Pastors and bishops tell CityServe leaders their greatest needs are helping young mothers who are now widows, the elderly and traumatized children. CityServe President Wendell Vinson is grateful to Ukrainian pastor and churches. “We get to link up with the church Jesus already has in Ukraine; it is moving forward, and the gospel is advancing throughout eastern Europe,” Vinson said.

The little known story of war in Ukraine is how churches are turning what the enemy intended for evil into glory for God through ministry to millions of people traumatized by Russia’s aggression.
With support from Christians in America, Ukrainian churches have shared the gospel with millions of people, filled empty stomachs, sheltered the homeless, and prayed for peace.
A prayer leader in Ukraine, Vitaliy Orlov, is thankful for spiritual and financial support from American intercessors for neighbors and a family member who’ve suffered as a result of the war.
“It is true that daily we are being bombed, especially my city and region, along with thousands of other towns in Ukraine. I know that almost every Ukrainian is traumatized today,” Orlov told American prayer warriors.
Orlov, the leader of Intercessors for Ukraine, said his brother expressed doubts that he will survive the war as a member of the army.
“There are hundreds of thousands like my brother,” Orlov told Intercessors for America (IFA). Watch here: Watch – Intercessors for America (ifapray.org)
People without food for months heard the gospel and received prayer booklets, thanks to IFA, which  provided one million meals after the war began.
Still, spiritual, emotional and physical tolls mount for Ukrainians in the second summer of war, according to a pastor whose church’s doors are open to hurting people.
“It’s tough to see families that have lost fathers and homes,” said Pastor Maksym Bilosouv, who weekly serves hundreds of refugees at his church in Dnipro.
Praying for and over refugees, church members lead them to the Lord around tables set up for meals and conversation, said Bilosouv, who calls it a starting point.
“When I look ahead, I see problems in the future that only God can deal with,” said Bilosouv who, despite adversity, retains joy.
Though the church responded wonderfully at the beginning of the conflict, fatigue is now a factor.
Both leaders ask prayer for the military, more prayer book resources, and care for orphans.
Read More
Related Posts:

When we prioritize the least successful students over their more well-prepared peers, we invariably lower standards for all students. Educators focus on gaming the system to produce “high” grades and graduation rates and in the process, everyone loses sight of why learning matters in the first place. Schools only work when teachers believe in the value of their lessons and students feel responsible for their own learning. In the absence of those vital components, everyone is less likely to succeed.

A few years ago, the school district where I teach became enamored with a book called The One Thing by real estate mogul Gary Keller. Keller argued that, rather than spreading out effort over many different objectives, the secret to success was to identify and focus on the one thing that mattered most for achieving your goal. Taken with this insight, our superintendent asked every principal in the district to determine the “One Thing” that would be the unifying focus of their campus efforts. When teachers returned from summer break that year, we learned about this new initiative and the specific cause that our principal had selected for us to rally around.
Our high school wasn’t going to focus on helping students develop better problem-solving skills, increasing student engagement, or even on aligning our curriculums more closely to the demands of standardized tests. In fact, we weren’t going to focus on anything that would be relevant to the majority of our students. Our One Thing was to improve the educational outcomes of our “critical students”—the lowest achieving five percent who had not passed standardized tests and were most at risk of not graduating. In a school with over 2,000 students, we were told that improving the scores of our bottom 100 was what mattered most.
While a bit more blunt than is typical, this was only stating a hidden reality of which most educators were already aware. Public education, today, is far more concerned with raising the grades and test scores of its lowest achieving students than with pushing all students towards a higher standard. Of course, schools would love everyone to learn more and they are eager to highlight any academic achievement that they can use to create the illusion of educational excellence. But in a world of finite resources, the priorities are quite clear. Whenever a school has to choose, they will sacrifice the benefit of the many to focus on the least successful few.
Many would argue that this is how it should be—that schools should embrace the Rawlsian ethic and direct the majority of their attention to supporting the least advantaged, whose environments or talents make them less likely to become successful students. Such sentiments are particularly common in education, where I’ve often heard teachers make the case that: Good students don’t really need you. They will do well no matter what. The students who really need you are the ones who don’t care about school. As progressive as this sounds, it speaks to a culture that does not actually believe that the subjects they teach matter.
Considering the needs of each student, why should so much emphasis be placed on teaching algebra to a high school student who still can’t multiply single-digit numbers in his head. By high school, most “critical students” are years behind their peers. They often don’t know the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, where China is relative to Australia, or that “I” is supposed to be capitalized. Barring an enormous and unlikely investment of energy, they will not enter a field that requires academic competency. This is not to say that motivated students should not have access to remediation. But the vast majority of critical students would benefit far more from getting work experience in a specific trade than from prolonging this painful educational charade. It seems foolish for a teacher to pay less attention to students who are likely to need higher-level academic skills in their future, so that he can pull uninterested students aside to quiz them on the parts of the cell.
By contrast, most other students need to be challenged to go beyond superficial task work. But, the higher-order skills that high schools should be focused on developing require a level of attention, rigor, and skilled feedback that remediation-focused teachers are not able to offer. Consequently, the majority of high school graduates today are not adequately prepared. A 2010 report revealed that of the 23 member universities in the California State University system, all of which demand a college-preparatory curriculum completed with at least a B average, “68 percent of the 50,000 entering freshmen at CSU campuses require remediation in English/language arts, math, or both.” And if these same standards were applied by the California Community Colleges, “their remediation rates would exceed 80 percent.”
The report (which comes from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and the Southern Regional Education Board) goes on to argue that most other states would have similar findings. Indeed, according to former professor and United States Assistant Secretary of Education, Chester E. Finn Jr.:
For years now, the College Board, the American College Testing program, and, more recently, the National Assessment of Educational Progress have supplied data indicating that the percentage of 12th graders (or 12th-grade test-takers) who are truly ready for college coursework is somewhere below 40.
None of this is likely to surprise Americans. According to 2018 Gallup polls, only three percent of Americans thought high school graduates were “very well prepared for college” and only five percent thought they were “very well prepared for work.” Most people sense that our education system is falling short, yet we struggle to identify many of the most obvious causes and their solutions. Most notably, by placing a disproportionate emphasis on the education of less capable students, schools downgrade the education of everyone else. Teachers lower their standards and their role shifts from academic and developmental experts to that of activity-organizers. Mainstream students skate by without ever cultivating a capacity for logical analysis, synthesis, written argument, or any of the competencies that will be most valuable after high school. Even Advanced Placement courses are often forced to lower their standards, as many parents realize that the mainstream track is inadequate and decide to push their kids into classes they aren’t prepared for.
Read More

The Scriptures teach both by precept and example that God’s ministers–those who serve in God’s sanctuary, must be “jealous with his jealousy” (Numbers 25:12), that is, our zeal for God’s holiness must supersede our natural love for our family and friends and neighbors. The truth of God, the right worship of God, is more precious to us, such that we will not compromise or buckle even in the face of natural affection, even under the influence of pity and empathy. The relevant application for us, as Fr. Robinson noted, is that the empathetic sex is ill-suited to the ministerial office, and thus women’s ordination is indeed a watershed issue.

A number of years ago, I kicked up a hornet’s nest by highlighting how empathy, as understood and practiced in the modern world, is dangerous, destructive, and sinful. Since then, every so often, another battle in the Empathy Wars breaks out (usually on social media), and we all learn something. In most of these dustups, there is an underlying dynamic that manifests again and again, and now seemed as good a time as any to identify it. Providentially, the recent controversy involving Fr. Calvin Robinson and the Mere Anglicanism conference provides the perfect opportunity to do so. The dynamic I have in mind is the intersection of feminism in the church, theological drift, and the sin of empathy.
My basic contention is that running beneath the ideological conflicts surrounding all things “woke” (race, sexuality, abuse, and LGBTQ+) is a common emotional dynamic involving untethered empathy–that is, a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality. In the modern context, empathy is frequently, as one author put it, “a disguise for anxiety” and “a power tool in the hands of the sensitive.” It is the means by which various aggrieved groups have been able to steer communities into catering to greater and greater folly and injustice. And a key ingredient in making this steering effective is feminism.
Controversy in Carolina
Which brings me to Fr. Robinson. Others have described the controversy in greater detail (see here, here, and here), but the simplified version is that Fr. Robinson was asked to speak on Critical Theory: Antithetical to the Gospel. Rather than simply focusing on Critical Race Theory or Queer Theory, Fr. Robinson went to the root of the matter and identified Marxism, Liberalism, and Feminism as the origin of the rest. In particular, he identified feminism as the gateway drug to Critical Theory in the church, calling women’s ordination a “Trojan Horse” and a “cancer.” In doing so, Fr. Robinson was simply following in the footsteps of another Anglican intellectual, C.S. Lewis, who in his famous essay, “Priestesses in the Church?”, notes that ordaining priestesses seems to entail a number of other modifications to Christian theology, including addressing “Our Mother in Heaven,” and the notion that Incarnation might just as well have taken a female form.1 As Lewis notes, “Goddesses have, of course, been worshiped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.” You can read Fr. Robinson’s full remarks at his substack. He ably describes the ideological dimension of the slippery slope from feminism to other forms of Critical Theory (his account of Marx, Luther, and Liberalism is less compelling)
More than that, he briefly described the social dynamics in play and connected it particularly to empathy.
Generally speaking, men tend to be more theologically rigid, whereas women tend to be more theologically flexible. That is because men do not have the emotional intelligence of women. We are more black and white, meaning we tend to be logic-based when it comes to problem solving. Women tend to be more inclusive. They are more empathetic and tend to be more emotion-based when solving problems. You can see how that might be a problem when a group is claiming to be an oppressed minority, and the thing preventing them from attending Church is the cruel doctrines and the regressive scriptures we follow. Which empath wouldn’t want to compromise in order to make a so-called oppressed minority feel included?
To expand on Robinson’s point, he is correct that, in general, women are more empathetic than men. And, in itself, this is a God-given blessing. Empathy–that is, vicariously experiencing the emotions of another–can be a wonderful thing in its place. It fosters connection and bonding. It’s why women frequently act as the glue that holds communities together. Abigail Dodds describes some of the benefits of this God-given feature.
Research shows that women in particular are more empathetic than men when seeing other people in pain. I think this reflects a wonderful design feature that God has given women that benefits not only any children we might have, but our entire communities.
A woman who is sensitive to the feelings of others, especially their pain, will be a sort of first responder. She is able to move toward the hurting. She can sound the alarm that someone is in need. And very practically for mothers, she can sense her infant’s need for food and sleep and attention. She can detect a downcast glance from her teenage daughter or son. She can tell if her husband is carrying some frustration from his workday. Doesn’t this make sense with God’s design for a woman? The one he called helper (Genesis 2:18)? What a gift God has given to women.
Crucially, however, what is a blessing in one place is a curse in another. The same impulse that leads a woman to move toward the hurting with comfort and welcome becomes a major liability when it comes to guarding the doctrine and worship of the church. There are times–usually involving grave error or gross sin–when God forbids empathy and pity. When someone–even a close family member–entices Israel to commit idolatry and abandon the Lord, “You shall not yield to him, or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him” (Deuteronomy 13:6-10). So also in the case of first-degree murder, or of bearing false witness in court (Deuteronomy 7:16, 19:13, and 19:21). In such cases, God is adamant that “your eye shall not pity them.”
This principle is highly relevant for the leadership and governance of the church (whether we’re talking Anglican priests, Presbyterian elders, or Baptist pastors). Whatever other functions ministers may perform (administration, service, care for the sick), the sine qua non of the ministerial office is teaching and guarding the doctrine and worship of the church. In such moments, empathy and pity are a liability, not an asset.
To use a biblical example, when Moses comes down the mountain in Exodus 32 and witnesses the gross idolatry of the Israelites, he says, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.” And the sons of Levi gathered to him. He then tells them to pick up their swords and to go to and fro through the camp, killing their brothers, companions, and neighbors. Their eye was not to pity those who had committed such evil. God’s response to their obedience was to ordain them to the priesthood.
Similarly, in Numbers 25, when the Israelites are confronted with the very first Pride parade, when the Israelite man struts through the camp with his idolatrous Midianite bride, Moses and the elders of Israel weep at the tent of meeting. Phinehas, however, takes action, following the man and woman into their tent and driving his spear through both of them (presumably while in coitus). And God’s response is to say, “That man will make a great priest.”
In other words, the Scriptures teach both by precept and example that God’s ministers–those who serve in God’s sanctuary, must be “jealous with his jealousy” (Numbers 25:12), that is, our zeal for God’s holiness must supersede our natural love for our family and friends and neighbors. The truth of God, the right worship of God, is more precious to us, such that we will not compromise or buckle even in the face of natural affection, even under the influence of pity and empathy. The relevant application for us, as Fr. Robinson noted, is that the empathetic sex is ill-suited to the ministerial office, and thus women’s ordination is indeed a watershed issue.
Read More
Related Posts: