The Story: In 2009, 19-year-old Kylie Bisutti beat out 10,000 other young women to win the Victoria's Secret Model Search. Now, at 21, Bisutti says she quit working for the company because modeling lingerie does not conform to her Christian beliefs.

The Background: Although working for Victoria's Secret was her "biggest goal in life," the young model began to have a change of heart.

I actually loved it while I was there, it was so much fun and I had a blast. But the more I was modelling lingerie---and lingerie isn't clothing---I just started becoming more uncomfortable with it because of my faith. I'm Christian, and reading the Bible more, I was becoming more convicted about it.

She said that her husband, whom she married soon after winning the modeling competition, was also a factor:

My body should only be for my husband and it's just a sacred thing.

While Bisutti will continue with her modeling career, she'll do so with her clothes on:

I didn't really want to be that kind of role model for younger girls because I had a lot of younger Christian girls that were looking up to me and then thinking that it was okay for them to walk around and show their bodies in lingerie to guys.

Why It Matters:  On the website of Live31, a non-profit organization promoting healthy self-image through a biblical worldview, Bisutti shares her story and explains how her local church played a role in her decision. In an essay titled "I Quit Being A Victoria's Secret Model To Become A Proverbs 31 Wife," she says, "Christ also led my husband and I to a great church that has helped me so much. It is a lot easier to stay grounded when you are plugged into a church and fellowship with other believers."

As Bisutti's story shows, young women can overcome our culture's ideal of the "model" woman when the biblical ideal of womanhood is being modeled by the local church.

The Story: After the Obama administration's announced that health insurance coverage would require the inclusion of contraception, Timothy Broglio, the archbishop for the military services, sent a letter to all Catholic chaplains in the military objecting to the administration's new mandate, calling it "an alarming and serious matter."

Initially, the Army refused to allow the Catholic chaplains to read it during the service.

The Background: As CNN notes, Broglio, who oversees all Catholic chaplains in all branches of the service, also wrote: "We cannot - we will not - comply with this unjust law." He wanted Catholic chaplains to read the letter aloud during their sermons on Sunday, January 28.

Although neither the Navy or Air Force objected to the letter, the Army's Army chief of chaplains, himself a Catholic, expressed concern that the line about not complying with the law was close to a call for civil disobedience. He told the chaplains to not read it in Mass, but instead pass out copies after Mass was over.

Archbishop Broglio objected to this and after a meeting with the secretary of the Army, John McHugh, he agreed to remove the one sentence about complying. McHugh agreed to allow the letter to be read at Mass last Sunday.

Why It Matters: As religion journalist Terry Mattingly explains, a similar situation occurred in 1996 when the the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services sent a letter to its chaplains instructing them to urge their flocks to back the "Project Life Postcard Campaign" in support of the Partial-Birth-Abortion Ban Act. But Pentagon officials had issued a gag order against chaplains preaching sermons that mentioned this anti-abortion effort.

The case eventually went to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge Stanley Sporkin concluded:

What we have here is the government's attempt to override the Constitution and the laws of the land by a directive that clearly interferes with military chaplains' free-exercise and free-speech rights, as well as those of their congregants. On its face, this is a drastic act.

Despite Judge Sporkin's ruling a decade ago, the issue of what military chaplains can say from the pulpit is likely to continue to be a point of tension between Christians and the government.

The Story: "There's nothing more likely to get the blogs all talking than a rumor about a newly discovered manuscript fragment." That line is just begging for a qualification. Nevertheless, Mark Goodacre, at NT Blog, meant it, and the rumor has indeed caused a stir among the biblioblogs.

The Background: It all started at a recent debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace on the reliability and authenticity of the New Testament text. In the debate, Wallace made the following claim:

Bart had explicitly said that our earliest copy of Mark was from c. 200 CE, but this is now incorrect. It's from the first century. I mentioned these new manuscript finds and told the audience that a book will be published by E. J. Brill in about a year that gives all the data.

According to a tweet by Andreas Kostenberger, who was live-tweeting the event, Ehrman questioned Wallace about the manuscript, and Wallace responded that he's unable to provide additional details. Ehrman was skeptical.

Wallace reflected later  on the exchange about Ehrman's skepticism:

In the Q & A, Bart questioned the validity of the first-century Mark fragment. I noted that a world-class paleographer, whose qualifications are unimpeachable, was my source. Bart said that even so, we don't have thousands of manuscripts from the first century! That kind of skepticism is incomprehensible to me.

Why It Matters: Bart Ehrman has made a career out of writing best-selling books that question the reliability of the Bible, arguing that since we do not have the original manuscripts and what manuscripts we have contain thousands of variants, we can have little faith in their accuracy.

I asked Andreas Kostenberger about the potential significance of such a discovery. He replied:

To some extent, the impact of the find, if confirmed, depends on the size of the fragment and on the likely date. Given that currently the earliest known fragment dates from around AD 125, any certified find of a first-century Gospel fragment would certainly be critically important, especially if the fragment agrees in wording with the currently available texts. If so, this would confirm the stability of the manuscript tradition, significantly reducing the time between the earliest extant text and the original publication of Mark. Such a discovery would have the potential of undermining the argument by Bart Ehrman and others that significant changes were introduced between the original documents and the first available copies. The effect that the Qumran discoveries had in confirming the reliability of the transmission of the OT text comes to mind in this regard (though the parallel is not exact).

Compared to any other ancient document, the New Testament already carries the most compelling evidence for reliability. This chart* (below) shows the overwhelming evidence, as far as the number of manuscripts and the time span between the original and copy, that we can trust that what we have of the New Testament is what the authors wrote. Any further corroboration from possible earlier manuscript fragments of Mark is simply piling on top of what is already convincing evidence.

*Adapted from a chart by Daniel B. Wallace, published in his chapter, "The Reliability of New Testament Manuscripts," in Understanding Scripture: An Overview of the Bible's Origin, Reliability, and Meaning, ed. Wayne Grudem, C. John Collins, and Thomas R. Schreiner, ©2012, p. 114. Used by permission of Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187,www.crossway.org.

The Story: A federal appeals panel in San Francisco ruled today that California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. By a 2 to 1 vote, the panel overturned the proposition, which was approved by 52 percent of the state's voters in 2008 and amended the state's Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

The Background: In 2010, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker struck down the ballot measure after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage. Many critics of Walker's decision argued that the judge should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship. In a separate decision, the appeals court refused to invalidate Walker's ruling on those grounds.

The court did not address the issue of whether the Constitution protects the rights of all same-sex couples to marry, but focused on the more narrow point that same-sex couples in the state for a brief time had the right to marry, and that Proposition 8 took that away. About 18,000 same-sex couples married during a five-month period between the time the California Supreme Court "discovered" the right in the state constitution and the time that Proposition 8 passed.

Why It Matters: Few legal analysts were surprised by today's ruling. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals---considered by almost all observers to be the most liberal appeals court in the country---was expected to uphold Judge Walker's decision.

"In the grand scheme of things, there is nothing enduringly significant about today's ruling," says National Review's Ed Whelan. "The Ninth Circuit was just a way-station on the path to the Supreme Court, and the composition of the Ninth Circuit panel meant that there was no prospect for a reversal of Walker's ruling."

Whelan writes that he expects the Court will grant review of the Ninth Circuit's ruling before the November elections, and perhaps even hear oral argument in October or November.

Brian Raum, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund and head of the ADF Marriage Litigation Center, says that, "While this is purportedly a 'constitutionally narrow' decision, it is sweeping in its implications." As Raum notes, the decision does not rule on "whether same‐sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so." Instead, the court concluded that once same‐sex relationships are granted the title of "marriage," the moniker cannot be taken away.

Should this ruling be upheld, says Raum, it imperils marriage in every state where counterfeit marriage schemes (domestic partnerships/civil unions) have been established. While the Perry ruling purports to be limited to the circumstance in California where same‐sex couples could for a very short time obtain a marriage license, it will undoubtedly be extended beyond those deceptively narrow borders and could undermine marriage in all 50 states.

[Note: If you find a story our community should know about, please send the link to joe.carter *at* thegospelcoalition.org.]

The Story: Eric Klinenberg, professor of sociology at NYU, questions the traditional assumption that living alone inevitably results in loneliness and hinders human flourishing. According to Klinenberg's interpretation of recent data, the opposite is true. Independence from having to accommodate another roommate or spouse is now desired.

The Background: The thought of living alone long term, traditionally, has rarely been appealing. But anxieties over loneliness, according to Klinenberg, are dated. Rather, Klinenberg says, "Living alone comports with modern values." The fear of loneliness isn't supported by the spirit of the age. Living alone "promotes freedom, personal control and self-realization---all prized aspects of contemporary life."

In dynamic markets and flourishing cities, the "nuclear family" is no longer the defining mark of our society. Instead, single living encourages a more active social life, absent from family obligations, and "gives us the capacity . . . to engage with others when and how we want to and on our terms." Five million adults, ages 18-35, live alone---that's 10 times more than 1950; most widows and widowers are slower to remarry; and the elderly are less attracted to the option of living with their children.

Why It Matters: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that singleness is wrong. In fact, the lives of the apostle Paul and Jesus make singleness a legitimate way of life. However, from a biblical worldview, it would be impossible to argue that single living is the ideal for a flourishing society. Rather, from Genesis 1, a flourishing society begins with a fruitful and multiplying family. The only thing that God saw and did not describe as good was Adam being alone. It was, actually, "not good" (Genesis 2:18).

Apart from Klinenberg's data that people want this level of independence, it's hard to imagine that this autonomy, which allows for people "to engage with other when and how we want to and on our terms," would be good for any society. This hardly encourages acts of kindness and hospitality, something one would assume a "flourishing" society needs. Even more, for those of us who believe the Bible and want to see the gospel influence culture, this lone-ranger mentality would mean death. As the author of Hebrews tells us, "Exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today,' that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin." Why? "For we have come to share in Christ" (Heb. 3:14-15).

Articles you need to know about, summarized in 60 seconds (or less).

The Article: The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World

The Source: Newsweek

The Author: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali woman who escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992. Ali served as a member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006 and is currently a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In 2005, she was named by Time magazine as one of the "100 most influential people in the world."

The Gist: Violent oppression of Christian minorities has become the norm in many Muslim-majority nations

The Excerpt:

Over the past decade, these and similar groups have been remarkably successful in persuading leading public figures and journalists in the West to think of each and every example of perceived anti-Muslim discrimination as an expression of a systematic and sinister derangement called "Islamophobia"---a term that is meant to elicit the same moral disapproval as xenophobia or homophobia.

But a fair-minded assessment of recent events and trends leads to the conclusion that the scale and severity of Islamophobia pales in comparison with the bloody Christophobia currently coursing through Muslim-majority nations from one end of the globe to the other. The conspiracy of silence surrounding this violent expression of religious intolerance has to stop. Nothing less than the fate of Christianity---and ultimately of all religious minorities---in the Islamic world is at stake.

The Bottom Line: Over the last few years Christians in the West have become increasingly aware of the threats and violence against fellow believers in Muslim countries (TGC has recently written about such oppression here, here, and here). But now even atheist intellectuals such as Ali are taking notice and speaking out against such persecution. How do we respond wisely as Christians to this growing threat? Theologian Michael Horton offers three recommendations, including prayer, faithful witness, and promotion of human rights, not just Christian Rights, "including religious freedom, as part of the universal mandate of neighbor-love."

YSK Rating: Worth reading.

[Note: If you find a story our community should know about, please send the link to joe.carter *at* thegospelcoalition.org.]

The Story: In the state of Mizoram in northeast India, Christian women set aside a handful of rice every time they cook a meal. The weekly collection of rice is then given to the local church where it is sold and used to support missions.

Although the per capita income in the area is only $400 per year, the collections by the churches are having a significant impact. For example, in 2007 the Mizoram Presbyterian Synod Mission Board was able to support more than 1,700 full-time workers and give $4.9 million to world evangelism efforts.

The Background: This video explains how Christians in the economically insignificant Indian state are able to have a considerable impact on world missions.

Why It Matters: In Jesus' day, the Jews were instructed to give to the Temple and to the poor as part of their service to God. Yet it was a poor widow who gave two mites that Jesus praised for having "put more into the treasury than all the others." The others gave out of their wealth, but she gave out of her poverty.

Jesus never said that the widow shouldn't have given because she had little to spare. Instead, he praised her obedience. If the poor woman in first-century Palestine and the poor women in twenty-first century India can cheerfully give out of what they have, then how much more can those of us in temporary financial straights---the starving artist, the penniless college student, the struggling young parents---give of our abundance?

(Via: Outside the Camp)

[Note: If you find a story our community should know about, please send the link to joe.carter *at* thegospelcoalition.org.]

The Story: After several Jewish organizations condemned the event as a "fake ritual", Georgia megachurch pastor Bishop Eddie Long apologized for the incident in which he was wrapped in a "Holocaust Torah" scroll and crowned a "king."

Rabbi Ralph Messer, a Messianic Jew who conducted the coronation ceremony, has also issued a statement saying that the presentation was "simply a way of bringing honor to a man who had given his life to the Lord and had given so much to his church, the Atlanta metro area and throughout the world. It was not to make Bishop Eddie L. Long a king."

The Background: As we noted on Friday, a video was released of Long being crowned a "king" by guest speaker Messer.

"He is a king, God's blessed him. He is a humble man. But in him is kingship. In him is royalty," said Messer during a Sunday morning church service.

What It Means: While Long deserves credit for apologizing, the event should have never been allowed to occur in his church. But when churches become venues for entertainment and pastors become more concerned about their own celebrity than they do about Jesus, we shouldn't be surprised to find such perversions occurring.

As the Apostle Paul said, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."

(Thanks to Jonathan Kitt for sending both the links and the Scripture verse.)

[Note: If you find a story our community should know about, please send the link to joe.carter *at* thegospelcoalition.org.]

The Story: In a video that has gone viral on the Internet, Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta was crowned a "king" by guest speaker Rabbi Ralph Messer.

"He is a king, God's blessed him. He is a humble man. But in him is kingship. In him is royalty," said Messer during the "ceremony."

The Background: Long, pastor of a 25,000 member megachurch in Georgia, has history of emphasizing "chain of command" between certain superiors and subordinates characterized by "respect, submission and obedience, which makes his "kingship" consistent with his peculiar (and unscriptural) teaching.

In 2006, Long was chosen by the family of Martin Luther King, Jr. to host and officiate the funeral of Coretta Scott King, an event attended by four Presidents (George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter). More recently, Long has been the subject of controversy because of Senate investigations concerning whether he has personally profited from his church's tax exempt status and lawsuits alleging sexual relations with underage male members of his parish. (Long has denied wrong doing through his attorneys and has settled the lawsuits out of court.)

Why It Matters: As The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates notes, "This video basically was made to offend every conceivable stratum of this country--blacks, Jews, Christians, atheists--basically everyone."

But the reason it matters---or at least should matter to evangelicals---is that it creates the impression in the public's mind that this is the sort of bizarre behavior that goes on in our churches (even if coronations are infrequent). On the positive side, the video could provide an opportunity to invite people into our churches to see what really goes on (e.g., we don't wrap our pastors in Hebrew scrolls) and let them know why we have no king but King Jesus.

[Note: If you find a story our community should know about, please send the link to joe.carter *at* thegospelcoalition.org.]

The Story: A study conducted by the financial service company Investopedia found that the sum value of different homemaking duties annually amounts to almost six figures. If a homemaker's job were salaried, it would draw, on average, $96,291 per year. Tasks accounted for in the study included private chef, house cleaner, child care provider, driver, and laundry service provider.

The Background: There's no escaping the fact that contemporary society often scoffs at stay-at-home moms. "This isn't the 1950s anymore," the thinking goes. "Why in the world would someone want to be imprisoned in her own home?" The common idea, of course, is that many responsibilities on the home front should be outsourced, thus releasing moms from domestic shackles to realize their vocational dreams. While such a mindset isn't automatically wrongheaded in every case, it can frequently betray a prioritization that is biblically questionable.

Why It Matters: Proverbs 14:1 states: "The wise woman builds her house." While the monetary value and practical feasibility of full-time homemaking may vary from home to home, what remains constant is the irreplaceable significance of a homemaker's contributions. The Investopedia article concludes, "The daily work of a homemaker can sometimes be taken for granted....However, these services could earn a homemaker a considerable wage if he or she took those skills to the marketplace. Homemakers, in general, contribute a lot more to the home in addition to these tasks and no amount of money can fill those needs."

Indeed, no study could ever fully quantify the service of a mother who "looks well to the ways of her household" (Prov. 31:27). At the very least, this research should prompt us to express fresh appreciation to those stay-at-home moms whom we love and who, though receiving little recognition in the eyes of the world, are faithful and treasured in the eyes of their King.