This week I am in Nashville attending the National Collegiate Summit for college ministers, and I just got word that Nashville has seen its first school closing due to the swine flu.

Upon hearing this news, I went back to my hotel room to investigate the reason for the school closing, and apparently there are two suspected cases of swine flu in the state.

What’s interesting is that the school here in Nashville has not closed its doors for just one day, or even two. It’s going to be closed for 7 whole days! I’m assuming that there is a scientific reason behind this specific amount of time, but 7 days seems a bit on the cautious side.

In light of stories like this, I’m starting to wonder if this whole swine flu thing is getting overblown. Just consider these statistics:

- The World Health Organization says there are 109 confirmed cases with 1 death in the U.S., out of a population of more than 300 million people

- Contrast that percentage with the more than 13,000 people in the U.S. who have died of complications from seasonal flu since January. Seasonal flu is expected to continue killing hundreds of people a week. In total, about 36,000 people a year die from the flu in the United States and worldwide. The annual death toll is somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 (Statistics taken from cnn.com)

If anything, the pandemic we should be fearing is the old school flu that we grew up getting shots for. If the regular flu kills so many people, why don’t we see more Americans wearing masks each year during flu season?

While I don’t want to be foolish and underestimate the potential devastation of this virus, it seems plausible that the swine flu is being a little over-sensationalized.

What is ironic about the timing of this “pandemic” is that it coincided with a seminar I attended earlier today on a similar topic. Only, this seminar addressed the escalating panic surrounding church decline. In the same way that news outlets are inundating their listeners with hourly updates of the spread of swine flu, pastors across the nation are frightening their congregations with statistics about Christianity’s decline.

And just like the swine flu, it’s not altogether clear whether the statistics match the rhetoric. While I do not know the plans that God has for this country, current studies do not indicate the need for such a frenzy.

The seminar I attended was led by Ed Stetzer, the President of Lifeway Research, and his organization has conducted numerous studies on the un-churched demographic of America. His findings are quite remarkable. (You can check them out at his blog, edstetzer.com)

What Lifeway has found is that the younger un-churched generation, aged 20-29, tends to be more spiritual and more open to conversations about Christianity than the un-churched generations that are 30 years and older. Here is just a sampling of what Lifeway found:

- Does God or a supreme being exist? 81% of 20-29 year-olds said yes, while only 79% of 30+ year-olds answered yes

- Do you believe Jesus died and came back to life? 66% of 20-29 year-olds said yes, and only 54% of 30+ year-olds said yes

- “I would study the Bible with a friend if they asked”: 61% of 20-29 year-olds said yes, and 42% of 30+ years-olds said yes

In addition to these numbers, Lifeways studies indicate that there has been very little decline in church attendance over the last decade. Though there has been some decline, the numbers are not extreme.

What’s more, there has not been a significant rise in the percentage of American atheists. Currently it is at 4%, which is not much different from past trends.

All of that to say, if you ever hear a statistic that 88% of evangelical children leave the faith when they graduate from high school, that simply isn’t true. Many do leave the faith, but not nearly to such an extent.

With that in mind, why are Christians so quick to quote exaggerated statistics about the decline in American Christianity? Because fear works. Scaring people results in action, as evidenced by the number of school closings and face masks that you see around the country right now. If anything, we should have been protecting ourselves more effectively from the seasonal flu, but the media didn’t hype it up so we didn’t get scared, and we subsequently failed to act with the same measure of caution.

Now to offer a slightly less cynical perspective, pastors also use this strategy because Christians need to care about the lost more than they do. Many Christians are certainly apathetic, and if we continue in this complacency the Church will decline.

What is problematic about the scare tactic is that we shouldn’t need to sensationalize the Gospel. While we should care about the health of the Church in America and we should feel a burden to reach the lost, it shouldn’t take dramatic statistics to motivate us. We shouldn’t be waiting for the situation to reach its worst before we finally get off our butts and do something.

Regardless of the statistics, regardless of whether Americans churches are growing or dying, we should be preaching the Gospel. After all, the word “gospel” literally means “good news,” and if you have good news, TRULY good news, you spread it! You tell the world, every person around you that you can possibly get to listen, about the good news that has changed your life and can change theirs. That is the call of every Christian regardless of context or circumstances, so we shouldn’t sit back and relax simply because the numbers aren’t dire yet.

We might also consider viewing these statistics as a kind of encouragement. For those of us who labor, we have not labored in vain! God IS faithful and He IS using our hard work, so we must press on. God does not need scare tactics to compel people to care about the Gospel–the news is good enough on its own.

And as the statistics seem to indicate, the un-churched are ready to hear it.

This past week the Miss USA Pageant has become embroiled in controversy after Miss California gave an unpopular answer to a very tough question. Below is the clip from the pageant that sits at the center of this controversy.

In response to her answer, Carrie Prejean has received an onslaught of criticism. The Miss California board has publicly denounced her position, and celebrity blogger Perez Hilton has labeled her a “dumb bitch,” describing her answer as the worst one delivered in pageant history.

Now regardless of where you come down on this issue, the backlash is quite shocking. No, Prejean’s response wasn’t the most articulate defense of same-sex marriage to ever be presented, but she didn’t exactly start yelling homophobic epithets either. She simply disagreed, while also applauding the nation that allows such diversity of both sexual orientation, and opinion, to exist.

So while I agree that “hate speech” should be greatly discouraged, ESPECIALLY among the Christian community, hate speech is a very different thing from respectful disagreement. That is a message that both liberals and conservatives do well to remember.

As Voltaire once said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

So I say kudos to Miss Prejean! She was put in a very difficult position–stating what she believed, knowing it would be unpopular, and risking her crown–but saying it anyway. And not because she’s brainwashed, but because she’s actually got a lot more courage than a lot of us, whether you agree with her or not.

 What do you think?

Several weeks ago the Pope made a highly publicized trip to Africa, and while there he created a great deal of controversy. During his visit, he was quoted as saying that HIV/AIDS is “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem,” and that “a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease.”

In other words, it would seem that he told an entire continent devastated by AIDS to stop using any physical protection against it.

Now I’m gonna be honest with you–the first time I heard this story, I rolled my eyes and let out a huge frustrated sigh. This sounded like a major set-back in the Church’s “cultural relevancy” department.

However, I’m starting to reconsider my initial judgment, and for several reasons. The first is theological….

1) As a spiritual rule of thumb, it’s not a good idea to choose the most practical option, over and against a Scriptural world view. Sometimes the two options coincide, but from a Catholic perspective they do not in this instance. So in a country where millions of people are dying, why not go for the obvious answer? Why not compromise?

Well the problem is that Jesus wasn’t exactly making suggestions that could be shrugged off in real life scenarios. On the contrary, he presented his teachings knowing full well the circumstances in which we would find ourselves. When He told us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies, there was no “unless” clause.

Even if you don’t agree that the use of condoms is wrong, this principle plays out in a lot of different areas. When someone takes advantage of us financially, do we sue them, or do we “let them take our cloak as well?” If you know that your teenagers are going to drink anyway, do you continue to teach them otherwise, or do you provide them with alcohol in a safe environment? If women are going to have abortions whether it’s legal or not, is it best to legalize abortion and keep it safe?

In the face of all these questions, it can be tempting to choose the “practical” over the Scriptural.

But God’s teachings do not exist in a vacuum. They are not abstract or removed from the world we live in. They are just the opposite, in fact. God’s Word is to be our guiding compass in the world we inhabit because it is more grounded in reality than the practical options we see before us. What we see is only a sliver of the whole picture, but God sees it all. So following God’s teaching is far from being irrelevant–it is the most relevant information we have.

When it’s all said and done, we need to ask whether our choices are determined by sin, or by Christ’s victory over sin.

Now I will admit that that is a belief we often have to take on faith, especially in the face of such an overwhelming epidemic as AIDS, which leads me to the second reason I’ve started to reconsider the Pope’s position…

2. Some researchers might be providing evidence that actually supports the Pope’s stance. Even though it sometimes takes faith to follow the Bible’s teaching, those teachings are occasionally justified by real life experience. Every now and then we discover that God’s teachings may not be so out-dated after all.

On her blog, Carolyn McCulley excerpted an op-ed piece by Edward C. Green that recently appeared in the Washington Post. Green is the director of the Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project, and is a leading advocate for evidence-based interventions. In response to the criticism leveled at the Pope, Green responded with the following:

We liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this. The condom has become a symbol of freedom and — along with contraception — female emancipation, so those who question condom orthodoxy are accused of being against these causes. My comments are only about the question of condoms working to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa’s generalized epidemics — nowhere else. …

In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere. And intuitively, some condom use ought to be better than no use. But that’s not what the research in Africa shows.

Why not?

One reason is “risk compensation.” That is, when people think they’re made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.

Another factor is that people seldom use condoms in steady relationships because doing so would imply a lack of trust. (And if condom use rates go up, it’s possible we are seeing an increase of casual or commercial sex.) However, it’s those ongoing relationships that drive Africa’s worst epidemics. In these, most HIV infections are found in general populations, not in high-risk groups such as sex workers, gay men or persons who inject drugs. And in significant proportions of African populations, people have two or more regular sex partners who overlap in time. In Botswana, which has one of the world’s highest HIV rates, 43 percent of men and 17 percent of women surveyed had two or more regular sex partners in the previous year.

These ongoing multiple concurrent sex partnerships resemble a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads. A study in Malawi showed that even though the average number of sexual partners was only slightly over two, fully two-thirds of this population was interconnected through such networks of overlapping, ongoing relationships.

In all honesty, I don’t know enough about this topic to make any kind of authoritative statement about it, nor am I weighing in on the theological debates about condom use either. BUT, I certainly find Green’s argument to be compelling. That said, I am opening up the floor to hear your thoughts. In light of this information, what do you think about the Pope’s words–is he right on, or mind-bogglingly off base?

To view the whole Washington Post article, click here.

In case you missed it, last night Pastor Mark Driscoll appeared on Nightline along with several other individuals debating the issue of whether or not Satan exists. Driscoll does a fantastic job of defending this traditional, orthodox doctrine, so I encourage you to check it out!

Click here to see the video.

This is what I’ll be watching for my Friday night!

Several years ago my dad, who has extensive professional experience working with and researching on the stock market, told me the weirdest thing:

Studies have shown that modesty is cyclical in direct correlation to the economy. When the economy is doing well, the modesty of women’s fashion declines. When the economy is doing poorly, modesty arises.

For the longest time I was completely mystified by this. What on earth would the economy have to do with women’s fashion?

Now that our country is facing harder economic times, I’m beginning to understand the dynamics behind such a phenomenon. As more and more people lose their jobs and our financial outlook becomes more uncertain, people are exercising a lot more self-control than they used to. We’re starting to watch where our money goes, we’re cutting back on expenses, and we’re only spending what we make, not more.

By necessity, we are reacquiring the virtues of discipline and self-control. And when these virtues become a part of your mindset, they affect more than just your money–they affect every part of your life and the way you make decisions, including the clothing you wear.

That said, the story of the recession and its correlation to modesty is less about the economy and more about our character. The way we spend our money and the way we dress are both rooted in the same place: our hearts.

Just think about it–one of the main reasons we are in a recession is due to a loss of self-control. A large percentage of Americans began spending more money than they were making, so we created an economy founded on credit and debt. Everything that we had–our possessions and our lavish lifestyles–it was all an illusion. Much of it had been acquired with money that we didn’t actually have.

To treat money that way is to be careless and reckless, but that recklessness was not limited to our finances. We’ve seen it in women’s modesty, and we’ve seen it in our country’s sexuality. Our nation has become defined by a total lack of discipline or temperance.

That is a spiritual problem, not a financial one.

Fortunately, this state of affairs may begin to change in light of our economy. Americans will be forced to think about self-control for the first time in a long while, and hopefully our country will benefit as a result. But what’s disappointing is that it took a recession to get us there. Rather than leading by example, many Christians bought into the extravagance just like every other American. Many of us have been living outside of our means, racking up our credit card bills and accumulating a lot of debt.

Until now we weren’t held accountable for such recklessness, but God uses times like these as a bullhorn into our hearts and minds: God cares about what you do with your money! Not because He’s some scrooge in the sky who doesn’t want you to have any fun, but because what you do with your money is a great indicator of the spiritual state of your heart.

If you are wise with your money and exercise discernment in its use, then you probably exercise discernment in how you spend your time, what movies you see and what internet sites you visit. If you practice self-control with your spending, then you’re probably exercising self-control in your physical relationship your boyfriend, or with your kids when you get angry. If you are generous with your money, then you’re probably generous in patience with your co-workers or your spouse.

Responsible money management is not itself the end. How we spend our money merely highlights our character. It’s only a symptom of one’s heart toward God and others.

So I encourage you to examine your spending habits over the last few years, and then examine how they have changed since the recession. If there is a significant difference, then you need to ask yourself why. The way we treat money should be the same regardless of the economy because it all belongs to God. Just because the economy is doing well does not make it somehow less God’s and more ours to spend extravagantly. We will learn this lesson in the coming years, but the real test is whether or not we remember it.

A recession will force our hand, but what we really need is a change of heart.

Recently Collide Magazine published an article that considered the question, “Is Christian music dying.” It addressed what some perceive to be a growing irrelevance to the mainstream culture, as well as an increasing tendency among Christian musicians to buck the title of “Christian.” One industry insider went so far as to predict that the industry would eventually collapse altogether.

This article is not surprising. Christian music has been judged and scrutinized by Christians and non-Christians alike for many years. In high school my brother wouldn’t allow me to listen to the Christian radio station when he was in the car because he thought the quality was so unbearable.

So it’s actually become quite trendy to dislike Christian music. Some Christians wear their distaste as a mark of superior theology. It’s too cheesy and superficial for us “sophisticated” Christians to condone.

Yet as much as I would like to join in with this chorus (and I have in the past), something stops me. Yes, a lot of Christian music is cheesy and annoying and pales in comparison to the musical talent we see in the mainstream. But to judge Christian music purely on that basis is to miss the point.

The Christian music industry, and Christian musicians in the secular music industry, serve two very different functions. One reaches the Church, and the other reaches the world. Both are equally important roles, and both are equally Scriptural.

In response to this point, some of you may object, “But Christian music doesn’t minister to me. I’m too distracted by the bad music to hear the message.” Maybe that’s true for you, but it’s certainly not true for everyone. Many Christians enjoy the music intensely–it speaks to them. Just because it doesn’t fit your personal preference doesn’t invalidate the genre, or its mission, altogether.

What’s more, Christian music frequently contains lyrics taken straight from Scripture–I don’t care who you are or how musically brilliant you might be–truth is truth and Scripture is Scripture. It’s going to shape you in a positive way no matter the quality of music.

And that’s what I appreciate about Christian music. When I need a break from the cynical news on talk radio or the self-centered message of secular music, Christian music is a refreshing change. Whatever you listen to most will shape you, and I would prefer that that influence be Christ-centered.

I also happen to like some of the music. I admit it!

Granted, this is no excuse for Christian musicians to become sloppy or uncreative in their work–if anything, God deserves the very best of our innovation. There are certainly ways in which the industry can and must grow. But what I do mean is that we as Christians should have a little more respect for a valid ministry, a ministry that has inspired and encouraged the hearts and souls of countless believers. Not to mention my own.

In closing, I want to offer the final conclusion of the article itself. It’s a prescription for a better music industry, and I find it to be helpful since it challenges the Christian music industry to grow rather than dismiss the industry altogether:

Artists—Innovate, don’t imitate. Yes, every musician is influenced by those who came before, but don’t wear your influences so prominently on your sleeve. Make music that refuses to be pigeonholed as “the Christian White Stripes” or whatever the case may be. Dream about creating music so extraordinary that a mainstream act is known as “the secular you.” View your lyrics as poetry; don’t be content with rhyming clichés and scripture passages. Don’t turn your hooks into platforms for bumper sticker theology. Great artists, regardless of their chosen medium, see the world in unique ways and create art that tells the rest of us about what they see. See the world. Create art.

Labels—Refuse to function as holiness gatekeepers with Jesus-per-minute quotas to meet. Don’t play it safe; take some risks. Don’t be afraid of edgy or outspoken artists; pursue them. Reject formulas; embrace creativity. Don’t produce what you think we want to hear. Develop a vision for the future of Christian expression through music and share it with us. If your function as an industry is to minister, feed, and disciple, why is your product marketed as safe and family-friendly? Find the disconnect and fix it. Don’t rely on promoting an ethos and the nice people who make music for you. Promote good music.

Fans—This is perhaps the simplest of all—support great art. In doing so, you reward the risks taken on the part of artists and labels; furthermore, you are explicitly clear in what you’re looking for from the industry. Then, it’s up to them to respond.

To read the whole article click here.

Last week I wrote about the Newsweek opinion piece on gay marriage, and since that time Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, responded to the article on NPR. The interview with Mohler was conducted in a dialogue format between Mohler and Lisa Miller, the author of the article. I am posting it today because it serves as a great example of how we should respond in the face of this debate.

Click here to listen to the interview.

Notice that Mohler is passionate about his points, but he is controlled by truth, not by emotion. He does not attack Miller or even go so far as to belittle her arguments (which would have been easy). Instead, he relates to her as a fellow human being who was created in the image of God, and a fellow human being who struggles with sin no more than he.

And he does all of this confidently yet without arrogance. Mohler is clearly the scholar of the two, but rather than allow his knowledge to feed his pride and dominate his opponent, he stands back and lets the truth defend itself. It was not Mohler’s prerogative to change her mind, but to faithfully transmit the teachings of Scripture. He therefore spoke as a man who did not have such a heavy burden to bear.

Rarely do I hear Christians speak about this issue with both truth and love, so I hope you will listen to this interview and learn from it. He speaks to them in kindness, grace, and understanding, not for the sake of acceptance, but to guard the integrity of the Gospel. I pray that Mohler’s example represents the future of Baptists in America. It would be a welcome and much needed change. It may also mean that we continue to be hated, but only because we’re standing for an uncomfortable truth–not because we’re being jerks about it.

My pastor and I have an on-going debate about whether or not the media is lopsidedly liberal. I am convinced that he’s overly paranoid, and he’s convinced that I’m hopelessly naive. This debate will probably never end.

However, I had to concede a point to him this week when I came home to my copy of Newsweek. What I found inside was so absurd that I almost laughed.

On the front cover of the magazine was an article entitled “The Religious Case for Marriage.” Below it was a picture of the Bible with a rainbow bookmark sticking out the bottom. Intrigued, I opened up the publication and began to read.

What I found was some of the sloppiest Scriptural interpretation that I have ever read. It was so off-base and and biased that I’m surprised Newsweek would even publish it as responsible journalism.

If you care to read it yourself, click here.

Now as much as I disagree with the author’s underlying agenda, it is her method that bothers me the most. I have never witnessed such a blatant twisting of Scripture to fit one’s own agenda. Her arguments are so academically hollow that a first semester seminary student with only an introductory level of Greek could easily level her claims.

And that’s not to mention her own self-defeating arguments. She argues that Scripture cannot be trusted for a reliable account of marriage, but then appeals to Scriptural teachings about love to support the practice of gay marriage. So which one is it? Is Scripture a reliable authority, or is it not?

Ok, so I’m clearly really frustrated by this article, but that is not my reason for writing now. As much as I’m really annoyed by the fact that this article does not represent responsible journalism (and I’ll admit it, I am optimistic about the media–I do believe some people in the media are still trying to report the truth, and this was NOT an example of it), I have another motive for posting this blog.

I suspect that this article was more an attempt to generate sales through sensationalism than a sincere stab at serious reporting, but this article nevertheless impresses upon Christians an urgency to know why we believe what we believe. It is not enough to hear an argument like the one in Newsweek and emotionally respond, “That’s not what the Bible says!” You need to know how and why that’s not what the Bible says. You must be able to defend your point. This means studying historical, cultural, linguistic and Scriptural contexts so that you can defend Scripture when someone uses it irresponsibly.

I know that sounds hyper-academic and you’re probably thinking that’s an unrealistic expectation to have for the non-seminary and pastor types, but it’s really not as hard as it sounds. It means that you read Scripture with intention.

Don’t simply read the Bible for daily encouragement, read it to know what it actually says. When you come across a culturally charged term like “homosexual” or “submission,” stop and look at the larger passage. Figure out how it fits into the chapter, the book, and the Bible on the whole. If you have a study Bible, read the footnotes. Try to discern why Scripture warns against certain practices and encourages others, rather than just accepting it as fact. Read Scriptural commands with the same amount of scrutiny that you’d expect from your non-Christian friends.

When you arm yourself with knowledge, you prevent yourself from becoming culturally irrelevant. You keep from forfeiting your right to participate in the discussion. And as women, that is a practice we have long over-looked and under-valued, but we cannot afford to do so any longer. After all, this article was written by a woman.

However, I cannot close without a reminder about presenting your case in love. Not only will it help people to receive your perspective, but it will set you apart–this article came just short of name-calling. She compared religious conservatives to slave owners. We should not sink to that level.

But even more importantly, we must present our perspectives in love because logic often misses the point. More often than not, these arguments are not founded on purely philosophical or logical grounds. They are instead an issue of the heart, something that individuals care deeply about. And therein lies our primary target–people’s hearts. If we are master apologists but terrible at loving people, we will accomplish little. It is the heart, not the mind, that needs changing.

That said, be sure to arm yourself with knowledge, but also arm yourself with love. Combined, we will be able to stand for truth, but we will do it in a language that the world can actually understand.

Christian reality t.v. is here.

(I know you’re breathing a huge sigh of relief. Finally!)

I discovered this last night when Dateline did a story about it. And I don’t really know why I was surprised. Christian music and media has consistently lagged behind mainstream culture by about 10 to 20 years, so I should have been expecting this. It was about time.

This new trend has come about in response to the trash that we find on most reality shows today. The folks at the Gospel Music Channel decided to provide a better, more edifying alternative, and they now air two shows aimed at that end. One is called “The Uprising” and it’s about a handful of Christian skateboarders who use their influence for the Gospel. The second show is entitled “Revolve: Rockin the Road,” and it follows a touring event for teen girls that features speakers and Christian artists .

(Fun fact: one of the main characters of the second show is Jenna Lucado, daughter of Max Lucado)

To give you a taste of what this new genre is like, here’s a preview for the season finale of Revolve:

Now contrary to what you might expect, I’m not gonna be a hater. Yes, it frustrates me that Christian culture is always behind the mainstream by such a tremendous extent, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon these mediums. They can still be valuable tools for evangelism. In particular, the skateboarders have a platform that not all Christians can access. I want to affirm that.

However, the Dateline feature indirectly highlighted an important point about this trend–it’s just another example of Christians mimicking cultural innovations, and at a horribly delayed timing. We take popular cultural phenomena, and we Christianize them. Which ironically seems to make them worse.

Now there’s nothing inherently wrong with Christianizing music, art, or even television. However this does remind us of one unsettling reality: Christians are consistently downstream of culture.

We should be uncomfortable with this fact, because downstream is not our place. We shouldn’t be following the culture’s lead–the culture should be following ours.

As one professor at Fuller Seminary explained, “We should not be imitating the culture, but leading it. If we’re connected with the Creator God of the Universe, then we should be the MOST innovative and the MOST creative individuals in our culture.” We should be harnessing God’s infinite creativity in a way that causes people to stop, take notice, and be inspired.

But this doesn’t happen, does it? In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

Rather than earn respect, Christians have earned mockery, not because we’re taking a stand for the Gospel, but because we offer a sub-par Christian version of everything the culture dreamed up long before. Our engagement of the culture might be great for Christians, but not at all compelling for non-Christians.

But why is that? Two mains reasons:

1. Christians don’t see their jobs and their talents as a calling. A lot of Christians believe that if you’re not a minister, then you don’t have the same kind of divine call on your life. This is a lie. If you’re an investment banker, an interior designer, a publicist, or a secretary, you all have the same call on your life–work for the glory of God.

And this doesn’t simply mean that you should be an ethical person who works hard and sets a good example. It also means that you need to dream up new ways to glorify God with your talents. Take your job to the next level and call on God for the kind of imaginative ideas that would set you apart in your field, for His glory.

2. Christians don’t think. This statement is not universal, but in all belief systems there is a temptation to simply do what you’re told. That is the nature of religion. You listen to what your minister, rabbi, or imam tells you so that you can be a good little religious person.

But such blind obedience does not stimulate creativity. It stifles it. We should not expect to contribute great thinking and ideas to our world if we never ask questions or challenge ourselves in the most important area of our lives. That kind of “bigger picture” mentality begins with your faith, but it should carry over into your work as a result. Don’t just do what your boss tells you–do more, and dream more. This too glorifies God.

Let’s be the trend-setters. Let’s resolve to position ourselves upstream instead of down. Our credibility in this culture is at stake. But don’t hear me as saying that we should judge ourselves according to the world’s wisdom instead of God’s. I’m saying just the opposite. Our problem is that we’re doing the exact same thing as the culture, only worse.

The solution is not to keep up with the culture, but to create categories of innovation that the culture has not even dreamed up yet.

If we ever hope to offer anything more than a Christianized regurgitation of cultural trends and ideas, then we need to rise up in our individual realms of influence and start taking the lead. That begins with you.

Forty years ago Pope Paul VI released a statement on contraception that, looking back, was stunningly prophetic.

The essay, entitled Humanae Vitae (“Of Human Life”), was written at a time in American history when contraceptive pills were becoming very popular. Women across the country were celebrating their newfound freedom as the history of American sexuality turned a new page.

The Catholic Church, however, was singing a different tune. Unlike the many women who rejoiced over the changing cultural tides, the Pope raised a voice of concern–a concern that we can now see was completely warranted.

Although the Catholic Church’s position on contraception has been debated among Christians (Catholics put a heavy priority on the procreative purpose of sex,whereas many other Christians do not), there is one point on which the Pope was completely right.

If only we’d listened.

What follows is an excerpt from Humanae Vitae in which Pope Paul VI projects the cultural implications of contraception. His predictions could not have been more accurate, and I have posted this today because of the profound impact it has had for women since:

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Did you get that?

FORTY YEARS AGO, Pope Paul VI predicted the exact situation that we find ourselves in today. He warned that the practice of hormonal contraception would divorce the responsibility of sex from the act of sex. He also feared that, as a result of this divorce, men would no longer need to guard the sanctity of sex, thereby leading them to treat women and sex in a recklessly casual way.

And his fears came true.

Sex without consequences. That is what the contraceptive revolution bought our country. And what do you think happens when we cheapen the price of a costly good? We no longer value it quite so highly.

Pope Paul VI was exactly right.

So while the contraceptive pill seemed like a gateway to women’s freedom and a means for valuing the female life even more, it instead devalued women, giving men the freedom to use them for sexual gratification without weighing the implications of their actions.

Now I write all of this not as a diatribe against the practice of contraception, but to caution us about considering the ideological impacts of the decisions we make. Just because science develops a solution to making our lives easier or providing us with a convenient short-cut does not mean we should embrace it.

Whenever we seek to relieve ourselves of divinely placed forms of accountability and responsibility, we forget that God created those measures for our own protection. Sex is about more than just procreation, but the fact that sexual intercourse leads to the birth of a new human life should cause us to approach the act of sex soberly and reverently.

While the contraceptive pill can’t take all the blame for the objectification of women and the number of absent fathers in our nation, it certainly played its own part. In a consumer-driven culture that wants what it wants right now, we have taken a thousand tiny steps in the wrong direction, and those tiny steps add up to a society that has wandered horribly off the path of truth.

No, the contraceptive pill is not, in itself, an evil, but blank-check contraceptive practices do not coincide well with a Scriptural view on marriage, family and sex. It is time we start examining why. I hope you will ask yourself that question.