Formed in the musical turmoil of the late 80s, the American group made music based on a theory of melody. But with the help of Rush collaborators they’ve tweaked their approach for the third album of their next generation

https://media.thegospelcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/02132950/Article-Version%E2%80%94Research-from-Harvard.mp3 Listen to the author read her article. Imagine someone hands you a box of pills. You open it, and 52 neatly laid out tablets meet your eyes. If you’re young and healthy, you might think, I don’t need these. You either throw them out or stash them in a box somewhere for future use. If you’re older or suffer from chronic physical or mental illness, you may be more intrigued. What if this is just the medication you’re looking for? You read the printed information in the pillbox and it claims this medication—if taken at least weekly—could elongate your life expectancy by seven years, significantly increase your chance of happiness, and substantially reduce the likelihood you’ll suffer from depression. Thinking this is too good to be true, you check the side effects. They’re listed as a greater sense of meaning, greater likelihood of volunteering, and more generosity toward those in need. Once again, you’re skeptical. This must be a scam. You turn to the back of the box to see where this information comes from. There you find this medication has been extensively tested by none other than the Harvard School of Public Health. Would you take the pills? Miracle Drug of Church Attendance In a 2016 article for USA Today, Harvard School of Public Health professor Tyler VanderWeele and journalist John Siniff posed this question: If one could conceive of a single elixir to improve the physical and mental health of millions of Americans—at no personal cost—what value would our society place on it? Going a step further, if research quite conclusively showed that when consumed just once a week, this concoction would reduce mortality by 20% to 30% over a 15-year period, how urgently would we want to make it publicly available? VanderWeele is director of the human flourishing program at Harvard. He’s a literal world expert on what’s good for you and me. So, what’s this magic potion he’s found? We may think VanderWeele has conjured a health-enhancing drug. Perhaps he’s found a side-effect-free diet pill? Or some safe substance that will make you want to exercise? Or maybe yoga, meditation, or some novel superfood? But VanderWeele goes on: “The good news is that this miracle drug—religion, and more specifically regular church attendance—is already in reach of most Americans. In fact, there’s a good chance it’s just a short drive away.” Whatever your beliefs, my guess is that you wouldn’t expect a Harvard professor to write you this prescription: “Church. Take once a week (or more) for best effects.” But study after study has shown that people who attend religious services once a week or more are happier, healthier, and longer-lived than those who don’t. If any other practice had the same effects, it would be widely advertised in public health campaigns. Study after study has shown that people who attend religious services once a week or more are happier, healthier, and longer-lived than those who don’t. I wonder how that information lands for you. Many today see church as outdated, unnecessary, or even harmful. Maybe you identify as “spiritual, but not religious.” You’d rather climb a mountain or gaze up at the stars than go to church. Perhaps you’ve been put off by racism, abuse, hypocrisy, or hateful attitudes. Church is the last place you’d want to show up on a Sunday. Perhaps you grew up in a different religious tradition. At this point, you don’t regularly attend religious services, but it’d feel offensive for someone to invite you to church. Or maybe you identify as atheist, agnostic, or “nothing in particular,” and your first thought on hearing about the benefits of church is that they must be explained by community support. If one of these describes you, I’m honored you’d take time to read this article. You’re likely someone who thinks carefully and wants to see the data before you make a decision. My hope is that the data in this book will give you food for thought. Maybe you feel less skeptical and more wistful when you hear talk of church. Perhaps you weren’t raised in church, but you’ve seen how meaningful it is to other people, and you feel a little robbed. Perhaps you used to go to church, but then you moved to a new city and haven’t found a new church. Perhaps you stopped attending during COVID-19 and never got back into the habit. Perhaps you went through a divorce, or changed your job, or your kids had Sunday morning soccer games, and church quietly slid off your weekly calendar. Perhaps you’re single and the church you went to seemed to revolve around married couples. Maybe you found yourself out of step with others at your church politically and you stopped attending. Or you became depressed or struggle with anxiety, and making it to church on Sundays just feels too hard. If one of these scenarios describes you, you’re not alone. These are some of the reasons why, in the first quarter of the 21st century, 40 million Americans (around 12 percent of the population) have stopped attending church. If you don’t see yourself as a religious person, you might think this is good news. Many think that less religion means less bigotry and more happy, psycholog­i­cally healthy, socially responsible citizens. But the results of what has been called “the great dechurching” in America have been measurably bad. Less churchgoing has led to lower mental health and happiness, more loneliness, more drug abuse, more alcoholism, less volunteering, less giving to those in need, reduced life expectancy, and more suicides. Even the most skeptical experts acknowledge that declining church attendance in the United States and (over a longer time period) across the West has had devastating side effects. How Church Could (Literally) Save Your Life In chapters 1 and 2 of How Church Could (Literally) Save Your Life, I reckon with the data on the mental and physical health benefits of weekly church attendance. These results can’t be explained away simply by social contact. As VanderWeele­ explains, “Social support is critical, yet this accounts for only about a quarter of the effect.” The majority of religious-service participants in the studies have been churchgoers, but most studies don’t differentiate between different kinds of religious services. So, for instance, people going to Jewish synagogues once a week or more report benefits similar to those attending Christian churches. But the religious element seems to be vital. Parents who join the same people each week to cheer for their kids’ sports team won’t see the same level of benefit. We humans seem to thrive when we worship together. Parents who join the same people each week to cheer for their kids’ sports team won’t see the same level of benefit. We humans seem to thrive when we worship together. In chapter 3, I look at the moral effects of going to church each week. However you identify religiously, my guess is that you see altruism (whether in the form of giving money or volunteering time to charitable causes) as beneficial for society. But why do we think caring for the poor, sick, and vulnerable is good? This may seem like a strange question. Whether we realize it or not, it turns out that the seemingly self-evident truth that all human life is equally valuable—regardless of a person’s age, sex, nationality, income level, or abilities—came to us from Chris­tian­ity. If Christianity isn’t true, we aren’t left with a better secular foundation for our core belief that all humans are equal. We’re left with that ethical rug pulled out from underneath our feet. Finally, in chapter 4, I guide readers to face the truth that haunts all of our lives. However healthy you and I may be—however much we work out, eat well, sleep, avoid smoking, get annual health checks, or even go to church—we’ll all end up as corpses before long. So, in the book’s last chapter, I look at Chris­tian­ity’s wild claim that anyone who puts his or her trust in Jesus will be carried right through death to everlasting life with him. You may think this is simply not believable today. But VanderWeele is one of many world-class scholars who would challenge that assumption. Rather than dismissing Chris­tian­ity out of hand, VanderWeele suggests that “any educated person should, at some point, have critically examined the claims for Chris­tian­ity and should be able to explain why he or she does, or does not, believe them.” Here’s Your Prescription If you’ve never been to church with any regularity before, my hope is that this article or my book will make you want to try it out. If you were once a regular attender, perhaps you’ll think of coming back. On the last page of the book, you’ll find a website and a QR code that will help you get connected to a church in your area, and you’ll see a list of questions frequently asked by those considering going to church (What can I expect? What should I wear?). If you hate church and everything it stands for, I’m thankful you’ve read this far. I wrote another book especially for you. It’s called Confronting Christianity, and it looks at 12 of the biggest reasons you may have for not considering the Christian faith. If you’re not sure what to believe, but you need more hope and love and meaning in your life, my prayer is that How Church Could (Literally) Save Your Life will function as an invitation to look for a local church where you could find out more about who Jesus is and maybe start attending regularly. If church is, as VanderWeele claims, something of a “miracle drug,” why not start popping that pill now?

Suffering is not a glitch in the Christian life—it’s part of it. In this conversation, Matt Smethurst and Ligon Duncan talk about how pastors can prepare their people to face pain with faith and endurance. They discuss what it means to view hardship through God’s providence, why the “victorious Christian life” often looks like just hanging on, and how preaching, hymns, and patient shepherding can help believers trust God when he seems silent. Resources Mentioned: When Pain Is Real and God Seems Silent by Ligon Duncan Joni Eareckson Tada’s ministry, Joni and Friends When the Stars Disappear by Mark Talbot Don’t Waste Your Life by John Piper Bible passages; Psalm 88; Psalm 40; 2 Corinthians 4; Romans 8; Genesis 50:20 Hymns: “How Firm a Foundation,” “Dear Refuge of My Weary Soul,” and  “Afflicted Saint, to Christ Draw Near”

It would be easy to demonize John Allen Chau, the Christian missionary who died while trying to bring the Bible to a remote tribe. The 26-year-old could have introduced new diseases to the North Sentinel Island community, causing serious harm. He also vowed to invade a community that craves isolation above all.Now imagine a Hollywood film capturing Chau’s short, dramatic life. The industry isn’t known for sympathetic close-ups on faith, to be generous.'Whenever we go into places where we’re not comfortable, the first thing is, "I have to impose my point of view. Here’s my worldview."'Yet veteran director Justin Lin (“Star Trek Beyond,” the “Fast & Furious” franchise) took a less expected path in bringing the young man’s life to theaters. Justin Lin. Photo: Giles KeyteQuick to judge“Last Days” stars Sky Yang as John, a determined Christian who vowed to do something remarkable with his life. He risked everything to travel to the North Sentinel Island, hoping to share Jesus Christ’s message.The story ended tragically, but Lin’s film portrays Chau as a kind-hearted lad whose complicated life led him to his fate. Lin isn’t a Christian, but he treated the material with care and empathy. That wasn’t his first reaction.“It’s very easy to judge and dismiss. That’s what I did when the story broke,” Lin told Align of the initial news reports, the kind of “hot take” that swiftly decried Chau’s fateful decision. “It didn’t sit well with me that I was so quick to judge and dismiss him.”A father's storyAn Outside Magazine feature on Chau’s life had a powerful effect on the filmmaker. The story shared Chau’s father’s perspective on his late son, among other details.That rocked Lin.“I have a teenage son. As a parent, I know exactly what he was going through, how you’re trying to impart your wisdom, make sure they’re not going through any hardships,” he said. “What I learned from that article was that if you do it on your timeline, and your son is not ready, you just miss each other.”The project didn’t involve fast cars or intergalactic travel, but the change of pace spoke to the veteran filmmaker.“I really wanted to try something different,” added Lin, even if he wouldn’t have the kind of blockbuster budget at his back.“It’s going to be a run-and-gun, small crew,” he imagined before reading more from the real Chau’s diary. “In John’s writing, he was clearly inspired by adventure novels and Hollywood films. ... I’m going to honor that and be the signpost for our film. ... It’s an intimate story, but it has to feel like a big Hollywood film.”He called in some professional favors to give the film a Tinsel Town sheen that otherwise might not have been feasible.RELATED: Pistol-packing rabbi targets anti-Semitism in action flick 'Guns & Moses' Still courtesy Pictures from the FringeFresh perspectivesLin approached Chau’s faith delicately, while acknowledging the dubious decisions he made along the way. A mid-film romance ends unexpectedly, for example, allowing for fresh perspectives on Chau’s quest.That balance came via an extensive effort on the director’s part.“Whenever we go into places where we’re not comfortable, the first thing is, ‘I have to impose my point of view. Here’s my worldview.’ I made that commitment early on to say, ‘No,’” he said. “Taking three years of my life [for this film] ... was to connect with his humanity.”More with less“Last Days” looks as lush as a $100+ million film, the kind that Lin routinely delivers. He didn’t have those resources nor an A-list cast to bring John Chau’s life to the big screen. Yang is a minor revelation, while Ken Leung’s turn as the young man’s father is heartbreaking.Lin has a knack for doing more with less.“I made a credit card movie for $250,000, and that movie opened the door and gave me all these opportunities,” said Lin of “Better Luck Tomorrow,” his 2002 breakthrough made by maxing out his personal credit limit. The film earned $3.8 million theatrically, a tidy sum given the budget. Hollywood swiftly came calling.“Last Days” may have an indie sensibility, but Lin still felt the pressure to “nudge” the film in certain directions. The real Chau refused to be “boxed in” by society, yet the film industry tried to do just that with the film. “Can you make this a Christian movie?” he recalled of the behind-the-scenes chatter about “Last Days.” ... I didn’t understand or even appreciate that kind of nudge. ... ‘If you really wanna be marketable, you should do more of this.’ Those conversations for me ended very quickly.”“That is a challenge with independent films ... the temptation. ... ‘If I give you all this money, can you cast my son?’ Those are all choices you encounter,” he said.Lin will find himself on more familiar ground with the upcoming “BRZRKR,” based on the Boom! Studios comic book co-created by Keanu Reeves. The “John Wick” star served as an angel investor in “Last Days.”“I didn’t grow up wanting to make action movies, but I ended up enjoying the process,” he admitted.The public got a sneak peek at “Last Days” during the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year, months before its Oct. 24 theatrical rollout. The post-screening Q and A left him hopeful he had accomplished what he had set out to do with the film.“Five minutes in, they could find a common bridge in [the film],” Lin recalled. “We need that now more than ever.”

Anyone who drives America’s highways knows the story: potholes, cracked pavement, and endless construction zones. States pour billions of tax dollars into road maintenance every year, yet the pavement always seems to crumble faster than it can be repaired. What most motorists don’t realize is that heavy trucks cause much of the damage — and pay almost nothing to fix it.Federal estimates show that a single fully loaded 18-wheeler can inflict as much pavement damage as nearly 10,000 passenger cars. Fuel taxes and highway user fees from trucking companies cover only a small fraction of the destruction they cause. Taxpayers pick up the rest, footing the bill for constant repaving, bridge work, and the cycle of crumbling roads.Every additional ton of freight shifted to rail represents pavement preserved and taxpayer dollars saved.Trucking keeps the economy moving, and freight rail, shipping, and trucking together form the backbone of America’s supply chain. But shifting more freight to rail makes sense. The rail network is self-maintained by the companies that use it, and trains move goods more safely and efficiently than trucks. The more freight we move by rail, the less damage we’ll have to repair on the nation’s roads.A merger serving AmericansThe recently proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern offers an opportunity to improve both our roads and our supply chains simultaneously. By creating a more efficient coast-to-coast rail network, the merger would allow railroads to capture more freight that currently travels by truck — relieving taxpayers of billions of dollars in hidden subsidies for road repair.Merging Union Pacific’s vast western network with Norfolk Southern’s eastern lines would create the nation’s first true transcontinental railroad — from the Pacific to the Atlantic. For shippers, that means single-line pricing instead of juggling multiple operators to move goods from point A to point B.It also means faster delivery, fewer interchanges, and lower costs.Railroads, unlike trucking companies, build and maintain their own infrastructure. Every mile of track, every bridge, and every switching yard comes from private capital, not public funds.When freight moves from trucks to trains, taxpayers win twice: less highway damage to repair and more freight handled by a system that pays its own way.The savings aren’t theoretical. Heavy trucks cause roughly 40% of the wear on America’s roads while accounting for only about 10% of total miles driven.A North Carolina Department of Transportation study found that trucks with four or more axles underpay for road damage by anywhere from 37% to 92%. State budgets from Texas to Pennsylvania tell the same story: Highway repair costs soar while trucking fees barely make a dent.Every ton of freight shifted to rail means less pavement destroyed and more tax dollars saved.False cries of monopoly Naturally, critics of the merger will cry “monopoly,” as they always do when industries consolidate. But that misses the real competitive landscape. In addition to competing with other railroads, rail competes vigorously with trucks, which dominate American freight today.Trucks control roughly 70% of domestic freight volume — subsidized in part by taxpayer-funded roads. Allowing railroads to offer a stronger alternative isn’t anti-competitive — on the contrary, it’s pro-market. It creates stronger competition for taxpayer-subsidized trucking.RELATED: DOT withholds $40M from blue state for flouting English requirements for truckers Photo by Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesAt its heart, this merger is a test of whether the Trump administration trusts the free market to deliver solutions. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are not asking taxpayers to fund their merger. They are not asking for subsidies, grants, or carve-outs. They are investing their own capital to create a system that reduces public costs, strengthens supply chains, and keeps America competitive.If policymakers are serious about preserving America’s battered roads, as well as strengthening our supply chain infrastructure, the choice is obvious. Let the free market work, and let railroads take more freight off the highways.

In an emergency, your survival knives and tools are useless if they are dull. A simple, reliable sharpener is a non-negotiable item that is often more important than high-tech gadgets because it ensures…

This is long overdue… On Saturday morning, Portland Police finally, at long last, cleared out the encampment that Antifa set up outside the city’s ICE facility. It took a few hours and over 30 members…