 |
I'm excited to be blogging with you, and I'm looking forward to some interesting discussion! So, here goes my first post.
Since it's Halloween, I thought I'd be current and share this article from Newsweek. It's about something called Hell House, "an evangelical Christian version of a haunted house." Audience members walk through graphic depictions of sinful scenes (an abortion, a gay man getting AIDS, a suicide), and at the end, an actor playing Jesus calls on people to repent.
The performance, which was created by Keenan Roberts, a pastor from Denver, is meant to waken people to the reality of what sin is and does, no matter how visually and emotionally disturbing that may be. For example, the abortion scene in Hell House is apparently so upsetting that, according to the article, people have fainted while watching it. Roberts, however, thinks it is a powerful and effective witnessing tool: A lot of the people in the audience never go to church.... We've got 45 minutes to push the pedal to the metal to make the most indelible imprint we can, because the rest of the year we do it with a milk-and-cookies kind of approach.
Hmm. I haven't seen this show, but it sounds pretty hardcore. I've always been somewhat skeptical of the "scared into salvation" approach, partly because I think it seems more beautiful and real for people to accept Christ because they have realized the grace offered on the cross, not because they're frightened of a guy dressed up in a red devil costume.
But maybe there's something to Hell House. Maybe it gives people a good look at what sin is, and perhaps it is an effective way of helping people realize their depravity without Christ.
Because I haven't seen Hell House, I don't feel qualified to make a judgment about it. However, I guess I would hope that we as Christians are careful to find the right balance in the way we present the Gospel. God continuously points out our sin throughout Scripture and warns us of the consequences of rejecting Him. Yet He also demonstrates His graceful love for us in a way that is gentle and humble.
But, like I said, I haven't seen the show. Have any of you seen or heard of Hell House? If so, what did you think? Was it an effective witnessing tool or just the opposite?
Over the last six years, the one common theme in my career has been working to leverage media and marketing opportunities for ministry. It's something that has taken me to many conferences -- to peddle product, network or learn about the next big thing. Mostly, you just hope for some takeaway that proves worth the time and money of attendance.
God Blog Con 2006 provided that takeaway and more.
I was most impressed by two things: the humility and generosity of big name bloggers like Hugh Hewitt and Joe Carter, and the maturity and insight from twentysomething new media champions from Biola like Kevin Wang, Keith Buhler and Andrew Selby. There was no arrogance or self-promotion detected in the entire group, only the desire to leverage this new media for God's glory.
So in addition to peddling the Boundless Line through networking and gaining insight from expert bloggers and new media champions, I was encouraged and blessed by an overwhelming sense of our common bond in Christ and the single focus on His Glory. Isn't that the point of any Christian gathering?
And speaking of Christians, blogging and gathering, I would like to introduce a new guest blogger for the Boundless Line, Denise Morris. Denise is editor and writer for our sister website TrueU. We look forward to her insight and the unique voice she will bring to our discussion. Welcome Denise.
Today Boundless writer Thabiti Anyabwile reflects on Reformation Day. His perspective left me breathless. Events like the Reformation attest to the prevailing nature of the Gospel. It is a message that overcomes great odds and finds its way into the most unlikely places. An excerpt: What does a German monk nailing a long list of complaints on a church door have to do with an African American ministering in a small, international Caribbean island? Luther's world and my own couldn't be farther apart it seems.
But on closer inspection, I would not be in Cayman if it were not for that massive Christian church split some 500 years ago. I've been thinking a lot about church splits lately… and this one I am quite thankful for. I could wish that the result had been sweeping reform in the Roman Catholic Church. But failing that, I'm thrilled for the recovery of the Gospel.
If there had been no recovery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ — the grand promise of justification in the sight of God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone — I and most African-Americans and Caribbean peoples would likely be utterly and eternally lost today.
The greatest miracle of the Reformation is that enslaved Africans heard, above the din of rattling chains and the back-slashing crack of whips, the free Gospel call at the hands of slave traders and many less-than-heroic gospel preachers in the plantation south. That untutored Africans, imprisoned in a foreign land and surrounded by hostile wilderness, heard with clarity the learned oracles of Christ, were spiritually set free, and found the glorious banks of Zion is astounding!
However crude, however hampered by their conditions, however assaulted and persecuted by white brothers and sisters in Christ, the Reformation found expression among African descended peoples. There was every earthly reason why it should not have happened. But the one heavenly reason why it should — justification by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone — prevailed even among the meanest slaves of the south and the Caribbean.
After reading Thabiti's post, I find myself deeply thankful for a Gospel that cannot be repressed — even in dark times — and a truth that offers hope to all people.
HT: Tim Challies
I noticed a couple more key points in the new Barna study Candice blogged about.
Strong peer influence: The director of the research, David Kinnaman, pointed out, "The research shows that people's moral profile is more likely to resemble that of their peer group than it is to take shape around the tenets of a person's faith. This research paints a compelling picture that moral values are shifting very quickly and significantly within the Christian community as well as outside of it."
Close steps behind unbelievers in vices: In terms of attitudes, the typical pattern was for born again adults over 40 to be most closely aligned with biblical perspectives, followed far behind by other segments, including younger Christians. For example, just 33% of born again pre-Busters believe that cohabitation is morally acceptable. However, among born again Busters nearly twice as many (59%) agreed, representing a majority of young Christian adults. Among non-Christian older adults, 65% concurred, while 80% of non-Christian Busters felt cohabitation was acceptable. This same response pattern was evident when it came to gambling, sexual fantasies, abortion, sex outside of marriage, profanity, pornography, same-sex marriage, and the use of illegal drugs.
Connection between these sexual trends and today's shocking headlines: The Vice President of the Barna Group added, "We expect to see this mindset of sexual entitlement translate into increased appetites for pornography, unfiltered acceptance of sexual themes and content in media, and continued dissolution of marriages due to infidelity. It seems entirely possible that current events such as the Tom Foley scandal, instances of abuse by clergy, and the sexually oriented school shootings of recent months are not mere aberrations, but symptoms of a sexually unrestrained society."
Pollster George Barna's newest survey results reveal a sickening trend among "Busters" (currently 23-41 year-olds) -- we're more immoral than the Boomers.
Among their findings:
Busters were twice as likely to have viewed sexually explicit movies or videos; two and a half times more likely to report having had a sexual encounter outside of marriage; and three times more likely to have viewed sexually graphic content online.
But many Busters also defy sexual convention in their attitudes. For instance, more than two-thirds of the generation said that cohabitation and sexual fantasies are morally acceptable behaviors, compared with half of older adults. Most young adults contended that engaging in sex outside of marriage and viewing pornography are not morally problematic, while only one-third of pre-Busters agreed. Almost half of Busters believed that sexual relationships between people of the same sex are acceptable, compared with one-quarter of older adults.
Equally troubling was the report's emphasis on crude and coarse behavior. We're not as kind or respectful of others as were our parents. Writes Barna:
...on a deeper level, the new rules of morality affect how young adults interact with others, creating less civility, respect, or patience. Busters were twice as likely as their parents’ generation to use profanity in public, to say mean things about others behind their back, to tell something to another person that was not true, to do something to get back at someone who hurt or offended them, to take something that didn’t belong to them, and to physically fight or abuse someone.
There's a fundamental disconnect from knowing what is right and wrong. They found, "Two-thirds of those over 40 said humans should determine what is right and wrong morally by examining God’s principles; less than half of Busters felt this way. Instead, nearly half of Busters said that ethics and morals are based on 'what is right for the person,' compared with just one-quarter of pre-Busters."
It's tragic, but not surprising. Think about what you learned -- and didn't -- in the public schools. What outcome did they expect when they shifted the emphasis to tolerance, coupled with relativism, in the absence of absolutes like the Ten Commandments? We'd all be fools to expect anything different.
But values is all the rage, Boomers claim. What happened to all that character education? So dutifully underpinned by values?
Recently I was reading Vigen Guroian's Tending the Heart of Virtue where he exposes the real meaning of values. Far from a standard for shaping morality,
"[V]alues" belong to those things we call individual lifestyels, and in common discourse a lifestyel is something we choose and even exchange for another according to our personal preferences and tastes, much in the same way that we might replace on wardrobe with another.
Does faith make a difference?
According to the findings,
Born again Busters were somewhat less likely to illegally download music, to smoke, to view pornography, to purchase a lottery ticket, or to use profanity. However, young believers were actually more likely than non-believers to try to get back at someone and to have stolen something. Moreover, on eight of the 16 behaviors, the profile of born again Busters was virtually identical to that of non-born again Busters.
These results are sobering. I'm reminded of James' matter-of-fact remark that "faith without works is dead." It does no good to believe in God if we don't obey His commands. Even the demons believe in God. From the looks of this survey, our generation has a lot of reviving to do.
We've talked a lot about extended adolescence at Boundless, but it's always interesting to get perspective on this trend from outside of our circle of friends -- and even from outside of America. Dr. Al Mohler found a great article from the U.K. where it seems the problem may be more acute and resulting in something of a pendulum swing.
The writer, Michael Bywater, makes the case that our consumer-oriented culture and contemporary philosophies make our generation much more self-conscious than those before. "My grandfather was born in 1888 and he didn't have a lifestyle. He didn't need one: he had a life."
While obviously coming from a very different perspective, Bywater makes some great points. Reading his comments about his grandfather gave me fresh perspective for just how babying our culture can be and just how superficial our "lifestyle" pursuits are. It reminds me that age alone will not be sufficient for me to earn from my grandchildren the same kind of respect my grandfathers earned from me. The things that made them great in my eyes -- their strength of character, hard-working responsibility and seriousness of purpose -- were all valued in their generation. In a culture that worships perpetual youth, those values seem awfully counter-cultural.
David Kuo's Political Folly
There's a saying: "Politics is downstream from culture."
For years, politically active Christians seem not to have understood this, and put the cart before the horse by trying to "transform the culture" through political action. You write: "As secular humanists continue their attack on the moral fiber of this nation, he contends it's disgraceful that Christians aren't more involved the political arena." Restoring the moral fiber of the nation is going to take a lot more than political action. Real cultural change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down; by changing people's hearts and minds rather than by taking over the apparatus of the state.
The end result of political involvement is that we're a bunch of political whores who are being used by GOP candidates to get them elected. Take the abortion issue. If the Republicans were truly pro-life, they would have outright banned abortion years ago when they gained control of Congress and the White House. But they haven't, and we can see where their priorities lie. (An outrageous example: The American Enterprise's "Darlin' Arlen")
One way to see why is to look for perverse incentives: they have no incentive to ban abortion because then conservative Christians and pro-lifers would have no reason to elect them. Instead, they hand out useless bones like the Partial Birth Abortion ban.
Simon
* * *An Unapologetically Dark House on Halloween
Thank you, Mr. Brown, for your thoughtful and certainly God-submitted response to the Halloween debate. Living here in Australia where Halloween has not caught on in a big way, this is something we haven't yet had to address. Only a handful of kids will head out trick-or-treating in our neighbourhood this year. But, were involvement a real option, I'd have to consider the Scripture which exhorts us to abstain from all appearance of evil. Surely there must be some confusion when Christians willingly embrace activities which are based on a pagan theme.
One of my seven year-old music students came to me with an interesting thought during his lesson last week. "Mum says I can do Halloween," he said, "But I just don't want to. I know it's not of God. But then I do want to, cause it sounds fun. But I want to be godly." On his own, his conscience was telling him that Halloween might not be "godly". That was a powerful message for me. I encouraged him to ask his mother if he could perhaps have a little party to celebrate All Saints' Day, on November 1st, and remember godly men and women of the past.
Thanks for being bold enough to tackle controversy head on. Regardless of whether I agree with your final conclusions or not, I appreciate Boundless' thoughtful and Bible-centred approach. And in this case, I'm with you in your final consensus :).
Blessings,
Danielle, WA, Australia
* * *I enjoy your blog. But I have to say that Motte's latest blog was a tad OTT (over the top), a mite reactionary to Tim Challies' Halloween post.
Reactions are always dangerous. Challies was speaking from a considered stance but Motte bordered on an ad hominem attack.
Motte may be the stronger brother here (Romans 14). Should he not bear with Challies' alleged weakness?
Blessings,
Mark, Surrey, BC
* * *Excellent post.
Rey
www.biblearchive.com
* * *I read with interest your posts on the topic of Halloween. Though I'm not a parent, I presume someday I will be making decisions about how/whether to celebrate Halloween at my home.
I think that Halloween is really what you make of it -- if you go into the week of Halloween filled with dread that this demonic holiday is taking place, you will probably feel like there is serious spiritual warfare taking place. If you allow your kids to dress up in something innocuous and ring the doorbells of their grandparents and a few trusted friends and enjoy the candy afterward, it will probably feel like a harmless pastime. And I absolutely agree with Dr. Dobson -- parents should stick to their own convictions. Unfortunately, that's sometimes easier for those with the strict anti-Halloween values to do without having guilt heaped upon them by other parents.
It occurs to me, though, that if we spurn Halloween but instead opt for a church activity like a Pumpkin Party, Fall Fling, or Bible Character Dress-Up Night (and I'm not talking about Reformation Day or All Saints' Day, as those do have some historical significance of their own) we are essentially celebrating Halloween -- we're just calling it something else. And I find it ironic that the fundamental Christians who decry contemporary Christian Music as "just a bad copy of the world's rock music" will be first in line to haul out Dad's old bathrobe for a dress-up night or brush up on their pumpkin-seed-spitting skills for an "autumn" celebration at church.
Kristen
* * *Halloween and Fear of Man
Reading the different viewpoints on Halloween has been very interesting for me as I am evaluating my own response to the holiday. Ted Slater's comment comparing Halloween with Ramadan struck a chord with me. I have lived in Muslim countries and I have found that the meaning that Muslims place with Ramadan is different from person to person. Some people are just fasting out of cultural obligation, some are trying to earn their salvation but some are earnestly seeking to know God better. I have spent the past three years keeping Ramadan along with Muslims all around the world, praying with them that they may truly find God through Jesus Christ. Can we as Christians find a similar response to Halloween or is there truly no redemption in it?
Bethany
P.S. I really enjoy reading Boundless and getting alternative views on American culture today. Thanks and keep it up!
* * *An Evolutionary Thing
Interestingly up until the 1900's just about every great "thinker/philosopher" believed in the existence of a higher being. Perhaps they didn't put their faith into practice or were Deists but believed in a being nonetheless.
I once asked a psychiatrist whether or not she believed that God/religion was real or simply a result of evolution; a way for humans to cope with things they don't understand. She answered that although she believed in evolution and didn't think the current descriptions of God were true that there certain things in this world she could not explain. Thus she said for herself she has developed an "in between" philosophy on the matter.
What some secularists in this world want is undeniable proof of a God (Bertrand Russell stated that if he did meet God face to face and was asked why he didn't believe he would respond that He (God) didn't give him enough evidence). However the Bible says that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6).
That does not mean however that faith is for the "weak", "unlearned", etc. We practice it all the time. In our criminal court trials for example, we issue the verdict "guilty" or "not guilty". "Not guilty" doesn't mean necessarily that the jurors think the person is innocent. It simply means that there is not enough evidence to overturn the default presumption of "Innocent until proven guilty". We in essence are "acting on faith" the same as in Christianity.
The crux of the evolutionist way of thinking is that rather than start out with an open mind most evolutionists have as their baseline postulate/axiom "There is no God". Thus it is relatively easy for them to explain away just about every argument for God because they already "believe" that there is no God to begin with.
However, the Austrian philosopher/mathematician Kurt Goedel proved that ALL logical conclusions (i.e. theorems) must be based upon axioms which can NEVER be proven and must be taken on faith. In layman's terms, it essentially means that all conclusions are based upon a set of assumptions which must be taken on faith. For the evolutionist it may be "There is no God". For those who do, it may be "There is a God". The point though is that both parties must act on faith so those that say they never act on faith are full of carmel soot.
Personally, I adopt the "Pascal's Wager" approach. I'd rather live like there is a God and through life's discomforts than not live like there is one and suffer the eternal consequences of His existence. If there truly is no God then my existence/memory on life, indeed everyone's becomes meaningless. But if there is God and if He is "keeping score" then how I live my life becomes very important and in the scope of eternity 80 or so years suddenly become of extreme value.
Mike
* * *Top Ten Reasons Singles Aren't Marrying
You forgot one -- not being pursued.
I'm a single woman at 30 because I have not been pursued and I refuse to do the pursuing. I know many other woman who are my age and have also not been pursued, despite being available, active in the church, accomplished, focused on home and family, and all the other stuff we're supposed to be doing.
I just read the latest "Sex and the Single Guy" and I have to say that that's the approach I've taken all along to casual male relationships (not letting them be surrogate relationships to the real thing) and sometimes I wonder if that's why I find myself, at 30, still single.
But then, ultimately it must also be the will of God. I told Him I would wait on Him. And I'm still waiting.
RTL
* * *I feel like 80% of the posts on this blog and your site lately have been about telling Christian singles (usually guys) that it's a good thing to be married, and to stop procrastinating, to stop coming up with excuses, to lower expectations (that is, don't keep looking for "the one"), and just get married!
The thing is, I, and probably most of the Christian guys I know, don't need this convincing. We all want marriage! We have for a while. But for a variety of reasons, it's not happening. For me, I just haven't met and gotten to know a Christian woman where we've both wanted a relationship with each other. As simple as that. But some of my guy friends are in relationships with Christian women, and it's been their girlfriend's hesitation towards commitment that's been the issue, not the other way around, as many of the posts on your site seem to indicate.
I guess I'd just appreciate a little more sensitivity towards the guys that do want marriage, but just haven't found a relationship yet, and those that want marriage, but who are waiting and earnestly seeking guidance from God about their girlfriend's lack of readiness. We don't need convincing. And a little more advice on how to find and get to know women before one can even initiate a relationship wouldn't hurt.
David
* * *I find it very interesting reading this list of reasons why people delay marriage ... mainly because so many of them were reasons I have used at one point or another in my life. Growing up in a divorce-torn home left me ripe for the picking when it came to the devil's lies about marriage. Fortunately in the past two years I have been privileged enough to have mentors who went through Bondage Breaker with me and forced me to confront the lies about my inadequacy, fear, confusion, and skepticism about marriage and my past.
I would highly encourage others, male and female, to not simply "try harder" in this area of romantic relationships, but also look at the spiritual realm. After all, did God not create us spiritual beings? Why should we assume that this area of life is not affected by the spiritual realm.
I'm happy to say at this point that I am engaged to a lovely woman who shares my passion for God and cross-cultural missions. And hey, if God can take an insecure boy with no concept of what it is to be a man and turn him into someone willing and eager to tackle the challenges of marriage, then He can do that for anyone!
Jonathan
* * *I think I would add, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" There is a reason why that quip has endured.
KBH
www.kevinhash.blogspot.com
"Sugarcoated, MTV-style youth ministry is so over," says Time magazine. The new trend? Bible-based worship. This is good news. Today's teens are craving something deeper than scavenger hunts and rock concerts. According to the article: Youth ministers have been on a long and frustrating quest of their own over the past two decades or so. Believing that a message wrapped in pop-culture packaging was the way to attract teens to their flocks, pastors watered down the religious content and boosted the entertainment. But in recent years churches have begun offering their young people a style of religious instruction grounded in Bible study and teachings about the doctrines of their denomination. Their conversion has been sparked by the recognition that sugarcoated Christianity, popular in the 1980s and early '90s, has caused growing numbers of kids to turn away not just from attending youth-fellowship activities but also from practicing their faith at all.
The article goes on to quote the Barna study I mentioned in an earlier post. The study indicates that a top reason young people leave the church after high school is they are not instructed in how to "process the complexities of life from a biblical viewpoint." A critical piece of imparting a biblical worldview is to not only teach teens the Bible but to show them how to apply it to everyday life. That is why many youth programs are incorporating intensive mentorship programs while simultaneously teaching the Word.
I live with a teen, and I have daily opportunities to talk to her about why I make the choices I do. This weekend we had a conversation about the issue of gay marriage. I spent time explaining how God's Word has informed my decision on the issue. Because I am 10 years ahead of her, I have a special opportunity to share knowledge and model Christian living. If you're not investing in a teen, you should consider it. Youth groups may be making positive changes, but showing the next generation how to fall in love with Christ is our responsibility, too.
HT: Justin Taylor
As I type this I'm sitting in a small auditorium near the Biola University library, surrounded by perhaps 100 other GodBlogCon attendees. To my left the event photographer crouches in the aisle, snapping a quick photo of me and my PowerBook — the quintessential blogger. On the stage, a few feet in front of me, sit Senatorial Candidate Allen McCulloch, La Shawn Barber, and John Mark Reynolds. Hugh Hewitt is sitting stage left and facing the three, acting as MC of this panel, titled "Godblogs and Culture."
Yes, we finally escaped the grip of beautiful snowy Colorado Springs and have made it to southern California. My luggage (with my business casual clothes and recording equipment and toothpaste) are in Columbus, Ohio (that's another God-is-sovereign-and-I-don't-understand-right-now story), but Motte and I have finally made it here.
Though we've arrived a day late, we have been making the most of it, pondering the responsibilities and opportunities of blogging and meeting other bloggers. We had a chance earlier this afternoon to hang out with Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council and Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost and the Family Research Council, for example, and found them both easy to talk with and very intelligent. Very exciting to meet two of my heroes of the blogosphere.
And despite not having my microphones and cables, we were able to borrow some stuff for our interview with Hugh Hewitt. What an engaging, gracious, keen-minded man. And what a great interview — we'll plan to have it online within a week.
Another highlight was being interviewed for the official GodBlogCon podcast. We're expecting it to hit their website within a couple of weeks. We'll be sure to let you know how you can listen to it.
Well, that's it for now. I'll post a wrap-up on Monday.
I'm sure someone reading our occasional comments about new technology (examples here and here) will think we're a bunch of graying Luddites who just don't get "these kids today." And maybe there's something to that.
Among the Boundless blogging team, Ted is the most "with it" when it comes to assimilating new technology and Suzanne may be next in line. Motte, Candice and I are slower adapters. We're a lot less likely to test and pioneer technology before it hits the mainstream.
So I guess that means Ted will have to be the one to test this new gizmo from Toshiba that allows users to enjoy a full 360-degree viewing experience on a dome-shaped screen. Hopefully, I can get a report from Ted before I plan gifts for the holiday season ahead.
It may seem like no big deal to postpone childbearing till you're 30, 40, even 50 -- glossy magazine headlines make it seem like everybody's doing it. But the reality of fertility limitations persist. New research shows daughters born to mothers 30 or older may have an even harder time conceiving than they did.
According to a story in the Daily Mail, For the first time, researchers have calculated the 'age' of eggs at the time of conception and linked it with the fertility potential of the daughters that were born subsequently. The findings indicate that older eggs may carry inbuilt defects that only become apparent when female children [later] attempt to get pregnant.
Dr. Peter Nagy, a leading fertility specialist at Reproductive Biology Associates, a fertility clinic in Atlanta, said postponing childbirth had implications for women that could cascade down the generations.
He said "For every year that a woman delays childbirth, it becomes more difficult for her daughters."
Writing in the British Medical Journal, consultant obstetrician Dr. Susan Bewley warned that fertility problems increase with age. "Women want to 'have it all', but biology is unchanged" she said. "If women want room to manoevre, they are unwise to wait until their 30s."
Feminists told us we should make career our priority, and husband and family -- if we wanted them -- would just happen along the way. But the evidence to the contrary continues to mount.
Lots of successful career women have shown that careers can be built at many points along a woman's life. A woman's ability to conceive and bear children, however, is not so flexible.
According to Dr. Nagy, "A 25-year-old woman has a 90 per cent chance of a healthy pregnancy and baby whereas a 40-year-old woman's chances in the same circumstances fall to 10 per cent, simply because her ovaries and eggs are ageing."
I've often said if you spend your '20s putting all your eggs in the career basket, as you age, they may be the only eggs you have left. Now it's not just your own eggs at stake, but your future daughters' as well.
I realize this news may be discouraging if you're single but still hoping for a family someday. My primary reason for bringing it up here is for all the married readers who may be postponing children without full disclosure of the consequences.
Well, Motte and I were indeed victims of what will surely become known as the Great Colorado Blizzard of '06.
Maybe "victims" isn't the right word.
It's true that our flight was cancelled, and that all flights out of Colorado Springs tomorrow are already filled, and that we're now having to drive to Denver at 5:45 a.m. to catch a plane to LAX. In that sense we're perhaps victims.
But the Lord, as I mentioned at the end of my previous post, is indeed sovereign. And He redeemed a day that had dozens of miles of our main freeway closed, that left three feet of snow in areas of my back yard, that made me walk through waist-deep snow to brush off the DirecTV dish.
It was mid-afternoon. After 12 hours of flurries, the snow had finally stopped falling. I heard a knock at the door. My neighbor asked if I wanted to help him shovel off my driveway. My driveway, which he was halfway through shoveling. I ran upstairs, put on my jeans and crunchycon wool shirt, pulled on my boots and crunchycon coat, and joined him in cleaning feet of snow from my driveway.
When we were nearly done, my wife noted the snow-covered driveway across the street, mentioning that she hadn't seen the family's husband/father for some time. I walked across the street, shovel in hand, and knocked on the door. Turns out he had deployed to Iraq a few days earlier, and wasn't scheduled to return for a year. A year.
I spent 45 minutes shoveling the neighbor's sidewalk and driveway, thinking all the time of the adventure the Lord might have in store for my wife and me and our neighbor. An adventure that has been rejuvenated because of a freak October snowstorm.
I confess that I also thought briefly of the conversation we've had recently regarding Halloween, and how some (I confess that I have tons and tons of respect for Tim Challies, though I don't entirely agree with this particular blog post) say it provides a unique opportunity to "prove" our Christian love for our neighbors.
But as I tossed the 150th shovelful of snow from my neighbor's driveway to her yard, I dismissed the thought. While I may be (very) disappointed that I'm not yet at GodBlogCon, rubbing shoulders with the movers and shakers of the blogosphere, the Lord did provide a wonderful opportunity to make another connection with a neighbor who I anticipate will become a friend over the coming months. A neighbor I otherwise might not have had the opportunity to serve in Christian love.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in favor of same-sex marriage. In a 4-3 decision, the court granted homosexuals all the rights and privileges of civil marriages and gave the state's legislature 180 days to comply. If the legislature uses any other term than marriage to describe homosexual unions, it must provide a rationale for that decision.
In a statement released yesterday, Dr. James Dobson decried the ruling: The New Jersey Supreme Court has blatantly and arrogantly ordered the state Legislature to rip up what marriage has meant for thousands of years. The justices have made clear their disdain and disrespect for the true decision makers in our democracy –- the people -– as well as for the institution of marriage.
This ruling once again highlights the need for voters to enact state marriage-protection amendments to keep marriage out of the hands of activist courts. We only hope that the residents of the eight states who will vote on such amendments Nov. 7 recognize that their state may be only one court ruling away from being forced to accept gay marriage – just as we've seen in Massachusetts and New Jersey. Nothing less than the future of the American family hangs in the balance if we allow one-man, one-woman marriage to be redefined out of existence. And, make no mistake, that is precisely the outcome the New Jersey Supreme Court is aiming for with this decision.
The eight states that will have similar referendums this election banning same-sex marriage are: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin.
If the New Jersey legislature complies and legalizes gay marriage, or the equivalent of marriage by another name, it will become the 4th state in the union to do so. For an understanding of how this decision may affect our nation differently than the Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont decisions, read National Review Online's "Marriage Back on the Table."
In my previous post on Christians and politics, I quoted Francis Schaeffer saying there is still "room to move yet with our court cases, with the people we elect." But with rulings by activist judges like those on the New Jersey Supreme Court, that room may be shrinking. As Dr. Albert Mohler concludes in his response to this latest decision, "we will define marriage for the judges, or the judges will define marriage for us."
I found Steve's post The Singlehood Phenomenon interesting. A friend of mine, who recently read the book, complained that each chapter ended with the same simplified solution: The person involved received a few months of counseling and then miraculously found a spouse. While I'm not negating the need for counseling in certain situations — especially those involving unresolved past issues — the problem/solution format of the book sends the message that the reason singles aren't marrying is they need to be fixed first.
I do believe that a major shift in thought needs to occur, but wrong attitudes exist on all fronts — not only among singles. Marriages are failing more than ever before, and I don't believe singles are "crazy" to notice this trend and approach marriage cautiously. While addressing these "top ten brutally honest reasons singles aren't getting married" may make marriage more probable for you — it will not ensure it. I think it's helpful to remember that married couples are dealing with these same issues, just from a different life stage. We're all broken people in need of renewed minds.
Last week we ran an article that featured places in America with the highest ratio of single men to single women. We pulled that ranking from the American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Today, the Wall Street Journal reported on another category from that survey -- counties with the highest percentage of never married men and women. By looking at numbers from entire counties and focusing on the percentage of never marrieds by gender, they came up with a list that was pretty different--and skewed toward counties with large college populations. Here's what they had:
Most Single Men
Clarke County, GA 55.6% never married men
District of Columbia, D.C. 50.4%
Suffolk County, MA 49.0%
McKinley County, NM 48.5%
Montgomery County, VA 48.1%
Most Single Women
District of Columbia, D.C. 47.5% never married women
Clarke County, GA 47.2%
Suffolk County, MA 45.1%
St. Louis City, MO 42.9%
Philadelphia County, PA 41.8%
I'm typing this in my home office, snow beating against my window and collecting on the ground at an inch per hour. Looking out my window reminds me of the scene in Doctor Zhivago where his home is under mounds of snow. My UPS occasionally notifies me that power has been interrupted, making typing this post a bit of a challenge.
Yesterday was beautiful and warm. Today we're in the midst of a blizzard. The flight to LAX has so far not been cancelled, though I wouldn't be surprised if it is before too long.
I'm hoping we're able to make it to GodBlogCon, but at this point it looks like we'll be a bit late. Ah, the sovereignty of God....
"How best to bring the truth and power of Christ into a culture withering from lack of truth, goodness, and beauty?"
That's the question being addressed at the GodBlog conference that I wrote about earlier this month.
Motte and I are flying out a bit before noon tomorrow, likely in the midst of a Colorado blizzard, landing in sunny LAX a few hours later to begin rubbing iron-sharpening-iron shoulders with other Christian bloggers.
I'm personally looking forward to:
- pondering how we might improve The Line, as well as my personal blogging skills
- exploring with like-minded Christians how we might better honor the Lord through our online activities
- meeting other Christian bloggers (La Shawn Barber, Hugh Hewitt, Mark D. Roberts, Joe Carter, Patrick Hynes, Charmaine Yoest, James Kushiner, Andrew Jackson, Marvin Hutchens, Kevin Wang, Melinda Penner, Matthew Anderson, Fred Sanders, Paul Spears, Stacy Harp, John Schroder, Jan Lynn, Brenda McGill, Elizabeth Taylor, Alan McCann, Virginia Schroeder, John Schroeder, Dave Martina, Melinda Penner, Donald Sage, Robert Stevenson, Rob Asghar, John Mark Reynolds, Jen Wrobleski, Julia Kiewit, Natalie Joes, Dustin Steeve, Andrew Selby, Keith Buhler, Adam Groza, Pat Sikora, David Nilsen, Jennifer Hardy, and others)
- the interview we've scheduled with Hugh Hewitt
- eating a steak with Motte and hopefully a few of the folks listed above
- being pushed back in my seat as the 727 races down the runway
I'll plan to do some blogging about the conference while we're there -- check back tomorrow and Friday for the latest from the Boundless Line team's California adventure.
Why has the marriage rate dropped 40 percent over the last four decades? Why are people spending less and less of their lives married?
In a new book called The Singlehood Phenomenon, Dr. Tom and Dr. Beverly Rodgers identify what they call the "top ten brutally honest reasons singles aren't getting married." We haven't formally reviewed this book and so I can't speak to all its particulars, but the authors seem to have captured well the top reasons we hear from you and see in the reports that come across our desk.
What do you think of the top ten they've captured?
- Skepticism about love and marriage
- Lack of faith in God's provision
- Unresolved issues from the past
- Confusion about the rules (of dating/courtship)
- A poor understanding of the purpose of marriage
- Fear of getting hurt
- Wanting the perfect mate
- Not dealing with prior heartbreak
- An unbalanced emphasis on career (wanting to get established before getting married)
- Concern that their marriage will fail
A recent AP article reports that 65 percent of 18-29 year-old Americans who own cell phones text message on a regular basis. They are g2g and lol and 2g2bt. And in case you're an IM neophyte like me those mean "good to go," "laughing out loud" and "too good to be true."
I don't know why, but I haven't been able to get into all the new gadgets (I can't even find my iPod). Maybe it's because I'm mw2sk ("married with two small kids") or dht ("don't have time"). Actually, I think it's my l2ba ("love to be alone").
In her article Against the Cell, Lauren Winner laments how some technology makes it harder to be "tranquil or still." She writes, "... I am struck by the sad thought that we are no longer ever alone. We have eroded all the space we once had for solitude."
My real fear is that if I add one more distraction to an already busy life, it will prove to be the very thing that puts twGotbb ("time with God on the back burner").
While the religious faithful the world over were worshiping the Living God this past Sunday, the San Francisco Chronicle ran an article by Dinesh D'Souza about the source of such faith.
D'Souza highlighted the puzzlement over religion among some of our age's most influencial thinkers. Because faith doesn't make sense to them, biologists Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson, philosopher Daniel Dennett and author Sam Harris look to their patron saint, Charles Darwin, to explain why religion continues to thrive. How can one possibly account for religious belief despite -- from their perspective -- all "rational evidence"?
In the end, they conclude, it must be an evolutionary thing.
Writes D'Souza,
[I]magine two groups of people ... the Secular Tribe and the Religious Tribe.... The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every thought and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all.
Should evolutionists like Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Wilson be surprised, then, to see that religious tribes are fourishing around the world?
And it's not just that the religious tribe is populated with wishful thinkers. The evidence for the existence of God -- the intelligent designer behind our irreducibly complex universe -- abounds. I was reminded of this recently while viewing an episode of the Truth Project. It's not that there's no "rational eivdence" for God, it's that intellectuals who have chosen to believe Darwin have also chosen to reject any and all evidence that undermines his theory.
Paul warned Timothy about such people who would be "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth" (2 Timothy 3:1-7).
Thankfully those who embrace the truth are making great strides, by virtue of the way they live that truth out, toward survival of the faithful. Given the course they're on, the evolutionists may, in the end, be responsible for their own extinction.
In discussing Christianity with those who don't believe, I've often encountered more ridicule than reason. Catherine Claire of The Point says the same of Richard Dawkins' approach in his book, The God Delusion. According to the book's description, it "makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly." But part of this case, Catherine points out, is built on ridicule and parody:
Dawkins reveals his modus operandi best in his own words when he told Wired News: "At some point, there is going to be enough pressure that it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God."
Bullies have always taunted. Look at Goliath. The faithful, however, see their taunts as directed not at them, but ultimately as a fist in the face of the living God. They respond in faith and strength. The challenge for Christians in the coming years, however, is in how we will respond to efforts to embarass and marginalize us. I hope we can respond like Paul, a former scoffer, by underscoring that the Gospel is for all who will turn and believe:
"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." And perhaps, I pray, also for Dawkins.
Scoffers will always be among us. They are evidence of a truth that offends. This should not surprise us. After all, we are the "smell of death" to those who are perishing. The good news is, we are also the fragrance of life to those who are being saved.
I personally don't celebrate Halloween for the same reason I don't celebrate Ramadan — they're both meaningless.
Maybe Halloween is good for some people who suffer greatly from "fear of man." Having neighbors initiate communication by coming to your door is helpful for those who are too timid to initiate communication themselves (by asking a neighbor for an onion or egg, by stopping and visiting when they're working in their yard, by giving them a "welcome to the neighborhood" gift, and so on).
For these individuals, Halloween can be the first "baby step" toward growth in the area of overcoming "fear of man," and can lead to healthy relationships with neighbors. As for me, I've been working on overcoming "fear of man" for years, so I don't need the crutch of Halloween as an excuse to engage the neighbors in conversation.
So how can we overcome this fear apart from Halloween? Carolyn McCulley quotes from Ed Welch in a recent Boundless article: The most radical treatment for the fear of man is the fear of the Lord. God must be bigger to you than people are.... Regarding other people, our problem is that we need them (for ourselves) more than we love them (for the glory of God). The task God sets for us is to need them less and love them more.
I don't need a pagan holiday (is that an oxymoron?) to help me grow in godliness. I need the fear of the Lord.
I guess I'll represent the dissenting voice on Halloween here. My family doesn't participate. Instead, we take our kids to the Reformation Celebration held at our church. There they play games such as "Bible Smuggling" or "Pin the 95 Theses" to receive prizes and candy. My kids actually prefer it.
It's our personal conviction. One that my wife and I have talked about, prayed about, and sought the advice of Christians we respect. Apparently, that's not good enough for Tim Challies.
Challies writes on his blog today that "(Christians) have to trust our consciences" on the matter but then proceeds to condemn those who would abstain as "a very poor witness." First, if it is a matter of conscience, he shouldn't make judgments on Christians who have prayed about it and concluded that they can best honor God another way. After all, as Paul instructs the Colossians, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath."
Secondly, I reject the premise that Halloween presents a "unique opportunity" to engage in the lives of our neighbors -- it's one opportunity among many. For example, one of the pastoral wives in our church has a "cookie witness" in their neighborhood and we enjoyed a block party in ours this past summer. I can think of numerous other moments when we've (kids included) engaged our non-believing neighbors on their terms since we moved into our house.
Just because Challies is constricted from being neighborly every other day of the year because of "social etiquette" doesn't mean everyone is. Besides, if we all based our decisions on the etiquette of our day then we would never participate in what some would consider to be the pinnacle of rudeness -- sharing the Gospel.
Since this is a matter of conscience, I would not presume that those Christians who do participate somehow honor God less. Dr. Dobson is a bit more forgiving than Challies in his response to Halloween. I realize that (Halloween) is controversial among committed Christians, and I'm sensitive to the reasons for their misgivings. My final word to parents on the subject would be "Stay true to your own convictions."
I think I will. And with a clear conscience I'll have a dark house this Halloween because we try and keep it lit the other 364 days of the year.
Thanks to Suzanne for that post about how to best spend Halloween. I love the imagery of the family loving their neighbors and reaching out to them in the spirit of hospitality. That's exactly what we plan to do, right after we go door to door and introduce ourselves to all the neighbors we never see (and get a big plastic pumpkin full of chocolate, of course).
I remember as a kid, sitting in a darkened house with lights on only in the back family room where we were quietly biding our time, waiting for the trick-or-treaters to be done ringing our doorbell. Frankly, that approach scared me to death. I felt like we were hiding from the demons themselves. Gladly, I can laugh about it now with my parents -- they freely admit they were a bit extreme back then. And I'm glad my kids are aware of the "non-Jesusness" of the holiday without being afraid of it.
That said, one important reason for that lack of fear is that we're careful about who answers the door. If the grim reaper, Jason and the masked villain from "Scream" show up, I know not to let my 6 year old be the one distributing candy. The few times they have seen those shocking (and worse) costumes, they have been truly frightened and no amount of witnessing is worth terrifying my innocent little ones. There's an important balance to be struck.
Thankfully, most of the littlest kids do still trend toward super hero and ballerina costumes. And thankfully, most of the gradeschool set goes door-to-door early in the evening. As the night wears on and the teenagers dressed as "trick-or-treaters" (translation: no costume, huge pillow cases for loot, a little red lipstick dripping from their mouth) start to dominate, we do turn off the front lights and head to a more remote part of the house.
And every year, I pray again for the wisdom to be a light in the midst of this darkest of holidays.
Halloween is so controversial among Christians, that the children's magazines I edit don't even mention the holiday. Today Tim Challies talks about how Christians can use Halloween as an outreach opportunity. I am guessing my neighbourhood is all-too-typical in that people typically arrive home from work and immediately drive their cars into the garage. More often than not they do not emerge again until the next morning when they leave for work once more. We are private, reclusive people who delight in our privacy. We rarely see our neighbors and rarely communicate with them. It would be a terrible breach of Canadian social etiquette for me to knock on a person's door and ask them for a small gift or even just to say "hello" to them. In the six years we have been living in this area, we have never once had a neighbor come to the door to ask for anything (except for this time). Yet on Halloween these barriers all come down. I have the opportunity to greet every person in the neighbourhood. I have the opportunity to introduce myself to the family who moved in just down the row a few weeks ago and to greet some other people I have not seen for weeks or months. At the same time, those people's children will come knocking on my door. We have two possible responses. We can turn the lights out and sit inside, seeking to shelter ourselves from the pagan influence of the little Harry Potters, Batmans and ballerinas, or we can greet them, gush over them, and make them feel welcome. We can prove ourselves to be the family who genuinely cares about our neighbours, or we can be the family who shows that we want to interact with them only on our terms. Most of our neighbours know of our faith and of our supposed concern for them. This is a chance to prove our love for them.
A family I know does just that. Each year, they open their garage and take pictures of each trick-or-treater against a festive fall backdrop. Later they provide the prints to their neighbors for free. They also hand out treats and tracts telling of Christ's love.
Candice's son asks: "Mommy, what can we do to let these people know how bad this holiday is? Should we go in and tell them it's not a Jesus holiday?" Perhaps if we introduce them to a Savior more powerful than a pagan holiday, they will discover this truth for themselves.
It Takes a Purpose to Date
This question about the purpose of dating is a timely one. I'm currently reading "How to Get a Date Worth Keeping" by Dr. Henry Cloud, and he clearly advocates the concept of dating for fun, to get to know other people, and to find out what characteristics we want in a mate. (For the sake of honesty, I've only read half of the book.) Cloud rejects the idea of "serial monogamous dating" saying that we'll only sell ourselves out to the other person too soon and won't have enough dating experiences. On several occasions he makes positive references to guys dating five women at once. This is where I start to question his methods of dating purely for fun and enjoyment. As a guy, I can barely work in enough time for myself, let alone try to schedule five women a week, month, or whatever he means by "at once." This sounds like a logistical nightmare. The financial repercussions of this type of activity could quickly spiral out of control. Additionally, I think being seen out with a bunch of different women in a small town (in my case) could harm my, or any other guy's, reputation.
I'm not trying to bash the book, especially since I haven't finished it yet. I do agree that getting out of your rut and meeting new people of the opposite sex is crucial to finding a mate; the chances of God dropping a spouse in your lap is very unlikely. The biggest problem that I have with Cloud's concept on high throughput dating is that he assumes that there are two emotionally healthy people on each date, and that they perfectly understand that each is there simply to have fun that evening and not look beyond that. In my experience, this has not been the case. Typically, on any of my dates, there have/has been zero to one healthy people/person present. The potential to do a lot of damage while dating numerous people simultaneously is immense.
There's a twinge of guilt that I feel any time I even think about starting or maintaining relationships with more than one woman for the purpose of spouse-finding. If I was dating, even "just for fun," several women at once, I'd think I'd tire of cycling them through a revolving door of sorts and having the same conversations over and over. I wonder if after awhile I'd get in such a habit of not committing and always looking for a new date that I'd eventually have a total aversion to commitment. Mass-dating seems similar to the article on Boundless several months ago about the analogy of "test-driving" your girl friend, only in a non-sexual way.
In order to date effectively, I'm finally learning that I can't sell out for a girl after the first date and that I need to maintain my boundaries. I think this is done best by interacting in groups, or even going out on a few dates with the girl. If it works out--great. I'll keep dating her. If not, I won't pursue her anymore. Ultimately, I don't like to be just another guy a girl pulls off a shelf to date, and I don't want to do that to a girl, either.
Mark
* * *
What Makes For Good Worship?
Those were some excellent points made by Phil Simpson that Ted quoted. I've felt that sometimes worship at my church was more about us and what were "doing" than God and who He is. This is not always the case, but usually one to two songs each service are of the "procrastination" genre. I tend to believe that those kinds of songs give the appearance of praise, inspiring us to praise Jesus, but then, once the song is over, we can forget to actually enter into that active, life encompassing praise. It's like, when I was a teenager, I would tell my mother that I would empty the dishwasher after the next commercial break. And then I never would — I forgot after that initial moment. I hate to compare praise of the Lord and Savior of humanity with emptying a dishwasher but worship at some churches is just that rote.
When I listen to praise and worship music outside of weekend and mid-week services, I find that I gravitate to the songs which highlight the attributes of God and what He's done in me. Plus, worship songs affect me differently at various times, depending on where I am at with the Lord. My current favorites are the old hymns and just about anything off a Third Day Offerings album.
Sincerely,
Samantha
* * *
Sometimes the old songs are the best ones. See if this chestnut from 1774 fits the criteria Ted Slater sets forth:
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/f/n/fncgrace.htm
There's more doctrine in this hymn than in some sermons I've heard!
John
* * *
Helpful post, Ted. I think there's a general lack of a "vocabulary" with which to discuss the topic of 'sacred music' in our contemporary context. This is how I usually like to categorize the music [this is me personally; speaking merely as a layperson]: there are praise songs (directed to God), exhortation songs (to each other), story songs (about God, either directed to him or to each other), prayer songs (asking God for something). Am I missing any? Obviously, many songs are various combinations of these general types and many variations in between, with different manners of execution (style, tempo, etc.). I think it is important to incorporate a lot of categories whenever possible, but if I were a worship leader, I would probably emphasize praise and story songs.
One error I have encountered in my own church is an overemphasis on certain lyrics that sound extremely pious (a lot of self-sacrifice or "I'm not worthy"-type language), but the focus tends to be on the worshipper and not God. Usually they seem to happen in the form of a prayer song (God make me; God give me; Lord, I need to be; I really want to;). I think those songs are good and necessary, as long as they are not the only focus of the worship service. I think magnifying God's person via praise and/or story songs is going to be more edifying to a worshipper's walk than focusing on the person's needs.
That being said, the song "Above All" that you mentioned was actually part of an important moment of emotional healing for me after a brief time of deep depression last year. In spite of the use of the ending phrase "thought of me above all", the message that comes across seems to focus on God's work. In my case, the song did not lead me to focus on myself.
Again thanks for the post, and sorry for such a wordy response.
Josh
* * *
The Boys of Bozeman
I liked Steve's question: "Are men who see they are
outnumbered going to get motivated and start competing
with the men around them for the pool of available
women?" But I twitched a bit at it — we women don't
want to be seen as a limited number of prey offered up
to a few hunters. Heck, we don't want to be seen as
prey at all! We want to be evaluated as individul
female humans, not merely as one of numerous possible
fillers for the "wife slot" in a man's life.
I want a man to want ME as his wife, not mere "make
do" with me, because competition is fierce and
pickin's seem slim. And I suspect the feeling is mutual!
Name withheld at author's request
* * *
I wouldn't see how it would be a problem, especially for men. People aren't a finite resource, there are always more being born, and (more importantly) moving past the census age cutoff into a marriageable age range. So, barring a population imbalance, there will always be people for each other, the odds of marrying someone the same age just goes down.
While this is potentially problematic for women since their odds of ever marrying decreases as they age, women don't seem to have any problem marrying men who are older than they are. So, I would see no reason for mass panic, and I'm personally set, so I'm not panicking either.
Robert
* * *
Weary of Being Wired
Suzanne Hadley's post, Weary of Being Wired, reminded me of a quote I read
recently by one Dennis Fluegel: "If Bill Gates invented the telephone and
Alexander Graham Bell invented e-mail, we would all be saying, 'You should
get one of these telephones, you can actually talk to someone, hear what they
are saying, and you don't have to use a keyboard!'" (World Magazine, October
7, 2006, accessed October 15,
2006). Though he has a valid point about the faddishness of modern
technologies, I suspect he unwittingly underscored a major cause of said
problem: a general lack of education about such technologies. Though
Microsoft is certainly one of the several companies that have been a
significant driving force behind the popularization of email and the Web for
business purposes, I don't think that implying that Bill Gates invented email
is any more accurate than saying that Thomas Edison invented the telephone or
that Al Gore invented the Internet.
Of course, I understand that one does not need to have a full knowledge of the
history of a technology in order to be able to use it properly. But since
history is part of a well-rounded education, I think the fact that the
general population doesn't understand where our Internet technologies came
from suggests that they have not been well-educated about how such
technologies function or should be used either. Perhaps if we as a people
had a better handle on the origins, purposes, pros, and cons of the various
Internet services we use, then we would be more readily able to make wise
decisions about how to use those in a way that is moderated and beneficial,
whether it be using email for business transactions or using the Web for
socialization.
Joshua
* * *
My Year in Mexico
I'd be interested in knowing more about Manuel Arenas who "sensed the Lord calling him to a life of celibate service, a life of ministry that was not conducive to married life." What did this sensing involve? I assume he must be an example of somebody having the gift of celibacy as Al Mohler and FOTF/Boundless promote, as opposed to somebody who chose singleness to serve God better in spite of struggles with lust and loneliness, as seems to be the case with people like John Stott, John Chapman and others. I don't believe the gift of celibacy interpretation is correct, but I would love to know about anybody who decided they had the gift of celibacy, as I know of no examples (except Paul if my interpretation is incorrect). Thanks,
Philip
* * *
Beauty and Politics
It should be noted that in the same passage where God says to Samuel (regarding all of Jesse's sons) that He looks at the heart, it is also said of David that he was ruddy & handsome.
So he sent and had him brought in. He was ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features. Then the LORD said, "Rise and anoint him; he is the one." So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came upon David in power. Samuel then went to Ramah. (1 Samuel 16:12-13)
Also what about the story of Esther? The whole reason that she was Queen, was that she was Beautiful.
I think something that we would do well to remember is that God created beauty ... it was His idea. Our response to beauty, is in part, our natural response to God, and His nature. I understand the author's point that physical appearance should not be our only basis for decided who to vote for, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Beth
* * *
Less of Life Married
I read a lot of the comment about the NYT article about marriage. I have not read the article, though. Almost all the comments dishearten me and make me realize how much society thinks that children are a nuisance, that women are not "independent" if they don't hate men and build careers, and that men make horrible partners because they are not willing to help around the house.
Unfortunately, they are all disillusioned and wrong: 1. Every single person ever created (besides Adam and Eve) started out as a child, and with good parenting children don't have to be "annoying." 2. My grandmothers stayed at home with their kids, my mom stayed at home with her kids, and I strongly desire to stay home with my future children. Whether I get to stay home or not will unfortunately depend on our financial situation, because my husband in training to be a pastor, and they have some of the lowest salaries. 3. I feel like my husband does more around the house than I do on most days. I know that when we have kids he will be a great father and will certainly help out. Both of our fathers were very involved and did their share of housework.
One comment about the article, from a "Don F.", I can wholey agree with:
"My wife and I have a post WWII 'traditional' marriage and family, where I go to work and she manages the house and takes care of our 2 children. I find it very rewarding to be able to provide my 2 sons with a childhood where they are cared for my their own mother every day. My wife loves 'being able to stay home.' We frequently speak about how blessed we are to be able to live this way. We have known a few families where the dad is the one to stay home, and I find very little of the sexist stigma attached to this arrangement that was seen years ago. Our house is smaller and more modest than those of my professional peers, but we feel that our life is richer, and we feel richer. Our home is full of love and noise and play and snuggles. This is the life I always wanted when I was single."
It's just so sad to hear all of the excuses that people come up with. I'm already praying for the parents of my future children's future spouses. I know that this society has so many negative messages, that I can only hope they raise my future children-in-law in similar ways that my husband and I will raise our kids.
Becky
* * *
Interestingly, a few commentators are taking significant issue with the NYT's interpretation of the data at an even more fundamental level than you are. See Michael Medved's blog on Monday, for example, which has some good analysis of the way the media has misused the statistics to show something rather different than what is actually the case according to these figures. We ought to be encouraged, rather than discouraged, at how good a state marriage is actually in — it is certainly not as horrid as it has been made to sound, and as Christians trying to protect and advocate marriage in our culture, that ought to encourage us immensely! God bless, and keep up the good work!
Chris
* * *
Deserved Beauty
Many of your articles have had me thinking and nodding my head in agreement.
When I look for models for how I should look for and treat a mate I think of Jesus and the Church and Hosea as models of sacrifice. But time and time again I find females looking to Jacob and Rachel as a model.
So I finally did a web search for "jacob loved rachel as a model" and found the article below.
Enjoy!
http://columns.crossmap.com/article/a-tale-of-two-sisters-rachel-and-leah/301.htm
Name withheld at author's request
* * *
Taking Steps
Hi! I appreciate your site and your advice for folks, both married and single, who are trying to stay pure before the Lord. I am a little bothered, however, by the advice in "Taking Steps" by Suzanne Hadley which talks about "preparing for a home" while you are still single. Practicing hospitality is a Scriptural mandate, and nurturing children is certainly in line with Jesus' command in Matthew 18. So the advice itself is Scripturally and logically sound.
My concern stems more from the spirit of the advice ... that working is only temporary ... so you should prepare for the future when your full-time job will be managing home and children. I found this sentence particularly troubling: "Skills you develop through education or job experience can help you in your future role as a wife and mother, so don't think of it as wasted time". Wasted time? The majority of all mothers have some type of outside employment. Some choose to take off time during their children's younger years. Others remain at home until their children are older (high school, college). But it is likely that nearly all moms will be employed at some point. Therefore, it is only prudent for women to develop the skills they will need in the workforce.
As a working mother, I have been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism and dirty looks because I choose to work outside the home. However, my husband and I believe that my work with students is a ministry that God has given me. Indeed, the woman of Proverbs 31 was a businesswoman, buying and planting vineyards, making and selling cloth. I see no Scriptural mandate for staying home. We need to be careful not to impose our "preferences" on other believers in matters of conscience.
Heather
Alright guys, if you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend Scott Croft's article "Brother, You're Like a Six" about the role of attraction in finding a spouse. It's funny, insightful, and brutally honest about men who try to "out-kick their coverage." It reminded me of a section in the 2004 State of Our Unions report from the National Marriage Project on why men delay marriage.
Even when they are satisfied with their current girlfriend, they may believe that they will find a "better one" out there if they just wait a bit longer. Further, a pornographic media culture may contribute to unrealistic expectations of what their future soul mate should look like. Influenced by the sexy images of young women on MTV, the Internet and on the runway in televised Victoria's Secret specials, men may be putting off marriage to their current girlfriend in the hopes that they will eventually find a combination "soul mate/babe."
If some physical attribute of the girl you are currently courting is keeping you from popping the question, examine yourself or seek the help of other Christians to see if it has anything to do with the world's influence and then determine to get over it. Or if there is a godly young woman you've written off from asking out because she isn't your "ideal," take another look and see if there is a beauty you wouldn't have noticed before having read Scott's article.
My friends and I used to scorn the idea of being "set up." For one thing, such matchmaking implied that we needed help — that we were incapable of attracting a potential mate without charity. Second, such experiences were often forced and awkward.
In her article "Plenty of Men to Go Around, Pt. 2," Candice points out the benefit of enlisting the help of godly mentors and friends in the marriage-seeking process. In Titus 2, Paul instructs the older women to teach the younger women how to live godly lives. Specifically "to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored." It only makes sense that if the young women are having trouble finding husbands in the first place, that the older have a vital role to play in helping them marry well.
In recent years I've become more receptive to being set up — especially by those who know me well. In college, I saw my brother and best friend as a potential match and made sure they spent time together. Now married, they still thank me for that.
Responding to Candice's article, Carolyn McCulley offers this advice: We singles also need to be patient and gracious with the introductions we do receive. Chances are, there will be some that will leave us scratching our heads and wondering what in the world anyone was thinking. That bumpiness comes with the territory, but let's be grateful that anyone would make the effort on our behalf.
If you desire marriage but feel this kind of help is beneath you, it may be time to check your pride.
I just want to give a shout out to all the guys in Bozeman, Montana; Ames, Iowa; and Cullman, Alabama.
You're in the spotlight today in the second part of Plenty of Men to Go Around. The same Census report I've been hammering on regarding married households slipping below the majority, also tells where never-married men and women are. Bozeman, Ames and Cullman were right around the top for areas with the highest ratio of never married men to never married women.
I started wondering this morning if the news that the great majority of U.S. towns and cities have a higher ratio of never-married young men than women would create a scarcity crisis among men. Are men who see they are outnumbered going to get motivated and start competing with the men around them for the pool of available women?
David Kuo has been all over the news recently promoting his book Tempting Faith, advising evangelicals to "fast" from this mid-term election, saying we should "spend more time studying Jesus and less time getting people elected." He is the former Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, obviously disillusioned about what went on while he worked for the Bush Administration.
Let's assume David Kuo was well intentioned and that Christian stewardship is his sole concern here. Should we (evangelicals) remove ourselves from political activity to more devotedly follow Christ? As Michael Medved -- a traditional Jew -- pointed out on his blog yesterday with his critique of Kuo's book, the two are not mutually exclusive. He ignores the fact that for most people of faith, it's not an either-or position: we can study scripture at the same time that we're working for our political principles, and we can "practice compassion" in private at the same time we endorse compassionate policies in public.
No one speaks on this issue better than Dr. James Dobson. As secular humanists continue their attack on the moral fiber of this nation, he contends it's disgraceful that Christians aren't more involved the political arena. When we withhold our influence and participation, we yield by default to those who promote immoral and destructive policies. We owe it to our children and to future generations to defend the principles in which we believe -- the glorious freedom bought with the blood of so many brave young men and women. Shame on us for failing to do our duty to God and country. It is unconscionable that so many Christians today have concluded that it is somehow immoral to "get political."
Failure to "get political" in our nation's great democracy is a failure to acknowledge God's blessing of a representative form of government. And as the late Francis Schaeffer wrote in his A Christian Manifesto, it is a failure to recognize Christ's lordship over all of life. True spirituality means that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord of all of life, and except for the things that He has specifically told us in the Bible are sinful and we've set them aside -- all of life is spiritual and all of life is equally spiritual. That includes (as our forefathers did) standing for these things of freedom and standing for these things of human life and all these other matters that are so crucial, if indeed, this living God does exist as we know that He does exist.
Well-intentioned or not, it is to Kuo's shame that he would encourage Christians to stand aside while elections happen that will shape the direction of America and to some degree, the world. As Schaeffer noted in 1982, we still "have lots of room to move yet with our court cases, with the people we elect -- all the things that we can do in this country."
Candice's post on beauty got me thinking about the enslaving nature of living up to a physical ideal. Girl Talk recently discussed the culture's distorted yardstick of physical perfection, as seen in this video produced by the Dove campaign for real beauty. Dove's motto is: "Every woman deserves to feel beautiful just the way she is." Carolyn Mahaney points out how this goal falls short: Even if every girl did "feel beautiful just the way she is," it wouldn't bring her true joy or lasting happiness or solve even one of her problems.
Truth be told, what we all deserve is not to feel beautiful but rather to be condemned to hell for sinfully seeking to attract the worship of our fellow creatures instead of living to bring glory to God.
God did not send Jesus to this earth to die so that women could get over their self-esteem problem and feel better about themselves. No, He sent his Son to die to rescue us from our sinful, futile quest for physical beauty and to reveal to us the satisfaction that comes from knowing God — whether we are beautiful or not!
I know I have been guilty of exalting and desiring the physical beauty of others. And I have seen friends struggle with low self-esteem and eating disorders as a result of culture's unrealistic standard of beauty. But Carolyn points out that when we seek the world's ideal of beauty, we take our focus off God and miss out on the joy and hope He offers us. Honestly, I am tired of hearing about inner beauty. But I think if I could focus on the beauty of Christ and His sacrifice, I might reflect something that attracts others to Him.
I've been serving in my church's worship team regularly for the past few months. We have five services each weekend, so I can't help but think about the songs I'm playing on stage. I've found myself wondering how we on the worship team might best serve those in the congregation, not only with our performance, but more importantly with the selection of songs.
This morning I came across a stellar blog post that helps me better understand the significance of song selection. If you're involved on your worship team, I'd strongly encourage you to take some time to read it. In How to Evaluate Songs for Congregational Worship Phil Simpson provides 19 comprehensive criteria that song leaders should consider as they select music for their church's services. Let me highlight the ones that resonated most with me: 1. Are the words man-centered or God-centered? Do they exalt and extol the wonders of the Triune God, or do simply talk about one's experience?
2. Similarly, are the songs about God, or about worship? Do they speak more about what I will do ("I will worship, I will praise You, I will lift my hands"), or do they speak about who God is (God, you are...)? Tim Challies calls the former 'songs of procrastination' — focusing on acts of worship that we intend to do, but telling us nothing of the God to Whom the worship is due.
3. [A]re the words to the song cohesive? Do they go somewhere, and do they tie together related ideas? Or, are they instead a string of unrelated "glory phrases"?
5. Are the songs instructive? Do they teach us something about God's character, His actions, or His plan of Redemption? According to Colossians 3:16, we are to "Let the word of Christ dwell in (us) richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in (our) hearts to the Lord". So, songs to be sung to the Lord, AND instructive to one another? But aren't these two aims contradictory? Should a song be sung to one another, or to the Lord? According to this verse, it's not "either/or", but "both/and"! The words of a song should inform our understanding of Who God is and what He's done; the awareness of the truths learned should not lead us to cold contemplation, but should result in warm, heartfelt worship.
6. Are the songs cross-centered? Many of our songs should reflect the goal of God's redemptive plan for all of history. This should never cease as a reason for us to sing and worship. In fact, Revelation 5 tells us that, in heaven, even then, we will not get over the cross. It's not, "the cross was in the past; what do you have for me now?"; rather, the substitutionary death of our Savior for our sins should be the theme of our worship now, just as it will be for all of eternity: "And they sang a new song, saying, 'Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation' " (see also v. 12). Even in eternity, we will not get over the cross!
7. Do the songs exalt the character and actions of God?
18. It may be a good idea to select songs on a weekly basis which underscore truths related to the sermon, or to a certain theme (a particular attribute of God, for example), rather than a loose association of multiple songs (although the latter can be done, and still have the result of good, God-honoring worship service, since a broad spectrum of God's excellencies have been paraded before the people to admire in aggregate).
I could go on and excerpt Phil's entire post, but instead I'll just encourage you to click over there and read the full thing.
I look forward to the day when we sing fewer songs in the church that culminate with "me above all" or that procrastinate our engagement with the Lord. I look forward to the day when we sing more about the Lord than about our feelings or our "acts of worship." I look forward to singing more songs that explore the rich truths of our faith in a fresh and relevant way, that draw my focus to the terrible and wonderful and efficacious cross of Christ, that expand my appreciation for the One who founded all of creation and who is exalted as Lord of all.
While doing an interview with National Public Radio yesterday (available here -- my portion starts around the 16 minute mark) I was reminded of a key value of a committed Christian marriage. An underlying tone from the host, the other guests and the callers was that marriage is only a piece of paper and people can and should experience marriage-like relationships without the formal institution.
Late in the show I mentioned that such a sentiment may seem true when men and women are in their prime of life, but that as they begin to experience reverses and challenges in life, it's much better to be able to fall back on a commitment that's "for better or worse, for rich or for poor, in sickness and in health."
In the past few years, I've watched my dad and all but one of my grandparents die. Each one went through a period in which they needed serious care and support. As their spouses daily lived out the sacrificial model of Ephesians 5, those seasons became perhaps the shining moments of those marriages.
Something much greater than "a piece of paper" made the difference.
It's not often I'm convicted by something I read in USA Today. But a few months back, in anticipation of the fall television season, I searched the Life section for some news on some of my favorite shows. The article I found led with the observation that Christmas isn't everyone's favorite time of year -- fall television is. Hmm ... the premier of Lost or celebrating Christ's birth. Though I never doubted which was more dear, my anticipation of new episodes did reveal an area of excessiveness in my life.
I was reminded of this as I read Barna's new study on what Americans most desire and, in addition to sleep and spending time with friends, it's our "seemingly unquenchable thirst to be entertained". And don't think that Christian Americans are any different. As Joshua Harris notes in his article Like to Watch, "Many Christians, perhaps most, can imagine making heroic sacrifices for God, yet we resist the small adjustments. 'Jesus, I will forsake my home, family, and future, but don't ask me to give up my favorite TV show!'"
An entertainment-centered life is a difficult habit to break, particularly for people like me who grew up on television. I often go through the exercise of assessing how much TV I watch in a day. One recent self-assessment revealed that after I take care of my work and home responsibilities, I usually give about an hour or so to the tube in the evening. And though some may think an hour or so of down time isn't all that bad, I have a feeling 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards wouldn't be so empathetic.
When he was only 19-years-old, he wrote 21 resolutions to live by in one sitting (there were 70 in all). Number 5 reads, "Resolved, never to lose one moment of time; but improve it the most profitable way I possibly can." Compare this with the resolution I made last year. "Resolved, try not to take on any new television shows and only enjoy the ones I watch now until they are canceled." In hindsight, I should probably have set the bar a little higher.
Candice rightly challenges the diabolical notion that, in light of there now being over 300 million people living in the U.S., children are a burdensome nuisance both societally and familially.
Earlier today I found myself reading a column written last week by the president of Human Life International, Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer. He points out: When a new calf is born to a farmer he knows he's a richer man; but when a new baby is born to him we call him irresponsible. We crave growth not only in our flocks but also in our stocks, our opportunities, our freedoms and our reputations, but when it comes to the growth of our families, our attitudes are strangely determined by a careful cost-benefit analysis of how much another kid is worth.... [But] children are not commodities, they are gifts that make us richer in every way.
Euteneuer's conclusion: The anti-baby bias that's saturated our society facilitates a pro-abortion mentality: The abortion industry knows that there is a paper thin line between not wanting a baby now to not wanting a baby period. When they have sold a society on the idea that babies are the source of all their problems, it is not too hard to sell them on abortion.
My use of the term "diabolical" in the first paragraph was intentional. What else can you call it when that which God calls a blessing our society considers unwelcome -- to the point of killing it for the sake of realizing some materialistic goal?
But we know that deep-down happiness is not found in riches. Sadly, though, so many forgo the true blessings of children and instead put all their energies into extending their material wealth.
The NYT story on marriage is getting a lot of follow-up attention. Dr. Al Mohler has a great blog about it today and the Family Research Council had good analysis on it yesterday (and it looks like I'll get to talk about it on NPR today).
The best read seems to be that while married households are slipping below 50% that doesn't show that people are giving up on marriage as much as shows they are spending less of their lives married. While the Census report shows that around 80% of people will marry at some point in their lifetime, the same report indicates that those people are marrying later and are living longer (with many spending more time divorced or widowed).
That's consistent with the findings of the State of Our Unions report that came out this past summer. That report also does a good job of showing what the implications are for a culture where men and women spend less of their life married (and less of their life as parents).
By the way, the 300 plus comments on the New York Times blog about this article show a fascinating range of attitudes about marriage in our culture.
This morning between the time I woke up at 5:10 and the time I next checked my computer at 6:00 am, the people counter on the Census Bureau's website flipped to the other side of 300 million.
Feel claustrophobic thinking about it? Think you'll be more apt to bump into your fellow Americans' elbows today? Not likely.
Despite years and years of dire predictions, the population bomb is a dud. As we've said repeatedly on Boundless, the problem we're facing is not too many people, but too few. With the baby boom generation setting records for longevity, along with their decisions to embrace the pill, abortion-on-demand and smaller families, "experts" are bemoaning the fact that the birth rate is too low.
The Population Research Institute's (PRI) press release reports that: ...the percentage of the American population 65 or over will rise from 12.3% today to 20.6% by 2050. The proportion of Americans 80 or over will rise from 3.6% to 7.3% of the population. Our worker-to-retiree ratio is already at a dangerous 3-to-1. By 2050, it will be 2-to-1. And those retirees will be living much longer than they do today thanks to beneficial improvements in health care. We've been trying to make up for our low birthrate though lots of immigration, which has created its own problems. But if Americans won't create the next generation, then it must be imported.
We take a lot of hits on Boundless for talking about the ought of having children -- that Christian marriage requires both husband and wife be open to the blessing of children. And yet we're not saying anything more than what Scripture commands.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."
It's ironic that in our rebellion against our pro-creative design we now face all these economic, political and statistical problems.
May we once again embrace the creation mandate. Not because the UN or the PRI or the Census Bureau reports doom if we don't but because it's what God created us to do.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9).
I was glad to see The Point blogging about the "sluttification" of Halloween. My husband noticed it when he went to the local costume store a few weeks ago to take advantage of the pre-pre-Halloween sale on little kid costumes. At $9.99 each, it was hard not to spring for the superman and butterfly/mermaid get-ups that our kids had seen advertised in the mail (given that some well-known kid stores are selling theirs for $99, but that's another topic altogether). They're at the age when dressing up is among their favorite games and what could be more natural than pretending to be a superhero if you're a boy and a beautiful princess with wings if you're a girl?
The troubling part was that the store's display windows were so full of scary and offensive outfits that we had to re-park three times to be in a spot where the kids didn't have to keep their eyes closed to avoid the view. Steve's first comment when he came out of the store was about how the most seductive costumes now come in even the smallest sizes. "Who dresses their daughters like that?"
I was just sorry the sale didn't run closer to Christmas. I think it's unfortunate that a game so natural to childhood -- dress-up -- is becoming so linked to a pagan, and increasingly frightening, sexualized, "holiday." There's nothing "holy" about it.
So I'm trying to decide if we'll celebrate Reformation Day (October 31st) or All Saints Day (November 1) instead.
We need to do something. While waiting in the parking lot for daddy to buy the innocent costumes amidst all the junk, our son said, "Mommy, what can we do to let these people know how bad this holiday is? Should we go in and tell them it's not a Jesus holiday?" Of course he's still too young to see the hypocrisy of our supporting the very company that makes all those vulgar outfits and blood-and-guts masks. He was just glad to be able to suit up and fly off the sofa into a pile of pillows.
I realize Halloween has never been a "Jesus holiday," but there was a day when the primary focus was the fun of carving pumpkins, roasting the seeds, dressing up like your heroes and eating too much chocolate with your family. It's sad to see the good overrun by the evil.
Yesterday, the New York Times ran the story on marriage that I mentioned in an earlier blog. (The version here requires registration, but you can read a reprint here). So far, it's been picked up by at least 8 other papers and so it's reaching a few people. Here's the portion they ended up using from me: Steve Watters, director of young adults for Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group, said that the trend of fewer married couples was more a reflection of delaying marriage than rejection of it.
"It does show that a lot of people are experimenting with alternatives before they get there," Watters said. "The biggest concern is that those who still aspire to marriage are going to find fewer models. They're also finding they've gotten so good at being single it's hard to be at one with another person."
While I wish the writer had worded my last line as "hard to be one" instead of "at one," I thought he did a good job of capturing my comments and providing additional context on the issue.
Here's the primary thrust of the article: Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of U.S. households, have slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures.
The American Community Survey, released this month by the U.S. Census Bureau, indicated that 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation's 111.1 million households last year were made up of married couples, just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent five years earlier.
The numbers by no means suggest marriage is dead or that a tipping point has been reached. The total number of married couples is higher than ever, and most Americans eventually marry.
But marriage has been facing more competition. Increasing numbers of adults are spending more of their lives single or living unmarried with partners, and the potential social and economic implications are profound.
I recently received my online singles newsletter from Christianity Today and read something you might want to consider, particularly if you are dating. It's an excerpt from Jason Illian's Undressed: The Naked Truth About Love, Sex, and Dating titled "5 Commandments of Dating." I haven't read the book so I can't recommend it, but I did find this passage that I think is worth wrestling with: The purpose of dating is to find the "right one" with whom to spend the rest of your life. If you simply want to have fun, meet interesting people, or learn about yourself, don't do it within the context of dating. There is a time and place for these types of experiences, and it is called friendship. Just make friends with some people of the opposite sex if your goal is to learn and grow. Although dating sounds like an ideal way to simply shop around for Mr. Right, it is too easy to get emotionally and physically involved. And if you date with the goal of self-improvement or self-satisfaction, there is a very good chance that you're going to get hurt or you're going to hurt someone else. Dating should have a purpose — to learn who and how to love.
As Scott Croft explains in his article "What Does a Biblical Relationship Look Like?," there are no premarital relationships mentioned in the Bible outside of the context of marriage. On the contrary, as we see in the meeting, courtship and marriage of the Solomon and his bride in Song of Solomon, there are warnings to "not stir up or awaken love until it pleases." Does dating stir up love? You bet it does. Any time singles commit to spending time with members of the opposite sex within the exclusivity of a dating relationship, emotional intimacy happens.
The risk of heartache and pain from emotional intimacy without the intent to marry seems pointless. So if you are dating for fun and recreation, I have to ask -- to what end? I really want to know.
In the article "Democratic Faces That Could Launch Thousands of Votes," the Washington Post reports: By a combination of luck and design, Democrats seem to be fielding an uncommonly high number of uncommonly good-looking candidates.
The beauty gap between the parties, some on Capitol Hill muse, could even be a factor in who controls Congress after Election Day.
Democratic operatives do not publicly say that they went out of their way this year to recruit candidates with a high hotness quotient. Privately, however, they acknowledge that, as they focused on finding the most dynamic politicians to challenge vulnerable Republicans, it did not escape their notice that some of the most attractive prospects were indeed often quite attractive.
The presence of an image consultant at the writers conference I just attended is evidence of the fact that people continue to base their opinions of others on outward appearance. I remember reading an article about the change in politics that occurred following the advent of television. Instead of voting for candidates based on their credentials and experience as they once had, voters now elected candidates who spoke well, were photogenic and had a congenial manner on screen. It was speculated that homely candidates, such as Abraham Lincoln, would never have been elected in a modern society.
Even Saul, the first king of Israel, was "an impressive young man without equal among the Israelites — a head taller than any of the others." And we know how he worked out as a leader.... David, on the other hand, was a puny kid when he was anointed king. But the Lord gave Samuel this advice: "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." Though perhaps unrealistic, it would be nice if more voters adopted this same criteria.
HT: Opinion Journal
Today I'm 36 weeks pregnant. Yesterday, at the hospital pre-registration, I had to answer the cheery nurse's dreaded questions, "What was your pre-pregnancy weight?" and "how much have you gained?" Oh dear. Those are tough questions for any woman to answer, especially in this culture. My sweet husband plugged his ears for my answer and said, "I'm not listening." (May every woman have such a thoughtful guy!)
Last night I was reminded of part of the reason it's so hard to admit to a frame that never was, nor will be, a size 6 (other than when I was in third grade). I was reading an article in the Wall Street Journal called "Alas, It's Still Only Skin Deep." Beauty, that is.
The Journal's review of Beauty Junkies by Alexandra Wolfe, a book about the pleasures and perils of cosmetic surgery, ended this way:
"...the book leaves the reader not only aware of the emptiness of cosmetic surgery's results but also conscious of the vacuity of our current concept of beauty itself."
If culture's concept is vacuous -- utterly empty -- where can we get a concept worthy of humanity? Adam and Eve were, after all, God's crowning work of creation.
The starting point is hidden in that misleading article title. Real beauty has little, if anything, to do with the skin. It's all about the heart. Proverbs 31:30 says, "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised."
I love that. Beauty is fleeting. Not can be, or will be if you don't visit your plastic surgeon regularly. But is. I'm off the hook for expensive cosmetic procedures. Making the most of the frame God gave me, I can relax.
And that's exactly what I need to do to get ready to birth this new life. The ultimate in beauty.
On Books
C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia have been very helpful to me. They put many aspects of Christianity in a format I can understand. Specifically, the Silver Chair's portrayal of faith. At the end of the book, the usually pessimistic Puddleglum tells the Green Lady that even if he had only ever imagined Narnia and the Sun, that they were so much better imaginings than her world, that he would rather spend his life searching for a dream that never existed, than live in the dreary one she could prove was real. Kind of a variant on Pascal's wager, but I've always found it very encouraging.
Second, kind of outside the Christian mainstream (and the one that has changed my thinking the most) is Wendell Berry's "The Art of the Common Place." It is a whole collection of essays, "The Body and the Earth", "Men and Women in Search of Common Ground", and "Christianity and the Survival of Creation" being the ones I consider his best. They challenge the way you think, and challenge you to change the way you live.
Robert
The Sixth Seal
Amen! What an appropriate response to world events — thanks to the author for a Christ-like approach to "end times" prophecy. Keep up the solid work, Boundless! I'm consistently encouraged by your articles and the truth they speak into my life.
Jessica
Are Americans Giving Up on Marriage?
I'm wondering if it'd be possible for the American Christian community to promote a more correct term for marriage. As it is in the mainstream, marriage brings a lot of connotations that do not reflect what God intended at all. The community has been successful in bringing to the common vocabulary "born again" so it seems good to me that there be a term that captures biblical marriage as well.
Marriage, once an institution of holy matrimony, is so diluted that the Times reporter may be right — the definition at large means nothing. Anyway, this is probably larger than us and would require a concerted campaign by all the family based organizations. Maybe it'd work?
Jonathan
Weary of Being Wired
I am a collegian who, too, has canceled his MySpace account. I just found it too addicting and it so tempting to post blog after blog after blog, all the while thinking you can hide behind a computer screen. You believe the computer screen gives you a sense of anonymity, so you can be whoever you want to be. In other words, you can have an "alter-ego" of sorts on your MySpace. Worse, this "alter-ego" can be your true self, while the public image the world sees is not your true self.
MySpace has lost its charm, indeed.
Marc
* * *And don't forget about the potential for rudeness inherent in text messaging. In the Fox article, sophomore Steve Miller explains his dissatisfaction with the medium: "Text messaging has become the easy way out," Miller says. He's had friends cancel a night out with a text message to avoid having to explain. He's also seen some people ask for dates via text to escape the humiliation of hearing a "no" on the phone or in person.
That's nothing. I recently got dumped by my boyfriend, a nice Christian young man who found me on Myspace. His method of dumping me was to change his Myspace status to single. When I noticed the next morning, he was "too busy at work" to talk via phone, and simply confirmed we were no longer together through text messaging. He would not elaborate on what caused this change of heart.
Eventually I got somewhat of an explanation via email, but he still refused to talk on the phone or see me in person. He lives only 15 minutes away, it wasn't like this was a long-distance or online relationship.
Name withheld at author's request
High School Reunion Lessons
Funny you should bring up class reunions.... I've been thinking a lot about my big 10-year reunion coming up next year. I have many fond memories of high school and was quite involved, so I was getting kind of excited to reconnect.
However, I recently succumbed to the pressure to open a Myspace account, and one evening last weekend I took the time to look at accounts for many of my high school friends. Though some of them seem to be doing alright, a few have had children out of wedlock, many seem to still be living in "the glory days" of going to the local bar every weekend, and one of my closest friends is now openly homosexual.
I was a Christian in high school, but my relationship with the Lord and walking with Him daily was not really solidified until college. Most of friends were good kids, and I even had the privilege of witnessing the salvation of a few of them during our grade school years, so it was disheartening to see so many who seem to have taken the postmodern route of "anything goes" during college and post-college years. At the same time, I went to bed that evening nearly in tears, knowing had it not been for the Lord's hand in my life and His grace (I Corinthians 15:10), I could very well be on the dead end road so many of them are on. I've since begun to pray for many of them, hoping by next year's reunion they will either have a different story to tell, or I'll have the chance to share what the Lord has done in my life.
Thanks for your encouragement.
Susan
Children of Divorce and Evangelical Churches
I think there is a difference between looking to a church and looking to God after parental divorce. While I am an adult child of divorce, I still remain a strong Christian. I would say that this has to do with God, not the church. My experience has been negative in regards to how I have been viewed and treated since my parents divorced, and I have had to make the choice to still attend church seek out Christian fellowship. Even Boundless seems to continually push or encourage marriage, yet I don't think there is a real understanding of what kind of damage can be done to this desire after parents divorce. Mine divorced a few years ago and the war still continues.
When I read all of the marriage topics or articles, I find myself having to try to read them without rolling my eyes or saying, "yeah right". While I know that God desires that we find healing and wholeness — something I AM seeking — I think that some individuals in the church can overlook the depth of our pain. Boundless may be right to encourage marriage — but what if I don't want it? What if my (outside) experience was so much pain that I don't want to venture even close to that sort of relationship, and hearing continual "marriage talk" within the church just makes the pain worse? Hardly a day goes by in a church that I'm not asked, "You're a beautiful, intelligent and interesting young woman. Why aren't you married?" Maybe I'm not married because I simply don't want to be.
Sometimes I dread being asked, "So, what do your parents do for a living?" because there is an instant assumption that they are still married. I find that others outside of the church don't make that mistake nearly as much. As I said, I do love God deeply. My desire is to follow Him and seek His will. I recognize that He did create marriage — I'm not at the place yet — but I find that the churches I've experienced haven't help me to work through the pain and to seek healing. I have been told by people things along the lines of, "Oh, you're parents divorced? That's too bad Sarah because you're a really great catch, but I don't want someone from a broken home."
I guess that's my thoughts on the matter: I've been alienated by the Church, but God has been faithful as always.
Sarah
The Meaning of Holding Hands
I watched The Bachelor Rome on Monday evening. "The Meaning of Holding Hands" by Motte Brown reminded me of my reaction to the show. The "Bachelor" held hands with many of the girls as they went on dates and spent some one-on-one time together. I found myself getting upset with him because he was not really "with" any of those girls. I think that Motte is totally right in saying that holding hands means exclusivity, especially to young women. I know that when I was dating that holding hands in public showed other people something. This just adds more things for me to talk about with my children in the future, when I have them, and when they are approaching adolescence.
Becky
Just Holding Hands
I just read "Just Holding Hands" written by Ted Slater and first would like to say that I admire his conviction to pursue physical, mental, and emotional purity during his courtship and engagement to his now wife. I too find that in todays society where people "make out" or "hook-up" with strangers, two people walking down the street hand in hand seems even more intimate; but I am concerned that we have allowed the perversion of Hollywood to affect our concept of intimacy. Ted says that he knew that it would be too easy to go from holding hands to wanting to go further. Now I absolutely respect someone who is honest with their temptations and it is a mark of godliness that Ted would not take the hand of the women he was courting, but was the problem the temptation that would be caused by taking the hand of someone he cared about or the fact that he would go from holding a hand to lust so easily.
I have decided to wait until I am at least engaged to kiss my future husband, but why is it that I cannot show and honest sign of affection without wanting sex. Other cultures can separate a kiss as a sign of affection. Some day when I am married and my husband comes home, and I have had a long stressful day with the kids, can he give me a kiss to say I love you and not expect or want anything else. Maybe this is just wishful thinking and probably shows my lack of understanding when it comes to the Y chromosome, but is a simple act like holding hands without lust too much to ask.
Blair
* * *Bravo! I love to hear stories of couples who have truly upheld their purity as they grew in love. Thank you for sharing this inspiring (and challenging!) testimony.
Cherise
Missing the Bus
I appreciated what David had to say about women not being at a place where they would be a blessing to a husband. I do think that this is something that should be stressed and I agree with Jacob that women can't expect to marry John MacArthurs, etc.
I think that both men and women do struggle in some ways with standards. It seems to me that women do hold men to high standards in spirituality, etc. — but I know for myself that the reasoning behind those standards is that if I am going to submit myself to someone — he'd better be someone that I already respect. No, a potential date doesn't have to have the maturity of John MacArthur, but if I don't respect him now, a marriage would be starting out on the wrong foot. A guy doesn't have to be John MacArthur for me to respect him, but he does need to be in a growing relationship with the Lord, someone who asks me questions/makes comments that challenge my thinking and my walk with the Lord, someone who encourages me and someone who is passionate about the ministry of the Lord. I want someone who is going to continue growing and who will spur me on to continue to grow. I don't think that that is too high of a standard at all.
However, I think if it is to be said that women should seriously consider their maturity standards, then I think men need to seriously reconsider their physical standards. I'm a fourth semester student at a very conservative seminary. I've been watching and I've seen which single girls don't stay single very long. The guys flock to the pretty, made up girls. Others, who do care for themselves (they just aren't beauty queens) and are amazing women of God, are virtually ignored. It's extremely frustrating to see girls who are naturally plainer in features constantly ignored!! Some of these women would make amazing wives, but men don't give them a second glance. I understand that there is a need for attraction there, but I do think that it can be overstated at times — just like with the women who want John MacArthurs.
I appreciate the reminder in these articles to avoid bashing the opposite sex. It's all too easy to become frustrated with singleness and to take it out on others. Thanks for letting me ramble....
Christine
* * *Going to GodBlogCon
I noticed your post today concerning God Blog Con and I'm very glad that you're coming. I look forward to meeting you and whoever else is coming. I used to work for Focus when they were here in Pomona, so it's always fun to meet other staff who work there now.
Have a nice weekend!
Stacy
It surprises me what gets people upset these days.
According to the Washington Post, some parents are disgruntled over Christian guest speakers at public school assemblies. While the guests speak on moral issues, including staying off drugs, abstaining from sex before marriage and opposing bullying, they omit Christian references from their presentations. Some people are still bothered. The Post reports: In recent years, evangelist bodybuilders and extreme athletes have toured schools across the country with anti-drug and anti-suicide messages. The brother of a devout Christian victim of the 1999 Columbine school shootings has toured some Loudoun schools bringing with him a powerful anti-bullying presentation called "Rachel's Challenge."
Many parents, administrators and teachers see such assemblies as an effective way to convey hard-to-teach life lessons. But occasionally there have been controversies.
One such controversy happened when comedians Rick and Mick Vigneulle presented an anti-drug assembly in several Maryland schools. "The American Civil Liberties Union objected to fliers the duo circulated that advertised a free, off-campus pizza party during which they delivered a Christian message," the article reports.
Because the off-campus pizza party was optional, it seems that Rick and Mick (gotta love those names) were acting within their rights to advertise the non-school event. If an ice cream maker comes to school and invites children to visit his shop for free ice cream, is he crossing a line? Some children are lactose intolerant. Parents don't have to allow their children to go.
When I began an after-school Bible club in the public school (the rights of which were upheld in a 2001 Supreme Court ruling), some parents objected. Not those whose children actually attended the optional Club, but those who had a distaste for anything Christian going on within school walls. This objection, in my opinion, is clearly an issue of preference — not law. And in light of the recent school tragedies, it seems a small thing to gripe about.
HT: The Point
My kids came up with a little game a few weeks ago -- hide-and-seek with daddy's favorite new T-shirt. I got it from Boundless. They noticed that I wear it almost every day and thought it would be funny to have me look for it whenever I came home from work. It's fun because I'm really great at hide-and-seek.
The truth is, I do wear that T-shirt almost every day. Why? Because, well, it's the best T-shirt ever! It's soft and stretchy, and I love the color and design (by Boundless' very own Michael Heath). I'm usually not one to fuss over T-shirts (my others are from Target) but Mike introduced me to a whole new world of high quality T's that hold their form and don't shrink in the wash. So why not wear it every day?
Oh, and you can get one too by clicking here. By the way, I don't consider this a shameless plug because it's the truth.
I received 1,000 spams yesterday. The day before, I received 1,000 spams. In the past month, I've gotten over 30,000 spams, some of them, seemingly, from me. You see, I own and manage several websites, so all the spam that's randomly sent to these domains is forwarded to me. I've likely been the target of millions over the past couple of years, fortunately most of them identified by my anti-spam software before they reached my inbox.
I used to try to identify the sources of these spams by sleuthing around their DNS records and googling any contact information they had, but after a few run-ins with spam gangs, I've given up the fight and simply delete the noxious e-mails.
When I filter through my spams at the end of the day, to make sure a "real" email hasn't gotten mixed in with the rubbish, I find myself at various states of discontent, ranging from angry indignation to mere annoyance.
Sometimes I have the sense to remember what I've learned about emotions during times like these. Carolyn McCulley, drawing from the work of Dr. David Powlison, wrote:
"The circumstances of our lives simply reveal what's taken root in our hearts. When pressed, we either ooze the fruit of the Spirit or the fruit of sin."
My being spammed either by chance or by vindictive spam gangs does not cause my sinful anger, but merely acts to bring it to the surface. The spams provide me a daily opportunity to see what's going on in my heart. They show me that it can be a pretty dark place.
And that provokes me to turn from the computer monitor and turn to the Lord, asking forgiveness for the arrogant attitude that "I don't deserve to be inconvenienced by this," and for help in dealing with the anger that too easily rises to the surface at the first sight of "VkAGRA" or "Finest Watch Replica."
I'm further reminded of something I learned from C.J. Mahaney -- that I should consider that I'm truly doing better than I deserve, even while being inundated by unwelcome emails. Consider a recent blog entry of his:
What am I? Well, here is what I am. I am the worst sinner I know. And by the grace of God I am doing better than I deserve. For I deserve the righteous wrath of God because of my sin. I deserve to be punished eternally. But in the mystery of His mercy, God sacrificed and crushed His Son on the Cross--as my substitute--so that I might be forgiven of my sin and know God as my Father rather than my Judge. What am I? I am truly amazed by the grace of God. That’s what I am.
May what the spammers mean for evil be turned around and used by God for good. May their spams provide a helpful view into my heart, and may I be reminded that though I deserve much worse than mere spam, I'm the recipient of the amazing grace of God.
I want to pick up on a quote from Steven James in Suzanne's post "The Parable of the Ideas". "Many of you will be tempted to look for success this week. But God isn't looking for successful people; He's looking for those who are faithful."
I think James is exactly right. It reminds me of a particularly difficult time in my young career on Capitol Hill when I was tempted to look for success, stressing over my "earning potential." One day I noticed that everyone around me was either more credentialed or more accomplished, or had plans to become so. It was the first time in my life when I felt real pressure to succeed.
I began thinking I should pursue more education or a different job -- surely God had something more substantial for me to do. I suppose if Joel Osteen had been popular then, these desires would have been affirmed because after all, "God wants to give you your own house. God has a big dream for your life." God, however, wanted to give me another message; a quite opposite one in fact.
On the evening of July 28th, 1997, after a particularly humbling day on the Hill, I picked up Oswald Chambers' devotion My Utmost for His Highest and read his exposition of Mark 6:45-52, where Jesus walks on water.
We are apt to imagine that if Jesus Christ constrains us, and we obey Him, He will lead us to great success. We must never put our dreams of success as God's purpose for us; His purpose may be exactly the opposite. We have an idea that God is leading us to a particular end, a desired goal; He is not. The question of getting to a particular end is a mere incident. What we call the process, God calls the end.
What is my dream of God's purpose? His purpose is that I depend on Him and on His power now. If I can stay in the middle of the turmoil calm and unperplexed, that is the end of the purpose of God. God is not working towards a particular finish; His end is the process -- that I see Him walking on the waves, no shore in sight, no success, no goal, just the absolute certainty that it is all right because I see Him walking on the sea. It is the process, not the end, which is glorifying to God.
Don't get me wrong. Ambition, sacrifice and hard work are good things. And God does bless us with success. But as John Piper writes in Don't Waste Your Life, the "world is not impressed when Christians get rich and say thanks to God. They are impressed when God is so satisfying that we give our riches away for Christ's sake and count it gain."
Speaking of adapting to technology changes, am I the only person who is still having trouble adapting to the new hands-free phone earpieces?
I understand the value in hands-free communication, but I'm still not tracking with the need to keep them clamped on your ear all the time. As someone is walking around donning the cyborg look, I wonder if they are in the middle of a conversation. Like someone with iPod earbuds in, I think they are trying to tune out -- not wanting to engage with those around them. Am I the only one who thinks that?
But I suspect we're all expecting to just get used to it and adapt to unusual things that offer new conveniences -- like those hats you can wear that hold your favorite beverage and connect you to it with a straw.
 It makes me wonder if there will be a day when Sharper Image or Hammecher Schlemmer comes out with a feeding contraption for humans for convenient snacking. Couldn't you just see a nice little bucket-type piece (in a variety of colors) that fits under your chin so that anytime you get the urge, you can point your chin down and nibble on milk duds, cheetos or another favorite snack?
Add an MP3 player and you're good to go.
Motte and I finally registered to attend the 3-day GodBlogCon in LA. GodBlog is an annual conference whose purpose is: how best to bring the truth and power of Christ into a culture withering from lack of truth, goodness, and beauty. New Media has already proven itself a potent cultural force, but the rules are changing and only the thoughtful will survive. GodBlogCon will exhort, equip, and encourage you and other Christians from all walks to engage the culture as thoughtful, articulate, and winsome witnesses of the redeeming work of Christ in every area of life!
Speakers include some of the blogosphere's greatest minds: La Shawn Barber, Hugh Hewitt, Mark D. Roberts, Joe Carter, Patrick Hynes, Charmaine Yoest, James Kushiner, Andrew Jackson, Marvin Hutchens, Kevin Wang, Melinda Penner, Matthew Anderson, Fred Sanders, Paul Spears, Stacy Harp, and John Schroder.
It's looking like attendance will be relatively small, which seems like a benefit to us, as we'll have more intensive one-on-one time with these New Media trailblazers. At this point, the couple dozen or so attendees include (in addition to the speakers above, of course): Jan Lynn, Brenda McGill, Elizabeth Taylor, Alan McCann, Virginia Schroeder, John Schroeder, Dave Martina, Melinda Penner, Donald Sage, Robert Stevenson, Rob Asghar, John Mark Reynolds, Jen Wrobleski, Julia Kiewit, Natalie Joes, Dustin Steeve, Andrew Selby, Keith Buhler, Adam Groza, Pat Sikora, David Nilsen, and Jennifer Hardy.
We're excited to be rubbing shoulders with these folks in a couple of weeks.
I'm just a bit disappointed that Bob Kauflin, Carolyn McCulley, Joshua Harris, Albert Mohler, Tim Challies, Dawn Eden, Justin Taylor and Alex and Brett Harris don't appear to have registered to attend....
Defenders of traditional marriage have long held that those fighting for "gay rights" and "gay marriage" don't really want marriage at all. They've said from the start that gay activists have as their goal not to be like heterosexual couples, but to make heterosexuals like them. Rather than adding to marriage, they want to take away from it and ultimately, eliminate it.
Even though I've read quotes from the activists' playbooks that said as much, it was hard to believe. Abolish marriage? Not likely, I thought. And yet this week's Boston Globe reports that the Episcopalian church is attempting to do just that. The article, "Episcopal Diocese may quit marriages," reported: A group of local Episcopal priests, saying that the gay marriage debate has intensified their longtime concern about acting as agents of the state by officiating at marriages, is proposing that the Episcopal Church adopt a new approach. Any couples qualified to get married under state law could be married by a justice of the peace, and then, if they want a religious imprimatur for their marriage, they could come to the Episcopal Church seeking a blessing from a priest.
"I feel this is a way to equalize an inequity in what Episcopal clergy can do for gay folks and straight folks," said the Rev. Margaret (Mally) E. Lloyd , rector of Christ Church in Plymouth. Lloyd is one of five Episcopal priests sponsoring the resolution, reports the Globe.
The irony is that there is no inequity. Marriage is, by design and definition, a covenantal union between one man and one woman. Nothing in the law prohibits anyone from entering into this arrangement, even homosexuals. If they want to marry, they may. It's when they want to do what married people do but with a member of the same sex that the problems arise. What they want is not marriage at all. And this resolution proves it.
The vote is scheduled to take place on October 28th during the annual convention.
HT: Albert Mohler
Copyright 2009 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. The Line and Boundless Line are trademarks of Focus on the Family.
|
Recent Comments