the harsh regime that not long ago excluded unwed mothers from respectable society has now been softened considerably, as was no doubt necessary. But now (even in very conservative religious circles) we are so “understanding” and “forgiving,” concerned to continue to fellowship the offender, that all natural shame is removed, and a pregnant teenager might expect to continue socializing with the good girls as if nothing were the matter.

Very kind and compassionate, no doubt — but is it really, in the long run, a service to the community to remove the stigma from selfish and irresponsible acts.

The deeper problem: how do the obligations of Christian charity stand in relation to the claims of natural justice and shame? Or, what happens when we try to make the exception (forgiveness) the rule (justice)? Are not both perverted?

Also, I hope no one is offended that I don’t have any unusual feelings of sympathy for Mr. Hume who is a public figure with plenty of the support he needs to endure those who disapprove of his statements. There are so many anonymous believers who are persecuted and oppressed on a daily basis for defending the truths of the Christian faith, and who do so with very little, if any public support at all, that I don’t feel especially compelled to glorify a man in Mr. Hume’s position in this case. (Just my own opinion; not implying anyone else should feel the same way.)

I wonder sometimes at the attitude of Christian leaders in my community of striving to be as inoffensive as possible, to the point of avoiding whole swathes of Scripture in their preaching and teaching. It seems to me that the quest to preserve our dignity and not be accused of being bullies only defuses our ability to present the Gospel.

I find this post deeply offensive. Indeed, it borders on hate speech! I demand reparations!

In this light, I find it not the least bit surprising that the culture has come to this point twenty years later.