 |
 In a world of religious tension, three New York women claim to be making a difference. Their book, The Faith Club, is a memoir of their interfaith dialogue since 9/11. Over coffee and chocolate, Ranya Idliby, a Muslim; Suzanne Oliver, a Christian; and Priscilla Warner, a Jew, celebrate a relationship they claim has overcome religious barriers. Honest interfaith conversation. Sounds positive.
Here's the rub. USA Today reports: For anyone who reads the Quran or the Bible literally, rather than metaphorically or in cultural context, the women say, their views will be too liberal. For people who believe there is exactly one way to one heaven, described and delineated only by their own faith, The Faith Club may not offer a template.
Dr. Albert Mohler, calling The Faith Club "a postmodern parable for our times," writes in his blog: The only interfaith dialogue worth having would involve orthodox believers of various belief systems — not the moderates and liberals. The more liberal members hold to such a plastic concept of religious truth that conflict with other groups is translated into etiquette rather than a true exchange of convictions. Liberal Christians, liberal Jews, and liberal Muslims have little ground for serious disagreement. Instead, it's all a matter of respecting each other's traditions and ceremonies. When the exclusivity of the Gospel is denied from the onset, the "Christianity" that shows up at the dialogue is not classical biblical Christianity.
I agree with Dr. Mohler that this story is telling of our times. Acceptance of all views, no matter the cost, is a cultural value. My own conversations with unbelieving friends have brought this home to me. While it is helpful to understand other religions — and speak words seasoned with salt (not arsenic) — believers must be careful not to lose their potency by relinquishing truth in favor of relational harmony. And that makes The Faith Club not only a parable but a cautionary tale.
The Global Warming Debate
I think you will find that a review of the scientific literature -- not a review of ISI v ECI -- will show that there is an overwhelming consensus about the causes of global warming. Of course scientists don't agree 100% but science overwhelmingly favours the ECI, why do you try and deny this? What Christian goal does it achieve not to recognise man's role in global warming? The Scriptures call us to be accountable for our actions, why not here? Why not now?
Geoff
* * *
Assume for the sake of argument that the earth is slowly getting warmer; there is a reasonable explanation Christians can provide that doesn't include the end of the world. After the flood of Noah, we had the world's ice age. It never ended. The same glaciers that cover the poles once covered my home state of MN, and helped carve the great lakes. They have since receded, but never completely melted. So, it would make sense that as those caps (which weren't always here, archaeologists have uncovered tropical plants buried in arctic permafrost) continue to melt, it will get warmer. This is born out by the fact that the supposed temperature increases are apparently happening faster at the poles than anywhere else. But, since it wasn't a problem before (as evidenced by those palm trees flourishing in the arctic circle) it won't be a problem now. It will stop getting warmer once the ice is gone, then the temperature will stabilize. We have the promise of Genesis 8:22 to rest on:
"As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night will not cease."
Robert
Marriage a Barrier to Wholeness
I read your recent blog post, "Marriage a Barrier to Wholeness?," and had a comment:
Suzanne Hadley writes, "... some singles have set up this human standard of spiritual achievement we believe is necessary for marriage."
Can I suggest something? I think it's often married people who set this standard up in the minds of singles. I often read and hear comments from already-marrieds to marriage-minded-but-still-single singles like, "You need to be whole in Christ before you marry."
Tami
Quality Christian Artistry
Although the state of Christian artistry is in pretty sad shape, I don't think the time for despair has yet come, for three reasons:
1) It is not necessarily a question of secular art being better than Christian. Most of the non-Christian stuff is awful too. That would sound like a step closer to despair, but:
2) This is merely evidence for the fact that most art is generally bad. Sure, 90 percent of all praise and worship choruses are vapid romanticized repetitiveness, but so were 90 percent of the hymns written ca. 1900, and probably ca. 1800 as well. We don't notice because the intervening century has allowed hymnal-compilers to weed out most of the worst work, and discover a lot of the best. The same is true of literature (can anyone say "Victorian novels"? — some were great literature, but most have been properly relegated to the dust-bin of history).
3) In spite of the vast majority of awful art, there is some good stuff being created, and some of it by Christians. Although Sixpence None the Richer has sadly broken up, I (non-music-expert that I am) thought their album "Divine Discontent" more than earned the best-of-the-year award it received from Christianity Today. It was lyrically interesting and musically excellent. Or in literature (more my area), consider Walter Wangerin Jr. His St. Julian is marvelous, and The Book of the Dun Cow won accolades from Christians and non-Christians alike — and deserved them. Madeleine L'Engle won the Newberry for A Wrinkle in Time, which was clearly Christian. I'm certain other good work is happening that I simply don't know about.
There may well be more awful art being created now than ever before — more people have the leisure to try their hand, and it's easier. Anyone can post an angsty emo poem on the Internet. But in a century, when the dust settles and we've burned or deleted as many copies as we can find of most of this stuff, I do believe there will be some gold left among the dross; and I believe some of it will have been created by Christians.
Take hope. :)
Jonathan
The Distracted Worshiper
As I read The Distracted Worshiper piece by Motte Brown, I saw myself! I often am going through my day and will come across a great truth. But instead of praying over it and applying it to my life, I consider how I might present it on my blog.
Truth is still truth, and I'm sure people would benefit from hearing it, but I should first be sure that my mind and heart are on God — knowing and loving Him first.
Thank you for this blog! Keep up the good work!
Cherise
Young, Restless and Reformed
Reformed theology. Seriously?
I personally find this "turn to doctrine" young people are supposedly taking odd because our generation seems to dislike and run from rules/guidelines of any kind. (Thanks, Post-modernists. Thanks.) Further, I'm 26 and know NO ONE who is heading that direction with their Christianity. *shrugs* Perhaps this movement hasn't hit my church and social group yet. I too would like to find comfort in the idea people of my generation are seeking Truth. Outside of the folks I know from church and work (and they're not turning towards Calvinism in their search for God's Truth, btw), I just don't see that.
I won't get into my personal views on Calvinism and election. If I did, you'd probably just trash this e-mail from the get-go. I will say, however, that I'm seeking Truth every day, but I highly doubt I'll be turning in the direction of Calvin.
P.S. — Thanks for the blog! Even if I don't always agree with what's posted, you guys always get my mind working. I suppose that's a good thing. :o)
Samantha
* * *
I just read "Young, Restless and Reformed" by Suzanne Hadley on the Boundless blog. I definitely agree that doctrine is essential in the Christian Church, and that doctrine can provide a means for stronger faith in God's Word and Christ Himself. I am Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and our church body has always been strong in doctrine. Doctrine seekers should not only focus on the Calvin/Arminian debate. For a different view of Scripture than either of those offerings, people should check out what the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod believes.
Becky
* * *
I quite agree that craving for the doctrine and truth is a positive step, but that's also the problem. For myself, I greatly desire to crave the doctrine, however, I struggle to do so. I find it quite difficult to read my Bible, pray and other such endeavors that grow my faith. Just recently we were discussing this very topic at Bible study, and I found, somewhat to my surprise, that I was not the only one that struggled to enjoy and therefore to crave doctrine and truth.
So, while I heartily agree that there is a hunger for an active God, and that craving doctrine and truth is a positive step, I think that it is almost a gift for some people. Because for others, I think it is something they have to work at, make into a habit, and persevere with. I'm sure that eventually they see the rewards of it, but it isn't easy.
Ruthie
Avoiding Mixed Signals
A common response we hear single women say is, "Why aren't any guys asking me out?" However, they may fail to realize that often they are the ones who are responsible for this situation. Let me explain. When a girl is interested in a guy she probably will behave differently around him than other guys. She may smile more, ask about his life, give words of affirmation, etc. However, if she is neutral towards another guy she may just act cordially but as Suzanne wrote, give the impression she is "off the market". Of course this can go both ways. A woman may send wrong positive signals because that is her temperament.
So, if girls want more guys to express interest in her, it's in her best interest to not act so jubilant just in front of guys she's interested in.
FYI, when observing singles interact, here is what I've found make for the most "popular" type of people (those that people want to hang around with)
1. Attractive females (bar none)
2. People (men and women) who are naturally extroverted cheerful (the "social butterflies")
3. Tall people (We have a genetic disposition towards those that stand higher)
"If you like him, it's flirting. If he gives you the creeps, it's sexual harassment" — Anon female worker.
Michael
Marriage in the Media
I just read the blog by Suzanne Hadley regarding the issue of media in marriage and I could not agree more. I was even convicted of some of my own misguided views. I think one of the reasons the church at large accepts these view is that we have taken a worldly idea and disguised it with "spiritual" meaning. We use Paul's words to a couple of churches to try an make excuses or even make ourselves appear more godly for neglecting the call to marry and have a family. I want to thank Suzanne, Candice and the whole Boundless team for tackling this and other tough issues. As a single woman in her mid-20s who desperately desires a godly marriage and family, but feels like she has no support, it is nice to know I have people on my team. May God bless you and your endeavors.
Blair
Thought about signing up for our free e-newsletter, but weren't sure what to expect?
First, what not to expect: You won't be getting spammed, as we have a strict policy at Boundless and Focus on the Family not to share your e-mail information (or any other information about you) with anyone outside our ministry.
You will, however, receive an e-newsletter when we update our site on Thursdays, and a brief reminder when we update our site on Mondays. Below is an excerpt of the e-newsletter I sent out yesterday.
There's a reason this e-newsletter is later getting to you than normal. My 10-month-old baby daughter, who's been sick with a fever for a couple of days (and nights), had a "febrile seizure" this afternoon. Pretty scary. And while at the hospital, without being provoked, a little girl punched my other daughter, a 2-year-old, in the face. Pretty infuriating.
Both are fine now, playing downstairs in the family room.
OK, let's see if I can tie this into our lead story. I think I can.
More and more married couples are choosing not to have children. In 1970, nearly 75 percent of women 25 to 29 were parents. Now it's under 50 percent. In the 70s, only 10 percent of women in their 40s were childless; that figure has doubled to 20 percent.
Does it matter? I think it does.
Those couples who choose not to have kids miss out on the surge of love and appreciation when they realize their baby girl's seizure isn't marking her transition to death. Couples who choose not to have kids miss out on the surge of parental protectiveness that welled up in my chest when I broke up the surreal fight in the hospital waiting room, and as I made sure the tiny pugilist didn't get too close to my girl.
It may be a cliché, but I've also found it to be true that having children has helped me to better understand the depth of the love and protectiveness the Lord has for me. Those who choose childlessness just can't grasp that vision the way those who've brought a life into being can.
This week Roberto further explores the issue of childlessness, as brought out in a recent report from The National Marriage Project at Rutgers University titled "The State of Our Unions 2006." We at Boundless have drawn a good deal from previous years' reports; this year is no different. (Don't miss Steve's blog entry on this report.)
Heather brings us our second article, an encouragement to godly-minded guys to give as much attention to their finances as to their character. Yes, it's an article that talks about money. Not always the most popular on Boundless. But let me encourage you men to read it — I found it very helpful and think you may as well.
Finally (what a long editorial this has become!), Suzanne is provoked by a movie she saw recently to come to the defense of married life, to try to diffuse the trendy lie that married life marks "the end" — of excitement, of creativity, of living. Today's roller coaster ride of anxiety and refreshed love testifies against that pernicious lie.
If you're interested in receiving a weekly reminder of new Boundless content, along with an engaging editorial written by the editor (hey, that's me!), just fill out the form beginning on this page.
I was happy to read a report by Sheryl Blunt in the latest issue of Christianity Today about the efforts of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA), a coalition of 130 theologians, scientists and others who oppose the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI). Essentially, the ISA say the warnings of the ECI are a bunch of hooey.
ECI claims that human emissions are the main cause of global warming and that millions of people could die in this century if we don't curb our appetite for fossil fuels -- that and breathing and building fires to keep warm in the winter among other carbon-dioxide producing activities. They also claim there is a scientific consensus on all this. This is not so.
As Iain Murray points out in National Review Online's "Beware False Prophets" (in response to ECI's February report "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action"), a group of paleoclimatologists wrote in November 2005 that "enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes" (emphasis mine). Murray goes on to dispute most of the conclusions in ECI's report.
So given that there is no consensus, why are respected Christian leaders like Timothy George, Rick Warren and 84 others asking Christians to take action on issues still being debated in the scientific community? I suspect it's as Boundless contributor Matt Kaufman says:
"Since most of us aren't scientists (much less climate specialists), it's easy to get swept up in the tide of fearsome prophecies. Christians, of course, aren't immune."
Boundless reader Jessica raised a question about my article, "Marry Her? But What About that Girl over There?" She writes: "I thought we were supposed to pursue a deeper relationship with the Lord, then let Him guide our steps regarding marriage and family. I thought loving God with all of my being came before pursuing marriage and family. Am I wrong in believing that I am supposed to pursue wholeness in God before I pursue becoming one with someone else?"
The point of this article was not to advocate that singles use marriage as a replacement for relationship with Christ. But it is helpful to remember that holiness and marriage are not mutually exclusive. All believers are called to pursue a deeper relationship with the Lord, regardless of their marital status. Both singleness and marriage can be wonderful spiritual refiners.
My brother married right out of college, and his relationship with his wife and young son have produced wonderful spiritual fruits in his life. I have remained single, and as I pursue Christ, He continues to teach me new things. I do not consider my brother's situation either better or worse than my own, spiritually speaking. True, he was probably not as spiritually mature as I may be when I marry, but that seems to matter little because his marriage provides a context for him to consistently go deeper with Christ.
While Scripture does talk about being "complete in Christ," as fallen, sinful people, we will never be entirely whole this side of eternity. Scripture does not promote a magic level of spirituality one must attain before getting married. And yet some singles have set up this human standard of spiritual achievement we believe is necessary for marriage.
Think of Adam and Eve. They experienced sinless life together and were then thrust into a world with evil, pain and hardship. In effect, they "lost" their wholeness. And yet God continued to bless their relationship even in its brokenness. On the road back to wholeness, sometimes it's best to have a companion.
I need to chime in on this discussion of Christian artists that Ben began and which Suzanne continued.
In my involvement in Christian music (I've produced/engineered one album and performed on several, and have played synth/organ/piano in a few bands), I've seen a range of musicianship. Some seem to be practicing their gift thoughtlessly, and their creativity and craft are as a result lacking. Others, however, put a lot of thought into their craft, seeking to write and perform their music for the glory of God and the blessing of those around them. Let me give three examples.
Bob Kauflin, Director of Worship Development for Sovereign Grace Ministries. I've served onstage with Bob on several occasions, enjoyed many of his sermons, and have developed a friendship with him that began last decade. If you spend half an hour on his blog, you'll grow in your understanding and appreciation of worship and music that accompanies it. (If you've only got a few minutes, let me recommend this post, this post and this thread -- those'll give you a sense of Bob's style.) Beyond his thoughtful explorations of contemporary worship music, I would argue that his musicianship is top-notch (see this page for just one of the projects he's worked on).
Arvo Part, composer. I was first introduced to Arvo Part's music in grad school, and was immediately captivated by the beauty of the music and the lyrics. If you haven't yet heard this Russian Orthodox composer's work, check out either Te Deum or Tabula Rasa.
Steven Curtis Chapman, singer/songwriter. SCC has been in the contemporary Christian music industry for nearly two decades, and in my opinion his lyrics, passion, music, and production have only improved. A lot of people don't like CCM/adult contemporary, and see it as shallow and trite, but for those whose ears have adjusted to this style of music, it doesn't get much better than SCC (Watermark is up there as well). SCC is providing quality music that many find relevant and moving.
This post is longer than it should be, and I haven't explored this issue very deeply. If time and interest permit, perhaps we can dig deeper in future blog entries.
The State of Our Unions 2006 report that Roberto talks about in his new article opens with a troubling essay called "Life Without Children."
It offers a concerning picture of where family fits into our current (and future) culture. Below, I've excerpted several points from the conclusion of that essay.
We are in the midst of a profound change in American life. Demographically, socially and culturally, the nation is shifting from a society of child-rearing families to a society of child-free adults.... Indeed, if the twentieth century aspired to become the “century of the child,” the twenty-first may well become the century of the child-free.
The repercussions of this change are apparent in nearly every domain of American life....
Likewise, the popular culture is increasingly oriented to fulfilling the X-rated fantasies and desires of adults. The “adult entertainment industry,” which includes gambling, pornography and sex, is one of the fastest growing and most lucrative sectors of the consumer economy....
More generally and pervasively, the expressive values of the adult-only world are at odds with the values of the child-rearing world. Indeed, child-rearing values — sacrifice, stability, dependability, maturity — seem stale and musty by comparison. Nor does the bone-wearying and time-consuming work of the child-rearing years comport with a culture of fun and freedom. Indeed, what it takes to raise children is almost the opposite of what popularly defines a satisfying adult life....
It is hard enough to rear children in a society that is organized to support that essential social task. Consider how much more difficult it becomes when a society is indifferent at best, and hostile, at worst, to those who are caring for the next generation.
Read the entire report at The National Marriage Project Website.
As it turns out, the Dallas Cowboys' embattled receiver Terrell Owens' reported suicide attempt was all a big misunderstanding. Apparently, he didn't take 35 pain killers or confess to his publicist that he was depressed. Owens himself said in a news conference the day after the incident that his brush with death was the result of an allergic reaction.
Ben's post Love and Death on this strange episode raises some serious questions for us to consider, particularly given that suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students. He writes that "suicide is a profoundly selfish act" and assumes that those who do it "hate life itself." I suppose there is truth in these statements but without some qualifications there is more misconception than reality.
Not many people understand depression and how it can lead to suicide. It's different for those who have experienced it. In Roberto Rivera E Carlo's Boundless article Mood Disorders and A Reason to Live, he writes, "I know all about the infelicitous brain chemistry than can make it almost impossible to get out of bed." He understands it. And I do too, if only a little.
For a period of 8 months in my twenties, my mind was as best as I can describe, clouded. The only peace I had was when I was asleep (Oh how I loved sleep). The problem was that, in a blink, it was over. Every morning despair would return like a thick haze after only a few moments of waking clarity.
There is nothing more frightening than suffering depression to the point where you look forward to going to sleep in order to escape a broken mind. It is exactly at that point when you begin to see the peace that death offers.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I would hesitate to call this profoundly selfish or life hating.
Focus on the Family has a staff of more than 20 licensed Christian counselors available to talk with you. If you are struggling with depression or mood disorders and would like to talk with one of them, please call (719) 531-3400 Monday-Friday 9-4:30 (Mountain time), and ask for the Counseling department at extension 7700. One of the counselors' assistants will arrange for a counselor to call you back at no charge to you.
The Today Show's segment on what men really want in a wife was partly right. Starting with the question "Do men really want wives like June Cleaver?" they said, … men imagined the perfect mate as a passive, docile catering nurturer and women envisioned a giving, sacrificing protector. But these are fantasies! And while it may be fun to imagine — or even play out — these roles at times, they are but one of many fantasies men and women may have about their ideal partners. With such a high divorce rate — between 45-50 percent — it's smart to seek answers to the question, "what makes a marriage go the distance." So they asked, "If rigid roles are not a good predicator of relationships' longevity, what is?"
Here's where they veered a bit. Biblical marriage is about distinct roles for men and women, but they're hardly rigid. In fact, within the boundaries of those vast and varied roles lie tremendous freedom and the key to a lifelong, committed marriage. The problem with NBC's take on "roles" is that they limit them to merely one facet: nurturer for women and provider/protector for men, and then they narrowly cast them in negative terms.
If you've ever seen a mother who fails to nurture her children and husband, you realize what a fundamental trait that is for women. Neither docile nor catering (words that better describe an insecure, immature woman), the nurturing woman is one who "feeds and protects, supports and encourages, brings up and trains, and educates."
That's a pretty ambitious job description — a mantle I'd be honored to wear and deserve.
As for describing men as giving, sacrificing protectors, those are among the very abilities I looked for in a mate. What woman wants a man who's incapable of physical strength on her behalf and the behalf of their children? And what about a man who can't earn enough to pay the mortgage or keep the lights on? That's a guy who has trouble getting dates for the weekend.
God made male and female different. Those differences aren't optional, they're fact. Whether the Today Show and our surrounding culture recognizes or embraces the differences is irrelevant because they simply are. The funny thing, though, is the longing we all have to live those differences — not in their fallen, sinful state of course, but in the way they were meant. And so, whether we recognize it or not, we strive for the redeemed version of who God designed us to be.
Even Today said, "marriages require work, commitment and self-sacrifice from both partners. Marriage based first and foremost on passion, children, or extremely time-demanding careers, tend to break up. … Once a couple understands marriage is a choice that requires effort through its ups and downs, then they have a shot at maintaining a healthy relationship."
Sounds a lot like Paul in Ephesians 5 who wrote, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."
I found Ben's response concerning Christian artists a bit harsh. True, today's art may not possess the depth or quality of the works of Bach, Tennyson and Lewis, but one must also recognize that we are living in a very different society. Instant art, such as blogs, digital photography and YouTube, is valued over the life's-work novel or concerto. Therefore, it seems unfair to imply Sara Groves is failing as an artist because she isn't Bach.
I agree with Ben, however, that artists should be seeking a higher level of excellence and creativity. This commentary on the downfall of classical diva Charlotte Church (HT: The Point) is a good example of the low expectations many artists bring to the table. Artists who operate within the context of the Christian faith, face an additional challenge as the arts have long been viewed as a luxury among believers. In his book "Children of a Greater God," Terry Glaspey writes: "While willing to admit that the arts can even be useful at times (in evangelism, for instance), some do not see them as anything more than frivolous embroidery on the fabric of daily life. Because we don't see the arts as important, it is not surprising that much of our 'Christian' art is of the most shallow and forgettable sort."
And so it is encouraging when an artist who loves God steps forward and uses her gifts in a powerful way for the Kingdom. Like Bezalel, whom the Lord specially gifted to carve the ark of the covenant, such artists exercise the artistic gifts the Lord has given them. And that is enough. An artist need not seek to create the next big thing in art; he only need seek excellence as he uses his gifts for God. The resulting art will surely transcend the mediocre.
So college students don't know much about history. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute was right to point out that "students don't learn what colleges don't teach." So what, if not history, are colleges teaching? Well at Yale, one of the schools to perform at the bottom on the ISI survey, they're teaching sex. Lots of sex.
According to the September 26 edition of the Yale Daily News: Yale may be consistently ranking third in the U.S. News & World Report's list of "America's Best Colleges," but when it comes to sexual health, Yale is on top.
Earlier this month, the University earned the top ranking in a recent survey by Trojan Brand Condoms about sexual health on America's campuses.
Trojan's Sexual Health Report Card noted the resources the University offers to students facing a sexual-health crisis, the birth-control measures it makes available to students, the helpfulness of Yale's Web site and special events like Sex Week at Yale in granting the top honor, said Bert Sperling, the president of Sperling's Best Places, the research firm that compiled the report.
Yale is lauded for encouraging "love, sex, intimacy, relationships, health." When I hear those words, I think marriage. Yale thinks condoms. And experimentation. And titillation. Pornography, in short.
According to ISI what colleges should be doing is prioritizing their "mission and fundamental responsibility to prepare its students to be informed, engaged participants in a democratic republic." According to the Trojan condom company what colleges should be praised for doing well is helping students in the area of "sexual health."
Forget American history, government, foreign affairs and the economy -- the four subjects ISI's 60-question survey covered. If you're set on a top-shelf, $200,000 university degree, you may be in for quite a shock.
Not only are we facing a crisis of citizenship, but of the very morality necessary for our system to function.
"The university lies in ruins," writes Al Mohler in his blog on this story. "The character of the university has been corrupted and, in turn, the university now threatens to corrupt, rather than to educate the young."
Cultural observers tell us today's teens and twentysomethings have the potential to be the next great generation. The book Millennials Rising says that "today's kids are on track to become a powerhouse generation, full of technology planners, community shapers, institution builders, and world leaders, perhaps destined to dominate the twenty-first century like today's fading and ennobled G.I. Generation dominated the twentieth."
So, how are America's storied institutions of higher learning doing in cultivating all that raw potential? Not so good.
Yesterday, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute released a troubling report called "The Coming Crisis in Citizenship." The broad study of more than 14,000 students shows that "colleges and universities across America including some of the most expensive and elite in the United States, are failing to add to their graduates' understanding of America's history and essential institutions."
Amazingly many schools such as Yale, Duke, UVA, Georgetown, Brown and others had seniors do more poorly than incoming freshmen -- showing that students were actually slipping during their time there. As a result, one of ISI's recommendation is to hold "higher education more accountable to its mission and fundamental responsibilities to prepare its students to be informed, engaged participants in a democratic republic."
Such accountability would require many higher education leaders to humbly ask if they have put biases from their own generational agendas ahead of properly cultivating the promise and potential of a new generation of leaders.
HT to Opinion Journal
Last week we invited those who subscribe to our free e-newsletter to give us their thoughts about Boundless via an online questionnaire. Now we've opened it up to non-subscribers.
We're eager to better understand those who read Boundless, to hear your opinions about how we're doing and how we could be doing better.
We do this only once every couple of years, so now's your chance to make your voice heard. Please consider taking a few minutes to complete the comprehensive (um, that means "kind of lengthy") questionnaire. We look forward to seeing what you tell us!
Candice's post reminds me of the first argument my wife and I had during our dating relationship. As funny as it may sound, it was over the Barbie doll and its effect on the body image of pre-teen and teen girls. It was a discussion I engaged for fun but conceded quickly when it devolved into arguing -- sensing from her tone that for women, societal pressure to have a perfect body is no laughing matter.
Physical beauty defined by the world, whatever the current fashion, almost always presents a false ideal for women to be and for men to adore. Christians need to guard against this ideal by viewing beauty in light of Scripture (1 Peter 3:3-6). As Michael Lawrence writes in a recent Boundless article: Physical beauty in a fallen world is fading and transient. What's more, the world narrowly defines beauty as the body of a teenager, and scorns the beauty of motherhood and maturity. But in which "body" is your wife going to spend most of her years with you?
During pre-marital counseling, my pastor encouraged me to continue to pray for attraction to my wife throughout my marriage. At the time, I thought the counsel a bit odd. After all, attraction is what initially drew me to my wife, it never occurred to me that it would fade. I've found that whether or not attraction fades all depends on what kind of beauty you value.
Blogs and news reports are telling of the upheaval at Madrid's fashion week caused by a new prohibition against the too-skinny. Believe it or not, after decades of pushing an impossible physical standard (for most normal women), some in the fashion industry are trying to put an end to the ever-shrinking size of models.
Models under 125 pounds or so were barred from the catwalk after encountering Medics on hand to measure their Body Mass Index, or BMI.
Though I'll be the first to cheer a healthier, more realistic, standard, and agree that young girls and budding women would certainly benefit from fewer anorexic poster-girls, I think the Wall Street Journal tapped into an even more interesting angle on the story.
According to columnist Amy Finnerty, In the past, and across cultures, the paragon of feminine beauty correlated closely with what was considered an ideal, healthy weight in a given place -- neither thin nor fat. That culturally optimal shape broadcast youth and fertility. ... Childlessness is a chronic problem in such places as Spain and Italy, and the prevailing aesthetic in the current European Fashion Moment, one of feeble frailty, is at odds with the robust glow of fertility.
With only seven weeks to go till my due date, I can say with confidence that little in our culture -- especially beauty culture -- supports the physical realities, challenges and sacrifices a woman endures in order to give life to a new person. If anything, Amy Finnerty understated just how anti-fertility all these super-thin models really are.
Thankfully there are lots of things in life a whole lot more rewarding and worth the trouble than high cheekbones and concave thighs!
In a day when more and more of the benefits of marriage can be found through alternative means, which sex is left more in need of the other? I get the sense it's men. When you look back at the cultural changes of the past 50 years in education, in the workplace, in sexuality and so forth, it's been women who have discovered a higher number of alternatives to benefits once offered by men in marriage.
A young female professional makes a telling comment in the book Urban Tribes. Explaining that women don't need men to protect and provide for them the way they used to, she says, "Besides we have those things to open jars for us now."
A great conversation ensued on Mere Comments when James Kushiner drew attention to a young female blogger (with a blog called "I'd rather laugh than cry") who was speculating that men may not be approaching women who appear to have no need for them. She writes:
Could it have something to do with man's need to be needed? Do they see these talented young women and think ... "Why would she need me? She has it all together"?
This seems to be more prevalent in a day when the practical services men offer have less market value for women who have found alternative paths to those services and when the roles of men and women are perceived to be so interchangeable that men seem to offer less value.
But men still need women. Even when they have endless options to pursue fantasy women, they still long for someone who will know them and love them deeply — and even someone who needs what they offer. Maybe that's why in a CDC study this past May more men than women agreed with the statement "it's better to get married than to go through life being single" (Tables 37 and 38 of the study show that 66% of men agreed or strongly agreed with this statement compared to only 50.6% of women. Among those raised Fundamentalist Protestant, the combined agrees and strongly agrees represented 68.4% of men but only 59% of women).
Of course, men and women still need each other for much more than some of the practical services that they are finding elsewhere. In fact, ministries like Love and Respect are doing a great job of pointing out how social research reinforces the way God designed men and women to meet each other's distinct needs. However, it does appear that men and women's changing perceptions about each other's needs may be affecting how they view future marriages in their lives.
Seems that The Line isn't the only group ministry blog to debut in September. Also joining the blogosphere this month is The Point, a lively group blog sponsored by BreakPoint.
For those of you who can't get enough of Boundless author Roberto Rivera y Carlo, click over to The Point where he's one of five regular contributors.
Speaking of crafty writing, I had to laugh at Roberto's characterization of author Rod "I'm too crunchy for my shirt" Dreher....
If you are young, restless but not quite sure what "reformed" is, click here to listen to a wonderful debate between Paige Patterson and Albert Mohler on election just posted online. Here's a brief description from the audio on Baptist2Baptist.net: At the 2006 Pastors' Conference, seminary presidents R. Albert Mohler Jr. and Paige Patterson discussed their differences over the doctrine of election, stressing that believers can disagree on the topic while remaining friends and unified in the goal of evangelism and missions.
You can also read the text on Boundless contributor Thabiti Anyabwile's blog Pure Church. He attended the Southern Baptist Convention this past June and transcribed the debate in full.
HT: Tim Challies
Today's lead investing story on Motley Fool is about a 24-year-old guy who's $2 million in the hole. Seems he had a bright idea for leveraging his non-existent assets (there was lying involved on his loan apps) in order to take advantage of the hot California real estate market -- which is cooling considerably, to his dismay. Now he owes more than he can pay and is on the verge of some serious trouble.
He must have grown up playing a lot of Monopoly. I know that game had a weird way of changing my perspective on money. Oh, that plus working on Capitol Hill where dollars are talked about in billions and trillions. When the numbers get bigger than I can count, I start thinking of them as little pink fives, blue 20s and goldenrod 500s.
While he may get jail time -- that remains to be seen -- I hope for Casey Serin's sake, he at least gets religion out of the deal. That's what happened to Dave Ramsey, now a best-selling author and financial advisor who found himself in a similar bind. Granted, he didn't lie about make-believe assets, but he did get in over his head in the real estate market. When he lost it all, he turned his attention to God and what the Bible has to say about money. Turns out there's quite a bit in there about financial wisdom.
In this age of much-too-easy-to-obtain credit, I think we could all learn a lot from these cautionary tales.
During worship service at church yesterday, I began taking notes from the sermon, not for future reference or even to help me focus, but because I thought the lesson would make for good blogging. Obviously, my heart and my mind were not on loving God.
One reason it's easy for me to take corporate worship for granted is because I often congratulate myself for just showing up. While I'm there I allow my mind to wander about work or football or pancakes, content that I'm in the pew. And though there is some merit for attendance, it is certainly not worthy to be called worship.
William Temple describes well what worship is in his "Readings in St. John's Gospel." Worship is the submission of all our nature to God. It is the quickening of conscience by His holiness; the nourishment of mind with His truth; the purifying of imagination by His Beauty; the opening of the heart to His love; the surrender of will to His purpose – and all of this gathered up in adoration, the most selfless emotion of which our nature is capable and therefore the chief remedy for that self-centeredness which is our original sin and the source of all actual sin.
So instead of blogging about yesterday's sermon, I'm blogging about being awakened to my self-centeredness that prevented true worship as Temple characterizes above. Ironic.
HT: Bob Kauflin
John Thomas makes a key point in his Q&A today and it's that couples often use creative language to talk about their sexual activity -- softening the reality that they have fallen short of the 1 Timothy 5:2 standard of "absolute purity."
It reminds me of a conversation the Boundless team had with Michael Lawrence at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Michael explained that in conversations with singles and couples over the years, he became used to hearing people say that they were "struggling" with sex. Michael interpreted that term in his mind somewhere along "rounding first base and trying to steal second" when what they actually meant was "everything short of sliding into home plate."
Things would sure be different if all of a sudden words like "struggle" and phrases like "went a little too far" were cut from the English vocabulary and men and women had to actually detail their sexual activities (including their time online) to a pastor or accountability partner. "Well, first we took off our clothes..."
I point this out not to heap on condemnation (since I'm well aware how big of a problem this is among singles) as much as to point out how desperate men and women in sexual sin are for God's intervention. Glossing over the seriousness of sexual sin robs men and women of the new life available to those who humbly repent of going against God's plan for sexuality and seek to re-discover the great joys of His original design.
I would like to respond to Cherise's response to my post "On Being Found." She writes: When Ms. Hadley said this song was in fact in defiance toward men, it surprised me. Yes, I want to get married one day, but is contentment a roadblock to marriage? Also, I don't understand the concept of playing hide-and-seek.... How are single women playing hide-and-seek, and what can we do to change this?
I am certainly not saying contentment is wrong. Since I was a teenager, I have been taught that I should be a whole person without a man. Scripture advocates that we find our fulfillment in Christ before anything else — including a romantic relationship. At the same time, Scripture presents marriage as part of God's plan — and the fulfillment of a need: "It is not good for the man to be alone."
Does a woman forfeit full reliance on Christ by entering into a marriage relationship? Of course not. Therefore, it's unbiblical to tout independence as somehow more holy than marriage (which can be a temptation for singles).
When I spoke of hide-and-seek, I was referring to the mixed messages women send. Many of us desire to be married, but our words and actions communicate "I'm fine just the way I am, thank you very much!" These messages make it more difficult for men to pursue us.
A male friend of mine once pointed out, "You give off an 'I'm engaged' vibe." Without meaning to, I was coming across as "off the market." Broadcasting a desire for independence achieves this same result.
There's nothing wrong with being a healthy, competent, content woman of God, but we need to be careful of the messages we're sending. We may be advertising for a product — independence from men — we don't actually want.
In this week's article, "Ruth Revisited", I think Candice did an excellent job of clarifying the biblical account of the Moabitess and appropriately applying it to singles' present-day pursuit of marriage. Sharing the account of her own path to matrimony, Candice writes of herself and husband, Steve: Despite the fact that both of us came from intact Christian families, where marriage and children were esteemed and even held up as goals, we still had absorbed lots of contradictory cultural messages. We needed to be reminded that some of what we believed about love and romance and marriage was true, but a lot of it was simply a reflection of what we'd learned from too many hours in front of the television.
The "cultural messages" found in TV and movies often contradict what God says is true. Shows like "Friends," "Gilmore Girls" and "Grey's Anatomy," glorify the single life and show marriage as a last resort. Reading descriptions of the fall prime-time television lineup is like reading anti-marriage advertisements. The summary of "Happy Hour," a sit-com on Fox, says: "In Larry’s opinion, Brad has suffered a fate worse than death — he’s gotten engaged to the shrew TINA (Jamie Denbo), a cold and controlling fiancée who’s immune to Larry’s considerable charm."
This portrayal of marriage is prevalent. Marriage is a trap. Children are a nuisance. Live it up while you can. The problem is, as Candice points out, these messages couldn't be further from the truth.
 In May, I attended the New Attitude single's conference in Louisville, Ky. The theme of the conference was "Embrace a Humble Orthodoxy." Speakers encouraged attendees to "rediscover what has always been true." I felt impassioned by this emphasis on doctrine and biblical truth.
During the conference, I had the opportunity to sit down with Mark Dever and Joshua Harris. I was impressed by their unflinching commitment to the Gospel. These two Christian leaders, along with John Piper, Al Mohler and C.J. Mahaney, were featured in this month's Christianity Today cover story. The article, "Young, Restless and Reformed" by Collin Hansen, explains the resurgence of Calvinism among those under 30. This quote by Joshua Harris captures what the hype is all about: The theological depth attracted Harris. "Once you're exposed to [doctrine]," he said, "you see the richness in it for your own soul, and you're ruined for anything else." He notices the same attraction among his cohorts. "I just think there's such a hunger for the transcendent and for a God who is not just sitting around waiting for us to show up so that the party can get started."
I relate to this desire to know a powerful God. In my experience, doctrine feeds my faith and motivates me to follow Christ more devotedly. The Calvin/Arminian debate seems destined to endure, but no matter which camp you find yourself in, the craving for doctrine and truth seems to be a very positive step for our generation. What do you think?
HT: Justin Taylor
If you love your sin like I love mine, you will be well served to read Jonathon Dodson's Mere Accountability featured on the home page of Boundless. In it, Dodson challenges us to mortify the sin in our lives by practicing God-honoring accountability -- accountability characterized by confessing our temptations to others, constantly contending with sin through the help of the Holy Spirit, and faith in God's promises and power to overcome sin.
This is good counsel, which I am certain will prove helpful for many if practiced. However, I must contend with Dodson's warning about the use of embarrassment in an accountability structure.
Dodson writes that harm can come from what he terms "confessional booth" accountability that results in us refraining from sin for fear of embarrassment. He argues that it is the power of the cross, not the embarrassment that can come from confession, that is central to defeating sin. I agree, but I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive.
Admitting our weaknesses to others in real and specific ways is appropriately humiliating. Whenever I travel on business with a brother, I ask him to hold me accountable for what I watch on television. My temptation to indulge in R-rated movies late into the evening is simply too much for me to bear alone. And I know that the embarrassment that will come from having to confess such indiscretions will keep me from it.
Does this mean my motivation is wrong? On the contrary, the very reason I asked my brother to hold me accountable in the first place is out of a desire for obedience. In this way, I leverage embarrassment as a means to not "do the very thing I hate."
The willingness to humble yourself before another, risking the shame that comes from confessing temptation and sin, can prove a believer's heart in much the same way as "God-honoring" accountability.
How would you expect Christians to come across in reality shows? The pressure for Christians can be especially strong in shows like The Amazing Race, that often position them as Christians and zoom in on the prayers they pray before jumping off a waterfall (or whatever death-defying roadblock they have to face).
During the first season of The Amazing Race, my wife and I were curious to see how Brennan (a guy we knew from our time at Regent University) would do. His team won that first season, but he didn't necessarily set the standard for how Christians do on reality shows. Because he was positioned as a lawyer instead of a Christian, there was less pressure. Overall, he came across as a nice guy, but the word or two he let slip under pressure would have appeared more problematic if his Christianity had been hyped.
Even though Amazing Race is one of the better reality shows, my attention has waned over the years because of some of the lifestyles and cattiness it seems to dwell on. But I'm tempted to check in again this season to see how another Christian competitor does. She's positioned as a former Miss California, but "Dustin" is also a Christian who attended the Focus on the Family Institute in the fall of 2003.
Of course, the kind of pressure this show dishes out can get to anyone, but here's hoping "Dustin" handles it well.
I read recently that a freshman at the University of Virginia completed his bachelor's degree in one year. With 60 advanced placement credits under his belt, after just two semesters of (obviously intense) classwork, David Banh earned a degree in Mathematics. He took one class during the summer to complete his second bachelor's degree, in Physics.
This young man's accomplishment reminds me that we really can achieve more than many expect of us. Instead of merely attaining the low expectations we're fed by our society through the media and school systems, this man proves that you can do great things while still in your teens.
This man's feat naturally reminds me of the message to "do hard things" promoted by Alex and Brett Harris of The Rebelution. Though still in their teens, they're too demonstrating that the Lord has instilled in us so much more potential than the world would have us believe. Through their website, award-winning blog, conferences, and life, the 17-year-old Harris brothers (currently serving as interns in the chambers of Justice Tom Parker of the Alabama Supreme Court) are an encouragement to those of us discontent with merely "getting by."
Motte's story makes a good point about the pro-abortion agenda infiltrating both public and private life. According to AgapePress, Planned Parenthood of Connecticut has established an abortion rotation at the Yale School of Medicine. The course requires second-year ob-gyn residents to complete a total of eight weeks of rotations at Planned Parenthood clinics. While students may opt out of actually performing abortions, Dr. Gene Rudd, associate executive director of Christian Medical & Dental Associations, says they face extreme pressure for doing so. "There's pressure from the program directors that you will participate in this," explains Rudd. "In fact, you're very likely to get blackballed before you even get accepted into a program unless you're willing to participate."
Dr. Rudd suspects Planned Parenthood created the course as a means to recruit future abortion doctors. Smart, really, when you consider that college students are still in the late stages of moral development. Perhaps Planned Parenthood hopes by getting students in the door while their medical ethics are still malleable, the organization can succeed in producing a generation of conscience-free abortionists. Unfortunately, those students with already-established ethics — of a pro-life nature — will face discrimination.
HT: Right Voices
Speaking of boomers and abortion. I ran across this story of a couple of boomers from Maine who bound and kidnapped their unmarried pregnant daughter -- who wanted to keep the baby -- to take her to New Hampshire for a late-term abortion.
Here are the details. The Kampfs were found with duct tape, rope and a .22 caliber rifle with a full clip in their car. Their 19 year old daughter escaped when they untied her and let her go to the bathroom in Kmart. She called police on a cell phone -- no details on how she got the phone -- and ran to a nearby Staples and hid in the back until the cops arrived.
I think this quote from Dawn Eden's blog sums up the main point of this sad event: When someone -- a parent, boyfriend, boss, whoever -- wants a baby dead; nothing, absolutely nothing stands in the way. Not adulthood, not the law, not the expectant mother's autonomy or the respect for her decision to carry the baby to term.
After 33 years of legalized abortion in America, and all the anti-child attitudes that policy has spawned, it's a little surprising to see the increasing concern over childlessness among boomers nearing retirement age.
Afterall, it was the boomers who ushered in the sexual revolution and accompanying culture of abortion to begin with.
And yet, again, for the umpteenth time just this summer the Wall Street Journal has an article about the graying of America and the economic consequences of not having enough workers to pay for the retirements of all those baby-boomers eager to start relaxing. In 1950 there were seven people of working age for every retiree, reports the Journal. Today there are five. "But by 2030," the paper reports, "when the last of the baby boom generation retires, that ratio will fall by nearly one-half, down below 3 to 1."
True to form, the Journal's solution is an economic one: "integration of the world's economies and capital markets." Let the developing world make the goods and exchange them for the assets of the retiring one.
The frustrating thing about this so-called solution is the seeming oversight of what is most responsible for the dwindling number of workers: abortion. If some disease had wiped out 40 million people, we'd talk about it all the time; and how horrible it was and how we all have a duty to fund the research to end the scourge and have more babies to replace those lost to illness. But instead, we continue to limp along under policies that devastate our population, our economy and most importantly, our morality.
It's not just our pocket books that are suffering. It is our very souls.
To succeed in the workplace, "Any college will do." says A.G. Lafley, Proctor & Gamble's CEO.
This week in the Wall Street Journal, Carol Hymowitz writes that "the college diplomas of the nation's top executives tell an intriguing story" -- that talent and drive are more important than an Ivy League education.
Here's a snapshot of some notable CEOs and their state schools:
Robert Iger, CEO, Walt Disney - B.A. Ithaca College Kenneth Lewis, CEO, Bank of America - B.A. Georgia State University H. Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart - B.S. Pittsburg State University, Kansas
Hymowitz notes that one of the shared experiences of these executives was the strong relationships they built with their professors in college. Bill Green, CEO of Accenture recalls a particularly inspirational professor at a community college near Boston, crediting him "with teaching him to think analytically, to gain confidence in his abilities and to learn to work with people."
It appears that early on, these leaders recognized the value of surrounding themselves with influencers, people who would help them get where they were going. This is a practice that may prove wise to emulate whatever your college or career status.
Jim Collins, author of the best selling "Good to Great", shared a similar experience at Willow Creek's Leadership Summit in August. He spoke of assembling a "personal" board of directors and the impact this had on him when he needed direction in his twenties.
I understand that the roadmap for success isn't monolithic. But if you're confused about calling, or feel like you long for more from work, or you're doubting that your credentials match up, seek the wisdom of those you have come to respect.
And above all, remember Who it is that is ultimately responsible for our successes.
"For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: He putteth down one, and setteth up another." Psalm 75:6,7 (KJV)
Suzanne's post was a reminder of just how far we women have come. Not only do we no longer need men to provide for our financial needs -- we can earn our own good living, thank you very much -- or protect our physical safety -- we can take karate and learn how to shoot a hand gun -- it seems from those song lyrics that we don't especially even want men around. Okay, maybe for a little physical pleasure every now and then, but certainly not for the commitment and risk and sacrifice that marriage involves.
And yet, many singles still say they want to get married.
Maybe that's why this is Unmarried and Single Americans Week (September 17-23). A whole seven days set aside to celebrate the joys of flying solo. Or if you're not in the mood to celebrate, to at least try and convince yourself, again, that hey, being single's great. Look at all this discretionary time and money I can spend on me!
That's the gist of one popular Christian singles website. I got an email from them last week encouraging singles to " find some way to celebrate your fabulous self."
We're all for the boundless opportunities the single season provides. But all this self-actualization talk is counter to the vision of life we get from God's Word. Whether married or single, God calls us to a life of service, to seeking first His kingdom, to not thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought and to daily sacrifice.
That's a far cry from those song lyrics and that singles website email I received.
If you're single, you're by necessity independent -- to a point. But it's important not to let independence become the goal. There's not much about being independent that prepares you for the interdependence of marriage; for the sacrifice and other-centeredness that marriage requires. We hear from plenty of readers who haven't yet had good offers for marriage. But what's surprising is the number of readers who have, and are turning them down because they're enjoying their independence so much.
With the age of first time marriage getting pushed back later and later, is it possible that we're getting too good at being single? One reason researcher Norval Glen speculated there was less satisfaction reported from those marrying after 27 is the difficulty they have merging two fully-developed, independent lives.
A few days ago, I got a phone call from my sister. Ecstatic, she said, "Suzanne, I had the most unexpected talk with Dave yesterday!" Sarah has been witnessing to her friend Dave for more than a year. An intelligent pre-med student with strong ethics, Dave is also agnostic. And yet, his friendship with my sister and her friends, committed evangelicals, has blossomed.
Over the summer, Sarah lent Dave "Blue Like Jazz" by Donald Miller. This book was quite the buzz for several years, and it seems nearly every twentysomething evangelical has read it. Opinions are mixed. Many feel the book opens up a new picture of Christianity that is refreshingly honest, if slightly unorthodox. Others argue that while Miller's writing is relateable and compelling, he stops short of the point: Christ died for sinners. He tells of an honest journey with Christ but glosses over some of the details.
Because they're both Portlanders, Sarah knew Dave would appreciate the book (set in Portland, Ore.) and hoped it might help him overcome some of his prejudices against Christianity. Last week, they met to discuss it. Dave told Sarah he had enjoyed the book — the setting, the writing style, the anecdotes. Sarah asked what he didn't like about the book, anticipating that he would raise some objections to Christianity. His response surprised her. "Well, he talked about his atheist friend accepting Christ," Dave said. "And I kind of wanted him to go into more detail about how she did that." The conversation ended with Dave asking Sarah if she could recommend any other books that would offer more explanation of Christianity.
Sarah called me overjoyed by this unexpected conversation — and to ask me for book suggestions. I tossed out some ideas: Strobel, McDowell, Sire, Lewis. I had recently felt a little critical toward books like Miller's that explain feelings really well, but seem to hold back when it comes to sharing the gospel. The Lord humbled me. He had used this book to create a thirst in Dave to know more. I shouldn't be surprised. My mom accepted Christ in college as a result of a secular philosophy class. While it's crucial to be on guard against false doctrine and defend truth, perhaps it's wise to not discredit others' work too quickly. You never know what it may start.
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” —Luke 19:10
After seeing Suzanne's post that mentioned the song "Single," I wonder how Boundless readers feel about the song "Twentysomething" by Jamie Cullum.
This jazzy lounge tune from a couple of years ago has a lot of the retrospection that has come to characterize a decade of life in which opportunities seem simultaneously intriguing and empty. Here are some of the more telling lyrics: Maybe I'll go travelling for a year,
finding myself or start a career.
I could work for the poor though I’m hungry for fame
we all seem so different but we're just the same.
Maybe I'll go to the gym, so I don't get fat,
aren't things more easy with a tight six pack?
Who knows the answers? Who do you trust?
I can't even separate love from lust.
...
Maybe I'll just fall in love that could solve it all,
philosophers say that that’s enough,
there surely must be more. Ooooh
Love ain’t the answer nor is work,
the truth eludes me so much it hurts.
But I’m still having fun and I guess that's the key,
I'm a twenty something and I'll keep being me.
Do you resonate with these lyrics? When you read or hear them do you think "yeah, I can relate" or "no, but I have friends like that"?
I recently had a similar reaction to Candice's in her post regarding the essentiality of our engagement in "Representative Democracy." Except mine wasn't from listening to a story with my kids, it was from watching ABC's The Path to 9/11.
Based in large part on The 9/11 Commission Report, the ABC movie did a masterful job of linking the terrorists involved in the bombings since the 1993 World Trade Center attack -- the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen -- with "the tall one," Usama bin Laden. These ties to al-Qaeda and bin Laden illuminate a very important reality for us all: that the events of 9/11 were not meant to be the culmination of Islamofascists against America, but only as just another step in their reign of terror.
Though ABC admitted to taking some dramatic license, The Path to 9/11 script writer Mr. Nowrastch assures us in today's Wall Street Journal that "Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene." This is important given that the series covered, in great detail, our government's failure to respond adequately to the attacks and threats over the course of the eight years leading up to 9/11.
Mr. Nowrastch writes that, "'The Path to 9/11' was intended to remind us of the common enemy we face. Like the 9/11 Report itself, it is meant to enable us to better defend ourselves from a future attack." It is the "us" in these sentences that is our concern.
I am convinced in the face of this ongoing threat (the defining conflict of our generation) that who we elect this November and beyond will largely determine whether or not men "'can stand up,' free, everywhere".
When I was single, it was hard not to think about politics. I pretty much lived it while working on Capitol Hill. And then, after two years working for a Congressman, I went to graduate school to get my masters degree in public policy. I anticipated each election with the conviction that our culture -- and my job -- would rise or fall based on the results.
I may have overemphasized the importance of elections back then, but once I got married and started having kids, I have to admit, I went too far the other way. I stopped paying attention altogether. It was depressing with so much bad news and it dampened my hope for the future for my own kids. It seemed easier to turn off the TV and radio and limit my news to the Wall Street Journal while focusing on the kids.
But then just last week something unexpected reminded me that I can't ignore politics and public policy just because I don't like the direction Washington is headed. That something was a children's book.
In the midst of focusing on our kids, we were reading Johnny Tremain, a work of historical fiction that shows up on all those lists of great books for children. Since it's long, and our kids are still at the Hop on Pop reading level, we decided to get it from the library unabridged on CD.
The story, about a silversmith's apprentice, overlaps with some of the great names in Boston during the two years leading up to the War for Independence: Sam Adams, John Hancock and Paul Revere, just to name a few. This boy becomes a young man as he grows increasingly involved in the coming revolution and in the process, learns what it is the colonists are fighting for. In a moving speech, James Otis asks the select group of the "sons of liberty" why it is, after all, that they're preparing to fight. "Taxes without representation," says one. "To get the British soldiers out of Boston," says another. No says Otis. "It's so a man can stand up," free. And it's not just for the men in this room. It's for our sons and our grandsons and all the generations that will follow, he continues. And it's not just for American generations but for all men, everywhere, that they will know there are rights that come not from governments, not from men, but from God. Their freedom is a gift of God and not something any man can take away.
It's for the men, women and children of Communist Russia (my great grandparents came from there), it's for the families in East Berlin, and yes, for the people of Iraq.
Leave it to a book for kids to remind me just how essential my involvement in our great system of Representative Democracy is to my own family. Getting involved may be tedious in the present, but their future depends on it.
I read with interest this week's article, "Get Married, Young Man" by Alex Chediak. Alex challenges men to be intentional in seeking out godly wives. He writes: The Scriptures say, "He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord" (Prov. 18:22). So the man is said to "find" a wife, and that a wife is a good thing. The favor from the Lord part shows that, yes, God is the One who ultimately gives the wife, but it is still our job as men to be proactive in the finding process.
This made me consider how willing I am to "be found." A Christian friend recently cranked up the Natasha Bedingfield song "Single" and said, "This is our song." The first verse captures the essence of the song: I'm not waitin' around for a man to save me.
(Cause I'm happy where I am.)
Don't depend on a guy to validate me.
(No, no.)
I don't need to be anyone's baby.
(Is that so hard to understand?)
No I don't need another half to make me whole.
I gently encouraged my friend that perhaps this shouldn't be our anthem. Such defiance toward men is not helpful or godly. The truth is, God created men and women each with something valuable to offer the other. If single women want men to find them, they need to quit playing hide-and-seek.
You may have noticed a common theme in many of the Boundless articles and blog posts recently (here, here and particularly here) regarding men, sexuality and marriage. It goes something like this: If a young man desires sex, he should simultaneously prepare himself to be married while activily seeking a wife. When and how are matters of much prayer and discernment (more on this later).
Many will think this sentiment lacks the appropriate shades of gray when speaking on matters as important as finding a spouse. But isn't Paul similarly unambiguous when he writes in 1 Corinthians 7:9 that "it is better to marry than to burn with passion"? There is a potential for men to read this and believe that Paul is speaking to those with some sort of hyper sex drive. He is not. He is addressing all men who have not been gifted as he was, with the self-control necessary "to stay unmarried" for a specific ministry.
We need to inextricably link the male sex drive with marriage.
In an interview with 9 Marks Ministries, Dr. Albert Mohler encourages men to speak to their sons at an early age as they begin to mature sexually, to say to them: God made you a sexual creature and gave you an incredible sexual passion for His own glory. You are going to be sexually aroused and excited. You will be interested in intimacy that is largely sexual in nature. And this is to say to you, whether you are 13 or 18 or 22 -- and especially urgent at 22 -- God has made you to be a husband.
Dr. Mohler has the opportunity to speak to many young men as President of Southern Theological Seminary. He exhorts them to think of marriage, not as something out there on the horizon, but as one of the nearest responsibilities they now face.
 I was provoked by Carolyn McCulley's article addressing Fear of Man and its antidote, the Fear of God.
For years I've been trying different ways of growing in this area. One of the simplest, for example, was to start engaging in conversation with the person behind the check-out lane, asking if they could tell I was gearing up for a picnic, eating healthy, or making flan. Over time, my anxiety about talking with someone I didn't know faded.
But now I'm kicking it up a notch. I've found a thrill that gets my heart racing more than participating in extreme sports.
I recently had the opportunity to travel to California to interview Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, and was further challenged to grow in the area of Fear of Man. This time, specifically in the area of evangelism, something infinitely more significant than a mere chat with the person scanning my canned goods.
Inspired by my time with Ray and Kirk, I've been taking "baby steps," handing out a million dollar bill "ice breaker" (along with a generous tip) to pizza delivery guys. I've only given out three or four, but am encouraged by the responses -- every one of them smiled and took the tract, seeming genuinely thankful.
I may appear foolish doing something as silly as giving out tracts. But frankly, I don't care. Life is too short to fear rejection from the pizza guy. And besides, what if the Lord uses my Jesus Freak foolishness to help someone think about their eternal fate, and perhaps turn to the Lord? The possibility of my looking foolish pales when compared with the possible consequences of my engaging in talk of the eternal.
Ben's post reminds me how we rarely see the whole picture when it comes to celebrities. Interviewers avoid asking about the spiritual lives of the famous in favor of prying into the details of their favorite cosmetic lines, high-profile relationships and desired vacation spots. About a year ago, I heard about Risen Magazine, a bi-monthly periodical committed to leaving the shallowness behind. The description on the Web site states: Risen Magazine is a popular culture collage of exclusive interviews, photography and design. Each interview cuts to the heart, revealing the belief systems and world-views of the actors, artists, musicians and athletes that we profile.
With the cool factor of a fashion magazine, Risen highlights the spiritual lives of the talented and famous. Interviews feature those who claim to be believers — such as crossover band Switchfoot and vampire-novelist-turned-born-again believer Anne Rice — as well as those with a more eclectic spirituality — Adrien Brody, Carlos Santana, Ozzy. In doing this, Risen hopes to help readers look beneath the surface of their own lives as they consider the spiritual lives of their favorite celebrities.
Paul used a similar tactic at Mars Hill by tying in the opinions of those with whom his audience was familiar: "As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring’ " (Acts 17:28). However, Paul didn't stop with, "Look at this profound thing your pagan philosophers have said." He immediately issued a call to repentance: "Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone — an image made by man’s design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:29-31).
Simply revealing the spirituality of the lost is not enough. I appreciate that Risen is going beneath the surface and engaging in spiritual dialogue. But its commitment to give the natural man a voice free of commentary leaves readers (in Risen's case, high school and college students) to navigate the dangerous waters of spirituality without the truth of God's Word. While the dialogue may spur readers on to consider their own spiritual need, the undiscerning reader may find himself mired in the muck of worldly philosophy.
Is there a perfect age to marry? Does waiting until your late twenties or thirties give you greater maturity and a stronger financial foundation? Does marrying at a younger age give you a better shot at having prime energy for the parenting years and avoiding sexual sin?
The Washington Times ran an article last week called "Knot Now, Americans Say" that holds up some of the benefits of marrying young to those who may have a bias to wait until a later age. And I think it's true there is a bias. People who follow my parents' model and get married at 19 and 20 are often looked down on as impetuous. When my sister-in-law got married right out of college, several of her friends criticized her rush to matrimony.
Often this concern is legitimate because of research that shows the greater likelihood of divorce among those who marry in their teens and early twenties. Some well intentioned parents, youth leaders and counselors, however, have given young men and women the impression that every year they wait improves their chances of a strong marriage. The Times article above points to a study by Norval Glenn at the University of Texas that found people who married between 23 and 27 reporting greater satisfaction with their marriages than those who married before and after them. Apparently, there are tradeoffs for delay -- such as greater potential for sexual baggage and a tougher transition for two independent adults into an interdependent relationship.
At the end of the day, advice about prime marrying ages shouldn't be perceived as a message of doom and gloom for those who are already past a certain age or undue pressure for someone to go out and marry just anyone. The primary benefit of knowing the pros and cons of certain marrying ages is when it comes to making a decision about a relationship you're currently in or when it comes to someone intentionally turning down relationship opportunities that come their way because of a bias toward a year that is still down the road.
Often the best answer to the question, "When should I get married?" is "as soon as you are prepared to accept the responsibility of a lifelong commitment to someone you love."
 Boundless reader Jessica Wilson wrote to request context for the Mark Dever quote from my previous post.
Here it is: "I don't mean for a second," Mark goes on to explain, "that you literally have to have your name on a membership card in a church somewhere to go to heaven. I believe in justification by faith alone in Christ alone by God's grace alone. At the same time, in the New Testasment it seems the local church is there to verify or falsify our claims to be Christians. The man in 1 Corinthians 5 who was sleeping with his father's wife thought of himself as a Christian."
I should have been more careful with such a hyperbolic statement. If you still have more questions, I'd encourage you to grab this thought provoking book by Josh Harris.
Have you noticed in our culture how some issues just don't seem real to people until there's either a made-for-television or big screen movie that makes it personal to them? Next month, a movie is heading to screens touching on an issue that is quickly becoming a big concern — life without children. The movie Children of Men, is based on a novel by P.D. James about the nightmares of a world without children. Set in 2027, it shows the despair that ensues when humans are no longer able to procreate.
Moviegoers used to more tangible fears such as snakes on planes may wonder why life without "rugrats" would be such a bad thing. Three recent articles in the Wall Street Journal spotlighted some of the practical fears that are starting to emerge around the world. One article ("Cash Incentives Aren't Enough to Lift Fertility") talked about how countries worried about their shrinking labor force and consumer base have found that even cash incentives aren't motivating people to have more children. Another article ("The Fertility Gap") looks at the practical impact of baby-making at the ballot box. The most recent article, titled "Missing Children" argues that countries with aging populations are less prone to innovate — because of their fear of taking risks or making investments that don't have short-term payoffs.
With the recent news that America is about to reach 300 million in population, some may think America is in no danger of a population shortage. A groundbreaking report this past summer, however, shows that's not the case. "Life Without Children" is the featured essay by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe in their annual State of Our Unions report. Their analysis is that, "We are in the midst of a profound change in American life. Demographically, socially and culturally, the nation is shifting from a society of child-rearing families to a society of child-free adults" adding that "the twenty-first may well become the century of the child-free." Perhaps the most troubling part of the report is the recognition that American culture squeezes out the virtues necessary for having and raising children: More generally and pervasively, the expressive values of the adult-only world are at odds with the values of the child-rearing world. Indeed, child-rearing values — sacrifice, stability, dependability, maturity — seem stale and musty by comparison. Nor does the bone-wearying and time-consuming work of the child-rearing years comport with a culture of fun and freedom. Indeed, what it takes to raise children is almost the opposite of what popularly defines a satisfying adult life.
Perhaps movies like The Children of Men can put this growing problem in the spotlight in a way that can esteem once again the sacrifices of having children.
"If you are not a member of a church you regularly attend, you may well be going to hell."
This is a quote from Mark Dever, Senior Pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, taken from Joshua Harris' book Stop Dating the Church. It's a provocative statement, Harris writes, that Mark uses when speaking on college campuses about an important function of church membership -- "to verify or falsify our claims to be Christians."
I thought of it as I read in Suzanne's post about "the privatization of faith -- the idea that I can be a Christ follower free from the accountability of a body of believers."
It's tempting isn't it? The idea of Christianity lived apart from others?
Having to commit to a body of believers is difficult if only because it requires so much from you -- time, energy, emotions ... transparency. It's the latter requirement that is the most challenging.
I've found that the more time I spend with other believers, the harder it is to hide my sin from them. Whether it's the tone I use with my wife or a casual slander of a mutual acquaintance or something even more severe, sin always seeps to the surface.
But I guess that's the point isn't it?
Recently I heard two people I look up to praise J.I. Packer's Knowing God as foundational for Christian living. So I started reading it. One thing that's jumped off the page is the importance of biblical literacy; something my generation and following is woefully lacking.
I suspected as much based on the many emails we receive at Boundless asking things like, "is premarital sex really wrong?" "why is premarital sex a sin -- it's never mentioned in the Bible?" and "what's the big deal about having a wedding ceremony; isn't having sex the same as becoming man and wife?" And these are just the most memorable of the many examples.
But now I know that my hunch is more than anecdotal. The recent Barna Update referred to below reported that "despite strong levels of spiritual activity during the teen years, most twentysomethings disengage from active participation in the Christian faith during their young adult years -- and often beyond that." What does this disengagement look like?
Among other things, "twentysomethings have significantly lower levels of ... time spent alone studying and reading the Bible."
This runs counter to Paul's instruction in Colossians 3:16, "Let the word of Christ dwell in your richly ... with all wisdom." It's no small thing when we cut ourselves off from the Bible.
Packer challenges his readers asking, How long is it since you read right through the Bible? Do you spend as much time with the Bible each day as you do even with the newspaper? What fools some of us are! -- and we remain fools all our lives simply because we will not take the trouble to do what has to be done to receive the wisdom which is God's free gift.
In my case I'd have to substitute library books for the newspaper. In your case, maybe it's television, video games or magazines. I suspect for many it's their iPod. The point is that our lives will bear the fruit of what shapes our beliefs. And if the Bible isn't the primary input, we're in trouble.
 In an ongoing discussion about young adults leaving Christianity, the Barna Research Group reports this week that "despite strong levels of spiritual activity during the teen years, most twentysomethings disengage from active participation in the Christian faith during their young adult years."
The report states that six out of 10 twentysomethings involved in a church during their teens fail to actively pursue Christ into their early adult years. Not only are twentysomethings vacating the church, the report states, they are also not returning. I find this trend, as well as the attitude behind it, disturbing:
Loyalty to congregations is one of the casualties of young adulthood: twentysomethings were nearly 70% more likely than older adults to strongly assert that if they “cannot find a local church that will help them become more like Christ, then they will find people and groups that will, and connect with them instead of a local church.” They are also significantly less likely to believe that “a person’s faith in God is meant to be developed by involvement in a local church.”
While churches may be partially to blame for failing to retain young adults, young adults themselves are also guilty. Jesus loves the church. Ephesians 5 informs us that Christ intimately loves and cares for the church; He has chosen her as His bride — His partner. ("This is a great mystery," Paul says.) Spiritual gifts are meant to be exercised to strengthen the church (1 Corinthians 14). Abandoning the church equates to divorcing Christ. This statement may sound inflammatory, but the privatization of faith — the idea that I can be a Christ follower free from the accountability of a body of believers — is not a biblical concept.
And the fallout is evident. Recognizing the damage has already been done in the current twentysomething generation, David Kinnaman, the director of the research, suggests focusing efforts on teens. Speaking of strategies churches need to employ, he says:
Another shift, is to develop teenagers’ ability to think and process the complexities of life from a biblical viewpoint. This is not so much about having the right head knowledge as it is about helping teens respond to situations and decisions in light of God’s principles for life.
Perhaps it's not too late for twentysomethings to do the same — within the context of the church.
As I considered again this morning my motivations for blogging, I found myself prompted to re-read Bob Kauflin's recent article on Boundless, "Blogging to Worship God." If you have time, let me encourage you to take a few moments to read Bob's very helpful article.
But that's not what I'm posting about today.
After reading Bob's article on Boundless, I clicked over to his blog, Worship Matters. For years I've benefitted from Bob's thoughtful perspectives on worship. A recent blog entry, as I've come to expect, brings a helpful correction to my thoughts about music and worship. Consider this sentence that Bob excerpts from a book he's reading by Harold Best: "Music and the arts have a kind of power in themselves that can be falsely related to or equated with Spirit power, so much so that the presence of God seems all the more guaranteed and the worshiper sees this union of artistic power and Spirit power as normal, even anticipated."
I love and am moved by music, especially "worship" music. But may I better grasp, as Bob put it, that "music is never to be the ultimate means by which we worship God. Only Jesus, working through the Holy Spirit, can fulfill that role."
I found Ben's post encouraging. As Ben pointed out, Scripture tells us physical anguish and death are results of the fall — painful reminders of man's rebellion against God. Jesus Himself understood the tragedy caused by sin when He wept over the death of His friend Lazarus. And yet, when our world groans under sin, we, as believers, must choose how we will respond.
I recently heard Dr. Nabeel Jabbour, a Christian and expert on Islam, speak about the tremendous affect 9/11 had on Christians and their attitudes toward Muslims. Prior to 9/11, evangelicals were making great strides in reaching the 10/40 window, which contains many Islamic nations. But, Dr. Jabbour suggests, the anger that resulted from 9/11 created a setback. The enemy used it to harden our hearts against people who desperately need to know the Savior.
I have always loved the quote by Hudson Taylor, founder of Inland China Mission: "It matters not how great the pressure is, but where the pressure lies — whether it comes between you and God or drives you closer to His breast."
Do we allow tragedy — personal or national — to press us to God's heart? Or do we unknowingly allow bitterness and hatred to take root? As I reflect on the horror of 9/11, I am reminded that God — "who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all" — extends love and mercy not only to the victims of this terrible tragedy but to all people who need to know Him. That is the heart of God — that all peoples and nations come to know Him. And that is something I never want to forget.
If you're like me, you've not only asked the question Ben addresses in his post about God's role in 9/11, but you've probably wondered why there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack on American soil since.
I thank the Lord for peace in our homeland these last five years. He has been merciful to restrain the evil of a terrorist attack, at least for a time. And I understand that the Lord has used means to accomplish this -- just as Martin Luther explains that He provides for our physical needs with daily bread through means of the farmer and the baker.
Some of the more tangible means of protection can be found in Peter Kirsanow's National Review Online article, The Real Jack Bauers, highlighting military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and heightened security and surveillance, etc. -- along with "less discernable" reasons: President Bush indicated that many of the victories against terrorists would be hidden from view; they will never be recorded in history. Many of these victories have been won by the military’s elite units — special-forces/counterterrorism units and others that the media knows little, if anything about. Indeed, Kiefer Sutherland got more coverage in five minutes at the Emmys than all of the Rangers, Green Berets, Marine Force Recon, SEALs / DevGru, and Delta operators combined.
He ends: While it may be apocryphal, Winston Churchill is often quoted as having said (supposedly paraphrasing Orwell) “We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” We owe it to these gentlemen not to take for granted the undisturbed sleep we’ve enjoyed the last five years. Without them we might not have been so fortunate.
My old pastor incorporated prayer for soldiers, firemen, policeman, and doctors specifically in every corporate worship service. His habit for praying for these individuals is a good reminder that God alone is our protector by preserving our lives through the means of "rough men."
The soldiers fighting on the frontlines today in what may prove to be a long fight against Islamofascists were groomed to be heroes.
That is a reality authors Neil Howe and William Strauss predicted six years ago in a book called Millennials Rising. A year before planes slammed into the World Trade Center, Howe and Strauss predicted that Millennials (those born in or after 1982) would be the next great generation -- on par with the GI generation and others who carried America through its greatest challenges. "Whether or not Millennials must ever respond to an epic crisis, history will propel them to be and do what Boomers and Gen Xers were not and did not do."
Now Millennials are responding. Many are suited up in combat gear and facing threats we could never imagine. Others are suited up in police and firefighter gear facing daily threats and future 9/11s. Of course, Millennials are not monolithic -- there are some who are burning up the blogosphere with vitriol against America and the fight we are in. Between those two groups within this "heroic" generation, it is the former who are actually living out the classic definition of hero -- someone who sacrifices.
On the fifth anniversary of the epic crisis that is propelling Millennials into history, here's an almost century-old quote from Teddy Roosevelt for those heroes:
It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.
"Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
Copyright 2009 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. The Line and Boundless Line are trademarks of Focus on the Family.
|
In a world of religious tension, three New York women claim to be making a difference. Their book, The Faith Club, is a memoir of their interfaith dialogue since 9/11. Over coffee and chocolate, Ranya Idliby, a Muslim; Suzanne Oliver, a Christian; and Priscilla Warner, a Jew, celebrate a relationship they claim has overcome religious barriers. Honest interfaith conversation. Sounds positive. 
Recent Comments