Being an “older woman” is not for the faint of heart.  The older we get the more we realize the more flawed we are and the more we need every ounce of grace that God graciously gives –which is probably why God gives this command to us at this time in our lives.  But our young women are worth the investment.  And they need us now more than ever. 

Anyone paying attention knows that there is a national assault on our girls.  The most recent example is the amending of Title IX, a law that was originally written to protect young women and recognize their differences from men.  This law has been surreptitiously double-crossed by those who suggest that men can be women and therefore men should be protected as women and at the expense of the women it was originally meant to protect.  To add insult to injury, the feminine phenom of the day, Taylor Swift, who, like the Pied Piper, has sung her way into the hearts of our girls, released a new album that openly mocks the women who hold the line for our daughters in this crazy, disordered world.
I am grateful for the cultural warriors with large audiences who expose this attack on our girls and address it at the highest levels in our country.  But many of us don’t have that kind of platform.  For most of us, our circle of influence is small as we endeavor to live quiet lives and love our families, church community and neighbors.  We think, “What can we do that really makes a difference in this twisted, disordered world?”  The answer is one that has resounded throughout the generations: “Older women…teach what is good” (Tit. 2:3).
Direction for the Disorder
Unfortunately, what we see today is a generation of younger women who are increasingly vulnerable to the disorder promoted by those that hate God.  Many girls lack the foundation of truth which prevents them from standing as “corner pillars cut for the structure of a palace” (Ps. 144:12).  Will they be able to withstand the elements that are shaking the foundations of our society?  Do they believe what the Bible says about their identity and value as women?  Do they choose God’s truth over the worldly distractions thrown at them every day? Are they taken by the influence of the “Swifties” or by the influence of godly moms, grandmas, aunts and sisters? Importantly, do they see older women standing firm and engaging them in truth and in love and kindness?
Some days it can seem like disorder is winning the day.  Of course, this generation’s disorder is not a new story, but an old one from the beginning when the Author of Lies spewed the first critical theory of history: “Did God really say?” (Gen. 3:1).  The majestic order that God created out of the disordered void was corrupted by one who had a history of hating God.  It is not a new story.  And, it was not a new story when the Apostle Paul wrote to his disciple Titus, whom he left behind on the island of Crete to bring order to the church established there.  Paul wrote his letter to instruct Titus to “put what remained into order” so that the new Christians would live lives that flowed from a “knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life” (Tit.1:2).
Paul knew that order would come not only from establishing masculine authority in the church but also partnering with older women who would teach younger women what is good and in accordance with sound doctrine.
Read More
Related Posts:

While peace in the church is necessary and should be sought by all believers, it cannot exist while false teaching is tolerated. Therefore, Christians must contend for the Gospel against all false teaching that perverts it. This is done by first understanding and holding fast to the true Gospel then identifying and fighting against any teaching that distorts it. The Gospel is the most precious possession of any Christian and is therefore worth our utmost effort to defend.

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.  For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
– Jude 3-4, ESV

The last three New Testament epistles (letters) are also some of the shortest, but they are also linked by a common theme.  Second John, Third John, and Jude all warn their recipients against false teachers who distort the Gospel.  Jude’s warning is the strongest, but Second and Third John also contain similar warnings, which are also stated by Peter (2 Peter 2:1-3) and Paul (Philippians 3:3, Titus 1:10-16, etc.).  Jude spends most of his letter describing these false teachers in graphic detail.  Why?  In verse 3, he appeals to his readers to contend for the faith.  His use of “contend” implies a fight or struggle, which is echoed by Paul (Philippians 1:27, 1 Timothy 6:12).  I recently wrote of the need for unity in the church, but clearly there is an appropriate time to fight.  It is important for every Christian to know when and why we must fight, who we must fight against, and how we must fight.
What to Contend for and When
First, since Scripture is filled with calls to maintain peace whenever possible (eg. Romans 12:18), it is important to know what we must contend for and when it is appropriate to fight for it.  Jude makes it clear in verse 3: “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”.  This is clearly the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which Paul says is “of first importance…that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).  This is the Gospel: salvation by the grace of God alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone to the glory of God alone as revealed in Scripture alone.  Anything contrary to this is a false gospel that must be opposed.
When should we fight for the Gospel?  Jude answers this by stating that people “pervert the grace of our God…and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ”.  Jude accentuates this by describing the Gospel as delivered to us “once for all”.  This precludes any distortion of the Gospel that adds anything to or subtracts anything from the Gospel as it is clearly taught in Scripture.  This means that any gospel that subtracts from the person and work of Christ or adds any requirements other than the work of Christ (such as good works) is a false gospel.  Thus, we must fight for the purity of the Gospel when it is threatened.
One could argue that the Gospel is always threatened, as unbelievers frequently attack the Christian faith.  This is typically what we think of as the greatest threat to the Gospel.  However, Jude does not have external threats in view, since he says these enemies have “crept in unnoticed”.  Later, he calls them “hidden reefs at your love feasts” (Jude 12), referencing communion and therefore revealing these as enemies within the church.  This means that we are called to contend for the Gospel whenever its purity is threatened within the church.
It is equally important to note what Jude doesn’t mention: anything but the Gospel.  While we must contend for the Gospel, we are not fight over secondary doctrines (like the specifics of baptism and eschatology) or personal preferences.  Scripture explicitly commands us not to fight over such things (Romans 14:1).  This is why my theology page focuses on core doctrines rather than secondary doctrines and controversies. Still, even that goes a bit beyond core doctrines, so we must rely on what Scripture clearly teaches as the Gospel, which has been recognized throughout the history of the church and concisely stated in various creeds such as the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed.
Read More
Related Posts:

If this were an isolated occurrence it would be one thing; regrettably, this does not seem to be the case. If one were to summarize the crisis of evangelicalism in America today, he could probably do so best by saying that its internal struggles arise because its institutions do not represent the vast majority of its people, and that their actions do not put into practice the beliefs or preferred actions of those people.

In a previous article I responded to a claim published at byFaith, the official magazine of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which stated that “gun violence” is “the leading cause of death among children in this nation.” I referenced CDC cause of death data by age which showed this is false, and in a subsequent article requested that readers contact byFaith and urge them to retract. An unclear but apparently significant number of people did so, for which I am grateful.
As of this writing byFaith has not retracted the original claim, however. Their reason? Per the response to my complaint from some of their leadership, they maintain the original claim’s accuracy. They appeal to a study by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that discusses how “firearm-related deaths” are the leading cause of death “among children and adolescents,” a group it defines as “persons 1 to 19 years of age.” That is an insufficient defense.
Problem one is that infants under the age of one are children, and that 18 and 19 year old adults are not. To give an idea of how much this statistical sleight of hand skews the results, consider that infants under one accounted for about 56% of child deaths in 2020, while 18 and 19 year olds had more firearm homicide deaths between them than the entire 0-17 age group (1,435 v. 1,376), and nearly as many suicides (~79% as many). One can only claim that firearms-related deaths were the leading cause of death among children and adolescents in 2020 by denying the majority of child deaths, in other words, and by also including many adults of an age particularly prone to criminal violence and self-harm.
Problem two is that “firearms-related deaths” and “gun violence” are not synonymous, as the former appears to include accidental deaths, whereas the CDC distinguishes between unintentional and violence-related injuries when it categorizes causes of death.
Problem three is that there is an implicit denial of the personhood of infants in any study that talks about children’s deaths that intentionally omits them from its findings. If one truly cares about children’s wellbeing and wishes to empirically study causes of its destruction, one must include all children. As the NEJM study did not do that, we can only include that they either do not regard such infants as truly being children, or else that they are more interested in pursuing a political agenda than in handling the data in a dispassionate manner. Neither of those commends the study in question as reliable, and yet byFaith has hedged its defense upon it.
Now let us trace the sequence of events up to this point. First, byFaith published an inaccurate claim. Second, it was publicly contradicted and was publicly and privately requested to retract the claim. Third, it refused to retract and attempted to defend its original statement by appealing to a source that speaks of a different category of deaths among a different group of people, and which seems to espouse sentiments – i.e., that infants under one do not count as children – that could be used to justify infanticide.
There is no gentle way of putting this, but suffice it to say that such actions do not constitute good journalism. It is one thing to make a mistaken claim of fact, though editors ought to verify the accuracy of articles before publishing them. It is another thing, and worse still, to try to justify one’s mistake by appealing to sources that do not, by their own description, purport to discuss the same thing or the same group of people as one’s own claims. Again, “children” are a different group than “children and adolescents,” and the proper definition of the former is people in the 0-17 age range, not the 1-19 age range that the NEJM uses (inaccurately) for the latter group. (Actually in common parlance children means either pre-pubescent people, but I am using it in its widest sense to refer to what the law typically calls minors.)[1]
It is worse still to justify all of this on the ground that the original article was an impassioned pro-life plea, as byFaith’s response to my private complaint attempted to do. Defending life by appealing to a source that has published pro-infanticide material in the past (compare this and this), and that appears to maintain infanticide-compatible notions about the personhood of infants in the particular study to which one appeals is a strange method, surely. And it is all the worse in that it distracts from what is an indisputably worse cause of death among children, abortion. In 2020 the top 20 leading causes of death for children counted by the CDC totaled 27,054 deaths; abortion accounted for 620,327, or nearly 23 times as many as all those others combined.
Two things before I proceed. One, miscarriage appears to be the largest killer of children, though unlike abortion it is not clear that it is directly preventable in many cases. (If anyone with a medical background believes that I am mistaken here, please drop me a line of correction.) Two, my own writings up to this point had the same effect as byFaith’s, in that they ignored prenatal deaths, which are vastly more common than deaths among children after they are born. Insofar as I believe that byFaith erred by distorting the nature of the matters in view, it is a thing of which I also am guilty. Mark that well, reader: Tom Hervey was wrong too, in that he lost sight of the larger picture.
There is a bit of a difference, however, in that I did not attempt to cast my position as being part of a larger, thoroughly pro-life plea as byFaith has done: my concern was with the inaccuracy of the original claim, and of how publishing it risked bringing our denomination into disrepute and played (if unwittingly) into the hands of political agitators who wish to heckle people into doing their bidding by the use of the same original claim about children and gun violence (often verbatim). Now to summarize, the PCA’s denominational magazine has been engaged in poor journalism, and has willfully persisted in that poor journalism in a way that unhelpfully distorts the nature of our thinking about pro-life matters.
If this were an isolated occurrence it would be one thing; regrettably, this does not seem to be the case. If one were to summarize the crisis of evangelicalism in America today, he could probably do so best by saying that its internal struggles arise because its institutions do not represent the vast majority of its people, and that their actions do not put into practice the beliefs or preferred actions of those people. We keep putting up institutions and celebrating, often more than is warranted, various individuals in our midst, and like clockwork they keep turning about and taking their cues rather from our wider society and its discourse and current events than from the people whom they are supposed to serve.
An example of that appears here as well. For some time now many evangelicals have been sorely embarrassed at the suggestion that preventing defenseless children from being murdered in utero is our foremost concern in questions of life and death. Our opponents frequently accuse of us of not caring about human life after it enters this world, and say things like ‘you talk about the sanctity of life for fetuses, but after they are born you are content to let them languish in oppressive and abusive familial and socio-economic circumstances – some love of life that is!’ And so now our prominent people have begun talking about a larger pro-life vision, and shift the focus from the first point of defending life (logically and chronologically), to talking about promoting a culture of life in general. That is not necessarily wrong as such, but it has the potential to become so by a) suggesting as true what is in many cases baseless slander by our opponents; and b) shifting the definition of what constitutes pro-life action.
It is the latter that is entailed in byFaith’s position here. Their original article regards it as imperative to “stop excusing our lack of progress in reducing mass shootings and work on creating and implementing the solutions that will foster a safer society for all,” and deems the present public safety situation for children in America as a “hellish” and “unsustainable” crisis that demands immediate action by everyone (“we must all start working for a safer society”).  In byFaith’s personal response to me one of their staff explicitly connected advocating to protect “elementary school children” (his phrase) to advocating against abortion.
There is no comparing abortion to criminal violence against children in general, or to school shootings in particular, and the attempt to do so is an exercise in moral blindness. Elective abortion is legal murder that is encouraged, protected, and subsidized by our government, and in the last 50 years has accounted for the deaths of tens of millions of children. By contrast, gun murder (and suicide) is in contravention of our laws. Legality and social celebration on the one hand and criminality and social deprecation on the other make the two things, abortion and firearm murder, vastly different in nature; and alas for us, the socially approved one is the more common by far, which is the real crisis that calls for our action.
If we limit our focus to school shootings, which were an important emphasis for byFaith (per the original article and their subsequent response), there is no comparison at all. In the entire 52 year period for which the Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) has analyzed school shooting deaths they identified 371 that involved minors (and that includes suicides, accidents, self defense, and justifiable homicides by law enforcement). In that same period probably at least 223 million people have been students;[2] and 371 out of 223,000,000 across half a century is not a crisis, but an extreme rarity (comp. footnote), even granting there is probably some undercounting for the pre-Internet era.[3]
And yet, these things notwithstanding, byFaith would have us “get on with the good work that needs to be done” viz. gun violence and children’s safety in this country, whatever that entails (and neither they nor Cassidy have said, as others have noted). I think I speak for a great many people in the PCA when I say that we expect better from our official news agency, and that it is a point of some embarrassment and frustration that it not only published inaccurate claims that are popular with political factions that are in most respects our enemies, but has persisted in mistakenly asserting their accuracy in a way which draws their journalistic competence yet further into question and which, worst of all, redefines what is entailed in the single most important moral movement with which evangelicalism is involved.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name.
[1]     Adolescents (ages 13-19) accounted for 2,543 firearm homicides and 1,239 firearm suicides during 2020, out of a total of 2,811 and 1,293, respectively, or about 90.5 and 95.8% of deaths among people in the 0-19 age group in those categories.
[2]     Figured by subtracting foreign-born residents and people over 65 and under 5 years of age from the nation’s total population as estimated by the Census Bureau, an admittedly rough estimate.
[3]     Figures for minors computed from CHDS’s raw data excel file. For comparison of firearm homicides in general among minors, per the Census Bureau persons under 18 accounted for an estimated 22.2% of the population in 2021, or approximately 73,989,838 people. The 1,376 firearm homicides in this group in 2020 (the last year available) represented the death of 1 in 53,772. Nothing which is so rare can be justly deemed an urgent crisis of the utmost importance. Abortion is vastly more common: 620,237 incidences against 3,605,201 births in 2020, per the CDC.
Related Posts: