A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter: New Evidence from Canada
There is a new and significant piece of evidence in the social science debate about gay parenting and the unique contributions that mothers and fathers make to their children’s flourishing. A study published last week in the journal Review of the Economics of the Household—analyzing data from a very large, population-based sample—reveals that the children of gay and lesbian couples are only about 65 percent as likely to have graduated from high school as the children of married, opposite-sex couples. And gender matters, too: girls are more apt to struggle than boys, with daughters of gay parents displaying dramatically low graduation rates.
Unlike US-based studies, this one evaluates a 20 percent sample of the Canadian census, where same-sex couples have had access to all taxation and government benefits since 1997 and to marriage since 2005.
While in the US Census same-sex households have to be guessed at based on the gender and number of self-reported heads-of-household, young adults in the Canadian census were asked, “Are you the child of a male or female same-sex married or common law couple?” While study author and economist Douglas Allen noted that very many children in Canada who live with a gay or lesbian parent are actually living with a single mother—a finding consonant with that detected in the 2012 New Family Structures Study—he was able to isolate and analyze hundreds of children living with a gay or lesbian couple (either married or in a “common law” relationship akin to cohabitation).
So the study is able to compare—side by side—the young-adult children of same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, as well as children growing up in single-parent homes and other types of households. Three key findings stood out to Allen: children of married opposite-sex families have a high graduation rate compared to the others; children of lesbian families have a very low graduation rate compared to the others; and the other four types [common law, gay, single mother, single father] are similar to each other and lie in between the married/lesbian extremes.
Employing regression models and series of control variables, Allen concludes that the substandard performance cannot be attributed to lower school attendance or the more modest education of gay or lesbian parents. Indeed, same-sex parents were characterized by higher levels of education, and their children were more likely to be enrolled in school than even those of married, opposite-sex couples. And yet their children are notably more likely to lag in finishing their own schooling.
The same is true of the young-adult children of common law parents, as well as single mothers and single fathers, highlighting how little—when you lean on large, high-quality samples—the data have actually changed over the past few decades. The intact, married mother-and-father household remains the gold standard for children’s progress through school. What is surprising in the Canadian data is the revelation that lesbian couples’ children fared worse, on average, than even those of single parents.
The truly unique aspect of Allen’s study, however, may be its ability to distinguish gender-specific effects of same-sex households on children. He writes:
the particular gender mix of a same-sex household has a dramatic difference in the association with child graduation. Consider the case of girls. . . . Regardless of the controls and whether or not girls are currently living in a gay or lesbian household, the odds of graduating from high school are considerably lower than any other household type. Indeed, girls living in gay households are only 15 percent as likely to graduate compared to girls from opposite sex married homes.
Thus although the children of same-sex couples fare worse overall, the disparity is unequally shared, but is instead based on the combination of the gender of child and gender of parents. Boys fare better—that is, they’re more likely to have finished high school—in gay households than in lesbian households. For girls, the opposite is true. Thus the study undermines not only claims about “no differences” but also assertions that moms and dads are interchangeable. They’re not.
Every study has its limitations, and this one does too. It is unable to track the household history of children. Nor is it able to establish the circumstances of the birth of the children whose education is evaluated—that is, were they the product of a heterosexual union, adopted, or born via surrogate or assisted reproductive technology? Finally, the census did not distinguish between married and common law gay and lesbian couples. But couples they are.
Indeed, its limitations are modest in comparison to its remarkable and unique strengths—a rigorous and thorough analysis of a massive, nationally-representative dataset from a country whose government has long affirmed same-sex couples and parenting. It is as close to an ideal test as we’ve seen yet.
The study’s publication continues the emergence of new, population-based research in this domain, much of which has undermined scholarly and popular claims about equivalence between same-sex and opposite-sex households echoed by activists and reflected in recent legal proceedings about same-sex marriage.
Might the American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association have been too confident and quick to declare “no differences” in such a new arena of study, one marked by the consistent reliance upon small or nonrandom “convenience” samples? Perhaps. Maybe a married mom and dad do matter, after all.
Mark Regnerus is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin and senior fellow at the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture.
Receive Public Discourse by email, become a fan of Public Discourse on Facebook, follow Public Discourse on Twitter, and sign up for the Public Discourse RSS feed.
Support the work of Public Discourse by making a secure donation to The Witherspoon Institute.
Copyright 2013 the Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
How the Ayres Family Buried Their 8 Children ~ By Kristen Gilles
How the Ayres Family Buried Their 8 Children
"Could we bear the burden of burying any more children?"
My husband, Bobby, and I have often pondered this question since we buried our son Parker, who was stillborn last fall.
"Could we bear the burden of burying any more children?"
My husband, Bobby, and I have often pondered this question since we buried our son Parker, who was stillborn last fall.
Recently, we walked through the oldest cemetery in New Albany, Indiana, where the founders and many of our town's first settlers are buried. We happened upon the family plot of a father, mother, and their eight children. These parents buried all of their sons and daughters before their oldest was even 20 years old. Contemplate this family's story of hope-filled suffering.
In 1820, 28-year-old Elias and 24-year old Mary Ann Ayres celebrated the birth of their first child, Mary. The next year they received their firstborn son, William. Three years later in 1824, they added another son to their family, Edward. And in 1826, they welcomed another daughter, Caroline H.
After their fifth child, Henry, was born in January 1829, suffering swept in. Their 3-year-old daughter Caroline H. died in August 1829. Her memorial stone says, "She came forth as a flower and was cut down."
Two months later, they buried their 8-year-old son, William. His epitaph reads, "He was a precious gift. In his youth he sought the Lord God of his fathers and is not for God took him."
In 1830, several months after they buried Caroline H. and William, they were comforted with the birth of their third daughter, Caroline S. In August of that same year, however, they laid to rest their fifth-born, Henry (20 months old).
With three of their six children now in heaven, Elias and Mary Ann journeyed on together as a family well acquainted with grief. In March 1833, God blessed them with another daughter, Cornelia. But 16 months later, they gathered at Fairview Cemetery twice in the month of July 1834 to bury Cornelia (16 months old) and Caroline S. (4 years old).
As Cornelia's tombstone testifies, Elias and Mary Ann were still blessing the name of the Lord even after he'd taken five of their seven children to heaven. It reads: "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken. Blessed be the name of the Lord."
Two years later in 1836, they celebrated the birth of their eighth child, their fifth daughter, Maria. The next year, however, Elias and Mary Ann laid their Maria to rest.
Then in 1839, Elias and Mary Ann buried their 19-year-old daughter, Mary, and their 15-year-old son, Edward, one in July and the other in December. Mary's memorial stone declares, "Her life was hid with Christ in God, and when he who is her life shall appear, then shall she appear with him in glory."
With all of their children resting in peace, this couple likely visited their family plot at Fairview often, encouraged by the truth inscribed on their children's stones. In 1842, just three years after burying the rest of his children, 50-year-old Elias was laid to rest. His testimony reads, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord."
For the next 36 years, Mary Ann was temporarily parted from her husband and all of her children until her death in 1878. She was 82 years old. Her epitaph quotes Psalm 4: "I will lay me down in peace and sleep." She knew the safety and rest of belonging to God, just as she and Elias had taught their children.
When I first discovered the Ayres family story in Fairview Cemetery, I was heartbroken as I realized their continual suffering (and imagined my own suffering magnified eight or nine times). But as I read the testimonies of these parents who chiseled God's Word on the memorial stones of their children, I saw God's grace at work in their suffering, just as it is in our family's suffering. We know what they know: God is faithful to his Word and can always be trusted. He should be praised from one generation to the next.
We can trust our Lord no matter what suffering we may endure because he has already endured it for us. He will help us until the day he returns. Until that day, we must hope in the Lord as we lift our voices to bless the name of the One who gives and takes. We will remember that our lives are hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then we will also appear with him in glory.
Kristen Gilles is a worship leader at Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, Kentucky. She is married to Sojourn communications director Bobby Gilles. Together they write about worship and songwriting at mysonginthenight.com.
In 1820, 28-year-old Elias and 24-year old Mary Ann Ayres celebrated the birth of their first child, Mary. The next year they received their firstborn son, William. Three years later in 1824, they added another son to their family, Edward. And in 1826, they welcomed another daughter, Caroline H.
After their fifth child, Henry, was born in January 1829, suffering swept in. Their 3-year-old daughter Caroline H. died in August 1829. Her memorial stone says, "She came forth as a flower and was cut down."
Two months later, they buried their 8-year-old son, William. His epitaph reads, "He was a precious gift. In his youth he sought the Lord God of his fathers and is not for God took him."
In 1830, several months after they buried Caroline H. and William, they were comforted with the birth of their third daughter, Caroline S. In August of that same year, however, they laid to rest their fifth-born, Henry (20 months old).
With three of their six children now in heaven, Elias and Mary Ann journeyed on together as a family well acquainted with grief. In March 1833, God blessed them with another daughter, Cornelia. But 16 months later, they gathered at Fairview Cemetery twice in the month of July 1834 to bury Cornelia (16 months old) and Caroline S. (4 years old).
As Cornelia's tombstone testifies, Elias and Mary Ann were still blessing the name of the Lord even after he'd taken five of their seven children to heaven. It reads: "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken. Blessed be the name of the Lord."
Two years later in 1836, they celebrated the birth of their eighth child, their fifth daughter, Maria. The next year, however, Elias and Mary Ann laid their Maria to rest.
Then in 1839, Elias and Mary Ann buried their 19-year-old daughter, Mary, and their 15-year-old son, Edward, one in July and the other in December. Mary's memorial stone declares, "Her life was hid with Christ in God, and when he who is her life shall appear, then shall she appear with him in glory."
With all of their children resting in peace, this couple likely visited their family plot at Fairview often, encouraged by the truth inscribed on their children's stones. In 1842, just three years after burying the rest of his children, 50-year-old Elias was laid to rest. His testimony reads, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord."
For the next 36 years, Mary Ann was temporarily parted from her husband and all of her children until her death in 1878. She was 82 years old. Her epitaph quotes Psalm 4: "I will lay me down in peace and sleep." She knew the safety and rest of belonging to God, just as she and Elias had taught their children.
When I first discovered the Ayres family story in Fairview Cemetery, I was heartbroken as I realized their continual suffering (and imagined my own suffering magnified eight or nine times). But as I read the testimonies of these parents who chiseled God's Word on the memorial stones of their children, I saw God's grace at work in their suffering, just as it is in our family's suffering. We know what they know: God is faithful to his Word and can always be trusted. He should be praised from one generation to the next.
We can trust our Lord no matter what suffering we may endure because he has already endured it for us. He will help us until the day he returns. Until that day, we must hope in the Lord as we lift our voices to bless the name of the One who gives and takes. We will remember that our lives are hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then we will also appear with him in glory.
Kristen Gilles is a worship leader at Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, Kentucky. She is married to Sojourn communications director Bobby Gilles. Together they write about worship and songwriting at mysonginthenight.com.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
The State of the Church In America: Hint: It's Not Dying ~ By Ed Stetzer
The State of the Church In America: Hint: It's Not Dying
The church is not dying.
Yes, the church in the West—the United States included—is in transition right now. But transitioning is not the same as dying, particuarly if you hold the belief that Christianity is represented by people who live for Christ, not check "Christian" on a survey form.
While I believe we need to understand reality inside our ranks, I don't believe the situation is quite as dire as many are making it out to be. Actually, no serious researcher believes Christianity in America is dying. Not one.
Instead, I believe this current cultural shift is bringing clarity that will assist in defining who we are as Christians, and that is a good thing in some ways.
I have talked about this before, but I think it bears repeating, if for no other reason than to encourage us in our shared mission once again.
In the American context, 2009 was a turning point in regards to the perception of Christianity's health in the United States. That year, the results of the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) caused quite a stir. In its wake were several articles in prominent national publications touting the coming demise of Christianity in America. And Americans bought in.
The ARIS results showed the percentage of self-identified Christians had fallen 10 percentage points, from 86 to 76, since 1990. It also showed that the "Nones"–those who claim no religious affiliation–rose from 8 to 15 percent in the same time period.
Following the release of the results, Newsweek ran a cover story entitled "The End of Christian America." Earlier the same year, Michael Spencer–the Internet Monk–penned "My Prediction: The Coming Evangelical Collapse" that was picked up by the Christian Science Monitor. The settled narrative became that Christianity was in precipitous decline. The sentiment has continued to grow ever since.
An October 2012 Pew Research Study added fuel to the fire, stating that the "Nones" had increased more than five percent in the previous five years alone. A cursory look at the numbers may very well lead people to frightening conclusions, and the numbers are only going to get worse when you look at people who call themselves Christians.
That being said, the sky is not falling. Christians are not leaving the faith in droves, even though some people are screaming that loudly. In many cases, people who once called themselves Christians are simply no longer doing that. That is a different issue, which I explained further in my USA Today column last year.
Most believers likely realize that though 86 percent of Americans checked the "Christian" box on a survey in 1990, the population was not made up of that many genuine followers of Jesus. For many, the idea of being Christian and being American are one-in-the-same. But the church defines "Christian" differently than culture at large, and the distinction is an important one to make.
People who once called themselves Christians are simply no longer doing that.
Around 75 percent of Americans call themselves Christians—they "self identify" as Christians, regardless of how others might define them. I find it helpful to separate those who profess Christianity into three categories: cultural, congregational and convictional.
Now, these are NOT exact numbers, but broad categories. The numbers are different from region to region, but as a whole, the categories might be helpful.
The first category–Cultural Christians–is made up of people who believe themselves to be Christians simply because their culture tells them they are. They are Christian by heritage. They may have religious roots in their family or may come from a people group tied to a certain religion, e.g., Southern Evangelicals or Irish Catholics. Inside the church, we would say they are Christians in name only. They are not practicing a vibrant faith. This group makes up around one-third of the 75 percent who self-identify as Christians—or about a quarter of all Americans.
The second category–Congregational Christians–is similar to the first group, except these individuals at least have some connection to congregational life. They have a "home church" they grew up in and perhaps where they were married. They might even visit occasionally. Here again though, we would say that these people are not practicing any sort of real, vibrant faith. They are attendees. This group makes up another third of the 75 percent—or about a quarter of all Americans.
The final group–Convictional Christians–is made up of people who are actually living according to their faith. These are the people who would say that they have met Jesus, He changed their lives, and since that time their lives have been increasingly oriented around their faith in Him. Convictional Christians make up the final third of the 75 percent—or about a quarter of all Americans.
The Church is not dying. It is just being more clearly defined.
Interestingly, since 1972 and according to the General Social Survey, the percentage of the final type of Christian in the U.S. population has remained generally stable. On the other hand, mainline Protestantism has declined, but other areas within evangelicalism have grown slightly to offset that loss.
As I see it, the numbers of people who those of us in the church would say are actually committed Christians—those who are practicing a vibrant faith—are not dying off. The Church is not dying. It is just being more clearly defined.
The "Nones" category is growing quickly, but the change is coming by way of Cultural and Congregational Christians who no longer feel the societal pressure to be "Christian." They feel comfortable freeing themselves from a label that was not true of them in the first place. Convictional Christians are not leaving the faith; the "squishy middle," as I like to call it, is simply being flattened.
So for those who really don't have any skin in the game, shedding the label makes sense.
As Christians find themselves more and more on the margins in American society, people are beginning to count the cost. While it used to serve Americans well to carry the label "Christian" in most circumstances (think about running for public office, for instance), it can actually be polarizing or considered intolerant now. So for those who really don't have any skin in the game, shedding the label makes sense.
As the trend continues, we will see the "Nones" continue to grow and the church lose more of its traditional cultural influence. Christians will likely lose the culture wars, leading to difficult times ahead for us. But we do not need to lose hope. This is not cause for despair. It is a time to regroup and re-engage.
Christianity may be losing its top-down political and cultural influence, but Jesus spoke of His followers making an impact in a very different manner. He taught that God's kingdom was subversive and underground. He used examples like yeast, which changes things from the inside, and mustard seeds, which are small and must be planted in order to grow up and out.
As the distinctions between Christians and an ever-growing post-Christian culture emerge, we will have to set aside any nominal belief systems and become active agents of God's Kingdom. The answer is not found in waging cultural wars incessantly, or in making a theological shift to the left to pacify a culture offended by the gospel. The answer is in all of God's people, changed by the power of the gospel and propelled by love, moving into the mission field as agents of gospel transformation.
This is no time to panic or exaggerate the situation. As I said in Lost and Found, in the midst of a hysterical panic about 94 percent of evangelical young adults leaving church, "Crises sell books but usually don't fix problems." (And, it is nowhere near 94 percent.)
Yes, we need a serious dose of what I write in Christianity Today a few years ago: Curing Christians Stats Abuse.
Facts are our friends, and the facts do point to a cultural change. And, in the midst of that cultural change we do see that American looks more like a mission field. However, what we need is a mobilized—rather than demoralized—mission force.
Bad stats and hyperbole do just that—demoralize God's people.
Today, we need a mobilized mission force in the midst of this mission field. So, it's time to time to work for the sake of the gospel, and to live for the cause of the gospel, not run around proclaiming the sky is falling.
Posted:October 1, 2013 at 8:32 am
The church is not dying.
Yes, the church in the West—the United States included—is in transition right now. But transitioning is not the same as dying, particuarly if you hold the belief that Christianity is represented by people who live for Christ, not check "Christian" on a survey form.
While I believe we need to understand reality inside our ranks, I don't believe the situation is quite as dire as many are making it out to be. Actually, no serious researcher believes Christianity in America is dying. Not one.
Instead, I believe this current cultural shift is bringing clarity that will assist in defining who we are as Christians, and that is a good thing in some ways.
I have talked about this before, but I think it bears repeating, if for no other reason than to encourage us in our shared mission once again.
In the American context, 2009 was a turning point in regards to the perception of Christianity's health in the United States. That year, the results of the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) caused quite a stir. In its wake were several articles in prominent national publications touting the coming demise of Christianity in America. And Americans bought in.
The ARIS results showed the percentage of self-identified Christians had fallen 10 percentage points, from 86 to 76, since 1990. It also showed that the "Nones"–those who claim no religious affiliation–rose from 8 to 15 percent in the same time period.
Following the release of the results, Newsweek ran a cover story entitled "The End of Christian America." Earlier the same year, Michael Spencer–the Internet Monk–penned "My Prediction: The Coming Evangelical Collapse" that was picked up by the Christian Science Monitor. The settled narrative became that Christianity was in precipitous decline. The sentiment has continued to grow ever since.
An October 2012 Pew Research Study added fuel to the fire, stating that the "Nones" had increased more than five percent in the previous five years alone. A cursory look at the numbers may very well lead people to frightening conclusions, and the numbers are only going to get worse when you look at people who call themselves Christians.
That being said, the sky is not falling. Christians are not leaving the faith in droves, even though some people are screaming that loudly. In many cases, people who once called themselves Christians are simply no longer doing that. That is a different issue, which I explained further in my USA Today column last year.
Most believers likely realize that though 86 percent of Americans checked the "Christian" box on a survey in 1990, the population was not made up of that many genuine followers of Jesus. For many, the idea of being Christian and being American are one-in-the-same. But the church defines "Christian" differently than culture at large, and the distinction is an important one to make.
People who once called themselves Christians are simply no longer doing that.
Around 75 percent of Americans call themselves Christians—they "self identify" as Christians, regardless of how others might define them. I find it helpful to separate those who profess Christianity into three categories: cultural, congregational and convictional.
Now, these are NOT exact numbers, but broad categories. The numbers are different from region to region, but as a whole, the categories might be helpful.
The first category–Cultural Christians–is made up of people who believe themselves to be Christians simply because their culture tells them they are. They are Christian by heritage. They may have religious roots in their family or may come from a people group tied to a certain religion, e.g., Southern Evangelicals or Irish Catholics. Inside the church, we would say they are Christians in name only. They are not practicing a vibrant faith. This group makes up around one-third of the 75 percent who self-identify as Christians—or about a quarter of all Americans.
The second category–Congregational Christians–is similar to the first group, except these individuals at least have some connection to congregational life. They have a "home church" they grew up in and perhaps where they were married. They might even visit occasionally. Here again though, we would say that these people are not practicing any sort of real, vibrant faith. They are attendees. This group makes up another third of the 75 percent—or about a quarter of all Americans.
The final group–Convictional Christians–is made up of people who are actually living according to their faith. These are the people who would say that they have met Jesus, He changed their lives, and since that time their lives have been increasingly oriented around their faith in Him. Convictional Christians make up the final third of the 75 percent—or about a quarter of all Americans.
The Church is not dying. It is just being more clearly defined.
Interestingly, since 1972 and according to the General Social Survey, the percentage of the final type of Christian in the U.S. population has remained generally stable. On the other hand, mainline Protestantism has declined, but other areas within evangelicalism have grown slightly to offset that loss.
As I see it, the numbers of people who those of us in the church would say are actually committed Christians—those who are practicing a vibrant faith—are not dying off. The Church is not dying. It is just being more clearly defined.
The "Nones" category is growing quickly, but the change is coming by way of Cultural and Congregational Christians who no longer feel the societal pressure to be "Christian." They feel comfortable freeing themselves from a label that was not true of them in the first place. Convictional Christians are not leaving the faith; the "squishy middle," as I like to call it, is simply being flattened.
So for those who really don't have any skin in the game, shedding the label makes sense.
As Christians find themselves more and more on the margins in American society, people are beginning to count the cost. While it used to serve Americans well to carry the label "Christian" in most circumstances (think about running for public office, for instance), it can actually be polarizing or considered intolerant now. So for those who really don't have any skin in the game, shedding the label makes sense.
As the trend continues, we will see the "Nones" continue to grow and the church lose more of its traditional cultural influence. Christians will likely lose the culture wars, leading to difficult times ahead for us. But we do not need to lose hope. This is not cause for despair. It is a time to regroup and re-engage.
Christianity may be losing its top-down political and cultural influence, but Jesus spoke of His followers making an impact in a very different manner. He taught that God's kingdom was subversive and underground. He used examples like yeast, which changes things from the inside, and mustard seeds, which are small and must be planted in order to grow up and out.
As the distinctions between Christians and an ever-growing post-Christian culture emerge, we will have to set aside any nominal belief systems and become active agents of God's Kingdom. The answer is not found in waging cultural wars incessantly, or in making a theological shift to the left to pacify a culture offended by the gospel. The answer is in all of God's people, changed by the power of the gospel and propelled by love, moving into the mission field as agents of gospel transformation.
This is no time to panic or exaggerate the situation. As I said in Lost and Found, in the midst of a hysterical panic about 94 percent of evangelical young adults leaving church, "Crises sell books but usually don't fix problems." (And, it is nowhere near 94 percent.)
Yes, we need a serious dose of what I write in Christianity Today a few years ago: Curing Christians Stats Abuse.
Facts are our friends, and the facts do point to a cultural change. And, in the midst of that cultural change we do see that American looks more like a mission field. However, what we need is a mobilized—rather than demoralized—mission force.
Bad stats and hyperbole do just that—demoralize God's people.
Today, we need a mobilized mission force in the midst of this mission field. So, it's time to time to work for the sake of the gospel, and to live for the cause of the gospel, not run around proclaiming the sky is falling.
Posted:October 1, 2013 at 8:32 am
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Debatable: Is Football Too Violent for Christians? ~ By Joe Carter
Debatable: Is Football Too Violent for Christians?
Posted: 25 Sep 2013 09:39 AM PDT
[Note: "Debatable" is a recurring feature in which we briefly summarize debates within the evangelical community.]
The Issue: Over a century ago, Charles Sheldon's best-selling novel In His Steps convinced a generation of Christians that Jesus would oppose prizefighting because of the sport's violence. Today, some evangelicals are wondering if football has become so violent that it should be abandoned by Christian fans.
Position #1: In a recent article for Christianity Today, Owen Strachan argues that the physical harm caused by football should lead Christians to reconsider the game's violence:
Football, more than any other mainstream American sport, depends on violence—the cultivation of violent instincts, the use of violence in the moment, and the game yields positive reinforcement after successful acts of violence. Some training in violence is necessary—soldiers defending their country, for example. But the culture of football should concern Christians. The number of football-related arrests, assaults on women and tiny children, murders, drug charges, and more should not glance off the evangelical conscience. The physical brutality of the game likely factors in here. Many of the athletes who have gone off the rails and killed themselves and others suffered from CTE. This is not conjecture. It is fact. We kid ourselves if we don't acknowledge the deleterious effect of continuously traumatic contact.
Position #2: In a reply to Strachan and other football critics at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission website, David E. Prince and Jimmy Scroggins respond by saying that, "Laziness and intentional underachievement, along with a safety-centric worldview are enemies to the advancement of the gospel."
Football represents one of the only major American institutions still standing that is exclusively for males and speaks unashamedly about manliness and toughness. Boys are drawn to demanding physical competition against other boys, assertive male leadership, and a cause that demands sacrifice and calculated risk. These are good things that ought to be cultivated on a pathway from boyhood to Christian manhood.
Courage and calculated risk-taking are causalities of our contemporary safety-centric worldview. Sadly, evangelicals seem to be leading the movement to train bravery and adventure out of our children in favor of a cult of safety. Boys, who are virtually bubble wrapped by their parents to ride bikes in the front yard and do not participate in things like football because they might get hurt, will have a difficult time finding Paul remotely intelligible when he asserts, "For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 20:13).
Scoring the Debate: Prince and Scroggins correctly note that "courage and calculated risk-taking" are necessary for the advancement of the gospel and that in many ways sports like football can help train men for such work. While we need to be careful about confusing biblical masculinity with a culturally conditioned, hyper-macho view of manhood, there is a definitely a need for the development and cultivation of physical stamina and courage. Football has often proven useful for just such training.
However, our bodies are not our own. As Paul reminds us, they were bought with a price. We are called to responsibly steward our bodies and glorify God with them, which is why we cannot dismiss the concerns about violence. As Strachan says, "If a game is associated with violence, that should be of note to believers. Following Christ means avoiding unnecessary violence, no matter what macho culture and John Wayne manhood might say (Luke 22:36)."
Reducing unnecessary violence in play and entertainment -- and sports is ultimately a form of either play or entertainment -- should be a reasonable compromise for those of us who love the game. If the original Rough Rider -- Teddy Roosevelt -- could propose changes to football that reduced its brutality (and made the sport better) then we armchair quarterbacks should be able to support modifications that strike a balance between vicious violence and safety-centric softness.
Posted: 25 Sep 2013 09:39 AM PDT
[Note: "Debatable" is a recurring feature in which we briefly summarize debates within the evangelical community.]
The Issue: Over a century ago, Charles Sheldon's best-selling novel In His Steps convinced a generation of Christians that Jesus would oppose prizefighting because of the sport's violence. Today, some evangelicals are wondering if football has become so violent that it should be abandoned by Christian fans.
Position #1: In a recent article for Christianity Today, Owen Strachan argues that the physical harm caused by football should lead Christians to reconsider the game's violence:
Football, more than any other mainstream American sport, depends on violence—the cultivation of violent instincts, the use of violence in the moment, and the game yields positive reinforcement after successful acts of violence. Some training in violence is necessary—soldiers defending their country, for example. But the culture of football should concern Christians. The number of football-related arrests, assaults on women and tiny children, murders, drug charges, and more should not glance off the evangelical conscience. The physical brutality of the game likely factors in here. Many of the athletes who have gone off the rails and killed themselves and others suffered from CTE. This is not conjecture. It is fact. We kid ourselves if we don't acknowledge the deleterious effect of continuously traumatic contact.
Position #2: In a reply to Strachan and other football critics at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission website, David E. Prince and Jimmy Scroggins respond by saying that, "Laziness and intentional underachievement, along with a safety-centric worldview are enemies to the advancement of the gospel."
Football represents one of the only major American institutions still standing that is exclusively for males and speaks unashamedly about manliness and toughness. Boys are drawn to demanding physical competition against other boys, assertive male leadership, and a cause that demands sacrifice and calculated risk. These are good things that ought to be cultivated on a pathway from boyhood to Christian manhood.
Courage and calculated risk-taking are causalities of our contemporary safety-centric worldview. Sadly, evangelicals seem to be leading the movement to train bravery and adventure out of our children in favor of a cult of safety. Boys, who are virtually bubble wrapped by their parents to ride bikes in the front yard and do not participate in things like football because they might get hurt, will have a difficult time finding Paul remotely intelligible when he asserts, "For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 20:13).
Scoring the Debate: Prince and Scroggins correctly note that "courage and calculated risk-taking" are necessary for the advancement of the gospel and that in many ways sports like football can help train men for such work. While we need to be careful about confusing biblical masculinity with a culturally conditioned, hyper-macho view of manhood, there is a definitely a need for the development and cultivation of physical stamina and courage. Football has often proven useful for just such training.
However, our bodies are not our own. As Paul reminds us, they were bought with a price. We are called to responsibly steward our bodies and glorify God with them, which is why we cannot dismiss the concerns about violence. As Strachan says, "If a game is associated with violence, that should be of note to believers. Following Christ means avoiding unnecessary violence, no matter what macho culture and John Wayne manhood might say (Luke 22:36)."
Reducing unnecessary violence in play and entertainment -- and sports is ultimately a form of either play or entertainment -- should be a reasonable compromise for those of us who love the game. If the original Rough Rider -- Teddy Roosevelt -- could propose changes to football that reduced its brutality (and made the sport better) then we armchair quarterbacks should be able to support modifications that strike a balance between vicious violence and safety-centric softness.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Why Prayer Changes Things ~ By Melvin Tinker
Why Prayer Changes Things
Posted: 19 Sep 2013 10:01 PM PDT
One of the most wonderful mysteries in the universe is that prayer changes things. God has so arranged his world that we have the ability to make significant choices, some good and some bad, which affect the course of history. One means God has given us to do this is prayer—asking him to act. Because he is all-wise and all-powerful, knowing "the end from the beginning" (Isa. 46:10), he's able to weave our requests into his eternally good purposes.
At this point our thinking can seriously go astray in one of two directions.
The first is to say, "If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and if everything is preordained, then he's going to do whatever he wills anyway and thus our prayers can't have any significant effect. Sure, they may help us psychologically, such that talking to God helps us get things off our chest that may help us feel better, but prayers don't count for much in the grand scheme of things. So why bother?"
Here there's an overemphasis on God's absolute sovereignty.
The second route, though different from the first, ends up in the same place by denying the usefulness of prayer. Here's the objection: "If human beings are free to make up their own minds, then God can't be absolutely sovereign; he must take risks such that human decisions can thwart his purposes, so there are severe limits to what we can ask for without undermining human freedom. If, for example, you have been praying for your sister to become a Christian, and God has done everything he can to bring her to himself, but somehow she won't surrender to him, why bother asking God to save her? It's out of order to pressure God to do more than he can do. So just give up on prayer."
Here the emphasis rests on a certain understanding of human freedom ("libertarian").
Strange Logic
Taken at face value, both objections appear to have some force, but only because they employ a strange "logic" that goes beyond Scripture. It's always foolish and dangerous to play up one aspect of what the Bible teaches at the expense of something else it equally affirms. The God of the Bible is presented as the one who rules over all; he's all-knowing, all-wise, and all-powerful. He isn't surprised by anything we may think or do. On the other hand, Scripture also presents human beings as responsible moral agents who make significant choices, doing what we desire to do ("freedom of inclination"). God has chosen to relate to us personally without compromising the fact that he is God.
That said, Scripture describes the sovereign God as "repenting" or "relenting" in response to human prayer. Take Exodus 32, for instance. At this point in salvation history, the people of Israel have broken the Ten Commandments by building and worshiping a golden calf. Incensed, God vows to wipe them out. "I have seen these people, and they are a stiff-necked people," he says to Moses. "Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation" (vv. 9-10). But Moses steps into the breach and reminds God of his promises, arguing his reputation will be brought into disrepute for saying one thing—"I will save the people"—and doing another—destroying them, appearing to renege on his promises to Abraham. Moses appeals to God as the sovereign king to show mercy (vv. 11-13). And that's exactly what happens: "Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened" (v. 14).
Certain Means
The theoretical problem raised by a belief in the efficacy of prayer to a sovereign God is acknowledged by C. S. Lewis, who helpfully places it within the wider context of God using certain means to achieve desired ends:
Can we believe that God really modifies his action in response to the suggestions of men? For infinite wisdom does not need telling what is best, and infinite goodness needs no urging to do it. But neither does God need any of those things that are done by finite agents, whether living or inanimate. He could, if he chose, repair our bodies miraculously without food; or give us food without the aid of farmers, bakers, and butchers; or knowledge without the aid of learned men; or convert the heathen without missionaries. Instead he allows soils and weather and animals and the muscles, minds, and wills of men to co-operate in the execution of his will. "God," said Pascal, "instituted prayer in order to lend to his creatures the dignity of causality." But not only prayer; whenever we act at all he lends us that dignity. It is not really stranger, nor less strange, that my prayers should affect the course of events than that my other actions should do so. They have not advised or changed God's mind—that is, his overall purpose. But that purpose will be realized in different ways according to the actions, including prayers, of his creatures.
Our problem in trying to see how prayer "works" is that we often have a wrong view of God in relation to his world. Often we think of God like Bruce Almighty, sitting in a celestial office and feverishly dealing with all the requests that arrive: "Mrs. Green prays her husband's cancer be cured," "Mr. Young prays his wife might conquer alcoholism," and so on—with a million more worthy requests. It's seems to be in line with God's will that Mr. Green be healthy and Mrs. Young be sober. But what if both get worse? Does this mean that God doesn't answer prayer?
The tangled web of humans living in a fallen world makes things more complex. At times, the good ends God desires arise from certain evils. So at one level, cancer is an evil, part of the curse on a rebellious world. God sometimes does answer prayers for healing (and in one sense all healing is divine in that God is working providentially). But we also must recognize that since we're mortal, all people die sometime. What's more, other prayers may be offered and answered that can only be answered if there's not healing—like gaining patience through suffering or an increased focus on the world to come. Maybe Mr. Green's son has turned his back on God, and through his father's illness he'll return. So in order to "answer" one prayer, the return of the son, God doesn't "answer" the other, complete healing. God alone knows what is best.
As Jesus Did
Therefore, we're called to pray as Jesus did. As a result of our prayers, some things will happen that wouldn't otherwise. And we're responsible for whether we pray or not. Because God is a personal God, he invites us to share in his work through prayer. As Bruce Ware puts it, "God has devised prayer as a means of enlisting us as participants in the work he has ordained, as part of the outworking of his sovereign rulership over all. . . . The relationship between divine sovereignty and petitionary prayer can be stated by this word: participation."
God has the power and wisdom to use our prayers as he sees fit and to do what we could never imagine. If he weren't all-powerful, there'd be little point in praying. If he weren't all wise, it'd be dangerous to pray; after all, who'd want to ask an all-powerful but foolish person to do anything? But God is both perfectly wise and infinitely powerful, which is why you and I can pray with confidence.
This article has been adapted from Melvin Tinker's book Intended for Good: The Providence of God (InterVarsity).
Posted: 19 Sep 2013 10:01 PM PDT
One of the most wonderful mysteries in the universe is that prayer changes things. God has so arranged his world that we have the ability to make significant choices, some good and some bad, which affect the course of history. One means God has given us to do this is prayer—asking him to act. Because he is all-wise and all-powerful, knowing "the end from the beginning" (Isa. 46:10), he's able to weave our requests into his eternally good purposes.
At this point our thinking can seriously go astray in one of two directions.
The first is to say, "If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and if everything is preordained, then he's going to do whatever he wills anyway and thus our prayers can't have any significant effect. Sure, they may help us psychologically, such that talking to God helps us get things off our chest that may help us feel better, but prayers don't count for much in the grand scheme of things. So why bother?"
Here there's an overemphasis on God's absolute sovereignty.
The second route, though different from the first, ends up in the same place by denying the usefulness of prayer. Here's the objection: "If human beings are free to make up their own minds, then God can't be absolutely sovereign; he must take risks such that human decisions can thwart his purposes, so there are severe limits to what we can ask for without undermining human freedom. If, for example, you have been praying for your sister to become a Christian, and God has done everything he can to bring her to himself, but somehow she won't surrender to him, why bother asking God to save her? It's out of order to pressure God to do more than he can do. So just give up on prayer."
Here the emphasis rests on a certain understanding of human freedom ("libertarian").
Strange Logic
Taken at face value, both objections appear to have some force, but only because they employ a strange "logic" that goes beyond Scripture. It's always foolish and dangerous to play up one aspect of what the Bible teaches at the expense of something else it equally affirms. The God of the Bible is presented as the one who rules over all; he's all-knowing, all-wise, and all-powerful. He isn't surprised by anything we may think or do. On the other hand, Scripture also presents human beings as responsible moral agents who make significant choices, doing what we desire to do ("freedom of inclination"). God has chosen to relate to us personally without compromising the fact that he is God.
That said, Scripture describes the sovereign God as "repenting" or "relenting" in response to human prayer. Take Exodus 32, for instance. At this point in salvation history, the people of Israel have broken the Ten Commandments by building and worshiping a golden calf. Incensed, God vows to wipe them out. "I have seen these people, and they are a stiff-necked people," he says to Moses. "Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation" (vv. 9-10). But Moses steps into the breach and reminds God of his promises, arguing his reputation will be brought into disrepute for saying one thing—"I will save the people"—and doing another—destroying them, appearing to renege on his promises to Abraham. Moses appeals to God as the sovereign king to show mercy (vv. 11-13). And that's exactly what happens: "Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened" (v. 14).
Certain Means
The theoretical problem raised by a belief in the efficacy of prayer to a sovereign God is acknowledged by C. S. Lewis, who helpfully places it within the wider context of God using certain means to achieve desired ends:
Can we believe that God really modifies his action in response to the suggestions of men? For infinite wisdom does not need telling what is best, and infinite goodness needs no urging to do it. But neither does God need any of those things that are done by finite agents, whether living or inanimate. He could, if he chose, repair our bodies miraculously without food; or give us food without the aid of farmers, bakers, and butchers; or knowledge without the aid of learned men; or convert the heathen without missionaries. Instead he allows soils and weather and animals and the muscles, minds, and wills of men to co-operate in the execution of his will. "God," said Pascal, "instituted prayer in order to lend to his creatures the dignity of causality." But not only prayer; whenever we act at all he lends us that dignity. It is not really stranger, nor less strange, that my prayers should affect the course of events than that my other actions should do so. They have not advised or changed God's mind—that is, his overall purpose. But that purpose will be realized in different ways according to the actions, including prayers, of his creatures.
Our problem in trying to see how prayer "works" is that we often have a wrong view of God in relation to his world. Often we think of God like Bruce Almighty, sitting in a celestial office and feverishly dealing with all the requests that arrive: "Mrs. Green prays her husband's cancer be cured," "Mr. Young prays his wife might conquer alcoholism," and so on—with a million more worthy requests. It's seems to be in line with God's will that Mr. Green be healthy and Mrs. Young be sober. But what if both get worse? Does this mean that God doesn't answer prayer?
The tangled web of humans living in a fallen world makes things more complex. At times, the good ends God desires arise from certain evils. So at one level, cancer is an evil, part of the curse on a rebellious world. God sometimes does answer prayers for healing (and in one sense all healing is divine in that God is working providentially). But we also must recognize that since we're mortal, all people die sometime. What's more, other prayers may be offered and answered that can only be answered if there's not healing—like gaining patience through suffering or an increased focus on the world to come. Maybe Mr. Green's son has turned his back on God, and through his father's illness he'll return. So in order to "answer" one prayer, the return of the son, God doesn't "answer" the other, complete healing. God alone knows what is best.
As Jesus Did
Therefore, we're called to pray as Jesus did. As a result of our prayers, some things will happen that wouldn't otherwise. And we're responsible for whether we pray or not. Because God is a personal God, he invites us to share in his work through prayer. As Bruce Ware puts it, "God has devised prayer as a means of enlisting us as participants in the work he has ordained, as part of the outworking of his sovereign rulership over all. . . . The relationship between divine sovereignty and petitionary prayer can be stated by this word: participation."
God has the power and wisdom to use our prayers as he sees fit and to do what we could never imagine. If he weren't all-powerful, there'd be little point in praying. If he weren't all wise, it'd be dangerous to pray; after all, who'd want to ask an all-powerful but foolish person to do anything? But God is both perfectly wise and infinitely powerful, which is why you and I can pray with confidence.
This article has been adapted from Melvin Tinker's book Intended for Good: The Providence of God (InterVarsity).
Friday, September 20, 2013
What Do Jack Nicholson & Justin Bieber Have In Common? ~ By Jim Denison
What do Jack Nicholson and Justin Bieber have in common?
Both are pro-life. Nicholson's mother became pregnant with him when she was a teenage showgirl. She was encouraged to have an abortion but chose to give him life instead. He once told National Review, "I'm very contra my constituency in terms of abortion because I'm positively against it. I don't have the right to any other view. My only emotion is gratitude, literally, for my life."
In an interview with Rolling Stone, Justin Bieber took the same position: "I really don't believe in abortion. It's like killing a baby." He and Nicholson are just two of many celebrities who have made clear their pro-life beliefs.
Patricia Heaton, the Emmy-winning star of "Everybody Loves Raymond," is a strong opponent of abortion and once served as honorary chair of Feminists for Life. Martin Sheen, who portrayed Democratic president Jed Bartlet on "The West Wing," has made clear his pro-life stance as well. One reason: his wife was conceived as the result of a rape. Her mother considered "dumping her in the Ohio River" after she was born, but changed her mind.
Actress and model Kathy Ireland had been pro-choice before her Christian conversion at the age of 18. At that time, she says, "I dove into science." With this result: "What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there." I heard her give the keynote address at the 2011 Council for Life luncheon in Dallas and was extremely impressed with her gracious strength.
Jim Caviezel is best known for his role as Jesus in The Passion of the Christ and as lead in TV's Person of Interest. What is less known is that he not only embraces the pro-life position, but he and his wife have adopted two special-needs children from China. Andrea Bocelli's mother was encouraged to abort him because he would be born with a disability. The blind singer shares his passionate pro-life position in this video.
Finally, Tim Tebow's stance is no surprise, given his Christian commitment and personal story. His mother contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant with him. Her doctor in the Philippines, where the family was serving as missionaries, told her that "an abortion is the only way to save your life." She refused, trusting her life and her unborn son to God. And the rest, as they say, is history.
How will you use your influence for physical and eternal life, today?
Both are pro-life. Nicholson's mother became pregnant with him when she was a teenage showgirl. She was encouraged to have an abortion but chose to give him life instead. He once told National Review, "I'm very contra my constituency in terms of abortion because I'm positively against it. I don't have the right to any other view. My only emotion is gratitude, literally, for my life."
In an interview with Rolling Stone, Justin Bieber took the same position: "I really don't believe in abortion. It's like killing a baby." He and Nicholson are just two of many celebrities who have made clear their pro-life beliefs.
Patricia Heaton, the Emmy-winning star of "Everybody Loves Raymond," is a strong opponent of abortion and once served as honorary chair of Feminists for Life. Martin Sheen, who portrayed Democratic president Jed Bartlet on "The West Wing," has made clear his pro-life stance as well. One reason: his wife was conceived as the result of a rape. Her mother considered "dumping her in the Ohio River" after she was born, but changed her mind.
Actress and model Kathy Ireland had been pro-choice before her Christian conversion at the age of 18. At that time, she says, "I dove into science." With this result: "What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there." I heard her give the keynote address at the 2011 Council for Life luncheon in Dallas and was extremely impressed with her gracious strength.
Jim Caviezel is best known for his role as Jesus in The Passion of the Christ and as lead in TV's Person of Interest. What is less known is that he not only embraces the pro-life position, but he and his wife have adopted two special-needs children from China. Andrea Bocelli's mother was encouraged to abort him because he would be born with a disability. The blind singer shares his passionate pro-life position in this video.
Finally, Tim Tebow's stance is no surprise, given his Christian commitment and personal story. His mother contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant with him. Her doctor in the Philippines, where the family was serving as missionaries, told her that "an abortion is the only way to save your life." She refused, trusting her life and her unborn son to God. And the rest, as they say, is history.
How will you use your influence for physical and eternal life, today?
The Laborers Are Few ~ By Tim Challies
The Laborers Are Few
I think I saw about half of Scotland yesterday. I am here to see the work of 20schemes, an organization dedicated to providing gospel churches for Scotland's poorest. Scotland's poorest tend to live in schemes, government housing that is free for the destitute or subsidized for the poor. Hundreds of thousands of Scots live in such housing and these neighborhoods extend through every Scottish city. Very few of them have churches where the gospel is believed, honored and preached.
We began our day in a scheme on the outskirts of Edinburgh. For ten years one young lady and her brother have been working with the young people in this scheme, even moving in to be a part of the community. She befriends the children, organizes sports and activities for them, and tells them about Jesus. Just a couple of days ago one of the children saw her mother die of a drug overdose; her care will now pass to her grandmother. Around 150 children attend the programs every week. There is no church in this scheme and no nearby church to send children to when they profess faith in Christ. She has a growing number of children asking about the gospel and showing interest in it, but no church there and no pastor. It was a joy to see her joy, it was a blessing to see her serving, but sad to know that there is no church nearby.
From Edinburgh we headed to the city of Dundee, a working-class town traditionally built around the textile industry. It has a significant Roman Catholic population that came in a wave of Irish immigration. There in the heart of a great neighborhood is a church building that has not housed a congregation for over 20 years. The building could easily house 100 or 200 people, just as it did in its glory days. Today it provides a location for some clubs and activities, but there have not been worship services there for many years. A nearby gospel-loving church has made a commitment to continue to support the building, to pay for its maintenance, to keep it open, even to provide some funding for a plant. But again, there is no pastor. 20schemes is partnering with this church to look for a team of people who will settle in the scheme, who will become part of the community, and who will preach the gospel. In Toronto and so many other places we have planters with no buildings; in the schemes there are buildings with no planters.
We left Dundee and drove to Glasgow, Scotland's biggest city and the city with the highest population settled in schemes. And here we met two young men who, along with their wives, are caring for the kids in one of these schemes. Just like that young lady in Edinburgh, they lead the children in games and activities and they tell them about Jesus. And just like her, they do not have a solid church to direct the children to. A Church of Scotland building houses the activities; its sanctuary has seating for 600 or 700 people, but today only 40 or 50 attend on a Sunday. There is no pastor and if one is ever assigned, it is unlikely, based on the condition of the Church of Scotland, that he will know or preach the gospel.
The story is much the same across this land. There is so much opportunity. There are so few workers.
I am writing this morning from a home outside the city. From where I sit and write today I can see for miles and stretched out before me are fields-fields that are being harvested at this very moment. Farmers are driving their tractors, crops are being gathered, combines rumble back and forth. And it gives a picture of the words I used to close yesterday's dispatch: "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest."
In all my travels I don't know that I have ever seen opportunity quite like I see here in Scotland. There are whole neighborhoods here without a church. Buildings are sitting unused and waiting. In many places work has already begun. I can't help but wonder who the Lord is calling to come and to bring in this harvest. Will you pray with me that the Lord will send out his laborers?
I think I saw about half of Scotland yesterday. I am here to see the work of 20schemes, an organization dedicated to providing gospel churches for Scotland's poorest. Scotland's poorest tend to live in schemes, government housing that is free for the destitute or subsidized for the poor. Hundreds of thousands of Scots live in such housing and these neighborhoods extend through every Scottish city. Very few of them have churches where the gospel is believed, honored and preached.
We began our day in a scheme on the outskirts of Edinburgh. For ten years one young lady and her brother have been working with the young people in this scheme, even moving in to be a part of the community. She befriends the children, organizes sports and activities for them, and tells them about Jesus. Just a couple of days ago one of the children saw her mother die of a drug overdose; her care will now pass to her grandmother. Around 150 children attend the programs every week. There is no church in this scheme and no nearby church to send children to when they profess faith in Christ. She has a growing number of children asking about the gospel and showing interest in it, but no church there and no pastor. It was a joy to see her joy, it was a blessing to see her serving, but sad to know that there is no church nearby.
From Edinburgh we headed to the city of Dundee, a working-class town traditionally built around the textile industry. It has a significant Roman Catholic population that came in a wave of Irish immigration. There in the heart of a great neighborhood is a church building that has not housed a congregation for over 20 years. The building could easily house 100 or 200 people, just as it did in its glory days. Today it provides a location for some clubs and activities, but there have not been worship services there for many years. A nearby gospel-loving church has made a commitment to continue to support the building, to pay for its maintenance, to keep it open, even to provide some funding for a plant. But again, there is no pastor. 20schemes is partnering with this church to look for a team of people who will settle in the scheme, who will become part of the community, and who will preach the gospel. In Toronto and so many other places we have planters with no buildings; in the schemes there are buildings with no planters.
We left Dundee and drove to Glasgow, Scotland's biggest city and the city with the highest population settled in schemes. And here we met two young men who, along with their wives, are caring for the kids in one of these schemes. Just like that young lady in Edinburgh, they lead the children in games and activities and they tell them about Jesus. And just like her, they do not have a solid church to direct the children to. A Church of Scotland building houses the activities; its sanctuary has seating for 600 or 700 people, but today only 40 or 50 attend on a Sunday. There is no pastor and if one is ever assigned, it is unlikely, based on the condition of the Church of Scotland, that he will know or preach the gospel.
The story is much the same across this land. There is so much opportunity. There are so few workers.
I am writing this morning from a home outside the city. From where I sit and write today I can see for miles and stretched out before me are fields-fields that are being harvested at this very moment. Farmers are driving their tractors, crops are being gathered, combines rumble back and forth. And it gives a picture of the words I used to close yesterday's dispatch: "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest."
In all my travels I don't know that I have ever seen opportunity quite like I see here in Scotland. There are whole neighborhoods here without a church. Buildings are sitting unused and waiting. In many places work has already begun. I can't help but wonder who the Lord is calling to come and to bring in this harvest. Will you pray with me that the Lord will send out his laborers?
Thursday, September 19, 2013
'Tim Tebow gets KISS of support from rocker Gene Simmons' ~ By Jim Denison
'Tim Tebow gets KISS of support from rocker Gene Simmons'
I don't know of any human being who generates stranger headlines than Tim Tebow.
You know the story: he led the Broncos to the playoffs, winning in the first round. Then he was signed by the Jets, where he languished on the bench. Then he was signed by the Patriots, but released before the season began. All the while, "Why I Hate Tim Tebow" articles continue to appear.
Now the Moscow Black Storm, a Russian team competing in the American Football Championship of Russia, has offered him $1 million to appear in two games. Meanwhile, fans of the Jacksonville Jaguars staged a rally this week to convince their team to sign him. However, only a dozen people showed up.
Then came the strangest headline I can remember: "Tim Tebow Gets 'KISS' of Support From Rocker Gene Simmons." KISS is one of the most infamous hard rock bands in history. Known for fire breathing and blood spitting, the group includes bass player Gene Simmons, aka "The Demon."
Now Simmons has come out in support of Tebow: "He's got religious passion, as well he should. We're in America. He's proud to be a Christian. What's wrong with that? And yet, with sports media and pop culture media, they make fun of his religion. Really? In America? If he was wearing a burqa, they wouldn't dare say anything. The guy's got family values. I never saw the media picking on Michael Vick for torturing dogs. . . . But a guy who's religious and has got family values isn't cool? He's cool to me."
Why is Simmons commenting on Tim Tebow? He and fellow KISS member Paul Stanley are co-owners of the LA KISS, a new Arena Football League team. They want Tebow to be their quarterback when the team begins play next year. Simmons promises, "He'll get the respect that he didn't get in the NFL."
Tebow has maintained remarkable integrity through the years. An extensive Internet search this morning did not turn up a single moral allegation against him. Steadfastly refusing to criticize his critics, he continues to live a life God can bless and use.
Tim Tebow's platform is unique, but so is yours. No one else has your personal influence. God could have assigned you any place and time in history, but he put you where you are today. You are a picture of Jesus, with a Kingdom assignment like no other.
Tim Tebow's continuing fame is proof of the maxim, "Set yourself on fire with passion and people will come for miles to watch you burn."
You know the story: he led the Broncos to the playoffs, winning in the first round. Then he was signed by the Jets, where he languished on the bench. Then he was signed by the Patriots, but released before the season began. All the while, "Why I Hate Tim Tebow" articles continue to appear.
Now the Moscow Black Storm, a Russian team competing in the American Football Championship of Russia, has offered him $1 million to appear in two games. Meanwhile, fans of the Jacksonville Jaguars staged a rally this week to convince their team to sign him. However, only a dozen people showed up.
Then came the strangest headline I can remember: "Tim Tebow Gets 'KISS' of Support From Rocker Gene Simmons." KISS is one of the most infamous hard rock bands in history. Known for fire breathing and blood spitting, the group includes bass player Gene Simmons, aka "The Demon."
Now Simmons has come out in support of Tebow: "He's got religious passion, as well he should. We're in America. He's proud to be a Christian. What's wrong with that? And yet, with sports media and pop culture media, they make fun of his religion. Really? In America? If he was wearing a burqa, they wouldn't dare say anything. The guy's got family values. I never saw the media picking on Michael Vick for torturing dogs. . . . But a guy who's religious and has got family values isn't cool? He's cool to me."
Why is Simmons commenting on Tim Tebow? He and fellow KISS member Paul Stanley are co-owners of the LA KISS, a new Arena Football League team. They want Tebow to be their quarterback when the team begins play next year. Simmons promises, "He'll get the respect that he didn't get in the NFL."
Tebow has maintained remarkable integrity through the years. An extensive Internet search this morning did not turn up a single moral allegation against him. Steadfastly refusing to criticize his critics, he continues to live a life God can bless and use.
Tim Tebow's platform is unique, but so is yours. No one else has your personal influence. God could have assigned you any place and time in history, but he put you where you are today. You are a picture of Jesus, with a Kingdom assignment like no other.
Tim Tebow's continuing fame is proof of the maxim, "Set yourself on fire with passion and people will come for miles to watch you burn."
Why Do We Say, 'God Told Me'? ~ By Nancy Guthrie
Why Do We Say, 'God Told Me'?
When someone begins a sentence with "God told me . . ." I have to admit a silent alarm goes off somewhere inside me—unless the phrase is followed by a verse of Scripture. I know that many see this as the way the Christian life is supposed to work—that if we are really in fellowship with God we will be able to sense him speaking to us through an inner voice. But I'm not so sure. And it's not because I think God is incapable of or uninterested in speaking to his people today. In fact I resist this language precisely because God is speaking to his people today. He speaks to us through the Scriptures.
When we read the Scriptures we are not just reading a record of what God has said in the past. God actively speaks to us in the here and now through the words of this amazing book. The writer of Hebrews makes this point clear when he quotes Old Testament passages and presents them not as something God said to his people sometime in the past, but as something God is currently saying to his people (Hebrews 1:6,7,8, 2:12, 3:7, 4:7). He writes that "the word of God is living and active" (4:12). It is exposing our shallow beliefs and hidden motives. This word is personal. You and I hear the voice of God speaking to us—unmistakably, authoritatively, and personally—when we read, hear, study, and meditate on the Scriptures.
When someone begins a sentence with "God told me . . ." I have to admit a silent alarm goes off somewhere inside me—unless the phrase is followed by a verse of Scripture. I know that many see this as the way the Christian life is supposed to work—that if we are really in fellowship with God we will be able to sense him speaking to us through an inner voice. But I'm not so sure. And it's not because I think God is incapable of or uninterested in speaking to his people today. In fact I resist this language precisely because God is speaking to his people today. He speaks to us through the Scriptures.
When we read the Scriptures we are not just reading a record of what God has said in the past. God actively speaks to us in the here and now through the words of this amazing book. The writer of Hebrews makes this point clear when he quotes Old Testament passages and presents them not as something God said to his people sometime in the past, but as something God is currently saying to his people (Hebrews 1:6,7,8, 2:12, 3:7, 4:7). He writes that "the word of God is living and active" (4:12). It is exposing our shallow beliefs and hidden motives. This word is personal. You and I hear the voice of God speaking to us—unmistakably, authoritatively, and personally—when we read, hear, study, and meditate on the Scriptures.
Something More, Something Different
But many of us want something more, something different. We read the Scriptures and witness God speaking to individuals in amazing ways throughout the history of redemption. Job heard God speaking from the whirlwind. Moses heard him calling from the fiery bush. Samuel heard him calling in the dark. David heard him speak through the prophet Nathan. Isaiah felt the burning coal and heard assurance that his guilt was taken away and sin atoned for. Saul and those traveling with him on the road to Damascus heard Jesus asking why Saul was persecuting him. Prophets and teachers at Antioch heard the Holy Spirit tell them to set apart Barnabas and to send out Saul. John felt the glorified Jesus touch him and heard his assurance that he didn't have to be afraid.
Many of us read these accounts and assume that the Bible is presenting the normal experience of all who follow God. But is it? Graeme Goldsworthy speaks to this question in his book Gospel and Wisdom. He writes, "Every case of special guidance given to individuals in the Bible has to do with that person's place in the outworking of God's saving purposes." He adds, "There are no instances in the Bible in which God gives special and specific guidance to the ordinary believing Israelite or Christian in the details of their personal existence."
Are there instances in the Scriptures in which people describe a sense of God speaking to them through an inner voice? We read accounts of God speaking in an audible voice, through a supernatural dream or vision, a human hand writing on a wall, a blinding light, or a thunderous voice from heaven. This is quite different from the way most people who say that God has told them something describe hearing his voice—as a thought that came into their mind that they "know" was God speaking. One prominent teacher who trains people on how to hear the voice of God writes, "God's voice in your heart often sounds like a flow of spontaneous thoughts." But where in the Bible are we instructed to seek after or expect to hear God speak to us in this way?
Some who suggest that a conversational relationship with God is not only possible but even normative point to John 10 in which Jesus describes himself as the good shepherd, saying, "My sheep hear my voice." However, in this passage Jesus is not prescribing a method of ongoing divine communication. He is speaking to the Jews of his day using a metaphor they understand—a shepherd and his sheep. His point is that the elect among the Jews will recognize him as the shepherd the prophets wrote about and will respond to his call to repent and believe, as will the elect among the Gentiles so that they will become one flock, one church, with him at the head.
But many of us want something more, something different. We read the Scriptures and witness God speaking to individuals in amazing ways throughout the history of redemption. Job heard God speaking from the whirlwind. Moses heard him calling from the fiery bush. Samuel heard him calling in the dark. David heard him speak through the prophet Nathan. Isaiah felt the burning coal and heard assurance that his guilt was taken away and sin atoned for. Saul and those traveling with him on the road to Damascus heard Jesus asking why Saul was persecuting him. Prophets and teachers at Antioch heard the Holy Spirit tell them to set apart Barnabas and to send out Saul. John felt the glorified Jesus touch him and heard his assurance that he didn't have to be afraid.
Many of us read these accounts and assume that the Bible is presenting the normal experience of all who follow God. But is it? Graeme Goldsworthy speaks to this question in his book Gospel and Wisdom. He writes, "Every case of special guidance given to individuals in the Bible has to do with that person's place in the outworking of God's saving purposes." He adds, "There are no instances in the Bible in which God gives special and specific guidance to the ordinary believing Israelite or Christian in the details of their personal existence."
Are there instances in the Scriptures in which people describe a sense of God speaking to them through an inner voice? We read accounts of God speaking in an audible voice, through a supernatural dream or vision, a human hand writing on a wall, a blinding light, or a thunderous voice from heaven. This is quite different from the way most people who say that God has told them something describe hearing his voice—as a thought that came into their mind that they "know" was God speaking. One prominent teacher who trains people on how to hear the voice of God writes, "God's voice in your heart often sounds like a flow of spontaneous thoughts." But where in the Bible are we instructed to seek after or expect to hear God speak to us in this way?
Some who suggest that a conversational relationship with God is not only possible but even normative point to John 10 in which Jesus describes himself as the good shepherd, saying, "My sheep hear my voice." However, in this passage Jesus is not prescribing a method of ongoing divine communication. He is speaking to the Jews of his day using a metaphor they understand—a shepherd and his sheep. His point is that the elect among the Jews will recognize him as the shepherd the prophets wrote about and will respond to his call to repent and believe, as will the elect among the Gentiles so that they will become one flock, one church, with him at the head.
Longing for God's Guidance
So why do we speak about hearing God in this way? We grew up being told that we must have a "personal relationship with God," and what is more personal than hearing him speak to us about our individual issues and needs? Sometimes if we dig deep we realize we speak this way because we want to impresses others with our close connection to God and make sure they know we've consulted with him on the matter at hand. Another reason may be that to say, "God told me . . ." can prove useful to us. If you've asked me to teach children's Sunday school this fall, it sounds far more spiritual and makes it far more difficult for you to challenge me if I say that God told me I need to sit in adult Sunday school with my husband than if I simply say that I don't want to or have decided not to teach.
But I think there is something more at work here than simply our desire to sound spiritual or to make it difficult for someone to challenge our preferences or decisions. We genuinely long for God to guide us. We genuinely long for a personal word from God, a supernatural experience with God. Yet we fail to grasp that as we read and study and hear the Word of God taught and preached, it is a personal word from God. Because the Scriptures are "living and active," God's speaking to us through them is a personal, supernatural experience.
God has spoken and is, in fact, still speaking to us through the Scriptures. We don't need any more special revelation. What we need is illumination, and this is exactly what Jesus has promised the Holy Spirit will give to us as his word abides in us. The Holy Spirit of God works through the Word of God to counsel and comfort and convict (John 16:7-15). Through the Scriptures we hear God teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training us in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Word of God transforms us by renewing our minds so that we think more like him and less like the world. Instead of needing God to dictate to us what to do, we become increasingly able to "discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2).
I appreciate the way John Piper described his experience in hearing God speak through the Scriptures in his message "How Important is the Bible?" given at Lausanne 2010:
God talks to me no other way, but don't get this wrong, he talks to me very personally. I open my Bible in the morning to meet my friend, my Savior, my Creator, my Sustainer. I meet him and he talks to me. . . . I'm not denying providence, not denying circumstances, not denying people, I'm just saying that the only authoritative communion I have with God with any certainty comes through the words of this book.
And if we want to go back a little further, Jonathan Edwards warned:
I . . . know by experience that impressions being made with great power, and upon the minds of true saints, yea, eminent saints; and presently after, yea, in the midst of, extraordinary exercises of grace and sweet communion with God, and attended with texts of Scripture strongly impressed on the mind, are no sure signs of their being revelations from heaven: for I have known such impressions [to] fail, and prove vain.
What Difference Does It Really Make?
Does it really make a difference when expect God to speak to us through the Scriptures rather than waiting to hear a divine voice in our heads? I think it does.
When we know that God speaks personally and powerfully through his Word, we don't have to feel that our relationship to Christ is sub-par, or that we are experiencing a less-than Christian life if we don't sense God giving us extra-biblical words of instruction or promise. When we know God speaks through his Word we are not obligated to accept—indeed, we can be appropriately skeptical toward—claims by any book, teacher, preacher, or even friend when they write or say, "God told me . . ." We don't have to wait until we hear God give us the go-ahead before we say "yes" or "no" to a request or make a decision. We can consult the Scriptures and rest in the wisdom and insight the Holy Spirit is developing in us and feel free to make a decision.
As we delight ourselves in the law of the Lord day and night, we can expect his Word to be living and active in our inmost parts. As that Word transforms us by the renewal of our minds, we will find that our thoughts and feelings, dreams and desires, are being shaped more by his Word than by our flesh. We will find that we are more drawn to obey his commands than to follow the culture. We will ask him for wisdom and receive it out of his generosity.
Nancy Guthrie and her husband, David, and son, Matt, make their home in Nashville, Tennessee. She and David are the co-hosts of the GriefShare video series used in more than 8,500 churches around the country and host Respite Retreats for couples who have experienced the death of a child. Nancy is the author of numerous books, including Holding on to Hope and Hearing Jesus Speak into Your Sorrow and is currently working on the five-book Seeing Jesus in the Old Testament Bible study series.
So why do we speak about hearing God in this way? We grew up being told that we must have a "personal relationship with God," and what is more personal than hearing him speak to us about our individual issues and needs? Sometimes if we dig deep we realize we speak this way because we want to impresses others with our close connection to God and make sure they know we've consulted with him on the matter at hand. Another reason may be that to say, "God told me . . ." can prove useful to us. If you've asked me to teach children's Sunday school this fall, it sounds far more spiritual and makes it far more difficult for you to challenge me if I say that God told me I need to sit in adult Sunday school with my husband than if I simply say that I don't want to or have decided not to teach.
But I think there is something more at work here than simply our desire to sound spiritual or to make it difficult for someone to challenge our preferences or decisions. We genuinely long for God to guide us. We genuinely long for a personal word from God, a supernatural experience with God. Yet we fail to grasp that as we read and study and hear the Word of God taught and preached, it is a personal word from God. Because the Scriptures are "living and active," God's speaking to us through them is a personal, supernatural experience.
God has spoken and is, in fact, still speaking to us through the Scriptures. We don't need any more special revelation. What we need is illumination, and this is exactly what Jesus has promised the Holy Spirit will give to us as his word abides in us. The Holy Spirit of God works through the Word of God to counsel and comfort and convict (John 16:7-15). Through the Scriptures we hear God teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training us in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Word of God transforms us by renewing our minds so that we think more like him and less like the world. Instead of needing God to dictate to us what to do, we become increasingly able to "discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2).
I appreciate the way John Piper described his experience in hearing God speak through the Scriptures in his message "How Important is the Bible?" given at Lausanne 2010:
God talks to me no other way, but don't get this wrong, he talks to me very personally. I open my Bible in the morning to meet my friend, my Savior, my Creator, my Sustainer. I meet him and he talks to me. . . . I'm not denying providence, not denying circumstances, not denying people, I'm just saying that the only authoritative communion I have with God with any certainty comes through the words of this book.
And if we want to go back a little further, Jonathan Edwards warned:
I . . . know by experience that impressions being made with great power, and upon the minds of true saints, yea, eminent saints; and presently after, yea, in the midst of, extraordinary exercises of grace and sweet communion with God, and attended with texts of Scripture strongly impressed on the mind, are no sure signs of their being revelations from heaven: for I have known such impressions [to] fail, and prove vain.
What Difference Does It Really Make?
Does it really make a difference when expect God to speak to us through the Scriptures rather than waiting to hear a divine voice in our heads? I think it does.
When we know that God speaks personally and powerfully through his Word, we don't have to feel that our relationship to Christ is sub-par, or that we are experiencing a less-than Christian life if we don't sense God giving us extra-biblical words of instruction or promise. When we know God speaks through his Word we are not obligated to accept—indeed, we can be appropriately skeptical toward—claims by any book, teacher, preacher, or even friend when they write or say, "God told me . . ." We don't have to wait until we hear God give us the go-ahead before we say "yes" or "no" to a request or make a decision. We can consult the Scriptures and rest in the wisdom and insight the Holy Spirit is developing in us and feel free to make a decision.
As we delight ourselves in the law of the Lord day and night, we can expect his Word to be living and active in our inmost parts. As that Word transforms us by the renewal of our minds, we will find that our thoughts and feelings, dreams and desires, are being shaped more by his Word than by our flesh. We will find that we are more drawn to obey his commands than to follow the culture. We will ask him for wisdom and receive it out of his generosity.
Nancy Guthrie and her husband, David, and son, Matt, make their home in Nashville, Tennessee. She and David are the co-hosts of the GriefShare video series used in more than 8,500 churches around the country and host Respite Retreats for couples who have experienced the death of a child. Nancy is the author of numerous books, including Holding on to Hope and Hearing Jesus Speak into Your Sorrow and is currently working on the five-book Seeing Jesus in the Old Testament Bible study series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)