 |
Are you planning to do anything different in 2007 than you did in 2006? Have you set any goals for your money, health, education, spiritual growth or relationships? Or have lapsed New Year's resolutions of the past discouraged you from even setting goals? Even though my perspective on goal setting has changed over the years (see My Goals and the Lake Effect), I still feel a strong urge every year after Christmas to dream everything up all over again for the year ahead.
Candice and I are eager to rethink our big goals and priorities this time of year as we look ahead to a fresh calendar. What we've come to learn over the past couple of years, however, is that our goals are meaningless if we don't rethink our routines -- how we spend our mornings, evenings, weekends, and so forth. We know that anything we want to accomplish has to get a sufficient spot in our routine so that it can benefit from the inertia of habit and regular effort. We realize, regretfully, how many of our goals over the years have been undermined by poor habits that beat out our best intentions.
How does your routine support your hopes and goals for the year ahead?
A friend and I were recently discussing the tension between science and Christianity. As a believer working in a scientific field, he personally believes the two can't conflict. He points out that science is designed to describe and measure the physical world — and only the physical world — while religion discloses what is true about the non-physical world. "In any area where science and religion conflict, one of the two is overstepping its bounds or being incorrectly applied," he said.
In this BreakPoint Commentary (first published in June), Chuck Colson addresses how Christianity helped science advance. As Rodney Stark tells us in his recent outstanding book, The Victory of Reason, when Europeans first began to explore the rest of the world what surprised them the most wasn't what they saw — it was "the extent of their own technological superiority."
What made the difference? Why was it that while "many civilizations," such as the Chinese, had pursued alchemy, only in Europe did it lead to chemistry?
According to Stark, the answer ultimately lies in European Christianity. While other religions emphasized "mystery and intuition," Christianity "embraced reason and logic as the primary guides to religious truth." From the start, the Church Fathers "taught that reason was the supreme gift of God and the means to progressively increase understanding of Scripture and revelation."
I am weary of hearing people say that those who believe the Bible and follow Christ close their minds to logic and reason. Admittedly, I am not gifted in the sciences, but I understand enough to know that human exploration of the physical world points to a Source vastly beyond human comprehension. I hope believers will continue to engage science as my friend is doing and continue to shed light on the truth. The very Middle Ages Dawkins belittles saw great scientific and technological advancements that Stark chronicles, including the desire to explore God's created world — the impulse that gave rise to Christians who were scientists producing what we now know as the scientific method. To say that these were nothing more than the Dark Ages is not only wrong — it's a lie.
I hope everyone had a memorable Christmas. Between celebrating Christmas and digging out of snow, the Boundless blogging team hasn't had a lot to say recently. I'm taking this first post back to follow up on a post I entered a couple of months ago about the movie Children of Men that is scheduled for release this week.
As I mentioned then, Children of Men, is based on a novel by P.D. James about the nightmares of a world without children. Set in 2027, it shows the despair that ensues when humans are no longer able to procreate.
Moviegoers used to more tangible fears such as snakes on planes may wonder why life without "rugrats" would be such a bad thing. Three recent articles in the Wall Street Journal spotlighted some of the practical fears that are starting to emerge around the world. One article ("Cash Incentives Aren't Enough to Lift Fertility") talked about how countries worried about their shrinking labor force and consumer base have found that even cash incentives aren't motivating people to have more children. Another article ("The Fertility Gap") looks at the practical impact of baby-making at the ballot box. The most recent article, titled "Missing Children" argues that countries with aging populations are less prone to innovate — because of their fear of taking risks or making investments that don't have short-term payoffs.
With the recent news that America reached 300 million in population, some may think America is in no danger of a population shortage. A groundbreaking report this past summer, however, shows that's not the case. "Life Without Children" is the featured essay by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe in their annual State of Our Unions report. Their analysis is that, "We are in the midst of a profound change in American life. Demographically, socially and culturally, the nation is shifting from a society of child-rearing families to a society of child-free adults" adding that "the twenty-first may well become the century of the child-free." Perhaps the most troubling part of the report is the recognition that American culture squeezes out the virtues necessary for having and raising children: More generally and pervasively, the expressive values of the adult-only world are at odds with the values of the child-rearing world. Indeed, child-rearing values — sacrifice, stability, dependability, maturity — seem stale and musty by comparison. Nor does the bone-wearying and time-consuming work of the child-rearing years comport with a culture of fun and freedom. Indeed, what it takes to raise children is almost the opposite of what popularly defines a satisfying adult life.
Perhaps movies like The Children of Men will put this growing problem in the spotlight in a way that can esteem once again the sacrifices of having children. If you go see this movie, I'd love to hear your comments.
You may have heard of the blizzard we had in central Colorado this week. We got about a nine inches of snow with four foot drifts in Colorado Springs; and the winds blew 25 miles per hour with gusts up to 50. Flights in and out of the Springs and Denver were canceled and all businesses were encouraged to close. Focus on the Family was even shut down for two days -- Wednesday and Thursday -- and delayed two hours today. It was quite a storm.
While settling into bed one evening, the stillness and darkness of my room revealed the storm's intensity. I saw the snow swirling outside from the street light and could actually feel the wind against the house. As the storm raged on, my mind began slowly to be drawn from its might, to God's. God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding. He says to the snow, 'Fall to the earth,' and to the rain shower, 'Be a mighty downpour.' So that all men he has made may know his work, he stops every man from his labor. The animals take cover; they remain in their dens. The tempest comes out from its chamber, the cold from the driving winds. The breath of God produces ice, and the broad waters become frozen. Job 37:5-10 (NIV)
To think, Focus having to close for two days and two hours even speaks to His glory.
Speaking of Christmas specials, one ad caught my eye this season. The show being promoted was touted as "good for television, good for [the host], good for CBS, and good for the sponsors." What was this annual event? A fund raiser for Jerry's Kids? A benevolent Christmas concert? A historical retelling of the scene in the manger?
Far from it. The advertisement -- a full page in the front section of the business-oriented Wall Street Journal -- was for the Victoria's Secret fashion show. It promised a "very sexy night, more intimate ... than any show in our history."
As disturbing as an hour of soft-porn on network television is, that's not what really upset me. After all, this televised "fashion show" is nothing new. What grabbed me is the way the ad referred to the supermodels who would be wearing nothing but their over-priced, and in one case , diamond-studded, underwear. It called them "Angels." It's a name the company uses often, but this time it jumped off the page.
That's because I had just finished reading Walter Wangerin's advent chapter for that day. The chapter that finds the angel Gabriel visiting Zechariah to foretell the birth of John.
Luke 1 recounts, "At this hour of incense, the whole multitude of the people were praying outside. And there appeared to Zechariah an angel of the Lord, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. As soon as he saw the angle, he was struck with confusion and fear."
Wangerin tells it this way, Just as the incense touched the coals and sparkled and breathed a sweet white smoke into the air, the very curtain of creation ripped asunder! Matter tore open, and the immaterial arrived so boldly beside you that your heart stopped.
When Gabriel visited Mary, proclaiming, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" Mary "was greatly troubled at what he said and wondered what such a greeting might mean."
Similarly, "when he saw the seraphim flying and heard their cries, the prophet Isaiah wailed, 'Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips!'"
Why all this fear and trembling in the presence of angels? What could be troubling about a chubby cherub aiming arrows of love, a female form with wings or a supermodel in her underwear? Maybe we've gotten it all wrong when it comes to angels.
As Wangerin writes, ... fear has been much forgotten -- both by the world and by Christians in general. We rush toward angels unafraid. We approach the blazing furnaces of the seraphim with no more apprehension than children who reach laughingly for fire.
This fearlessness is not a sign of the character of God, as if God has changed through the centuries that divide us from Moses and Isaiah, from Zechariah and Mary and the shepherds. Rather, it is a sign of the character of this present age, of arrogance or of ignorance, whether or not one admits to a living God.
As we prepare to celebrate the birth of our saviour, may we see through the clutter of our culture -- the tacky and the trashy -- to the kabod of God almighty.
 We've talked more than once about the value of moving guy/girl relationships beyond buddies. How about our relationship with Jesus? I'm often surprised how people describe their chummy relationship with Jesus in popular Christian culture: "Jesus is my homeboy." "Jesus rides shotgun with me." Yes, we know that the work Jesus did on the cross made it possible for us to once more have an intimate relationship with God. However, we can only fully appreciate that relationship when we stand in awe of His holiness and glory.
Our latest installment in the Mentor Series focuses on this truth. In this piece, Charlie Jarvis says: In the theology of America, people are not falling on their knees; they're calling Jesus "my best friend" or they're finding Him to be a solution to some mundane problem, rather than having this overwhelming sense that Isaiah had when he was before the Lord of Hosts, when even God's identity as the "Lord of Hosts" was crushing in its weightiness.
Until we humble ourselves in the face of God's great glory, we will never experience deep relationship with Him nor will the world see us as being much different from those around us. I hope this mentor series can give you greater context for the way the "glory of the Lord" makes a difference in Christmas and our lives.
Unloading that Precious Moments figurine you got last Christmas by re-giving it to a more ... ahem ... "Precious Moments" person is something that's gaining acceptance among many young professionals. In an article this week, the Wall Street Journal reports that 60 percent of 25-34 year-olds have regifted and plan to do so again. The reasons cited are lack of time and money, and pressure to participate in office gift-giving parties.
According to the article, the most popular "gifts" young people give are bottles of wine, fondue sets, vases, paintings, and picture frames. Vicky Steel, a 27-year-old event planner from Hoboken, N.J. gave a set of unused crystal candleholders to a manager saying, "We don't always have as much money as we'd like to, but we still want to give nice gifts." I suppose for office parties the type of giving that doesn't require anything of you is fine. But I hope "gifts" given without thought, time or money remain the exception and not the rule among young people.
For regifting, it appears the cliche "It's the thought that counts" has been replaced by "One person's junk is another person's treasure."
* * *
If you've missed one of the your favorite "Christmas" specials this year, here's a link to the best "Christmas" specials website ever! And even though I know you'll be tempted to watch Professor Hinkle chase Frosty, Karen and Hocus Pocus while at work because you've wasted all your vacation days, please refrain ... if your boss walks by, it could get "Messy! Messy! Messy!"
HT: Whitney Matheson
My friend Greg, a graphic designer in Seattle, Wash., recently talked about the challenges artists and designers face regarding purity. In a Q & A he discussed the potential compromises associated with his line of work, such as increased exposure to inappropriate images. Greg has had to make some tough choices. As Ted pointed out a while ago, some Christians may be called to positions that expose them to a higher volume of smut than the common Christian; they protect us on the front lines. But as a general rule, we should not excuse exposure to evil as "part of the job." Greg says: A couple years back I deliberated on taking a anatomy drawing course. In the end, I decided I wasn't personally strong enough spiritually to take the course and not be lusting all the time. While I don't know if I can go so far to say that it would be an outright sin for every artist, for me, it definitely would have been a very big stumbling block.
The line between art and porn can be fine. For some artists anything goes. But Greg points out that such glorification of the human form actually cheapens its true beauty. Sex can be a very, very beautiful thing — within the context of marriage — a definite artform. To promote porn as another part of the artistic world, for a Christian, is just a way to twist convictions and ease burning consciences. John 15:5 says, "Love the Lord your God with all your mind and all your heart and all your soul and all your strength." If we are keeping this in mind, rationalizing porn as art just isn’t going to cut it. As Christians — especially young Christian guys — it's important to love God more and more and fight for purity in our lives.
My wife and I have gone through various stages of response to Mormon missionaries over the years. The scene has repeated itself so much we've been able to adjust our responses based on the previous encounter like Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day. In ascending order they include:
- Not answering the door
- Answering the door with a polite "No. Thanks." to their Book of Mormon offer
- Engaging them after having studied Scripture verses that refute Mormon beliefs
- Questioning the life and prophecies of Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- Engaging them on all counts and ending with a warning that their souls are in danger
Be assured that the evolution of our responses didn't happen in a vacuum (save the first two). Along the way we read books about evangelizing to Mormons, consulted with pastors, mentors and friends, and prayed for wisdom. But in the end, no matter how many questions we raised about Smith or inconsistencies we brought up between Scripture and Mormon doctrine, they would inevitably speak of one's "burning in the bosom" as the supreme determination of truth and dismiss us, and our arguments, altogether.
We see the "burning in the bosom" catch-all as an impediment in our evangelistic engagements with Mormon missionaries. So whenever my wife or I hear of a new resource that might neutralize it, we become very attentive. Such was the case several weeks ago while listening to a Bible Answer Man broadcast on the documentary The Lost Book of Abraham: Investigating a Remarkable Mormon Claim by the Institute for Religious Research. Here's a portion of the panel description from the DVD:
In 1835 Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons), made a remarkable claim: he declared that an ancient Egyptian scroll he purchased from an antiquities dealer was a lost book of the biblical patriarch Abraham.... Joseph Smith claimed the ability to translate this scroll, and his translation, called the book of Abraham, is part of the Mormon scripture today....
The Lost Book of Abraham retells the story of Joseph's amazing discovery and investigates the veracity of his translation. This compelling documentary visits prominent Egyptologists and scholars -- both Mormon and non-Mormon -- in an attempt to uncover the truth about this fascinating episode in Mormon history.
[Spoiler Warning] The truth they uncover is that Joseph Smith made the whole thing up. However, don't let it stop you from buying this DVD and seeing for yourself the proof they present which Hank Hanegraff calls, "a deathblow to Mormonism." A deathblow? Maybe. But when the standard of truth is something as subjective as a "burning in the bosom" feeling, any dissent against the claims of Joseph Smith can be dismissed; regardless of fact.
For the past few years I've been following the disaster brought on by Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe, a man about as demented and evil as they come.
(OK, that might be a bit of hyperbole. I'd consider North Korea's Kim Jong-il, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be no less demented and evil than Mugabe.)
The latest news from this country that used to export food to neighboring countries: Thanks to Mugabe's cronyism and racist/anti-farmer policies, food is now so scarce that people are lucky if they're able to even find rats to eat.
Zimbabwe's ambassador to United States denies that eating rats is any indication that his nation's people are starving. "It is a delicacy," he said. "It is misleading to portray the eating of field mice as an act of desperation. It is not."
Reminds me of the quote misattributed to Marie Antoinette, who, when told of the peasants' not having any bread to eat supposedly said, "Let them eat cake." It's my understanding that things turned around shortly after her ... ahem ... being removed from office.
May the people of Zimbabwe soon find an answer to the problem leading their country into catastrophe, preferably one less violent than the cutting edge solution the people of France implemented against Antoinette in 1793.
It's no secret we at Boundless think premarital sex is unbiblical, sinful, bad for the soul and bad for relationships. Now there's a tell-all book that is so shocking in its clarity and conclusions that the author, a campus physician at an unnamed university, had to write it anonymously.
Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student is so "vivid and urgent" is her message (as one reviewer put it), it would be hard to believe were it not in print. Especially given the fact that this is not a Christian book per se, nor does the author claim a religious motivation for writing it. She's simply speaking from her experience in the campus clinic where she works; the clinic where she witnesses the relational shrapnel of a generation of women acting on the advice they've been given.
"Safe sex" practices notwithstanding, "the author meets patients who cannot sleep, who mutilate themselves, who exhibit every symptom of psychic distress. Often they don't even know why they feel the way the do. As these girls see it, they are acting like sensible, responsible adults," writes reviewer Danielle Crittenden for the Wall Street Journal's Bookshelf column.
Ironically, the author's patients fail to link all their suffering with their sexual habits. The connection is not lost on the author, however. She points to surveys that have found "sexually active teenage girls were more than three times as likely to be depressed, and nearly three times as likely to have had a suicide attempts, than girls who were not sexually active."
Her conclusion -- based on nothing more than the realities of the young women in her care -- premarital sex is bad for your health.
I'd like to think we believers don't need a reason for sexual purity other than that God told us sex is reserved for marriage. Sadly, statistical evidence shows unmarried Christians are as sexually active as their non-believing counterparts.
Maybe these stories will compel where conviction has failed.
In the right context sex is great; a divine gift. That's what Song of Solomon is all about. But out of context it's all wrong. And this book shows whether you acknowledge that context or not, the consequences -- and there are many -- are unavoidable.
I was listening to the radio yesterday and Michael Crawford's rendition of "O Holy Night" came on. As Crawford's voice caressed the beloved, old carol, I was struck by how powerfully, soul-wrenchingly Christian its lyrics were: Truly He taught us to love one another,
His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains he shall break, for the slave is our brother.
And in his name all oppression shall cease.
I was astounded that these words, sung with deep passion, were ringing out on a secular radio station. Hundreds of busy people were hearing them ...t hough probably not considering their full meaning (or they'd be offended). What chains will He break? What oppression will cease? Who is the slave?
And then: Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we,
With all our hearts we praise His holy name.
Christ is the Lord! Then ever, ever praise we,
His power and glory ever more proclaim!
I wondered: Why at Christmas can anyone passionately proclaim, "Christ is the Lord!" when it's considered cramming religion down people's throats any other time of year? What a window of opportunity this season is. People are open to the truth; their defenses are down. Why else would Satan cause this season to be the most hectic and commercial time of year? I suspect he's working overtime to undermine the natural receptivity to Christ that comes with the season.
Take advantage of this month where carols of truth are sung freely. Think deeply on words that have lost their impact but not their meaning. Consider how you might remind someone of the wonderful, life-giving truth this season embodies. His power and glory ever more proclaim!
I came across an interesting post at Blog and Mablog this morning, and had to mention it here.
The author explores reactions people have when they hear someone has begun a courtship. Here's an excerpt: Once there was a young woman who came home from church one day, and she had a question for her father. "Dad," she said, "you know how Cindy's father gave John permission to court her?"
"Yes," he said. "I heard about that one. Which was, in my mind, the first sign of trouble. Why would I know about that?"
"Well, I was standing with Cindy after church, and three of the older church ladies came up and effusively congratulated her. Cindy was really embarrassed, I could tell. But I couldn’t tell what was wrong with it -- they were all really sweet."
The author rightly goes on to criticize this kind of reaction, pointing out that courtship is not engagement, but merely an exploration of whether or not it's the Lord's will to become married. As he explains, "The people involved are deciding what they are going to do, but nobody has done anything yet."
I've personally seen people congratulated for beginning a courtship, and have been puzzled by that kind of reaction. It is encouraging to me to see people practice the intentionality inherent in courtship, and for that perhaps they should be congratulated. But a blanket congratulations, as though the couple had gotten engaged, is embarrassingly inappropriate.
The weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal has a piece in its travel section on the new Web sites connecting singles traveling on planes, trains and automobiles. Well, maybe not trains. AirTroductions, Hitchsters and Tripmates are just a few featured in the article. In an age of online dating, where seasoned daters often judge a potential mate based on a scan of a Web profile or an email message, some singles are trying a more old-fashioned approach, immortalized in films like "When Harry Met Sally" and "It Happened One Night": bonding through travel.
Profiles, however, are still a part of the equation. On AirTroductions, registered travelers post their profiles and look for others with similar itineraries. Membership is free but it costs $5 to send a message to someone going your way. The problem seems to be that it's hard to find someone going your way.
Out of its 18,000 members, AirTroductions has made only 2,500 en route matches since the site began last year. There's no stats yet on how many of those actually led to something serious. And unlike online dating, there's no Christian specific social travel sites -- at least, not yet. Even if there were, I would imagine there would be even fewer en route matches for single Christians pursuing to be equally yoked. For that, they may do better with a Christian singles mixer.
That's the title of a distressing article that appeared in the London-based Daily Mail a couple of days ago.
The article paints a dreary portrait of the city most-known for having been the birthplace of Jesus, a city that's had its Christmas carol charm displaced by an alarming growth in violent Islamic fundamentalism. In 2004, for example, half the Israeli fatalities caused by suicide bombings were committed by extremists from the little town of Bethlehem.
The city, which was once 85 percent Christian is now only 12 percent so. And as the anti-Christian persecution and discrimination continues, that number is destined to diminish further.
The owner of one of the city's hotels, for example, wants to leave, but is unable to find anyone interested in buying his hotel. "There is no hope for the future of the Christian community," he said. "We don't think things are going to get better. For us, it is finished."
Contributing to the city's decline is a downturn in its economy. A few years ago they had over 90,000 visitors per month. Now they have only about 1,500 per month -- that's a mere 50 tourists per day to the city of Jesus' birth. It should be no surprise that there's 65 percent unemployment.
Jesus shed His first tear in Bethlehem, a city that is a fitting symbol of the state of all humanity. May we reflect this holiday season on the wonder of His being incarnated into this dreary place. May we take heart that a holy God would demonstrate His love by coming into a depraved world in order to save us -- that love made all the more vivid when contrasted with the place where He drew His first breath.
I should add that Bethlehem is also the place where the baby Jesus likely let out His first giggle, a joyful pronouncement of life and hope.
"Hi. My name's Suzanne and I had a lousy Christmas."
It was December 28, and I felt like I needed to join a holiday recovery support group. As I hoisted my suitcase into a friend's trunk, I breathed a sigh of relief to be back on my own turf. With visions of "the great Christmas blow-up" dancing in my head — and trust me, three sisters in tears is not a pretty sight — I collapsed into the front seat.
I soon learned I wasn't alone in my post-holiday depression. Out poured my friend's own tale of holiday woe. And in the weeks that followed, I learned that nearly everyone I knew had experienced holiday unpleasantness in some form — the critical mother, the bad gifts, the boredom, the arguments. We had all gone home looking forward to warm family times and returned in need of therapy.
These words from "Making it a Merry Christmas," appeared in Boundless last Christmas. After reading the article, some of my friends asked, "Were you at my house last year?!" Returning home for Christmas as an adult can be a challenge. But if you make resolutions to put others first, keep your Spiritual life on track and plan ahead, Christmas with the family can be a joyous experience. Last Christmas I took my own advice, and I'm happy to report it made my holiday 10 times merrier. I hope you will remember God's great blessings this Christmas season and extend them to others. Perspective is everything. I won't always have my family. God has put them in my life for a time. No matter what challenges fill this Christmas season, I want to remember that spending it with my family is a gift. And it's up to me to use that gift wisely.
According to this Fox News article, the average American spends 9 weeks of each year watching TV. That statistic is slightly lower for younger generations, who rely on the Internet for entertainment. But, get this. Americans spend more time consuming media than anything else except breathing.
I'm not surprised by this report, but in light of our recent discussions on the impact media has on our core beliefs, I think it's a good time to consider how we might counteract the false messages pervading media.
In "Like to Watch," Josh Harris writes: The greatest danger of the popular media is not a one-time exposure to a particular instance of sin (as serious as that can be). It's how long-term exposure to worldliness — little chunks of poison pill, day after day, week after week — can deaden our hearts to the ugliness of sin. What God calls the lust of the eyes and the sinful cravings of the heart are typically portrayed by the popular media as natural and harmless. The eventual effect of all those bits of poison pill is to deaden the conscience by trivializing the very things that God's Word calls the enemies of our souls.
I am aware of the way TV makes little sins seem OK and even impacts my values. I am reminded of Colossians 2:8, which says, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." TV may seem harmless enough, but it's not. It wields great power. It deceptively promises happiness through actions that will never satisfy.
 If you think the controversy surrounding gaming only involves the sex, graphic violence and language, you might want to check out Olivia and Kurt Bruner's book Playstation Nation about the effect it has on your brain. Here's an excerpt from their website VideoGameTrouble.org explaining how addictive gaming can be:
One of the key reasons video games are addictive is the physiological effect. A study in London found playing games [doubles dopamine production] in the brain. The increase of the psychoactive chemical was roughly the same as when a person is injected with amphetamines.
The Bruners began researching the effects of gaming after they noticed that their son began asking again and again and again to play. What they found is that, like with drugs, gaming can become a physiologically based addiction. When they finally took it away from their son, he actually had cravings and experienced withdrawals for six months. And you shouldn't think he's the exception. It is estimated that as much as 40 percent of young boys who play video games will become addicts.
If you or someone you know has been gaming for awhile, the Bruners have risk assessment questions you may want to consider to see if there is a problem. Truth be told, I skipped a class or two in college to finish a video game when you still needed a cartridge to play. I probably would have flunked out if tempted by today's Playstation 3 instead of the Nintendo Entertainment System.
Can I just say that I really appreciated Gary Thomas' latest article, published on Boundless today? The article, "Sexual Compassion," hits on much more than sexual temptation. It talks a lot about how Christians need to approach issues (like sexuality) from a perspective that tries to understand the entire issue. We are not to be wishy-washy about sin, but at the same time, we are to show love and compassion for people. Jesus, of course, showed us how to perfectly balance these two things. Thomas explains how we see both sides in Jesus' exchange with the woman caught in adultery, and then goes on to show how we Christians often pick one side or the other: Some people want to say, "I won't condemn you. I'm only supposed to love, not judge," which they define as excusing anything and everything. That is a false, one-sided approach. We are not allowed to stop there, if we want to respond as Jesus responded.
Others only judge. They fail to demonstrate empathy, instead almost callously applying God's hard truth, without any undertones of love or compassion. This, too, is less than Jesus.
Our challenge, our struggle, our call is to uphold God's high standards while still demonstrating Jesus' compassion and empathy.
Anyway, you should definitely go check it out.
(Oh, and just a quick shout-out to my Web site, TrueU.org. This week, J.P. Moreland talks about just war theory, a topic that I think could generate a lot of discussion. You may want to check it out!)
I first heard about the "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" video game a couple of months ago. One of my sister's friends, whose family runs a blanket ministry in downtown Portland, Ore., was all fired up because he said the game depicted Christians killing people on New York streets.
CNN reports that the teen-rated PC strategy game — based on the popular book series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins — is meeting with more criticism as the holidays approach. And with good reason. Players are charged with recruiting, and converting, an army that will engage in physical and spiritual warfare with the antichrist and his evil followers.
The critics describe it as "a violent video game in which born-again Christians aim to convert or kill those who don't adhere to their extreme ideology."
"After you kill somebody you need to recharge your soul points and to do that you need to bend down in prayer. ... I think the message is extremely clear," said Clark Stevens, co-director of Campaign to Defend the Constitution.
When I first heard about this game, I doubted the truth of the report. A video game where Christians kill people who won't convert to Christianity? Crazy. I can hardly imagine something worse than a Christian product that promotes faith-based violence. Troy Lyndon, CEO of Left Behind Games Inc., defends the product, saying, "There is killing of course, it is a video game. But the basis of the game is spiritual welfare."
The world of violent video gaming is muddled enough without mixing in religious motivation. The streets may not be safe these days. But Christians should not be the threat; they should be the hope.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." —Matthew 5:9
HT: The Point
Carolyn McCulley's new Boundless article makes a great point about how marriage -- and the influence of a loving, supportive, respectful wife -- has a positive effect on men. And that's something single women often forget. I'm sure I was guilty of what she describes as "hav[ing] a mental picture [of your future husband] based on the qualities you appreciate in these [married] men" you look up to. Whether it's your "your father, pastor, boss, family friend, uncle, small group leader" or another godly role model, if they're married, they have the benefit of a special influence.
She's right. I know from my own relationship with Steve that he's a much different man than the one I married nearly 10 years ago. He's more spiritually mature, more seasoned, even more handsome.
But that's where I'd add an addendum: so am I!
Let's not forget, as we look at the single men we know with "eyes of faith," that we women have a lot of growing to do too. Just as God uses marriage to mature the character of men, He uses it to redeem the nature of women.
I'd dare say I'm less harsh, more refined and even prettier thanks to all the love, support and encouragement Steve's poured into my life since we said "I do."
In addition to looking at the single men you know for what they can become, don't forget that you're on the same path. All the more reason to journey together as man and wife.
Tim Challies stirred up some conversation a couple of days ago when he began a defense of his decision to have his children "educated through the public school system." In response, I began a similar series entitled "Why I Will Homeschool," in which I argue that the philosophy behind the systems and methodologies should be front and center when we make such an important decision for our children.
Tim has since published the second of his series, in which he provides his top two reasons:
For Missions
To Avoid Worldliness I think one of the main reasons there is so much heated discussion is because of the way Tim framed his argument: Instead of merely stating why he is delegating primary responsibility of his children's education to the state, he instead begins by saying that he is specifically not homeschooling them. In other words, the title of his series implies that he is not sending his children to public schools because they are superior to other educational contexts, but he has chosen not to homeschool his children because of inherent flaws in that system.
Regardless of the incendiary title, the thing that concerns me about his position is that his motivation is not to educate his children in the traditional sense -- he doesn't mention teachers or philosophy or methodology or curriculum -- but to send them into an environment hostile to the Christian faith with the hope that they will be salt and light, and toughen them up against the allure of worldliness.
Perhaps it all boils down to our thoughts about the proper role of an educational system. I believe an educational system should give children the tools to think critically and the information on which to act with those tools, all within a worldview grounded in truth and love, the motivation being to better understand God and His creation, with the ultimate goal being to engage the Lord and humanity in ways that best honor the Lord and make the best use of the talents He's given us. OK, that was a pretty long and awkward sentence. Sorry about that.
On the other hand, I don't think teaching our children truth should take a back seat to requiring that they be young missionaries sent into a hostile environment, hoping that (like a vaccine helps us develop an immunity to the flu) they're able to build up a resistance to worldliness.
I'm all for missions; I spent about a year in the jungles of Mexico doing what some might label "missions work." I want my kids to have the same heart for reaching out to the unsaved, whether in the States or another country, and I'll encourage those opportunities. I also struggle to grow in discernment and try to be on guard against the creep of worldliness into my heart. My wife and I'll impress that on our kids as well, through "teachable moments" and the more formal homeschooling process. I think there are better ways for our kids to engage others with the gospel and build up their anti-worldliness muscles than immersing them in a system built on a foundation that says God is irrelevant.
I'm not wholesale against tax-funded schools. I spend 12 years in the public school system, and had some wonderful teachers and wonderful experiences. My sister teaches in the public school system, and has been a blessing to her students. What I'm saying is that we need to think long and hard about the development of those over whom the Lord has given us responsibility -- our children -- and how we can best bring them up in the knowledge of the Lord and His creation. Some choose homeschooling; others choose private or public schooling to accomplish that end. Homeschoolers need to not be so quick to condemn those who've chosen to delegate that responsibility to others, and non-homeschoolers need to stop ridiculing those who choose the counter-cultural route of managing that education themselves at home.
In the end, as I've mentioned, parents have been given the authority to direct the education of their children. I have no reason to doubt that Tim and his wife, though they've delegated that authority to others, are wonderful parents and will nevertheless be closely involved in their kids' education. I just wish he wouldn't have felt the need to diminish those who choose to homeschool in the process, and would have made more clear what he sees as the purpose of education and how his decision will help his kids achieve that end.
About a year ago, some singles in Colorado had an aha! moment while watching ABC's reality show How to Get the Guy where four women combed the city of San Francisco for eligible bachelors until they found their mate. "If all you have to do is search an entire city to find your spouse, we can do that!" And from this sprang the Rocky Mountain Christian Singles Mixer. Here's a description of the event from their website: [This mixer's not] a lame, church-basement, bring-a-bag-of-chips mixer, but a bona fide, classy, publicized, large-scale mixer. ... [W]e're going to combine elements of speed dating and guided communication with a mixer vibe and an all-out party atmosphere. The goal is to get each attendee in front of about 50 members of the opposite sex within one evening. And not just any member of the opposite sex. We're talking about men and women who are successful, stable, fun, interesting and directional. You show up, and we'll do the rest.
Here's how it will work. There will be 16 tables with groups of three women and three men hosted by a facilitator couple. Each group of six will have eight minutes to converse about themselves, ask questions, or do whatever in order to get a quick first impression. When the eight minutes are up, the men will go the next table until everyone has met. Afterward, there will be time to mingle and talk more with the people who caught your interest.
And if you're asking how they can promise that you'll meet singles who are "successful" and "directional," you actually have to qualify to attend. Interested singles have to fill out an application which will be reviewed by the event organizers "to make this the best possible experience for everyone and ensure that the conditions are ideal for making some quality connections."
Their promotional material has "Mingle. Meet. Marry." I asked one of the event organizers about including "marry" and she responded, "We wanted to convey a sense of intentionality with our messaging." Imagine. An event where female and male interaction is for the purpose of finding a spouse. How biblical. If all dating were that intentional, there probably wouldn't be a need for a Rocky Mountain Christian Singles Mixer. But since there is, at least there won't be any dating games, just the fun.
I'm sure you've all been waiting with fevered anticipation, so here's my contribution to the homeschool debate. First, a little bit about my educational background:
- 1st-8th grade: Homeschooled by my parents.
- 9th-12th grade: Attended public high school in the inner city of Minneapolis.
- Freshman year-Senior year in college: Attended a very expensive, private Catholic university.
- Fall after graduation from college: Attended the Focus on the Family Institute.
As you can see, I've experienced the gamut when it comes to education, so this topic is quite interesting to me.
I loved being homeschooled. My parents only planned to homeschool me through 3rd grade in order to give me a good foundation, but we ended up doing it a lot longer than expected. I enjoyed spending time learning with my family, and I liked the freedom that homeschooling allowed (both academically and with schedules).
I also enjoyed public school. I wasn't sure what to think of it at first, but now that I look back, I really appreciated the variety of classes, the sports teams and the friends I made. I was definitely challenged by "the world" while attending public school, but I consider that to be a good thing. I had to put into practice what I said I believed, and I often had the opportunity to share my faith with my friends. Another plus to public schooling was the college scholarship opportunities that became available to me.
On to college -- even though I didn't always agree with everything I was taught in college, it was an amazing experience. I was often challenged by professors who didn't think the same way I did, which caused me to figure out why I thought about things a certain way.
The Institute -- what can I say? It was amazing. I was given a solid foundation for understanding and defending my beliefs.
All of this to say that I believe every part of my education was useful and beneficial. I'm glad for all of the experiences I had, and I wouldn't change them.
I think you can find biblical evidence for both sides of the homeschool/public school debate. In Bible times, Jewish children actually attended school at their local synagogue. It's true that parents were to teach their children (Deuteronomy 6:4-9), but students were also sent out of the home to learn from a rabbi. Most of this learning was related to the Scripture -- math was learned in relation to the 12 tribes of Israel, the two tablets of Moses, and the five books of the Torah -- no separation of church and state in the Hebrew "public schools."
I agree with Ted that all education is infused with some type of worldview. When I have children, I want them to first understand the Christian worldview. However, I do not want to shelter them (at least for too long) from the world. I saw this sheltering happen with a lot of my homeschool friends -- they were afraid to engage in the culture, afraid of what might happen if they were exposed to ideas that were not Christian. I think this mentality (when taken too far) is hurtful to the Great Commission. Now I don't think a 6-year-old necessarily needs to be out witnessing. However, I do think a junior higher or high schooler can be capable of being a strong Christlike example in his or her school.
I guess my point is that all types of schooling can be great. Homeschooling, one-room schoolhouses, public schools, private schools, charter schools, and so on. I think certain children respond better to different types of schooling. I believe that parents are responsible for their children's education, and I plan to be highly involved with my children once I have them. (I haven't yet decided if I'll homeschool or not. I probably will for at least awhile.)
Anyway, I think it is important for parents to provide a strong foundation for their children, but I hope that they don't keep their children from experiencing or even being challenged by things that we don't always agree with. If we are always "prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15, NIV), but never engage the culture, what good is it?
According to an article in the L.A. Times this week, the government is concerned about the effect television is having on people's attitudes toward starting families. The article reads: Faced with a tumbling birthrate and women souring on the idea of marriage and family, the ... government is reaching out to a small group of people believed to have the power to avert a demographic catastrophe: prime-time drama writers.
Last month, the Planned Population Federation ... held a two-day seminar for writers of TV soaps and dramas and urged them to create more situations that show happy mothers with their children. The aim is to counter an anti-baby mood that is leading [the country] down the path to being, well, a smaller country.
OK, I edited this a little. In the real story, the places I have ellipses actually had the words, "South Korea." I couldn't even begin to imagine the U.S. government encouraging television writers to produce stories that put forming families into a more positive light. The howls of censorship and control would be deafening.
What's probably most interesting about the article is the admission that the Planned Population Federation knew to go after Prime-time dramas because they had already gone to them in the 1960's and asked writers to feature households with fewer children in order to reduce what at that time was a high birthrate. Go figure.
I wonder how people feel in countries where their attitudes against having children are now creating dire circumstances and their own governments are resorting to television lobbying and even cash incentives. It's my sense that people in such countries won't be so easily manipulated into the hard work and sacrifice of parenting. What they need more than media and financial manipulation is vision.
Christmastime is typically a good time to pick up books I've been longing to read. Typically a family member gets wind of what I'm hoping to read and puts a copy under the tree. Thankfully, this year, the publisher got a jump on things and sent a review copy of Kay Hymowitz's Marriage and Caste in America. Now it's staring at me from the coffee table, just begging to be read. And to sweeten the deal, Wednesday's Wall Street Journal reviewed the book, teasing me with these nuggets: For Ms. Hymowitz, the two Americas do not divide between the poor who are supposedly in need of government assistance and the rest of us. The division is best defined in another way: between those who see marriage as an indispensable condition of child-rearing and those who don't. ... The Marriage Gap, as Ms. Hymowitz calls it, appears likely to have a more profound effect on the future of both Americas than the gender gap so lamented by the feminists.
And this: ...marriage is again flourishing among well-educated women. Today's educated mothers may work outside the home or not, but they and their husbands are committed to what Ms. Hymowitz calls The Mission -- the project of shaping their children into adults (and citizens) who have the requisite skills and self-discipline to prosper in a complex, post-industrialist society.
Why does this matter? According to Ms. Hymowitz -- and this is the scariest part of the book -- most social analysts ignore the root of the problem and therefore end up prescribing "solutions" that actually "smooth the way" for single parenthood.
It's not going to be a fun read, the way a novel is, but I believe this book is important. And I know from my own life experience that if I actually find the time to read it, I'll owe a big thank you to the man who sacrificially shares in the parenting in our home. The husband with whom I share The Mission.
First, I need to say that while Focus on the Family strongly supports those who homeschool their children, we also recognize that there are many good parents who send their kids to government-funded schools and private schools as well. You are not necessarily in the wrong to delegate the responsibility of educating your children to the state.
That said, I think it's important to re-frame this discussion that Tim Challies began recently. I'm not able to comment directly on anything he's said, since he's not actually begun an actual defense of "Why I Do Not Homeschool." His article thus far is merely a rambling introduction with some subtle anti-homeschooling remarks.
When I was studying to earn my master's degree in education, the courses that most affected me had to do with the philosophy of education. While grappling with the issues brought up over the course of three years of grad school, I came to see that Scripture clearly lays the responsibility of children's education at the feet of their parents. Parents are free to delegate that responsibility to others -- be they Christians or non-Christians -- but in the end it's the parents' responsibility to educate their children, not primarily the government's.
The question then is this: If you have chosen not to educate your children yourself, who should be granted this responsibility? Those who strive to honor the Lord or those who couldn't care less?
And this gets to the foundation, the philosophy, of education.
All education is conducted within a worldview. The Christian worldview says that God is relevant, that He created "all this" for a purpose, that discovering His handiwork through science and biology and language and mathematics honors Him. The worldview that is at the foundation of "public schools" is one that says that God is irrelevant, that there is no higher meaning behind history and science that ties everything together, that there is ultimately no meaning beyond ourselves. The agnostic (some would say "atheistic") philosophies of Dewey and Darwin drive what we see in today's government-sponsored schools.
I think it's crucial that our children learn how to think, and what to think about, within the context of an educational system that acknowledges the Creator. What better way to study the inner workings of a frog or the interactions of gravitational forces or the intricacies of tone and rhythm in music than in light of a good Creator who conceived these things for His glory and our enjoyment?
Better understanding the character and works of God is our motivation for learning. Within the context of an educational system that excludes God, the motivation for learning diminishes or becomes misplaced.
I look forward to seeing how Tim Challies continues his defense of his decision to delegate his responsibility to educate his children to the state. There may be good reasons. But I'll be watching closely to see that he not merely present surface level dismissals of homeschooling and shallow reasons for having his kids educated within a system that considers the Lord irrelevant.
In the meantime, please consider downloading and reading my personal philosophy of education.
The season finale of the CBS reality show The Amazing Race 10 was aired this past Sunday. I note it because, as Steve blogged earlier this year, one of the contestants, Dustin Konselman, is a Focus on the Family Institute grad from 2003. She and her teammate, Kandice Pelletier, were known on the show as the "Beauty Queens" or "The Blonds."
I can't remember Dustin referencing her Christianity nor was she labeled a Christian by CBS or the other contestants. But knowing of Dustin's confessed faith, I was interested to see how she treated the other teams and responded to intense circumstances. For the most part, she represented herself very well. This was refreshing since in past seasons, Race "Christians" were simply awful, slandering the other teams and even praying that bad things would happen to them.
As Race fans know, the blonds came in fourth, unable to overcome a "marked for elimination" penalty to make it to the final three. What Race fans may not know is that Dustin is now married and works for CBS. Well done Dustin.
In "Why I Do Not Homeschool (Part 1)," blogger Tim Challes tackles a controversial subject — how a believer should educate one's children. The touchiness of the subject is evidenced by the 70 comments the post has already accrued — five of those coming in during the minutes I spent reading the post. As a former homeschooler (who enjoyed the experience), I am keenly interested in this series. Tim claims that what parents choose in this matter reveals their ideology. My beliefs about the world and the culture and the relationship of Christians to them is a large part of what motivates me to send my children to public schools. Just as ideology is what motivates some Christians to homeschool, ideology motivates me to have my children in the public school system. I am convicted that my children ought to be in public schools.
I have discovered there are many different kinds of home school families. I always understood that my parents had made this choice because they believed they could offer their children a better education. (My mom was a high school English teacher and my dad is an accountant, which gave them obvious advantages.) Although my parents took advantage of having more time with us to instill spiritual truth, they also felt it was important for us to interact with the world. My brother played sports at the public school, my sisters and I participated in community theater and all of us took jobs in the secular workplace as high schoolers.
Challes writes, "Homeschooling parents are easily offended (See? I offended you just by saying that!)." He explains that this is because homeschoolers have grown weary of having to explain their choice of education. But I like the direction Challes is going. Parents need to follow their own convictions on educating their children and exercise great humility when judging those who have made a different choice. I would hate for homeschoolers to gain a reputation for arrogance. Instead, all Christian parents should be supporting one another in the shared goal of raising godly children.
HT: Justin Taylor
As some of you know, regular Boundless contributor Thabiti Anyabwile is a convert to Christianity from Islam. He was interviewed by Matt Schmucker of 9 Marks recently about the beliefs and history of Islam, his experiences as a Muslim, the contradictions in the Koran, and effective ways to share the gospel with Muslims.
If this is something you're interested in, I encourage you to listen to his talk, entitled The Gospel and Islam.
HT: The Christian Mind and Greg Linscott.
Several weeks ago, I had a disagreement with a close friend with whom I was organizing an event. The crux of the disagreement — spontaneity versus preparedness — struck on some core differences between us. The conflict escalated into a heated argument in front of some other friends. After our meeting was over, I offered a quick apology for my reaction and my friend offered to stay and talk.
It seemed to me that the more we talked, the more uncomfortable things became. It was clear we were not going to agree on this issue, which I considered very important. I also felt justified in my position. In my hurt and frustration, the first thought that flashed across my brain was, I'm SO glad I'm not married to this person! My second thought: Oh, no! Maybe this is what marriage is like!
My friend and I managed to reconcile. We agreed to not let our conflict go public in the future and instead to deal with it privately. We affirmed that we valued one another. We agreed to each work on weaknesses in our lives that might lessen the tension. Still, the resolution wasn't completely satisfying because we didn't share the same opinion. We had to agree that sometimes his desires would win out and other times mine would.
I talked to a married friend about this situation, and she confirmed that these moments do indeed happen in marriage. As a single person, I encounter them rarely. Carolyn McCulley offers a good explanation of this. She writes: As singles, it's easy for us to simply avoid each other or run away when the conflict is not easily resolved. I think that's the revelation of marriage: I can't run away any longer. I am in a covenant relationship with my spouse and I must deal with this conflict to make this marriage work. But we should have the same mindset as singles. There are important relationships in our lives, too: family members, church members, long-time friends, pastors, bosses, etc. We should be sowing toward faithfulness, charitable judgments (or thinking the best about others), humility, and perseverance in those relationships, too.
I am thankful that my friend offered to stay and talk with me instead of avoiding the conflict. Even though we didn't entirely agree on the issue at hand, we did agree that our relationship was important enough to work things out. Such a response, though uncomfortable, establishes godly habits that will extend to many relationships now and in the future.
 "Best and happiest of all, the time before him was his own, to make amends in."
This sentence is from the last chapter of A Christmas Carol. Ebeneezer Scrooge's realization that it's not too late to make good on Christmas is a reminder I always need around this time of year. By mid-December I typically notice that the stress and busyness of the Christmas season (that seems to start earlier and earlier every year) are already crowding out the things that are supposed to make Christmas joyful.
That's when I need most a second wind to get re-focused and to be intentional about how I go into this time of celebration. If you're in a similar place, one article that may help is a piece Candice wrote a few years back called "Adding Meaning to the Holidays." A highlight of the article is a quote from a pastor who observes, "We have a deep longing to release the inner coil we tend to keep wound so tight." We not only want to celebrate, many of us need to.
How do you stay focused on the joys of Christmas?
For whatever reason I found myself egosurfing last night and stumbled across a few posts to a listserv that I had written over a dozen years ago.
Remarkable that some of the things I wrote so long ago -- when Mosaic and Gopher and Pine were cutting edge technology -- are still archived somewhere on the Web.
I wonder what kind of early Web memories Boundless Line readers might have, and what they think about the longevity of the virtual paper trail we leave behind us....
 Mel Gibson's Apocalypto was number one at the box office this weekend. I was curious to see how it would do after reading several reviews in which the critics seemed to want it to fail. The ones I read panned the movie for no other reason than its graphic violence. That's fair enough, but I think the violence merely presented a convenient excuse for them not to like the movie. I think they just don't like Mel.
It appears that left leaning journalists may have the same problem of distraction as Ted when watching movies made by people whose actions have offended them. Consider this portion of Dana Steven's review on Slate.com: "For a good hour, I tried to pretend that I had never heard of Mel Gibson: the maker of fanatical blockbusters, the spewer of hateful rants." At least she's honest about her affected, unfavorable review. Most just practice a double standard by ignoring some movie violence, lauding others and only criticizing Mel.
One example is found when comparing reviews of two graphically violent movies in USA Today. While calling Blood Diamond's violence "organic and necessary," their take on Apocalypto ascribes less-than-noble motivations to Mel's use of it: "Along the way, there's a litany of barbaric acts, filmed to their fullest shock potential. How can Gibson disgust us?" The reviewer then counts the ways. And to justify their one and half star rating despite its early box office success, they make sure we know it was just "the curiosity factor." Time will tell.
Who knows. Maybe Apocalypto's reported carnage really is more gratuitous than Blood Diamond or Saw III. And maybe its scenes of graphic deaths are more disturbing than the real deaths in The Bridge, a documentary showing actual people committing suicide by jumping from San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge. I have my doubts. I suspect that what separates Mel's violence from the rest is that they never forgave him for a previous violent film, The Passion of the Christ.
Did you know that NBA players are suffering from lacerations caused by "killer" basketballs?! It's true.
Newsweek reports that the new basketball instituted in the NBA this season gives the players cuts. Steve Nash (point guard for the Phoenix Suns) even had to wear bandages on his hand the other day because of the gashes the basketballs have been giving him. Apparently this new ball retains things from the floor, which causes friction for the ball handlers:
Somehow, the new ball really is drawing blood. "There's lots of little particles from the composite materials, plus they retain dirt and stuff they pick up, Cuban wrote in an e-mail to NEWSWEEK. "You should see the hands of the coaches who work with the players. They are far, far worse." Bear in mind, NBA players are guys whose hands are surely calloused from years spent dribbling and shooting a basketball for hours a day. It raises the question -- and here's a line this reporter never thought he'd type -- just how sharp can a round ball possibly be? Evidently, quite. This season, at an NBA arena near you: the attack of the killer basketball!
Whew! At least I now have an excuse for the Minnesota Timberwolves this season. It's not their fault -- it's the basketball!
Imagine a Web site that tells you how to make your cancer grow or gives you tips for worsening your symptoms. It's an absurd thought. But according to Newsweek, something similar is taking place in the growing number of pro-eating-disorder Web sites. Many experts find the pro-eating-disorder sites appalling. "It's one of the few times in history that someone has come out and said that a very dangerous illness is a good idea, and here's how to do it," says Christopher Athas, vice president of the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders. "They talk about First Amendment rights. But this is like shouting fire ... These people with these sites claim that they are representing a lifestyle, but they are representing a dangerous illness." Researchers have demonstrated that eating disorders can lead to anxiety, depression, alcoholism, substance abuse, self-mutilation and suicide.
This is just one example of how society (though a subset in this case) is giving something destructive the stamp of approval. The attack on motherhood and the homosexual agenda are others. The people who run these pro-eating-disorder Web sites claim that they provide community for those who are suffering and dealing with issues beyond their control.
The thing that stands out to me about these Web sites — besides the absurdity of their existence — is how deceptive they are. To those mired in eating disorders, the Web site may feel like a solution — a place that understands and supports them. But the "answers" the sites are providing ultimately lead to death. Proverbs 14:12 warns: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."
A study cited in the article confirms that people who visit these Web sites have less of a chance for recovery than those who don't. The pro-eating-disorder sites feed into anorexics' competitive nature, says eating-disorder specialist Dr. David S. Rosen, a professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at the University of Michigan. "They're constantly trying to be the sickest, the thinnest, the most unhealthy. If you go to a Web site where people are describing their eating habits, their vomiting practices, if you're in the throes of a serious eating disorder, no matter how that information was intended when it was put out there, it may be a challenge to eat less, to take more diet pills, to weight less. That's where the harm is."
Validating sin by surrounding ourselves with people who struggle with the same issues may make us feel better about ourselves, but such action will destroy us in the end. A friend of mine is a recovering anorexic. When she began her recovery, she understood the importance of seeking accountability from those who were not struggling with this same issue. This way she would not fall prey to a faulty perspective. We need to seek out those who call sin, sin. It won't make us feel as good, but it will lead to life.
A recent article on Time.com talks about a current debate in congress about fetal pain. Apparently, if passed, the Federal Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would require doctors to make patients aware of the possibility of pain the fetus may feel during an abortion: Their bill would require abortion providers to tell patients that by 20 weeks after fertilization a fetus can feel pain, and to ask if she would like anesthesia for the baby. If she refuses, she would have to sign a waiver. Doctors who fail to follow the rules could face fines up to $250,000. "There is substantial evidence that by this point, unborn children draw away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain," the text of the bill states. "Congress finds that there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain, even though you receive a pain-reducing drug or drugs."
According to the article, about 77 percent of the public support the idea of informing abortion-minded women about fetal pain. There are still arguments about exactly when an unborn child can feel pain -- some people say it is a month or more after 20 weeks. Either way, this bill has caused some interesting discussion. Many pro-choice people don't like the bill because (in my opinion), it provides more information about the details of this murderous procedure. But, apparently, some pro-life people aren't all that thrilled about the bill either: While the National Organization for Women denounced "this deceptive bill [that] will put women's health at risk and add one more barrier to abortion access," even some abortion foes questioned this particular strategy. Douglas R. Scott, president of Life Decisions International, worried that the offer of anesthesia might make women more likely to go through with an abortion. "The mother can believe she is making a benevolent choice, even as she simultaneously participates in a heinous act," he wrote on Christian Newswire. "I can hear it now. 'At least the fetus didn't feel pain...'"
What do you all think? Would a bill like this just help excuse abortions? Or, if abortion is going to stay legal for now, is it better to provide comfort for the unborn?
Suzanne has a great piece this week on Boundless questioning the Townsend and Cloud phenomena on boundaries. Here's an excerpt: "Boundaries for Early Christians" would not have been a bestseller. In fact, the early church seems to have had some significant boundary issues. Acts describes people living in community, sharing all they had, selling their stuff to give to the poor. Believers today find this concept very uncomfortable. We cherish independence and privacy. We worry about being taken advantage of or losing something we deserve. We fear being manipulated or abused by another person.
I love it. It reminds me of something an assistant pastor said during a class on tithing years ago, "keep only what you need, give everything else away." The one word I would add to that statement is "sacrificially." Too often, we take too many liberties with the word "need." I think giving our time and money should hurt a little.
Albert Mohler's Thursday post pointed to a debate on beliefnet.com between two warring worldviews. He defends a woman's right to choose to stay home with her children -- leaving the workforce for a season, or indefinitely, if she so desires. At odds is philosopher and author Linda Hirshman who says any woman who does that is doing something "destructive and dangerous." They are "letting down the team."
She finds mothering beneath most women. According to Mohler, "She even compared mothers to the 'untouchables' of India -- a caste consigned to sweep bodily wastes and care for the bodily needs of others."
What emboldened her to make such sweeping judgments? "I applied those standards [for 'the good life'] to the decision to stay home and tend children and the household, and I found that they were, in fact, lacking," Hirshman says. "These women are not using their full human capacity. They are not independent, and they are not doing more social good than harm."
Hirshman told Good Morning America, "I am saying an educated, competent adult's place is in the office."
And she's not content to merely voice her own disapproval. When it comes to a woman choosing to stay home, Hirshman thinks her decision shouldn't be left to her alone. It should be open to community scrutiny. I wonder if she feels differently about a woman's privacy and right to choose when it comes to abortion.
The woman interviewing Hirshman says, "You reject, even ridicule, the pushback from the opt-out moms who tell you and others that it's their own business."
"They're engaging in wishful thinking, number one," Hirshman replies. "And then, they protect themselves from any evaluation of their insubstantial thinking by saying 'It's my own d----- business.' It cannot be reviewed by anyone else, so that they're like someone who thinks he's Napoleon."
It appears she believes only she is capable of deciding what's moral. In her view, there is no objective standard beyond what she decides is right. And not only for herself, but for all of society.
She belittles both religious believers and relativists, claiming the moral high ground. Such is a thin veneer for what she really believes. She is at heart, a totalitarian. In her view, people who disagree with her are fundamentally incapable of thinking for themselves and therefore need to be told what to believe and what to do -- by her.
Hers is a frightening anti-natalist view of a future where children are pushed to the edges, doomed to grow up under the care of the uneducated and incompetent. But it's not just infants who require such care. God forbid she ends up a senile old woman in a nursing home. If her vision for what's moral were followed, by then there would likely be no servant-minded young nurses to care for her and wipe her soiled bottom.
But then she likely supports killing the aged and infirm to boot.
God save us from such philosophy.
Hollywood's recent spotlight on major Biblical stories has been operating in reverse. First out of the gate was Left Behind based on the end of the world. Next came The Passion based on Christ's crucifixion. The latest release was The Nativity Story backing up to Christ's birth.
This morning I found out that the next major movie planned goes all the way back to the fall. Paradise Lost, scheduled for 2007 is based on John Milton's story of the fall of Lucifer and subsequent fall of humans.
Maybe some of the churches who have been using these movies as teaching opportunities will consider hosting movie marathons that show the stories chronologically to demonstrate the power of the full version of the greatest story ever told.
My Bible study has been going through the book, The Promised Power by Roc Bottomly. I love it. I am possibly a bit biased since I work with Roc at the Focus on the Family Institute. But, honestly, it's a good book. You should check it out.
Roc's purpose in writing the book was to share his story of discovering the Holy Spirit. He was pretty conservative (even lifting his hands during worship made him a bit uncomfortable), and it wasn't until he began meeting "Spirit people" that he began to be open to a part of the Trinity that he had been ignoring.
What I like about Roc's take is that he is very emphatic that we look at the working of the Holy Spirit through what we learn about Him in the Bible. Roc is grounded in the Scripture, and what I discovered is that when we closely read about the Holy Spirit, it's amazing what He can and does do.
I have always been skeptical of things associated with the Holy Spirit (tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.), but as I've been reading this book, and the Scripture along with it, I am convinced that God does continue to work in supernatural ways. It is unfair of me to deny that God can do amazing things.
I would encourage you to check out this book and read it along with the Word. Roc includes a great study guide that leads readers into the Scripture to help us discover how the Holy Spirit works. Remember that Jesus promised to leave His Spirit with us in order that we may be filled with the power of God and glorify Him.
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8, NIV).
Ever been in a meeting where a "facilitator" was helping you come to some consensus on an issue? Could be a university gathering, school board meeting, town hall meeting, neighborhood association or a community group of some sort.
In some cases, these meetings are not in truth meant to draw some conclusion based on input from the group, but to lead those present into arriving at some already-determined conclusion that benefits the organization hosting the event. In other words, you think you're helping form a group opinion, but in reality you're being manipulated by the sponsor to come to the opinion they want you to have.
It's called the Delphi Technique, something that Eagle Forum's Education Reporter detailed in an article (subtitled "How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation") published a few years back. The first couple of paragraphs explain this technique: The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle -- the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief).... In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.
In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.
The article goes on to explain how you can recognize such a manipulative meeting, and how to diffuse its effectiveness.
HT: Free Republic
Let's spread some holiday cheer to our soldiers in Iraq this Christmas and send them some Silly String and baby wipes -- no joke. The Silly String may actually help save their lives and the special wipes just make them a little more bearable.
USA Today has a blurb on a story from The Star-Ledger explaining that U.S. soldiers have found that Silly String helps find tripwires attached to bombs planted by insurgents. Before entering a room, the soldiers spray the Silly String to see if it falls to the floor or hangs on something. If it's the latter, they don't go in.
As for baby wipes, Focus on the Family's own Tom Neven, who served seven years as a Marine infantryman, wrote us recently why guys in the field love baby wipes: "Some go a long time between showers, and anything they can clean with (not just their face, either) is greatly appreciated."
To send a care package with these items along with others, click here and choose an organization to help you identify a soldier. For other ways to help, click through the America Supports You website and learn about donating phone cards, frequent flyer miles, gift certificates, etc.
Motte's post "The Delicate Matter of Complimentarianism" reminded me that I first read that controversial Mark Driscoll quote on Rod Dreher's blog. At the time I was browsing and obviously misread Dreher's site. I thought he was
quoting some liberal!
I really can't believe Driscoll said what he did about pastors' wives
"letting themselves go." I'd be curious what Doug Wilson (author of Her Hand in Marriage) thinks of this. He says a husband is responsible for his wife's beauty.
And
it's certainly not just pastors' wives who spend less attention on their
externals once married. Nor are they the only ones who aren't comfortable having
frank sexual conversations with their husbands. I really think Driscoll missed
the mark on this one.
Are you starting to feel anxious about education or consumer debt? A recent survey found that 60 percent of young people feel they have more finanical pressure than young people in previous generations. That finding appears in a major series being produced jointly by ABC News and USAToday called "Young and In Debt."
The survey is mentioned in the kickoff article which also points out that 11 percent of respondents have put off marrying and 14 percent have delayed having children because of their debt.
Halfway through the six-week series, the feature has already profiled a 25-year-old who's trying to find a way to save money while also paying off $30,000 in school loans as well as a 29-year-old who is overwhelmed by $165,000 in education debt.
One question implied toward the end of the first installment is whether the change in debt load is unique to our current financial situation or unique to generational attitudes about consumption. What's your take?
In a blog post that hit the wires yesterday, SharperIron explores the history of fundamentalists' approach to theater and film. (Don't be put off by the way this site uses the term "fundamentalist" -- for them it simply means a person who adheres to the fundamental doctrines of our faith.)
It used to be that there was an ongoing discussion among Christians about whether it was wise to go to the movies ... at all. Much of what was coming out of Hollywood included nuggets of false doctrine wrapped by compelling storytelling; that false doctrine could subtly seep into the way we think about things and corrupt the true doctrine we learned from Scripture, church and our families.
Things have changed, as author Kevin T. Bauder points out: Most Christians, even those in relatively conservative circles, resent the suggestion that they should not attend movies. They are likely to bristle about what they call legalism, and they pride themselves upon the refinement of their spiritual discernment for the selection of theatrical amusements.
It's a fascinating article, putting the current discussion of movies among Christians in a historical context. While I'm not advocating an all-out renunciation of movie-attendance, I do think this article could serve to arouse Christians to take media discernment more seriously.
 Three years ago, my brother attended a worship leaders conference in California and came back gushing about Chris Tomlin. Tomlin, still virtually unknown at that time, had led worship at the conference, and my brother bought all of his CDs. I still remember Matt insisting that I needed to know who Chris Tomlin was.
Now most Christians do. A TIME Magazine profile, which compares Tomlin to Patty and Mildred Hill — the writers of "Happy Birthday" — speculates that he may be the most often sung artist anywhere. This distinction does not make him the best musician anywhere, as he will be the first to admit. Tomlin's How Great Is Our God (which he co-wrote with Jesse Reeves and Ed Cash), currently the second most popular modern chorus in U.S. churches (after Tim Hughes' Here I Am to Worship), is not particularly profound — the title pretty much sums it up — but it's heartfelt, short and set to a stirring soft-rock melody that sticks in the mind like white to rice.
That's Tomlin's gift: immediacy. "I try to think, How do I craft this song in a way that the person who's tone-deaf and can't clap on two and four can sing it?" says the songwriter. "I hope that when someone hears a CD of mine, they pick up their guitar and say, 'O.K., I can do that.'" Which is not the way people react to, say, Handel's Messiah.
I saw Chris in concert several years ago, and I was impressed by his humility. He was clearly uncomfortable in the spotlight, preferring to divert attention to God. Since this is actually the point of a worship leader, I'm sure it factors into Tomlin's success. Worship leaders must leave ego behind if they wish to truly lead people to the throne. My brother's initial feeling about Tomlin turned out to be right — his songs have become ubiquitous anthems of the faithful. I'm thankful that as a young worship leader, my brother can emulate someone who is not striving for personal glory but seeking to help others experience God's presence.
HT: Justin Taylor
Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill Church pastor and Resurgence blogger, has received unwelcome attention from the national media for some things he has written about women on his blog. MSNBC has the story here, highlighting the most "offensive" comments and the planned protest at his church which received national exposure.
One of Mark's blog posts which helped spark the protest was written as a warning against sexual sin to other pastors in the wake of Ted Haggard's fall. Here is an excerpt of the portion of text in question: Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors' wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him either.
I'm not sure Mark expected that taking "one for the team" would mean having everything he's ever said or written about women put under a microscope. But that's exactly what happened. The protest organizers, People Against Fundamentalism, listed 19 Mark Driscoll quotes in their press release with links to blog posts, articles and video of him writing and speaking primarily on the feminization of churches. And though the quotes are taken out of context, I confess I was squirming at some of his phraseologies.
For teaching as impalpable as the submissive role of women in marriage and in the church, it is difficult for a pastor to be too delicate in his approach, particularly as it relates to a woman's desirability. Judging from Mark's response to this controversy, I think he would agree: I learned that my theological convictions, even the most controversial ones, are as unwavering as ever. But I also learned that as my platform has grown, so has my responsibility to speak about my convictions in a way that invites other people to experience charity from me, which means inflammatory language and such need to be scaled back.
HT: Tim Challies
You may have noticed over the past day or so that the Boundless Line has a fresh new URL: www.BoundlessLine.org
Three things to note:
1) If you use a "news aggregator" such as Firefox, Bloglines, Safari, Windows RSS Platform or LiveJournal you may have to update your link to our site. Try simply using http://www.boundlessline.org/rss.xml
2) It's a whole lot simpler to remember "www.BoundlessLine.org" than the domain we previously used!
3) There's currently a glitch in Internet Explorer where you have to type in the "www" before the "BoundlessLine.org" -- for all other browsers, you can just use "BoundlessLine.org"
Enjoy!
An article on Fox News today reports that parents are increasingly using text messaging to communicate with their teens and college-age children. A recent survey commissioned by Cingular Wireless found that 63 percent of parents who text their children find that it improves communication, and 64 percent of parents felt texting made their kids easier to reach.
Even though I am not a parent, I try to follow the trends. Right now, text messaging is my primary info-sharing communication with my housemate and siblings. Just this morning, my brother text messaged me to let me know that his wife had gone into labor. (They welcomed little Aaron Edward around 9 a.m.) While the convenience and casual nature of texting is alluring, it would be a shame if the medium replaced true conversation. One 22-year-old woman quoted in the article, says: "I love [texting] cause I don't have to talk to people," Chai Butler said. "That's what I like about it because a lot of times, I'm really busy and I don't have time to get into a phone conversation — even for small talk. It's just much easier to send a little text message and more casual too."
Her first sentence is very revealing, and I relate to it. Sometimes I find myself so busy that I don't want to be bothered with talking to anyone. But effective Christian service requires an openness to relationship.
Jesus stopped at the well to talk to the Samaritan woman and inquire about her life. During His ministry, He never came across as bothered by people, even children. If I want to follow His example, I need to be willing to spend a few minutes on the phone with someone who needs to talk. And that may require curbing the texting habit.
I'm thankful my brother made that choice this morning and called me with the actual birth announcement.
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