Penna Dexter
The New York Times recently reported on an “emerging truth” among Christians. Correspondent Ruth Graham writes, “For the first time in modern American history, young men are now more religious than their female peers. They attend services more often and are more likely to identify as religious.”
This dynamic applies only to Christians who are part of Generation Z. (Gen Z currently encompasses ages 12-27.) A survey of over 5000 Americans done last year by the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute found that, in every other demographic, men were more likely than women to describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated. But, the study shows that within Gen Z, the opposite is the case. As The Times’ Ruth Graham puts it: “The men are staying in church, while the women are leaving at a remarkable clip.”
A recent Wall Street Journal article outlined the metrics in which young men “keep falling behind” their female peers. Fewer are attending college. Fewer are employed. Fewer are looking for work or obtaining workforce training. Fewer feel needed.  More report being lonely. More commit suicide.
One reason more young men are in church may be that many churches are intentionally speaking to these trends. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat writes, “It may be, then, that churches that seem like home to young men are particularly well positioned to do that kind of work — stabilizing and elevating men who are currently adrift and making them more appealing as potential spouses than any currently available force in either ‘normie’ or very online culture.”
The AEI survey shows 61 percent of Gen Z women identify as feminist. Perhaps they’re not as onboard with this “macho Christianity.” Mary Harrington, author of Feminism Against Progress, coined the term and says young men are attracted to “a Christianity that is prepared to fight, to struggle, to refuse therapeutic winsomeness.”
Hopefully, these guys will invite the girls back to church.

Kerby Anderson
You are probably aware that Americans distrust science and science magazines more than in the past. But you may not know how much has evaporated. Back in 1975 (when I was finishing a graduate degree in science), Gallup documented that most Americans trusted science. In fact, Republicans trusted science more than Democrats did, 72 percent to 67 percent. Republican confidence in science dropped to 45 percent by 2021.
Christian Schneider argues “Politicized science may make us sicker.” He reminds us of the tactic used against President George W. Bush when his opponents argued that his common-sense regulations of fetal stem cells were hurting and killing people. He quoted from columnist Charles Krauthammer who said he had “never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery” and added that “Hope is good. False hope is bad.”
Americans don’t even trust science journals, which have become political. Scientific American has started endorsing presidential candidates: Kamala Harris this year and Joe Biden four years ago.
Heather MacDonald (Manhattan Institute) further documents how science has become political in her book, When Race Trumps Merit. She explains in a recent lecture that the American Medical Association insists that medicine is characterized by white supremacy. The Smithsonian Institution announced that “emphasis on the scientific method” and an interest in “cause and effect relationships” are part of totalitarian whiteness.
We would all benefit if scientists and science magazines got back to doing science and medicine and stop following the woke trends in society. This politicized science may make us sicker.

Kerby Anderson
Since the Hamas attack last year on Israel, the government and IDF have been fighting in Gaza. But now Israel has also had to deal with Hezbollah to the north which has fired more than 8,000 rockets at this small country. These indiscriminate attacks have forced thousands of Israelis to flee from the northern part of Israel.
Once again, world leaders are cautioning Israel to avoid escalating this conflict. But Rich Lowry argues that “the Jewish state is under no obligation to tolerate the intolerable.” Instead, the country’s leaders are to treat all these rocket attacks as background noise. No other country in the world would be expected to ignore such attacks on their sovereign nation.
Israel cannot follow these rules. Rich Lowry asks, “What other country is asked to bear the rocketing of its civilian population?” And yet, it was criticized even when it tried to minimize civilian causalities by targeting terrorist leaders through their pagers and electronic devices. The counterterrorist plan is reminiscent of something you might find in a James Bond film or a Mission Impossible film.
Rich Lowry summarizes how Israel is criticized no matter what it does. “Israel hits terrorist targets from the air — and it’s accused of war crimes. Israel goes in on the ground — and it’s accused of war crimes. Israel does neither, opting instead to target terrorists by using their own devices against them — and it’s accused of war crimes.”
Perhaps you can sense the frustration. But you also need to experience the fear. The guide we use for our trips to Israel lives in the region where these rockets are landing. Imagine how you would feel if rockets were landing in your community, and world leaders were cautioning you to show restraint. This is the situation in Israel today.