Tag Archives: Research

Mentoring

Study: 80% of single evangelicals aged 18-29 are no longer virigins

3 Comments

Mary sent me this disturbing article from Relevant Magazine.

Excerpt:

[A] recent study reveals that 88 percent of unmarried young adults (ages 18-29) are having sex. The same study, conducted by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, reveals the number doesnʼt drop much among Christians. Of those surveyed who self-identify as “evangelical,” 80 percent say they have had sex.

[…]Of those 80 percent of Christians in the 18-29 age range who have had sex before marriage, 64 percent have done so within the last year and 42 percent are in a current sexual relationship.

In addition to having premarital sex, an alarming number of unmarried Christians are getting pregnant. Among unmarried evangelical women between the ages of 18 and 29, 30 percent have experienced a pregnancy (a number thatʼs actually 1 percent higher than among those who donʼt claim to be evangelical).

According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of all pregnancies in America are unintended. And of those, 40 percent end in abortion. More than 1 million abortions occur in the United States each year. But perhaps the most disturbing statistic for the Church: 65 percent of the women obtaining abortions identify themselves as either Protestant or Catholic (37 percent Protestant and 28 percent Catholic). Thatʼs 650,000 abortions obtained by Christians every year.

The pregnancy stats are shocking to many—and the abortion stats horrifying— but the root problem is the willingness to have sex before marriage. Without sex, pregnancies and abortions donʼt happen.

If abstinence messages were actually working—and this generation of Christians was genuinely committed to saving sex for marriage—then the other issues would dwindle considerably.

If this generation wants to reverse the trend and reduce the number of Christians having premarital sex, the first step is trying to figure out why so few are waiting.

What do I have to say to this? Well, I am in my mid-thirties. I am chaste. In fact, I have not even kissed a woman on the lips, since I am saving that for when I get engaged. So I know how to be chaste and I know why I am doing it. I don’t see the value of sexual activity in a relationship. I don’t see how it helps me to achieve any deeper intimacy with a woman or to increase the probability of having a stable marriage that influences others and produces effective Christian children, which are my goals for marriage. I think the reason why people resort to sex in relationships is because they don’t have the same goals as I do for their relationships. They want recreation, and they think that marriage is a continuation of the fun they are having as singles. But I have a different goal for my relationships, and sex doesn’t fit into it my courting procedure.

What I do instead of sex is that I try to make Christian women read about apologetics, science, marriage, economics, parenting, foreign policy, politics, and so on. I try to undo the influence of non-Christian ideologies like feminism, socialism postmodernism, moral relativism, pacifism, etc. I try to get them to practice disagreeing and arguing with non-Christians so that they are more bold and persuasive in their witnessing. And finally, I try to provide them with a model of what a man should be, so that they find it easier to choose good ones and reject bad ones. All of this worldview development and debating tends to make them feel closer to God, because now they are able to serve him by understanding him and defending him in public. Premarital sex would not help any of my goals for women. I am not trying to have fun with them – I am trying to make them grow and be more effective.

The reason why most Christians don’t follow a plan like mine, and instead prefer sex is because they think that marriage is not a lifelong commitment with the purpose of serving God, but a recreational arrangement in which they will get their needs met without having to do anything. They go to church, they listen to sermons, they sing songs, and they have feelings about all of their churchy stuff. But they don’t really know what marriage is about or how to prepare for it or how to choose someone who will be a good mate. Rather than do the work, they try to short-circuit the process with sex, and then hope for the best. They trust their emotions and intuitions. They don’t want to take away the spontaneity of romance by sitting down and evaluating people to see if they really are Christians and whether they think of marriage as being about commitment and self-sacrifice as a way of serving God.

I do blame pastors for not educating women about how to prepare for marriage. I think the problem is that Christians pastors are too focused on reading the Bible, and not focused on integrating the Bible with external truth from history, science, etc. They stand at the front of the church giving speeches, but they never explain why what they are saying is true. Pastors are notoriously bad at apologetics – they tend to just drone on and on about things that they are not able to support evidentially. And the people listening just don’t bother to do it, since they are not persuaded that anything the pastor says is true. So, even if the pastors tell their flocks to get married and stay married, they don’t really convince why they ought to care what the Bible says, or how to achieve the goals set in the Bible through practical preparation and wise decisions.

I think that the right place to start with people on chastity is by showing them the costs for children who grow up in broken homes. Just studying that brings up the question: what should adults do in order to make sure that they don’t hurt children by being reckless and irresponsible? The answer is: adults should be chaste before marriage and then get married and be faithful and fulfill the roles or father/husband and mother/wife. And, adults should understand what laws and policies encourage or discourage people to get married and stay married, and vote for pro-marriage (anti-feminist) policies. All of the studying laws, policies, economics, etc. flows from that desire to do no harm to children. Even better than doing no harm would be to have a plan to have a marriage that will be a model to non-Christians while producing influential Christian children at the same time.

Who is supposed to explain why people should get married and how to prepare for marriage and how to select someone to marry and how to proceed with a courtship? Well, pastors are the ones who should know about these things. But they are often afraid to put moral boundaries on people who want to be guided by their emotions and the moral standards of their same-age peers and popular culture. And it’s not just a refusal to set moral boundaries and to prove them out using evidence – pastors also shy away from telling their flocks about how different laws and policies provide incentives and disincentives to people to either get married or not, or to stay married or not. How can people vote intelligently for a set of laws and policies that are marriage friendly when they never even think about such things? Pastors don’t want to annoy their flock, and they think that reading and thinking annoys their flock.

I think that we need to ask pastors to do a better job of integrating their Bible teaching with real evidence and arguments, and to integrate Christian values with laws and public policies that support those values, and to have real, practical advice on how to prepare for and execute courtship and marriage.

Related posts

News

Adult stem cells therapy can fix a broken heart?

Leave a comment

Mary sent me this article from the Irish Times.

Excerpt:

A new US study in which patients had their hearts repaired with stem cells has brought regenerative treatments for heart attacks a step closer.

The therapy, reported today in the Lancet  medical journal, halved the extent of normally permanent scarring on the heart, and led to the growth of new heart muscle.

However, the treatment produced no significant change in “ejection fraction” – a measure of the heart’s pumping capacity.

The Caduceus trial recruited a total of 25 patients with an average age of 53 who had all suffered a heart attack in the previous month.

Some 17 patients received coronary artery infusions of 12 to 25 million stem cells derived from healthy tissue taken from their own hearts. The remaining eight underwent standard post-heart attack care.

A year later, the proportion of the heart left scarred in the stem cell-treated patients had been reduced from 24 per cent to 12 per cent. No change was seen in patients who did not receive the treatment.

Professor Eduardo Marban, director of the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles, who led the US team, said: “The effects are substantial, and surprisingly larger in humans than they were in animal tests.

“This discovery challenges the conventional wisdom that, once established, scar is permanent and that, once lost, healthy heart muscle cannot be restored.”

The Phase I study, which was chiefly conducted to evaluate safety, was published today in an online edition of the Lancet.  It follows a similar trial by US scientists at Harvard Medical School and the University of Louisville whose findings were reported last year, also in the Lancet.

That study, which used a different kind of heart stem cell, produced a 12 per cent average increase in ejection fraction.

Yet another breakthrough for ethical adult stem cells.

Related posts

Videos

Friday night movie: The First of the Few (1942)

2 Comments

Description:

Biopic of aircraft designer R.J. Mitchell whose Spitfire became one of the mainstays of the RAF in World War II. Mitchell worked for Supermarine who specialized for many years on developing seaplanes. He enjoyed a good deal of success winning prestigious air races with the help of his test pilot Geoffrey Crisp. Money was always in short supply however and the government was always hesitant to invest. When Supermarine is bought out by Vickers, Mitchell has a bit more leeway. After a visit to Germany in the 1930s, he sees the Nazi threat first-hand and decides to design a fighter with a completely new engine. The result was the famed Spitfire.

Here’s the Spitfire:

Supermarine Spitfire
Supermarine Spitfire

The speech by Prime Minister Churchill

What does the title of the movie refer to? It’s from a speech by the Conservative prime minister of Britain during the war – Sir Winston Churchill.

Excerpt:

The great air battle which has been in progress over this Island for the last few weeks has recently attained a high intensity. It is too soon to attempt to assign limits either to its scale or to its duration. We must certainly expect that greater efforts will be made by the enemy than any he has so far put forth. Hostile air fields are still being developed in France and the Low Countries, and the movement of squadrons and material for attacking us is still proceeding. It is quite plain that Herr Hitler could not admit defeat in his air attack on Great Britain without sustaining most serious injury. If after all his boastings and bloodcurdling threats and lurid accounts trumpeted round the world of the damage he has inflicted, of the vast numbers of our Air Force he has shot down, so he says, with so little loss to himself; if after tales of the panic-stricken British crushed in their holes cursing the plutocratic Parliament which has led them to such a plight-if after all this his whole air onslaught were forced after a while tamely to peter out, the Fuhrer’s reputation for veracity of statement might be seriously impugned. We may be sure, therefore, that he will continue as long as he has the strength to do so, and as long as any preoccupations he may have in respect of the Russian Air Force allow him to do so.

On the other hand, the conditions and course of the fighting have so far been favorable to us. I told the House two months ago that, whereas in France our fighter aircraft were wont to inflict a loss of two or three to one upon the Germans, and in the fighting at Dunkirk, which was a kind of no-man’s-land, a loss of about three or four to one, we expected that in an attack on this Island we should achieve a larger ratio. This has certainly come true. It must also be remembered that all the enemy machines and pilots which are shot down over our Island, or over the seas which surround it, are either destroyed or captured; whereas a considerable proportion of our machines, and also of our pilots, are saved, and soon again in many cases come into action.

[…]The gratitude of every home in our Island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the World War by their prowess and b~ their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

But before you can have “the few” fighter pilots who saved Britain, you have to have the fighter! That’s why R.J. Mitchell, the inventor of the fighter, is the First of the Few.

It’s very important that we in the West understand the importance of investing in defense research, so we can develop new weapons, so that we can deter aggression. This is the doctrine of peace through strength.

The few mentioned in Shakespeare’s Henry V

You may also be interested in a famous speech by Henry V.

Excerpt:

WESTMORELAND: O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING HENRY V: What’s he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian.’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.’
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

Henry V is on the short list of approved Wintery Knight movies.

Happy Friday!

Related posts