Jim Wallis, one of the leaders of what might be termed the Christian Left, has now come out in favor of same-sex marriage. Ever since his days as a member of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society, which was grounded in socialist/communist philosophy, Wallis has tried to walk a fine line in an attempt to marry [pun intended] Biblical principles with a humanistic, atheistic worldview. It has been as spectacularly unsuccessful as the same-sex unions he now supports.

Wallis is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. He’s only the most obvious spokesperson for a phenomenon that threatens to split evangelicalism while it simultaneously destroys our Biblical basis for morality, law, and government. Can such views really coexist with what C. S. Lewis has called “mere Christianity”?

Genuine Christians can disagree on doctrine. They can disagree on how the Christian faith is demonstrated in society. There certainly is room for liberty of conscience. Yet when does liberty become licentiousness?

I disagree with Christians who espouse pacifism, but I don’t count them out of the kingdom; I merely consider them incorrect in their understanding of Scripture. I profoundly dissent from those who believe the government should follow policies of redistribution of wealth to achieve “fairness.” Many who promote this do so out of concern for the poor, yet they don’t realize how this vision of “helping” violates a number of Biblical principles and ultimately fails in its goal. They haven’t learned the lessons of history. Their hearts may be right in their desire to help, but all they accomplish is to spread the misery around.

It gets dicier when those who claim the name of Christ begin to advocate for positions that are directly contradictory to basic Biblical morality. Can someone really be a genuine Christian and promote abortion, or at least not be concerned about it? Is it simply a mistake when a professed Christian finds reasons to excuse homosexual behavior or is it rather a manifestation of a deeper rebellion against God’s call for holiness? I have my opinions on that, but, thankfully, God will be the final judge.

Thinking about this led me to a particular passage of Scripture, found in 1 Corinthians 3: 11-15. Here the apostle Paul speaks of how the Lord will judge the actions of His disciples:

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

The clear teaching is that in order to be a Christian, our foundation must be nothing else than absolute faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. As long as we have repented of sin, received His forgiveness, and are now motivated by His love, we are part of His kingdom. However, not all our works for Him have the same value. Some are described as especially fruitful—gold, silver, precious stones—while others are virtually useless for building the kingdom—wood, hay, and straw.

I submit that when those who seek to build God’s kingdom with ideas that undermine the very kingdom they seek to build, their works will be shown to have been nothing more than wood, hay, and straw. They will have done more damage than good. We should all examine our motives and our actions continually. I know I don’t want to feel shame when that “day” comes.

Today is Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. It’s such a special occasion for the British that even the queen will be there to pay her respects. The last time she attended a funeral for a former prime minister was in 1965 to mark the passing of Winston Churchill. However, today is also a day of insult, and the British have noticed the slight. There will be no representative present from the Obama administration.

Those who think this is no big deal will point to the fact that no administration figure attended the funeral of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela last month. Apples and oranges. Chavez was a Marxist radical who hated the United States. Obama knew he couldn’t openly mourn the loss of a dictator who persecuted Jews, served as a banker for Iran, and trampled the civil liberties of his own people as he built up a personal cult following. Ideologically, Obama was practically Chavez’s soulmate, but he had to stifle his admiration for appearance’ sake.

Thatcher, on the other hand, was America’s best friend during her tenure as prime minister. She and Ronald Reagan teamed up to deal the death blow to the old Soviet Union without, as she famously noted, firing a single shot. Both leaders brought their nations back from the brink of fiscal disaster, and both restored the proper kind of pride in their countries. Neither do I believe it is coincidental that both were firm in their Christian faith.

As most of the civilized world—or what remains of it—pauses to reflect on Margaret Thatcher’s accomplishments, may we see in her life an example of fortitude and devotion to principle that inspires.

There are just too many stories this morning, so I’ll offer some passing thoughts on a number of them. We have to begin with the Boston Marathon bombings.

• Unlike many of the liberal news anchors [forgive the redundancy], we need to withhold our speculations on who is responsible for the attacks that killed at least three. There is no need to rush into accusations. Wait and see where the evidence leads.

• Apparently, all the pressure on the media to cover the Kermit Gosnell trial is working. For the first time, reporters from the major networks and newspapers have decided to watch the proceedings. That, by itself, is only half the battle; the second half is ensuring what they report is not skewed.

• In their heart of hearts, they’d rather be elsewhere, reporting on what they consider to be the breaking news stories of the day:

• Speaking of the media, we now know that there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant:

• On the healthcare front, it seems Obamacare’s true nature is being revealed—by its own supporters and those responsible for carrying it out:

• Then there’s the budget President Obama has presented, increasing the debt annually forever and ever. Amen. It even calls for all four-year-olds to be enrolled in school. Hey, it’s never too early to make the government one’s real family. Even though his new budget is a monstrosity, he continues to make ludicrous statements about his bipartisanship:

• Fortunately for us, his new budget is getting the same reception his previous ones received:

• I began with the Boston Marathon; I’ll end with it: May those who lost family and/or friends in this terrorist act find their true solace in the love of God displayed through His Son. May those who were injured in the blasts turn to the only One who can provide healing, both physically and spiritually, and comfort. May those in the vicinity of the tragedy who escaped serious injury come to the recognition of their mortality and how they might have to face eternity at any time, and may they turn from their selfishness and turn toward the Cross and the Empty Tomb. May those who were there and already know the reality of repentance and forgiveness, be God’s arms and hands in the midst of this turmoil.

Thank God—and that’s not just a cliché or figurative speech—that alternative news sources exist. The pressure is on the mainstream media, from those alternative sources, to face up to its ideological blinders that have allowed the Kermit Gosnell trial to go unreported. I wrote about this trial last week. Gosnell is the abortionist who regularly carried out late-term abortions, routinely killing babies born alive. His preferred method was cutting their spinal cords.

The outrage over this man should be taking the country by storm. Instead, most Americans are blissfully unaware of this atrocity. Some of that has to do with the average American’s unwillingness to inform himself about what is going on around him. A somewhat eerie parallel exists between modern Americans who look the other way on abortion and Germans during WWII who shut their eyes to the activities in the death camps right next door.

Yet the media has an obligation to inform even when citizens try to avoid being informed. How many mainstream journalists have attended this trial? One picture is worth more than the typical thousand words.

What you see here is the reserved seating area for the media at this trial. This is not a doctored photo. Some media outlets are tripping over themselves offering rationales for why they haven’t covered this. “It’s a local story,” they say. “We don’t have enough reporters,” they explain. Yet these same outlets have no trouble sending reporters to cover any shooter in a school or movie theater. They have no problem following the rehab stints of their favorite celebrities. By the way, Gosnell murdered more innocent people than Adam Lanza or James Holmes. But that’s an inconvenient truth, and it undermines their narrative for the “pro-choice” position. They will let us know what news is worthy of our attention:

The news media—whether print, broadcast, cable, or internet—needs to be called to account for its dereliction of duty. Conservative news sources have been trying to do that. Let’s see if anything changes as the Gosnell trial proceeds.

President Obama is doing his best to stay prominent in the news cycle. He’s trying hard to be innovative and relevant. For instance, he announced a brain mapping initiative, designed to conquer epilepsy, autism, and Alzheimer’s disease. I sincerely hope it’s successful. While the scientists are at it, they might want to map the president’s brain as well. Who knows what they may find?

As they go about their brain mapping, those scientists may discover some limitations have been placed on their research:

Obama followed up that initiative with another. Well, to call it an initiative might be a stretch—we’ve seen this before:

Yes, believe it or not, he wants to jump start that old program that allowed nearly everyone to buy a house regardless of credit rating or ability to make the payments. What kind of amnesia is this? Can he really have forgotten the housing bubble that led to the recession in 2008? Is he really so ideologically blinded that he would rush into that despite all the evidence that it leads to chaos and financial ruin? The short answer: yes, he is.

Well, at least he came up with a budget—late, of course—but one that will be just as well received as his last two, neither of which garnered any votes in Congress. The Medicare cutbacks and Social Security fix have angered the progressive element of his coalition; the complete lack of spending restraint makes it a dead letter with conservatives. Finally, something both sides can agree on:

Perhaps the final insult to the leader of the free world was the death of Margaret Thatcher. How is that an insult? Comparisons can be made, and the president doesn’t fare too well on that score:

Oh, for genuine leadership again!

Ever since the Korean War ended in a ceasefire, and not a real peace agreement, North Korea has continued to have designs on the whole peninsula. American troops are still stationed at the border between North and South; at times, they’ve discovered tunnels from the North large enough for tanks and other armored vehicles to travel through for invasion of the South. They routinely blow them up.

North Korea has been governed—if that’s the appropriate term—by one family ever since that 1950s war. Just when you think the supreme leader can’t be any ditzier, the successor proves you wrong. Kim Jong-un, the stout 30-year-old grand poobah of the North Korean prison camp nation, seems to want to prove his mettle, whether to his military commanders, his people, or himself—or all three. Consequently, he has embarked on a dangerous journey of threats of the nuclear variety. He’s probably more dangerous than either his father or grandfather, if no other reason than that he’s too young to have any experience in life-altering decisions.

Perhaps his father never told him that it’s hazardous to play with . . . well, you know:

He doesn’t come across as someone with whom you might have a rational conversation:

Of course, if he tries anything, he could get a rude awakening:

Are these empty threats, or are they serious? Will this administration have the wisdom to deal effectively with the little man? We keep sending foreign aid to North Korea, thinking that will make them more reasonable, but any country that cares nothing for its own people cannot be counted on to be rational.

I conclude that he could set the Korean peninsula ablaze once more; he may be able to do more damage than we think. We had better treat this as a potential disaster-in-the-making. If only we had grownups in charge right now.

Confession time. Until a couple days ago, I had never heard of Melissa Harris-Perry. That’s because I don’t watch MSNBC. I have better things to do with my time than spend it on a network that has been shown, via reputable studies, to be little more than a shill for the Obama administration. Yet my attention was drawn to comments made by Ms. Harris-Perry, who apparently is a weekend host for one of MSNBC’s programs.

According to Rich Lowry of National Review, “MSNBC runs sermonettes from its anchors during commercial breaks. They are like public-service announcements illuminating the progressive mind.” In this case, Harris-Perry devoted 30 seconds to berating our society for not spending enough on public education. In the process of her remarks, she stated,

We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children: your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.

I see. Does anyone hear the echo of “it takes a village”? We’ve been down this road before with Hillary Clinton. I’m sorry, Ms. Harris-Perry, but children are the responsibility of their parents, not the whole community. The whole community did not give birth to them; they came into this world via their parents. To me, it’s amazing how brazen the Left has become; they can say nearly anything publicly now and expect no backlash. Well, they got one this time. Back to Rich Lowry, who wonders how this slipped past those who decide what airs on this channel:

Her statement wasn’t an aside on live television. She didn’t misspeak. The spot was shot, produced, and aired without, apparently, raising any alarm bells. No one with influence raised his or her hand and said, “Should we really broadcast something that sounds so outlandish?”

The problem, of course, is that compared to what’s already in the public sphere—same-sex marriage is a prime example—statements like this don’t appear so outlandish anymore.  Some on the Left now seem to be competing for the title of “most shocking idea of the week.” Lowry again, exposing the progressive mindset, puts it this way:

As the ultimate private institution, the family is a stubborn obstacle to the great collective effort. Insofar as people invest in their own families, they are holding out on the state and unacceptably privileging their own kids over the children of others. These parents are selfish, small-minded, and backward.

What we are witnessing, be it via abortion, same-sex marriage, or the “it takes a village” mentality, is an all-out assault on the family. If they get their way, family, as defined Biblically and traditionally in our culture, will be no more. The word will lose all meaning since it can mean anything. This is one of those battles that must be fought; we cannot plead weariness or bow to the trend because it seems inevitable. Victories come by the hands of those who remain firm and strong, and we are called to be both.