At the heart of the case for so-called “gender-affirming care” is the claim that transition prevents suicide. Research, however, shows the opposite. In a summary of recent research, Ben Johnson described how life satisfaction among those who undergo “transition” surgeries decreases rather than increases. 

While activists in the U.S. seek to eliminate any restrictions to so-called “gender-affirming” interventions for minors, a number of European countries are adding safeguards around or backing off altogether from these controversial procedures. Following European neighbors Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, the Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board announced that it will revise its recommended standards of care for minors struggling with gender dysphoria. The proposed revisions would no longer allow the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and transition surgery for minors. 
As NHIB rightfully points out, the science surrounding “gender-affirming care” is far from settled. In fact, the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or transition surgeries to treat gender dysphoria lacks adequate research. There is hardly any substantial research on the long-term effects of these treatments on minors, and what we do know about them is disregarded by ideologically driven proponents. Puberty blockers, for example, have been known to plague patients with loss of bone density. Cross-sex hormones lead to sterilization. Transition surgeries are rife with serious complications. In the name of a dubious ideology, we’re experimenting on children. 
Additionally, most of the long-term studies that proponents cite to support current “gendering-affirming” protocols are poorly designed. As the report summarized: “As a rule, there is no control group in the studies.” This means that any effects are “often assessed at group level and not at individual level, so that unwanted effects for some patients can be masked by improvement in the rest of the group.”
Read More
Related Posts:

A beautiful church is not something that is only reserved for centuries-old mainline denominations, or congregations with resources to spare. Instead, a beautiful church can be a powerful witness to the community, connect us with the traditions of our ancient and sufficient faith, remind us of the beauty of God and his provision, and shape our spiritual formation week-in and week-out. Beauty in the church should not be an afterthought, but instead a key consideration as we design the spaces we worship our magnificent and glorious God in.

In the last few decades, American churches have gotten a new look—but don’t call it a facelift. Instead, think of it more as a toning-down, as church exteriors have ridden themselves of their steeples and other religious symbols, while their interiors can look more at home as a warehouse-turned-music-venue than a sacred space. American evangelical churches are increasingly taking on a more bare-bones and utilitarian look, often in order to save resources and better attract the unchurched. But is this bare-bones look really what churches should be aiming for? The history of church architecture, research, and our faith suggest otherwise, as beautiful sacred spaces provide powerful opportunities for witness and worship.
The History Of Church Architecture
The history of church architecture doesn’t quite align with Christian history, as churches got their start in homes, thanks to it being largely illegal or unpopular for much of its first few centuries. But once Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the state religion in 381, church architecture took off. Early churches took inspiration from Jewish and Roman architecture, though not their temples—neither Roman nor Jewish temples contained space for a gathering of people to worship, instead allowing only one or two people at a time to petition or offer up sacrifices. Instead, Christian churches mimicked Roman basilicas, which were large public spaces featuring aisles and halls that could fit a crowd.
As the centuries marched on, Christianity spread and had resources to spare, and its architecture became more cutting-edge and meticulously crafted. Churches were soon showing off building techniques that existed nowhere else, like adding a dome on top of a polygonal structure.
The Gothic architecture of the early second millennia continued this trend, as clergy, patrons and builders built taller and taller churches that seemed to reach towards the heavens. Gothic churches often featured cross-shaped floor plans and used lines of windows along the top of their walls to bounce light around and create a sense of mysticism and the Divine.
But with this greater architectural complexity also came greater separation of the public from the sacraments and the word of God. Later churches of the Middle Ages were sometimes made up of two rooms—one space would be for the public to sit in and engage in private devotion, while the other space would be for the clergy and the choir to recite Mass and partake in the sacraments. Often, the two rooms were separated by a screen, severely limiting the congregation’s ability to engage with and see the worship service.
These excesses, among other things, brought along the Reformation, which fundamentally reshaped church architecture. Protestant worship spaces were marked with an absence of saints, screens and iconography, instead preferring to minimize excess ornamentation and the distance between the clergy and their people. (Meanwhile, as a reaction to this split, Baroque-era Catholic churches only increased in decadence, at least for a time.)
Church Architecture in America
As Christianity entered the New World, its churches began to follow the architectural trends of its era, soon taking on the rational and restrained Neoclassical style in the age of Enlightenment. This eventually gave way to the Gothic Revival style, which celebrated the ‘high-church’ look as the Second Great Awakening was taking over the nation and seeding small country churches.
The 20th-century brought with it Victorian churches, Craftsman churches, and even Modernist churches, each demonstrating the architectural preferences of its time. But throughout each of these movements and trends, many things remained the same about American churches—almost all featured steeples, sloped roofs, exterior ornamentation and an overall attention to beauty, even if the buildings now look dated to our 21st-century eyes. But as the midcentury came and went, church architecture underwent a massive shift—suddenly, it was no longer in vogue to look like a church anymore.
Architectural Evangelism
American Christianity in the mid 20th-century was marked by revivalists like Billy Graham and Oral Roberts, bringing people to Christ one soul at a time. But in the ‘70s and ‘80s, the mainstream approach to evangelism changed, as church leaders wanted people to not only be saved, but to enter church life too. Thus the church-growth movement began, which focused more on drawing people into a church and focused less on going out into the community and holding large evangelistic events. And one of the ways churches sought to attract people into them was through architecture—or rather, a lack of it.
The theory was that a church building that looked more like it belonged in a strip mall or shopping center would be more accessible to those from unchurched backgrounds and it wouldn’t carry any of the visual baggage a traditional-looking church might. This approach is called ‘architectural evangelism.’ These types of ‘seeker-friendly’ churches are a dime-a-dozen now, but they can be defined by their use of low-cost materials, their repurposing or repetition of secular spaces, like theaters, warehouses, or storefronts, their boxy shapes, and their use of few or no ecclesiological markers, such a steeple, stained glass, or a cross. (It’s also interesting to note that churches started to act more business-like throughout the 20th-century and needed office spaces for additional staff—perhaps another reason for the move towards strip-mall and office-park-esque churches.)
Read More
Related Posts:

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth. “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.” (John 14:16-17)

We all need to hear the truth—and take it to heart. Truth brings freedom, and without it we are caught up in a web of deceit. Here are 25 Bible passages about truth (all Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version):
Jesus is the truth.

1. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
2. Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
3. Assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus. (Eph. 4:21)

God’s word is truth.

4. The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever. (Ps. 119:160)
5. “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17)
6. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Eph. 1:13-14)

The truth will set you free.

7. “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth.

8. “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.” (John 14:16-17)

The Lord is near to those who call on him in truth.
Read More
Related Posts: