In high school, I was in quiet crisis: reeling from abuse, hidden family dysfunction, and unspoken doubts about my faith, all while trying to navigate the maze of adolescence. I’d silently resolved that if one of my youth leaders asked how I was doing, I’d tell the truth—not the polished version but the honest one. That conversation never came. Close to a decade later, I look around at the teens my husband and I help disciple in our church and wonder how many of them are desperately waiting and hoping for someone to check in on them. Youth leaders aren’t mind readers. Even so, we ought to be looking beyond surface-level signs of spiritual health. A student’s biblical literacy or the appearance of living in a Christian home doesn’t necessarily reflect the state of his or her heart. Relying on those markers alone is a risky practice. Scripture is clear that proximity to the things of God doesn’t always mean someone is walking closely with him—and when we mistake familiarity for faith, we can fall into several dangerous traps. 1. We risk giving our students a false assurance of salvation. As teenagers begin to take ownership of different areas of their lives, they often start to examine their beliefs too—asking questions like “Is this really my faith?” and “Why do I believe what I believe?” This reflection process is healthy and can lead to a deeper, more personal commitment to Christ. But it can also stir up doubts and fears as they confront uncertainties for the first time. Proximity to the things of God doesn’t always mean someone is walking closely with him. If we assume our students are “all right” based on their family, church attendance, or outward appearances, we could issue them assurance of salvation in vain. And we risk missing out on gospel conversations with students who need them. When we know our students well, we can help them examine their lives for fruit, evidence of the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying work in their lives (James 2:17). This kind of assessment allows us to either reassure them or to lovingly call them to repentance. Of course, as youth leaders, we cannot perfectly decipher the state of our students’ hearts—only the Lord can do that. But a leader who spends time with students, is genuinely interested in their lives, and isn’t afraid to ask personal questions is well equipped to serve them. 2. We miss the chance to intervene before a problem becomes a crisis. My pastor often calls counseling “crisis discipleship.” Some crises come on urgently, while others brew slowly. What if we were able to help the right people step in with discipleship before crisis discipleship was necessary? We can only do this by fostering real, honest, intentional conversations with all our students––even the ones who may seem fine. Depending on the size of your youth group and leadership team, having these kinds of conversations with every student every week might be impossible. But if you’re actively trying to have these touch points with different students every week, you stand a better chance of intervening. However, that’s only the beginning. Quickly asking “How are you doing?” isn’t usually going to get you deep or vulnerable answers. The best way to have meaningful conversations is nearly always to focus on something else while you talk. For boys, this could be talking while you play sports or a board game. For girls, having a book club or a regular small discipleship group is a great way to naturally and consistently dive into conversation. And for both boys and girls, studying the Bible in small groups is an excellent path to broaching deep topics. Don’t underestimate the Spirit’s help in this: You can’t do it without him. Before you spend time with your students, pray and ask the Lord for eyes to see and ears to hear your students’ needs. 3. We risk spreading whitewashed-tomb disease. When Jesus confronts the Pharisees in Matthew 15, he quotes Isaiah, saying they honor him with their lips but their hearts are far from him (vv. 7–9; see Isa. 29:13). He later says their hypocrisy makes them like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside, full of anything but goodness on the inside. Teenagers are perceptive, and if they sense that appearing put together earns praise, they’ll perform. This is the lip service Jesus condemned: outward appearances without heart transformation. Before you spend time with your students, pray and ask the Lord for eyes to see and ears to hear your students’ needs. Our students don’t need more moralistic therapeutic deism. They don’t need to learn how to put on an act for church. What they need is an understanding of the fundamental brokenness that sin causes for everyone, and how the Lord in his grace chooses to work in and through broken people for his glory and our ultimate good. If you have a chance to show students how Jesus meets us in the broken and sinful moments, you should take it. In an appropriate way, share how the Lord convicted you of sin, how he forgave you, how he led you to restoration with others, or how he helps you continue to fight sin. These are the spaces where real discipleship happens—not in polished performances but in honest conversations that point to a Savior who redeems, restores, and makes all things new. Don’t Settle for ‘All Right’ It’s easy to be impressed by the student who shows up to every event and knows all the right answers. But Scripture teaches us to look beyond familiarity. The call to youth leaders––and to all who disciple the next generation––is to move beyond assumptions, pursue genuine conversations, and point students not to themselves but to Christ. Because the good news of the gospel isn’t that we’re all right. It’s that Jesus came for those who aren’t.

Scientists engage creation empirically rather than philosophically; they seek knowledge through sense experience. Yet this distinction between empirical and philosophical research is relative, not absolute. Scientists aren’t merely empirical in their research. They come to their work with theological and philosophical assumptions. They (even atheists!) interpret the empirical data using broad conceptual and philosophical categories. Though philosophers and scientists have similarities, they use distinct tools and emphasize distinct aspects of creation. Characteristics of Science Scientists go out in nature to study its inner mecha­nisms—looking at cells under a microscope, conducting clinical trials on a new emphysema drug, or studying rock samples in Yosemite National Park to uncover past geological processes. Scientists are empirical when they make observations, gather data, and carry out experi­ments others can reproduce. Scientists aren’t merely empirical in their research. They come to their work with theological and philosophical assumptions. Good science also aims to be objective. Any valid scientific theory must be objective in how it sorts through the empirical data, rather than simply cherry-picking. Here’s one example of science failing to be objective: Physicians in the 19th century thought they could identify human personalities by bumps and depressions on people’s skulls. This approach, called phrenology, was hailed as the future in fighting crime, but it was eventually discredited. The problem was that scientists were interpreting the data in a highly selective way. There was no real objectivity. The scientists zeroed in on physical data supporting their theory and ignored the rest. Conversely, good science tries to be as objective as possible by weighing all the available evidence. Finally, not just any interpretation of the physical evidence will do. Scientific theories should have a rational connection to the data. Astrology, for example, claims we can predict world events by studying the positions of stars and planets. Ronald Reagan’s wife, Nancy, regularly consulted a San Francisco astrologer, Joan Quigley, for guidance while in the White House, relying on Quigley’s astrological advice to such an extent that it affected the timing of presidential speeches, appearances, meetings with heads of state, airplane travel schedules, and even discussion topics. I wonder how Reagan’s vice president, the cabinet, and the White House staff would have reacted had they known. They would’ve been shocked, surely, and rightly so, since there’s no rational connection between Reagan’s life and the movement of celestial bodies. Quigley’s astrology was pseudoscience. Christian Assumptions Make Science Possible Far from being antithetical to faith, Christian assumptions about creation make science possible. For one, Christianity assumes that animals like seahorses, koalas, and flamingos are part of God’s creation rather than part of God’s nature, that animals and their ecosystems are real and separate from the divine nature. Sometimes called the Creator-creature distinction, this assumption provides the basis for reliable science. Far from being antithetical to faith, Christian assumptions about creation make science possible. Historically, many people have believed creation is divine. Pantheists, for instance, teach that nature is divine and thus sacred. But if we believe nature is divine, then we would be less likely to investigate it empirically, lest we blaspheme God. The pantheistic outlook would lead us to pursue spiritual, not empirical, explanations for natural phenomena. In fact, science emerged in Europe in large part because Christians recognized that nature isn’t divine. Furthermore, Christians affirm the fundamental goodness of creation. This belief that creation is good implies it has intrinsic value and is worthy of empirical study. This theological assumption was instrumental in the development of science in the West (whether scientists today recognize it or not). Many people in history, such as the ancient Greek Gnostic philoso­phers, had a different view of creation; they thought that physical matter is evil—only spiritual reality is good. Nothing like empirical science could have developed in a Gnostic culture. Thankfully, Christianity operated by a different logic. Irenaeus, the second-­century church father, blew the whistle on Gnosticism, arguing that since the eternal Son took on human flesh, we should never disparage the physical creation. For him, the incarnation proves the goodness of matter. Better yet, Irenaeus argued, Jesus not only was incarnate but rose again from the dead bodily. In this way, the Son of God bound himself to creation forever. Jesus is embodied even now in his heavenly session at the Father’s right hand, and he’ll be embodied when we see him face-to-face in the new heavens and new earth. Science Worth Studying Because of these gospel truths, early Christians were convinced that nature is deeply valuable and worthy of study. And their belief in the goodness of matter paved the way for the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century. Scientific inquiry also owes much to the Christian assumption that creation is knowable, rational, and dependable. These facts about our world make the most sense in a theistic framework where the underlying coherence of creation mirrors God’s wisdom. In ancient cultures, the cosmos was seen as chaotic, changing at the whim of testy gods who might zap you when they got angry. The Christian view of the world isn’t like that at all; creation itself has an intrinsic rationality that derives from God. Scientists like René Descartes (1596–1650) and Isaac Newton believed that “laws of nature” describe regularities originating from God’s mind. Samuel Clarke, one of Newton’s allies, wrote that the “course of nature, truly and properly speaking, is nothing else but the will of God producing certain effects in a continued, regular, constant, and uniform manner.” Remove the Christian God from the equation, and science reduces to a set of laws without a lawgiver. Remove the Christian God from the equation, and science reduces to a set of laws without a lawgiver. Worse yet, without God, the existence of real scientists would be impossible to explain, people like Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. Their capacity to think rationally, draw connections between things, and examine facets of the physical world—all of it would be deeply mysterious. Where did these genius minds get their abilities? The standard answer is that our cognitive capacities emerged from a long evolutionary process. But how could we trust our scientific observations if we don’t know that our cognitive abilities evolved to discover truth about the world? What if they evolved unreliably? Christians have a good reason to trust empirical observa­tions. In our view, science is possible because God made humanity in his image. It makes all the difference in the world, for truth itself is grounded in God; “the LORD is the true God” (Jer. 10:10), and his very words are truth (John 17:17). The human mind’s bent toward truth reflects God’s mind.

Late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel’s commentary surrounding the assassination of young conservative activist Charlie Kirk was disturbing and inaccurate, but quite frankly, not surprising. What was a surprise, however, was the outpouring of love and honor that many A-list celebrities and social media influencers have shown in the days following Kirk’s death on Sept. 10.   “I disagreed with him on almost every point I ever heard him say, but I believe he was a man of faith,” actress Jamie Lee Curtis said of Kirk on the “WTF” podcast while choking back tears. “And I hope in that moment when he died that he felt connected to his faith.”  Actor Chris Pratt shared a video prayer and then encouraged his followers to stop scrolling and instead get outside or call a friend. Singer Justin Bieber wrote about a spiritual battle for the mind in a post on Instagram after the Turning Point USA founder died.   Jeffree Star, social media influencer and creator of Jeffree Star Cosmetics, was streaming live on social media when he learned Kirk had been shot. He immediately condemned the shooting and spoke out in support of free speech. When Star received criticism from some of his followers for condemning the assassination, he was quick to respond.   “Because I’m standing up for someone that passed away, I’m now being called names in the chat. This is what’s wrong with a lot of you people. You will never get far in life. You are sick in the head,” Star retorted. Some who have spoken out in celebration of Kirk’s death, or made highly controversial comments over the tragedy, have lost their jobs as a result.   Charlie Rock, Carolina Panthers NFL communications staffer, lost his job for a social media post he made after Kirk’s death.   “Why are y’all sad? Your man said it was worth it,” Rock said.   American Airlines fired a pilot who reportedly wrote on social media: “Well, hey, Charlie. Sorry you got shot in your fat f—— forehead. It was just the cost of our liberty. ‘Thoughts and prayers.’”  And now, most notably, ABC indefinitely suspended Kimmel’s late-night show after the comedian made light of Kirk’s assassination and inaccurately claimed that the shooter was “MAGA.”  “The MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said.  Unlike Kimmel, the vast majority of Americans, including many celebrities, recognize that Kirk’s assassination was evil and a dark moment in American history.   On Sunday, tens of thousands of Americans will gather at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, for Kirk’s memorial service, and thousands more are expected to stream the ceremony live on Kirk’s Rumble page. Speakers at the memorial will include President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, will also speak, and Christian worship artists Chris Tomlin, Brandon Lake, Phil Wickham, Kari Jobe Carnes, and Cody Carnes will perform.   On this week’s edition of “Problematic Women,” we discuss the celebrity response to Kirk’s death and what our responsibility is now to carry Kirk’s legacy forward.   Enjoy the show!  Megaphone embed: The post Some Celebrities’ Surprising Responses to Charlie Kirk’s Assassination appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Across the United States, staged crashes, road-rage incidents, and hit-and-run damage are on the rise. Unfortunately, if you get sideswiped, brake-checked, or bumped, you have little legal recourse if you can't prove what happened.This is where a dash camera comes in handy. In recent years the category has evolved from a niche gadget to an essential everyday driving tool. The primary value of a dashcam is simple: It provides evidence that both law enforcement and insurance companies can use in deciding your case. In case you haven't seen one for a while, modern dashcams have advanced far beyond the single-lens models of the past. One affordable option I recommend is the VIOFO A329S 3CH dashcam.It features a true 4K front camera, rear camera, and a infrared fish-eye cabin camera with a 210-degree ultra-wide view -- sufficient coverage to ensure that everything from road collisions to interior activity is captured in detail.The Sony STARVIS 2 sensors under the hood allow the A329S to deliver sharp, balanced footage in both bright daylight and low-light conditions. The cabin camera includes four infrared LEDs, enabling clear recording even at night — a feature especially valuable for rideshare drivers or anyone frequently on the road after dark.Other advanced features include Wi-Fi 6 for fast file transfers, hybrid parking surveillance with impact detection, support for external SSD storage up to 4TB, a built-in GPS logger, CPL filter, and Bluetooth remote.Taken together, these tools make it more than a camera — they provide a comprehensive security system for your vehicle. .At under $500, the dashcam provides protection that often outweighs its cost. Minor parking lot dents or fender benders can cost $1,000 or more to repair, and insurance disputes can increase premiums for years. For families, drivers, or businesses, dash cameras offer peace of mind and a financial safeguard. Check out the video review for more on the VIOFO A329S 3CH: The company profiles and product recommendations that Align publishes are meant solely to inform and edify our subscribers. Unless explicitly labeled as such, they are neither paid promotions nor endorsements.

Project 2021’s Horace Cooper warned Democrats Friday on Fox News’ “Hannity” that the “cancer” taking over the party could eventually put New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in charge. Early…

Postmodernism is a death cult—one to be defended against at every cancerous step this doctrine of disorder and destruction takes in its attempt to eradicate truth and tradition. What prompts this latest…

The other day, after Disney/ABC decided to suspend late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, rather than allow him to do his show and further attack President Trump and his supporters, Maryland Congressman…

The murdered Charlie Kirk was a martyr to free speech and the belief in the power of reasoned argument to overcome lies and evil. “Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” he wrote on X in…

“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts. Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings. These are the feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the … The post The Editors’ Quote of the Day: appeared first on SurvivalBlog.com.