BP_blog
The West, the Family, and the Big Picture

Which Side of History is the U.S. On?



If you feel like believing in Christian morality makes you a weirdo these days, maybe it's time to look at the bigger -- even global -- picture.

Listen Now | Download

Eric Metaxas

The world is leaving us and our values behind. If we don't get with the times, we may soon find ourselves isolated and irrelevant. If you think I'm talking about Christians and the recent Supreme Court decision on same-sex “marriage,” think again.

Of course, if you don’t read international and Christian news sources, you probably didn’t know that last week the UN Human Rights Council passed The Protection of the Family resolution. Not surprisingly, the mainstream U. S. media ignored the story.

The resolution, approved by a vote of 27 to 14, urges member states to adopt laws and policies that support the family—yes, the family—definite article. It calls the family, “the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children.”daily_commentary_07_16_15

It goes on to insist that while governments have a place in protecting the human rights of all, “the family has primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children.”

While our country was splashing rainbows on government buildings to celebrate our un-defining of marriage and family, the global community was reaffirming God's created definition.  It's an important moment that shows why, in the long run, federal judges cannot change the truth.

Speaking with LifeSite News, Sharon Slater of Family Watch International called the vote an “unprecedented,” “tremendous victory for the family.”  And not surprisingly, progressive and pro-LGBT organizations wasted no time in condemning it. One group known as the Sexual Rights Initiative bizarrely warned that recognizing the natural family would “perpetuate patriarchal oppression, traditions, and harmful practices...”

But sad to say it was the 14 dissenting nations—including most of Western Europe and the United States—that really pulled out the stops to defeat this resolution.

“[T]he United States lobbied [against it] with great energy,” says Slater, noting that pushing the LGBT agenda abroad has become a “primary objective of our nation's foreign policy.” She even reports that our delegation threatened to withhold foreign aid to developing nations if they affirmed the natural family.

Writing at “Touchstone,” Allan Carlson notes how under the Obama Administration, “threats, bribes, and extortion” aimed at “vulnerable lands in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe” have become regular strategies in our quest to export the sexual revolution.

Were it not for the enthusiastic support of China and Russia—major powers that spent the latter half of the last century trying to eradicate the natural family—this resolution may have failed. China and Russia learned the hard way how destructive anti-family policies are. And maybe it’s just a coincidence, but both countries have seen a rapid growth of Christianity in recent years.

Newsletter_Gen_180x180_B

Folks, if there's a wrong side of history, the United States of America is on it right now—at least when it comes to this issue. Thank God that despite bribery, bullying, and blackmail from the West, 27 nations voted to protect the family.

Even as I tremble for my country, it encourages me to realize that, as Allan Carlson writes, same-sex “marriage” is not only a recent problem—it's a regional one. Debates over sexuality and gender, he explains, are “merely the current enthusiasm of a relatively small number of deracinated, secularized, mostly childless, and largely white elites.”

It's easy to feel outnumbered and outgunned right now. I get it. But if we want to see God at work, taking a global perspective makes a world of difference.

Further Reading and Information

The West, the Family, and the Big Picture: Which Side of History is the U.S. On?
As Eric said, federal judges can’t change the truth about marriage and families. And it’s encouraging to know that the war against the family is one American product the rest of the world isn’t buying. For more information, see below.

Resources

UN passes ‘unprecedented’ pro-family resolution, outraging sexual radicals
Steve Weatherbe | LifeSitenews.com | July 9, 2015

African church leaders resist gay rights, call it a colonial import
Fredrick Nzwili | Religion News Service | March 6, 2014

The Future of Marriage & the Natural Family
Allan Carlson | Touchstone | July/August 2015


Comments:

In one sense Kelvin. Societies with overstrong families tend to corrupt the state through nepotism. This in turn corrupts the family by forcing political decisions to be decided at the familial level. An example of that is blood feud which serves a rational(so to speak) purpose in such societies. When the military and the constabulary are one more prize in the game, defense simply devolves to Mutual Assured Assassination. The state is in a sense necessarily anti-familial because it is there to make a hope of impartiality. At the same time no individual is capable of standing up to the state and historically one of the most efficient way of fighting injustice has been to use the strength of the family or other traditional grouping as a ready made pressure group or mutual aid pact, as Irish, Chinese, Jews and others did. In other words we need the state to protect us from the clans and the clans to protect us from the state. And laws to protect us from both. And that is part of what is meant by ordered liberty. People who reject the family because of it's demands for order are rejecting one of the balances that make for liberty.

It follows of course that the state will resent the laws and customs of local identity groups and will use the slightest hint of injustice or irrationality as an excuse for suppression. There will naturally be plenty of those-the family is not somehow an exception to original sin, and the most shameful parts of American history were not done primarily by the state but by entrenched groups or by amalgamations of individuals who might or might not have the state's support. However in the course of doing this the state will often forget that it is not exempt from original sin either and is likely to make a monster of itself.

In places like Africa, efficient states are an alien import. Even colonialism seldom was seen at it's best there; whatever one can say about the Raj it was a lot different then the Belgian Congo. Politics in Africa is at the behest of kin-groups, simply because it always was and that is simply because that is the default state of mankind.

For the record, no the modern technological society is not inherently anti-family. If it was Jews would be the most individualistic peoples in the world. As would Oversees Chinese, Japanese, and Italians. And some admirable and colorful also-rans like Parsees and Sikhs. Technology is a tool like any other and family cultures can thrive in it through various means.
Encouraging news
Thanks for reporting this. I need to hear good news for a change. The irony of this report is that 10 years ago, the USA would have signed on to this change. The mainstream press still wouldn't have reported it. I am hoping the recient lurch to the left on social issues is an illusion, but I think we will have to wait till 2016 to find out.
Thanks
Please know this was a huge encouragement to me. I felt so alone on the day it passed, that my days as a Christian in America were numbered.
I feel so disoriented by this vote. Virtually all of the countries voting against the family are those that I would normally consider friends, while many of those voting for the resolution are hostile to Christianity and to freedom (China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, etc.). I don't think I'd prefer to live as a middle-class citizen in any of the "for" countries over almost any of the "against" countries.

Is a modern, technological society inherently anti-family? Is freedom destined to degenerate into anarchy, at least in terms of social structure? Is "ordered liberty," to use a phrase Chuck Colson loved, an unstable anomaly?




Commentaries