Paul Harvey used to lament that "noise makes news"—which was a pithy way of saying that journalists are drawn to the negative and the sensational. Fortunately, there are exceptions, and I'd like to tell you about one of them.

This past Friday’s edition of the Denver Post featured an extensive story on its front page by a reporter named Electa Draper. It was entitled:

Adoption Initiative Halves Numbers of Kids Needing Families

Admittedly, I'm a bit biased about the story because it highlights the great work our team here at Focus on the Family has been doing. To quote Ms. Draper:

"The number of Colorado children in foster care awaiting permanent adoption has been cut in half by a partnership between churches and government that places parentless kids in 'forever homes.'

"When the Colorado Springs-based ministry Focus on the Family began spearheading the 'Wait No More' adoption initiative in November 2008, the state had 8,000 children in foster care. That number included almost 800 children who were eligible for adoption because their parents had lost parental rights after the state found serious and repetitive neglect and abuse in their families.

"In early 2010, only 365 children eligible for adoption remain in foster care, said Sharen Ford, manager of permanency services for the Colorado Department of Human Services."

What’s exciting is that the report beautifully affirms what I felt the Lord was calling us to do several years ago. Having been a child embroiled in the foster-care system, I'm keenly aware of the opportunities out there to give love-starved children a chance at growing up in a stable home. I would urge you to consider doing three things:

1. I hope you'll take a moment a read the article (click here).
2. If you know of anyone who might be interested in the plight of orphans and troubled children, perhaps you can pass on the link to this story.
3. I hope you'll prayerfully consider whether the Lord is calling you to minister to children within the foster-care system. The opportunities are many, and the need is great.

I'll end with a moving message left in response to the Denver Post piece:

"We should all be watching out for the Widows and Orphans and calling the Church to action is a great idea. Those kids will appreciate all your hard work. We have several adopted cousins and enjoy them all. A niece gave the gift of a unplanned baby girl to a family that could not have children and the huge 'forever' family celebrated her first birthday this week. It was beautiful."

Thanks to the help of friends who have given financially to our efforts, the commitment of parents and most importantly, thanks to the favor of the Lord, we have reduced by half the number of waiting children in Colorado!  In a country where most think more is always better than less, I'm so pleased that when it comes to the number of adoptable foster-care children, less is so much better than more.

Thanks for your friendship and support. To learn more about our Adoption/Orphan Care initiative and dozens of other practical programs designed to help families thrive, please visit us at Focus on the Family.

A couple of weeks ago, Trent and Troy, who go to a charter school here in town, attended a special assembly called “Rachel’s Challenge.” This program was based on the life and story of Rachel Joy Scott who, you may recall, was the first victim killed during the Columbine High School shooting.

About a month before she was gunned down, Rachel wrote an essay for her fifth period class entitled, “My Ethics, My Codes of Life.” In it, she threw out the challenge to treat others with compassion, kindness, love, and mercy. She wrote, “I have this theory that if one person can go out of their way to show compassion, then it will start a chain reaction of the same. People will never know how far a little kindness can go.”

Rachel ended the essay, saying, “You just may start a chain reaction.”

Her paper, along with both Rachel’s own acts of compassion toward others and six personal diaries, formed the basis for this powerful assembly. What’s incredible to me is how this presentation has been seen by more than 5 million people around the world—all because one teenage had made the decision to be true to her Christian convictions.

Incidentally, in preparation for this assembly each classroom was asked to nominate two students to represent them in what was called “The Kindness Club.” Naturally, Jean and I were proud to hear that Troy was nominated by his first-grade classmates. Now, I should say that being picked to be a part of the Kindness Club doesn’t mean you become perfect like an angel overnight.

Case in point.

A few days after attending the assembly, a TV film crew came to our house for an interview and to capture a slice of life in the Daly household. Understandably, the boys were a little weirded out by all of the cameras. They decided to bundle up and go outside to play in the snow instead.

It might have taken Trent all of five minutes before he intentionally veered his sled into Troy. In turn, Troy temporarily suspended his membership in the Kindness Club long enough to retaliate by colliding into Trent with his sled!

Ah, life is a process, isn’t it?

I couldn’t be more pleased by the spirited and passionate national dialogue sparked by the Tim Tebow ad. On one hand, there are those who claim to be pro-choice who are upset by Pam Tebow who, being pregnant, knew she could not end the life of her child. This begs the question: Are they really pro-choice or pro-abortion? But there are also those who previously held the pro-abortion position who are now rethinking their viewpoint. Why?

In the past it’s been easy to dismiss abortion as nothing more than a “medical procedure” which eliminates an unwanted blob of tissue. However, in light of Pam Tebow’s commitment to keep her baby, that “tissue” now has a face: a delightful young man and Heisman Trophy winner named Tim. I believe that Tim’s story helped to humanize the fetus and I contend it’s more difficult to be pro-abortion when the numbers have names and faces.

There’s also been some soul searching on the pro-life side of the issue in terms of strategy. For decades the pro-life movement has worked primarily to overturn Roe v. Wade. That’s a worthy goal, one which I fully support. After all, by the most conservative estimates there have been more than 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade became law. But there’s a new strategy emerging that sets its sights on reducing the number of abortions while we work toward permenant changes to Roe.

Some would suggest we’re giving up the moral high ground if we work toward making abortion rare. But I think we’re missing an opportunity to save lives if we don’t meet and work with those on the other side who have said they want to make abortion rare—even if they haven’t done anything toward that end. Strategically speaking, we would do well to put pressure on those who have made that statement—that abortion should be rare—and hold them to their word.

Does seeking an end to abortion have to be an all-or-nothing contest? I don’t think so. Wouldn’t it be morally prudent to ask how we can reduce the number of abortions from a million per year to 500,000? Isn’t saving half the babies who would have been otherwise aborted a noble cause? I believe it is, while we continue to work toward saving the other half of those who are aborted.

I think the Christian community must wrestle with this reality: If we’re unwilling to work toward reducing the number of abortions because we’re committed only to the elimination of all abortions (by reversing Roe), are we okay with the fact that we’ll be giving up the chance to rescue 200,000, 300,000 or maybe even 500,000 babies a year? Please don’t get me wrong. I’m committed to seeing Roe v. Wade overturned.

At the same time, I’m uncomfortable with the thought that such a day might be another thirty or forty years away because there’s been no incrementalism in our thinking. Those of us in the pro-life community have operated under the faulty premise that we’ve got to take the culture from A to Z in one giant step. I’m not sure that’s realistic, given the fact that after forty years of trying we’re not significantly closer to that goal.

Let me inch out further on this limb. I think we’ve been a bit shortsighted to work exclusively on getting the right president . . . who appoints the right kind of judges to the Supreme Court . . . who wait for the right case that has worked it’s way through the court system . . . so that they can, in turn, overturn Roe v. Wade. Meanwhile, every year a million kids are lost.

We can do better than that, don’t you agree?

So, let’s ask what we can do this year, and the next year—and the next five to ten years after that—to ensure some of those kids are saved. That to me part of the the moral high ground. What are a few of the modest steps we can take to save some? I’d propose the following:

• Institute a Consent/Reflection waiting period at clinics along with standardized counseling information. While variations are already on the books in certain states, it should be in place everywhere. This would allow women to get medically accurate information about the abortion procedure prior to actually going through with it.

• Ultrasound Exams: Require abortion doctors to inform women of the option of seeing an ultrasound prior to the abortion. Statistics suggest tens of thousands of abortion-minded women, upon seeing an image of their baby, decide to keep him or her.

• Require Parental Involvement: If parents of minor children must at least be notified before a teen abortion (with judicial bypass for extenuating circumstances), fewer scared teenagers will make this life-changing decision alone.

• Encourage Adoption: Thousands of infertile couples are desperately waiting to adopt an infant in America. By highlighting the benefits of adoption, we'll help an abortion-minded woman see how her sacrificial act will forever bless a family—and give her child the future she is currently unprepared to provide. During the recent National Prayer Breakfast, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared that she had a "conviction" that adoption was a "vastly better" choice than abortion. I commend those sentiments; but we must do more than just talk about it. We must act.

Make no mistake about what I’m saying. The ultimate end game is reversing Roe. However, over the last 40 years we haven’t really been able to change the laws to help these innocent children.

Yes, the hearts and minds of the nation are beginning to view the humanity of the fetus and, that is a critical step toward protecting children. Meanwhile, our nation has been robbed of its greatest treasure: the character, intellect, integrity and gifts of people like Tim Tebow, and we need to fight for each one of those kids today.

Let’s start working to make abortion a less desirable option by educating abortion-minded individuals, amending existing laws to protect a pregnant woman's health and making adoption more popular, accessible and affordable.

Over the last several weeks I’ve been putting the finishing touches on my new book entitled, Stronger, which is scheduled to be released this fall. I realize the title might be a bit misleading. After all, it’s not a workout manual, a primer on pumping iron, or getting fabulous abs of steel. While I do have a treadmill in the basement and believe in physical fitness, the idea here has to do with building strength of character.

Specifically, instead of being crushed by the hurdles of life that inevitably come, I want to get a better grasp on what God is up to in my life when I face resistance or pain or trial or even persecution—although that’s rare here in the United States. I wrote this book to explore what real strength is, what it isn’t, and what God has to say about true strength.

I also explored ways in which I might more quickly embrace hardship so that I can freely allow God to leverage my adversity. Why? Because my life really isn’t about me—it’s about Him.

I have the opportunity to make a brief appearance on the stage of history, but ultimately it’s His story. I know part of God’s loving purpose for you and for me is to make us stronger people of faith which, in turn, advances His divine master plan.

I’m at a place in my life where I long deeply to understand and participate in the larger picture that God is painting. I’ve come to see that, more often than not, I am most usable when I’m weak, broken, powerless—not some sort of spiritual Rambo. It’s what Paul, a follower of Jesus, was getting at in his message to the members of the fledgling Corinthian church: “For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10).

Whether it’s a life-or-death crisis, or the challenge of simply getting through another day, sooner or later all of us confront the undesired sense of being powerless, worthless, feeble, disabled, and dependent on others. Take Drew Brees, this year’s Super Bowl winning quarterback. To watch him in action it’d be tempting to think he never faced hardship. Far from it. Throughout his career he experienced setbacks and major hurdles.

Just five years ago, for instance, Drew experienced a potentially career-ending shoulder injury in a match up with the Denver Broncos. While his body was rattled to the breaking point, Drew’s faith remained strong.

Drew told Sports Spectrum magazine, “God puts us in positions, all the time, for a reason. You can say, ‘Why is this happening to me?’ But you have to understand that it’s happening for a reason, and God is doing it to strengthen you.”

That, in a nutshell, is why I wrote Stronger.

By the way, my publisher created a number of cover concepts. While I had to choose the book cover just the other day, which one would you have chosen?

Townhall columnist John Stossel penned an insightful and unsettling article yesterday entitled, “Hurtling Down the Road to Serfdom.” Here’s what caught my eye. Stossel’s premise is that “we are changing from independent, self-responsible people into a submissive flock. The welfare state kills the creative spirit.”

That’s a strong statement. But Stossel cites data released by the Tax Foundation which documents “60% of the population now gets more in government benefits than it pays in taxes.” Better read that again—it’s unreal! Stossel asks, “What does it say about a society in which more than half the people live at the expense of the rest?”

This is troubling on several levels.

Speaking as a businessman, a nation cannot survive economically when the majority of its people are contributing less than they are consuming. Why? A culture with more “takers” than “makers” is simply an unsustainable financial model. At some point the makers cannot make enough.

What’s more, a culture of takers invites government regulation which equates into less freedom for all—both takers and makers.

And then there’s the Judeo-Christian perspective. We know that mankind was created in the image of God and, like our Creator, you and I have been invited to participate in the divine act of creating, constructing and cultivating new things.

Look no further than the “creative play” that a child engages in with dolls or Hotwheels or a pile of logs in the yard. From childhood, we see evidence of the imagination at work, dreaming, envisioning, inventing and, yes, creating. And it is the act of creating that ultimately leads to production and provision.

When I create, I produce. When I produce, I reap provision.

If what Stossel points out is true, namely, that the welfare state kills the creative spirit, then we would do well to resist the temptation of moving toward a Mommy State in which the government bails us out of every crisis (i.e. GM, AIG, Fannie Mae, banks, cash-for-clunkers, expanded unemployment compensation). History demonstrates that government bailouts create a cycle of dependency while stifling the pursuit of creative solutions and productivity.

Stossel says, “If government relieves us of the responsibility of living by bailing us out, character will atrophy. The welfare state, however good its intentions of creating material equality, can’t help but make us dependent. That changes the psychology of society.”

He’s right. As a dad, I don’t do my sons any favor if I bail them out every time they get into a pickle. Why? Because if they come to believe good ‘ol dad will bail ‘em out, they have no incentive to avoid the circumstances leading up to what got them in trouble in the first place. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention.

During the SEC Media Day last summer, Tim Tebow was fielding questions from journalists when he said something that shocked the press. In between tackling questions about future aspirations, strategy, training, and using his platform to share his faith, Tebow was asked, “Are you saving yourself for marriage?”

Without missing a beat, Tebow answered, “Yes, I am.”

Silence. No follow up question.

Writing for the Washington Post, Sports Columnist Sally Jenkins said, “The room fell into a hush, followed by tittering: The best college football player in the country had just announced he was a virgin. As Tebow gauged the reaction from the reporters in the room, he burst out laughing. They were a lot more embarrassed than he was.”

Accompanied by his infectious smile, Tebow broke the ice, saying, “I think y’all are stunned right now! You can’t even ask a question!” Jenkins reflected on the awkward moment: “That’s how far we’ve come from any kind of sane viewpoint about star athletes and sex. Promiscuity is so the norm that if a stud isn’t shagging everything in sight, we feel faintly ashamed for him.”

She’s right. Where was the spontaneous applause?

Set aside the fact that Tebow’s audience was filled with journalists whose role it is to maintain a degree of objectivity. I’ve got to believe some of those present were parents with children. I’d think from the parental perspective they’d be thrilled to learn about Tim Tebow’s commitment to sexual restraint. Talk about a positive role model for their sons!

Tim Tebow should be commended for taking a stand for virginity. Especially in light of a new American Medical Association study this month appearing in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. Robert Rector, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, noted that this study demonstrated “abstinence education is highly effective in reducing sexual activity among youth” and “showed ‘safe sex’ and ‘comprehensive’ sex ed programs to be ineffective.”

Sally Jenkins connects the dots between Tebow’s personal commitment to chastity and the prevention of abortion. She writes, “You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren’t embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions.”

I couldn’t agree more.

On January 1, 404 AD, thousands of spectators crowed into the Roman Coliseum itching to see a good fight—a fight to the death, that is. While the bloodthirsty fans took their seats in the stadium, dozens of Roman gladiators steeled themselves for the afternoon battle.

This was a kill or be killed contest.

Wearing colorful body armor, the gladiators marched around the perimeter of the battlefield. They raised their weapons of choice—a war chain, a three-pronged trident spear, a dagger, a net or lasso—to the cheers of the throng. After completing this customary display of strength, the gladiators stopped and stood in the presence of the emperor.

As innumerable warriors before them had done, these combatants shouted, Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant!—“Hail, Caesar, those about to die salute thee!” Here’s what happened next, according to 16th century author John Foxe in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs:

The combats now began again; the gladiators with nets tried to entangle those with swords, and when they succeeded mercilessly stabbed their antagonists to death with the three-pronged spear. When a gladiator had wounded his adversary, and had him lying helpless at his feet, he looked up at the eager faces of the spectators, and cried out, Hoc habet! “He has it!” and awaited the pleasure of the audience to kill or spare.

Pause there for a moment. If you’re like me, you might read this bit of history with a degree of disbelief. Did tens of thousands of people actually entertain themselves for an afternoon watching humans slaughter humans? Not only did that happen, but notice how the crowd reacted if a wounded warrior was reluctant to die. John Foxe writes:

If the fatal signal of “thumbs down” was given, the conquered was to be slain; and if he showed any reluctance to present his neck for the death blow, there was a scornful shout from the galleries, Recipe ferrum! “Receive the steel!”

This particular day, Telemachus, a monk who journeyed from the countryside to encourage the churches in Rome, caught wind of the fights. Unfamiliar with such things, Telemachus went to the coliseum. What he witnessed broke his heart.

Stunned by the display of barbarism which so many jaded souls had accepted as the status quo, motivated by his love for life and the knowledge that all men are made in the image of God, Telemachus did the unthinkable: He jumped from the stands onto the field and placed himself between two gladiators.

Clad only in a hermit’s robe, armed only with a passion for God, Telemachus challenged the gladiators to cease their shedding of blood and the taking of life. The crowd and the gladiators were so enraged by his meddling in their “games”, Telemachus was slain on the spot—and then pelted with stones hurled by the audience.

History records that Telemachus’ death wasn’t in vain. There was something about witnessing the murder of this holy man that sent shockwaves through the auditorium; God used the zeal and courage of one man to change the course of history. How? The Romans abandoned their gladiator games from that day forward.

When I first learned about this bit of history, I was struck by the fact that, when it comes to the sanctity of life, our culture is really not that different from the Roman culture. For their part, they became jaded to the taking of life and turned death into a spectator sport.

While I’m not suggesting we’ve turned abortion into a sport, I’m afraid we’ve been sitting on the sidelines while more than a million babies a year have died.

I think we can do better than that, don’t you?

That’s certainly a big part of what we hope to accomplish with the Super Bowl ad this Sunday. I’d like to think the Tebow’s story might shake us from our complacency and change our attitude toward life. Or, at the very least, get us talking once again about how we might preserve and celebrate life.

I’m pleased to report that we’re already seeing signs of this dialogue taking place before the ad has aired. On Tuesday of this week, Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins wrote,

“I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the ‘National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.’”

Sally added,

“Here’s what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career.”

Sally gets it. There’s something to celebrate here in the story of this remarkable young man and the choice his mother made to give him life. Now, let’s pray that millions more on Super Bowl Sunday get the message, too.

As I recently shared with our team here at Focus on the Family, who could have imagined the amount of interest we'd receive over our Super Bowl ad with Tim and Pam Tebow? 

I've watched in amazement as a simple expression of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life" has turned some in the media world and a few special interest groups on their heads. It’s fascinating!

One thing that has been clear to us all along has been the guiding hand of the Lord—from the spark of the idea to the firestorm of reaction, His presence has been steady and strong. 

Anytime a story reaches around the world, which this one has done pretty quickly, you’re bound to hear some interesting and fun reactions. I thought I would share just one.

I was talking on the phone with one of my brothers the other night. He lives out in California with his family. He's the kind of guy everyone would want for a neighbor, always helping and fixing, ever quick to encourage and visit with someone in need. To him, a stranger is a friend he hasn’t yet met. You get the idea.

In any event, he mentioned to me that a guy in his neighborhood was so irritated by the objections to the ad that he went out and bought a TV set. Why? It seems he doesn’t even own a television, but was so exercised by the growing criticism about the spot that he wants to see what everyone is so worked up about.

It certainly wasn’t our intention, but it appears our ad might qualify as an official form of economic stimulus, since, at least in this instance, news of the commercial is causing people to spend money on items they wouldn’t normally purchase!

Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke should be pleased.

Of course, from the beginning, our real intent has been to “stimulate” a discussion about the beauty and wonder of life and family. With four days remaining to Super Bowl Sunday, it appears the Lord has seen fit to do just that—and a little bit more, too.

To God be the glory.