Is abstinence education a failure? One would certainly think so looking at some of the statistics being printed in various newspapers. But anyone willing to dig deeper will find that these statistics are sometimes misleading.

First, let’s look at the overall trend. During the 1970s and 1980s, comprehensive sex education was being introduced into the schools. The proponents talked about condoms and so-called “safe sex.” What happened during this period? Teen sexual activity rates rose, and pregnancy and abortion rates reached all time highs.

By the 1990s, abstinence groups began to present a different message. The Centers for Disease Control found that sexual activity rates of high school students declined. And teen abortion rates dropped over 50 percent since 1990.

Of course it is possible to argue that this overall correlation may not be connected. So let’s look more closely at some of the numbers used to argue that abstinence education does not work.

Opponents of abstinence education nearly always refer to teen birth rates rather than teen pregnancy rates. What is missing in these comparisons are teen abortions which mask the real impact of abstinence education.

Let’s compare two states of similar size: Texas and New York. The state of Texas has many more teen births than the state of New York. Opponents of abstinence education use this to show that the state that does not emphasize abstinence education (New York) is doing better than the state that does (Texas). But there is something missing from these comparisons: teen abortions. In New York, 56 percent of pregnant teens abort their babies while only 16 percent of Texas teens do so.

When you compare teen pregnancy rates rather than teen birth rates, you get a much more accurate picture. What you discover is that abstinence education is working.

Doubt is something that we all face. All of us have doubts, but these shouldn’t lead to confusion, hopelessness, and unbelief. Doubts can often deepen our dependence on God and give us empathy for others.

Pastor Bobby Conway was on my program recently to talk about his new book, Doubting Toward Faith: The Journey to Confident Christianity. Sean McDowell wrote the foreword to the book, and he was in my radio studio recently and also talked about doubt.

Bobby Conway reminds us that there are different forms of doubt: emotional doubt, intellectual doubt, volitional doubt, and evidential doubt. He also had two chapters on all of the doubt triggers in our world today. These range from questions about alleged contradictions in the Bible to moral and ethical questions found in the Bible. And he reminds us that Jesus can handle our doubts. After all, Thomas had questions and doubts. Jesus did not condemn him but answered his questions and provided evidence for his doubts.

In the foreword and his radio interview with me, Sean McDowell shared how doubts first hit him as a college student. He sat down with his father to share his doubts. Josh McDowell responded, “I think its great that you want to find truth.” This gave Sean room to pursue his questions and resolve his doubts. It allowed him to make the faith of his parents his own faith.

He discovered that doubts don’t have to be the end of faith. They can often be the impetus for the development of a deeper, more genuine faith. Of course you have to be intentional in your search for truth.

If you have doubts or know someone who has doubts, this is an excellent book to read and pass on to others. It is well-written and immensely practical. As some of us have said, we wish we had this book when we were growing up and asking good questions that few (if any) seemed able to answer.

The refugees spilling into Europe illustrate the magnitude of this humanitarian crisis. Some estimate that more than half of the population of Syria has fled the country. Some have settled in nearby Lebanon and Jordan. Hundreds of thousands are trying to make their way to Germany or other European countries.

How should the world respond? The Bible admonishes us to treat aliens and foreigners with compassion. Deuteronomy 10 instructed the nation of Israel to “show love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” Leviticus 19 tells them to treat the foreigner as a native-born citizen. In the New Testament, Jesus teaches that we should do to others what we would want them to do to us (Matthew 7:12).

On the other hand, we need to inject some common sense in the international response to this crisis. For example, when Europe asks for us to take refugees, perhaps our response should be: “You first.” The United States has taken in more refugees than any country in the world. Europe never had offered to take refugees from Central America streaming into our country. We are trying to deal with millions who have come to this country illegally.

We might also encourage Europe to reconsider their laws that make the problem of refugees worse. The Schengen agreement is one of the foundational principles of the European Union. It allows people to travel across national boundaries without passports. The refugees have found a weak link, that is a country with a porous border, and have used that to spill into the rest of Europe.

A final concern is ISIS. I have had experts on my radio program document that ISIS has infiltrated these refugee groups and are using the crisis to move ISIS operatives into Europe.

How should we respond to this crisis: with compassion, but also with some common sense.

We all benefit these days from the economics of a free market that allow the inventions of entrepreneurs to be manufactured at a small cost so all of us can enjoy them. We may not understand some of the complex economic issues around us, but we can see their impact in the prices we pay for sophisticated technology.

John Tamny gives some great examples in this book, Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You About Economics. He talks about a conference he attended where one the speakers displayed a 1989 ad for the Tandy 5000 desktop. The ad proclaimed that it was the “most powerful computer ever!” Monitor and mouse were not included in the $8,499 price.

The computer you have today is far faster and more efficient than one of the best computers on the marker a quarter century ago. You can buy a Dell laptop computer for less the $400 that has a Quad-Core processor, 8 GB of memory, and a hard drive with 1 TB of storage.

The original hand-held cellular phone was the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X. If you have never seen one, you might rent the 1987 Oliver Stone film, Wall Street. I would imagine you would laugh when you see Gordon Gekko pull out this “brick of a phone” to make a phone call. The 1983 price for this technological wonder of the day was $3,995. Today, nearly everyone has a cell phone and expects to pay less than $250 and sometimes less than $200 for a phone that does much more than make phone calls.

We benefit from the inventions of entrepreneurs, but we also benefit from the manufacturing efficiencies of a free marker that put these devices in our hands for fraction of their original cost.

ISIS is the world’s most successful terrorist organization, but it is also the most mysterious one. That is why Robert Spencer wrote his book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS. He was on my radio program recently to talk about this jihadist group that rules eight million people in a territory larger than the United Kingdom.

The book is written in the style of some of the previous books with titles like, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Throughout the book there are sidebar sections like the Ostrich Alert reminding us of “head in the sand” statements by politicians and religious leaders. Elsewhere there are sidebars with the title “Taqiyya Watch.”

Taqiyya is essentially is a Muslim word for lying. Deceiving non-Muslims is not forbidden in Islam. In some circumstances, it may be a religious duty for Muslims. This deceit is justified in Sura 3:28 in the Qur’an.

One theme that runs throughout the book is the repeated claim by prominent politicians and commentators that the Islamic State is not Islamic. It is worth comparing the statements of the president, the secretary of state, and other government officials to what the Qur’an teaches and what Abu Musab al Zarqawi said.

We have been told that ISIS is not Islamic because “no religion condones the killing of innocents.” Zarqawi taught that the goal of jihadists could include the killing of “women, children and any other passive category.” We are also told that ISIS is not Islamic because “the vast majority of the victims have been Muslim.” Zarqawi admits that: “Although spilling sacred Muslim blood is a grave offense, it is not only permissible but mandated.”

We need to think clearly about the danger ISIS poses to our world. Robert Spencer’s book provides a clear and comprehensive look at the world’s largest terrorist group.

Most people who have seen some of the videos of Planned Parenthood are rightfully disturbed by the images of women haggling over prices and explaining how to crush babies in order to get baby parts to sell. That doesn’t seem to bother the medical elite. The editor of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote an editorial to criticize the Center for Medical Progress for making the videos. That’s right. Criticize the people who made the videos. Don’t criticize the Planned Parenthood women in the videos.

Wesley J. Smith tries to explain in a recent column why the medical elite has been silent about the videos and why some even try to defend Planned Parenthood. The issue comes down to worldview. Many of these medical elite do not consider an unborn child a “person” thus they have little or no concern about the morality of abortion or fetal harvesting.

Smith argues in his writings that the medical elite’s view of life is “based upon each individual’s cognitive capacities.” In other words, you are not a person unless you are coherent and have self-awareness. Therefore, an embryo or a fetus is not a “person.” Of course, that could also apply to a born infant. And it can also apply to people who have lost their mental capacities, such patients in a coma or patients with Alzheimer’s.

He argues that under this particular view, “nonpersons have no right to life.” Abortion is merely about a woman’s choice, but is not a moral decision about two lives (the mother’s life and the baby’s life). He also points out that this view can be used (and has been used) to justify infanticide.

Once you understand this worldview issue, you can see why so many in the medical community haven’t spoken up about the Planned Parenthood videos. If you don’t believe this is life in the womb, then there is no moral issue to consider.

Atheism is on the rise, which is why Christians need to know how to respond to many of the arguments put forward by the so-called New Atheists. There is energy and confidence in their presentations. But Dr. Andy Bannister (Canadian Director of Ravi Zacharias Ministries) says we shouldn’t be cowed by these atheist arguments.

He responds to these arguments in this new book, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist: Or the Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments. He was on my radio program recently to explain how many of the arguments quickly unravel. His book uses logic and lots of humor to expose some of the loose threads on the cardigan of atheism.

Atheist Richard Dawkins talks about a young child who believes that Thomas the Tank Train really exists, and she also believes in Father Christmas. From there he (and other atheists) argues that belief in God is like belief in Santa Claus. There are lots of problems with the argument, but an obvious one can be seen in the belief systems of young adults. None of them believe in Santa Claus. Millions of them believe in God.

Atheists also like to argue that their atheism isn’t a claim: it’s a non-belief. Religious people have a belief system. Atheists do not. That means atheists are free to sit back and throw stones at religious ideas. The trouble with that assertion is it proves too much. Andy Bannister says that would mean his cat is an atheist because she does not believe in God. Moreover, atheists claim their belief is true, and that is a positive claim. They really do have a belief system, and that causes all sorts of action. Internet-dwelling atheists spend hundreds of hours trolling, posting, and arguing. They buy books, T-shirts, and bumper stickers. That’s a whole lot of activity for a non-belief.

I know you will enjoy reading Andy Bannister as he blends humor with serious thought while showing the fallacies of atheist arguments.

Those of us concerned about the rising national debt often have trouble convincing others about the problem because of news articles and commentaries that minimize our concerns. A good example would be a recent New York Times column by Paul Krugman with the title: “Debt is Good.”

Well, I guess that settles it. He is an economist with a Noble Prize to his credit. If he doesn’t think the national debt is a problem, then I guess none of us should be concerned. Fortunately, John Goodman was willing to take on the issue and explain that debt is not good.

Paul Krugman argues that “issuing debt is a way to pay for useful things, and we should do more of that when the price is right. The United States suffers obvious deficiencies in roads, rails, water systems and more; meanwhile, the federal government can borrow at historically low interest rates.” That is a good point; though I would rather we paid for these important improvements with a balanced budget.

John Goodman says there is a problem with that analysis. “Going forward, we are not going to be borrowing money in order to invest in projects that will produce social services far into the future. We are going to be borrowing money to pay for current consumption.”

Think of debt in your personal life. Borrowing money to fix up your house is probably a good investment, especially if you can someday sell your house for more. That is very different from borrowing money by using your credit card so that you can go to fancy restaurants and buy expensive meals.

Most of our debt in the future will be to pay for entitlement programs where “we have promised more than we can afford given expected taxes and premiums.” Our current obligations are over $100 trillion dollars. We don’t have $100 trillion in the bank earning interest. When you look at it this way, you can see that our national debt and our future obligations are not good.