 |
The Super Bowl used to be about watching the two best football teams in the nation and eating a lot of chicken wings while doing so. But for the past few years, it seems as though the attention has shifted to watching racy commercials and experiencing "wardrobe malfunctions." We may have to deal with these same things when the Bears face off with the Colts this coming Sunday.
According to a Time article titled, "Bring Back John 3:16," one of the Fox cameramen focused on a girl wearing a t-shirt with profanity on it during a recent play-off game between the New Orleans Saints and the Philadelphia Eagles: During the NFL playoff game at the New Orleans Superdome, Fox's camera zoomed in on a cheering blond woman in the crowd. She had black patches under her eyes (the kind football players wear for the glare) and sported a black T-shirt with "F--- Da Eagles" printed on it in gold. The Parents Television Council, a decency watchdog group founded by conservative commentator Brent Bozell, wasn't amused, particularly by the fact that the network lingered on the fan for several seconds before cutting away. It has been mobilizing its members to file complaints with the Federal Communications Commission, which so far has received 8,000 alone via the council's web site. The group has also demanded that Fox and its affiliates refund advertisers the money they paid to air commercials during the game. (No money has been refunded and no advertisers have asked for it, say network officials.)
Bloggers had the offensive image sailing through the Internet by halftime. Immediately after the game, embarrassed Fox execs began apologizing profusely. The shot was "inadvertent and unintentional," insists Fox spokeswoman Ileana Pena. In the fast pacing of live TV, the image slipped through without anyone noticing what was printed on the shirt, the network claims.
Representatives for CBS -- the network which will be airing the Super Bowl this Sunday -- said they are taking precautions to make sure things like this don't happen during the show. If something were to happen, they could end up paying big bucks: Janet Jackson's notorious "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show cost CBS and its affiliates $550,000 in fines. The network will have a five-second delay for this year's halftime show, which the NFL is also reviewing ahead of time more carefully.
Hopefully when we sit down to watch the Bears defeat the Colts on Sunday* we won't have to cover our eyes or plug our ears. If the game stays free from profanity, we can focus on cheering as grown men run each other over. Just like it should be.
* Honestly, I don't really care who wins the game since the Vikings aren't playing in the Super Bowl -- and probably won't be for a very long time. I just thought I should say something that would make Colts fans angry. I like to be controversial, you know. ;-)
I know we talk about getting married a lot around here — but there's a good reason. The Christian Science Monitor addressed statistics (this may be the same questionable batch used by the Times) that say almost half of American women today are unmarried (compared to one-third in 1960). Singlehood is on the rise.
In contrast to the New York Times article, this article points out many singles would prefer to be married. This is evidenced by the boom in social networking sites, proliferation of online dating and a multibillion-dollar wedding industry that "reflects, in part, a touching determination on the part of bridal couples to tie the knot tightly — and forever." But the rise of singleness is undermining the family: Perhaps the most troubling statistic on singles is the one showing that about 40 percent of first-time births in the US are to unmarried mothers. Despite women's growing economic independence, children still benefit from the security of a two-parent home, protected by that most pro-child institution, marriage.
The yearning for companionship, love, and family doesn't change from generation to generation.
The task at hand is to uphold the significant value of marriage. That includes finding ways to encourage the altar-shy, especially those already with children, to trade cohabitation for permanent commitment and see the value in the solemn, touching vow, "With this ring I thee wed."
And so, it seems, the future of the family is resting on single shoulders. The attitudes we carry about marriage and children — and the value we place in them — will determine what happens in the years ahead. Sobering thoughts. And ironic because singles seem to feel on the outside of the battle for the family, when, in fact, we are on its front lines.
When I began my third decade as a single, being part of a singles group where most of the women were in their 20s, I found myself thinking about when a difference in age between a man and a woman becomes "too much."
I searched the Scriptures. I asked for counsel. I looked at Christian marriages throughout history. I considered the differently-aged couples in my church.
My conclusion: At a certain age, an age difference of even 15 years is not necessarily wrong or a hindrance to a great relationship.
Scripture includes a few examples of differently-aged couples. Abraham was 10 years older than his wife. His son Isaac (who was nearly 40 when he married) was much older than his wife (who was described as a "young woman"). Joseph was likely notably older than Mary. In none of these cases is a difference in age denounced, or even relevant.
I came across a few examples in Christendom of differently-aged couples. Martin Luther was in his early 40s when he married a woman in her mid-20s; he actually commended such arrangements. Catherine Marshall, author of the novel Christy, was over a decade younger than her husband Peter.
And in my church the family I most respected, whose four homeschooled children were models of maturity and graciousness, was led by a man some 15 years older than his wife.
After considering couples in and out of Scripture, I found myself feeling less awkward engaging with a singles group that was younger than me. In fact, those years are some of the richest of my pre-marriage life.
So what happened with me? In my 35th year I fell in love with a brown-eyed young woman in the singles group. Her father was a pastor and she was earning her master's degree in film. Though she was younger than me, she and I would both agree that we were about the same maturity level. We spent time getting to know each other, started courting in April 2002 and were enjoying our honeymoon in Paris over the Christmas holiday later that same year. That she is 12 years younger than me has not been a significant issue in the happy success of our marriage and parenting.
I'd sure like to end this post with that last poignant paragraph, but I need to add something. Our research at Boundless indicates that couples are happiest when they marry between 23 and 27 years of age. I'm not necessarily advocating, then, intentionally waiting until you're in your mid-30s to marry, and I'm not necessarily advocating intentionally looking for someone a decade younger than yourself. My wife and I do deal with issues that similarly-aged couples don't. I am saying, though, that if you find yourself in a situation like mine, you needn't think it's necessarily wrong to "rob the cradle."
As the only single Boundless writer to attend the aforementioned mixer, I have to agree with Candice that the event was very well-executed and just an all-around good time. There was one guy in particular who caught the attention of more than one lady — Candice's 3-month-old son, Churchill.
When babies are present, I always watch carefully to see how single men react. Some pretend they don't see the baby, others smile while keeping their distance. Once in awhile, a guy will actually make a move toward the baby and pick him up or talk to him. This always warms my heart and makes me smile.
In his blog, "The Influence of Babies on Single Men," Doug Phillips talks about how babies affect the single guy. He writes: Single men who are around babies and family culture become highly motivated to "get their act together." They experience positive, holy peer-pressure to set aside childish things and to be about the business of men.... The presence of babies in the life of single men not only tenderizes their hearts to the preciousness of children, but it motivates them to be men of God.
Another desirable side-effect: women respond to men who demonstrate tenderness toward children. But the benefits of baby time extends beyond making a good impression. Phillips writes: We need men who learn early in their lives to treasure children. Men who love children tend to be the most visionary, stable, and self-sacrificing. We need a new generation of visionary young men. Visionary young men aspire to live lives of significance that transcend the here and now. This is why we need to place babies in the hands of our young men, and then talk to them about the true dreams and aspirations of the righteous man (Psalm 112, 127, 128).
If you're wondering about the logistics of incorporating babies into your social life, start by hanging out with friends who have them. Not only will you reduce "baby anxiety" and make women go "aw," you'll also discover the rewards found in multi-generational Christian community.
Since becoming editor of Boundless in 2005, I've made it a priority to publish winsomely-written articles that encourage intentional living.
Let me address our male readers at this point.
Being a man, and being the happy recipient of some strong counsel, I've published some things that might come across more as a brotherly swat than a pat on the back. I've personally needed that kind of approach at times, and figured other men might respond well to it too.
The thing is, the men who've given me correction have for the most part been those with whom I had a relationship: a couple of guys in my band, my pastor, someone in my small group. Sometimes their words would be serious. Sometimes they took the form of redemptive ridicule.
If a stranger came up to me and pointed out an area in my life that he thought might need some work, I'm not sure I'd be that open to it. The "wounds of a friend" (Proverbs 27:6) are much easier to take to heart.
Our motivation at Boundless for challenging men is love. We're not trying to discourage or diminish or dismiss. We're trying to provoke and inspire and invigorate and encourage. I'm wanting to see the lives of my brothers in the Lord (sisters, too) enriched.
Let me ask the men two questions, now. When do you think we've stepped over the line in our challenging you toward godly masculinity? And how can we do better?
Like Candice and Steve, my wife and I were table hosts at the local singles mixer Saturday night. We too were energized to be with such quality Christian young men and women who were willing to try something new in order to meet, mingle and marry. And the event itself was very well organized and run by the RMCSM crew. I just wish I could have spent some time with a few of the guys the day before to discuss things like grooming, dress and communicating with the opposite sex.
Like most single men, I would have benefited greatly during my single years from some pointers of someone a little further along. We've all heard the phrase, "If the barn needs paint. Paint it." But people don't often realize that the barn needs painting. And even if they are that self-aware, they may not know how to paint it. So here's a list -- in no particular order -- for marriage-minded guys based on some observations I made this weekend that may prove helpful in searching for a wife:
- Give other people your attention. When speaking with a young lady, look her in the eye, listen intently and keep asking questions. If you're shy, the more questions you ask, the more likely she'll bring up a subject on which you're well versed.
- Develop interests beyond sports, gaming and science fiction. For example, if the bulk of your conversation tends to revolve around your baseball card collection, your Xbox or your DVD set of Firefly, consider expanding your horizons.
- Shave or trim your facial hair. Feel free to go wild with expressing yourself with a two-inch long goatee in marriage, but it often makes for a scary first impression.
- Don't be afraid of hair care products. Whenever I watch American Idol with family, my sister-in-law always comments on Simon Cowell's "cat hair", lamenting his lack of hair gel. If you've ever seen the show, you know what I'm talking about.
- Achieve a neat appearance. There's a fine line between being stylishly disheveled and just plain old disheveled.
- Be humble and sincere. If you've made a decision to be with a group of singles, think more highly of the others than you do yourself. Simply don't go if you have an ulterior motive or if feel you're above everyone who'll be there.
Guys, please don't think by writing this that I think I've arrived. After eight years of marriage, my wife still tells me when my clothes don't match and when my hair needs tweaked. Simply take this friendly advice for what it's worth. And be assured that I realize these things don't make a man. Loving the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, make a man. And this is why Saturday night was so heartening for me ... I saw plenty of men.
Chuck Colson explains in a recent BreakPoint commentary that he was disappointed with the movie "Children of Men" (that we've mentioned in our blog before). He says his appreciation for the book by P.D. James led him to look forward to the movie. After seeing it, he suggests just skipping it and going back to read the book. Here are some comments from his BreakPoint message: Its story and themes are so completely different, it's just like somebody set out to make a movie of Adam Smith's famous The Wealth of Nations, the conservative book, and wound up making instead Karl Marx's Das Kapital. ... James's insightful tale -- a "Christian fable," as she called it -- has been transformed into something unrecognizable. The Christian faith that was central has all but vanished. Many once-Christian characters now talk in a mixture of obscenities and Buddhist chants.
I'm curious if any of our readers ended up watching this movie and would like to share their impressions.
Saturday night's Mix. Mingle. Marry. event was a class act. Steve and I talked about it all the way home, when we got home and into the next day. There was just so much about it to recommend. Everything was well-planned and thought out -- seamless. Participants weren't left wondering what to do. And once things got started, which was right on time, conversation among singles flowed. I was amazed that every woman actually got to meet every man (54 to be exact) in the course of under two hours. And not only meet, but hear him answer at least one question.
And this is one of the things the organizers did best. Because everyone had to fill out an application before participating, they could feel fairly confident that all the participants were believers (and in most cases, the evidence did support that assumption). Consequently, the questions that facilitated the bulk of the conversation were light and fun, helping everyone relax. And once relaxed the singles could get a better idea of true personality among their table mates.
Steve and I are big fans of game nights. (Not mind games, board games.) And that's what this felt like. The way things worked, each table had a married couple acting as hosts and facilitators. We asked the questions and everyone around the table took turns answering. Each seven minute round was assigned a question. When the round ended, the men at each table rotated to the next. So every seven minutes, everyone had a chance to shine. Spotlight on them. And if you were shy, you had the benefit of the hosts' help. There were very few, if any, awkward moments around our table the entire time. And that in itself was worth the price of admission.
Granted, after the "game" portion of the event was over, the mixer part did increase the opportunities for nervous pauses in conversation. But at least everyone had the benefit of already being introduced and even talking under the supervision of a couple who was rooting for their success. This was no wild meat market.
I was touched by what 93-year-old blogger Donald Crowdis had to say about his own mortality. He writes: I've floated on the remark "Been there, done that" for some time now, but the notion that the moment is approaching when I can no longer say this bothers me. The truth is, I don't want to go.
There are many reasons. For too long I have behaved as if I could postpone going indefinitely, and thus have so many things that I must do first. I don't want my successors to find out how much I could have done that isn't done, not by a long shot. There are numerous notes and letters I must write. There are places I've wanted to travel, but never had the chance. Actually, each of you can, if you think yourself into my age, fill out the list. At least you can try to understand why I say that I hate to go.
I think we all identify with this feeling. Donald's words are a good reminder to not put things off. If we were honest — if we died today, we'd probably have some regrets: things undone, letters unwritten, places unvisited, people unloved.
Solomon who said: "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die," (Eccl. 3:1-2), also said: "Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man" (Eccl. 12:13). A person who lives in this way should face no regrets.
There was a surreal moment during my Sunday school class last week when the subject of football came up. The discussion was on how leisure time works in marriage. And since there's nothing more leisurely for a man (meaning me) than watching football, the matter was broached rather quickly. One of the wives tried to understand why her husband watches hours and hours of football when just catching the 10 minute highlights could save so much time. The other women nodded. I booed. Literally.
One brave visitor tried to explain the experience of watching football, maybe hoping the problem was a lack of appreciation. It seems though that the issue is not appreciation, but the commitment it requires. My wife likes to joke that I watch football like I'm getting paid to, and that it's not only the time, but the emotion I invest.
This past fall, she and my children suffered periods of anger and elation that sometimes lasted for hours. I'm so intense during some games, my wife says she doesn't even like to be in the same room with me. Once, my little girl asked if I was mad at her after failed attempts to get my attention during a game. Does all this seem a little excessive? Maybe.
In a sermon last winter, Boundless writer Thabiti Anyabwile encouraged the congregation to "make it a discipline to ask our friends to tell us where our life appears excessive." In a list of possible areas of excessiveness, he includes getting "too excited about football games." He ends with this point of application. "Let us sit down with one another and explore whether or not these (areas of excessiveness) are indications of inverted priorities where God is concerned."
That's good advice a week before the Super Bowl. But I believe I, with the help of my wife and kids, have already "explored" it.
Ted's last post about the $100 experiment reminded me of a conversation I had with my Bible study group this past Wednesday.
First of all, some background info from Acts 3:1-10. In this story, Peter and John are headed to the temple to pray. They come across a crippled beggar -- this guy was at the temple gate each day to beg for money. He sees Peter and John, and he asks them for some cash. Peter looks straight at him and says, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk" (Acts 3:6, NIV). The dude gets up and starts walking around. In fact, he goes walking and leaping and praising God. (Remember the Sunday School song?!)
What hit me about this passage was the fact that Peter sees a guy in need and his first thought is to exercise the spiritual gift he's been given. The $100 experiment Ted posted about yesterday is an awesome idea. We should be aware of how we can use our income to serve those around us. But what I've noticed is that when I hear of someone in need -- say my friend's car breaks down or my neighbor gets sick -- I automatically think of ways I can help financially or what ingredients I need in order to make a pot of chicken soup.
Neither of these things is bad, in fact, both are helpful, but that is not the point. My first response is not usually to drop everything and pray for the person or situation. And my first response is certainly never to expect something strangely supernatural like commanding a crippled man to get up and walk!
As I blogged about before, my Bible study group has been reading a book about the combination of the Word and Spirit. There is so much in the Bible about the Spirit's amazing work, and the effect it had on those who witnessed it. In fact, the early church often demonstrated supernatural gifts (healing and so on) to convert non-believers.
What I've been realizing through this study is that I often ignore what the Spirit is able to do. Now, I'm not saying that I expect to start commanding the lame to walk or give sight to the blind, but maybe I should have a mindset that would be more prone to believe that my God would be willing and able to do something clearly supernatural in certain cases. I have often prayed for healing for the sick, but I always expect it to happen through a doctor or a treatment. As I've analyzed my thoughts, I noticed that I do not honestly believe God would miraculously take the cancer from my friend's body.
And this tells me a lot about my relationship with the Lord. Do I really believe He is "able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine"? (Ephesians 3:20, NIV)
Again, I'm not saying that we should quit giving to those in need. We are commanded to give of our material possessions in order to help those around us. However, maybe we could adopt a mindset that is more similar to Peter's. He gave what he had -- and guess what -- the Spirit that lived within Peter lives within all of us believers as well.
When Lynne Baab and her husband lived in Israel, they kept the Sabbath. In her blog "God's Gift of Rest" she recounts the rewards of such a discipline. Our Sabbaths in Israel became God's gift to us individually, and enriched our life as a couple. Through Sabbath-keeping, we experienced the truth that God's love for us isn't based on what we do. We yearned to keep growing in our ability to receive that unconditional love once we returned to the U.S.
Never did a culture need the Sabbath as ours does today. It pressures us to be productive 24/7. Everything we do has to look good and accomplish something. Nothing encourages us to stop. By contrast, the word "Sabbath" literally means stop, pause, cease, desist.
This article reminded me of a discipline I avoid: keeping a Sabbath. I consider it a nice idea, but I haven't taken steps to actually make it happen. Baab makes me consider the spiritual (and physical) benefits I may be forfeiting. My husband and I have received many gifts from our commitment to honor the Sabbath: a day to spend with our children — and each other — without needing to get something done. A day free of multitasking. A day free of striving for perfection and productivity. A day to rest in God's goodness. Over the years, these gifts have continued to bless us and grant us glorious freedom in Christ.
I don't know if I'm ready to commit to keeping a Sabbath, but I'm thinking about it. Have you tried it? What was the outcome?
The Point, inspired by The Suburban Christian is challenging its readers to consider setting aside $100 "and come up with a way to use it creatively and productively for the Kingdom."
Sounds like an intriguing challenge.
Their initial suggestions include purchasing Bibles for Angel Tree children, buying tickets to the upcoming movie Amazing Grace and handing them out to select individuals, and giving seed money to a friend who is launching a video testimony project on the Internet.
So let me ask Boundless Line readers: If you were able to $100 set aside, how might you invest this money into the Lord's work?
And another question: Why not consider actually setting aside that $100 and acting on your proposition? If you do, we'd love to hear what you did. (Of course, if you're not in a position where you can do this, we'd still love to hear how you might spent the $100.)
I'm a bit doctor-phobic. If a naturopath were covered by our health insurance, that would be my first choice. But Dr. Albert Mohler's "Lessons Learned in a Crisis of Life" was a needed reminder of how blessed we are to live in the day and age of modern medicine. In an emergency situation, American doctors, nurses and hospitals are without rival.
He writes: Only in recent decades is the hospital a place that truly promises much healing. The modern applications of antiseptics, antibiotics, and anesthesia were unknown until the last century, and modern surgical techniques, lasers, imaging technologies, and drugs are the stuff of medical miracles. This is another display of the providence of God. Just read a history of medicine and be reminded that the founders of this nation knew nothing of germ theory. Read of the surgical nightmares of recent centuries and the horrors of infectious disease. Be reminded of surgery without anesthesia or antibiotics (or the surgeon knowing how the body really works). Know that millions now alive would have died prematurely just decades ago.
Mohler's other lessons, about God's sovereignty, our frailty, and the importance of human love and relationship are a worthy read. As one who looks to Dr. Mohler for lessons on any issue he's willing to write about, I'm ever thankful that God answered the many prayers uttered on his behalf.
I can be good with words. Sometimes I can use them to encourage, or to bring levity to a situation, or to explain in simple terms a difficult concept, or to comfort, or to paint a picture.
And sometimes I can use them to ridicule, tear down, diminish, and dismiss.
I've seen how some people are able to speak words of life into others, how they are able to -- through mere words -- instill hope and comfort and vigor in a person. I want to be more like that.
One place I've seen words turn cynical and unhelpful is on blogs, and on the comments to those original posts. Perhaps it's just the nature of the technology: fairly anonymous, generally one-way (rather than a dialog that can quickly address misunderstandings and diffuse tensions), tactile (rather than verbal), and typically addressing issues about which folks have strong opinions and doing so in a polarizing way.
In light of that, I want to commend a recent blog post on Colossians Three Sixteen entitled "The Dangers of Blogging: Breeding A Contentious Spirit." A key passage the author references is 2 Timothy 2:23-26: Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
While reading this I'm reminded of Bob Kauflin's article on the issue, "Blogging to Worship God." In that article, he mentioned a post he wrote early on in his own blog: One of my motives for writing a blog on worshipping God seems to be gaining glory for myself. Come to think of it, one of my motives for almost everything I do seems to be gaining glory for myself.
May I strive to write words of life as I blog, and as I respond to others' blogs and blog comments, and may I not seek glory for myself but rather for the Lord.
This week, I read in my local newspaper that 21-year-old Pfc. Allen B. "Fuzzy" Jaynes, a member of Fort Carson's 2nd Brigade, had been killed in combat in Iraq. I didn't know Jaynes, but what stood out to me was how the article's details were primarily gathered from MySpace. Jaynes' MySpace page shows pictures of a young man "chillin by da pool" and standing alongside "my lil sis, my lil bro, & my mom" for a family photo, his arm slung around his sister's shoulder.
On her own MySpace page, [his sister] Stephanie shared the devastating news in an entry dated Sunday. "Officers showed up at my door this morning," Stephanie wrote. "Allen was killed in combat yesterday. His body won't be back home for another 10 days."
Jaynes' girlfriend, Ashley Raiford, also wrote about her grief online.
An article published today in the Los Angeles Times says MySpace "is becoming a place for a generation to chronicle its grief." Young people killed in accidents, by drug overdoses or suicide, now leave behind a kind of memorial in their MySpace page. The grieving on MySpace is unplanned — the dead person's page is a frozen moment, showing when they last logged on, their favorite books and movies, whether they were in a relationship, and photos of their best friends. After their death, their friends post messages to the departed that are akin to text messages between high school pals, stream-of-consciousness blurbs filled with slang, misspellings and abbreviations. The messages are sorrowful and sweet, angry and funny, routine and heartbreaking. They include reminiscences, pleas to watch over them, and updates on events the dead friend has missed.
I have viewed several pages of deceased teens on MySpace, and the experience is very weird. Their pages serve as a startling reminders of the fleeting nature of life. Even more impacting are the comments of fellow teens. Much can be learned about the younger generation by watching how they grieve. A young soldier — one of hundreds who have served our country and died — becomes a person.
I am currently reading a book called 5 Paths To The Love Of Your Life. It is a compilation in which five authors outline the dating/courtship path they think works best. The paths include the Counter-Cultural Approach, the Courtship Approach, the Principled Approach, the Betrothal Approach, and the Purposed Approach.
In order to help readers define their dating styles, each author writes an essay describing different relationship ideas, biblical commands, practical advice and so on. I'm only partway through the third method, but so far I've really enjoyed the book for a number of reasons.
Each author (contributing authors include Lauren F. Winner, Douglas Wilson and Jeramy and Jerusha Clark) is required to outline their position and then provide biblical support for their ideas. Each chapter concludes with a definition of their position, distinctives, key verses, key benefits of their model, and potential problems that could come with using the model.
While I don't agree with every point in every essay, I do appreciate the fact that the book allows for a variety of Christian voices on the dating/courtship issue. All of these authors have thought about the topic biblically, and they have all reached slightly different conclusions. (Interestingly, it seems as though the authors agree on the big things -- family/church involvement, spiritual similarities, sexual purity -- and just have different ideas about how it looks practically.)
You may want to give this book a read -- remembering to think and pray through the way you can best honor and glorify God through your romantic relationships.
OK, this has nothing to do with kissing, but I figured some might find it similarly engrossing.
So, imagine yourself reading through Scripture and you come across the name of a town or region or country. In these instances, I typically just keep reading and imagine the place is somewhere ... um ... over there.
But with BibleMap, a free online Bible (NIV and ESV versions), you just click on the name of the location mentioned in a Scripture passage and you get a satellite photo of the area, thanks to some very cool technology courtesy of Google, HeLives.com, and a range of other geeks.
Next time you're reading the first chapter of Revelation, and come across Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea, you have no excuse for merely thinking that they're just ... over there somewhere.
HT: Justin Taylor's Between Two Worlds and the ESV Bible Blog.
I was encouraged by this article in Christianity Today, which reports that religious people give more, than nonreligious, even to secular charities. Published in late November, the controversial findings in Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism have grabbed the attention of political commentators.
"If you asked me, I would have expected to find that religious conservatives are stingy," said Brooks, a committed Catholic and political independent. "That's what academics think. That's what we are told all the time."
What he found instead was the Religious Right gives more in "every measurable way," from writing checks to volunteering time to donating blood.
There is a myth being promoted that conservatives don't care about people. These statistics show otherwise. Still, there is room for improvement. Religious conservatives might not want to pat themselves on the back quite yet. Christian research organization Empty Tomb Inc. said evangelicals gave away 6.7 percent of their income in 1968. By 2004, that figure had dropped to 4.4 percent, but growing attendance and rising incomes have kept many churches from feeling the pinch.
It would be great if our generation would rise up and exceed previous generations in giving of our time, money and resources. If I love Jesus, my money should certainly be where my mouth is. Compassion should be a natural expression of conservative values.
A comment from Gina in the "Is Kissing a Sin? Scott Croft Clarifies" thread about her parents' and best friends' regret-less premarital kissing got me thinking about the kisses my wife and I shared before we were married. And unlike her family and friends, I am panged with regret, not romantic affection.
It's hard to put a finger on it. Maybe it's because I kissed her just like I did all the others I had kissed, for mere pleasure, not knowing she would be my wife. Maybe it's the familiarity I had with her on the wedding day, which meant our first kiss as husband and wife was just that, familiar. Maybe it's because that familiarity affected my view of kissing, seeing it only as a means to an end, when it is so much more.
Maybe, most of all, it is because my precious wife looks back with these same regrets too.
When the Boundless team interviewed Scott Croft and Michael Lawrence for the Mentor Series, Michael said that in all his years of premarital counseling, he's never had one couple come back and say that they wished they had been more sexually active during their dating relationship. You can add me to that list.
I'm glad Suzanne mentioned the most depressing day report. This is something we've been springboarding off here at Focus on the Family as a way to promote TroubledWith (www.troubledwith.com), a Website addressing a broad range of common problems.
While promoting that site, one radio station asked me to come up with a top ten ways to beat stress and depression during this time of the year. Here's what I offered:
10 Even if you've broken your aggressive exercise resolutions, do enough exercise to release the endorphins that reduce stress (even if it's just 30 minutes of walking).
9 Start a debt reduction plan -- Dave Ramsey and other Christian finance gurus have great snowball debt reduction plans
8 Watch Blue Hawaii, African Queen or other movies set in warm places
7 Look up an old friend -- remember good times -- social connections are good for you
6 Resurrect failed New Year's resolutions as modest routine changes -- get the power of routine behind your goal
5 Get a classic book from the library -- Swiss Family Robinson or other tropical settings can warm you up
4 Make a celebration out of this most depressing week -- commiserate with friends over a game night
3 Put on a pot of harvest soup -- or similar comfort food that is still healthy
2 Sell something you don't need -- make a dent in holiday debt by selling something you're not using. Sites like eBay make it easy
1 Instead of trying to escape into desserts, alcohol, or last minute travel, visit TroubledWith.com and tackle problems of debt, depression, etc. head on
Is fading holiday cheer coupled with failed New Year's resolutions adding up to a slump? You may be surprised to hear that today has been dubbed "Blue Monday" — the most depressing day of 2007. According to Fox News: Researchers in England, citing unpaid holiday bills, rotten weather and people's realization that they likely won't live up to their New Year's resolutions, say Jan. 22 is the unhappiest day of 2007.
Cliff Arnall, a Cardiff University psychologist, devised the depressing formula.
His equation takes into account six factors: weather, debt, time since Christmas, time since failing our New Year's resolutions, low motivational levels and feeling a need to take action.
The article suggests using the day as "a springboard" to improve one's quality of life and eliminate bad habits that will lead to the same depression next year.
If you're suffering from post-holiday blues, I submit to you a more potent antidote: the following passage from Lamentations (the "funeral songs" over the destruction of Jerusalem; if anyone knew "Blue Monday" it was Jeremiah): I remember my affliction and my wandering, the bitterness and the gall. I well remember them, and my soul is downcast within me. Yet this I call to mind and therefore I have hope: Because of the LORD's great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness. I say to myself, "The LORD is my portion; therefore I will wait for him." The LORD is good to those whose hope is in him, to the one who seeks him; it is good to wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD. (Lamentations 3:19-26)
It's comforting to know that when things are at their worst, our hope is in a powerful and sufficient God. Happy Monday!
This is a hot topic, our blog post "Is Kissing Sinful?" having received almost 60 comments in just a couple of days. I thought it'd be a good idea, then, to begin a new thread with Scott Croft's addressing some of the themes he found in readers' reactions to his article, "Biblical Dating: To Kiss or Not to Kiss."
Hi, All -
To everyone who has commented so far, thanks for your comments. I'm really grateful that believers in the Lord can sharpen one another through a thoughtful dialogue about a difficult topic. I've been edified by reading the posts.
Let me briefly respond to a couple of common themes.
First, to reiterate, I'm not meaning to address all types of kissing in the article. As I wrote, I mean to address kissing (and other physical activity) that is romantically oriented and that takes place in a romantic context, and that's it. No relatives, no (appropriate) greetings, no kisses to signify to the bad guys which one the Messiah is (though I must say, for my money, that latter one was a sin for any number of reasons).
Second, a lot of posts seem to be addressing, in one form or another, the "wisdom" argument I made near the end of the article (several posts mention that this is an area to be governed by conscience or guidance from the Spirit, or wisdom, or some equivalent phrase). As you might be able to tell from the article, I kind of meant that to be a "back-up" argument.
Our consciences certainly can be helpful to us, but as Christians, we must make sure that we inform our consciences by -- and submit them to -- the clear teachings of scripture. Scripture also tells us that true "wisdom" is found *in scripture*. "Guidance from the Holy Spirit" is not fundamentally a subjective, mystical experience whereby I do "that which I have a peace about" from moment to moment. The clearest and fullest guidance we get from the Spirit is when He opens the scriptures to us.
My main argument is not "don't kiss because it might lead you to sin." My main argument is that romantically oriented kissing is sexual activity, such that when done outside of marriage, it is itself sin.
In my view, scripture presents a strong and clear enough argument against all sexual activity outside of marriage -- and clearly presents relationships to other believers as asexual "familial" relationships -- that arguing for the liberty to be physically involved requires more than a general statement about conscience, guidance, and wisdom. We must bring the discussion back to scripture and make the argument from there.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a HUGE fan of Christian liberty -- I'm just convinced scripture doesn't offer it to us in this area.
If that's truly my unwavering perspective on what scripture teaches, then why, as a few posts asked, do I say that this is a topic on which "reasonable Christians can disagree"?
Simple. I want to be careful to acknowledge that whether premarital kissing is a sin or not is not a salvation issue. Two people who believe totally opposite things on that question can still believe the exact same gospel and can still be in heaven together one day. Both can enjoy the same grace and salvation of Jesus Christ. One of them's just wrong about kissing :)
The same is true about the other topics we'll discuss here. They're arguments within the household of faith. Not to acknowledge that -- to imply that one can't be Christian if one doesn't agree on this or that secondary issue about how to best live the Christian life -- that's the true definition of legalism.
In 1983, an organization named Christian Action Council (now known as Care Net), founded with the help of Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, "asked President Ronald Reagan to create a special day to focus on the intrinsic value of human life." That same year, "President Reagan issued a proclamation establishing a National Sanctity of Human Life Sunday."
Here's a portion of President Reagan's proclamation the following year marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade as "fitting ... [to] reflect anew" on our responsibility to "care for the lives and freedoms of even the weakest of our fellow human beings." Since 1973, however, more than 15 million unborn children have died in legalized abortions -- a tragedy of stunning dimensions that stands in sad contrast to our belief that each life is sacred. These children, over tenfold the number of Americans lost in all our Nation's wars, will never laugh, never sing, never experience the joy of human love; nor will they strive to heal the sick, or feed the poor, or make peace among nations. Abortion has denied them the first and most basic of human rights, and we are infinitely poorer for their loss.
We are poorer not simply for lives not led and for contributions not made, but also for the erosion of our sense of the worth and dignity of every individual. To diminish the value of one category of human life is to diminish us all. Slavery, which treated Blacks as something less than human, to be bought and sold if convenient, cheapened human life and mocked our dedication to the freedom and equality of all men and women. Can we say that abortion -- which treats the unborn as something less than human, to be destroyed if convenient -- will be less corrosive to the values we hold dear?
We are poorer still. The 15 million "lives not led" President Reagan referred to has now grown to 50 million. And such a number can numb us into believing that nothing we do matters. But I saw hope today.
During Focus on the Family chapel, we were given a chance to honor the staff and volunteers of local pregnancy centers and see face to face the women they care for and the babies they have saved. And thanks to Care Net's Option Line 24 hour call center and programs like Focus's Option Ultrasound, more and more women facing unplanned pregnancies are seeking their help.
Today, President George W. Bush continued the national observance Reagan began by proclaiming this Sunday, January 21, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. Please take an opportunity this weekend to consider how God may be calling you to "care for the lives and freedoms of even the weakest of our fellow human beings."
Michael Medved has proven over the years to be an indispensable conservative commentator. His analysis of the New York Times marriage article we've been discussing is spot-on.
His conclusion makes the point we've found to be the most important takeaway for Boundless readers: The endlessly repeated lies –- that married people are now a minority, that most women don't have husbands, that half of all first marriages end in divorce –- exert a real world influence on young people trying to make decisions about their own intimate arrangements. The relentless media portrayal of matrimony as a wounded, collapsing, outmoded, dysfunctional institution discourages prospective husbands and wives from making the lifelong commitments on which societal health and effective childrearing depend.
Despite the journalistic malpractice by Sam Roberts and the New York Times, the real front page news isn't about marriage's disappearance; it's about the institution's unexpected and encouraging durability.
Charles Murray, author of the controversial The Bell Curve, has a sensational article published in Wednesday's Opinion Journal warning that "too many Americans are going to college." He writes, "... a four-year college education teaches advanced analytic skills and information at a level that exceeds the intellectual capacity of most people" -- most being 85 percent to be exact. These people, Murray says, should be pursuing vocational training instead of four-year degrees.
C'mon, Charles. Certainly there's something to be said for hard work inside the classroom with disciplined study at home. I've known highly motivated individuals who weren't exactly rocket scientists that performed better in college than more intelligent people who lacked maturity, desire, or direction. Murray's assessment reminds me of a Simpson's episode when Homer tells Bart and Lisa, "Kids, you tried your best and failed miserably. The lesson is, never try." It seems Murray is saying the same thing to people with average IQs about higher education -- never try.
Overall though, I think that many people now seeking four-year degrees would do better with vocational training -- some because of IQ and some because of motivation. I may have been one of them. Coming out of high school I was what Murray describes as mildly motivated. And a mildly motivated student can easily fail out of college, regardless of IQ.
Murray writes: Large numbers of those who are intellectually qualified for college also do not yearn for four years of college-level courses. They go to college because their parents are paying for it and college is what children of their social class are supposed to do after they finish high school. They may have the ability to understand the material in Economics 1 but they do not want to. They, too, need to learn to make a living -- and would do better in vocational training.
The article is full of insight for young adults to consider before choosing an educational path. For example, being aware of lucrative opportunities vocational training may provide could begin to lessen the stigma of it being a "second class" path. A reality about the job market must eventually begin to affect the valuation of a college education: The spread of wealth at the top of American society has created an explosive increase in the demand for craftsmen. Finding a good lawyer or physician is easy. Finding a good carpenter, painter, electrician, plumber, glazier, mason -- the list goes on and on -- is difficult, and it is a seller's market. Journeymen craftsmen routinely make incomes in the top half of the income distribution while master craftsmen can make six figures. They have work even in a soft economy. Their jobs cannot be outsourced to India. And the craftsman's job provides wonderful intrinsic rewards that come from mastery of a challenging skill that produces tangible results. How many white-collar jobs provide nearly as much satisfaction?
Not many that I've found.
HT: World Mag Blog
I've seen at least one Christian publication passing along the report about marriage from the New York Times as an important benchmark for singles, but other Christian publications aren't ready to let the Times frame the issue of marriage on their questionable terms.
In this article, the Baptist Press does a great job reporting on the bias of the New York Times marriage article -- covering all the key questions that critics have been raising.
Here's a key excerpt from that article: ...the research data presented by The Times doesn't lead to the conclusion the article and the experts quoted seem to make -- that there is a devaluing of the sanctity of marriage or its necessity, Cathy Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies with the Family Research Council, said.
"It's not as if 51 percent of women chose to live life by themselves," Ruse said in an interview. "These figures don't account for widows who had long and happy marriages, who loved their marriages, and they don¹t account properly for absentee husbands, such as those deployed in the military. My questions are about whether the research actually holds up, and also about the conclusions that they draw from the data -- that marriage is actually a bad thing when we know it's not.
Even those who don't have a problem with the creativity the Times showed in getting it's numbers may appreciate the point David Brooks raises in his editorial for the Times today that there are lots of people outside of New York that don't see the trend portrayed as a good thing. In his article, he writes: If all the world were south of 96th Street, then we could greet with unalloyed joy the news that after decades of social change, more American women are living without husbands than with them. We could revel in the stories of women from Riverside Drive all the way to TriBeCa! liberated from constraining marriages and no longer smothered by self-absorbed spouses. We could celebrate with those -- the ad executives as well as the law partners! -- who now have the time and freedom to go back to school and travel abroad, and who are choosing not to get remarried. But alas, there are people in this country who do not live within five miles of MoMA, and for them, the fact that many more people are getting divorced or never marrying at all is not such good news.
Christian financial expert Dave Ramsey wrote that Health Savings Accounts "could be the answer to the health care crisis we have in America."
This week on Boundless we published an article laying out what HSAs are, and how you could save thousands of dollars per year by going that route rather than the standard health insurance route.
The way I see it, traditional health insurance makes no sense. It's not like any other kind of insurance plan you might purchase. Does your auto insurance cover your gasoline costs and oil changes? Does your homeowners insurance cover when your carpets need cleaned or your microwave needs to be replaced?
Of course not.
Then why should our health insurance cover maintenance things like a teeth cleaning, a regular physician checkup or a flu shot? Doesn't it make more sense to instead opt for a cheaper high-deductible plan that covers "catastrophic" medical costs, similar to the way auto and home insurance works? Wouldn't you rather pay lower insurance premiums and take care of the small medical costs out of pocket, ultimately saving yourself money?
If this idea intrigues you, you might want to consider scrapping your health insurance plan and go for an HSA.
I would like to respond to Dan's comment on Denise's post, "Really Good Friends?" He writes: I meant to ask this when the "Not Your Buddy" article came out, but how does this article apply when either the pair has previously dated or the guy has approached the lady about being more than just friends (without success). Much of that article (rightly) deals with guys misleading, perhaps unintentionally, the women they are hanging out with. But if I do ask someone and get turned down, then I don't really see how I can be blamed for leading her on and then failing to commit.
First, I would like to say that after "Not Your Buddy" was published, I received many e-mails from guys, pointing out that women are not blameless in this trend; sometimes it is the woman who leads on the guy. This reminded me of my own experiences from several years ago.
I had a very close male friend throughout high school and college. Several times he made it clear that he was romantically interested in me, but I reminded him that I had kissed dating goodbye. I also felt there were some substantial reasons (including theological differences) why I would never marry this person. Still, I deeply respected him and enjoyed his company.
During my senior year of college, he taught English in Japan. During that time we e-mailed constantly. He was going through a lonely season, and I enjoyed the conversation and attention of my longtime friend. When he returned from Japan, he laid his cards on the table and told me he wished to pursue me for marriage. I prayed about it for a week and sought counsel, and I felt completely sure this was not God's will. I told my friend this, and he accepted my answer graciously.
A short time later, I moved to Colorado. After striking out on my own, I was now the one who was lonely. I began to depend on my friend's e-mails, which had become less frequent since he was no longer pursuing me. At one point, I angrily accused him of not being a good friend in my hour of need. He gently pointed out that because he could not pursue me, our friendship needed to change. The Lord convicted me through that experience. I was expecting something out of that guy that I had chosen to reject. From "Not Your Buddy": Dr. Reeve writes: "One party can selfishly enjoy all the benefits of a relationship, the warmth and relief from loneliness, the satisfaction of the attention that feeds the ego — all without the accompanying commitment. One party luxuriates, while the other party feels cheated and is left with deep unsatisfied longings."
Women, if you turn down a man's offer to pursue you, honor him by severing the emotional tie. Luxuriating in his "friendship" does you both a disservice.
OK, that's perhaps a needlessly inciting headline. But it does get us to focus like a laser beam on the morality of kissing someone you're not married to.
The point in Scott Croft's article, published this morning on Boundless, is that kissing as typically practiced within modern dating relationships is sexual in nature, and that there's no place for sexual activity outside of marriage:
God's design of sex doesn't merely include the act of sexual intercourse. It's also everything that leads up to that act, and everything on the sexual continuum is meant to end in that act. It's called foreplay, and it's a fundamental part of God's design for sex. To borrow (and embellish) an analogy from Michael Lawrence, sexual activity is like a down-hill on-ramp to a highway. It's one way, you gather momentum the second you enter it, and according to the Great Engineer's design of the highway system, there's only one reason to get on it.
It's a difficult teaching. But as I've mentioned before on this blog, I was able to practice it when I dated the girl I ended up marrying. And that proves that it's not impossible to put this teaching into practice.
Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. Biblical, and therefore beneficial? I'd say yes.
I thought I'd take some time to promote one of my own articles. I'm pretty shameless.
Some of the college students on TrueU.org were talking about the dilemma many women face when it comes to careers: Should I continue to work once I have children? Is it OK for me to make more money than my husband? Why am I wasting all of this money on tuition if I won't even have a career? (Candice has addressed this issue on Boundless as well.)
I decided to explore this idea myself, since it's something I've thought about in regard to my own career. What I discovered is that there are some biblical women who have "careers" of sorts. But there is also biblical instruction for men's and women's roles within marriage. What I believe is that it basically comes down to our attitudes about the situation -- how can we serve one another and glorify God through the way we approach our careers?
Anyway, I can't give the entire article away! If you'd like to check it out, that would be great. And if you agree or disagree, please come let me know in the related discussion.
OK, I'm off to work!
I should know better. I took the New York Times story at face value, trusting that the number -- "51 percent of women now living without a spouse" -- was legit. I knew the NYT was shameless, but this is ridiculous.
They arrived at that number by including "women" as young as 15, women whose husbands are deployed overseas, women who are currently separated and widows. They want us to believe marriage is on the outs. That's it's no longer in fashion. Activists like Stephanie Coontz want us to think not only that traditional marriage is currently out of style but that it always has been.
They cook the numbers and then try to feed us their unappetizing stew.
It's a potent reminder of why it's essential to have media discernment that goes beyond what movies to watch on Friday night. You really can't trust the media. Or, as Ronald Reagan said, "trust, but verify."
When I was in college, one of my friends introduced me to writing "rules to live by." As things came up in life -- ideas I thought were good, or things I thought I should avoid -- I would write them down in a list format. Basically, it was a simple way to journal my thoughts, feelings and experiences.
Of course, a good number of my rules related to relationships with guys. One of them -- that I learned the hard way was this:
107. Being "really good friends" really doesn't work.
Strong friendships with someone of the opposite sex are a tricky thing for a number of reasons. There are your own feelings to deal with, the other person's feelings, everyone else's opinions and comments, and so on. (For more insights, check out Suzanne's article, "Not Your Buddy." It gives some really good advice on how close "just friends" can and should be.)
During the past couple of years, I've dealt with this issue with one of my good guy friends. We always had a lot of fun together, which meant that I received questions about our "status" constantly. Honestly, I think that for much of his and my friendship, we were too close for two people who were not dating.
About a month ago, this guy and I took our relationship to the next level. We decided to turn all of the rumors about us into a reality. We both knew that we either needed to quit hanging out or begin dating -- this in the middle "really good friends" thing just wasn't working.
I believe there's a certain amount of wisdom involved when it comes to guy/girl friendships, and I honestly think that there's a limit when it comes to the level of closeness guys and girls should have. I actually have quite a few good guy friends, but we don't hang out everyday, we don't share our deepest thoughts, and there's no one asking if we're more than friends.
I don't exactly know where the line between "just friends" and "more than friends" is, but I know it exists. Speaking from (sometimes painful) experiences, I would encourage all of you to be wise about the level of intimacy you allow in your opposite-sex friendships. Sometimes it's best to either back off or commit to one another.
And hey, maybe that really good friend of yours should be something more. It just could work out. It did for me!
This is a moderated blog. This means that all comments are approved by one of the Boundless staff before they go live.
The vast majority of comments -- whether they agree with the initial post or not -- are published. The disagreements serve to further the discussion. The agreements confirm and elaborate on the points made in our original posts. And it all makes for provocative and enjoyable reading.
But there are some comments that we choose not to publish. These posts fall into a variety of camps:
- They're spam (we received two of these just this morning).
- They're much too "personal," revealing too much detail about one's personal life to the point of causing readers to feel uncomfortable and potentially libeling someone mentioned in the comment.
- They're redundant, rehashing a point already made, sometimes merely with more fervor.
- They're unconstructively offensive (this includes vulgarities and over-the-top personal attacks).
- The commenter's e-mail address is not legitimate.
- They're merely contentious (we deleted, for example, some comments from an atheist pretending to be a Christian, who on his personal blog wrote about us: "I provoked a contributor at one of Focus on the Family's nutty blog sites into sounding like a [insert two vulgarities here]").
- I'm tempted not to publish comments from e e cummings wannabes, but I have yet to crack down on anyone who's spelling-challenged, grammar-challenged or capitalization-challenged.
Literally 99 percent of the 1,000+ comments we've received in the past couple of months have been published. If you're one of those select whose comment doesn't make it to the blog, please don't be offended. Instead, please try to practice grace and understanding toward those of us moderating this blog in the moments between our other responsibilities. If you do have a question about why your comment wasn't posted, feel free to either submit another comment with your inquiry or e-mail us directly at line@boundless.org.
What do you think of our policies about posting comments? Too harsh? Too permissive? Or in the words of Goldilocks, is it "just right"?
Tuesday's Wall Street Journal had a lead story about the popularity of organic foods. In addition to listing what foods are worth the extra expense (peaches, strawberries, carrots, milk and meat) and what foods aren't (bananas, seafood and anything processed), the article says where nutrition is concerned, the verdict on organic food is still out.
While I'm inclined to believe the proponents of chemical-free, genetically intact food, I know a lot of the interest in "whole foods" is mere fashion. It's what's hip right now. And I wasn't always so nutritionally aware.
When I was single, the food choices I made swung from small, expensive containers of frozen dairy desserts (best at drowning my sorrows over another dateless Saturday night) to low-fat diet foods. Eating was all about my emotions or my latest efforts to slim down and hopefully, improve my reasons for being emotional. Very little had to do with health.
I'm curious if my low-fat (high sugar) preferences had more to do with what was trendy. At the time, being healthy wasn't as "in" as it is now. But I suspect my reasons for shifting from always dieting to making wise food choices I can live with for life had a lot to do with having kids.
Now I'm motivated to set good examples for them. And where our daughter is concerned, to do everything possible to spare her the body image issues I struggled with (and sometimes still do) from puberty on.
What motivates your food choices?
Just two weeks ago at Passion07, renowned pastor, author and speaker John Piper used the phrase "he kicks our a**" in a breakout session explaining how God disciplines his children. When asked why he used "language that seemed inappropriate to some" he responded in part: I regret saying it.... I think it is a mixture of (sinful) audience titillation and (holy) scorn against my own flesh and against the devil, along with the desire to make the battle with Satan and my flesh feel gutsy and real and not middle-class pious. There is a significant difference between saying that God disciplines his children and saying that he "kicks our a**" (the phrase used at Passion) -- the effect of the first can produce a yawn and leave students with no sense of how real I mean it.
I'm glad he regrets it. Though I wish he would have stopped the explaining at "(sinful) audience titillation," which seems to be the heart of it. The problem with Piper's "offense" was not so much that he said a** -- although that's offensive enough to some -- but his reliance in this instance on speaking the vernacular and its effect rather than the Spirit's.
A friend of mine left a comment on Justin Talyor's blog about Piper's "slip," explaining this principle perfectly. Another reason to avoid such language is that it appears to fall prey to the desire to use rhetorical techniques to accomplish the work of the Spirit.... What we are witnessing may be Piper's 'unholy' slip into self-confidence with the appropriate repentance. We must not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead.
He goes on to point out his disappointment that Piper would use a phrase commonly spoken by abusive men to illustrate a truth about God's relationship to us. To me, it just looks like he was trying to be a little "too cool for school."
In addition to the self-centered women spotlighted in that New York Times article quoted by Steve, I was equally troubled by the assumption that because something is common, it's normative or even good.
"This is yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people's lives," says Prof. Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were. She's also director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families. Listening to her talk, it's more like the "Council on Groups of People Who Want All the Benefits of Family but None of the Constraints." You can almost hear the glee in her voice over this development in the decline in marriage, as traditionally defined.
The article quotes William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, who says, "For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage. Younger women understand this better, and are preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with non-married partners."
They may be preparing to be unmarried, but from what I'm hearing and seeing among single Christian women, they're not happy about it. Despite the handful of quotes from metropolitan single women in this article, most young women still desire the structure and even sacrifice that comprises marrying well.
And marrying well reaps many rewards. To name just a few: we know that men who marry well are healthier and wealthier. We know that women who marry well are more sexually satisfied. And we know that children born into families where their parents are married to each other fare far better than in any other alternative family arrangement.
No matter what spin the Times and historical revisionists like Stephanie Coontz try to put on this stat, the reality is that fewer marriages -- the real kind with one man and one woman -- is bad for society.
I ran across this article by Camerin Courtney from a few years back that offers great advice to married people on befriending singles. One point, that I have experienced first-hand, is regarding the awkward things married people sometimes say: I have yet to find a witty response to the common small-talk question, "So, are you married?" After I reply, "No," there's usually an awkward silence that I feel compelled to fill with an inane comment such as, "But I'm not against it or anything." I wish strangers would take a few seconds to glance at the empty ring finger on my left hand and save me the conversational agony! The similar question, "So, are you seeing anyone?" yields similar results. If the answer's no, you've dead-ended the conversation again. If it's yes, we singles usually bring it up before you can ask.
Another vexing question is, "So, why aren't you married yet?" As if there were a specific answer to that, such as "Well, I guess I'm just not pretty enough." As with so many things in life, there are no easy answers — other than we just haven't met God's best for us yet.
These questions can be frustrating. I mean, really. What do you expect us to say? One of my single friends recently joked, "I just tell them, 'I have some fairly significant personality issues.' "
My married friends are some of the most encouraging people in my life. By focusing on our shared goal of glorifying the Savior, these friends help me grow in my trust of the Lord and live for Him in the moment He has given me. Courtney says: I enjoy how my married friends bring a different perspective to my life; they offer a realistic picture of marriage, humor from their funny stories about their kids, and balance to the people who comprise my community of faith.
I feel the same. I hope that I bring something important to their lives as well. That's what the Body of Christ is all about.
An article in today's New York Times says that for the first time, more American women are living without a husband. The rate of 51 percent of women living without a spouse is up from 35 percent in 1950.
We've spent a lot of time on Boundless addressing various factors behind the expanding growth of singleness. This article, however, carries with it a surprising tone of self-centeredness from almost every woman quoted.
While we don't know where these women are in their spiritual walk, the following excerpts seem to show a lack of appreciation for the sacrificial, other-centered model of Christian marriage: "I don't plan to live with anyone else again until I am married," she said, "and I may opt to keep a place of my own even then."
"I have not sworn off marriage, but if I do wed, it will be to have a companion with whom I can travel and play parlor games in my old age."
"I'm in a place in my life where I'm comfortable,' said Ms. Crenshaw, who has two grown sons. "I can do what I want, when I want, with whom I want. I was a wife and a mother. I don’t feel like I need to do that again."
Similarly, Shelley Fidler, 59, a public policy adviser at a law firm, has sworn off marriage. She moved from rural Virginia to the vibrant Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., when her 30-year marriage ended. "The benefits were completely unforeseen for me," Ms. Fidler said, "the free time, the amount of time I get to spend with friends, the time I have alone, which I value tremendously, the flexibility in terms of work, travel and cultural events."
"A gentleman asked me to marry him and I said no," she recalled. "I told him, 'I'm just beginning to fly again, I'm just beginning to be me. Don't take that away.' "
"Marriage kind of aged me because there weren't options," Ms. Terris said. "There was only one way to go. Now I have choices. One night I slept on the other side of the bed, and I thought, I like this side."
Our readers often ask if some of the trends we observe are simply trends among non-believers that aren't true of Christians. Sometimes I believe this is true. I'm curious if the attitude above is only a secular culture trend or if our readers have also seen this kind of self-centeredness among believers.
I was clicking through some posts on a singles forum and came across one titled "Dream wife and Dream husband."
I admit that I was surprised at the maturity of the responses. Dream spouse characteristics included honest, church-going, non-judgmental, secure, empathetic and so on. Of course, there were some silly ones in there too: "Like Eve before the fall."
The thread got me thinking about some teaching I heard a few years ago before I got married, a talk given by Pastor Dave Harvey called "When Sinners Say I Do." The gist of the sermon was that if I enter into marriage knowing that my wife will sin, then I won't be disappointed when ... surprise ... she does sin.
The outline of the talk, which is freely available from Sovereign Grace Ministries, shows how you can tell whether or not your doctrine of sin is being applied effectively in your relationship. The first "indicator" is: "We are More Aware of Being a Sinner Than Being Sinned-Against." Fascinating.
What I took away after listening to the sermon was an encouragement to practice grace and have realistic expectations, expectations based in what Scripture says about human nature.
I think it may be helpful to think of "The One" as someone who's sinful, just as you are. I think that's better than to think of them as the idealized "soul mate" (see this and this) with whom you'll be able to enjoy a problem-free, effortless relationship.
While it's true that singles should do a good deal of work "up-front" in selecting a spouse, it's also true that because we're all sinful, a good relationship will continue to take a good deal of effort and require a good deal of grace.
The second question in today's Boundless Answers is from a reader whose dad thinks he should wait until his late twenties to get married.
I'm hearing more and more about parents making this kind of recommendation. Some, like the one in this question, married later in life and see their path as one worth following. Others married early and realized later that if they had waited they could have started with more money and more maturity.
The difficult thing about this hypothesis is that while more money and maturity can make for a better marriage, marriage is often the reason that men mature and make more money. It's one of those chicken or the egg things.
It's true that people who marry before 22 are statistically at a greater risk of divorce, but every year you delay marriage doesn't continuously lower your risk. In fact, Dr. Norval Glenn, a researcher at the University of Texas, found that people who marry after 27 tend to have a drop in marital satisfaction similar to those who marry before 22 (making marriage between 23 and 27 something of a sweetspot).
On behalf of the National Fatherhood Initiative, Dr. Glenn presented his research in "With This Ring ... A National Survey on Marriage in America." In that report, he writes:
Living alone for many years may tend to make persons "set in their ways" and thus impede their adjustment to marriage, or having a succession of low-commitment relationships, with or without cohabitation, may make it harder for persons to commit to marriage. Marrying later than most of one's age mates gives a person a more limited selection of potential spouses to choose from and may lessen the chances of a good marital match.
I don't make this observation to discourage people who are already over 27, but to encourage people who already have good options for marriage in their early twenties not to wait for an arbitrary later age.
As a closing note, I still remember a dinner I had with Dr. Al Mohler in which he pointed out that while the first few years for a couple who marries young can be tight financially and entail a lot of growing up quickly, they are also the years many couples look back on with the greatest fondness. While many would prefer to put off marriage until they've grown up and found themselves, Mohler sees much value in the path in which couples grow up and find themselves ... together.
I realize some parents are Web savvy. Mine are not. (I still e-mail my Boundless articles to Mom; It's just easier that way.) That's why I'm excited about Cranky.com, a search engine launched this week that is specially designed for the over-50 set. Fox News reports: This steadily growing demographic often feels overwhelmed using high-powered search engines from the likes of Google Inc. (GOOG) and Yahoo Inc. (YHOO) because they spew out more results than older eyes care to see, said Jeff Taylor, the Cranky mastermind who previously struck it rich as the founder of online employment site Monster.com (MNST).
"Our research found that people 50 and over are confused about searching on the Web," said Taylor. "It's hard for them to understand all the results."
Showing just four search results per page, Cranky will display matches that apply most directly to its target audience. The site will be financed through ads aimed at its demographic. And it seems the site has done its homework: After teaming up with Internet research firm Compete Inc. to identify the 500,000 most popular Web sites among people at least 45 years old, Cranky dispatched reviewers to dig even deeper into the top 5,000 destinations.
If age-customized search is a success, I imagine similar sites will follow for children, teens, college students and others. What do you think? Will Cranky live up to Taylor's Monster success? Only time — and Mom — will tell.
In case you missed President Bush's national address last night on Iraq, Justin Taylor has "crafted" it into a Q&A format which he self-describes as logical and clarifying. I agree.
Here's some highlights: What is the most urgent priority for success in Iraq?
Security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis.
Why have our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed?
Two principal reasons: [1] There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And [2] there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.
How will the new Iraqi plan address these mistake?
The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort -– along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations -– conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.
How will America help?
America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence -– and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels.
How many?
I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -– five brigades –- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations.
For the full speech, go here.
When Steve mentioned YouTube earlier today, I was reminded of some current pro-life videos on the site. They show 4D footage of pre-born children in the womb.
First of all, the ultrasound images are amazing. These are 16-17 week fetuses, nowhere near ready to come out of the womb, yet they look like fully formed babies. It really makes the answer to the question, "What is it?" quite obvious.
Since it is obvious that a child in the womb is more than a lump of tissue, the debate really comes down to one thing: choice. Last year I wrote an article called, "Sanctity of Human Choice." In it, I address the reality that a woman's right to choose has become the most important factor in the abortion debate.
Honestly, I think the idea of choice goes way beyond abortion. In our society we have exalted our "right" to do what we want above others' feelings, our own good and, in the case of abortion, above the sanctity of life itself. The way so many people think about abortion is really just a symptom of a culture that has become obsessively self-involved.
January is Sanctity of Human Life Month, and I think it's so crucial for us to take the issues of life and choice seriously. For more information, you can check out the Web site, Be A Voice.
Also, here are the links to those YouTube videos; they're pretty amazing:
Women's Rights
Don't Tell Me How To Live!
Life...
If I Am...
Still in school after four years? You're not alone. In "College: The New Four- Six-Year Degree," David S. Eisen discusses the challenges today's college students face exiting college in a timely manner. The four-year degree is largely a thing of the past. According to a 2006 study by the National Center for Education Statistics, less than 35 percent of students at "four-year colleges" are able to complete their bachelor's degree in four years or fewer. But most do graduate — more than 56 percent eventually get their B.A. within six years. The data was culled from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, which captured graduation rates of full-time undergraduate students beginning in 1998 from more than 6,500 institutions.
I noticed a difference even between myself and my younger sister. We're five years apart and attended the same college. All of my close friends and I graduated in four years. My sister and many of her friends, however, added a minor, took time off to work, studied abroad or made other choices that kept them in school an additional year.
Research indicates a lack of motivation isn't the primary reason students are lingering. Some universities aren't facilitating the timely completion of requirements. Students are unable to take the classes they need for graduation within the four-year period. The rising cost of tuition is another factor. Today's college students have to work more hours to pay for the same ratio of tuition as students even five years ago.
Moving from a four- to six-year college education, is not a good trend. It's costly, and it further delays the growing-up process. What was once a clear indicator of adulthood — four years of college followed by graduation — is turning into an indefinite process. To combat the problem, a few colleges are offering incentives to those who graduate in four years and providing intensive counseling to help students succeed. Let's hope other schools will follow suit and commit to reversing this costly trend.
In case you haven't been noticing it, a new generation of atheists is emerging who want to rise above the stigma of faithlessness and put Christians back on the defensive. On top of the flood of popular books by luminaries such as Richard Dawkins, comes the Blasphemy Challenge. The current issue of Newsweek reports on this challenge that invites young people to post videos on YouTube in which they blaspheme the Holy Spirit -- since that is a sin the Bible deems unforgivable.
While the sponsors of this effort invite participants to boldly flaunt their denial of God, Newsweek points out that such a pose is "the ultimate no-win wager," adding, "as the 17th-century French mathematician Blaise Pascal calculated -- it can't be settled until you're dead, and if you lose, you go to hell."
I'm taking a moment to mark comment number 1,000 on The Line. Another milestone: We recently had our 100,000th visitor. We truly appreciate all who read our blog and contribute to the conversation, conversation typically characterized by intelligence, relevance and civility.
As we move forward with our dialog, there will most certainly be disagreement. So let us remember the words of the late theologian Francis Schaeffer taken from his book The Mark of a Christian:
"The world must observe that when we must differ with each other as true Christians, we do it not because we love the smell of blood, the smell of the arena, the smell of the bullfight, but because we must for God's sake."
For a great exploration on how to practice such "for God's sake" dialog, check out the following Boundless articles, published four months ago when The Line made its debut: Blogging to Worship God and Blog Responsibly.
I was reading through some of the comments on the blog and came across this one by Ben Lansing. I found myself clicking over to his blog and came across the following cartoon that he drew recently.
Great point (which Alex and Brett Harris are going to touch on in an article they're working on for Boundless) -- sometimes our gadgets can distract us from hearing the voice of the Lord.
Not only a well-conveyed point, but a timely one as well in light of this.
Cartoon (c) 2007 by Ben Lansing (www.benlansing.com, www.tttblog.com)
When I first heard that a Democratic senator was in intensive care after suffering a brain hemorrhage last month, I confess my immediate consideration was not for the man, but for the political implications. It was only a month after the November elections and the Senate had just flipped to a one-seat Democratic majority. I thought of Sen. Tim Johnson only as a Democrat, a seat in the majority that, if changed, would mean a different agenda for America.
World Magazine explores such "depravity" in a new article about what is going on in the "backs of people's minds" as we consider how to pray in such a situation.
Politics, I was reminded, is a brutal and ugly game. It is not for the faint of heart. Like war itself, there are postures that must be assumed and even actions that must be taken that are so grisly and distasteful that we'd almost rather not mention them out loud.
It's more polite and seemly at this point, of course, to note that Tim Johnson has voted twice to oppose partial-birth abortion, and that he was one of only four Democrats who voted "yes" on confirming Justice Samuel Alito. Why not stress the good things this politically moderate man has done, and point to him as a model of the kind of Democrat in the modern era conservatives are happy to work with?
Except -- oh, yes -- we almost forgot. So long as Tim Johnson holds onto his seat, clinging to it even from his sickbed, a whole list of his much more radical colleagues will continue to chair committees and set the agenda for all that the U.S. Senate does over the next 20 months.
Almost a full month after Sen. Johnson underwent emergency surgery, he remains in critical condition, unable to communicate except by squeezing his wife's hand. Two days after the incident, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler released a commentary which ended:
Our first responsibility is to pray for Sen. Johnson's full and complete recovery. Before he is a senator, he is husband, father, and grandfather. A man is fighting for his life at George Washington University Hospital in the nation's capital. Let's pray for Sen. Tim Johnson, his wife Barbara, his children Brooks, Brendan, and Kelsey, and grandsons Sutton, Cooper, and Ari. The time for prayer is now. The politics will have to wait.
I don't know much about Sen. Johnson the "husband, father and grandfather." But I have no doubt that his family and friends are suffering now. And having considered Sen. Johnson the man, I know exactly what to hope for and how to pray.
The Barna Group's latest study is reporting a surge in home churches and home church participation among young adults "who are interested in faith and spirituality but have little interest in the traditional forms of church."
Why the move toward home churches? "Their quest is largely one of escaping outdated structures and institutions" Barna reports.
The study results, released Monday, reminded me that when I was single and working in Washington, D.C., I went to a home church (honestly, I'd nearly forgotten this experience). It was one of my fondest church experiences primarily because it required so much participation (the church was small; comprised of just a few families) and led early on to deep relationships with the members of the body.
After all, what kind of a body is it when the head, heart or hands doesn't know, or even recognize, the other parts?
Though it's unlikely we'd leave our current church for a friend or neighbor's living room, I do feel newly challenged to go deeper in both my commitment to and my relationships within our church.
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