and tried popping it. Apparently, it's used as a gluten-free grain substitute, and also has the advantage of being high in iron. As you can see from the bag photo, it's a small seed. But with a little experimentation, I was able to pop a few tablespoons of it in a pot on the stove. You can cook with the seed itself, for which most recipes I've seen so far you must grind it into flour. But you can also cook with the popped seed, or use it as a cereal. I think it's pretty neat, kind of like digital watches. It takes a pretty hot pot, and once it's hot enough, you need to throw the cover on it to keep the popping seeds from flying all over the stove. A "6" on our electric stove seemed about right. I didn't use any oil or anything in the pot, but I did pick it up occasionally while the spoonfuls of seeds were popping, just to keep them moving around in there.

Up next: chia seeds!

The controversy had been so bitter within the Norwegian Synod that it had withdrawn from the Synodical Conference to lessen its ill effects. Yet during the intervening years, the Norwegian Synod had continued to recognize doctrinal fellowship with the Synodical Conference, and had been welcome participants in its conventions. But in 1912, under the leadership of its new President Stub, the Norwegian Synod was happy to reach a settlement with the other scandinavian-based synods on this doctrine, and submitted it to the Synodical Conference for review.

In the historical volume The Synodical Conference: Ecumenical Endeavor by Armin Schuetze, the response of the Synodical Conference to the Norwegian Synod is included in summary form. I think it shows a salutary discernment on the part of the Synodical Conference theologians. It also shows a certain pattern found in compromise documents, in which a doctrine is described as existing in multiple disparate forms. In Opgjoer, election is described according to two different points of view or senses, which are supposed to be equally valid and exist simultaneously. The problem described by the Synodical Conference was that only one of those points of view or senses was in harmony with the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions. The other one used expressions from the Bible and the Confessions, but was a doctrine arising from human reason or tradition.

This is from page 124 of the above named book:

"In order that the unity of faith existing among us may be preserved," the Conference made three requests. The first was in reference to paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Madison Agreement. In these paragraphs the Union Committees of the Norwegian Synod and the United Church "accepted unanimously and without reservation" the two so-called "forms" of the doctrine of election. The First Form, set forth in Article XI of the Formula of Concord, held that election is "unto salvation," or the "cause of faith." The Second Form with reference to "Pontoppidan's Truth unto Godliness," a catechetical book widely used among the Scandinavians, spoke of election "in view of faith." The Agreement stated, "Since it is well known that in presenting the doctrine of election two forms of doctrine have been used, both of which have won acceptance and recognition within the orthodox Lutheran Church; . . . We find that this [i.e., teaching one form or the other] should not be cause for schism within the Church." The Synodical Conference asked the Synod "to eliminate from Theses 1-3 of the 'Opgjoer' the coordination of the so-called first and second form of doctrine, because only the first form represents the truth of the Scriptures and the Confessions."

It would seem that this method of settling a controversy is flawed. I might add to the criticism of Opgjoer that the second sense or form of "election," being a doctrine not really found in holy scripture, represents instead a certain human usage of the word. In this case, the human usage of the word "election" directly contradicts the divine usage of the word found in the Bible. In other cases of compromise, there may be merely human usages that do not contradict the divine usage, but are found to be compatible. While it is important (though sometimes difficult) to tell the difference, it is even more important that the Church confess only those articles of faith that are doctrines clearly taught in the Bible.