On Friday the Defense Department decided to allow military chaplains to perform same-sex unions, whether on or off a military installation, but only in states that have already legally recognized gay marriage. The ruling, announced by the Pentagon’s personnel chief, follows the recent repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“It is outrageous that only 10 days after repeal of the law against homosexuality in the Armed Forces, the Defense Department is already pushing the military further down the slippery slope,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, in a statement.

The Pentagon issued guidelines on the proceedings, but said military chaplains are not required to perform a ceremony if doing so goes against their religious or personal beliefs.

Military Chaplains Association’s spokesman Gary Pollitt told The Washington Post, “Regardless of the Pentagon guidance, military chaplains will still need to take cues from their religious order.”

Some members of Congress have objected to military chaplains performing same-sex unions, saying it would violate the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The Pentagon also says Defense Department property may be used for private functions, including religious and other ceremonies such as same-sex unions, as long as state or local laws do not prohibit it.

Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund said, “This is unique in American history where you have military policy at odds with the belief system of the chaplains that they rely on.”

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

I recently had the chance to speak with a classroom full of young people studying business. The topic I was asked to address was humility. I warned them that asking me to do that was like asking the devil to lecture on chastity, which itself came off like false humility, which was precisely my point.

All the same, humility was the question of the day, namely, what is it and how much does it matter in business? The latter question was and is the easiest with which to dispense; everyone agrees it matters, if only because we all despise co-workers and bosses who don’t have a shred of it.

Defining it was a tougher matter. The text we were using seemed to define it by its opposite, namely, as a lack of observable arrogance. But this wasn’t very satisfying to any of us because we all thought there has to be something more to virtue than the absence of vice. One student paraphrased C.S. Lewis to the effect that humility is the realistic understanding of what one can and can’t do. We worked on that a bit, adding that it involves constant self-assessment, open acknowledgement of our flaws, and a willingness to hand over authority when someone else can do a better job.

In other words, humility, like all virtue, has an active component. Of course, this notion of virtue as being more than the absence of vice isn’t new, but for some reason it got me thinking about my early training as a Christian, how so much of the community life to which I was exposed seemed to be based on the opposite assumption, that virtuous living is simply vice-free living.

Think about it. For example, the primary focus of the men’s accountability group is a weekly recounting of one’s infractions and temptations. You’ve had a good week when you were less lustful, a bad week when you lingered too long past the lingerie section in Walmart.

Of course, one can hardly live a virtuous life when one is reveling in vice, and sin certainly sickens us to the point that our understanding becomes darkened (Ephesians 4:18). But as I think on the many men I know who fall again and again, I wonder how much this is due to a mentality that is about cultivating the habit of not sinning rather than cultivating a habit of loving God, which has always been active in the living out of love toward one’s brother, neighbor, enemy.

How many of us, having poured ourselves out even for only one solid day in service to others, have found much time or energy to sin at the end of it? On the other hand, how often do we struggle minute-to-minute not to have a drink or look at a wicked video or do something far worse when our entire day is occupied primarily with not doing evil?

It puts me in mind of my brother, who has told me on more than one occasion that he hates going to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings because all anyone talks about there is drinking. It’s hard to not do something you find pleasurable when all you think about is how you ought not be doing it.

Maybe it all boils down to the old saw that idle hands are the devil’s workshop. But I wonder sometimes if in our rush to form accountability groups, discuss the latest Christian living book, and otherwise occupy ourselves with rising above sin, we aren’t missing a simpler, more effective alternative, which is to spend more of our time thinking about someone other than ourselves, and something other than that sin we aren’t supposed to be committing.

Last Sunday, a 33-minute film called 180 was released online. I urge you to try and find the time to watch it (see below). Produced by Living Waters Ministry, it is truly powerful.

Evangelist Ray Comfort is shown talking with people on the street, some of whom I’d probably be hesitant to ask for the time of day. Comfort is forthright and open, asking uncomfortable questions without hesitation and without apology. Something in his demeanor gets even the most unlikely looking characters to stop and engage in conversation with him.

Most of those Comfort talks with are young people, uncomfortable with concepts like right and wrong, whether applied to themselves or others.

He starts with questions about Hitler and the Holocaust. It’s chilling to see how many people don’t know who Hitler was, and how many deny the Holocaust. Of those who do know, Comfort asks whether they would take part in the killing if their own lives were at stake. He moves on to questions about abortion, when life begins, and when abortion might be justified. He skillfully raises issues about morality, bringing into the discussion the Ten Commandments, heaven and hell, judgment, and repentance.

Comfort probes and challenges, but in a way that doesn’t threaten. He guides people—often using their own words—to see the moral relativism upon which their answers are often based.

Ultimately Comfort changes hearts and minds, and it is moving to watch it happen before your eyes. I wish every youth group in every church in America would watch 180. Actually, why stop there? Everybody should see it.

I overdosed on TV as a child, so I haven’t tuned in for decades. This makes me entirely irrelevant at parties, but I don’t get invited to many parties anyway.

A couple days ago someone told me about a TV series that she thought I would like. We went to Blockbuster and rented one season’s worth of episodes. The first one I watched was hilarious. I am not an easy laugher, but I was laughing enough to apply for a job on a laugh track. This was great, I thought—funny without being raunchy or vulgar. Give me more.

Well, the second episode introduced some sexual innuendo. I overlooked it and kept watching for the laughs. But by the end of a couple of episodes I felt like Pinocchio after a few hours at Lampwick’s Pleasure Island. The feeling lingered and I went to bed feeling oddly soiled. I prayed. I sought God’s perspective on the TV show. I made two lists: one of the reasons why I should keep watching (there are several more seasons) and another of the reasons why I should stop immediately.

The only reason I could come up with for the first list was the one referred to in the first paragraph above: It would be a shared experience with my culture, enabling me to better understand it. (Even as I wrote that it felt bogus.) Here were the reasons in my second list for not continuing to watch the TV series:

1. The dirty feeling afterward.
2. We are told to “walk as Jesus walked” (1 John 2:6), and I can’t picture Jesus sitting on a couch, passively taking in the sights I took in.
3. Scripture says, “Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves” (Romans 14:22). I am not at all sure that I would not judge myself someday for approving of watching that show.
4. God commands us to love Him with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. I don’t believe that finding enjoyment or interest in that TV show meets that bar.

Then I fell asleep. In the middle of the night I woke up with a single word in my mind, a word that is not part of my working vocabulary: “abomination.” Because it was so foreign a word to me, and because I was still thinking about the TV show, I took it as the Holy Spirit’s opinion of the show. Besides, as a wise friend once told me on another occasion when I was trying to discern God’s will: “Andrée, there are two kingdoms: the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of Darkness.” My friend proceeded to point out that anything that tends to the Darkness is darkness.

Help us select the national winner of the 2011 Hope Award.

In January we asked readers to nominate local ministries that offer challenging, personal, and spiritual help to those in need. We looked at the nominees’ websites and other materials, telephoned some of them, chose finalists for each region—South, Midwest, East, and West—and then sent out a reporter to eyeball the most promising ones.

Throughout the summer we rolled out the four regional winners, publishing in-depth profiles in the magazine and on the website, where we also included videos and additional photos of the final four.

Now that we have named the four finalists for the 2011 Hope Award for Effective Compassion—from the East, Bowery Mission Women’s Center, New York City; from the South, Challenge House, Hopkinsville, Ky.; from the Midwest, Victory Trade School, Springfield, Mo.; and from the West, Hope Now for Youth, Fresno, Calif.—it’s your turn. You can help make one of the finalists the national winner and the recipient of a $25,000 grand prize by voting for the program you believe to be the most deserving. The three national runners-up will not go home empty-handed, with each receiving a check for $5,000. But hurry: Online voting ends tonight at midnight (ET). We appreciate your participation in helping us draw attention to these unsung ministries.

On Friday, Oct. 14, we will announce the national winner at a reception and dinner in Houston. For more information and to register online to attend, visit our Hope for the Next Generation Dinner page.

Good morning!

This is our daily (except for Sundays) open thread, where you are free to talk about anything you want, as long as you are courteous to one another.

Whether you’re a baseball fan or not, an article from today’s Boston Globe—“Crawford, Gonzalez, and two different takes on the end of the Red Sox season”—has challenging material for Christians.

The Boston Red Sox were in first place at the beginning of this month and, according to one statistical analysis, had a 99.4 percent likelihood of making the playoffs. After having a record-awful seven wins and 20 losses during the month, they are ignominiously done for the year. Globe reporter Peter Abraham interviewed the two Sox players with the biggest contracts, Adrian Gonzalez (who personally had a good year) and Carl Crawford (who did not), and reported/analyzed what they said.

Abraham: “Gonzalez sat in a chair in front of his locker and insisted that it was all part of God’s plan that the Red Sox failed to make the playoffs. ‘It’s definitely something that [we] didn’t plan for. We were wholly confident that we would make the playoffs but it didn’t happen,’ he said. ‘We didn’t do a better job with the lead. I’m a firm believer that God has a plan and it wasn’t in his plan for us to move forward.’”

The Globe reporter then turned his attention to the other high-salaried player: “Crawford, meanwhile, stood at his locker last night and answered every question thrown at him with honest, direct answers. ‘It’s a heartbreaker for us,’ he said. ‘It was definitely a bad feeling. It’s unfortunate we didn’t make it. We can only blame ourselves. We put ourselves in this position. . . . I know what kind of season I had. I know what I did,’ he said. ‘I have to go back home and live with that. It’s going to be a tough offseason for me. I have to come back and prove myself.’

“Crawford stood only a few steps away from where Gonzalez sat. But how they handled the end of the season were miles apart. Crawford took responsibility for what happened, Gonzalez did not. . . . I think [Crawford] just had a terrible season, something a lot of high-profile players go through. . . . But at least he stood up at the end, admitted it and didn’t pin it on God. . . .”

I think I know what Gonzalez was saying, and he’s right: God cares for the sparrow, knows the number of hairs on our head, and objectively is in charge of what happens on a baseball field as he is objectively in charge of what happens everywhere in the world. Abraham Kuyper spoke of every square inch of the world belonging to God, and that includes every square inch of baseball turf. Subjectively, though, we make decisions moment by moment; we come through in the clutch or do not; we are responsible for our actions.

I think I know what Peter Abraham was perceiving, and it’s not surprising. Gonzalez has been great in witnessing for Christ, but in this circumstance he was bound to be misunderstood, with atheistic readers of the Globe rolling their eyes. Too bad. A baseball team can become an idol, one to worship in 2004 and 2007 (when the Sox won the World Series) and one that can leave emotional devastation at other times. Life goes on. Only Christ saves.

On Wednesday an internal government watchdog found the Obama administration cut corners when it produced a key scientific document underpinning its decision to regulate climate-changing pollution under the Clean Air Act.

The inspector general’s report says the Environmental Protection Agency should have followed a more robust review process for a technical paper supporting its determination that greenhouse gases posed dangers to human health and welfare.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said in a statement, “It calls the scientific integrity of EPA’s decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding.”

The EPA and White House disagreed with the report’s conclusions, saying that the greenhouse gas document did not require more independent scrutiny because the scientific evidence it was based on already had been thoroughly reviewed.

According to the report, the EPA failed to follow the Office of Management and Budget’s peer review procedures for a “highly influential scientific assessment.” Assessments that fall under this category are defined as having an impact of more than $500 million in one year and are “novel, controversial, or precedent setting.”

The New York Times reports that the 12-member panel that reviewed the document included an EPA employee, which violates rules on neutrality. The Times also points out that the EPA did not adhere to the requirement that the results be made public or if it was in compliance with internal or OMB requirements.

Inhofe said the report confirms that “the very foundation of President Obama’s job-destroying agenda was rushed, biased, and flawed,” and called for “immediate hearings” on the issue.

Six weeks after taking office in 2009, Obama issued a memo that said, “When scientific or technological information is considered in policy decisions, the information should be subject to well-established scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate, and each agency should appropriately and accurately reflect that information in complying with and applying relevant statutory standards.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Eight years ago, mifepristone, “the abortion pill,” claimed the life of Holly Patterson, an 18-year-old who received the drug from Planned Parenthood and used it to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

She died seven days after taking the drug that is also known as RU-486 and 15 minutes before a scheduled follow-up appointment.

Holly’s father, Monty Patterson, did not learn of her pregnancy until a doctor at the hospital told him just moments before her death.

“I felt like I had been left in the dark,” he said. “I didn’t even know what the abortion pill was. I couldn’t believe Holly had gotten pregnant and had gone to get an abortion with her boyfriend. . . . I was mainly shocked.”

Patterson later discovered that Holly’s death was the first reported case in the United States of a Clostridium sordellii toxic shock infection after medical abortion. Medical abortion is a non-surgical approach to abortion, and Clostridium sordellii toxic shock infection is one of the health risks to the procedure, the one that Holly likely did not know about. . . . MORE >>

Read Tiffany Owens complete Web Extra report.

At the FOX News/Google Republican presidential candidates’ debate last week, Ron Paul got philosophical. In the context of explaining why he would not ban the morning after pill “as a practical matter,” he redirected the public’s attention from dependence on law to a dependence on citizen character. (Watch the video clip below at the 3:50 mark.)

“Nobody can outdo me on respect for life,” Paul said. “I’ve spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn’t solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, and not the law.”

In our zeal to correct the laws and establish justice in our land, we must not lose sight of the natural limit on how useful law can be, and the more fundamental and more reliable role of that internal policeman: good character.

Fifty years before his role in crafting our Constitution, Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” That is, they have more need of laws and regulations. But what John Adams called “a moral and religious people,” which he said our Constitution presupposes, governs itself by a law written on the heart by a healthy culture.

Those in government who add law to law and see the need for ever more detailed regulation of citizens’ lives show that they do not trust people to regulate their own affairs. The response from the people then runs in two different directions. Some get the message that if a behavior is not forbidden or regulated by law, then it must be morally permissible. They become irresponsible and morally uncircumspect in a way that you see in small children. Others become resentful and suspicious toward government in general. As one of my students put it in an exam essay: “If the government doesn’t trust me, why should I trust the government?”

A friend of mine who is originally from the Netherlands had family visiting from the old country. The Dutch are a highly regulated people with a lavishly generous welfare state. As a result, they expect the government to order their lives, and they take little responsibility for one another. (I have written on this before.) In the family’s touring around Long Island, they came to a four-way stop. This traffic arrangement puzzled the Dutch relatives. “How do you know who is to go first? ” they asked. My friend explained that the right of way goes to whoever arrives first. But they pressed on to the next obvious question: “But what if two cars arrive at the same time?” “Well,” explained their Americanized relation, “typically one driver will wave on the other, and there’s no problem.” The Dutchmen were flabbergasted: “In Holland, they would fight to see who could go first!”

Of course, the general rule is that the driver on the right has the right of way, but few people know this so most people revert to courtesy. But the Dutch European found it inconceivable that people could regulate their common life by their widely shared moral character.

There is an alternative to the libertarian reliance on people’s pursuit of self-interest on the one hand and the progressive liberal regulatory state on the other. It’s called healthy political community and it still has a foothold in American life.