Welcome
Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg

Author, Blogger and Speaker 

Bill Muehlenberg, who was born in America, lives in Melbourne. He is married to an Australian, Averil, and has three sons. He has a BA with honours in philosophy (Wheaton College, Chicago), a MA with highest honours in theology (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Boston), and is working on a PhD in theology. He is Secretary of the Family Council of Victoria. He was formerly the National Vice President of the Australian Family Association. He was formerly the National Research Coordinator at Focus on the Family.

He currently continues an independent ministry in pro-faith and pro-family activism. He is head of an apologetics/ethics ministry called CultureWatch, started in January 2006. This interactive blogsite features over 3,300 articles and 52,000 comments.

Monday, 02 April 2018 19:30

A Tale of Two Men - and Two Faiths

[Apr 1, 2018. Photo credit Herald Sun]

 Today is Easter Sunday. Christians the world over celebrate the most important event in human history: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. At the heart of this event is one person giving his life for others, so that they might live. This is self-sacrificing love at its greatest.

I have written often now on the deep decline of the UK, and now we may be safe to say it is just about officially dead. At the same time it is banning and detaining brave individuals who dare to speak out about the evils of sharia law and the war on freedom, UK officials are covering up and making excuses for diabolical rape gangs, most of them Muslim. As to the free speech bans, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been banned from entering the country in the past, all for daring to warn about the dangers of political Islam. And more recently figures like Martin Sellner and Brittany Pettibone from the UK and Lauren Southern from Canada are getting similar treatment. While they are being excluded from the country or banned from speaking out, the UK continues to keep its doors wide open to Islamic immigration, giving Muslims privileged and preferential status.

The 40th annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras was held in Sydney recently. Bill Muehlenberg looks at how Australia's public broadcaster, the ABC, is grooming children by introducing them to LGBTI ideology. Here are three truths you can take to the bank: -The radicals on the left have long known the value of targeting our children. -The ABC is a radical left outfit actively pushing the homosexual agenda. -Homosexuals have long been keen to recruit children into their militancy. All three of these truths I have been documenting for years now. For example, I have written numerous pieces now on the Australian broadcaster and how it pushes every leftist agenda item there is. And in my books I carefully document how children are being targeted by the homosexual activists. It is called recruitment. The militants know that if they can bypass parents and their unwanted values, and directly access children, they have a much better chance of winning them over to their various causes. This is standard operating procedure with the left.

Monday, 19 February 2018 16:27

Adoption Versus Surrogacy

Many people arguing for the moral and social legitimacy of surrogacy will rather recklessly throw out the issue of adoption, believing that the two are quite similar things. But the truth is, they could not be more different. This is especially noticeable when we focus the discussion on children and their wellbeing. The main difference certainly involves the children themselves. In adoption there is a need for children to be looked after, so substitute parents are brought in to look after them. In surrogacy there are no children involved – at first. They are deliberately created, or manufactured, to satisfy adult desires. As one relinquishing mother put it, “In adoption, a family sought a child in need of a family. In surrogacy, you are creating children for adults’ needs.” Moreover, in adoption legislation, the interests of the child are clearly paramount, something which is not the case in surrogacy. As one bioethicist puts it:

Adoption standards and practice have been constantly revised and refined in the light of new understandings developing in the field. . . . It is illegal to take a consent to adoption prior to the birth of the child, for the reason that a woman cannot be expected to make a lifelong decision for herself and her baby in the vacuum of the non-existence of the child.
As Kevin Andrews has remarked: “Adoption is a community response to the necessitous circumstances of a child already conceived and born, which differs markedly to the circumstances of a child conceived and born for the purpose of transfer to another couple”. Ethicist Leon Kass says this: “We practice adoption because there are abandoned children who need good homes. We do not, and would not, encourage people deliberately to generate children for others to adopt.” Or as Maggie Gallagher has put it:
Surrogate contracts and adoptions are not comparable. Adoption is the fulfilment, not the negation, of parental responsibility. Especially in a country where abortion is cheap and easy, when a woman gives her baby up for adoption she has thereby acknowledged her obligations to her child. Almost always, adoption is part of a conscious attempt to do what is best for the child. The surrogate mother does not admit she has any special obligations to her child; she does not admit that it is hers. The child cannot obligate her, she obligates it: It is a product, conceived for sale and use.
David Blankenhorn also adds his voice to the fundamental nature of adoption:
Adoption is a wonderfully pro-child act. Adults respond to a child’s loss with altruistic, healing love. . . . Adoption does not deny but in fact presupposes the importance of natural parents. For this reason, despite all the good it does, adoption is ultimately a derivative and compensatory institution. It is not a stand-alone good, primarily because its existence depends upon prior human loss.
Natural parents of course largely disappear in surrogacy arrangements. Ethicist David VanDrunen discusses the differences found between adoption and surrogacy. He speaks about the moral question we must face as to “whether we ought intentionally to create situations in which biological links between generations are attenuated, confused, or even ruptured. In essence, third-part-parenthood arrangements intentionally create adoption scenarios.” But this is how they differ. Adoption, he says, is “a charitable act that rescues abandoned and orphaned children.” He continues:
Surely it is a charitable act – precisely because we recognise these children’s tragic circumstances. In an ordinary adoption situation the adoptive parents are responding to a child’s tragic situation and seeking to bring good out of it. In a third-party-parent arrangement, however, the parents are creating a child’s tragic situation, a situation in which he will be taken away from his birth mother or be raised by someone other than his biological mother or father.
And Jessica Kerns, a product of surrogacy, whom I mention above, also explains why we are dealing with apples and oranges here:
It really is the buying and selling of babies, and the commodification of women’s bodies. There’s a huge difference between the adoption world and the donor-conceived world. [The] institution [of adoption] was not … created for the parents, to give them a kid. It was created for the opposite, to put children in a home, because they’re here already and we’re responding to a catastrophe. Donor-conceived [children], we’re creating them with the intent of separating them from their biology, and you know … it’s vastly different.
Bioethicist John Ling offers us the big picture on all this, and is well worth quoting from here. He says:
Should we view surrogacy not only as the commissioning mother wanting a child, but also as the surrogate mother – and in law, she is the legal mother – not wanting her child? She has deliberately embarked on a pregnancy with the clear intention that she will abandon her baby. The birth of any child is surrounded by a spectrum of emotions, perhaps none stronger than that of the mother’s love for the child she has carried and delivered. The surrogate knowingly sets out to ignore these natural instincts. Furthermore, can a commissioning mother develop this maternal love without the psychological and physical springs of this bonding, namely, pregnancy and childbirth? Surrogacy is not like adoption. The great difference is that adoption seeks to enhance the love for, and security of, the child. Surrogacy has the long-term, premeditated intention of just the opposite. It should be shunned.
One lobby group, Them Before Us, is quite concerned about this and the other new reproductive technologies. Katy Faust reminds us once more what the core issue is here. It is all about the child. The interests of the child should always be paramount here. As she says in an article highlighting the differences between surrogacy and adoption:
Them Before Us supports adoption, when it is properly understood. Adoption must always be viewed as a child-centric institution, not simply as a means for adults to have children. No adult – heterosexual, homosexual, or single – has a “right” to adopt. Rather, every child has a right to parents. In adoption, the intended parents are not the clients. The child is the client.

I have often sought to make the case for concerns about surrogacy. It is problematic on so many levels. Like the other Assisted Reproductive Technologies, our scientific and technological abilities to do things are outstripping and outpacing our moral reflection on them. And in the process, plenty of harm is being done.

Monday, 29 January 2018 20:49

More Terrific Abortion Wins

It goes without saying that until every single baby is safe and secure in his or her own mother’s womb, we pro-lifers have a lot of work to do. But I for one am quite happy to celebrate the various wins we are having along the way. And in the US at least we keep seeing a number of victories which should encourage us all. The indicators of a pro-life surge there are many. For example, abortion mills continue to close down, which is always a good thing. Sure, new ones may spring up, but last year closures led the way.

Monday, 15 January 2018 15:18

Danger: The Many Problems with Surrogacy

[Recent news reports coming out of Western Australia about a proposal to legalise surrogacy for homosexuals has again brought to the public attention this contentious issue. These various new technologies are certainly opening up a brave new world which has many experts worried.

Thursday, 28 December 2017 17:07

Responding to the Islamisation of the West

Throughout much of the West major cities have large concrete blocks placed around high-traffic pedestrian areas. So what is that all about? Works of modern art? Not quite – they are security bollards. Security from what? Well, sadly, from basically one thing: jihadists who wish to mow down innocents in the name of their political ideology. So the West is responding to this crisis – not by dealing with the root causes – but by running with band aid solutions. Instead of acknowledging that we have an Islam problem, as Tony Abbott recently pointed out, and taking appropriate steps to deal with this, we try rather useless harm minimisation approaches.

Tuesday, 12 December 2017 20:09

Islam and the Death of Sweden

[Although the Swedish Prime Minister claimed earlier this year that his country will no longer accept mass immigration from terrorist nations, it may well be a case of too little, too late. Bill looks at the impact of Islamic immigration on Sweden: a dangerous social experiment that has had disastrous consequences. This article first appeared on Culture Watch as "Islam, Immigration and the Death of Sweden." 

[A topic as broad as the one suggested by my title is of course far too much to do justice to in a short article. But I can highlight a few brief themes here. And let me try to tie in a few recent specifics (such as the war on marriage) with the overall bigger picture I have written often about the death of the West, and about how civilisations die. As I have repeatedly noted, it takes a long time to build a culture or civilisation, but their collapse can happen relatively quickly. We are now seeing this being played out in the West. Much of the West is the direct result of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Of course other earlier influences would include ancient Greece and Rome, and more recently, things such as the Enlightenment.

Page 4 of 5