Leftism seeks to liberate us from all unchosen constraints and obligations, which includes our embodiment as men and women. It has effaced the differences between men and women and embraced the sexual revolution, which presumes that happiness, authenticity, and fulfillment are found through indulging our desires, especially our sexual impulses. But as intense as these desires may be, they are not the key to happiness, and their relentless pursuit damages the relationships in which we can best cultivate our happiness in this life. 

The arsonists have arrived at the inferno, radiating innocence and full of helpful suggestions for putting it out. That is to say, leftists have noticed that Americans feel increasingly alienated and lonely, and they are going to do something about it.  
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., has proudly announced the “National Strategy for Social Connection Act,” which “creates a federal office to combat the growing epidemic of American loneliness, develops anti-loneliness strategies, and fosters best practices to promote social connection.” No doubt this bureaucratic buddy program will reweave America’s frayed social fabric, which just needs more friendship-facilitating feds.
Murphy seems sincere, and some of his concerns, such as those regarding what the algorithm-driven world of social media does to children, are valid. But if he wants to confront the real sources of American loneliness, he should look in the mirror. Nothing has done more to destroy American families and communities than the sexual revolution, which Murphy and his party enthusiastically champion. Sexual liberation promised a good time, but it has turned out to be very lonely indeed. 
A lonely society is the predictable (and predicted) consequence of eroding the commitments and duties of the natural family. Broken relationships between men and women lead to broken communities and traumatized children. A culture that worships sexual freedom, even at the cost of killing babies in utero, makes isolation and despair inevitable among the living.  
Of course, community and family life break down in a culture that effaces the differences between men and women to the point of pretending that men can be women and women can be men. Under pressure from adult activists and panicked by the superstition that children are being born into the wrong bodies, Murphy and his party have even embraced the surgical and chemical sterilization and mutilation of children.  
Yes, there are other contributions to increasing loneliness and alienation: economic policies that place too much value on GDP growth over economic stability, bad housing policies, and immigration policies that allow drug cartels to control the southern border. But someone who is unwilling to face the broken promises and evil consequences of the sexual revolution does not really want to address “the spiritual crisis facing America today.” And so, Murphy quickly backtracked when his tweets about expanding the Democratic Party’s coalition were criticized for opening the possibility of compromise on social issues. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by James E. Bruce |
Tuesday, November 21, 2023
In disputes, whether in a deliberative assembly or in everyday life, referring back to what was said becomes crucial. Having accurate minutes helps. (If only we had accurate minutes for some of our everyday conversations!) Because Robert’s Rules requires the approval of the previous meeting’s minutes, everyone has an opportunity to reflect on, and endorse, what was decided. Good minutes hold people accountable for promised performance. If someone, especially an officer, fails to fulfill a directive, approved minutes can make clear what that person should have done. Good minutes also serve as a to-do list for the future.

I rise in favor of Robert’s Rules of Order. Often criticized as arcane and cumbersome, it actually serves as a marvelous guide to how people should engage in healthy debate when they gather together.
One objection to Robert’s Rules is that it doesn’t allow people to be themselves. It’s seen as jilted, stilted, and wilted; it doesn’t promote casual, conversational engagement.
This objection is unfair. First, for small gatherings, its committee rules make the structure less rigid and more conversational.
Second, for large assemblies, casual conversation is impossible. So the alternative to Robert’s Rules — or something like it — is not friendly engagement but chaos. In fact, Robert (the man himself) wrote his Rules after seeing a Baptist church try to have a congregational meeting. As an extrovert, I don’t mind talking over people to get my point across. However, a free-for-all gabfest fails to ensure that all positions, especially those of the minority, are heard. Robert’s Rules addresses this issue by providing a way to ensure that all voices are heard — even quiet ones.
Another advantage of Robert’s Rules is its facilitation of quick and easy consensus, when appropriate, and the ability to resolve thorny issues, when things get more complicated. Rules seem arcane and unimportant . . . until they are essential for the smooth functioning of a meeting. Then we see how necessary they are.
Let’s consider calling the question, which sounds strange to unpracticed ears. What is a question, and why is anyone calling it? Calling the question is a request to vote on the main topic under consideration. But this explanation just raises another question: Why should anyone vote on whether to vote?
I’ve got this one for the team: Stopping debate limits the freedom of members to speak on an issue. As such, there is a higher, two-thirds threshold for calling the question than there is for the simple majority vote on a topic at hand.
Sure, this rule may seem strange, but it makes sense: In faculty meetings or Presbytery meetings, I find that even professors and pastors find it difficult to stand before their peers and speak on an issue. And that’s people who speak for a living! Imagine a homeowner association, composed of many people who do not speak for a living.
Read More
Related Posts:

Reverent, grave, seemly, solemn – these adjectives convey a seriousness about worship that seems to preclude external expressions of emotion. But this language is not to suppose that the Puritans did not value emotion. In fact, the Puritans were “intensely self-conscious of – and, indeed, fascinated by – their own emotions.”[1] Many Puritans looked to their own spiritual experience for evidences of God working in their lives.[2] For the Puritans, reverence in worship did not stifle the emotions, but channeled them so that they ran deeper. 

The Puritans (1600s)
The Puritans in the 1600s continued the legacy of the Reformers by seeking to purify the worship of the Church of England. The crowning documents of the Puritans were the Westminster Standards, completed in 1646. In The Directory for the Public Worship of God, the Westminster Divines describe how the congregation ought to assemble for worship:
Let all enter the assembly, not irreverently, but in a grave and seemly manner, taking their seats or places without adoration, or bowing themselves towards one place or other.
The congregation being assembled, the minister, after solemn calling on them to the worshipping of the great name of God is to begin with prayer.
In all reverence and humility acknowledging the incomprehensible greatness and majesty of the Lord, (in whose presence they do then in a special manner appear,) and their own vileness and unworthiness to approach so near him, with their utter inability of themselves to so great a work; and humbly beseeching him for pardon, assistance, and acceptance, in the whole service then to be performed; and for a blessing on that particular portion of his word then to be read: And all in the name and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Reverent, grave, seemly, solemn – these adjectives convey a seriousness about worship that seems to preclude external expressions of emotion. But this language is not to suppose that the Puritans did not value emotion. In fact, the Puritans were “intensely self-conscious of – and, indeed, fascinated by – their own emotions.”[1] Many Puritans looked to their own spiritual experience for evidences of God working in their lives.[2] For the Puritans, reverence in worship did not stifle the emotions, but channeled them so that they ran deeper. Speaking of early modern Protestants, historian Alec Ryrie writes:
Certainly they observed and disciplined their emotions with unusual rigour … But channeling a current only makes it run swifter and deeper. Nor did the early modern Protestants discipline their emotions because they wished to suppress them. Rather, they believed that the emotions – or “affections”, “feelings” or “passions”, to use their preferred terms – could be guides on the road to godliness, supports when the road became hard, and invaluable testimonies that the destination was within reach. Protestants disciplined their emotions because they mattered.[3]
For the Puritans, the emotional and rational faculties of man are both necessary for true spiritual worship.
Read More
Related Posts: