 |
Today on Boundless, Matt Kaufman writes about a recent event in Texas in which a Christian owned landscaping business refused to work with a homosexual couple. It's worth reading and considering what you would do if in a similar position. As Matt notes, other believers in good conscience could have chosen differently. But I wonder how many of us would have been brave enough to send an email explaining why like Todd and Sabrina Farber. Upon learning of the relationship when one of the men referred to his "partner," Todd decided to turn down the job. Sabrina wrote the potential clients a straightforward e-mail honestly explaining why. Its contents don't take long to read: I am appreciative of your time on the phone today and glad you contacted us. I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work with homosexuals.
Best of luck in finding someone else to fill your landscaping needs.
All my best,
Sabrina.
When my wife and I were shopping for landscapers, we had one guy simply tell us he was too busy and another said our yard was too big. I wonder if the Farbers were tempted to use a similar excuse or simply say "no thanks." I'm not sure I would have risked the ridicule they ultimately endured for a clear conscience. However you feel about the decision they made, it's hard to criticize the way they handled it. And sometimes that's the most important thing.
I've been reading David Crowder and Mike Hogan's new book, Everybody Wants to Go to Heaven, but Nobody Wants to Die: Or the Eschatology of Bluegrass . Tidy little title, isn't it?
The book talks a lot about what people have thought about the soul (its role, purpose, location) throughout history. It also chronicles the history of bluegrass music as a way of showing an interesting connection between the soul, death and the haunting tones of bluegrass. This book is different than any I've read before, but it is thought-provoking and honest.
The authors (who are hilarious and clever, by the way) wrote the book because both have experienced the heartache of losing people close to them. Both Crowder and Hogan were close friends with the pastor who was electrocuted when baptizing someone during a church service. You may remember the story. Crowder and Hogan talk through their struggles with dealing with loss, with fighting to remember their loved ones, with trusting in spite of circumstances. The back cover of the book sums up the hope we as Christians have when it comes to death: "Death does not win. It is not the end. It is the beginning ..."
This book reminds me of Jars of Clay's "The Valley Song." Each verse in the song talks about the pain of loss, the heartache that comes from death, but the chorus repeats the truth that God is merciful. Sometimes the trick seems to be figuring out how to grieve while still trusting that God is faithful. These lyrics talk about the balance between the churning pain and the peace of God.
For those of you who are hurting, may the Holy Spirit's presence give you comfort today: And though the pain is an ocean
Tossing us around, around, around
You have calmed greater waters
Higher mountains have come down
I will sing of Your mercy
That leads me through valleys of sorrow
To rivers of joy
Alleluia, alleluia
If you've been reading our blog posts without digging into the comments, you're missing out on some real nuggets. "Dr. Ransom" (name borrowed from the C.S. Lewis book That Hideous Strength) dug up a great AiO episode to add context to the Rocky rebirth story. He found the following dialogue referencing a throwaway "Rocky" sequel-movie parody in the 1995 AiO episode "Gathering Thunder," written by Marshal Younger:
MANAGER: Come on, Champ! You can't do it anymore. Boxers are younger, stronger, faster. You get in that ring and you're gonna kill yourself.
ROCKY: I'm not quittin'. I just wanna go the distance ta prove that I can still fight!
RODNEY RATHBONE (watching movie, hollers at screen): Ha! my grandmother can take ya!
BUTCH: Yeah my grandmother's teeth could take ya!
And "Odyssey" writer Nathan Hoobler on his website has the remainder of the scene: "hidden dialogue" that escaped the final program's production:
* * *MANAGER: You're crazy!
ROCKY: I gotta do it for my kids!
MANAGER: For crying out loud, Champ, they're married and have their own kids! They can fend for themselves. You've proved yourself to them, now you gotta move on.
ROCKY: To what, Mick?! I can't do nothin' but box! I don't know nothin' else! (BEAT) I know what it is. Yeah, I know! You're gonna put me in a nursing home, aren't you?!
MANAGER: Oh, Rock!
ROCKY: You don't want me back in that ring 'cause it'll prove I can take care of myself!
MANAGER: I'm not doubting that you can take care of yourself!
ROCKY: Oh, yes, you are! (BEAT) And I'm gonna prove it to you.
MANAGER: You don't have to, Rock!
ROCKY: I'm gonna do 50 sit-ups, right here in front of you.
MANAGER: Oh, Rock, you don't have to do that.
ROCKY: No, you don't believe me.
[ROCKY GETS ON THE FLOOR WITH A GROAN.]
ROCKY: Hold my feet.
MANAGER:(SIGHS) Okay, if it'll make you feel better.
[ROCKY BEGINS HIS SITUPS. AFTER A WHILE...]
MANAGER: One.
The posts by Suzanne and me, as well as the comments on those posts, touch on various aspects of Christian dating. An article we published on Boundless this morning called Biblical Dating aims to get to the very heart of Christian dating.
I'd be interested in hearing what our readers think of the principles the author presents, and the biblical support and logic he employs to drive his argument.
As an avid proponent of marrying well, I've always been leery of people who tell singles that "Jesus is all you need." It's not that our Lord can't meet our every need, but that He chose to provide human relationships to fulfill some of our longings. When Adam was lonely, God made Eve. And still today, He "sets the lonely in families."
I was glad to see an article in Christianity Today that exposes the folly of this line of thinking. In "Dating Jesus," columnist Agnieszka Tennant discusses this disturbing belief. She quotes one popular book for singles that reads:
"Although God certainly loves us even with unshaven legs, no makeup, and a bed-head hairdo, he also deserves to occasionally have his princess sit at his feet while she is looking and feeling her best. ... You are running away with your Lover, not confining yourself to a convent."
She laments, "I have little patience for taking biblical metaphors too far and giving one's relationship with God an air of irreverent chumminess. Somehow, the scenario in which 'his princess' shaves her legs for a date with Jesus seems to leave little room for fear of God."
She goes on to write, "And consider how unhelpful this misreading must be to single women who are hormonally awake. The cruel message they get is: If Jesus is really your husband, what's your problem? Be satisfied!"
Before reading Tennant's article, I hadn't realized just how far this metaphor had gone. Beyond Debbie Maken's book, I haven't seen much written that tackles this myth head on. (Ironically, CT's website vigorously criticized Maken's book.) Tennant's voice is a welcome addition to the conversation.
To all the single female readers, what's your take on the subject -- does a romantic Jesus sound appealing or does it make you squirm?
"No matter what, you can overcome your past. With help, if you look to God, you can overcome your past and be reborn."
That's an unusual message to be coming from Sylvester Stallone, but it's a reflection of his new priorities in life and part of the message he has been sharing with the faith community about the latest installment of his Rocky movie franchise.
At 60 years old, Stallone admits he's reached a point where many would say it's time to move off the stage and let the next generation take over.
He thinks, however, that people of his age and generation still have a contribution to make. Surprisingly, one of the key messages he wants to get across is that Jesus Christ can give redemption to a misdirected life.
That's the message that came across in a recent conference call he led with numerous Christian media reps including a couple of people from Focus on the Family.
The article that CitizenLink's Stuart Shepard wrote about that call is featured prominently on the Drudge Report today (or at least was this morning).
Any thoughts from our readers on the return of Rocky or about the ways Hollywood has been courting Christians to support their films?
In 1998, when it was still considered taboo to meet someone on the Internet, I got to know Mike from Texas in a Christian college chat room. We discovered we had many things in common and soon a friendship took a romantic turn. Our letter-writing, e-mail correspondence and phone conversations allowed us to get to know one another in a communication-rich way.
After a year-long relationship, in which Mike visited me in Washington and I visited him in Texas, we decided to go back to being friends. Shortly after that, I reflected on my Internet dating experience in an article published in my college newspaper: "I don't feel [the reason it didn't work out] has to do with the fact that we began our relationship over the Internet; I think it's more a long-distance relationship issue."
If she had the experience to do over again, Hadley said she would. "As for looking for someone to date on the Internet, I don't think it's a good idea. But if you find a friend, I don't think you can say God doesn't allow people to meet on the Internet. I don't think God can be put in a box."
While my perspective has matured, I still feel that way. I've tried to keep an open mind about eDating. While Ted points out certain evils of online relationship building, the truth is there are evils present in every form of relationship building. The problems he mentions are not restricted to online courtship (although pitfalls may be more prevalent).
There is one main reason I have avoided eDating. At this time in my life, I believe my motive for trying it would be sinful. The moments when I am tempted to jump on eHarmony are motivated by impatience (an anti-fruit of the Spirit). A desire to take my romantic life into my own hands and "shop" for a husband is not a pure or godly motive.
If in the future, God lays it on my heart to pursue an online relationship, I will not resist. I have had friends for whom this has been the case and the results were very God-honoring. The point is obedience. 2 Corinthians 10:5 says: "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." I want my thoughts and actions — including those involved in my romantic desires — to be obedient to Christ.
Have you seen those "Jesus Is a Liberal" bumper stickers? Well, given the recent data on giving, you could equate that claim with "Jesus Isn't Very Charitable."
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal opinion section, Syracuse University Professor Arthur Brooks highlights three values affecting charity: religion, belief about the role of government, and family life. In short, weekly church goers are 25 percent more likely to give than people who rarely or never attend; people who want more government welfare are less likely to give food or money to a homeless person; and couples give more than singles, even if they earn the same amount. Here's more on this last point:
Couples, even when they earn the same amount as single people, are more likely to give to charity, and the simple act of raising children appears to stimulate giving as well -- children help us fill the collection plate even as they drain our wallets.
The correlation between marriage, raising children and giving is that each requires a sacrifice for the benefit of another. Giving, it seems, is a matter of practice. By the continual giving of oneself in one capacity, we learn to give in others.
Jesus displayed perfectly what this kind of sacrifice means. And somehow I don't think it has anything to do with liberalism.
Singles for millenia have rightly turned to others for help in their search for a mate. Parents, matchmakers, friends, pastors and other "agencies" have been eagerly enlisted to facilitate marriages made in heaven. It's nothing new.
The "agencies" currently in mode include online dating services such as eHarmony, Match.com, ChristianSingles.com, Relationships.com and others.
Let me be honest. When I hear a commercial for one of these services, I bristle. I cringe because I believe they promise too much, providing a false expectation of how relationships develop. Here are some specific dangers I've seen in online dating services:
1) They make singles think that if they do all the work up-front, selecting "just the right person for me," then the rest of the relationship will be a breeze. We've discussed the dangers of "soul-matism" in depth on Boundless (here, here, and here, for example), pointing out that sometimes people marry, experience some struggles, determine that they haven't married their "soul mate," and then divorce and go on to look for that "soul mate." The truth is that even when you marry "the one," relationships require sacrifice and hard work to succeed.
2) They make singles fear that if they haven't intentionally considered their "29 Key Dimensions of Compatibility," then they may be missing something. The truth is that happy marriages have been taking place since Adam and Eve; while there's some value to knowing who you are and how you can best serve someone in marriage, you are not falling short by being unaware of all those dimensions. In my more cynical moments, I sometimes wonder if the founders of these online dating agencies feel they've missed out on "the one" because they didn't have the proper tools available to make a wise and informed decision about whom to marry.
3) They seem to bring out the worst in some men. I've heard many stories from disillusioned single women who've been "matched" with a guy, and that guy leads them on for a while, and then just dumps them in favor of another one of their matches. As Jerry Seinfeld said, "Guys don't want to see what's on television -- they want to see what else is on television." Because there are many more women than men in the dating databases, they can afford to be more cavalier in their online dating interactions; eDating services seem to facilitate that.
I could go on, but I'll stop. Candice addresses these and other concerns in an article she wrote for Boundless, "Browsing for a Mate." I'd be interested in hearing what experiences some of you have had with eDating sites: whether you've found it a positive or negative experience, whether you've found a spouse through one of them, and how you see them affecting the dating scene.
According to yesterday's "BreakPoint" commentary, a faculty panel at Harvard University has issued a report calling for a "faith and reason" requirement to be included in the school's core curriculum. Their reasoning: Knowledge about religion is integral to a good education. Discussing reactions to the decision, Chuck Colson writes: Predictably, there were those who objected to Harvard's "faith and reason" requirement. A Harvard Crimson editorial said that the requirement gives "religious ideas" a "preeminence incommensurate with their proper place in understanding the modern world." In other words, while religion is important, it's just not that important, so says the postmodernist.
Besides, the Crimson argued, students can learn enough about religion from the general education requirements. Oh sure! Just as they learned what they needed to know about history from such requirements. That's why 65 percent of seniors at elite colleges like Harvard flunked a high-school level history test, and 23 percent of them thought it was John F. Kennedy who said, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
Also writing in the Crimson were two Harvard students who got it. They articulated what the editorialists could not or would not understand: "Studying religion," they said, "involves coping with unanswerable questions, confronting humanity’s limitations, and thinking beyond oneself. No literature or science course can teach these skills." Nor can ethics be taught without a religious base. Remember Mr. Skilling of Enron, who is heading off to prison, was a Harvard graduate.
While the "faith and reason" requirement most likely will not return Harvard to its original spiritual purposes of training men for the clergy, Colson points out that facilitating religious discussion is a step in the right direction. We ought to welcome the opportunity for an open, free debate. Then we Christians can present the evidence of our faith's positive effect on building the greatest civilization the world has ever known.
HT: The Point
It's official: The motto "In God We Trust," which first appeared on U.S. coinage in 1864, is on the move. According to the United States Mint, the new dollar coins, scheduled for release in 2007 and featuring busts of U.S. Presidents, will include several "unique features." No, it's unfortunately still the size of a quarter. The coin's most significant new "feature": The official national motto since 1956 -- "In God We Trust" -- will be wiped from its usual spot and relegated to the edge.
I can see a lot of folks getting upset with this new design, but I'm pretty ambivalent. I'm not convinced that the designers are intentionally trying to push God from the scene, as they pushed "E Pluribus Unum" and the minting year to the edge as well. Perhaps they're just going for a more "clean" look.
There are a lot of things to become indignant about. I don't think the new design of the dollar coin is one of them, frankly.
We've never blogged on Iraq, but the recent surge in civilian deaths has me pondering its future and ours more than ever. Last week, suspected Sunni insurgents killed 215 Shiite Muslims in the slums of Sadr City, one of the deadliest assaults since the war began. The Shiites responded by attacking six Sunnis leaving prayer, burning them alive while Iraqi police stood by and watched. This surge in sectarian violence has most Americans now wondering whether toppling Saddam Hussein was worth it.
In just three years, American sentiment for the war has gone from 70 percent approval to 70 percent believing it was a mistake. I've certainly questioned it. But then I remembered why most American's supported the war in the first place -- overwhelming concern for our national security on the heels of the worst terrorist attack on American soil. And if you are having trouble remembering what the war in Iraq has to do with the war on terror, here's a brief summary:
In October 2002, the U.S. Congress gave Bush authorization to use military action in Iraq when it became clear that the United Nations Security Council would not enforce Resolution 1441, which called for Iraq's disarmament in accordance with the 1991 treaty that ended the first Gulf War. Iraq's non-compliance, as well as proof that it had given money and sanctuary to known Islamic terrorists, was viewed as an increasing national threat in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On March 23, President Bush gave Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave the country or face war.
It's difficult to reconcile these noble beginnings with the mess we're in now. And with Iraq on the verge of all-out civil war, things look like they're going to get worse before they get better. The prospect of more American military and Iraqi civilian deaths with no end in sight has many calling for immediate or phased troop withdrawal. But will a "phased redeployment" make this nation more or less secure? That is the question Bush and the Democrats will have to wrestle with in the coming months.
As Clifford May noted in a recent article on Nation Review Online, there are no good options left in Iraq -- only bad ones and worse ones. Let's hope the "bad ones" at least have the effect of making our nation more secure than it was before the war.
In a clever piece of satire, featuring characters from "The Office," Inner Revolution tells the tale of Scranton Community Church — a congregation that ceases meeting in favor of offering conferences and online resources. Though meant in jest, the article is not far from the truth. In his recent article, "Churchcasting Kills Community," Drew Dyck talked about his friend's potpourri style of getting "church." At first I found it tough to argue with his new mode of spirituality. As he pointed out, going it alone had some major advantages to the conventional Sunday service. His pastor's sermons had always been a little short on substance. But now he had his choice of the best pod casting preachers in the world! Then there were all the problems at church: hypocrisy, infighting, gossip — you name it. Online, he could avoid all the flaws and foibles of church life. And of course there was the convenience that the internet affords. He was able to read devotionals, listen to speakers and sing along to the best praise music at any time, all in coziness of his own bedroom. With all that at your fingertips, why struggle out of bed early every Sunday?
In his book Revolution, George Barna claims that parachurch organizations, or "mini-movements" — not churches — are leading the way in spiritual transformation. Barna predicts that within 20 years, congregational-style church will dissolve in favor of small "pods" of believers living out biblical principles. The fictional Scranton Community Church illustrates this change.
While spiritual transformation is good no matter what the catalyst, the abandonment of physical churches in favor of individuals drawing from many mini-movements seems problematic. Many biblical instructions regarding the conduct of leadership, the protection of doctrine, the order of worship and the structure of accountability would be completely lost were all churches to go the way of Scranton Community. Still, if churches fail to fulfill their biblical calling, the rise of mini-movements seems inevitable. Churches need to step it up, before they lose the opportunity.
HT: Jollyblogger
An article recently posted by Newsweek talks about the statistic that nearly four in ten babies are born to unwed mothers. Candice blogged about this discouraging report last week.
While the Newsweek report didn't necessarily present the statistic in the negative light it deserves, there were some interesting insights in the article. Sociologists, they say, think that more women are having children before marriage because the whole notion of marriage has become somewhat of a fantasy in people's eyes: Ironically, sociologists say, marriage may be on the decline precisely because it has become so idealized. People expect more from marriage than they did a century ago, when it was mainly a practical arrangement to provide financial stability for women and a place to raise children. "Now it's not only love and romance but also self-fulfillment and personal growth," says Pamela Smock, professor of sociology at the University of Michigan. Since there's no longer much of a stigma attached to getting pregnant outside of marriage, many couples have replaced "shotgun weddings" with "shotgun cohabitations."
Interesting. As I look at my own life and also the attitudes of my single friends, I have to agree with these sociologists. I think we have overly-idealized what marriage is and should be. We expect the person we marry to be perfect, we desire a romantic story to describe how we met, and we hold out forever in search of "the one." The idea of personal choice has been idolized in Western society, and I think it has definitely affected the way we think about marriage. It causes us to delay getting married until we think we'll be supremely happy with that choice.
Is this the most biblical way to think about this life-long commitment? I am reminded of Gary Thomas' book, Sacred Marriage, in which he talks about marriage being intended to make us holy rather than happy. Through marriage, we are to learn how to better glorify God and serve others (namely, your spouse). Marriage is less about my ultimate happiness, and more about continually "being transformed into his likeness" (2 Corinthians 3:18, NIV).
Now, I am not saying that you should run out and marry the next person you meet. I do think there's a lot of wisdom, discernment and prayer involved in choosing a spouse. You don't want to marry any jerk who comes along. However, I do think we should approach marriage in a way that causes us to ponder how this relationship will glorify God instead of how it will be most pleasing to me.
It's hard to believe, but for the younger set, Elmo has re-emerged this holiday as the IT toy. (Play Station 3 seems to be "the one" if you're over 6.) If you've ever seen -- or more importantly heard -- the falsetto talking toy, you'd probably agree with me that it's the last thing you'd want under your tree, or the tree of your nieces and nephews or anyone else you spend a lot of time with, this year.
Thankfully, Elmo and PS3 are selling out even before they hit the shelves, at prices well above suggested retail, so we're likely to be spared both from any well-meaning friends or relatives. But even without the hottest toys under our tree, we're still having a hard time shifting the focus of our 6- and 4-year-old away from "the getting" to "the giving" and even more importantly, to the expectation of Advent.
Part of the challenge surely stems from my own efforts to stop dreaming about all the cool things I'll be able to do with the new digital camera I'm hoping for and start preparing my heart and mind for Emmanuel -- God with us.
This coming Sunday begins the celebration of Advent and with it, an opportunity to deliberately shift our gaze from Santa to Savior. We've got a wreath with candles ready to go on the dining room table and a book of activities for little ones. Last year we made stars with the names of Jesus on them and the Scripture that proclaims them. Every time the kids looked up at the light from which they hung, we talked about those names and by Christmas, had memorized them.
And this year I'm going to relish a little book called Preparing for Jesus, by Walter Wangerin. It was a gift from a dear friend who bought two copies so we can read, and ponder, together.
I'd love to hear from readers who have other creative ways of keeping the emphasis on what really matters this season: the Bethlehem baby who would be King.
OK, I was going to write a post cleverly referencing the three latest articles on Boundless: "What Are We Celebrating?," "The Art of Celebration," and "Gift Upon Gift." I had also considered referencing some of our online friends by linking to Thanksgiving-related blog posts such as this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, or this one.
Instead, I'd like to open up this post to our readers, and ask you the simple question: "What are you thankful for?"
I'm sure the Lord doesn't tire of hearing how we appreciate His many blessings.
So comment away! Though it's Thanksgiving here in the States (and therefore we're not at work today), we'll be checking back regularly to publish your comments.
In "Go Ahead, I Dare You," Newsweek columnist Wray Herbert presents new scientific research on why teenagers do stupid things. A study by psychologists Valerie Reyna and Frank Farley published in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest revealed that when asked seemingly inane questions like, "Is it a good thing to set your hair on fire?" teens actually had to mull over the question before they answered. Wray writes: It has long been assumed (and taught) that teenagers do stupid things because they can't think very far into the future and therefore can't fathom harm or death. But according to Reyna and Farley's review of the scientific literature, there is no evidence for the “myth of immortality." Indeed, they demonstrate that if anything teenagers overestimate the risks of such things as drunk driving and unprotected sex. They just do them anyway. Why? Because they have weighed the risks and weighed the benefits and made a cold calculation that the benefits outweigh the risks. That benefit may be immediate pleasure, as with drugs and sugary foods, or the emotional connectedness that comes with fitting in.
Supplying teens with more information about risks, therefore, is not likely to change risky behavior. Indeed, such interventions could backfire, since most adolescents already overestimate perils of risky behavior. So, for example, trying to teach teenagers to "drink responsibly" is probably an unwise strategy, since it plays right into their immature habit of overthinking everything. It would make more sense, in light of the new research, to enforce drinking ages and restrict teenage driving and otherwise eliminate opportunities for risk.
Perhaps we give teens too much responsibility by providing them with so much information about risky behaviors — such as drug use, sex and alcohol — and expecting them to make wise decisions. The better option would be to keep them out of high-risk situations altogether. Adults need to provide more actual boundaries. When I was a teen, my parents did not allow me to go somewhere alone with a guy. I understood that rule and could follow it. I never arrived in a sexually tempting situation where I had to weigh the risks against the benefits. Considering some teens actually have to think about whether it's a good idea to set their hair on fire, I'm thankful for that.
Tomorrow is Thanksgiving, and I will be eating my turkey here in Colorado instead of at home in the frozen tundra of Minnesota.
Even though I will not be spending this holiday with family, I will be with some friends out here in Colorado. When you live far away from home, you sometimes create a surrogate family through a community of people you know you can depend on.
I wrote an article about community a few months ago for TrueU.org. What I realized is that my idea of "good community" was entirely focused on me and how well I felt that I was being treated. Biblically, though, I don't think that is always what community is meant to be.
The Bible tells us that we are a body made up of many different parts. We all have different interests, personalities, strengths, weaknesses, and so on. I know some Christians that I don't necessarily click with. But does that mean I shouldn't be pursuing community with them?
In his book, Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller talks about the difficulty he had with being in community with others: Living in community made me realize one of my faults: I was addicted to myself. All I thought about was myself. The only thing I really cared about was myself. I had very little concept of love, altruism, or sacrifice. I discovered that my mind is like a radio that picks up only one station, the one that plays me … The most difficult lie I have ever contended with is this: Life is a story about me.
Just a tad bit convicting. I have come to the conclusion that what God wants me to learn through community is how to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3, NIV). The community we have as believers should be so appealing to non-Christians that we awake in them their desire for eternal communion with God.
This year as I sit down to my mashed potatoes and cranberry sauce, I know that I am thankful for the community of people God has placed in my life. They are not all like me, we do not always get along, but we are a community, nonetheless. I hope that we can be a community that (flawed as we are) draws those who need the saving love of Jesus.
Ted's point about the smugness of some evolutionists appears to be consistent with the strident zeal captured in the cover story of the latest issue of Wired magazine called "The New Atheists." Early on the article drops the gauntlet: The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking.
Richard Dawkins, author of the best selling book The God Delusion, is one of the leading new atheists featured in the article and he's quite an "evangelist" for atheism. He says: I'm quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism.... The number of nonreligious people in the US is something nearer to 30 million than 20 million. That's more than all the Jews in the world put together. I think we're in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people who had the courage to come out. I think that's the case with atheists. They're more numerous than anybody realizes.
In his commentary on this article, Dr. Al Mohler explains that Dawkins isn't attempting to convince believers that they should no longer believe in God. "To the contrary," he says, "Dawkins is attempting a very different cultural and political move. He wants to make respect for belief in God socially unacceptable." You find in the article that the new atheists even want to keep parents from teaching Christianity to their children.
Mohler goes on to explain that the new atheists have their work cut out for them since they even had trouble convincing the agnostic author of the Wired article that it would be a good thing to upset our democratic apple cart by actually marginalizing people of faith.
It does make me wonder, however, how many Christians would hold tight to their faith if millions of more atheists did come out of the closet, strip away the veneer of America as a publicly Christian nation and achieve their goals of making faith in God socially unacceptable. What would that do to American Christians?
HT: AlbertMohler.com
Out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high -- nearly four in 10 babies born last year -- government health officials reported Tuesday.
"A lot of people think of teenagers and unmarried mothers synonymously, but they are not driving this," said Stephanie Ventura of the National Center for Health Statistics, a co-author of the report. The rate of out-of-wedlock births is actually down among teens.
So who's having all these babies? Women in their 20s. "The overall rise reflects the burgeoning number of people who are putting off marriage or living together without getting married," read one news account.
About 4.1 million babies were born in the United States last year, up slightly from 2004. More than 1.5 million of those were to unmarried women; that is about 37 percent of the total.
According to Dr. Yolanda Wimberly, an adolescent-medicine specialist at Atlanta's Morehouse School of Medicine, "more women in their 30s and 40s, hearing their biological clock, are choosing to give birth despite their single status. Younger women are not as worried about being unmarried, either," she added.
``I think it's more acceptable in society'' to have a child without getting married, she said.
It may be more accepted, but regardless of what society tolerates or even approves, the evidence is uncontested: children do best with a mom and a dad. That's something Dr. Wade Horn understands. He's made it a government priority to support marriage precisely because he knows the chidlren born in healthy marriages thrive. In light of these new numbers, his message couldn't be more timely.
I'm curious, what do the 20-somethings among Boundless readers think about this disturbing trend?
"Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Elohaynu Adonai Echad.
V-ahavta et Adonai Elohecha b-chol l'vavcha u-v-chol naf'sh'cha u-v-chol m'odecha."
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deuteronomy 6:4-5, NIV).
The Shema (translated "hear" in Hebrew) is the main prayer for Jews. It is often said twice a day -- when you wake up and when you go to bed. It is the staple of Jewish thought and practice.
The Shema is repeated by Jesus in the New Testament: Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40, NIV)
Notice that Jesus says that all of Scripture depends on these two commandments. We are to interpret God's Word through the imperatives to love God and our neighbor.
I have only recently realized the actual implications of these commands. It has begun to affect the way I think and act. When I am brushing my teeth or talking to my friends or watching TV, I am to remember to love God and my neighbor above all things.
When I am thinking about modesty, I believe it should be less about how many inches long my skirt is and more about how I can thoughtfully love my neighbor through what I choose to wear.
When I go to work and sit down to write an article, I should be contemplating how can I best love God with my mind -- through the words I type and the message I convey.
These two commands encompass everything we come across in life. I may be sounding repetitive here, but I think this is pretty profound. These commands are so simple, and yet infinitely complex.
The interpretation of these two commands will take a lifetime (or perhaps more!) to implement in a way that is fully pleasing to God. But let us expend all of our energy trying to reach this goal. Let us hear the truth in these words and then spend each and every day doing our best to act them out.
I regularly debate the creationist or ID side of the creation-evolution debate, and have become accustomed to hearing evolutionists present the idea that science and God do not mix. If you've got a scientific mind, they say, it should be obvious to you that all the evidence points to Darwinism. If you disagree that "all this" came about because of evolutionary processes, then you obviously trust faith more than the scientific process.
Of course, I believe both the scientific evidence and Scriptural evidence is on the side of "God made all this."
Touchstone Magazine's James M. Kushiner explores an aspect of this debate -- the arrogance of some "scientists" -- in a recent post in his Mere Comments blog: [W]hy is it assumed that when someone dons a white lab coat it's the equivalent of putting on the white baptismal garment, but instead of washing away sins it removes the stain of irrationality, giving the bearer, by sheer grace of being "a scientist" access to pure rational powers of reasoning, untainted by irrational religious beliefs?
What an apt way to characterize the smugness of those "scientists" who in their zeal to prove God is irrelevant have embraced the frog-to-prince fairytale that is evolution.
A blog entry on CADRE goes on to defend the role of Christians in the field of science: The greatest scientific discoveries prior to the 20th Century were virtually all by Christians who were investigating God's creation. Throughout history, Christians have studied the creation because they considered that part of the general revelation of God. It is an absolute fantasy that religious people have neither the inclination or motivation to seek natural causes for events. No Christian that I know (and none that I have ever read) argue that scientific investigation seeking natural causes of things is wrong. What is viewed as wrongful is allowing people with naturalistic philosophical worldviews like scientism or evolutionism to somehow be considered the only valid voices concerning the study of our universe.
Let me encourage those of you who find the biblical and extra-biblical evidence unsupportive of Darwinian evolution. You may feel threatened by the arrogance of certain "educated" men who try to intimidate you with talk of allele frequencies and the geologic column, but don't be. With a bit of research you can rightly respond with talk of irreducible complexity and information theory. In the end, regardless of which high-brow terms we know, we should be confident that the Lord has accurately revealed in the Scriptures and in nature both himself and his means of creation.
(For more information about Intelligent Design and Creationism, take a look at Answers in Genesis (this is a good article to start with), the Institute for Creation Research, Origins, and Science Against Evolution.)
Like Steve, my "one thing" this Thanksgiving is our new baby boy. And part of what makes me so thankful for him, in addition to just having him here and healthy, is the new perspective he gives me. I alluded to one change of view yesterday when I discussed my half-built career. But today another even more important insight surfaced.
I was reading a review of a new book about President Lincoln's fight against slavery. This one focuses on his nemesis, Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the evil Dred Scott decision.
The reviewer says of the opinion that it was to be "the court's most reviled decision." Here's where I think the reviewer got it wrong. At least in part.
Any court that denies a person his God-given "inalienable" rights is vile. But what grieves me is that our country has yet to recognize, in law, that unborn babies are just as much people as was Dred Scott.
At this point, it's Roe v. Wade that stands as the most reviled decision. Why? Dred Scott was upended long ago. But Roe is still "the law of the land." When will our leaders recognize what technology makes it impossible to deny -- that life in the womb is just that, life. And the unborn deserve, no less than did blacks, to be free.
Fox News reports that a man who's been anonymously giving away cash for a quarter of a century has recently revealed his identity in the hopes that others will follow his example. For 26 years, a man known only as Secret Santa has roamed the streets every December quietly giving people money. He started with $5 and $10 bills. As his fortune grew, so did the gifts. In recent years, Secret Santa has been handing out $100 bills, sometimes two or three at a time, to people in thrift stores, diners and parking lots. So far, he's anonymously given out about $1.3 million. It's been a long-held holiday mystery: Who is Secret Santa?
Larry Stewart, a successful businessman, "offers the simple gifts of cash because it's something people don't have to 'beg for, get in line for or apply for.'" And this part will make you cringe: That was a feeling he came to know in the early '70s when he was living out of his yellow Datsun 510. Hungry and tired, Stewart mustered the nerve to approach a woman at a church and ask for help.
The woman told him the person who could help was gone for the day, and Stewart would have to come back the next day.
"As I turned around, I knew I would never do that again," Stewart said.
Given God's generous nature, I wish Christians were leading the way in giving. While I probably won't go around handing out cash to strangers, I think I could use a dose of Mr. Stewart's compassionate spirit. 1 John 3:17 says, "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" That's a great reminder as the holidays approach.
How do you go into the Thanksgiving holiday when you can't think of anything to feel thankful for? Although I'm thankful this year for a new baby boy and other blessings, there have been years when I could identify more challenges and setbacks than reasons for thanksgiving. How about you? What's this past year been like? Have you dealt with the death of someone you loved? Financial challenges? Relational disappointments? Or maybe even just the blandness of a life without much to be happy about?
I noticed a great quote by our Plugged In team yesterday by H.U. Westermayer. He said, "The Pilgrims made seven times more graves than huts. No Americans have been more impoverished than these who, nevertheless, set aside a day of thanksgiving." In the face of loss of life, severe hardships and a still unknown future, the Pilgrims found within their recent harvest a reason to trust God and to return thanks.
Their attitude reminds me of the song The Martins released in the late 90s called "Count Your Blessing." For people who can't count many blessings in their life, the Martins suggest finding at least one blessing to count. The song goes, "Count your blessing. You'll find one if you try. Count on the Lord and watch that blessing multiply." Even in the worst circumstances, they remind us that we can still give thanks for a risen Savior and a perfect God.
What one blessing can you count on?
I have a co-worker who doesn't like me very much. I'm unaffectedly reminded of it daily because we work in the same building. But I am affectedly reminded of it on specific occasions when a gesture of courtesy is met with indifference. Such was the case recently.
There was a time in my life when such an acquaintance would have bothered me greatly; a time when I used to think I had to like everyone, or at least pretend to. And pretending to can manifest itself in some pretty ugly ways. For me, it would come in the form of slander. I would speak and act nicely to someone while sufficiently ripping them behind their backs. It was my way of confirming that the weirdo was really them, not me.
Thankfully, we don't have to like everybody. One of my mentors taught me that just because you are a Christian doesn't mean everyone's your friend. There are simply some people who will rub you the wrong way, and vice-versa.
I was reminded of this more recently in an Ask Theophilus column "Is Dropping a Friend a Sin?" In it the Professor instructs that "it isn't a sin to stop liking." But that doesn't mean we have no obligation to them. He goes on to say that even if you don't like someone, you still have to be honest, fair and kind, and keep from seeking revenge or spreading gossip.
I can do that. There is a certain freedom that comes from knowing that some people just bug, including me.
It's taken me all day to actually find 20 minutes to sit at the computer and blog. And I'm only able to do it now because Steve's finally home from work and able to hold our new baby long enough for me to put these thoughts together.
I read a snippet of the Wall Street Journal's feature "The 50 Women to Watch" sometime this morning and have been thinking about it off and on all day -- in between feedings, diaper changes, laundry and reading to the kids.
It's no small task to integrate a new baby into an already busy family schedule and right now, it feels nearly impossible to find time to write. And yet here this article is, telling me and lots of my career-minded peers, that we should "reach for the top -- and don't eliminate choices too soon or worry about the myth of balance." Why is balance a myth? According to one executive woman, "balance equals perfection, which none of us are, so I think we just have to get over it, otherwise [women] spend all their time feeling guilty."
I know from the demands of the past few weeks that balance is a myth, not because it means perfection, but because small children -- and especially new babies -- simply won't be balanced with anything else. They require someone's undivided attention (as does a really successful career).
I'm not sure what this woman would have us replace balance with. From the looks of the careers spotlighted, I suspect in many of these cases it's with full-time household help, including some combination of daycare and nannies. It's just not possible to have a stratospheric career and be mother to small children at the same time.
I'm not knocking the successes of women. Just saddened that our culture continues to feature and praise those who work the way men do, with little if any mention of those who do things unconventionally for the benefit of their families.
What about the moms who take time away to be home and fully available to their kids for a season? What about the moms who use their gifts and talents as volunteers, improving their community for no pay? What about the Ph.D.s who leave the corporate world to teach their own children at home?
There are surely 50 equally heroic moms. I think it's time papers like the Wall Street Journal stop overlooking them. I know, it's a business paper and that's a human interest story. But is it? What will the business world be like if moms stop teaching their children the fundamentals of right and wrong? (Enron anyone?) Someone gave me a baby gift of calligraphy that reads: The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world.
I'm afraid many of these 50 women, and all the people who praise their business acumen, have forgotten that.
According to Ursula Burns, president of business group operations at Xerox and a corporate senior vice president, "No one will die if you don't show up at every business meeting or every school play."
She's right. No one will die. But little hearts will be broken. And that's a price I'm not willing to pay.
 It's easy within our cultural divide to huddle with like-minded people and throw verbal grenades at those on the other side from the safety of our ideological bunkers. As a resident of Colorado Springs, I'm well aware (and all too often guilty) of this posture. Which is why I'm always blown away by stories of people making inroads in hostile territory. This morning, the Wall Street Journal spotlights just such a story on its front page -- that of Dr. Wade Horn and his promotion of marriage within the Department of Health and Human Services. The article opens by saying:
The notion that government can help children escape poverty by promoting marriage for their parents was once considered a fringe idea from right field. It is now federal policy. In very large part, that's due to Wade Horn, a child psychologist turned bureaucrat who has put marriage atop the Bush administration's limited antipoverty agenda.... Today, more than 200 programs are at work across the country, seeking to change public attitudes surrounding marriage, persuade teenagers to aspire to matrimony and teach relationship skills to young couples.
What's more impressive is the article's attention to Dr. Horn's approach: that of co-opting his critics and fine tuning his rhetoric. This was the approach Dr. Horn taught Candice and me when we took a class he taught at Regent University in the summer of 1996.
I remember in that class being asked to defend public school sex education as an assignment. I have all kinds of problems with sex education in public schools, but having to stand up and defend it in a debate was a valuable exercise in learning to understand and work through ideological conflict in a way that's also respectful of the opposition.
In fact, it made enough of an impression on Candice (who was debating against me by the way) that she asked Dr. Horn to write about his approach for engaging the opposition as one of the first Boundless articles in 1998 (No Man is an Island).
Reading this classic article, you can get a sense for how Dr. Horn has been able to stay focused and effective in one of the most challenging environments a Christian can work in -- a federal government bureaucracy. Back when I was a teenager, I remember looking up to Bill Bennett in his courageous effort to reform the Department of Education when he headed that behemoth. Watching Dr. Horn steadily make progress and win key converts over the past seven years to achieve what this morning's article describes, however, I have a new hero in the category of Christians making inroads in hostile territory.
Motte and Suzanne's recent posts about Christians being poor tippers is interesting in light of the following fact from the November/December issue of Relevant Magazine. Apparently we're not too great at tithing either: If Christians had given the traditional 10 percent tithe of their income to their churches in 2004, instead of the 2.56 percent that they actually gave, there would have been an additional $164 billion available, according to a report released in October called "The State of Church Giving through 2004." If the churches chose to funnel just $70-$80 billion of that additional income to missions and humanitarian works, the basic needs of every person on the globe would be provided.
Tithing is mentioned numerous times in the Bible (Genesis 14:18-20, Numbers 18:24-28, Malachi 3:8-12) as a way to give back to the Lord as a way to praise and thank Him. In the Old Testament, the Levitical priests lived off of a portion of the offerings the people gave to the Lord. They had no inheritance of their own -- God expected the people to be generous and consistent in their offerings.
Personally, tithing has always been somewhat of a struggle for me. I've either forgotten to do it or, when I remembered, it seemed as though my funds were a little too tight to give to church that week. Poor me.
Now, I know that some people disagree about what tithing money should be used for, or where it should all go. But, either way, we should be giving. We've been given so much, and God only asks us to give a small amount back to Him. The stat from Relevant Magazine is shocking. We have the means to do so much good -- to glorify the Lord through our giving -- but, at least for me, trips to Banana Republic sometimes get in the way.
Ultimately, I think this is a matter of obedience to the Lord. Apparently, we Christians have a lot to learn when it comes to honoring the Lord through our giving.
Speaking of heroes, in the article "The Pitfalls of Hero Worship," Matt Kaufman talks about an important lesson he learned from Professor S: While in his class, I wrote a paper on Abraham Lincoln so adulatory toward the Great Emancipator that S — himself favorably disposed toward Lincoln — had to gently chide me not to gush over my subject. "Lincoln," he wrote, "wouldn't have liked that!"
I find it funny when I think back on that, because I've become decidedly more critical toward Lincoln in recent years. But that, too, is beside the point. The point is that it's not right to idolize anyone, even if he truly is the most admirable person you know of.
There's more than one reason for this. The main one is that it's idolatry — taking at least some measure of the glory meant for God alone and transferring it to sinful human beings, the very best of whom is, at the core of his being, thoroughly rebellious toward God and righteous only in that God declares Him righteous through Christ.
Heroes are inevitable because humans have a natural tendency to fixate on those who seem to embody their ideals. The Bible doesn't discourage us from emulating heroes. Hebrews 11, sometimes called the "Faith Hall of Fame," is a spectacular list of heroes of the faith — each embodying a spiritual characteristic. The catch is discerning who is, in fact, a hero.
The first two verses of Hebrews 12 teach us the place heroes should have in our lives: Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
True heroes give us perseverance ("If they could do it, I can do it"), and they cause us to look beyond them to Christ, our ultimate hero. Having heroes is important, but fixing our eyes on Jesus is the point.
I found myself last night in a conversation about some of the bad movies that are currently in the theater.
In the course of the conversation, we found ourselves thankful for such ministries as PluggedIn and MovieGuide.
And that got me thinking about the junk that these people expose themselves to in order to help me make wise decisions about what I watch. In a sense, they are taking the bullet for me. They watch Borat so I don't have to. They watch Sin City so I don't have to. They watch Babel and Crash and Little Man so I don't have to.
And that got me wondering if perhaps some people are called to vocations or ministries that have them exposed to things that the rest of us are wise to avoid.
My dad is a physician. As part of his education he's viewed graphic photos from auto accidents. His job has him examining disrobed women. He's away from his family more than the typical husband. It would be inappropriate for me to do the things my dad does as part of his vocation, but for him I believe it's acceptable, and even good.
A friend of mine is a music producer. Though I'm a musician (and to a lesser degree than him a producer as well), he listens to music to which I just don't want to expose myself. I'm frankly quite content with Steven Curtis Chapman, Fred Hammond, Third Day, Watermark, and Skillet. But in order to be familiar with what's relevant and contemporary, he listens to a lot of so-called "secular" music.
I've got some friends who are serving in the military. It's not easy for me to write this, but the truth is that for them it is good and honorable at times to kill. They have been delegated that authority. I have not been granted that same authority to kill.
I'm reminded of the admonition in Philippians 4:8: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
What a challenge it must be for those called to certain vocations to keep their minds focused on the pure, lovely, and honorable in the midst of watching a vulgar movie, conducting a Pap smear, listening to Tenacious D, or pulling the trigger.
* * *
I had thought of concluding this post with that last paragraph, but instead will finish with an excerpt from Rich Mullins' song, Growing Young: I've gone so far from my home
I've seen the world and I have known
So many secrets
I wish now I did not know
'Cause they have crept into my heart
They have left it cold and dark
And bleeding
Bleeding and falling apart ...
I've seen silver turn to dross
Seen the very best there ever was
And I'll tell you it ain't worth what it costs
And that's one reason I'm cautious about what I consume in my efforts to become "relevant" and "culturally aware." I'm not sure the "benefits" are worth what it cost to my spirit.
 In 1945, a famous photograph was taken at the battle of Iwo Jima. In Flags of Our Fathers, James Bradley writes about his father, John Bradley, who was one of the soldiers captured in that photograph. The soldiers in that photo became instant heroes. Commenting on Bradley's story, Tim Challies considers the difference between celebrity and heroism:
The irony of John Bradley's celebrity is that, during the battle of Iwo Jima he was a hero many times over. His heroism earned him a Navy Cross, the second highest decoration possible. His son writes, "the flagraising, in fact, might be seen as one of the few moments in which he was not acting heroically." He knew that the act of planting a flag in the ground was not an act of heroism, but was an act that had made him a celebrity. "He knew real heroism. He could separate the real thing from the image, the fluff. And no matter how many millions of people thought otherwise, he understood that this image of heroism was not the real thing." John Bradley had no interest in celebrity and resented those who sought to bestow it upon him.
It seems to me that John Bradley knew something that too many in our culture, whether Christian or not, are content to ignore. He saw celebrity for what it was: instant, empty and fleeting. He knew that true heroes are those who are known and remembered not for a meteoric rise to prominence, not merely for being known, but for accomplishment and character. If only we were so discerning.
We've all heard that half of marriages end in divorce, and that the statistics for Christians aren't any different from those for non-Christians.
But according to an interview with Sociologist Brad Wilcox published on Christianity Today, churchgoing Christians are much less likely to divorce than their non-churchgoing counterparts. How much less? Wilcox estimates "between 35 and 50 percent less likely than Americans who attend church just nominally, just once or twice a year, or who don't attend church at all."
Not only are the marriages stronger, but the couple is happier: "Spouses who share weekly [church] attendance had happier wives."
Another interesting finding: Women who have more traditional gender attitudes are significantly happier in their marriages. They're more likely to embrace the idea that men should take the primary lead in breadwinning and women should take the primary lead in nurturing the children and managing the domestic sphere, managing family life.
What's the takeaway? I guess if you're not going to church (and hold a more egalitarian view of marriage), expect to have a less happy marriage and greater likelihood of divorce than your churchgoing friends.
HT: David Wayne of Jolly Blogger
You can call Ted Haggard a liar, a criminal, a drug user, or a homosexual adulterer, but please don't call him a hypocrite. At least not according to Robert T. Miller at First Things. The fact that so many people think he is a hypocrite, says Miller, "shows only how sloppy our thinking about morals can be."
A man is not a hypocrite because he violates a moral norm in which he sincerely believes. President Clinton, I am sure, believes that adultery is wrong, and he violated the norm against it in his dalliance with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky; but this made him an adulterer, not a hypocrite. Similarly, decent parents think they ought to be patient with their children, but an overworked mother who snaps at her child at the end of a long day is guilty of impatience, not hypocrisy. Violating norms we sincerely accept does not make us hypocrites. If it did, hypocrisy would not be a peculiar kind of wrongdoing but a concomitant of all wrongdoing....
Ted Haggard, I am sure, always believed that homosexual conduct was wrong, always wanted to avoid such conduct, and always regretted engaging in it after he did so. He found himself experiencing very powerful desires contrary to the values he sincerely believed in, desires he wished with all his heart he could have escaped from, desires he refers to as a "repulsive and dark" part of his life against which he has been warring for a long time. Sometimes, contrary to his wish, he gave in to those desires. This makes him weak, not a hypocrite.
I confess I've been one of the sloppy thinkers about morals Miller mentioned. I didn't give a second thought to the accepted presumption of Haggard's hypocrisy. If I'm honest, there was even a part of me that wanted, and expected, Ted to come out of the closet like Mark Foley and Roy Clements and say something like, "This is who I am." After all, nothing makes us feel so good about ourselves as someone else's sin.
I suppose that's why, as Miller wrote in the beginning of his blog, there were those who repeated the charge of hypocrisy "with unseemly glee." But hopefully Ted will disappoint us all and win his war against the part of his life he considers "repulsive and dark." In the end, a lesson in Christ's conquering power over sin just may be what we learn in this instead of one in hypocrisy.
HT: Kevin Cawley
Earlier today, one of the guys from our Innovations area at Focus on the Family showed our Adult Outreach team a documentary called Dear Francis. The film addresses the African AIDS crisis by focusing in on Christian intervention efforts in Swaziland -- the country with the highest rates of infection (53% of those between the ages of 15-23 are HIV positive).
I've heard Bono talk about the AIDS crisis both in concert and at the Willow Creek leadership conference. I've heard a growing number of Christian leaders draw attention to this enormous problem. Seeing this documentary, however, gave me a much better sense of the background story -- why the epidemic is so severe and why solutions seem so difficult.
It also captures well the experience so many have on missions trips -- of young men and women gaining more than they could give and leaving with a sense that while the problems seem worse than ever, that simple acts of mercy are still the best response.
You can find out more about this documentary at DearFrancis.org.
Motte's point regarding the "church table" and bad tipping bears repeating. As Christians we are always looking for ways to evangelize, but maybe we're overlooking some of the best opportunities.
My housemate is 19 and makes her living off tips. She is also in the infancy of her relationship with Christ — unsure of whether or not she can trust Him. How His people treat her means everything.
I have cringed as she's told me about the poor Sunday tippers or the stingy lunch customers that pour in from a local ministry. But I've been touched by other stories: The two pastors who asked her how she was doing, and, when they learned she needed a car, offered to find her a ride to church and tipped $10 on an $18 meal. The couple who had traveled to Russia (the country from which my housemate is adopted) who left a generous tip and prayed with her. Or the man attending a local prayer conference who told her that He believed God had something very special for her and then left a surprisingly large tip.
The generous gifts of these Christians caused my housemate to consider more deeply their message. I am thankful that she has had more good experiences with Christians than bad. But these stories have encouraged me to take tipping to the next level. God has blessed me financially. And adding an extra couple bucks to my tip is a better use of my money than buying a latte — especially if that gift is coupled with the message of Christ.
During yesterday's devotions I was reminded again how much I love the "But God" verses. Consider Ephesians 2:1-7, for example: And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience -- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ -- by grace you have been saved -- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
I had everything against me. I was not "sick," but "dead" in my sins. I was following the "prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience." I was a slave to "the passions of my flesh." I was by nature a "child of wrath."
I was in an unfathomable predicament.
Ah, but God....
I find that as I meditate on the gap between the severity of my helpless condition and the Lord's insurmountable grace, and how He so mercifully and sovereignly chose to make me "alive together with Christ," my love and appreciation for Him deepens. Other "But God" passages include Romans 5:7-8, 1 Corinthians 1:25-29, and Galatians 3:18.
May your ever-widening grasp of this "But God Gap" serve to stir your affections and expand your love for the Lord.
What's the difference between Christians and canoes? Canoes tip.
Anyone who's ever waited tables at some point in their lives usually ends up being a good tipper. The same is true for me. I have no trouble leaving generous tips because I know too well the low hourly wage of waitstaff. I actually enjoy big tipping. Other Christians, however, seem to have trouble letting go of the extra dollar or two that would make for a decent gratuity.
Relevant Magazine has a good read on Christians and tipping from Daniel Holland. Daniel, a student and waiter, has experienced first hand what his colleagues refer to derogatorily as the "Church table." I ran around for the better part of an hour getting them dozens of teas, getting their kids another egg and wiping up where they had spilled their drinks because their parents were too into whatever it was they were talking about. They all split their checks, but they didn't sit in any kind of order; they were all scattered about and expected me to know without asking who was together and who was separate. On top of this they were rude and acted as though I was an annoyance to them, unless they needed something.
They didn't even leave 10 percent. And for a person who lives off of the income from tips, that hurt.
I'll bet if you listen closely, you can hear the whisper of a collective groan every Sunday afternoon rising from restaurants across America saying, "the after-church crowd." So before you head off to the Golden Corral remember the Golden Rule: "Do to others what you would have them do to you." And as for tipping, I won't go into Scripture on this subject. There really isn't any. It's just that God is so generous to us. And that makes me want to be generous too.
HT: Justin Taylor
Motte and Suzanne and I had a great time attending and presenting at the New Attitude singles conference six months ago. It's a conference that has it all: engaging speakers, great music, hip location and cool attendees (though I can think of a few exceptions among the presenters).
Here's a webpage where we discussed NA06 and link to some articles published on Boundless and written by Na speakers.
Anyway, I just got word that they'll be opening up early registration the week of Thanksgiving. Even though the conference isn't until the end of May, if you're thinking of going it may be a good idea to sign up early -- they're giving away five free registrations each day during the period Nov. 22-26.
In "Look at All the Lonely People," Christianity Today considers the decline of friendship in American society. The article begins: In Norman Rockwell's classic 1943 painting, "Freedom from Want," an extended family is gathered around the table to celebrate a holiday feast. Fast-forward 63 years to Thanksgiving 2006 and — while lack of food is still a problem for too many in this land of plenty — you are much more likely to find want of a different kind. More and more Americans are starving for significant relationships.
The article highlights a study published by the American Sociological Review that shows a "remarkable drop in the size of people's core network of confidants — those with whom they could talk about important matters." Twenty-five percent of Americans reported having no confidants at all — up from 10 percent in 1985. The article relates this trend to the decrease of marriage: Perhaps the same thing that is sabotaging marriage is undermining friendship: our increasing unwillingness to commit to relationships that require sacrifice, mutual accountability, and a generous share of humility. That refusal is often not so much willful as fearful.
People may fear the commitment friendship entails, but they remain fascinated with it. The long-standing popularity of TV programs such as Cheers, Friends, and now Grey's Anatomy — which portray the lives of people in multilayered friendships — signals that fascination.
The article ponders what it might take for the church to hold that same fascination for a lonely culture. Reaching the lost, the article concludes, may be as simple as being a friend. Perhaps it's being a friend that is not so simple.
I met Doug Hayes at last year's New Attitude (NA) conference in Louisville, Ky. Doug is the executive director of Covenant Mercies, a non-profit organization serving the poor, the orphan, the widow, and others facing severe adversity. He wrote recently about why it's easy for Americans to "quickly brush over" the problem of orphans. Doug explains that though we care, we are like six-month-olds who have yet to develop object permanence, acting with an "'out of sight, out of mind' mentality toward the poor." We're pretty comfortable and typically pretty busy, so it's easy to forget that our experience is not shared by many –- even most –- people in the world. We need to develop what Gary Haugen calls compassion permanence: the capacity to remember the needs of those who are suffering due to injustice, multi-generational poverty, disease, calamity, etc., even when they are out of our immediate sight.
It's hard to argue with Doug's assessment of American compassion toward the orphan. What's even more troubling is a careful assessment of Christian compassion. Dr. Dobson made this point in yesterday's Focus on the Family broadcast saying, "there are 400,000 churches in the United States and last year there were only 123,000 children (domestic and international) who were adopted. ... There's something not right about that."
Consider also that adoption is only one aspect of orphan care. Currently, there are over 500,000 children in the foster care system in America. One social service agent estimates that only about a third of foster care families are self-described Christians.
Last year, I was privileged to be involved in Focus on the Family's adoption symposium where the nation's leading voices on adoption gathered to discuss the orphan care problem. Their message came through loud and clear -- the church is asleep on this issue. Out of that meeting came the Voice for the Orphan campaign "to raise awareness of the orphan crisis and spur fellow Christians to action."
When the church awakens to this crisis, I believe it will provide the compassion permanence needed to fulfill its mandate to "care for orphans and widows in their troubles." Won't you join them?
"The bottom line is that a heavily married society is a whole lot better off than one that's not," says David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project. In another round of discussion about this summer's Census numbers on marriage, The Cincinnati Enquirer takes a closer look at the drivers of cohabitation and marital delay.
Reinforcing Popenoe's belief in the benefits of marriage in this article is Carrie Gordon Earll, from here at Focus on the Family. "Society is changing," she says, "What we would like to encourage, particularly among young people who are moving in together, is that they look at marriage, and look at the stability that that commitment gives to their relationship."
HT: AlbertMohler.com
 In the article "Holy Hollywood," Newsweek reports on the current boom of faith-based movies. Citing mainstream religious films such as "One Night With the King" and "The Nativity Story," the article says:
All of this attention would seem to mean great news for the faithful — and great profits for studios. But just because the studios have decided to sell entertainment to Christians doesn't mean Christians are buying. It's hard to imagine a wider culture gap than the one between rich, secular, Blue State liberals and middle-class, religious, Red State conservatives. That, coupled with a long history of neglect and distrust, may make the film industry’s journey to profits through Christ surprisingly perilous.
Still, it's encouraging that studios are taking the time to consult true believers and recognize that Christian viewers are discerning. Not to mention, filmmakers are tapping into the rich stories and themes found in Christian tradition.
I viewed "The Nativity Story" in October. What I found most compelling about the film was how it developed the humanity of Mary and Joseph. It considered Mary's disappointment in an arranged marriage and Joseph's heartache at learning his betrothed had been unfaithful. It followed the couple's journey from respect to trust — and ultimately love — as they united in the daunting task of raising the Son of God. I felt that the movie revealed to me new aspects of the story and helped me relate to it.
It seems Hollywood is finally moving beyond stereotypes and, in some cases, capturing what is true about faith in Christ. The Newsweek article continues: Almost everyone seems to agree that the next step for religious filmmaking is to move beyond literal or allegorical adaptations of Bible stories and to instead incorporate the lessons and values of Christianity into films on almost any subject.
With the recent outstanding offerings of "End of the Spear" and "Facing the Giants," filmmakers seem to be off to a good start.
I have to disagree somewhat with what Motte said recently in regards to movie watching, and question somewhat what Denise wrote in response.
Motte wrote that "there seems to be no escaping the proverbial swear word, crude sexual reference or simulated sex scene in the most seemingly benign movie."
I'd have to argue that there in fact is a way to escape the vulgarity of many of today's movies: practice media discernment.
One way to do this is to read reviews by those you trust. I trust Plugged In and MovieGuide. Because of their free services, I've avoided the repugnance of such movies as Borat and the oversexuality of such movies as a sequel to The Matrix.
Denise wrote in her blog post: "It can be difficult to [be Christ's witnesses] when we're locked in our houses in boycott of Hollywood." I for one am happy to stay at home rather to expose myself to movies that will darken my soul and put harmful images and themes in my head. I feel no sense of cultural obligation to drink in vulgarity for the sake of being a "witness." There are many other ways to be a witness to Christ's salvic love.
True, I've become ignorant of certain aspects of our culture, but the benefit of avoiding such polluting images and themes is worth the cost. For a more thorough discussion of media discernment, I'd highly recommend the following articles: Like To Watch and It's Never 'Just a Movie'.
And as far as the sentiment going around that we shouldn't condemn the work of certain Hollywood producers and directors, out of a motivation to show some squishy Christian love, I'm reminded of Jesus' sternly saying that "whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
I'm not saying that I personally condemn them; their actions seem to be doing that. But I am saying that perhaps they should regularly be reminded that there are dangerous consequences to producing harmful "entertainment." For that reason, I don't see anything wrong with redemptively denouncing the work of these men and women, in addition to praying for them.
May those responsible for the profaning of modern cinema first consider with fear and trembling the terrifying words of Jesus, that they may then repent and embrace the gracious and forgiving love of Jesus.
Here's a career tip for the recent college grad. The next time your mom offers to go down the annual job fair at the local Sheraton, hand out your resume and talk with the recruiters, respectfully decline and go yourself, alone. That seems to be the sentiment from employers who are having to deal more and more with parents inserting themselves in their child's job search.
The Associated Press released an article this weekend warning young people that "helicopter" parents may harm their careers. The term helicopter parent refers to those who have over-monitored or "hovered over" their children since grade school. According to the AP, employers report having parents call them to discuss their son's or daughter's first performance review or, if they didn't get the job, calling to ask why not.
Michael Ellis, director of career and life education at Delaware Valley College in Doylestown, Pa, says that helicopter parents aren't doing their children any favors with such coddling.
They've become so accustomed to having their parents take care of every aspect of their lives -- and not assuming any responsibility or taking any initiative for themselves -- that they expect their parents to continue to take care of things for them.
Landing your first job out of college can be a real confidence booster. Unless of course it was your mom who landed it. Just remember one thing, if things get too difficult, please don't have her call your boss to complain.
You hear, O LORD, the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry, defending the fatherless and the oppressed, in order that man, who is of the earth, may terrify no more. (Psalm 10:17-18, NIV)
According to the United Nations, there are 143 million orphans worldwide. My mind doesn't quite grasp that number, so it's easy for me to quickly brush over it. But I shouldn't. Imagine one child without a home, without parents to tuck her into bed and tell her she is loved. Now multiply that by 143 million. This is a huge problem.
The month of November, and this week specifically, has been devoted to orphan care by several ministries including Focus on the Family, Family Life and Shaohannah's Hope. These ministries have partnered to create Voice of the Orphan to help educate Christians about the orphan crisis and how we can be a part of solving it.
Honestly, if we desire to live biblically, we have no choice but to be involved in helping those in need. The Bible repeatedly calls us to take care of the widow and the fatherless. And for those of us who are adamant about ending abortion, this issue should be heavy on our hearts. As an alternative to abortion, we constantly encourage women to carry their babies to term and then give them up for adoption. But these statistics say that there were at least 118,000 U.S. children waiting to be adopted in 2004. We must do more than cry out against abortion. We must reach out to help the children that have been allowed to live, but do not have families to care for them.
I encourage you to listen to the Focus on the Family broadcasts this week to hear stories from those who have been involved in adoption and orphan care. All of us can get involved one way or another. Take a look at what you can do to help those in need. Remember:
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27, NIV)
The Scandal
Why is it that when a Christian messes up we respond with the love of Christ, yet when sinners mess up we talk about the quick trip to hell they'll be receiving? Jesus always did the opposite -- he held Christians to a higher level and provided grace to sinners. Wouldn't it be great if we began to show God's grace to all sinners, regardless of what they've done? Wouldn't it be great if we could all remember the "Christian" is supposed to mean "like Christ" and that to uphold our position as Christians we began actually loving people, rather than judging them?
If we, as Christians, begin responding to our friends, neighbors and sinful politicians with the same love so many are showing Ted Haggard right now the world will truly be changed.
Donny
* * *Election 2006 Wrap-up
Well, it looks like South Dakota passed its marriage amendment, but not the prohibition on abortion. I have a feeling that if states like South Dakota can't pass limitations on abortion, we'll never be able to limit it. Although, it was a pretty close race. Maybe if those in support of abortion stop having children, and those in opposition of abortion be fruitful and multiply, the morals of the nation will be able to change with population shifts.
Becky
* * *Ted: Recipient of Church Discipline
You've got to be kidding. Ted Slater underwent church discipline for dating someone in spite of her father's objections? Unless some grave moral sin is involved it's a matter between the father and Mr. Slater, not a matter for the church.
There is a time and place for church discipline. Imposing church discipline for breaking rigid, legalistic man-made rules about dating is an abuse of the discipline process. I would counsel Mr. Slater to find a new church which has a better balance of grace and law.
Russ
Motte's latest post instantly reminded me of Bob Briner's book, Roaring Lambs. The book's purpose is to talk about the way Christians should view and, most importantly, interact with culture. The book even tell us to (gasp!) influence the culture. Roaring Lambs is all about finding that balance between being in the world but not of it.
I thought about this book when reading Motte's post because Briner talks specifically about movies in one chapter. Instead of constantly complaining about Hollywood, he calls us to get involved in producing quality films: Typically, but unfortunately, our response to the sacrilege and blasphemy of modern movies is to whine, demonstrate, boycott, and keep score. Again, as with television, we have almost no alternatives to offer. We cannot say, "Don't watch that trash. Watch this film of a great story that is uplifting and ennobling." We can't say that, because we haven't produced those films in any numbers.
Briner also says: Remember, twenty million people go to the movies each week in America alone. Millions more see movies on television and cassettes. Only very rarely do they see anything that points them to Christ. Our fault.
Some of us seem to think of our career choices in terms of jobs that are considered ministry and jobs that are not. Those of us who work here at Focus on the Family could probably safely say that our jobs are specifically created in order to minister to others. (You all can judge whether or not we accomplish that goal. :-) Someone who works at Target may not consider their job to be ministry related. But why on earth not? The Bible tells us to be the salt of the earth. We are to be Christ's witnesses unto the ends of the earth. It can be difficult to do that when we're locked in our houses in boycott of Hollywood.
We are to effectively minister to the world through the gifts God has given us. We are to play a part in every area of culture. We are to be roaring lambs in a world that desperately needs truth.
I try to be a careful movie viewer these days by reading Plugged In Online before heading off to the theater. However there seems to be no escaping the proverbial swear word, crude sexual reference or simulated sex scene in the most seemingly benign movie. When it happens, I often wonder what was going through the minds of the writers and directors to make them decide, "I think a good expletive would be just perfect right there." I also wonder if it will ever change.
While reading this month's Focus on the Family magazine I ran across "Turning Tinseltown Around" that gave me some hope for Hollywood. It was written by Larry Poland, chairman and CEO of Mastermedia International, a non-profit organization providing professional consulting and personal counsel to decision-makers from over 400 media companies worldwide. Their mission is to contribute to a spiritual renewal inside media by:
- Sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ with leaders in film and television industries who do not know Him
- Discipling those who respond in God's Word
- Motivating, equipping, and networking Christian media professionals for personal development and positive impact in the media marketplace
- Ministering broadly to Christian media professionals with whom the organization has no structured relationships
And we can help. On their website, you will find a prayer calendar for media leaders who Poland says wield "awesome and continuing influence over" many. Scheduled for prayer today are Steven Spielberg and Jerry Springer. I can honestly say I've never thought about praying for Jerry Springer, but I will today. Maybe it will go something like, "Dear Lord, JER-REE! JER-REE! JER-REE!" (Sorry. I couldn't resist.)
Since becoming a Christian, I confess I've grown more and more ill of media moguls responsible for all the filth coming out of Hollywood. Poland challenges us to look beyond the "evil media content" and see the people in need of God's redemptive plan for salvation through Jesus Christ.
Apparently there was an election on Tuesday. Who knew?!
OK, just kidding. I totally voted. I even got a sticker to prove it. It turns out that I wasn't the only one my age out there casting a vote. According to a press release by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (longest name ever), preliminary results are showing that about 10 million young people (ages 18-29) voted in this midterm election. That number is 2 million more than the 2002 midterm election.
Interestingly, we young voters are more likely than our parents to register as Independent instead of Democrat or Republican. I would guess this is because we want to be our own people -- not defined by any particular party. I also think that many people don't trust either the Democrats or the Republicans and would rather vote on issues than party line.
Either way, the youth voters are making their voices heard. With these elections behind us, I think our next job is to pray for our elected officials. Pray that they will work together to uphold the values we hold dear. Pray that they will make decisions that will be good for our country and the world. We did our civic duty as voters; now it's time to do our spiritual duty as prayer warriors.
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