Would God Approve of ChristianMingle?

CHRISTIAN MINGLEToday is Valentine’s Day. For the happily married among us, it’s probably not that big a deal. Because when you have someone you love, who you’re doing life with, every day is Valentine’s Day.

Things are different for singles looking for love: Those who’ve never experienced holy matrimony. Those who once were married but – for one reason or another – sadly parted ways with their spouse. Those who have lost a beloved husband or wife to illness or other tragedy.

As I reflect upon Valentine’s Day, I am reminded of a sermon I heard a couple years ago while visiting a church in suburban Washington, D.C. The pastor talked about the epidemic of loneliness; about the millions of good men and good women desperate for a Godly relationship who, through no fault of their own, hadn’t found the right person.

The message clearly struck a chord with the singles in the congregation that morning. For I observed many of them gently weeping. And I my heart broke for them.

So what would I suggest today if a lonely heart asked my advice?

I would encourage them to stay in faith; to take comfort in the knowledge that, as the Psalmist wrote, the Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.

And I would suggest that they check out ChristianMingle.com, the nation’s leading Christian-based dating site, which boasts more than 8 million registered members.

The Washington Post published an attack piece on ChristianMingle last month. Post staff writer Paul Farhi went off on the web site’s slogan, “Find God’s Match For You.”

“How does it know whom God wants to hook you up with?” Farhi mocked. “And is it kosher to invoke God’s name to selling a dating service?” he added, sneered.

Well how does Farhi know what means the Almighty might employ to bring two people together, including a Christian dating site? And when did God anoint the Post writer to authorize (or not authorize) the use of his name in an advertising slogan?

I have no relationship whatsoever with ChristianMingle. But it seems to me the web site is providing a welcome online service to Christ followers who are single, who are looking for someone who shares their faith, with whom they might ultimately share their lives.

The testimony of couples that met through ChristianMingle speak to the dating site’s fulfillment of the promises it advertises.

California couple Anthony and Jessica met last March on ChristianMingle. Though they lived an hour and a half drive away from each other, said Jessica, “we knew God had a bigger plan for our future and so we decided to date despite the distance.”

Oklahoma couple Ryan and Stephanie connected on ChristianMingle last  February. “I had been frustrated for a while,” said Ryan, a pastor, “because in my position it is really hard to meet women. So I thought ChristianMingle could be a place where I might be able to find love. I came across the profile of a very beautiful blonde woman with an amazing light about her that totally intrigued me!  

Florida couple Kristen and Josh also made a love connection on ChristianMingle a year ago. “We had both been divorced,” said Kristen, a single mom and a solider, “and had concerns about meeting someone new.  After a month of exchanging emails, chatting, and talking on the phone, we finally decided to meet.  Our first date was a success and we have been together ever since!”

Anthony and Jessica, Ryan and Stephanie and Kristen and Josh all have wedding dates this year. Their success stories, and thousands more like them for which ChristianMingle was the facilitator, suggest  to me that God may very well be  using the web site to bless lonely Christians looking for love.

WaPo Blog Says Jesus Would Support Obamacare

ANTHONY STEVENS-ARROYO AUTHORS THE “CATHOLIC AMERICA” BLOG FOR THE POST'S “ON FAITH” SECTION.

I just read the latest screed by Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, in the “On Faith” section of The Washington Post. The left-wing Catholic presumes to question the faith of those who oppose Obamacare.

“The question of health care insurance is an example of how persons professing to be the most religious among us can nonetheless violate basic teachings of Jesus,” writes Stevens-Arroyo, whose brand of Catholicism would be alien to Pope Benedict XVI.

“It goes against Christian discipleship,” he asserts, “to repeal the Affordable Care Act without offering a substitute that will provide for 40 million uninsured, most of them children.”

That 40 million figure Stevens-Arroyo cites is a canard. It misleads the public about the breadth and depth of the uninsured population.

The reality is that the ranks of the “truly uninsured” – those that desperately want health insurance but can’t get it – is far smaller than 40 million, as documented by Michael Tanner, senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., co-author of “Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.”

Indeed, to inflate the size of the “uninsured” population, Obamacare supporters count those that have been without health insurance at any point during the course of a year, even for a day or two.

But the government’s original definition of “uninsured” were those lacking health insurance for an entire year, or longer. Only 30 percent fall into that category, according to Tanner.

Interestingly, most of the uninsured are young and in good health, Tanner attests. Roughly 60 percent are under age 35, and 86 percent of them report good or excellent health.

Also, not all of the uninsured are necessarily poor. In fact, 43 percent boast incomes that are more than two-and-a-half times the poverty rate. Most of them could buy health insurance if they really wanted, but choose not to.

Then there is the roughly one-quarter of the uninsured population eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program that hasn’t enrolled, according to Tanner. That includes 64 percent of all uninsured children and 29 percent of parents with children.

So that gets us to the segment of the uninsured population about which the American public should be most concerned, on which the government should concentrate its attention: poor, working Americans who cannot afford health insurance, but who do not qualify for government programs.

We do not need Obamacare to provide for that population. The simplest, most cost-effective solution – broached nearly a decade ago by Gerald Kominsky, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research – is to take the federal and state dollars that now go to hospitals to treat the truly uninsured and use the funds instead to purchase health insurance for them.

Kominsky’s prescription might not satisfy Stevens-Arroyo, who suggests that anything short of Obamacare is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. But I believe the good Lord would find it acceptable.

Is the WaPo’s ‘On Faith’ Blog Biased?

Paul Wilson is not going to endear himself to the editors of  The Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog.

PAPER OFTEN HOSTILE TO THOSE WITH TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL VIEWS, STUDY FINDS.

The Post describes it as “a conversation on religion and politics.”  But in a report published this week by the Media Research Center, Wilson asserts that the blog “more accurately resembles a diatribe justifying liberal politics with religious imagery.”

The most recent example, writes Wilson, a Masters student at Catholic University, a researcher for MRC’s Culture and Media Center,  is an “On Faith” blog post this past week by Becky Garrison, who argued that actor Kirk Cameron is a not an authentic Christian because he opposes same-sex marriage.

The implication of Garrison’s rant is that the more than one-quarter of Americans that are evangelical Protestants – as estimated last year by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life – are counterfeit Christians.

That’s because, like Cameron, the vast majority of the evangelical community opposes homosexual marriage.

All told, writes Wilson, MRC analyzed 149 “On Faith” blog posts over a two-month span, from December 1 of last year to January 31 of this year. “Posts that posited a liberal view of religion outnumbered conservatives posts by over a 3 to 1 ratio,” Wilson found.

Even when “On Faith” stoops to publish a blog post by a Christian conservative, the liberal bias of its editors rears itself.

For instance, Wilson notes, the writings of Jordan Sekulow, the only one of “On Faith’s” regular bloggers who holds a traditional Christian conservative political view, are labeled “Religious Right Now.” By contrast, writes Wilson, “left-wing hack Anthony Stevens-Arroyo’s blog is simply titled ‘Catholic America.’”

It is no secret to anyone who reads The Washington Post that its editorial page is one of the most liberal in the entire country.

But what many unsuspecting Post readers may not know is that the paper’s liberal bias has thoroughly corrupted its religious coverage.

%d bloggers like this: