YubNub Social YubNub Social
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode
Community
News Feed (Home) Popular Posts Events Blog Market Forum
Media
Headline News VidWatch Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore Jobs Offers
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Group

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Jobs

The Lighter Side
The Lighter Side
33 w

7 states secure abortion rights as voters push back against restrictive measures
Favicon 
www.optimistdaily.com

7 states secure abortion rights as voters push back against restrictive measures

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM As abortion rights remain a hotly debated issue in the United States, voters in ten states recently had the opportunity to change reproductive freedoms at the state level. More than two years after the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade, which destroyed the federal right to abortion, states have pursued a variety of ways to either safeguard or limit access. With the stakes high, this year’s ballots produced a mix of victories and defeats for reproductive rights activists. In a historic stride forward, voters in seven states approved initiatives to maintain or extend abortion rights, countering the tide of restrictive legislation that has emerged in recent years. At the same time, similar efforts to strengthen abortion rights in Florida, South Dakota, and Nebraska failed, demonstrating how deeply divided the country remains on the issue. Wins for abortion rights in seven states Abortion rights supporters celebrated victories in Missouri and Arizona, where voters approved proposals to entrench the right to abortion until fetal viability in their state constitutions. These modifications will have a tremendous impact, particularly in Missouri, where abortion is now illegal with no exceptions for rape or incest. By creating a constitutional right to abortion, both states want to avoid future legislation that would further restrict access. “Abortion rights supporters are hopeful this will lead to a widespread increase in access to reproductive care,” as advocates noted following the passage of these measures in Missouri and Arizona. Similarly, Colorado took a significant step by passing a bill that goes beyond simply safeguarding abortion rights. In addition to enshrining the right to abortion, the state’s amendment allows for public funding of abortions, which might increase access for low-income people by potentially paying for abortion services through Medicaid and state employee health insurance. Maryland also approved a resolution to include reproductive rights in the state constitution. Abortion is already lawful in Maryland with no gestational limit, but the legislation strengthens these rights, particularly as the state has become a hub for patients from neighboring states with tougher regulations. Maryland also passed a “shield law” in 2023 to protect abortion providers from investigations conducted by other states, demonstrating its dedication to reproductive rights. In New York, voters passed an addition to the state’s equal protection provision that specifically provides safeguards for “pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” This amendment not only protects abortion rights, but also prohibits discrimination based on age, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Montana has joined these states in promoting reproductive rights. Voters confirmed the 1999 Montana Supreme Court verdict that protected abortion under the state’s right to privacy when they approved a proposition to protect the freedom to make pregnancy-related decisions up to fetal viability. With Montana Republican Governor Greg Gianforte challenging this precedent, the vote ensures abortion access despite efforts to restrict it. Measures rejected in Florida, South Dakota, and Nebraska Despite these advancements, attempts to protect abortion rights were met with opposition in other states. In Florida, a measure to protect the right to abortion until viability was expected to win a majority of votes but fell short of the 60 percent threshold required to pass. Previously a shelter for Southern patients seeking abortion care, Florida has recently implemented a six-week abortion restriction, thus cutting off access for many. In South Dakota, a proposal to give a constitutional right to abortion during the first and second trimesters was likewise defeated. This would have restored abortion access, particularly for survivors of rape or incest, who have few options under existing restrictions. Meanwhile, Nebraska had two competing proposals on the ballot. Voters supported a measure establishing a 12-week abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest, and medical emergencies, but rejected a rival amendment that would have guaranteed the right to abortion until fetal viability. This was the first time in Nebraska history that two opposing proposals appeared on the same ballot, with intense campaigns on both sides accusing the other of misleading methods. A broader context of state-level actions Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, reproductive rights groups have advocated for state-level protections. So far, every popular vote aimed at safeguarding abortion access has passed, while attempts to limit it have failed. This year’s findings reveal a strong trend in certain states to strengthen abortion rights, but the road ahead is difficult for those with deeply conservative attitudes. A look ahead As the debate over reproductive rights continues, the results of these ballots provide a snapshot of the United States during a period of deep disagreement. While seven states took decisive steps to enhance or safeguard abortion rights, defeats in Florida and South Dakota highlight the challenges that activists now confront. The conflicting results highlight the importance of state-level action in determining access to reproductive healthcare. As laws vary greatly, state-level measures are becoming increasingly important in the ongoing debate over reproductive rights, with votes reflecting the perspectives of communities on both sides of the issue.The post 7 states secure abortion rights as voters push back against restrictive measures first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.
Like
Comment
Share
The Lighter Side
The Lighter Side
33 w

5 tips for managing political stress: expert advice for protecting your mental health
Favicon 
www.optimistdaily.com

5 tips for managing political stress: expert advice for protecting your mental health

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM As political news and debates fill the airwaves, it’s becoming increasingly challenging to avoid the stress that comes with it. For many, the current climate causes increased anxiety and tension, with families and friendships being tested by opposing political beliefs. According to Dr. Michelle Riba, a psychiatrist and member of the University of Michigan Eisenberg Family Depression Center, “Given this political climate, I hear from patients who even say they’re changing plans to avoid meeting with friends or family members who have differing views.” Riba takes a compassionate and proactive approach to handling politically induced stress, recommending five ways to keep you informed while safeguarding your mental health. 1. Keep track of how much time you spend engaging with political content. One of the first steps toward reducing political stress is to track how much time you spend reading political news. “Think about how this content makes you feel when you consume it,” Riba tells me. Excessive exposure to political content, whether through news apps, radio discussions, or social media, might make you feel nervous, overwhelmed, or even angry. Riba suggests focusing on credible, fact-based sources and limiting your time on platforms that flood you with trending headlines and heated themes. Instead of scrolling or turning in at all times of day, try setting aside specific times to monitor the news. Prioritizing quality over quantity in news consumption might help you stay informed without feeling overwhelmed. 2. Be mindful of your surroundings when sharing opinions. Sharing thoughts and discussing political issues can be enjoyable, but it is critical to remember how others may be affected, especially in a mixed environment. Political discussions can occasionally cause unexpected tension, particularly when others are merely trying to enjoy a meal or a social function. “Never make assumptions about other people, even your friends and family,” Riba says. “They might not think or feel the way you do.” It’s also important to be mindful of any younger or more sensitive family members who may be present. Children, for example, may require assistance in comprehending complex concepts but benefit from balanced, calm discussions. If a family member or friend appears uninterested in political discourse, respect their boundaries and avoid bringing up themes that might make them uncomfortable. 3. Be open to learning about different points of view. If a political discussion happens, especially in a family or social setting, view it as an opportunity to learn about other people’s points of view. Instead of perceiving disagreements as a source of strife, consider them opportunities to grow. Riba recommends asking inquiries and displaying curiosity. “If you’re not familiar with something brought up, ask questions about it, and where they learned that from or why that’s important to them,” she recommends. Empathy and actively listening to others can help to alleviate stress and widen your perspective, making political talks feel more like learning experiences rather than disputes. 4. Walk away from conversations when necessary. If you find yourself in a politically charged or difficult conversation, don’t be afraid to leave. “Maybe there’s dishes that could be washed, or a sports or movie topic you could change the subject to, or you could excuse yourself to go for a walk,” Riba points out. You can politely excuse yourself or redirect the discussion to something more neutral. Taking a mental vacation allows you to refresh and prevent potential confrontation. Creating mental space from charged conversations can help you feel more balanced and enjoy time with friends and family, even during politically charged situations. 5. Assess your interest in political engagement. It’s easy to become engrossed in the fast-paced news cycle, but Riba invites individuals to consider their reasons for engaging with political content. “If you want to be politically active or engaged, be proactive,” she urges. Consider why you consume political content, how much you consume, and how it affects your physical and emotional health. Some people engage in politics for personal or professional reasons, while others do so because they enjoy watching the news in the background. Regardless, keep in mind that social media and news platforms are designed to catch attention, which can sometimes lead to increased stress. While remaining informed is crucial, Riba reminds us that “you need to take care of yourself and your mental health too.” Practicing self-care in politically charged times Navigating the news and political debates in today’s world can be difficult, but it is possible to do it in a way that protects your mental health. You can remain informed without having politics affect your well-being by following Dr. Riba’s suggestions to regulate your intake, interact carefully, and take breaks when needed. Finally, a balanced approach enables you to contribute to civic discourse in ways that are relevant, manageable, and in line with your mental health objectives. Remember that self-care is not about avoiding problems, but about finding healthy methods to remain active and resilient.The post 5 tips for managing political stress: expert advice for protecting your mental health first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
33 w

For Those Who Fear They’ll Be Deceived - The Crosswalk Devotional - November 12
Favicon 
www.christianity.com

For Those Who Fear They’ll Be Deceived - The Crosswalk Devotional - November 12

When we seek God, His wisdom, and His truth, we can trust Him to provide the answers we need to move forward in our faith, like He did with Nicodemus.
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
33 w

Should Christians Reject Slavery and Affirm Same-Sex Marriage?
Favicon 
www.thegospelcoalition.org

Should Christians Reject Slavery and Affirm Same-Sex Marriage?

Last summer in Australia, I discovered that my 5-year-old is better at throwing boomerangs than I am. In theory, boomerangs hit their “target” by returning back to the thrower. Mine, however, didn’t; it acted like a normal stick. I share this story because one of the most seemingly persuasive arguments in favor of affirming same-sex marriage for believers suggests there’s a trajectory in Scripture from the Old Testament to the New that, if followed, finds its target in affirming same-sex marriage. Instead, I want to argue the trajectory of biblical sexual ethics is less like a stick whose target is away from its thrower and more like a boomerang that comes back to the one who threw it—only we discover the thrower is Jesus himself. Trajectory Argument Rather than trying to reinterpret the Bible’s prohibitions, many who affirm same-sex marriage acknowledge that the New Testament does prohibit same-sex sex. But, they argue, Christians can nonetheless embrace same-sex marriage because the trajectory from the Old Testament to the New is one that (if continued) ends in validating same-sex marriage. Proponents of this view often point to the consensus among Christians that slavery is wrong, despite the multiple New Testament texts that seem to endorse slavery. If we can say the New Testament points us toward the abolition of slavery, even though it doesn’t quite get there, the argument goes, we can likewise argue it points us toward same-sex marriage, even though it doesn’t get there. This comparison packs a rhetorical punch because of the appalling history of race-based, chattel slavery in the United States, which many Christians on both sides of the Atlantic tried to justify from Scripture. So is it true that the Bible’s movement is toward rejecting slavery and embracing same-sex marriage? Let’s begin at the beginning. Beginning of Humanity The Bible’s first chapter declares that human beings, male and female, are made in God’s image (Gen. 1:27). This is the first foundation for universal human equality and the first blow to the idea that some humans should be enslaved because they’re innately inferior. All humans are God’s image-bearers. The only differentiation in this text is between male and female, both of whom are called to rule over creation and to “be fruitful and multiply” (vv. 26–28). The Bible’s first chapter declares that human beings, male and female, are made in God’s image. This is the first foundation for universal human equality. In Genesis 2, we focus in on one man and one woman, brought together in a “one flesh” union, which is the prototype for future marriages: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (2:24). Marriage is defined as one man and one woman, permanently bonded. We read that “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (v. 25). But in Genesis 3, sin enters the world and undermines both the man and woman’s shame-free relationship with God and their shame-free relationship with one another. From then on, we see sin of all kinds—including sexual sin—portrayed in the Bible. We also see slavery, even at the beginning of the story of God’s people. Beginning of God’s People When God calls Abraham and promises to bless him and give him offspring similar in number to the stars, Abraham is married to one woman. But since Abraham and Sarah are old and infertile, Sarah suggests that Abraham take her Egyptian servant Hagar as a functional second wife (16:1–4). This isn’t what God commanded. It shows a lack of trust in God. In the cultural terms of the day, however, it would’ve been a status upgrade for Hagar. This whole scenario is completely alien to us. We assume women should always choose their husbands and that polygamy is wrong. In ancient Near Eastern culture, by contrast, women almost never chose their husbands, and polygamy was normal for wealthy men. We see Hagar’s sense that she’s received a status upgrade when she gets pregnant and starts to look down on Sarah. Sarah reacts so harshly that Hagar runs away. But the Lord finds Hagar in the wilderness, tells her he has listened to her affliction, and makes promises to her that echo his promises to Abraham (vv. 9–11). Remarkably, Hagar becomes the first person in the Bible to give God a name: “She called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, ‘You are a God of seeing,’ for she said, ‘Truly here I have seen him who looks after me’” (v. 13). So in the Bible’s first slave narrative, an Egyptian servant is personally seen and cared for by the Lord. In an ironic reversal of Hagar’s story, the second slave narrative is that of Abraham and Sarah’s great-grandson, Joseph, who’s sold to slave traders by his brothers and then bought by an Egyptian commander, Potiphar (37:25–36). Unlike in American history, slavery in the ancient world wasn’t associated with one racial group, and slaves could become quite high status, which we see when Potiphar puts Joseph in charge of all his affairs (Gen. 39). But when Joseph refuses to sleep with Potiphar’s wife, she claims he tried to rape her, and he gets thrown in prison. God nonetheless is with Joseph, and his story ends with him as Pharaoh’s right-hand man, rescuing his own family from starvation. Once again, God vindicates the enslaved. Exodus begins with all the Israelites living as slaves to the Egyptians. But God listens to the Israelites’ affliction (Ex. 3:7), just as he listened to Hagar’s (Gen. 16:11), and he rescues them. From then on, the story of God’s people is a story of emancipated slaves. Old Testament Law When God gave his people laws, he kept reminding them they were once slaves and should therefore identify with the enslaved (e.g., Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6; 15:15). In the ancient world, people often sold themselves into slavery as an alternative to destitution. But God’s law made man-stealing and slave- trading a capital offense (Ex. 21:16). It also prescribed significant protections for all slaves, including a day of rest (e.g., 20:10; 21:1–32), and guaranteed freedom in the seventh year for Israelites who sold themselves into slavery (Deut. 15:12–15). When it comes to the Old Testament laws regarding sex, we see explicit prohibitions on adultery (e.g., Ex. 20:14) and on men having sex with other males (Lev. 18:22). We also see restrictions on divorce and on using women sexually without marrying them (Deut. 21:10–14). But while polygamy is never commanded and often portrayed negatively, we don’t see polygamy prohibited. So, what movement if any do we see between the Old and New Testaments when it comes to sex and slavery? Slavery in the New Testament As Kyle Harper and others have shown, during the time in which Jesus was born, at least 10 percent of people living in the Greco-Roman empire were slaves. Some sold themselves into slavery. Some made enough money to buy their freedom. Some were subjected to hard labor and physical abuse. Others were skilled professionals, like doctors or accountants, earning more money and living more comfortably than many free people. But it was generally assumed that slaves were there to serve their masters. The story of God’s people is a story of emancipated slaves. It was therefore shocking when Jesus declared to his disciples, “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:43–45). Jesus here upended the whole paradigm of slavery. Jesus claimed to be the rightful King of all the universe. But he deliberately embraced the role of slave and called his followers to serve one another. In line with this great reversal, Jesus taught that he’s the master who serves (Luke 12:35–40) and stunned his disciples by dressing himself like a slave and washing their feet—a role typically taken on by slaves—before telling them to follow his example (John 13:1–20). Even in death, Jesus identified with slaves, since crucifixion was typically inflicted on slaves. So, in Jesus, we see the Lord of all creation taking on a slave’s role, dying a slave’s death, and telling us to follow his example. The apostle Paul got the memo, calling himself a “slave of Christ Jesus” (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1, HCSB). Paul is sometimes seen as supporting slavery because he instructed enslaved Christians to serve well (e.g., Eph. 6:5–8). But his basis for this teaching was not that slaves were inferior (as the paradigm of slavery assumed) but that they were really serving Jesus (Col. 3:22–25). Likewise, Paul commanded masters to treat their slaves “justly and fairly” because they have a “Master in heaven” (4:1; cf. Eph. 6:5–9). Indeed, Paul deliberately undermined the slave-free distinction by declaring Christian slaves were Jesus’s freedmen, while free Christians were Jesus’s slaves (1 Cor. 7:21–23). Paul taught a radical equality rooted in the gospel: “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free,” Paul wrote to the Colossians, some of whom were slaves, “but Christ is all, and in all” (Col. 3:11). Likewise, he explained to the Corinthians that they were all members of one body regardless of their status in the world: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free” (1 Cor. 12:13). The gospel message that the Son of God died so sinners could be forgiven and united with him and with each other demolishes slavery’s foundations. We see a practical example of Paul’s ethics in his letter to Philemon. Under Roman law, Philemon could have severely punished Onesimus, a slave who had run away from him. Instead, Paul calls Onesimus his “son” and “very heart” (Philem. 10, 12, NIV) and tells Philemon to welcome Onesimus back, “no longer as a bondservant” but as “a beloved brother” (v. 16). Indeed, he tells Philemon to receive Onesimus as he’d receive Paul himself (v. 17). This overturns the master-slave relationship and turns it into a brother-brother bond. Movingly, while Paul refers to other gospel partners as his “fellow slaves” (e.g., Col. 1:7; 4:12, HCSB) he simply calls Onesimus “[our] faithful and beloved brother” (4:9). To summarize, when it comes to slavery, you could say we see a progression in the Bible from protections and provisions in the Old Testament to the radical reversal of the master-slave relationship that Jesus both embodied and commanded. But while the gospel torpedoes slavery’s foundations, it also reinforces the first foundation for equality: that all humans are made in God’s image. Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” (1:15), and in him, our equality and unity is finally fulfilled. No wonder Christianity was so popular with the enslaved that it was mocked in the second century as a religion of slaves, women, and children. No wonder the first known explicit argument against slavery was made in the fourth century by a Christian bishop on the basis of all humans being made in God’s image. No wonder slavery was progressively eradicated as Christianity spread through Europe in the 7th to 10th centuries. When the transatlantic slave trade started up, it represented a horrific and unjustifiable reversion to pre-Christian practices. And it was Christian arguments and activists who led abolition. The famous seal of the Society for the Abolition of Slavery in England from the 1780s was a picture of an enslaved man kneeling in his chains and asking, “Am I not a man and a brother?” The Bible’s answer to both these questions is an emphatic yes. In 1837, this seal was printed in the United States along with the Old Testament law against man-stealing and a poem that exclaimed, “What! God’s own image bought and sold!” and warned of God’s coming judgment against those who enslaved their fellow image-bearers. In short, the history of race-based chattel slavery in America is utterly unjustifiable from Scripture. Sex and Marriage in the New Testament What about the biblical progression when it comes to sex and marriage? Do we see a trajectory from the Old to the New Testament that (if continued) opens space for same-sex marriage? The history of race-based chattel slavery in America is utterly unjustifiable from Scripture. Jesus’s radical welcoming of people known for sexual sin is sometimes seen as a relaxing of the Old Testament laws concerning sex. But Jesus actually tightened them. Jesus took the commandment against adultery and extended it to include lustful thoughts (Matt. 5:27–28). Jesus condemned all forms of sexual immorality as sinful and observed that sexual sin comes straight out of our hearts (15:19; Mark 7:21). When asked about divorce, Jesus defined marriage as a lifelong, one-flesh union between one man and one woman—boomeranging back to God’s original design (Matt. 19:4–6). He underscored that marriage is male-female by quoting Genesis 1:27 and defined it as monogamous: “The two will become one flesh” (v. 5, NIV; Gen. 2:24). When it comes to same-sex sexual relationships, the Old Testament prohibition on men sleeping with males is reasserted (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:9–11; 1 Tim. 1:9–11) and women sleeping with women is also portrayed as sinful (Rom. 1:26–28). What’s more (awkwardly for the trajectory argument), one of Paul’s prohibitions on male-male sex is right next to his explicit condemnation of enslaving. Using a word built on the Greek translation of the words for “male” and “bed” in the Old Testament prohibition on men sleeping with males, Paul calls both enslavers and men who sleep with males “lawless and disobedient” (1 Tim. 1:9). But rather than excluding those (like me) who are drawn to same-sex sexual relationships, Paul notes that some of the first Christians came to Christ with a background of same-sex sexual sin and that they (like all who come to Jesus) were washed, sanctified, and justified in his name (1 Cor. 6:9–11). The boundaries around sex in the New Testament are clear: any sex outside of male-female, lifelong marriage is sinful. But just as the gospel lies at the heart of the Bible’s demolition work on slavery, so it lies at the heart of its vision for male-female marriage. Jesus the Bridegroom In a curious move for someone who never married, Jesus called himself “the bridegroom” (Mark 2:19–20). To understand him, we need to look back to the Old Testament, where prophet after prophet pictured God as a faithful husband and Israel as his frequently unfaithful wife (e.g., Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:20; Ezek. 16; Hos. 2). As God-made-flesh, Jesus declares he’s the Bridegroom, come to claim God’s people for himself. Paul presses on this metaphor, presenting Christian marriage as a picture of Jesus’s love for his church (Eph. 5:22–33). Strikingly, Paul quotes from Genesis 2:24—“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”—and then declares, “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:32). According to Paul, God’s original design for marriage was modeled after the everlasting, one-flesh union between Jesus and his church. Like a husband and wife, Jesus and his people aren’t two interchangeable parties. Their union is across deep difference. In marriage, it’s the difference of male and female that enables sex and the creation of new humans. Likewise, Jesus’s love for his church is intimate, life-giving, and fruitful. This biblical metaphor helps us understand why marriage must be male-female. It also helps us understand why Christian marriage is monogamous. Jesus’s relationship with his church isn’t a love depicted by polygamy: one man with many spouses. It’s a love depicted by monogamy, because his people are “one body” (Rom. 12:5; see also 1 Cor. 10:17; 12:12, 20; Eph. 2:16; 4:4; Col. 3:15). But this same metaphor helps us to understand why deep love between believers isn’t limited to marriage. One Body Together Many people think that Christians who say no to same-sex sexual relationships have no vision for love between believers of the same sex. But nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus prayed that his followers would “be one” (John 17:11, 21–22) and commanded them to love each other like he loves us (13:34–35; 15:12). The boundaries around sex in the New Testament are clear: any sex outside of male-female, lifelong marriage is sinful. Rather than presenting marriage as by far the greatest love relationship, Jesus declares, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (15:13). Following Jesus’s lead, in the rest of the New Testament we find a relentless call to brotherly and sisterly love because Jesus died for us and we’re members of his body (e.g., Rom. 12:10; 13:8; Gal. 5:13; 1 Thess. 3:12; 4:9; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 John 3:11, 23; 4:7–12). “By this we know love,” John writes, “that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers” (1 John 3:16). Our union with brothers and with sisters in the Lord isn’t expressed in sexual or romantic ways outside male-female marriage. But if we’re followers of Jesus, it’s true love. Boomerang Returns In Revelation, we see the endpoint of all biblical trajectories. On the one hand, we see slave traders lamenting (Rev. 18:11–17), and we see sexual immorality outlawed one last time (22:15). On the other, we see a countless multitude from every racial and ethnic background worshiping Jesus together (7:9–11), and we see the wedding of the Lamb, as Jesus and his church are brought together for eternity (19:6–9; 21:1–4; 22:17). In Jesus the Bridegroom, we unlock the meaning of male-female marriage. In Jesus the eternal King, who came “not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45), we find the wrecking ball for slavery and the best foundation for human equality. Scripture’s trajectory isn’t toward abolishing slavery and affirming same-sex marriage. It’s a boomerang trajectory that brings us back to the beginning when humanity lived in an unhindered love relationship with God and with each other—but makes it so much better. When God’s people are finally united with Jesus as a bride with her groom, there will be no human marriage anymore (Matt. 22:30). But we’ll all experience the ultimate fulfillment of all our hopes and dreams of love (Rev. 21:1–4). “Surely I am coming soon,” Jesus declares. “Amen. Come Lord Jesus!” (22:20).
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
33 w

Fight Abuse by Becoming More like Christ
Favicon 
www.thegospelcoalition.org

Fight Abuse by Becoming More like Christ

As a counseling professor, I’ve sat with countless people who’ve walked through suffering. Sometimes that suffering has been at the hands of people within the church. Though I’ve been doing this now for more than a decade, it never gets easier. The longer I’m in this field, the more frequently I seem to pray, “Come quickly, Lord Jesus.” Diane Langberg’s book When the Church Harms God’s People: Becoming Faith Communities That Resist Abuse, Pursue Truth, and Care for the Wounded promises to be a helpful resource for dealing with church hurt. Langberg is a practicing psychologist who spends her days ministering to those who’ve experienced trauma and abuse. She uses social media to bring awareness about the realities of helping people through trauma. Her books, specifically Suffering and the Heart of God and On the Threshold of Hope, have been useful as I counsel others and prepare the next generation of leaders within the church. And yet a nagging question comes up in my mind: Why are books like this even necessary? The theologian in me immediately thinks of Genesis 3 and the realities of sin. But I still wonder, Are they really necessary? Langberg answers that question: they shouldn’t be. Yet books like this are necessary to help church leaders both prevent abuse and minister to the abused, because it helps us understand how inconsistent abuse is with God’s design for the church. True Church of Christ Let’s step into the theological discussion for a moment. What is the church to be? According to Langberg, “The body of Christ is to be like Christ as individuals and as a gathered body of those who are one with him.” She continues, “Anything that does not look like Christ is not the church” (16). The church is to mimic Jesus in both its individual and corporate dealings, pointing to him. Langberg writes, “A body that does not follow its head is a very sick body” (5). The church, under Christ’s headship, should follow its head as it seeks to represent him. Otherwise, we’ve got a real problem. Churches follow Christ, in part, by working to prevent abuse before it happens and acknowledging its reality if it does. By doing this they “display [Christ’s] beauty, his compassion, his truth, his purity, and his great love” (16). Yet since the church is the body of Christ, abuse within the congregation is foreign to its nature. It can feel like a failure to admit there is abuse within the church, as if dealing with the problem publicly will bring shame to Christ. This is why the questions I asked earlier keep nagging at me. Abuse within the church is so contrary to the person of Jesus that it causes irreconcilable tension in my mind. Langberg recognizes that same tension. The words “abuse” and “church” should never go together. Langberg doesn’t argue that the church is past the point of redemption, though she recognizes that churches have failed to deal with abuse well. However, she shows that hope for redemption doesn’t allow us to gloss over failings. Instead, redemption requires churches to face the reality of sin and deal with it humbly both corporately and individually. The tension between what is and what should be must remain. Nature of Deception One of the most difficult elements to sift through in cases of abuse within the church is the intent of those who cause harm. To label a situation as abuse, would we require that the harm be intentional? Of course not. The outcome is more significant than the intent. Abusers don’t just wake up one day and decide to be abusers. Self-deception often precedes the deception of others. The slippery slope of successive small decisions, justifications, and minimizing leads to someone becoming an abuser. Within the church, self-deception can grow into systemic deception. Langberg says loudly what many would want to whisper: “Institutions, whether prestigious universities, respected health care facilities, or revered churches or Christian organizations, have a self-preserving ethic” (73). Anyone who has worked in one of these contexts knows that to be true. On the surface, this ethic isn’t entirely bad. But when preceded by self-deception that harms other believers, institutional self-preservation is a breeding ground for systemic deception. When preceded by self-deception that is harmful to other believers, institutional self-preservation is a breeding ground for systemic deception. This process is gradual. Within churches, in particular, we tend to believe the best about others, overlook offenses, or justify in our minds that so-and-so wouldn’t do such-and-such. We want to believe that those who lead us are good, so we filter their behavior through that lens. Unfortunately, that view has sometimes led to gross abuses of power that go unchecked for years. Change the Question Abuse within the church is an unfortunate reality. So how can we move forward? I can sit with counselee after counselee and ask why, but that does little to bring comfort. What would the Lord have us ask instead? What would he have us do? Three answers stood out to me in light of Langberg’s book. First, we should grieve that our brothers and sisters are mistreated, many in the name of faith. Jesus wept over the judgment that was coming to Jerusalem (Luke 19:41), knowing destruction loomed because they rejected him and the leaders mistreated those in their care. Ministers of the gospel should defend the least of these as mirrors of Christ, point them towards his own compassion for them. Second, leaders in the church must humbly acknowledge both their calling and their limitations as shepherds. They mustn’t be wolves, seeking to devour. Instead, ministers of the gospel should defend the least of these by acting as mirrors of Christ who point toward his compassion for them. Third, as Langberg notes when talking to abuse victims, the Bible speaks directly about the exaltation of the crushed, abused, and afflicted in passages like Isaiah 61. In his justice, God promises a “double portion” for those mistreated in this life (v. 7). They’ll build up the temple and shout for joy to the Lord. Our God cares for those who are abused, and he’ll redeem even those dark moments. When the Church Harms God’s People is a sobering reminder that we still live under sin’s curse. Though sin is the answer to my why question above, that’s not enough. Until Christ returns and brings justice and judgment, we’re responsible to speak on behalf of the powerless, grieve the injustices that occur within our midst, and call to repentance those who malign Christ’s name by crushing those he loves. This book is a valuable resource for helping church leaders practically as they minister to the abused and build systems within their ministries to prevent abuse.
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
33 w

Biblical Faith Seeks Scientific Understanding
Favicon 
www.thegospelcoalition.org

Biblical Faith Seeks Scientific Understanding

Maybe science has never made you wonder about something taught by Christianity. If that’s not the case with you, I’m sure you know someone who’s agonized over the Bible and evolution or heliocentrism or, of course, Jesus Christ’s resurrection. Multiple disciplines in the natural sciences put pressure today on the Christian doctrine of sin. For many, the early chapters of Genesis don’t seem to match what we know from evolutionary biology, human genetics, and neuroscience. These challenges are the focus of Hans Madueme’s new book, Defending Sin: A Response to the Challenges of Evolution and the Natural Sciences (Baker Academic). Madueme is a professor of theological studies at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia. He earned his MDiv and PhD from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. And he previously earned his MD from Howard University College of Medicine and did his internal medicine residency at Mayo Graduate School of Medicine. In Defending Sin, Madueme describes his approach as “biblical faith seeking scientific understanding.” And he takes aim at the pretensions of modern science. He argues we can trust divine revelation. Indeed, we must. Madueme writes, “Doctrines are not atomistic entities like marbles in a jar that we can rearrange without consequence. Doctrines are more like threads in a tapestry: pulling on the fall unravels other doctrines and disrupts the biblical story’s inner coherence.” Madueme joined me on Gospelbound to discuss whether the Presbyterian Church in America should close up shop, why he defends young-earth creationism, why we can trust what Scripture says about the future, and more.
Like
Comment
Share
NewsBusters Feed
NewsBusters Feed
33 w

CNN’s Scott Jennings ROASTS Unfunny Late-Night Regime Comics
Favicon 
www.newsbusters.org

CNN’s Scott Jennings ROASTS Unfunny Late-Night Regime Comics

During a panel discussion of the state of late-night comedy for the next four years, CNN commentator Scott Jennings took aim at the gang of dour, unfunny regime comics that litter the TV landscape. Watch as Jennings dissects the sad state of late-night comedy: CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP 11/11/24 10:49 PM  SCOTT JENNINGS: The rest of these people have become pathetic. I mean, they stopped being comedians and they started becoming political activists. I mean, Jimmy Kimmel out here crying, it's pathetic. And so, my question is, if you're going to have a late night comedy show, at some point people might expect it to be funny and not just a constant political screed against one party, and you know, I don't know that this activism for four more years is sustainable. If you're going to market something as comedy, the actual product is nothing more than sort of lowbrow political activism. I’m old enough to remember when Johnny Carson skewered politicians of all political walks of life. But in the feedback loop of politics being downstream from culture, the politics fed back into the culture, somehow sticking America with bitter comics with monologues that mostly lecture, and only joke as a means of attempting to enforce political conformity or impose a narrative.  Jennings was right about many things during this panel (which featured Touré, mostly remembered for falling for a meme about a submerged NYC subway station), including about the one-sidedness of late night “comedy.” As our colleague Alex Christy exposed, the Regime comics had a very hard time processing the election results- hence Kimmel crying on the air, et. al: JIMMY KIMMEL: Let's be honest, it was a terrible night last night. It was a terrible night for women, for children, for the hundreds of thousands of hard-working immigrants who make this country go, for healthcare, for our climate, for science, for journalism, for justice, for free speech. It was a terrible night for poor people, for the middle class, for seniors who rely on Social Security, for our allies in Ukraine, for NATO, for the truth and democracy and decency and it was a terrible night for everyone who voted against him, and guess what? It was a bad night for everyone who voted for him too. You just don't realize it yet. STEPHEN COLBERT: Who knows what the next four years are gonna be be like? What we do know is that we are going to be governed by a monstrous child surrounded by cowards and grifters and my brain keeps pumping out an unlimited supply of ramifications. It's really hard to see a bright side here. SETH MYERS: Look, I wish I had some trenchant words of wisdom to impart. I'm sad to say I don't. We're about to step over the precipice into truly uncharted territory. You need only look back to Trump's first term to get a sense of how dangerous his second term will be and no one can say they didn't know what they were getting because Trump made it crystal clear. So many jokes. One wonders how Myers continues to process all of this, since it was his (along with Barack Obama) tag-team roast of Donald Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner that set the Trump presidency in motion.  Then there is the disproportionate mockery of Republicans, a point Jennings accurately made. One analysis of the presidential campaign showed that a staggering 98% of the Regime comics’ “jokes” were about Donald Trump. In another study, the Regime comics were shown to have cracked 317 jokes about Trump and George Santos, compared to a mere 47 about Joe Biden and Bob Menendez over the same period of time. This is a feature of late-night “comedy”, not a bug, and the data bear it out. One hopes that the next four years might Make Comedy Comedy Again. But we’re not holding our breath.
Like
Comment
Share
YubNub News
YubNub News
33 w

The Heartbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome
Favicon 
yubnub.news

The Heartbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.] When I was a…
Like
Comment
Share
YubNub News
YubNub News
33 w

Conservative Activist Scott Presler Already Focusing on Flipping Another Blue State After Success in Pennsylvania
Favicon 
yubnub.news

Conservative Activist Scott Presler Already Focusing on Flipping Another Blue State After Success in Pennsylvania

You could easily argue that one of the main reasons that Trump won Pennsylvania in 2024 was due to the hard work of conservative activist Scott Presler, who spent months in the state, registering people…
Like
Comment
Share
YubNub News
YubNub News
33 w

JUST IN: Republicans Officially Retain Control Of The House, Clinch Trifecta
Favicon 
yubnub.news

JUST IN: Republicans Officially Retain Control Of The House, Clinch Trifecta

The Republican Party has officially retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives, securing a trifecta in the federal government after President-elect Trump’s historic win in the presidential…
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 4364 out of 56666
  • 4360
  • 4361
  • 4362
  • 4363
  • 4364
  • 4365
  • 4366
  • 4367
  • 4368
  • 4369
  • 4370
  • 4371
  • 4372
  • 4373
  • 4374
  • 4375
  • 4376
  • 4377
  • 4378
  • 4379

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund