A friend recently told me about a singing group called Libera. My Christian musical roots, thanks to my organist/choirmaster father, are firmly planted in the British boy choir tradition. And while Libera’s sound is slightly different, it’s very appealing.

Libera is made up of boys from ages 6 to 16 from South London. Most of them are affiliated with the parish choir of St. Philip’s Church, but the non-profit vocal group itself is not. They’ve put out several albums and done several tours. They’ve performed at churches and cathedrals around the world, as well as at secular venues. Their website describes them as “an alternative kind of boy band.”

The name comes from the “Libera Me” portion of the Requiem Mass, and is Latin for “free.” The choir often wears white robes while performing, modeled on monastic cowls.

It’s too close to Christmas to be thinking of anything else. And for me, music is an intrinsic part of the celebration. I hope their performance of “O Holy Night” is as inspiring for you as it is for me. (Lyrics are below.)

O Holy Night! The stars are brightly shining,
It is the night of the dear Saviour’s birth.
Long lay the world in sin and error pining,
Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
Fall on your knees! Oh, hear the angel voices!
O night divine, the night when Christ was born;
O Holy Night, O Holy Night!

Truly He taught us to love one another,
His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains shall He break, for the slave is our brother.
And in His name all oppression shall cease.
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we,
Let all within us praise His holy name.
Christ is the Lord! Forever praise we,
His power and glory ever more proclaim!
His power and glory ever more proclaim!

O Holy Night!

In October I wrote about the story of Thomas Lobel, who was diagnosed with gender identity disorder at age 7 and began taking hormone-blockers in order to become a girl.

This past Sunday, The Boston Globe ran a front-page article titled “Led by the child who simply knew.” It’s the story of 14-year-old Wyatt, who, with the help of male hormone-blockers, now looks like a girl and has renamed herself Nicole. Wyatt/Nicole has an identical twin brother, Jonas, and in the photo accompanying the article, the physical differences between them are striking.

Wyatt/Nicole is being treated at the Gender Management Services Clinic at Children’s Hospital in Boston, where they treat numerous pre-adolescent children with gender identity issues. The program was started in 2007 by Norman Spack, an endocrinologist and David Diamond, a urologist, and was modeled on a Dutch program.

The Globe reports that Wyatt was vocal about wanting to be a girl since he was a toddler. Wyatt’s parents first took him to see Spack when he was 9 years old. In January, they’ll see him again to discuss the possibility of starting Wyatt/Nicole on estrogen. Once begun, that treatment cannot be reversed, and will leave the child infertile. Assuming the family decides to continue down this road, the final step would be gender reassignment surgery.

These are very serious considerations, especially in light of the fact that Spack told the newspaper that a “’very significant number of children who exhibit cross-gender behavior’ before puberty ‘do not end up being transgender.’”

Even more sobering is what Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, had to say on the subject. McHugh once oversaw the “sex change” program at Johns Hopkins, before it was disbanded several years ago. He wrote compellingly about it for First Things in an article I highly recommend. Here’s some of what he wrote:

“I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. Their parents usually lived with guilt over their decisions—second-guessing themselves and somewhat ashamed of the fabrication, both surgical and social, they had imposed on their sons. As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their ‘true’ sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.”

It’s madness, as McHugh says. I don’t know what more to add.

(Thanks to the MassResistance website for its reporting on this story.)

That’s the question tackled by documentary producer Colin Gunn in his new film, IndoctriNation: Public Schools and the Decline of Christianity in America (see the trailer below).

The debate is spelled out right at the beginning of the film by two heavyweights in the world of evangelical Christianity. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, makes his position clear: “I am convinced that the time has come for Christians to develop an exit strategy from the public schools.” Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham and president of Samaritan’s Purse, is equally clear: “I want to see a child in every public school in America who is trained as a witness for Jesus Christ.”

So should Christians stay and fight from within, or abandon a system they perceive as broken?

Author R.C. Sproul Jr. addresses the argument many make that Christians need to be salt and light in the public schools: “If we send out evangelists and they become nonbelievers, we’re not following a biblical strategy.” And that, I think, is the crux of the matter for all parents struggling with this issue.

Most of us probably know children from Christian households who’ve come through the public school system with their faith and morality intact. It happens. It’s not impossible. But it’s difficult, and in my experience, rare.

I’m a product of public schools, and I never felt that my faith was challenged in the classroom. Nor did I feel peer pressure not to attend church; plenty of my classmates went, too. But one generation later, things are vastly different. Erwin Lutzer, pastor of Moody Church, Chicago, also interviewed for IndoctriNation, points out the moral relativism schools actively promote, teaching children that there’s no such thing as right or wrong. One Christian teacher interviewed describes the culture of public schools as “overwhelmingly anti-Christian.” Maybe in my day, they were at the very least neutral, tolerant in the true sense of the word.

Can children be expected to spend 13 years of their lives in an environment hostile to their faith and not be at risk of losing it? Parents know their children best and only they can decide. As for me, I’m already encouraging my teenage children to keep my future grandchildren far away from the public school system.

Federal law prohibits hospitals that receive federal funds from forcing employees to take part in abortions. In addition, New Jersey law states, “No person shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion or sterilization.”

Nonetheless, 12 nurses at the hospital run by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) were threatened with dismissal for objecting to participating in abortion procedures. According to LifeSiteNews, the hospital receives approximately $60 million annually from the federal government.

In September, nurses who work in the Same Day Surgery Unit at UMDNJ were told that they must assist in abortions or face termination. One nurse who objected was reportedly told by a supervisor that the hospital has “no regard for religious beliefs” when it comes to such cases. The Christian Post reported that the hospital’s policy in the past was to allow staff members to opt out of abortion procedures.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) took on the case of the 12 UMDNJ nurses and yesterday had reason to celebrate at least a preliminary victory. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the hospital from forcing the nurses to participate in abortions. Another hearing is scheduled for later this month.

ADF legal counsel Matt Bowman said that the hospital’s directive was “flatly illegal.” The Christian Post also reports that the ADF is handling a similar case involving Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.

This seems like a straightforward case of a hospital breaking the law, and perhaps there will be a happy ending. I’m grateful the ADF is on the case, and for the temporary restraining order. But two things concern me. First, I worry about other nurses facing the same situation at hospitals across the country and being afraid to seek out organizations like the ADF. Second, I wonder if hospitals will continue to push these boundaries in the hope that someday pro-life nurses won’t have a choice.

Recently, Tiffany Owens wrote a WORLDmag.com Web Extra titled “Holly’s Story,” which was about the efforts of Monty Patterson to get warning labels put on packages of RU-486, the “abortion pill.” Eight years ago, Monty’s daughter Holly died seven days after taking the drug.

Abby Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood worker, author of unPlanned, and now pro-life activist, recently wrote on her blog about what she experienced after taking the abortion pill. It is harrowing to read.

In 2003 Johnson was a volunteer with Planned Parenthood and had no objections to abortion. In fact, she’d had one surgical abortion already. She was eight-weeks pregnant and in the process of divorcing her husband. This time she decided to try the abortion pill.

Johnson made an appointment for herself at the Planned Parenthood clinic and remembers clearly what she was told: “You will have some heavy bleeding and period-like cramps. None of it should last too long. You will be back to normal in a couple days.” She recalls no discussion of any risks.

Ten minutes after taking the four Misoprostol pills as directed she began to feel pain worse than anything she’d ever experienced. Then came bleeding, “gushing,” as Johnson described it. For hours she bled, threw up, cried, and sweated. There was more severe pain, followed by blood clots the size of lemons. “I thought I was dying. This couldn’t be normal.” Johnson spent the night on the bathroom floor.

The next morning she called the Planned Parenthood office. The nurse told her that what she had experienced was “not abnormal.”

For the next eight weeks Johnson continued to experience nausea, blood clots, excruciating cramps, and heavy bleeding.

She returned to her volunteer position at the clinic and, at a management meeting, asked why patients weren’t told about the risks. “Well, we don’t want to scare them,” Johnson’s supervisor said.

But she knows the real reason: “Planned Parenthood is not worried about women being ‘scared.’ … Planned Parenthood is scared. They are scared women will walk out the door if they get accurate and thorough information. Every woman that walks out is lost revenue … that is Planned Parenthood’s biggest fear.”

Johnson praises Monty Patterson’s work exposing the dangers and risks of chemical abortions, and rightly so.

But most women who choose to take the abortion pill and get it from a Planned Parenthood clinic are probably going to trust the information they get in person from their nurse, like Johnson did. Which means they won’t get the full story, the whole truth about what they’ll likely experience, and the risks involved.

Nor, of course, will they hear about the options and services available to them were they to have their babies. Not one encouraging word.

Last week, students at Hartford Public High School (in my home state of Connecticut) were ushered into the school auditorium to watch a musical called Zanna, Don’t! What they saw onstage, among other things, was two guys kissing.

Zanna Don’t is set in a reverse world, according to a description in the Hartford Courant, where straight people are outcasts and the most popular kid in school is a flamboyantly homosexual chess player. And, you guessed it, the musical wasn’t intended as entertainment. It was another “anti-bullying” program that presumes that anyone who doesn’t believe homosexuality is morally neutral must be a bully.

One of the school’s principals, David Chambers, told the newspaper that many students had heard there might be same-sex affection portrayed in the play. Some reportedly asked to be excused, but their requests were denied. Chambers also says he considered sending a letter to parents giving them a chance to “opt out,” but decided against it.

Adam Johnson, another of the school’s principals, told the local CBS affiliate that the school knew in advance about the boy-to-boy kiss. “When one teacher asked if I wanted to remove it, I said absolutely not.”

The Courant describes what happened when the actors kissed. “There were screams and loud voices. . . . Dozens of students, mostly male . . . hurried out of their rows and walked out. A few jumped over seats to leave.”

Johnson reports a slew of phone calls from angry parents following the performance. He wasn’t bothered, though. On the contrary, he considered the performance a success. “This is as important of a topic to discuss as anything in math, anything in social studies. I’m completely glad we did it.”

Getting rid of bullies isn’t the real point of productions like these, which happen in different forms and with different names in schools across the country. The real goal is to stamp out any objections—moral or religious—to practicing homosexuality. And if anyone wonders why public schools are failing, look no further than Johnson’s statement that this play is as important as math and social studies.

At the age of 7, Thomas Lobel was diagnosed with gender identity disorder. At age 8, he began “transitioning.” With the active support of his parents—a lesbian couple who adopted him when he was 2—Thomas is in the process of becoming “Tammy.” Now 11 years old, Thomas, who dresses like a girl and is called Tammy, has begun taking hormone-blocking drugs to stop him from going through puberty.

Parents Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, who live in the San Francisco area, report that at the age of 3, Thomas told them (through sign language used due to a speech impediment), “I am a girl.”

According to a report in Britain’s Daily Mail, Moreno believes they’re doing what is best for their child. “The protocol now is to transition these children as soon as you can make a diagnosis, because otherwise they end up being not one thing or the other . . . because they experienced puberty.”

An implant in Thomas’s arm blocks the release of hormones, essentially keeping him, as Moreno explains, “a pre-pubescent boy until she decides and we feel that she can make this decision about surgery.” At age 14 or 15 Thomas will choose whether to go through male or female puberty.

San Francisco is one of four cities in the United States that has a hospital with a program for transgender children. No doubt Ms. Moreno and Ms. Lobel had little difficulty finding a psychiatrist to lead them all through this process, or perhaps even to suggest and encourage it. They report having a good support system, with friends who make it a point to tell Thomas how pretty he looks.

I also have no doubt that Thomas is a troubled child who needs help. And the help his parents, psychiatrist, and friends have chosen to give him is to change him from a boy to a girl.

To be given an official psychiatric diagnosis of gender identity disorder at the age of 7 is unconscionable. To begin “transitioning” an 8-year-old little boy into a little girl is tragic. My heart breaks for Thomas and for a world in which gender confusion prevails.

In January 2009, Julea Ward enrolled as a graduate student in the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University. When she was assigned to counsel someone seeking help with a homosexual relationship, she realized it would be a violation of her Christian beliefs to do so.

Ward turned to her supervisor who advised her to reassign the client. University officials then informed Ward that she would have to undergo a “remediation” program, the purpose of which was to help her “see the error of her ways.”

According to the Alliance Defense Fund (now representing her), Ward’s religious beliefs were denigrated at a formal review meeting. One faculty member reportedly asked Ward if she believed her “brand” of Christianity was superior to that of other Christians.

Ward was then dismissed from the program, and her appeal to the dean of EMU’s College of Education was denied.

Represented by attorneys from the ADF, Ward filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In July 2010 that court ruled in favor of EMU. That ruling was based, according to Fox News, on EMU’s contention that Ward “violated school policy and the American Counseling Association’s code of ethics, which forbids counselors from discrimination in clinical practice.”

ADF attorneys representing Ward appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where oral arguments were heard earlier this week. They argued that it was Ward who suffered discrimination. “Public universities shouldn’t force students to violate their religious beliefs to get a degree,” said Jeremy Tedesco, one of Ward’s ADF attorneys. “Rather than allow Julea to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor—a common, professional practice to best serve clients—EMU attacked and questioned Julea’s religious beliefs and ultimately expelled her from the program because of them.”

Tedesco believes that Ward’s First Amendment rights were violated when the university required her to enter a remediation program intended to change her beliefs about homosexuality.

Let’s be clear here. Because of her Christian views, Ward did not feel that she could, in good conscience, support a patient requesting help with a homosexual relationship. Would a counselor forced into trying to help a patient truly serve him well? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that Ward’s reservations would have impacted her ability to offer her full support?

Ward knew she wasn’t the right person for that job. Surely counselors should have the right to refer patients to others better equipped to help them. Call it a conscience exemption, or just plain common sense. But don’t call it discrimination.

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.

Last February, Arlene Tessitore learned that her two middle school daughters, ages 13 and 14, were given a survey in school that asked, among others, the following questions:

• Have you ever tried to kill yourself?
• Have you ever sniffed glue, or breathed the contents of spray cans, or inhaled any paints?
• With how many people have you had sexual intercourse?
• Have you ever had oral sex?

There were questions about condoms, birth control pills, and things too explicit to mention here.

Tessitore was upset, as were her daughters. The Fitchburg, Mass., school district hadn’t notified her about the survey and students weren’t given a choice about whether to take it or not.

When Tessitore complained to school officials, she was told that they hadn’t received her consent form, and if parental consent forms weren’t returned to the school, consent was assumed. They called it “passive consent.” But Tessitore said she never received such a form in the first place.

According to FOX News and the Worcester Telegram, the “Youth Risk Behavior Survey” was administered by a local social services agency, but originated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With the help of the Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, a complaint was filed with the state Department of Education. Over the summer, the Fitchburg school district adopted a new policy for such cases. Signed parental consent will be required whenever schools collect personal information from students in eight specific areas, including sexual behavior, psychological problems of the student or the student’s family, and political beliefs. “Passive consent” will no longer be considered valid.

In addition, and perhaps most important, the “Youth Risk Behavior Survey” will no longer be given in the Fitchburg school district. The local newspaper reports that the only surveys Fitchburg students will take will pertain to after-school programs.

This may be a victory in just one school district, but it’s a victory because of just one mom. More power to her.