Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!



Assorted

How to be happier

Keep long lists, and short accounts

*****

As I pad down the hallway to my home office, sometimes I’ll look down and remember that the laminate planking I’m walking on was laid down with the help of friends. I’m not the best with a hammer or saw, so while I did some of the sweating, my friends brought the skill. I was so very thankful at the time, and now whenever I remember it’s a warm feeling still.

As of late I’ve been remembering these friends more often because of a curious book. It’s about a guy who set out to personally thank every person involved in getting him his morning brew. There’s the barista, of course, but a farmer had to grow the beans, and then there’s all the people in between – it turns out there are an astonishing number of people involved in a simple cup of coffee. Who picks the blend? How many are involved in the actual roasting? Someone had to design the lid (there’s quite some engineering to it), and then there’s the coffee cup sleeve – there wasn’t always a sleeve – and when we remember that coffee is about 1 percent beans and 99 percent water, then there’s a whole municipal water department to thank too. And who makes the pipes that carry the water? We haven’t even gotten into the boats and trucks involved and all the crews who man and make them.

A long list to be thankful for

This guy wanted to personally thank everyone involved but quickly realized that might amount to millions. So he narrowed it down to the one thousand most directly involved.

G.K. Chesterton said that, “When it comes to life the critical thing is whether you take things for granted or take them with gratitude,” and this book was an eye-opener for just how many blessings I’ve been taking for granted. If thousands – millions – are involved in making a cup of coffee, how many could I thank for everything I find even on my short journey from bed to shower each morning? How many designers, engineers, miners, and factory workers were involved in making the Kindle that wakes us up each morning? And what about our bedding, the bedroom carpet, bathroom tiles and that long-shower necessity, our tankless water heater? I normally clomp past it all, but I could choose to start each day just looking around in amazement. As Chesterton reminds us, “gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder.”

The author of this book is a sometimes-blasphemous atheist (which is why I’m not sharing his name - I don’t want to promote him) but even as an atheist he recognizes that his disposition to grumpy ingratitude isn’t good… for him.

“…gratitude is the single-best predictor of well-being and good relationships, beating out twenty-four other impressive traits such as hope, love, and creativity. As the Benedictine monk David Steindl-Rast says, ‘Happiness does not lead to gratitude. Gratitude leads to happiness.’”

But why is thankfulness next to joyfulness? He doesn’t seem to know, but we do. God created us to glorify Him and then gave us innumerable reasons to do just that. And because He loves us, He so fashioned mankind that when we do what we were made to do, it is good for us. And He’s so gracious that even when we do a half measure, thanking the people around us, but forgetting the God Who made us, it is good for us still.

Sometimes we need a Jordan Peterson or Elon Musk – someone outside the Church – to remind us of what we have, and what unbelievers don’t. I was struck by that here, when this author shared,

“…I’ll occasionally start a meal by thanking a handful of people who helped get our food to the plate. I’ll say, ‘Thank you to the farmer who grew the carrots, to the truck driver who hauled them, to the cashier at Gristedes grocery story who rang me up.’”

This fellow is “praying” to people he knows will never hear him because he feels such a need to express gratitude. To quote Chesterton again, “The worst moment for an atheist is when he is really thankful and has no one to thank.” When I look around the dinner table at the food that’s there once again, and the family gathered around, and when I really stop to think of all I’ve been given here, my heart can’t help but swell, but now there’s another blessing I can bring to my giving, loving Father – I can thank God that I can thank God!

Keeping short accounts

But if Christians have so much to be thankful for, why aren’t we more joyful? Why am I too often grumpy, sullen, and short to the people God has gifted me?

Part of it is that we take so much for granted. We easily forget what we have, so there’s something to keeping a thankful journal. Around Thanksgiving each year my wife gets some notecards and encourages us each day to draw something we’re grateful for, and then we put the cards up on the hallway wall. It’s quite the display by month’s end.

But even more of it is taking for granted the biggest gift we’ve been given: forgiveness.

In his booklet How to Maintain Joy in Your Life, Jim Wilson shares how, upon his conversion, he experienced joy liked he’d never had chasing after the world’s substitutes. But as this Navy midshipman set out on his Christian journey, he found that joy diminishing. And it continued diminishing for the next three years. Sitting in the stateroom of an American destroyer stationed in the Sea of Japan, he was struck that for the 3 years since his conversion he hadn’t really been confessing his sins. Oh, sure, he’d confessed some sins, but there were many he hadn’t taken to God for all sorts of reasons. When he confessed his sins, God forgave him, and once again he started feeling that same joy.

Guilt is a weight. But, thanks to Jesus, it’s one we don’t have to carry. Guilt is also God’s way of getting our attention. As it says in Hebrews 12:11:

“No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.”

Jim Wilson was trained by that discipline, but like the rest of us, he was a slow learner.

“I would again disobey, get disciplined, and lose my joy. This time, instead of not confessing, I would confess after a while… ten hours, a week, 2 weeks.”

Eventually he realized that he didn’t have to wait to confess his sins – he could “keep short accounts.” Then, instead of a series of ups when he was forgiven, and downs when he wouldn’t go to God (or at least not yet), he started to experience ongoing joy.

“Sometimes I went for a while before confessing, but generally I would confess right away or within a couple of hours. I’m not saying I have not sinned in those years…. But I have a low tolerance for discipline. I do not like it. As long as I am unrepentant, the discipline stays on me, the hand of the Lord is heavy. I can remove the discipline of the Lord by repenting now.”

For those of us who’d prefer to stay miserable, he concludes his booklet with a list of what you can do instead of confessing your sin. You can justify, excuse, or hide it. You can blame someone else, procrastinate, or stand on pride. A favorite for many is “generalization,” where you readily admit “mistakes were made” without really getting into the dirt of what you did. But tricking yourself doesn’t trick God, and you can’t enjoy Him if you are hiding from Him.

Conclusion

If you want to be happier, it isn’t complicated.

Open your eyes wide, and see the world as it really is. There are troubles, but then there is God, and He continues to bless us beyond any measuring. And the biggest of those blessings is that we can know for certain – we can count on Him – that when we come to our Father with our sins, He will always and forever forgive.

That’s got me a little verklempt but I can assure you, they are happy tears.



News

Saturday Selections – Jan. 11, 2025

Music as the fingerprints of God (6 min)

George Steiner here is lecturing on the wonder of music and is not trying to argue that music points us to God. But he does believe it points us beyond materialism – our response to music shows that we are more than what we are made of.

" speaks to us that there is something else which, paradoxically, belongs to us profoundly but somehow touches on a universal meaning and possibility that we are not only an electrochemical and neuro-physiological assemblage; that there is more in consciousness than electronic wiring."

Evolution can't explain eggs

This is a bit of a technical one, but even if you get only the gist, you'll understand just how amazing the seemingly simplest things around us really are. It's only because we take God's engineering for granted that we can overlook the wonder that is an egg shell.

Evolution has to explain how they could come to be in some step-by-step evolutionary process? As if.

Trudeau is gone, so who is going to replace him?

The Liberals are about to run a leadership campaign, but have this worry:

"One of the key concerns that is out there is that the party could be prone to something approaching a takeover, or could be prone to a lot of people who don't give a hoot about the Liberal party who might be termed single-interest activists signing up and having a very real impact on the selection of our next leader."

Is anyone plotting a pro-life takeover? Should we be?

Abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide in 2024. And it wasn't even close.

45 million unborn babies were aborted last year – so relayed Jonathon Van Maren. That number is more than the population of all of Canada.

In the US abortion accounts for 60% of all African American deaths.

To put this number in a different context, COVID killed approximately 7 million in total over 4 years and in response we shut down the world. Six times more die each year from abortion and no notice is paid.

Who will stand up for the unborn? Will you? Will any politician? Will you vote for a politician who won't?

The danger of being a sermon critic

As Tim Challies explains, if you focus on what you think should have been there, you run the risk of missing the fruit that is there.

Amazing information packed inside you (12 min)

This video makes the point your DNA coding is more incredible than even the most complicated computer code, but it also kind of reduces us to just that information.... as if we could make a human if we only managed this same level of programming. So, as you watch, recall that we are more than our matter, being both body and an immaterial, eternal soul.

 


Today's Devotional

January 14 - Power over fear

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.” - Luke 12:32 

Scripture reading: Luke 12:22-34

So many in the world today begin this New Year with fear in their hearts. This life and the things of this world are all they care about and all they have. Consequently, they're afraid that their life might be >

Today's Manna Podcast

Manna Podcast banner: Manna Daily Scripture Meditations and open Bible with jar logo

Jesus' work continues: Acts

Serving #722 of Manna, prepared by William Den Hollander, is called "Jesus' work continues" (Acts).











Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Obstacles and roadblocks to having children

Some obstacles to having children aren’t entirely in our control. But there are also roadblocks that we can set up in our own way ***** On my 20th birthday, I flopped back on my dorm bed and told my mom on the phone, “I thought that I’d have kids by now.” So why didn’t I? First comes marriage The first and most obvious reason was that I was so busy studying at university I wasn’t even dating. I knew that God intended kids to be raised in a home with a mom and a dad. Since I was single, I wasn’t in a position to have children – even if it was my hidden desire. It was so hidden, in fact, that the girls I lived with voted me as “the most likely to never have children.” So I needed to start bringing what was hidden to the surface, and that began with praying for a husband. I prayed for a God-fearing man who was eager to provide for our family and I trusted God’s will for my life. In addition, I was now up for doing the other things I could to meet eligible men including: Putting myself in places where I was likely to meet eligible men by prioritizing my attendance at church events over other activities and entertainment, and by going to a Christian post-secondary institution, Speaking graciously to many new single men by listening well, being cheerful and kind in the content of my speech, and encouraging them in godly pursuits, Dressing modestly and attractively to avoid two pitfalls: being noticed for the wrong reason and being overlooked because my God-given beauty was hidden, and Being willing to go on dates and try new things, giving guys a fair chance. Over time and by God’s leading, I was married at 25. There’s waiting and then there’s waiting But we didn’t actively try to have children right away. There are some benefits to waiting for a time after marriage to have kids. It is not necessary, but it allows time to adjust to new roles as husband and wife without the added challenge of pregnancy hormones. Just as God typically allows 9 months for a pregnant couple to adjust to the idea of parenthood (and for the baby to develop in preparation for the transition to life outside the womb), my husband and I agreed to allow ourselves some time for the transition from being single to being married. I also saw this as a time that I could complete some life goals before the added responsibility of children. I was eager to complete my schooling for my professional designation. The final test was nine months after my wedding and required intensive studying. My husband and I agreed that it was ok to wait to try for kids until after the final exam. We felt that this was a reasonable amount of time to wait after marriage. However, there are some disadvantages to waiting. There is a risk that life goals snowball. After the exam was finished, I could have said I wanted to hold off trying for kids until I got a promotion, or had a down payment for our own house, or . I knew we would never arrive at the ideal situation prior to having children, but I was happy to have the big exam behind me. Another disadvantage to waiting is having an unhealthy motive. I knew God designed married couples to have children. If I chose to forgo having children to better be able to climb the corporate ladder I knew I would be disobeying God. My life goals would then be an idol, keeping me from loving and serving God whole-heartedly. Being open to God’s blessing of children keeps life goals from becoming idols. In my case, I was content to set aside my goal if I got pregnant before I passed my exam. Open still to the blessing of children Yet in the period of not actively trying for children, it is important to consider what method of preventing pregnancy the married couple is using. Three methods of birth control exist, and some Christians argue that any form of family planning is problematic because God so designed sex as to be procreative. They’d argue sex apart from procreation is a problem. I’m noting the objection, but I don’t share it. But I do think two of the three methods have problems. The first is simply to not have sex. While it is a highly effective form of birth control, it goes against God’s design for marriage. As the Apostle Paul puts in 1 Cor. 7:5 abstinence isn’t a good idea, except maybe by mutual consent for a short period, “so that you may devote yourselves to prayer” but then he encourages couples to “come together again so that Satan may not tempt you…” A couple devoted to prayer is different than a couple trying to avoid precreation; therefore, this is not a biblical form of birth control. A second method involves preventing ovulation – the release of an egg – by taking a birth control pill or using a birth control implant. If there is no egg, then there can be no baby; but it doesn’t always work. If ovulation does happen, then this chemical means of birth control has a secondary effect of making the womb less hospitable to a fertilized egg. A new life begins when an egg is fertilized, even before implantation. Therefore, this secondary effect would end this new life. A conversation with a medical expert using these layman terms would help when trying to clarify how your preferred birth control works. I felt that using this second method of birth control was like firing a machine gun at my sleeping baby’s crib. I wanted to create a safe environment for my children, even in the womb. The third method involves preventing a sperm from fertilizing an egg by using some sort of barrier, like a condom, or not going all the way. The timing of intercourse can also be done when the wife is less likely to be fertile. These forms of family planning prevent life from being created. Some forms of birth control are more effective at preventing pregnancies than others; yet Christians can rest knowing that God’s ways are not our ways and children are one of His gifts. I was comfortable with the “risk” of becoming pregnant before I met my milestone of finishing school. Wrestling with myself After I finished my exam (and before I knew if I had passed), we started trying to conceive, but there was still some wrestling that I had to do with myself before the throne of God. I knew that even though I may not meet this milestone of being professionally designated, there were other goals that I’d have to change or forgo in order to have a child. I started to “count the cost,” doing almost a cost/benefit analysis to see if child-bearing was “worth it.” Part of my wrestling was because I was inexperienced with babies. I was the youngest of two kids so I’d never seen my parents welcome a baby into the home. I also had limited babysitting experience. I had limited experience with the joys of children, but I could imagine all sorts of costs that welcoming a child would bring. Not only would my clothes be stained by gross baby fluids, my hair pulled, and my sleep drastically interrupted, but: my career pursuits would be put on hold, slowed or abandoned; my youthful body would stretch and become a different shape; my attention would be split by keeping track of someone else’s life; my free time to travel and enjoy hobbies would dwindle or include children; my friends and conversations would be different; and, my treasured possessions would be at risk of being damaged by curious children. Reasons for having children With all these worldly fears and reasons not to have kids, why did I do it? First, childbearing is the purpose of marriage. Malachi 2:15 says, “Didn’t the LORD make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his. And what does he want? Godly children from your union.” God wanted me to have children filling my home. It was my joyous duty to live in obedience to His command and trust Him to give children as He saw fit. Furthermore, I can trace back in my genealogy many generations of faithful Christians. I felt called to continue this tradition. The psalmist sings to God saying, “One generation will commend your works to another” (Psalm 145:4). I could tell the next generation of “God’s mighty acts” by teaching Sunday school, but I could do it when I sit at home, when I walk on the road, when I lie down and when I get up if I had children in my own home (Deuteronomy 6:7). It would be arrogant to think that all the sacrifice and obedience of my ancestors was for my benefit. No, my responsibility was to continue what they had done. God first blessed and commanded mankind: “‘Be fruitful and multiply’” (Genesis 1:28). I didn’t have to do a cost/benefit analysis. I could obey Him. Second, being a mother is a worthy calling, and better than so many of the pursuits the world focuses on instead, like trying to accumulate wealth and experiences. Being a mother involves creating a life that will continue into eternity. I thought of the author of Ecclesiastes complaining that all pursuits were meaningless and without purpose, like chasing after the wind. In contrast, a newborn has a soul that continues into eternity. All my other life pursuits (wealth, beauty, pleasure, etc.) would fade and be worthless. But people will live forever, either in heaven or hell. God uses women to create and nurture new life. He uses many of His people, by the guidance of His Holy Spirit, to win souls for Christ’s sake. Since children and people in general have eternal value, this makes the sacrifices of moms and all His servants “worth it” and is better use of their time and efforts than focusing on things of this world. Third, I trusted that having a child would bring joy. There are many women of the Bible who expressed joy upon holding their first born: Eve, the first mom, expressed awe at her firstborn son (Gen. 4:1). Sarah said, “God has brought me laughter” (Gen. 21:6). Hannah prayed and spoke of God lifting up her heart: “‘My heart exults in the Lord; my horn is exalted in the Lord’” (1 Sam. 2:1). Naomi and Ruth both rejoiced at the birth of Obed, speaking of how he’d nourish Naomi in her old age and be a restorer of life (Ruth 4:15). Elizabeth’s joy in giving birth to John the Baptist was so great that it bubbled over to her neighbors and relatives (Luke 1:58). Mary “treasured up” Jesus’ birth and pondered it in her heart (Luke 2:19). These biblical women described such meaningful happiness at holding their bundles of joy that I wanted to know that experience for myself. Furthermore, these women were from a span of history that covered 4,000 years, yet all expressed similar joy. Childbearing is a gift God has given women that transcends cultural expectations. Life has eternal value. Childbearing is a joyous gift of God and He commands it of Christian marriages. Therefore, the benefits of having children were far greater than my list of costs. Wrestling through this helped me to pursue conceiving a child with joy and peace, but again I did not get pregnant right away. One last barrier The last barrier I went through to having a child was an ability to conceive as quickly as I’d expected. I was actively trying to get pregnant, but it wasn’t happening. Every month that I wasn’t pregnant I was disappointed. Reading medical articles about fertility helped me to better understand the typical time it takes to get pregnant and I learned that it takes longer the older the age of the mom: “When a woman is younger than 30, she has an 85% chance to conceive within 1 year. At the age of 30, there is a 75% chance to conceive in the first 12 months. This chance declines to 66% at the age of 35 and 44% at the age of 40. This is due to the effect of aging on the ovary and eggs.”1 I learned that a 1-2 year wait to get pregnant was within the range of normal. My experience fell into this category. However, I know there are more complexities to the issue of infertility than time. Many seek medical advice. Christian couples pray and search Scripture for wisdom as they consider the various options available, including fostering and adoption. My struggle to conceive was a monthly challenge, but I am thankful for this trial. It produced peace as I learned to surrender to the Lord’s authority and trust in Him to provide. My first child was born on a Monday morning, just as the sun was coming up. It was a girl! She was dainty and muscular. We gave her a name that means “strong” and the middle name “joy” to remind us and her that “the joy of the LORD is your strength” (Nehemiah 8:10). The Lord led me through the barriers blocking my way to childbearing and blessed me with the joy of motherhood. Endnote 1 “Knowledge about the impact of age on fertility: a brief review” by Ilse Delbaere, Sarah Verbiest, and Tania Tydén, in the Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences, Vol 125 (2), 2020, pages 167-174...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Gender roles

More to consider: women on setting life and post-secondary goals

The timing of a woman’s life can get complicated, especially when she faces decisions about whether to pursue higher education or not. In a society that insists on women getting an education and establishing a career before even thinking about marriage and family, it’s not always fashionable to point this reality out. But women simply have more considerations to take into account when making these decisions. The challenging part is because there is no guarantee of a husband coming along, or children being born, she faces an added layer of uncertainty. Essentially, a woman who wants marriage and a family is trying to plan for two futures, without knowing which future will happen for her. The questions are endless. Should she pursue practical education and a career just in case she doesn’t get married? Should she work in a dead-end “for now” job because she expects to transition into motherhood soon? Should she take out student loans, which could limit her freedom to make choices in the future? And when a woman is intellectually gifted, or “smart,” the questions can be tougher. Is she “wasting” her gifts if she doesn’t pursue an education? Did she waste her time or money if she does pursue an education and never “uses” it after she gets married? The ultimate answer to this bewildering maze of questions is simply that there is no one-size-fits-all path. The many possible ways an individual woman uses her gifts can look quite different from one woman to another. Life, after all, is not mapped out for us ahead of time, but it is a journey where we take each step as best we can, trusting in God. But in this article I want to explore these challenges in a bit more depth so that, first of all, women see that they’re not alone in facing these questions – especially in a culture that shies away from discussing them. And secondly, I want to explore them so that the Christian community understands how complex (and frustrating!) navigating these questions can be. And lastly, I want to offer guidance where any guidance can be given. Making a life plan For me, deciding what to do after high school was a confusing mess. I was open to marriage and children, but I hadn’t met anyone. I was considered “smart” and everyone expected me to go to university, and I did want to study, but I didn't know what to study. The idea of having a “career” didn't appeal to me – I certainly didn't relate to the idea of being a “girlboss.” But I felt stuck between devoting time and energy and money to studying things I enjoyed, or finding a career that could support me while I was single, or keeping my options open if I met someone. I wanted to go beyond what I personally experienced in writing this article so I reached out to other Reformed women I’d connected with through Facebook. And I received a flood of responses about their own experiences in considering post-secondary education. How women timed their education was an important question for me, because I’ve heard a lot of theories about how college is to blame for the low birth rate in North America. My assumption initially was that women who wanted children had always had that on their mind to some extent. But in my conversations it turned out that not everyone did. For some women, the timing of their life just “worked out.” As Jen Crowder explains, “As a young person in my 20s, there were times where it felt ‘hard’ to not be dating, but the Lord richly blessed me – with peace to be patient, and even more so in bringing my spouse and I together in His marvelous timing shortly after I started my first teaching position. As a young person, it’s very hard to see four, five, or six years as a very short period of one’s life, but looking back on it now, God’s timing is always perfect.” And her experience was echoed by other women who met their husband in their last year of their studies, or just after, and didn’t experience a big conflict between education and beginning a family. Life does not nicely “work out” for everyone, but when considering whether to study or not, this is a comforting reminder to young women that everything is in God’s hands. Sometimes you do borrow worry about the future before you need to. For other women, the timing of life events did overlap. “I remember studying for an exam while in labor at the hospital, and writing an exam a week after giving birth!” says Anna Nienhuis. Some had to fit their studies in around taking care of small children, or put their studies on hold and resume them when their children were older. Some women did not start until later: “I did not consider post-secondary possibilities until I was in my early 30s, married for 12 years, and had five children,” says Sarah Vandergugten. And some found themselves required to go back to school in order to support themselves or their families when they hadn’t expected it. All of these circumstances made studying much more challenging, but somehow they continued to see God’s hand guiding them through it all. Sometimes when you’re young you can feel like you have to be able to predict your future and plan for it responsibly. And to some extent, women do have to consider how their education, jobs and financial situation might impact their freedom to have children. But well-meaning advice can make it sound like your life can all be planned out perfectly. It’s easy to say, “women should pursue marriage first, then children, and then a career if she wants,” or, alternatively, “women should get an education and a career first, and then marriage and children.” But in real life, the path individuals take tends to be more much complex than that, in ways that can’t always be planned out. Even when events in our life overlap in chaotic ways, women and families muddle through while trusting in God. The challenges teach them to trust in Him and the strength He provides. Some women did change their plans when they met their future husband. It might have been a switch from a longer program to a shorter program, such as switching from nursing to healthcare aide. Or it was a switch from something less flexible to something more flexible. “The career I was studying for was not compatible in any way with my husband’s and so I chose to change my plans. Since I had just started my education it was easy enough to change it,” says Deanna DeWit. Others switched from something with fewer career opportunities, such as a Ph.D., to a regular teaching degree which offered more employment. And lastly, some women went the opposite direction, switching from something “practical” to pursuing study at a Master’s and Ph.D. level when they discovered their love of learning, with the encouragement and support of their husbands. This simply shows how, as you grow up, you can become more aware of yourself and your gifts, and what makes sense for the life God has called you to. You can start something and change paths later. Sometimes changing your path while you can is the best decision. Then there were more than a few women who regretted pursuing higher education, or at least weren’t sure it had been worthwhile for them. A few felt they had pursued it because of family expectations, or because they’d absorbed the message from culture to pursue a career first. Some even mentioned in hindsight they felt they’d delayed marriage and hadn’t been accepting God’s will for their lives at that time, though they had come to terms with the choices they’d made. It seems that post-secondary wasn’t a perfect fit for every woman. And it’s true that higher education is not for everyone! For many women it makes sense, especially if there is no husband on the horizon and they may have to support themselves one day. In fact, many women felt free to begin because they weren’t expecting marriage in the very near future. But decisions should never be made primarily because of cultural messages, family expectations, or fear of bad consequences. And cultural messages do shift over time – older generations felt unusual when pursuing higher education, whereas younger generations felt more cultural pressures to pursue it. “I had believed the idea – a lie actually – that if I was to be successful I had to go to university,” says Rebecca Van Middelkoop. “No one ever told me that directly but it was an idea that I seemed to have picked up over the years and I think many people believe it as well. As someone who was academically gifted it seemed like I was obligated to do something ‘big’ ... We often think that some careers are superior or more meaningful compared to other careers, especially ones that are more entry level.” She suggests job shadowing, internships and summer jobs in a field you’re interested in to test out what opportunities exist and whether you do need more education. For other women, higher education could be a path God is calling them to. “God doesn’t have a general plan or calling for all women... God has a specific plan for each of His children,” says Rachelle van Leeuwen. “God’s plan for me was to put people in my life who would continue to encourage me to further my education. If He is putting those people in your life, don’t balk at it; instead, explore different paths that are realistic for you in your current stage of life (not on where you hope to be one day).” Which brings us to discernment, or listening to God’s will for your life. Discernment In the end, making this decision is simply a process of discernment, of drawing near to God. What is God’s call on your life specifically? For me, the phrases “pray about it,” and “seek God’s will,” felt formulaic when I was trying to make decisions, and felt frustrating when it felt like He was silent. But so often phrases become a cliché because they’re true. When I'm making decisions in life, when I feel in the dark and confused, that is when these supposedly tired and formulaic statements hold the most truth. That is when God is teaching me to be persistent in seeking after Him, making decisions as best I can at each step, and trusting that I don’t need to be afraid of the future. You may not hear God’s voice from the sky telling you directly what to do, but you can lean on Him as you study your gifts, circumstances and responsibilities and make the best choices about how you can serve Him with what He’s given you. This means that, yes, if your passion is to be a wife and mother, it’s worth discerning what steps to take to pursue this too! Sometimes we feel we have to leave this area of our lives entirely in God’s hands without taking any action that we might take in other areas of our lives (in the way we might in our careers). Of course, we can’t pursue marriage in the same way as a career, but we can do things like staying social with other likeminded Christians (even if we're busy studying at university), being involved in church activities, being open to being introduced to possibilities, and maybe even visiting other areas of the country. While we should do the tasks God gives us, it’s not an either/or choice when it comes to marriage or career. Society might tell you to not think about marriage until after your career is established but if you want it, it’s worthwhile to keep your eyes open even while you're studying. Lastly, some women mentioned feeling judged, both for looking too “desperate” for marriage by not pursuing a career, or for having a career when most women around them didn’t. But if we truly believe our sisters are looking to God to discern how He will work in their individual lives, we can expect it to look a little different from person to person. God created humans in His image to glorify Him, but this also happens in an individual sense – we are not all eyes, or hands, or heads. We do not start off knowing all that we as an arm (for example) can do, but we grow into it by fixing our eyes on Christ. And so we can also turn to one another and encourage each other, and take the time to truly understand how others navigated their experiences and made their own decisions. And so, my last piece of advice would be to talk to other women! Through writing this piece, I was inspired by my fellow sisters in Christ, as I listened to how God had guided their life journeys. Each story is an amazing story, whether their path was straightforward or more bumpy. In fact, I wish I had more room to tell these stories. In my confused high school years, I could've benefited from having some of these conversations about how life paths can be anything but straight and still be clearly guided by the hand of God. Jenn VanLeeuwen sums it up like this, “If you would have asked me at 18 what my life was going to look like at 24, I definitely envisioned being married and having a few kids and a dog. However, God, in His wisdom, had that in store 10 years later. I was able to complete a number of university degrees and certifications, move across the country a few times for different teaching jobs, travel, and grow so very much as an individual!” Conclusion There are many more considerations I haven’t covered, including financing education and whether debt makes sense, whether to choose a practical career or follow your passion, whether secular college is wise, and when seeking knowledge for knowledge’s sake is worth pursuing. Debt, in particular, can have a huge impact on young women’s freedom to make choices, but her passions and goals can also shape the path of her life. In short, while figuring out how education fits into the timeline of your life is one piece of the puzzle, there are many other factors to take into account. However, ultimately the process is not about weighing every possible consideration, but rather about drawing closer to God and to what He is calling you to. May He guide you....









Red heart icon with + sign.
Internet, Media bias

3 simple reasons we believe misinformation

We use the internet as a therapeutic, and do so at the cost of truth ***** Last week I came across a great article in the MIT Technology Review called, “Why Generation Z Falls for Online Misinformation.” The article highlights a handful of reasons why the youngest, most savvy purveyors of internet culture become victims of misinformation themselves. What makes the article such a good read is the sort of paradox it plumbs. The young people who make up Gen Z are supposed to be smarter about this kind of stuff than their Boomer parents or grandparents, right? How are these internet curators and trend-setters getting duped themselves? In many of the same ways that we all can get tricked by news or other information we see online. Here are three simple ways we can all fall prey to misinformation: 1) In our whirlwind world, we inherently trust people like us. This is highlighted in the MIT article I cite above. With faster, more pervasive communication and information transfer today than ever before in history, sifting through all of the data, news, commentary, and all the rest of the content we come into contact with on any given day can feel truly, and terrifyingly, overwhelming. It’s like we constantly exist within a hurricane of information, hot takes, and content somewhere in between. We aren’t meant to drink in all of the content we consume. As Neil Postman wrote in 1985, “How often does it occur that information provided you on morning radio or television…causes you to alter your plans for the day, or to take some action you would not otherwise have taken?” When we become overwhelmed by the content glut to which we are helplessly addicted our discernment is fractured and we begin to rely on less-than-reliable rationales for trusting people on the internet. Postman wrote in Amusing Ourselves to Death, “The credibility of the teller is the ultimate test of truth of a proposition.” He was bemoaning this sad reality, not endorsing it, and it has perhaps never been more true (like so much of what Postman wrote in Amusing). As Jennifer Neda John wrote for MIT Technology Review: As young people participate in more political discussions online, we can expect those who have successfully cultivated this identity-based credibility to become de facto community leaders, attracting like-minded people and steering the conversation. While that has the potential to empower marginalized groups, it also exacerbates the threat of misinformation. People united by identity will find themselves vulnerable to misleading narratives that target precisely what brings them together. When we have bound ourselves to constant content consumption we create a situation in which we are easily overwhelmed with information and opinions—this sense of overwhelm is scary and real and it reduces our standards of discernment and leaves us vulnerable to being led astray by people who look like us, live like us, or believe like us. 2) We consume content too quickly to fact-check sources. This idea is pretty straightforward, but it is perhaps the most common and endemic to social media. As Ms. John writes in that same MIT article: election rumor appeared among dozens of other posts in teenagers’ TikTok feeds, leaving them with little time to think critically about each claim. Any efforts to challenge the rumor were relegated to the comments. The whole idea of most social media platforms, especially quick-hit ones like TikTok or Instagram Stories, is to consume lots of short content for as long as possible. YouTube’s strategy tends to be built around keeping you on the platform to watch longer-form, minutes-long content. TikTok and other platforms deliver you content that is largely less than a minute long as quick bites to be consumed in large quantities. Let’s explore a hypothetical scenario. My wife and I have just finished dinner, cleaned up the kitchen, and are scrolling our phones while watching Netflix like any other self-respecting 30-year-old couple. I come across a TikTok that, in 45 seconds, explains why the moon landing may have been faked. I am intrigued so I tap over to the user’s profile and watch other videos he or she have created around other conspiracy theories—one on how LBJ actually had JFK killed, one on aliens, one on people disappearing near caves around the U.S. I’ve just trained the TikTok algorithm that conspiratorial content is of interest to me, and now I’m likely to get more. I flip back over to my For You Page. I see a funny video of a dog chasing a pet hamster around a living room obstacle course. I favorite a mac-and-cheese casserole recipe to try making next week. Then I see a video suggesting the American education system is designed to undermine rural children’s education to encourage them to stay on the farm and not go to college. Interesting. I swipe up again to see a highlight from last night’s Cubs game. I swipe again and hear a creepy voice explaining the secret family of Adolf Hitler, asking rhetorical questions designed to make one wonder about if Hitler’s family still has some sort of power today. Only three minutes have passed since I began scrolling. The seemingly random smattering of content that I consume in fewer than 200 seconds has left me no real margin to investigate the weird ideas that wiggled their way into my feed unless I decide to do a deep dive into Wikipedia or Google and investigate those claims. “Nah,” I think, “I’m scrolling to be entertained, not educated,” and I’ll always kinda wonder if Hitler’s family is secretly running some multinational dark government. Not really, but this is a general idea of this concept: many of the most popular social media apps in the world are designed for mass consumption of micro content in a short period of time, and this inhibits our ability to discern what is true or real. 3) Our relationship with the internet is meant to be therapeutic at the cost of being realistic. Though it often fails us in this regard, many of us come to the internet, and social media specifically, to feel good. We come to the internet to laugh at humorous content, cry at touching content, or otherwise be entertained and made to feel good. It should be noted that the most popular internet platforms in the world—Facebook, Instagram, Amazon, Google, Tiktok, etc.—know that our primary motivation to engage with the internet is to be made to feel good, even if maybe we don’t recognize it or wouldn’t admit it. Because these platforms know that we log on to the internet to feel good or otherwise have our needs fulfilled, they have designed their experiences to reinforce these feelings and make us feel good. When they make us feel good, we spend more time on their platforms. Because our primary value when using the internet is to feel good, any value that clashes with this value will lose, and the clash will affect how we use the internet moving forward. If we use the internet to feel good, but our daily interactions with people on Facebook make us feel bad, then we will likely stop using Facebook. If we use the internet to feel good, but we can never find a show we want to watch on Hulu, we may unsubscribe from Hulu. It follows, then, that if we use the internet to feel good, and the news we consume about the world makes us feel bad, we will either: a) stop consuming news altogether, or b) consume “news” or other facts that make us feel good whether or not they are real. We use the internet as a therapeutic at the cost of truth. Because of our therapeutic abuse of the internet, that which makes us feel good will always take precedence over that which is true. Christians are as guilty of finding their joy and their comfort in the internet as anyone else. To think we as a community of faith are somehow “above” this particular kind of brokenness is foolish. False until proven true Foundational to preventing ourselves from being tricked into believing and sharing that which is not true is not letting our engagement with the internet have the central role in our lives that it so often does. We should consume (and create) less internet content. We should not see the internet as a means of feeling better about our lives. Let me share what has helped me as I have spent the last six months auditing my relationship with the internet. As I have worked to live a more offline life, the most effective tool for me has been setting time limits for my favorite apps and limiting the times of day I can engage with these apps. When I restrict the duration and times of day I engage with content on the internet, I spend a lot less time looking at my screens and a lot more time looking at the world around me. This has helped me realize that the digital world is secondary to the physical world. Likewise, and this may sound a bit negative, but I just have sort of come to assume anything I read on the internet needs to be confirmed by multiple, diverse outlets before I consider it “true.” I think if we just go into our relationship with the internet with the understanding that much of what we see or hear or read is actually “false until proven true” then we may go a long way toward not being duped into believing untruths. This originally appeared in Chris Martin’s “terms of service” Jul. 12, 2021 blog/newsletter and is reprinted with permission.  “Terms of service” looks at the social internet from a Christian perspective and comes in both a free and paid subscription, either of which you can sign up for at www.termsofservice.social....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections - May 23, 2020

Surfin is illegal in the USA: A Beach Boys parody (2 min) There's no better way to kill the funny than to discuss a joke. But with all the vicious memes, and cruel editorial cartoons circulating the Internet, before I pass along this bit of parody it's worth considering what Christians can, and must not, say about our elected officials. Romans 13:6-7 instructs us: "Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." That rules out the careless insult, and the casual disobedience. We can't call our Prime Minister names, and can't disobey his lawful orders without being able to show how those orders violate God's commands. But in our democratic system, our elected authorities are also our employees, and one of our roles is to evaluate their performance – we could even describe that as an authoritative role God has given to the electorate. So there may well be a time when, in the process of a"performance review" on our authorities, we have to use language they'd rather not hear. But it isn't disrespectful or dishonoring to explain why Joe Biden is a hypocrite for insisting we should believe women except when one accuses him. And it isn't violating Romans 13 to question the intent of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's recent gun ban. That's legitimate job performance review material, even if the "interviewee" might prefer we don't go there. When it comes to our current COVID-19 crisis, we also aren't violating Romans 13:6-7 when we highlight governmental excesses, even when we do so with a dose of humor. The fellow behind this video below may or may not be a Christian, but his Surfin USA parody illustrates an important point: some of our authorities are not exercising their powers with restraint. These are the questions I asked about the viral "Plandemic" video An investigative journalist tracked down the documentary's producer and asked him some key questions. Michael Cook offers some sage advice as well, in his "How should we tackle conspiracy theories about COVID-19?" UN provides us some unintended comedy This week the United Nations tweeted out a request to have folks ditch the words "husband" and "wife" to "help create a more equal world." As Jonathon Van Maren shares, "the global community united in side-splitting gales of laughter." Why surrogacy is oppression "...surrogacy exploits the vulnerable....Increasingly, surrogacy is about two wealthy men using a woman for her body, while appropriating a role that only she can fulfill." John Stonestreet and Maria Baer followed up their article above with: "Adoption is beautiful; surrogacy isn't." Frog fossils found in the Antarctic Does a warmer earth spell our doom? Frog fossils in the land of ice and snow would seem to say no. Parents: slow down and listen Tedd and Margy Tripp with important advice for parents: "If your children are saying 'You never listen to me,' it is because they feel you never listen to them. Slow down and listen." The spread of the Gospel (2 min) "Every frame is one year in the last 2000 years of the Great Commission....It shows everywhere the Gospel has been preached, where churches and Christian gravestones first show external evidence of that work, and where churches and Bibles are accessible today." ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Apologetics 101

The JFK assassination and apologetics: the facts don't speak for themselves

Movie director, Oliver Stone, unleashed a Pandora's Box at the box-office in 1991 with the release of his controversial film, JFK. The movie, which was a technological marvel and starred Kevin Costner along with a host of well-known actors, explored the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Warren Commission Report regarding the tragedy, and a complex conspiracy theory which sought to "get to the real truth" behind an alleged cover-up. The Stone movie provoked a phenomenal response. Some people were outraged at its ugly implications, or at its own distortion of testimony, or at its white-wash of questionable sources, or even at its amazing editing and weaving of soundbites, visual images, changing angles, flashbacks and anticipations, documentary coverage and interpretive re-creations. Other people are equally outraged at finding out how poorly the subsequent investigation into the assassination was handled, and how many disturbing pieces of evidence or testimony were squashed or ignored, and how outlandish the explanations of the single-assassin theory had to become, and how our own government agencies may have been entangled or willing to look the other way. Newsweek magazine was so egged on by the movie that it decided to throw rotten eggs in return, giving it prime attention on its front cover with the heading: "The Twisted Truth of 'JFK' - Why Oliver Stone's New Movie Can't Be Trusted" (Dec.23, 1991). On the other hand, the local bookstores have been doing a rousing business in selling books which are relevant to rebutting the Warren Commission conclusions and exploring theories which, despite their conspiratorial character, pay compelling attention to details. Among the most important are the two books by lawyer Mark Lane: Rush to Judgment (a 1966 cross-examination of the Warren Commission, both thorough and sober) and Plausible Denial (a more recent book purporting to show C.I.A. involvement to some degree in the assassination). The massive analysis of Jim Marris (who teaches a college course on the subject) runs over 600 pages in length, and is entitled Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy. Also worthy of mention is On the Trail of the Assassins, written by former New Orleans District Attorney, Jim Garrison, whose investigation and eventual trial of Clay Shaw for alleged participation in a scheme to kill the president was the organizing plot of the Oliver Stone movie. On the downside of credibility for the conspiracy theorists is the large number of such theories which have been advanced. Granted, some are more plausible and well-reasoned than others, but the fact that there are so many of them is disturbing, each offering somewhat convincing evidence. Who should be fingered for the crime? The C.I.A.? Military intelligence? The mafia? The F.B.I.? The Vice-President? Anti-Castro Cubans? Pro-Castro communists? Right-wing extremists? Pro-Soviet communists? All of the above? None of the above? For years the thesis that Lee Harvey Oswald was the man who shot President Kennedy, and that he acted alone, has seemed relatively easy to accept. The public was told that an eyewitness saw Oswald in the book depository building window. A rifle was discovered there which not only had Oswald's palm-print, but had been purchased by mail order under an assumed name, identification for which Oswald was carrying on him. His own wife said she believed he was the killer. The FBI found incriminating photos at Oswald's home, later published by Life magazine. The man had previously renounced the United States and lived in the Soviet Union! No, the case against Oswald was not hard to believe. Yet there always had been disturbing elements in the story. Why was Oswald deprived of legal counsel, and why was no record made of police interviews with him? How did a man (Jack Ruby) simply walk in off the street, stride right up to Oswald in the presence of dozens of officers, and shoot him point blank? What do we make of eyewitnesses who said they previously saw Oswald and Ruby together in Ruby's nightclub? Why did the people who were present in Deleay Plaza when Kennedy was shot run forward toward the fence on the grassy knoll, seeking the shooter, instead of running back toward the depository building? Fifty-one witnesses claim to have heard shots from the direction of the grassy knoll! Why did the medical doctors initially report an entry wound to Kennedy's throat, if he had been shot (only) from behind? Why do films show his head recoiling from a frontal (and from the right) shot? The Oswald theory would require that no more than three shots were fired – although ballistics experts were unable to replicate even that feat within the relevant time restraint (5.6 seconds) with a bolt-action rifle like Oswald's. However, acoustics evidence now proves there were at least four shots. On the Oswald hypothesis, one of the assassin's three bullets needed to inflict seven wounds in two bodies (Kennedy's and Governor Connally's) – some at nearly right angles – and emerge in almost pristine condition! Photographic experts have discredited the Life magazine pictures of Oswald as edited composites. Marina Oswald's opinion of her husband's involvement actually changed (following virtual house-arrest for weeks with the FBI) from an initial disputing of it. Paraffin tests performed on Oswald's cheeks the day of the assassination demonstrated that he had not fired a rifle that day. When the FBI turned over the alleged murder weapon, it reported that there were no prints (where the palm print later appeared). Initial autopsy reports on Kennedy were destroyed... The case against Oswald looked strong for a time (and still does for many people), but now that case begins to appear rather weak (if not being fully refuted according to some people).  So what? For our present purposes, it is not really relevant whether the Oswald-as-lone-assassin theory regarding Kennedy's assassination is accurate or not. It is not my intention to take sides on this troubled question here. Rather, it is the controversy itself that is raging over this question which should interest us, for this dispute provides a very fruitful education into the real character of what we sometimes call "factual investigation" and illustrates the nature of historical (and forensic) argumentation. Oddly enough, the controversy over the Kennedy assassination provides an opportunity for Christians to learn something valuable about apologetical method - the defense of their faith. Popular and widely published apologists for the Christian faith often tell us, for example, that the most persuasive way to practice the defense of the faith is simply to provide unbelievers with "the facts" of history (the raw evidence of eye-witness testimony) and challenge them that any "rational" man would have to conclude that this evidence "proves" with practical certainty that Jesus rose from the dead – as the most astounding miracle of history. This approach has always seemed more than a bit naive. And the controversy surrounding the Kennedy assassination makes that naiveté stand out all the more prominently. The facts don't speak for themselves Evangelical apologists who think that a presentation of "the fact" of history is enough to vindicate the truth of Christianity against the skeptical challenges of unbelievers overlook the way in which people reach – and critically maintain – their personal conclusions about fundamental and important issues. Those who think that unbelievers would become believers if only they were made aware of the observational "evidence" (the testimony of alleged eyewitnesses) do not fully grasp the key issues in the philosophical study of the theory of knowledge (epistemology). What they do not realize is that, contrary to a popular aphorism, the "facts" do not "speak for themselves." What people see (or hear) will be unavoidably interpreted according to their other beliefs, their personal expectations and values, and their governing presuppositions. "The facts" do not simply stand "out there" with their meaning inherent in them, waiting to be seen for what they are regardless of what the commitments and beliefs may be of those who find "the facts." What a person will take to be a "fact" and how that fact is interpreted and related to other beliefs is not determined alone by the perceptions or observations (or observation-reports) which a person has. His thinking will be guided by various assumptions or controlling presuppositions. There were plenty of eyewitnesses at the very scene of the crime when President Kennedy was assassinated. In our day we enjoy incredibly advanced techniques and technologies for investigation of evidence, physical and personal. Hundreds of people have been hard at work dealing with the relevant clues and testimony concerning the killing of JFK. Do "the facts speak for themselves"? Do they? The fact that advocates of the Warren Commission's theory debate ferociously with critics of the Commission tells you that much more is involved here than a simple look at "the facts and nothing but the facts" concerning a particular event which transpired in 1963. The fact that critics of the Warren Commission disagree widely with each other in proposing other theories about the assassination of Kennedy tells you that there is much more involved here than a simple amassing of "the facts." This is even more the case with respect to Christ's resurrection. Here we do not have an event which took place merely thirty years ago, but almost two thousand years ago. We do not have any hard physical evidence to investigate and no living witnesses to cross-examine. We do not have a great number of extant testimonies (although some we have do speak of others as well). The event in question was no ordinary natural event (as the mere shooting of a man is, although he was a politically important man), but rather an awesome and extraordinary resurrection from the dead – a miracle. If the dispute over Kennedy's assassination shows us that the facts do not speak for themselves – that the question is not settled simply over alleged evidences – how much more should Christian apologists realize that our debate with unbelievers over the resurrection of Christ (and other matters of Biblical truth) is not simply a matter of "evidences." It must eventually involve a challenge to the heart-commitment and intellectual presuppositions of the non-Christian. Jesus said it long ago: "If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe if one should rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). This article was first published in the May 1992 issue of Penpoint (Vol. III:3) and is reprinted with permission of Covenant Media Foundation, which hosts and sells many other Dr. Greg Bahnsen resources on their website www.cmfnow.com....