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.

RINO Author Attacks the Religious Right


Mike Lofgren used to be a Republican. Then he “retired” last year – so he claims – from a staff job on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee doing grunt work for GOP lawmakers.

Nowadays, Lofgren gets paid to bash the party of Lincoln (and Reagan), which has been taken over by the “religious right,” he laments, in his just-published, oh-so-cleverly-titled book, “The Party is Over.”

“Religious cranks ceased to be a minor political nuisance in this country in the 1970s,” writes Lofgren, “and grew into a major element of the Republican rank and file.” Today, he reckons, these “religious fundamentalists” make up the GOP’s “largest single voting bloc.”

It’s because of “the rise of religious right,” claims Lofgren, and “its insertion into the public sphere by the Republican party” that “(a)ll around us now is a prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science.”

The author’s supposed proof: That “the American people poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution, scriptural inerrancy, the presence of angels and demons, and so forth.”

So, in Lofgren’s mind, only the 15 percent of Americans who, according to polls, believe that man transmogrified from monkey are receptive to science.

And only the 17 percent who, according to polls, dismiss the Bible as a book of fables and legends, and the 14 percent who refuse to accept that there is spiritual warfare going on between angels and demons are intellectual.

Lofgren’s views are those of the secularist left – with which the supposed Republican clearly identifies – which is culpable for much of the social decay this nation has suffered over the past half-century.

That includes the devaluation of marriage, the breakdown in families, the slaughter of the unborn, the decline in educational achievement, the increase in violent crime and the coarsening of our popular culture.

The rise of the religious right that began in the 1970s, that Lofgren decries, actually is an equal and opposite reaction by God-fearing Americans to the misguided public policy to which the secular left has condemned this country over the past half-century.

From the presidential reign of Lyndon Johnson to Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton to, now, Barack Obama.

Author Lofgren warns that the religious right aims to create an American theocracy. Its leaders “would drag us back,” he fears, “to the Salem witch trials.”

But that’s not the America the religious right envisions.

It’s a nation that honors God, defends traditional marriage, promotes family values and holds sacred the sanctity of life.

No to Condoleezza Rice For Veep


Condoleezza Rice has, in my estimation, served this country with distinction.

First, as a member of the National Security Council during the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush. Then, as Secretary of State, during the presidency of George Walker Bush.

A FOX News poll released yesterday said that Rice is the top choice of the Republican faithful to be the ticketmate of Mitt Romney, the party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

But she is not the top choice of this social conservative; this long-time Republican.

That’s because Condi supports abortion “rights.” And, frankly, because the 58-year-old has never been married; never had children.

I believe that, after Barack Obama’s jobless “recovery” and his government takeover of the nation’s health care system, the biggest issues in the upcoming presidential campaign will be marriage and abortion.

Romney, the GOP standardbearer, can proclaim himself as the candidate who stands with the majority of Americans who believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.

On the other side is Democrat Obama, who stands with the abortionists; who stands with the homosexuals who defile the institution of marriage, which was created by God Almighty.

I believe Romney loses both the abortion and marriage issues with Condi on ticket.

For while she says that she opposes late term abortion and she favors parental notification when an under-age girl seeks an abortion, the fact remains that, if her views became policy, there would continue to be more than one million unborn babies killed each year.

I do not know Condi’s views on marriage. Whether she agrees that it is the backbone of society; that it should be reserved exclusively to one man and one woman; that same-sex marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God.

If she agrees with all that, her views coincide with those of social conservatives and Christian evangelicals, who make up a third of the Republican Party base.

Nevertheless, it would be hard for Condi to make a strong, convincing case for traditional marriage when she’s never been a bride herself. When she’s never been a mom.

I’m not condemning Condi for never being married. And by absolutely no means am I criticizing her for being childless. 

I’m simply saying that that a never-been-married, childless woman – or man for that matter – is not the ideal spokesperson for family values.

That’s not to say that there is no place in a Romney administration for an individual boasting the distinguished resume of Condoleezza Rice.

Maybe U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Or Secretary of Homeland Security.

Just not a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Promoting Adultery on Valentine’s Day


This is what passes for editorial judgment at USA Today, the self-described “nation’s newspaper:” A splashy front page Valentine’s Day story amorally informing readers that web sites catering to “‘discreet’ encounters” are thriving.

A “‘discreet’ encounter,” for those of us of who prefer straight talk to euphemism, is an extramarital affair. For much of the past 3,500 years, since Moses descended Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments, it has generally been considered forbidden fruit.

Not so much anymore, according to USA Today, which shamelessly featured the founder and CEO of Ashley Madison, a Toronto-based web site that unabashedly aids and abets  adulterous liaisons.

“The day after Valentine’s Day is one of our biggest days of the year,” boasted Noel Biderman, who launched his site 10 years ago, under the slogan: “Life is short. Have an affair.”

Biderman explained that, on Valentine’s Day, “People are disappointed by their spouses’ lack of effort and they feel especially undervalued when there is a societal expectation of romance.”

So Ashley Madison steps in and assists the disappointed, undervalued spouse in hooking up with some stranger; in violating his or her sacred marriage vow.

What particularly galls is that Biderman insisted that he actually is saving, rather than destroying, marriages. He maintained that an adulterous affair actually is a “marriage preservation device” and suggested that his web site performs some sort of public service by facilitating adulterous affairs.

In the time of Moses, Biderman would have been stoned – and deservedly so.

Alas, in our social nihilistic times, that wily serpent rates a front page story in USA Today.

%d bloggers like this: