“Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety” (Proverbs 11:14, ESV).

Five of we Americans were in London a few weeks ago at the invitation of the International Federation for Therapeutic & Counseling Choice (IFTCC) and Christian Concern to—along with colleagues from the United Kingdom, Norway and Australia (some by video presence)—to hold a one-day conference one block from Parliament challenging the proposed UK “conversion” therapy ban. I wrote the following at the request of Christian Concern and IFTCC, reprinted here with their permission.

How do we, as followers of Christ, engage the secular world? This is no simple question, as the situations and circumstances are nearly infinite in possibility. Since St. Augustine penned The City of God, there has been a general understanding that Jesus did not come to establish an earthly dominion. One might argue there have been “Christian nations” in a particular sense, but through most of Western history, church and state have always been separate power bases in an uneasy tension. Sometimes the church was on the ascendancy, as when Pope Gregory VII excommunicated emperor Henry IV (1050-1106) over the investiture controversy. You may have heard the story about how Henry stood three days barefoot in the snow to beg forgiveness. This feeds the popular myth of an all-powerful Catholic church embraced by many secularists. Less well known is that three years later, after his second excommunication, Henry IV led his armies against Rome, forcibly deposing Gregory VII and putting his own man in charge. So much for the “all-powerful” church. Power is fleeting, even for emperors and popes.

While many people, including healthcare professionals, think that much of medical ethics is highly arbitrary and relativistic, with the single prevailing rule being patient autonomy, there are nonetheless some widely accepted principles within medical ethics. Principlism, which is based on four guides made famous by Beauchamp and Childress, includes patient autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. Unfortunately, for many people, these are the only ethical considerations needed to make informed decisions regarding right and wrong regarding patient care. Several other considerations are needed to decide complex issues rightly.

On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard arguments regarding the legality of abortion restrictions put into place by the state of Mississippi. The case is known as Dobbs v. Jackson. It is the most high-profile abortion case argued before the Supreme Court since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

As I continue my series on faith and culture, Thanksgiving is right around the corner. But believe it or not, I didn’t choose this topic because of its appropriateness for Thanksgiving week. The topic has been close at hand in my own life of late, which has made me even more aware of its cultural applications. By way of background, I must admit that I struggle to ask anyone to do anything for me. Asking a friend down the street to give my daughter a ride home from school is difficult and makes me think about what I need to do to even the playing field.

In the classic tale The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum, perhaps most recognized by the 1939 movie version starring Judy Garland, young Dorothy Gale from Kansas and her dog Toto are transported via tornado to the strange Land of Oz and undertake a journey to see the Wizard of Oz in hopes he can return them to their Kansas home. Along her path on the Yellow Brick Road, Dorothy acquires three traveling companions who also have requests they hope the Wizard will grant, to give them each something they seem to lack: a brain, a heart and courage. The group’s progress and attempts to win the favor of the Wizard are hindered and harassed repeatedly by the Wicked Witch of the West and her minions, including incessant taunts about their shortcomings as well as a dire warning for Dorothy: “I’ll get you, my pretty—and your little dog, too!”

I joined CMDA in 1982 in the middle of my OB/Gyn residency. At that time, I had known the Lord for about eight years but had not grown spiritually, because I had failed to find a solid, biblical church. Around that time, I finally found a church that helped me grow and develop in my Christian faith. With that growth, I began thinking about how I could incorporate my faith into the practice of medicine and discovered the Christian Medical & Dental Society (CMDS), which was CMDA’s name at that time.

Ideology-driven legislative initiatives are underway to ban therapeutic choice—“conversion therapy” being the provocative, pejorative and ill-defined colloquial term used as a jamming tactic—in the U.S. and internationally for people with undesired same-sex attraction or levels thereof. Carolyn Pela and Philip Sutton have delivered a very welcome contribution in the form of a stringent study answering criticisms levied against what is more properly termed SAFE-T (sexual attraction fluidity exploration in therapy), SOCE (sexual orientation change efforts) or change-allowing therapy. The foundational requirement for such therapy—and for talk-therapy of any kind for any patient complaint—is a willing, motivated and self-directed client. Involuntary therapy is failed therapy, no matter the problem.

As far back as data exists, the universal experience has been that transgenderism was an extraordinarily rare occurrence, especially among females. The last decade, however, witnessed an unprecedented increase in the numbers of young people identifying as transgender and seeking to transition. The surge was particularly striking among young adolescent females who were heavy users of social media but had no prior history of gender dysphoria. Something seemed amiss.

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law” (Galatians 5:22-23, NIV).

Last week, a friend asked me, as a family physician knowledgeable about COVID-19, to speak to a group she belongs to of community leaders, here in northeast Louisiana. I spoke about the current status of COVID infections in our area and the need for vaccination. The vaccination rate is low in our area—currently only 37 percent are fully vaccinated in our parish.