 |
In his article published yesterday, "Biblical Dating: Just Friends," Scott Croft identifies different types of friendship experienced by single adults. There's the type that unintentionally "invites confusion and frustration," and there's the type that's enjoyed within the "context of community."
He's not trying to pour cold water on the rich friendships singles can share, but rather bring clarity to an area that sometimes invites confusion and "delays the good."
What do you think? Have you experienced these two types of friendship? Are there other kinds of friendship?
I'd love to hear your comments, but request that before you press the "post" button you read what Scott wrote.
Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, has been the focus of a peculiar media attack over the past week.
Since Monday, I've read several articles that portray Dobson as a meddling bigot intent on promoting an adulterer for President (Newt Gingrich) while denouncing one of the more conservative potential candidates (Fred Thompson). The first article to appear was written by Dan Gilgoff, whose recent book The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War was written to cast an eerie and suspicious shadow on the ministry founded by Dobson.
Since then, others have picked up on the story, giving it misleading headlines like Dr. James Dobson: Fred Thompson 'Not a Christian' (not sure why that phrase is in quotes; Dobson never said that), James Dobson: Sen. Fred Thompson Can't Win Because He's Not A Christian (again, something Dobson never said), and Evangelical Leader Dobson Doesn't Like Fred Thompson ("doesn't like?" where did that come from?).
The thing is, Dobson is being mischaracterized and his words are being taken out of context in order to demonize him.
What did he say that's drawn the ire of the media? In a phone interview, he speculated that Fred Thompson might not be a Christian, and that that may prove problematic with the Republican party's conservative Christian base. Here's what he said about Thompson: "Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for.... I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression." He was giving an off-the-cuff conjecture of the man's faith, not denouncing him or saying that he's hell-bound.
These articles also reference something Dobson said a few weeks earlier in an interview with Gingrich: that he was the "brightest guy out there" and "the most articulate politician on the scene today."
In both cases, I don't see Dobson either supporting Gingrich as his nominee of choice or dismissing Thompson. He's just voicing his personal opinions, which seem to me pretty well grounded. And the media have taken these two completely different conversations, removed the context in which Dobson said these things, and have brought them together for the sole purpose of making Dobson look foolish and bigoted.
Because the media love cutting down high-profile Christians, and so many in this country are eager to latch on to any evidence that a high-profile Christian might be a Really Bad Person, the mischaracterizations about Dobson have blossomed.
And, frankly, I find that tiring. Why are we so eager to believe negative portrayals of high-profile Christians like James Dobson? Why do we on one hand denounce much of the media as being "liberal" and bent on cutting down those who are identified as being on the Right (like Dobson), and yet believe this same mainstream media when they have something negative to say about someone like Dobson?
Next time you read an article and are tempted to think less of a high-profile Christian, consider that the source might simply be twisting the facts in order to manipulate their readers into dismissing those followers of Christ who happen to be in the limelight. I think that's what the author of the cynical The Jesus Machine set out to do. And so far, it seems he's having some success in his twisted mission to make Dobson out to be a buffoon.
Early this year, author Kay S. Hymowitz gave a lecture at conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation on her book Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age. In her message about the growing social divide between married and single-parent households, she said that part of the problem is that we've lost the "script" for getting married and having children. What I'm suggesting is that without a program, people lose a way of organizing their lives, a life script, a means of orienting themselves toward the future, and a way to build wealth.... The script is vitally important not just for people of marriageable age, but for children and adolescents. It tells them where they are going and what matters. The pursuit of a (hopefully) permanent partner is an essential project for the young. It forces them to try to know themselves, to consider how they want to live, to plan their careers, ... It builds self-restraint and self-knowledge.
Hymowitz tells the story of young man who grew up without the script, who fathered three children out of wedlock. She called what happened to them creating an "accidental family." Sociologist Dr. Leon Kass maintains a similar theory about the need for a script. Only he adds that one is needed for the way we date as well. Today, there are no socially prescribed forms of conduct that help guide young men and women in the direction of matrimony.... People still get married -- though later, less frequently, more hesitantly, and, by and large, less successfully. For the great majority, the way to the altar is uncharted territory: It's every couple on its own bottom, without a compass, often without a goal. Those who reach the altar seem to have stumbled upon it by accident....
If you are in need of a marriage and family script, go here, here, and here.
Speaking of the "me, me, me" mentality, it's one of the characteristics Joshua Harris ascribes to a "church dater." In our Mentor Series interview with Joshua and Carolyn McCulley -- which was primarily centered around Joshua's book, "Stop Dating the Church" -- we asked what a church dater looks like.
Joshua responded: Well, I hone in on three things. First, being "me"-centered, meaning what can I get out of this church, what does it have for me, what can it do for me.
A second one would be being independent. Going to church because that's what we do, that's what we've always done, but not really looking to involve others in our lives and say, "Here's who I am, I need help." But instead, "It's me and Jesus, and I come to church like a person goes to the gas station to fill up once a week or something. But this is not where I live my life. I don't open myself up to others and become dependent on others."
And then finally, I would add a church dater is often critical. And so there's this mindset of "Here's what the church is doing wrong, here's where it can be improved, and I'm sitting in the back evaluating. But I'm not getting my hands dirty and saying how can I contribute to the solution and really help what's really going on here."
As I sat listening to Joshua, I remember thinking, I've been guilty of all these and I'm a committed member of my church. But what he's talking about is more than just being a member and showing up; it's involving yourself in the lives of others and welcoming them in your life; it's asking "what can I give?" instead of "do I like this or that?"; it's filling a need that you know you may not particularly enjoy instead of saying "it's not my gift" or "I don't feel called to that."
Joshua said it's important that we continually check ourselves in the way we approach the church. That's good advice for me. I think I'll always be prone to the getting-involved-but-not-so-much-that-it-interferes-with-the-things-I-really-enjoy attitude.
This post isn't about internet dating or slacker guys so you may just want to quit reading right now. I am planning to pick on some people, though, so it might be fun to continue.
Last Wednesday at Bible study, we were reading the book of Acts, and I noticed something so radical -- those crazy disciples were all about spreading the Gospel of Jesus and helping those around them! They're running around the countryside without much concern for advancing their careers or buying new cars (camels?). What a life! I thought. I'm glad they did it, but it's certainly not something I'd want to do. I mean, where's the me time?
Then, last Thursday, I read Matt Kaufman's latest article on Boundless, "Me, Me, Me." He talks about the epidemic of our generation -- how entirely focused we are on ourselves.
Now, narcissism isn't unique to our generation; it's something we share with all humanity. However, we have been encouraged to think we're great. We have been given a lot, and we have come to think that we deserve a lot because we're special, unique, hot stuff. And we should share our uniqueness with the world, ergo: YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, and so on.
I'm not saying Facebook is bad -- I even have a profile. And, I'm probably not the one to be cautioning others against narcissism, because I frequently talk about how awesome I am. Just ask my co-workers, or my friends ... or pretty much anyone I've ever met. ;-)
But I do think that this "you are special-ness" may have gotten a bit out of hand. Kaufman talks about how our high thoughts of ourselves should not be taken too far: To be sure, there's a valuable kind of self-esteem that comes from knowing you're God's child. There's also a different kind that appeals to our innate tendency to see the universe orbiting around ourselves, and to value (or dislike) others mainly based on how they suit our desires. When we simply embrace self-esteem per se, we leave the door wide open to the latter kind — and it doesn't hate to accept the invitation.
It is easy for us to get wrapped up in ourselves. It's only natural. And isn't it interesting, that the Bible says "love your neighbor as yourself"? God knows we're self-obsessed -- we understand the command to love others, because we know how much we love ourselves.
Anyway, all this to say that I've recently been convicted about how much I think about myself. Have you all figured out ways to take the focus off of you and turn it toward others?
Last year I was co-leading a drama ministry at my church. After nine months of creating and performing original dramas, a series of events, along with the Holy Spirit's nudge, convinced us the group should not continue. My co-leader and I agreed to pray about the decision for several weeks; we were hesitant to let go of something we had innovated that had become so successful (i.e. popular). After several weeks of prayer, the Lord made it clear that the group needed to end. Within a month of calling in quits, circumstances confirmed that the decision had been the right one. The Lord also provided new and vital ministries for me and my co-leader.
At Desiring God, Bethlehem Baptist's executive pastor, Sam Crabtree, meditates on why survival isn't important. He advocates holding loosely to our dreams and ministries, and focusing instead on being the people God has called us to be.
On occasion I have said to the staff and elders that I don’t care whether Bethlehem goes out of existence, if in order to survive we become the wrong Bethlehem. If we can first settle the issue of what God wants us to be, who we are, what we are, what we believe and stand for (because we must), survival becomes secondary. If we survive, we survive. If we perish, we perish. If we grow, we grow. If we diminish, we diminish. To settle the issue of survival is freedom!
I heard a lyric yesterday from the Superchick song Beauty from Pain, that mirrored this idea:
And then the darkness surrounds me
I know I'm alive
But I feel like I've died
And all that's left is to accept that it's over
My dreams ran like sand through the fist that I made
How often have I held onto something, only to stand by helplessly as I watched it slip away. If I had just handed it to the Lord in the first place, I would have been free. Crabtree says:
The battle is the Lord’s. But if we choose to make the battle ours, and choose to make survival the goal of the battle, then we start to figure the angles, make subtle accommodations, compromise here and there, demote moral conviction, and do anything to win, to survive. What we need is a fundamental shift in the center of gravity in our lives from focusing on survival of ourselves to glorifying God, even in death.
Fighting for survival against God's will wastes precious energy and resources. Open your fist and watch God work.
HT: Justin Taylor
 I don't mean to sidetrack the great discussion going on over at the post Steve started, but one of the comments (thanks, Dan H.!) has provoked me to start a new thread....
Dan H. suggests that we should sponsor: ... a "Boundless Cruise" or some similar activity, where we could meet some of the great columnists, bloggers and writers we have come to know over the years here on the web. As a side effect of an event like this it would get lots of marriage minded singles in one place.
Recognizing that a cruise could be a bit expensive for most of our readers, he added that "perhaps a conference or two around the country would have similar benefits."
Frankly, this sounds like a pretty attractive option to those of us landlocked in Colorado Springs. It wouldn't be the first time Focus has offered such a thing....
Monday I discussed the latest findings in the NICHD longitudinal daycare study. While it's disconcerting to realize how potentially damaging daycare can be, and how many women use daycare so they can pursue their careers, it's equally heartening to learn women don't have to stay on the career track from start-to-finish after all. Women, it's discovered, are in a good position to take a break from work when their babies arrive.
In her commentary on Crosswalk.com, Janice Shaw Crouse writes: ...the playing field at work is quite level; indeed, in some instances women have a distinct advantage both in hiring and in promotion. Studies also show that highly-qualified women can jump off the fast track and then catch up when they are ready to jump back on. It’s called “off-ramping;” increasingly, talented women who want to balance career and family are taking that route.
She reports that balance is something a large number of Xers want. According to a 2005 Harvard Business Review (HBR) study, family responsibilities are identified as the motivating force behind young careerists who choose to “off-ramp.” Gen X parents say they spend more time on child-rearing (51 percent of the women are stay-at-home moms) and household tasks than the Boomer parents (33 percent of the women were full-time mothers) did; further, they express the desire to spend more time –– especially those in the higher income brackets. The Los Angeles Times reported that fathers today are helping around the house much more than a decade ago (34 percent compared to 24 percent).
That's good news for the kids of Xers, and not surprising given all the heartache these "off-rampers" endured when their own Boomer parents followed the cultural tides of divorce and family disruption.
HBR did say it may cost a woman up to 18 percent of her earning power to leave the office for a season -- a tradeoff the women doing it consider worthwhile.
This is good news for Christian couples who want children and want mom to stay home with them while they're young. But most of all, it's good news for the children. The more moms who raise their own children, the better.
It was great to see such a great conversation (and a record number of comments) grow out of the post on guys and motivation.
I noticed more than one commenter bemoan the scarcity of quality prospects in their area. Esther, for example, wrote, "Does this mean it's time for Boundless to start matching people up?"
Hmmm. This is an area we've thought about at various times but found difficult to move to reality. While we see tremendous opportunity, we also see a lot of complications in pulling off some kind of Internet-facilitated dating/courtship service. We would appreciate your prayers as we consider the potential for such a service here at Focus on the Family.
In the meantime, you could help us out by offering your thoughts about online-facilitated dating/courtship services.
- What features do you like from other services that you would recommend?
- What bugs you about other services that you wouldn't want to see repeated? (You don't need to name the service)
- Do you think there's any value an Internet service could add for couples who want to follow a courtship model vs. the dating model most matching services support?
- More importantly, do you think we have anything to add to the large market of existing services?
- Finally, is there any reason you think we should just avoid jumping into this kind of service?
Thanks for your feedback.
As a prepubescent youth, when I first learned the meaning of homosexuality from friends at school, I remember immediately questioning every emotion I had for my male friends when I was around them. It was the first of several sexual identity crises I experienced in my young life. To be sure, my own growing attraction to girls provided great relief but it didn't eliminate the questions altogether.
All this from simply learning that some men have sex with other men. And though I believe it was more of a depersonalization problem -- a fear that one can't control his own actions -- than a real struggle with same-sex attraction (SSA), it left an indelible impression. It's probably why I'm so interested in the "why" of men who struggle with SSA, because there's usually a story, some life altering experience(s) or unusual family dynamic or something -- notwithstanding the current debate raging about a gay gene.
Last month, First Things ran an article about a faithful Christian's struggle with same-sex attraction. The author tells the story of "Chris," a young man who feels isolated in his battle to stay chaste in a college environment hostile to the idea of denying one's "true self."
His roommates and friends wouldn't know how to take it. Others on campus would encourage him to embrace his true self: They'd label him a homosexual and call him gay. But he's not -- and neither does he want to be: Sexual attraction, he thinks, doesn't define a person. Indeed, he particularly fears coming out about his attractions while struggling against them, which would get him labeled a repressed homosexual, the gay-basher who himself is queer, the gay kid who thinks it's just some disorder. All he wants is to live chastely and try to make progress in addressing the causes of his same-sex attractions. But at the modern American university, this is anathema. For all their celebrations of diversity and pledges of tolerance, this choice is not to be celebrated or even tolerated.
It may not be exactly the same, but this reminds me of the campus response to Harvard's abstinence group, True Love Revolution. People love sex in all its deviations from God's plan. And they want you to join them, lest they feel condemned by your refusal.
I married her about a year after I first met her.
I met her in church, and also saw her around the university campus, where she was a grad student and where I had some clients.
A couple of months after I first saw her, and after we'd chatted some at get-togethers, I invited her to attend my small group at church. She accepted.
A short while later I invited my roommate and myself over to her apartment to evaluate her leftover lasagna. She opened the door when I knocked. I took that as a good sign.
After seeking counsel with one of my pastors, I took her out for lunch and nervously let her know I was interested in a relationship with her. Though she was interested in me, she wanted time to think about it. I respected that, and over the next couple of weeks, I continued to gently reaffirm my interest.
At one particular get-together a few weeks later, I asked her if she'd be open to being in a formal relationship with me. A couple of days later, as I drove her to the airport, she said yes.
The four months of our courtship were characterized by clarity, honesty, accountability with her family and our pastor, adventure, prayer, purity, romance and intentionality. Four months after we started our courtship, I asked her to marry me. Her response: "Yes, of course."
The four months of our engagement were characterized by continued purity and intentionality, continued meetings with our mentors and pastors, a couple of trips to Florida to spend time with her family, continued prayer and a growing understanding of our respective roles, and preparations for The Big Day.
Four months after we were engaged beneath a full moon on the beach, eight months after we first started our courtship, a mere year after we first met, our pastor told me I could kiss my bride. And for the first time, I did.
Because of our intentionality; because of our eagerness to be under the watchful eyes of parents, mentors and pastors; because of our steadfast commitment to purity and honesty -- one year from "Hi" to "I do" was not too short a period of time.
I believe that those who practice biblical dating -- who practice intentionality, accountability and purity, and who have a complimentarian view of the sexes and a Godward perspective -- for these individuals 12 months can be just about right.
It doesn't *need* to be much longer than that.
Last week's Time magazine cover story considers the pros and cons of Bible education in public school. While Old and New Testament classes in public schools have proven popular, the concept is, of course, controversial. To some, this idea seems retrograde. Citing a series of Supreme Court decisions culminating in 1963's Abington Township School District v. Schempp, which removed prayer and devotion from the classroom, the skeptics ask whether it is safe to bring back the source of all that sectarianism. But a new, post-Schempp coalition insists it is essential to do so. It argues that teaching the Bible in schools -- as an object of study, not God's received word -- is eminently constitutional. The Bible so pervades Western culture, it says, that it's hard to call anyone educated who hasn't at least given thought to its key passages.
Right now public-school courses on the Bible are employed in 460 districts in at least 37 states. One of the classes described in the article has become a favorite among students. Its popularity is indicative of its relevance.
I find this turn toward Bible literacy extremely encouraging. My mom came to know Christ through a secular college philosophy class. One day the professor said: "Today we are going to consider the philosophy of the apostle Paul. In my opinion, this guy was a total nut job." After hearing the gospel preached by an agnostic, my mom wasn't convinced of Paul's lunacy. She began reading Matthew and soon found herself on the "narrow road."
Obviously teaching the Bible in public schools enhances overall education (as Catherine Claire of the Point illustrates), but what I find exciting is its potential eternal value. A public high school teacher I know often writes Proverbs on his white board and tags them "Ancient Hebrew Saying." His students find the Proverbs intriguing and ask questions about them. God's Word is a light ... even to those who don't know Him yet.
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) is releasing the results of a landmark daycare study begun in 1991. The longitudinal study, which has followed over 1,000 children from birth to age 12, and is the collaborative effort of groups with competing (some have said "warring") viewpoints, is the largest of its kind.
The goal of the study is "to examine how differences in child care experiences relate to children's social, emotional, intellectual, and language development, and to their physical growth and health."
"Children who spend large amounts of time in child-care centers exhibit more minor behavior problems, such as aggression and disobedience, than other children, at least through sixth grade," the study reports. (Sixth grade is as far as the study has gone, to date. The study will continue, revisiting the children when they are 15.)
In addition to what the study found about different care options (e.g., institutional child-care centers/preschools, home-based child-care services, nannies, etc.) producing greater or lesser problems in the children, what emerged, consistent with opponents of wide-spread daycare, is that nothing compares to the care of mom (or dad) at home with the kids.
These studies always stir up lots of emotions among women who have children in daycare. My heart goes out to those who find their circumstances leave them with no other option -- especially single moms.
Still, in the midst of the debates and hand-wringing about what current parents are to do, let's not lose sight of what these results mean for Boundless readers. Most of you are still single and as yet, childless. Translation: you still have control over, or at a minimum, the ability to influence, your future circumstances -- and the circumstances into which your children will be born.
When I was expecting our first child, Steve and I found that our biggest hurdles to me staying home were financial; and that we could have minimized them with better planning. We took out school loans liberally, using the money for books, classes and, it's embarrassing to admit, lattes. We relied on consumer debt to pay for things we had to have right now, rather than waiting until we had cash-in-hand for non-essential purchases. We qualified for our first mortgage using both of our salaries, even though we planned for me to stop working full-time once we started a family. And we bought cars that we had to finance, rather than ones we could actually afford.
Thankfully I had chosen a path of study in college and graduate school that was both flexible and portable. Flexible in that I could take a break from my career without suffering long-term penalties (as you would in fields where making partner or getting tenure is a key part of success) and portable in that I could work from home. This is easy to do when you're a writer, not so easy if you're a doctor, lawyer or astronaut.
With so much evidence stacked against daycare, it only makes sense that if you're not yet facing decisions about what to do with your children while you're at the office, and you do want to be a mom someday, you should start thinking about it now.
 I was spending a few minutes over at the Boundless ShoutLife page and noticed a blog post from one of my "friends" announcing that Michael W. Smith became a grandfather over the weekend.
It's our prayer at Boundless that Michael and his family are richly blessed by this new life that's entered their family. I wonder if we'll be hearing any granddaughter songs in the near future....
 My church had the distinction this past weekend of being picketed by the family known as Westboro Baptist Church. Best known for protesting at military funerals, carrying signs such as "THANK GOD FOR IEDs" and "SOLDIERS DIE GOD LAUGHS" (and more vulgar ones not suitable for reprinting here), the group chose to demonstrate at five churches in Colorado Springs over the weekend.
As I mentioned, my church was among those five.
Let me tell you, I was enthused by our gracious reaction to yesterday's hour-long protest, a deferential response that brings to mind that portrayed in the recent Boundless article, "An Emcee's Gentle Word."
When I drove up to the church yesterday morning, the first thing I noticed were some police cars parked a few blocks away. Then I saw the handful of protesters. At that point, I was merely intrigued. Sure enough, they were carrying the signs I'd seen on the internet and on TV news, along with a few I hadn't seen before: "YOU KILLED YOUR KIDS" and "AMERICA IS DOOMED" and "GOD IS YOUR ENEMY."
 As I pulled into the church parking lot, I saw a row of motorcycles. They may have been from the Patriot Guard Riders, though they could have just been locals concerned about what those carrying signs might shout out to church members. Every time one of the protesters would start yelling, the motorcyclists would rev their engines and lay on their horns. My intrigue grew into admiration.
As I continued to my parking space, I passed three teenage girls who were praying and reading Scripture, no doubt praying that the Lord would both bless these protesters and render their efforts impotent. I saw small groups of men from the church directing traffic with broad smiles on their faces, encouraged that the protest was not achieving its intended effect. I heard later that numerous members of our church had been praying that the Lord would touch the protesters' hearts.
As I left church that morning, my heart felt buoyed by the grace and goodwill I saw modeled. What could have been a distasteful confrontation had instead become a striking opportunity to honor God. What was meant to foster hate instead provided a stage to display Christian love.
Over the past week, I've spoken with two attractive, gifted single women about the headaches of dating. Both of these women have great jobs here at Focus on the Family, are fun to be with and have a lot to offer in the roles they'd love to play some day as wives.
Too many times I've heard them talk through the frustrations of pseudo-relationships, quasi-dates and bizarre exchanges with online suitors.
As I hear these stories, I so often scratch my head and think, "How can so many guys miss how great of a catch these girls are?" As I think back to college, I see that these are the kinds of girls that my friends and I would have been competing to date.
I remember a conversation I had with a guy named Jim who met his wife in the 80s. He described seeing a girl named Mary and thinking, "I better marry her before someone else does."
Are there any guys thinking like that these days?
I'm not trying to pile onto guys. I know from our emails and blog comments that there are some solid and well-motivated guys among our readers. Too often, however, I hear stories of guys acting like they have all the time in the world to evaluate their options -- regardless of the wear and tear they might be putting on the hearts of the women in their lives.
I hate to sound too doom and gloom, but a lot of today's single guys need to keep in mind what a forty-something single friend of mine once said: "Looking back now, I realize that I let a lot of good opportunities pass me by."
"Harvard abstinence group fights against mindless sex on campus" reports The Boston Globe's news website boston.com.
From the looks of the story, it's not just mindless sex they're battling: Harvard student Rebecca Singh said she was offended by a valentine the group sent to the dormitory mailboxes of all freshmen. It read: "Why wait? Because you're worth it."
"I think they thought that we might not be 'ruined' yet," Singh said. "It's a symptom of that culture we have that values a woman on her purity. It's a relic."
Others on campus have mocked the group. Murray said his friends take pleasure in loudly, and graphically, discussing their sex lives just to taunt him.
"On campus there is such a strong attitude of pluralism and acceptance, but then it doesn't extend to this," Kinsella said.
The message from the administration isn't much different. According to the story, Dr. David Rosenthal, director of Harvard health services, believes "students mistakenly think everyone on campus is having sex."
Are they?
The story continues, "The National College Health Assessment Survey, which included Harvard and hundreds of other campuses, found that about 29 percent of students reported not having sex in the past school year." That means 71 percent of students are. 71 percent.
And Rosenthal thinks that for them, "it is crucial to promote safety." Safety, as in, "be safe, stop having sex"? Doubtful. As Dr. Miriam Grossman reveals in her expose Unprotected, where sex on campus is concerned, latex and licentiousness is the name of the game. And if that's your idea of "safety," you may be in for some scary news at the student health center.
Rosenthal continues, "Some students may have a feeling that acknowledgment is condoning," he said, "and it's not."
As I discovered reading Grossman's book, Harvard's approach to the 71 percent of sexually active -- or in this case, hyperactive -- co-eds is a far cry from acknowledgment. I wonder which side of condoning the student-run porn magazine and the "Free Lube" day at the campus health center fall on.
I say good for the students -- seniors Sarah Kinsella and Justin Murray -- who've had the courage to stand against the status quo. I hope their True Love Revolution, as the group is called, will ennoble and maybe even add to that 29 percent.
 Despite being criticized by gay-activist groups for accepting a banquet invitation from the Indiana Family Institute (a Focus on the Family affiliated organization), Super Bowl-winning coach Tony Dungy showed up, received his Friend of the Family award, and remarked, "We're not trying to downgrade anyone else, hate anyone else, but we're trying to promote the family, family values the Lord's way."
Citizenlink.com reports that Cyd Zeigler of pro-gay Outsports.com insists Coach Dungy has now created a "hostile" work environment. No doubt he's right. But the hostility will likely be directed at Dungy, not the other way around. Dr. James Dobson put it this way, "To defend God's truth so simply and strongly on what marriage ought to mean is to invite a blitz of hateful attacks from homosexual activists and others on the Left."
I find it interesting that Coach Dungy would risk such hostility while prominent pastors such as Rob Bell either avoid subjects like same-sex marriage entirely or equivocate when pressed. Here's a section from a NYTimes.com article, praising Bell's abstention: At his own church and in his videos, Mr. Bell avoids controversial topics like same-sex marriage, abortion rights and school prayer, and in his talk here he offhandedly dismissed "any spiritual institution that says you should vote a certain way."
Bell can now offhandedly dismiss spiritual coaches as well as spiritual institutions like Focus on the Family. Both will tell you exactly how to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage.
 The other night I was at a coffee shop and was startled by a tract I found lying on the condiment station. Nothing says "God loved you enough to sacrifice His Son" like ... the Grim Reaper! Although the tract did its work of attracting my attention, I was disturbed by its macabre imagery. (Let alone the fact that "Hi There!" seemed a ridiculous message to accompany such an image.) I flipped through the comic-style tract for about a minute to determine whether it was, in fact, "Christian," and was satisfied after glimpsing some passages from Romans in the back.
Here's the description I found online: An illustrated general gospel 'Chick tract' presenting a strong message about a construction worker who is suddenly cut down in death and finds out too late that he's in hell with no escape. This is a 'cartoon' style tract written and drawn by Jack Chick.
Now if you read Scripture and understand the destiny of the lost, it's scary. But using the Grim Reaper as the poster child for a loving Savior seems wrong. My reaction to that tract was repulsion, an emotion I would prefer non-believers NOT associate with my Lord. What might be a better image and story line? Perhaps modernized biblical stories could be effective. The prodigal son, for example. Or Paul on the road to Damascus. Even the Philippian jailor. None of these repentant sinners was "suddenly cut down in death." Jesus didn't use fear to draw people to God's plan of Salvation, and I don't think His followers should either.
Kids do best when they have both a mother and father caring for them, of course, but what about single adults who have a heart for kids and are interested in adoption? Should they really consider adopting a child?
If they have a strong sense that the Lord is directing them to do so, I think it's totally fine.
Though single-parent households experience difficulties that two-parent households don't, the truth is that a child benefits more from being in a single-parent home than in an orphanage or in the foster care system.
There are more than 150,000 children in the United States who need a permanent home, and according to Voice of the Orphan some 143 million worldwide in the same state. To grow up without a mom and/or dad is a heartbreaking tragedy, one that no child should have to endure.
It's our position, then, that if you're single and feel motivated and qualified to explore the option of adopting, you should go ahead and do so. As mentioned above, it will be more difficult for you and will affect your lifestyle significantly (single women, for example, should be aware that raising boys is an extra challenge). But parent-less children stand to benefit from the love parent-minded single adults have to offer. If you feel called to such a ministry, please know that you have our admiration and support.
If you've considered adoption, click over to Voice of the Orphan or get in touch with Focus on the Family for some helpful resources.
(By the way, we unequivocally oppose homosexual adoption, and believe that such living arrangements are inherently immoral and are detrimental to the wellbeing of children. I'd prefer not to even go there in the comments that may ensue.)
In the competitive, often superficial climate of online dating, one site has identified what they see as the real problem -- "not enough really hot-looking people."
Jason Pellegrino, creator of HotEnough, says his service is exclusive to "fit, good-looking people."
The article about this service explains that candidates are required to send in three pictures with one being a full-body shot. Other members (who have made the cut into the exclusive group) rate the pictures online without knowing anything else about the people in them.
Pellegrino defends the obvious superficiality of his approach: "People can say that the site is shallow, they can say it's superficial, but I think we're all a bit superficial when it comes to dating."
Jeanette Ponder, a 28-year-old Internet blogger who failed to make the cut disagrees and says, "You cannot make a relationship by being arm candy."
Sites like these are for the minority of "beautiful people" among us who rarely marry down the attractiveness scale. The rest of us are just left scratching our (less attractive) heads and wondering how we’re supposed to marry well in such an image-focused culture.
Guys reading this who feel tempted to head over to HotEnough.org to see if they can make the cut would probably find it more worth their time to read the classic Boundless article "Brother, You’re Like a Six."
Ted, you know I'm pretty lazy, so thanks for picking up the slack and helping me promote TrueU. ;-)
I do think we have another TrueU article that may be of interest to you all. Our founder and former editor, Blake Roeber, recently published the first article in his new series on the Argument From Moral Disagreement. In it, he poses a number of moral questions that are difficult to answer because many of them appear to be fairly subjective: Let's turn our attention to people of legal drinking age. For these people, is drinking wrong? If not, is it OK for them to get drunk — at least on occasion? Perhaps it's OK to drink, but never OK to drink enough to get drunk. But then what makes the difference? How could it be OK to have (say) one beer, but not OK to have two beers; or OK to have two beers, but not OK to have three beers? Some people seem to think there's a moral difference between drinking different kinds of alcohol — say, between drinking wine and tequila. Is this right? If so, again, what's the difference?
Or how about some of our favorite issues here on the Boundless Line -- courtship and kissing: How about dating and courtship? Is courtship morally superior to dating? Are they moral equals? If there's a difference — if one's morally superior to the other — what makes that difference?
And how about physical relationships before marriage? Is it OK to kiss before you're married? If so, are certain kinds of kissing off limits? More generally, how far are you morally permitted to go before marriage? Where, exactly, is the line?
Blake didn't give any answers in this first article, but he definitely got me thinking. How about you all? Are there definitive answers to these questions?
Georgia Tech graduate student Ruth Malhotra has received multiple death and rape threats from students, an unwarranted failing grade from a professor, and has been told that her actions were intolerant and distasteful by the administration. Her crime? Being politically conservative on campus.
In today's Frontpagemag.com, Peter Collier details Malhotra's "offenses", the threats, and the Georgia Tech administration's response. Here's one of the milder attacks she received this past February in the form of a Valentines Day "poem": This Valentine's Day, you cannot attack gay marriage. It is about love and you are about hate.
This Valentine's Day, you cannot condemn a woman's choice. It is about love and you are about hate.
This Valentine's Day, you cannot protest the Vagina Monologues. It is about love and you are about hate.
No, this Valentine's Day, you will be Raped. Sex is about love and through it you will experience hate. I cannot wait.
Collier reports that even though some of these threats include the names of students, the administration and campus police have yet to take action. Malhotra's attorney David French, head of the Alliance Defense Fund's Center for Academic Freedom, wonders if this is to become standard operating procedure for the academia's liberal ideologues. "I've never seen anything quite like this. The tolerant left at Georgia Tech seems to have decided that Ruth must be destroyed to protect 'tolerance.' The administration sees one of its own threatened by death and rape and they just sit there. I've seen conservative students suffer a lot of abuse for their beliefs. But I've never seen abuse cross over into threats."
I became politically active and a Christian post-college so I'm personally unfamiliar with this type of intimidation from academia's ivory tower. I'd be interested to know if any of our readers have been discriminated against for their political or Christian views.
HT: World Mag Blog
I came across a new article over at TrueU.org, Focus on the Family's website for college students, and just had to share some of it with our readers.
Though the article is primarily about how men might be courteous to women, the practical pointers can be used with anyone. Suggestions include:
- Opening the door
- Giving up your seat
- Paying for a meal
- Get up to greet
- Carry the load
- Go easy on the PDA
- Listen more than you speak
- Don't be a cell jerk
- Say "please" and "thank you" as often as possible
I would add "look them in the eye 90 percent of the time."
(I need to add that I'm a bit surprised that my co-blogger Denise, the editor of TrueU.org, has left it up to me to promote her website. Come on, Denise -- we want to know what's going on over there! :-) )
Hm. I just thought of another politeness pointer: Don't pester your co-bloggers.
What "common courtesies" would you add to this list?
The fallout from his rapping at John Piper's church was varied. Some were enthusiastic about his passionate and doctrinally rich performance. Others came down hard against him, primarily criticizing him (and Piper) for introducing rap in a worship service.
Instead of responding defensively to those heaping criticism against him, Curtis "Voice" Allen found the grace to respond in love, recognizing that those decrying his performance may very well be doing it out of a godly concern for their families and congregations.
Why did he respond this way? Because, as he wrote in a recent Boundless article, all earthly criticism pales to the criticism we receive in the cross:
"The fact that Jesus had to die for us to be forgiven indicates that we are a lot worse than we think.... In other words, whenever you receive correction or criticism, look to the cross and see the ultimate critique of all you have done."
Curtis elaborates by quoting from author Alfred Poirer:
"By agreeing with God's criticism of me in Christ's cross, I can face any criticism man may lay against me. In other words, no one can criticize me more than the cross has. And the most devastating criticism turns out to be the finest mercy. "
Yes, the true breadth of my sinfulness is greater than has ever been captured in any earthly criticism. After all, for me to be rescued from the depth of my sinfulness, the Sinless One had to die. And that inspires me to respond graciously to criticisms that I may receive.
The friend who forwarded me this article from the Seattle Times told me it made him sick to his stomach. After reading the thoughts of seven "marriage-wary" women, I had the same reaction. Their priorities stray so far from the wife of noble character — their view of marriage is so tarnished.
The panel discussion ran as a complement to an article on why women are increasingly shunning marriage. I found the women's responses very selfish.
Kimberley says: I have a long list of reasons why I think marriage is highly questionable. There's a lot of hypocrisy. Like, "You're this person that I really love and value, so why don't we enter into something where 75 percent of the time it will fail?"
Sandra says: I'm resistant to the idea of marriage for me. I feel like I've got a good thing right now (with her live-in boyfriend) and that marriage will change things. It might make it wonderful, but I'm not invested enough in being a married person to risk it.
Danielle says: The institution of marriage is severely outdated. I mean, when they invented marriage ... people were living to 30. Marriage should be a time commitment. You commit to five years or 10 years, or 20 years if you're going to have a kid. And if you complete that five years, yay!
(When "they" invented marriage? Sounds like somebody's got her facts wrong.)
Even Joriel's statement, while slightly more altruistic, betrays a me-focus: I think there's something to spending your life with someone, saying, "I'm going to commit to you, and no matter what happens we're going to work it out," because I think that's going to help me grow as a person and be the person I want to be.
Few of these women's responses spoke of sacrifice. Most demonstrated an eagerness to claim personal rights and do what made the individual woman feel good. But you reap what you sow. Self-centeredness leads to a lack of reward. Of the wife of noble character, Proverbs says: "Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her" (31:28). These are joys that a woman who seeks only her own interests will never know.
Should a potential candidate's extra-marital affair(s) be open for discussion during a political campaign? Neocon columnist William Kristol doesn't think so.
In last week's Time.com article, "Newt's Disappointing Admission," Kristol writes of his disappointment that the subject of Newt Gingrich's extra-marital affair was broached in a recent interview with Dr. James Dobson. Kristol laments, "We live in an age when nothing is to be kept private, nothing is to be borne in silence, no one is too proud to stoop to conquer."
I don't see anything wrong with a candidate speaking openly about past indiscretions, particularly a candidate trying to court values voters. Obviously Dr. Dobson thinks it's appropriate, saying, "... the reason that I ask is that you are a national leader ... and I think it's really important and will be for many of our listeners to know your responses to that [affair]...."
I appreciated Gingrich's willingness to delve into his affair, though I believe he side-stepped the heart of Dr. Dobson's question, which was repentance. Maybe it's because he knows that true repentance would have meant turning away from the woman with whom he became involved and seeking to restore his marriage.
In the interview, Gingrich himself said that the most important form of leadership is to be a servant and that is what he's trying to be for this country. The question is, can a man who has failed this test in his private life be trusted with this responsibility in public office?
We don't think of ourselves as legalistic, but there's a good chance each of us is indeed a legalist.
In "Interrogating the Legalist Within," C.J. Mahaney defines legalism as "seeking to achieve forgiveness from God, justification before God, and acceptance by God, through our obedience to God." That definition is pretty consistent with what I find in dictionaries, though more specific and practical for us as Christians.
I understand exactly what C.J. is writing about, as I see it in my own life. Instead of simply relying on what Jesus has done for me, I find myself trying to earn God's favor or avoid His wrath by being "extra good." These good works are kind of like my baby daughter trying to help me cook dinner -- I enjoy her involvement if her motivations and attitude are positive, but it's ultimately not helping me accomplish the end of getting food on the table. Cooking dinner is ultimately my responsibility.
This is why I love the article referenced above: It's a reminder of the simple truth that "Christ died for my sins." Jesus' having declared "it is finished" is a cause for joy. All the good that can be credited to my account, as it were, has already been credited to my account, and there's no reason to continue the fruitless quest to further build up my "goodness account." Yes, I struggle to honor the Lord with my thoughts and actions, but I'm doing that as a son loved by his Father, not as an employee intent on earning a wage.
The truth is, of course, that I still find myself joylessly trying to work myself out of a guilty state. And that's the legalist within, who needs to diminish. Because the joyful truth is that ... Christ died for my sins.
It's been four years since the war started in Iraq. Wow.
I was actually studying abroad in Spain four years ago as rumors of a U.S. attack on Iraq began to swirl. Spain's president (at that time) supported Bush, but most of the Spanish people did not. I remember walking back to my casa numerous nights as the Spaniards protested the war in the streets. I even have a little sticker to commemorate the time -- "No a la guerra!"
My dad and I were visiting Barcelona during the "shock and awe" campaign. We would watch CNN and the BBC talk about the U.S. reaching Baghdad, and each day we would pass signs condemning the war, which the Spaniards believed was solely for oil.
My host family and I watched the Iraqis pull down the statue of Saddam Hussein after he was removed from power. There were people dancing in the streets and praising the U.S. That was four long years ago.
I do not write this post as someone with a definitive opinion on the war in Iraq. Honestly, I hope that your comments do not turn this into an argument about the war. I just don't feel like arguing about it yet again.
The point of this post is that four years ago, the war was so vivid in my mind. I watched the news daily, worried about those who were fighting, contemplated the war and the reasons behind it. Four years later, I rarely think of those who are still fighting -- the troops who are away from their families. I am not forced to think of the war very often. I am comfortable in Colorado -- war is very far away.
I guess today, four years into this war, I am convicted about my lack of concern for those involved. I am convicted that I do not pray daily for the Iraqi civilians and the many troops in danger. On this anniversary, let's quit arguing for a moment, and instead, pray for peace and justice.
After reading Ted's post on media discernment, I read the Plugged In review of 300. I wish I had done that before I saw the film. Instead, in an unfortunate lapse of judgment, I attended this movie with a friend without reading the review or knowing anything about it. As a result, I was forced to close my eyes during many portions of the movie. The thing that struck me the most about the story depicted in 300 was the god-like delusion of the Persian king Xerxes. Plugged in reviewer Adam Holz writes:
Xerxes is frequently described (by himself and his underlings) in divine terms, such as "god of gods," and he mimics scriptural language when he says things about himself such as, "The lord of hosts is prepared to forgive all." He speaks of his divine power and promises (almost like Satan's temptation of Jesus) to make Leonidas the warlord of all Greece if he submits. His Immortals are described as "Persian ghosts, hunters of men's souls."
The almost super-human and satanic portrayal of Xerxes gave me the creeps. That's why I was surprised this weekend, when I watched a very different movie, One Night with the King, and discovered it was the story of the same man!
In One Night, which is based on the book of Esther, Xerxes is portrayed as sensitive to doing the right thing. He honors Mordecai for uncovering an assassination plot and punishes Haman for his plot against Esther's people. The film explores the pressures Xerxes faced as the son of the great king Darius (of Daniel). This film reminded me that regardless of Xerxes' relationship (or lack of it) with Jehovah God, this great ruler, along with Esther, was an important figure in God's plan to save the Jews.
Two films about Xerxes. One made me shudder at a man who defied God; the other made me wonder at a man who was used by God. The difference between these films can be noted in Plugged In's conclusion of each. Of 300, Adam concludes:
I think I can safely say that the enthusiasm of the crowd I witnessed had much less to do with the film's positive themes than the fact that the filmmakers have managed to make slaughter (and sensuality) look so very cool.
In contrast, Plugged In writes of One Night With the King:
"For such a time as this," Mordecai tells Esther. And in both small and big ways, the same applies to those today who love God and are called according to His purpose. That's powerful, encouraging, spiritually beautiful stuff. And it's great to see it on the big screen.
When judging the merit of a film, one should look not only at its parts but at the overall message it embodies. One of these films points to death, the other to life. Deuteronomy says it best: "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live" (30:19). Perhaps that is the heart of media discernment.
What makes a movie a good movie? On the other hand, what about a movie can disqualify it from being considered "good"?
If a movie features "graphic violence and lewd sexual content," can Christians tell others, after they've exposed themselves to it, that it was a "good" movie? What about a movie that includes "a torrent of blood and guts, decapitations and mutilations" and "extreme sexual content"? A movie where "religion is dismissed and despised"?
Isn't it possible that such a movie, even if it were to include some fascinating cinematography and strong pro-civilization messages, not be considered "good"?
OK, I'll stop being elusive. I'm talking about this week's top movie, 300. The quotes in the second paragraph above are from Christian movie review sites Plugged In Online and MovieGuide.
From all I can tell, it's got the hip style of Sin City (no surprise, since Frank Miller wrote both stories) and what seems to be a message that affirms Western civilization's war against Islamic terrorism. Because of that, I've heard lots of people laud this movie as a "great" and "wonderful" and "artful" movie. A movie that shouldn't be missed.
And that has me puzzled. That leaves me wondering why so few people seem to be practicing media discernment, taking the brave route of saving their money and not going to a movie -- even when the trailers look so cool and so many critics extol it. Why, I wonder, do so many Christians go out of their way to ingest movies so corrosive to their spirits, movies that offer visual titillation contrary to the spirit of Philippians 4:8?
To be honest, when I saw the trailers, I wanted to see this movie. A few years ago, when I saw the trailers to Sin City and The Matrix Reloaded, I wanted to see them. I'm drawn to the plots and visuals included in those kinds of movie. But after reading reviews (what, you don't read reviews, freely available online?), I decided it would be best not to see these movies. Not the simplest decision, but I believe it's the right decision for me. And perhaps for other Christians concerned about guarding their hearts from the pollution this world tempts us with.
It's my prayer that there are some among our readers who, though they may be interested in a movie, decide not to watch it out of concern for their Christian walk and growth in godliness.
Speaking of Lauren F. Winner, I thought she had some great things to say about love in the book, 5 Paths to the Love of Your Life.
In it, she talks about Christian dating and the tendency we sometimes have to try to avoid hurt in our relationships. Some people are very careful to guard their emotions in dating or courtship relationships in order to avoid heartbreak. But, says Lauren, this may not be the most Christian way to do things: Perhaps avoiding pain should not be our main concern in thinking about dating and courtship. Christians ought to strive to protect one another's hearts as they date, but dating involves risk and vulnerability, and risk and vulnerability often involve heartache. If one chooses a dating style motivated by a hope to minimize pain and risk, one opts out and avoids what love entails.
Love can be painful -- and the truest love often is. It is sacrificial, humble and long-suffering. And, ultimately, love is a choice. Our culture has taught us that love depends solely on how we're feeling about someone, and once those feelings fade away, you should move on to the next person. But as we can see through the biblical example of God's relationship with Israel, committed love is based on sticking to our promises. Lauren has some great things to say about marriage relationships -- and what that relationship should look like as our feelings come and go: In the Christian idiom, love is not merely -- or even primarily -- an emotion. Indeed, classic Christian wedding vows make plain that our emotions are, if not wholly irrelevant, at least not the principal point of marriage. At a wedding, brides and grooms pledge to love each other until one of them dies, a pledge that makes no sense if love is only a feeling. After all, I have little control over my feelings; I can't promise someone I will have a certain set of feelings about him next week, let alone next year or in fifty years. Indeed, these vows make sense only if the couple's love is the agape love of the New Testament, Christian love, love that is about a choice they make to serve someone and to be loving toward them regardless of what they happen to feel that morning.
So, as we love -- significant others, family, friends -- let's try to do so in a way that serves them, for this is the love we've been shown by our Father.
In her review of Dawn Eden's book Thrill of the Chaste, Lauren F. Winner explores the implications and spiritual purposes of chastity inside and outside of marriage. Calling the book "a refreshing call to chastity," Winner writes: Eden underscores that chastity is a lifelong discipline — not just a tough thing that single Christians have to deal with, but also a call to embodied holiness in controlling one's sexual appetite that every Christian must submit to. (Do the details of that submission differ depending on whether one is married or single? Sure. But a Christian vocabulary for sexuality might lead us to the radical claim that a married person practicing love, discipline, and fidelity has more in common with a single person who is abstinent than with an unmarried person who is fornicating.)
An interesting point, considering that many times singles feel alone in this struggle. True, there is a main difference between singles and those who are married in that married people are permitted to enjoy sex, but chastity in single life sets one up for a discipline that will continue into marriage. Winner takes issue with is Eden's seeming implication that chastity leads to marriage. Indeed, Eden veers close to suggesting that marriage is a reward for practicing premarital chastity or that marriage is somehow the telos of chastity: "Chastity ... relies on faith that God, as you pursue a closer walk with him, will lead you to a loving husband." Well, maybe — although as Jesus and Paul made clear, everyone is called to sexual self-control, but not everyone is called to marriage.
Those who view marriage as a reward for sexual purity are doing the right thing for the wrong reason. The motivation for sexual purity should be a desire to obey Christ. "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry" (Col. 3:5). Any other motivation will ultimately end in disappointment. In conclusion, Winner writes: Maybe chastity bids us to not make any assumptions at all about whether we will marry. Maybe chastity requires us to enter into the reality that all Christian callings involve renunciation. Maybe chastity is most helpfully conceived as a call to turn our attention away from other people and more wholly toward God.
Today, christiansinglestoday.com features a compilation of blurbs from singles on lessons they've learned from being sick and alone. The article brings up bedside medical kits, frozen and canned soups, and saltines, and most are grateful for any help they receive from friends.
But some see sickness as an opportunity to read Scripture and lean on the Lord.
Viewing sickness as an opportunity to rely on God reminded me of Jenny Schroedel's article about sleep, "A Third of Our Lives." You can almost replace the word "sleep" with "sickness" in this passage from Jenny's article:
Sleep is also a reminder of our mortality.... As C.J. Mahaney writes, "Don't just fall asleep but seize the moment to weaken pride and cultivate humility by acknowledging that you are not self-sufficient, you are not the Creator. Sleep is a daily reminder that we are completely dependent upon God."
For most of us, sickness isn't a daily reminder of anything. But when it hits, we become keenly aware of our dependence on God. This is a lesson Dr. Mohler learned during his recent medical crisis. He writes, "We are weak and vulnerable creatures who remain dependent from the moment we are born until the moment we die."
Whether you're single or married, this may be the greatest comfort of all.
What lessons have you learned from being sick?
We're having issues with our website's publishing system, so the three articles we have for this week haven't yet made it to the site. John's "Boundless Answers" column, which was to hit the site this past Monday, has also remained unpublished. I'm sorry about that.
In the meantime, here's a hint at what to expect.
Though there's nothing about dating, Purity Balls or global warming in any of these articles, I'm confident you'll still find them provocative.
The best way to know when these articles go live is to subscribe to our free e-newsletter. Let me encourage you to sign up if you haven't already done so.
Sam Harris is my nominee for winner of the Blasphemy Challenge. His article, "God's Dupes," on Thursday's LATimes.com, asserts that everyone who believes in the God of the Bible is delusional.
Harris is the author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation.
He writes, "...centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society."
And, ...there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know.
He gets it completely wrong. Ironically he denies the very things which, as J. Budziszewski writes, we "can't not know."
I realize Harris doesn't believe the Bible is true, but I'd rather be on the faithful side of Pascal's wager given the warning in Romans 1:18-22, The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...
Mercifully, the article -- designed to offend from beginning to end -- is short.
He concludes by saying, Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain — from cosmology to psychology to economics — has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.
Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.
His claim is so outrageous, and evidence to the contrary -- scientific and otherwise -- so overwhelming, it's hard to know where to begin to refute Him.
Like Saul on the road to Damascus, it seems his only hope is a direct Word from the God he so thoroughly despises. Amazingly, that's the kind of God He is.
As we look forward to Easter, stories like this are a staggering reminder of the work Christ came to do. It's hard for my finite mind to understand how Christ, in the midst of his crucifixion, could pray, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
I avoided American Idol for years, out of an overeager and uninformed desire to avoid anything having to do with ... um ... idolatry.
But beginning last year, I've become a regular viewer, emotionally investing myself in the show. I was heartbroken, for example, when Elliott Yamin -- the only vocalist in last year's competition to give me goosebumps -- got the boot.
While I'm drawn to several competitors in this year's lineup, I'm rooting for Melinda Doolittle. She, more than any other singer on the show, has that "something special" that puts her well over the top. Her vocals are celestial, of course, and her stage presence is comfortable and engaging, but perhaps more notable is her humility and joy, something that surely springs from her faith in the Lord.
When asked what her personal goals in life are, she responded, "To represent Christ well and do everything 150 percent." From my seat in front of the TV, I'd have to say that that this woman who sings so beautifully is achieving those goals.
What harm can video games cause in a marriage? Hugh Duncan tackles this in part 1 and part 2 of his Nuclearity podcast "Video Game Husbands." The husband and wife he interviews are bright and articulate and tell a story that I think would make any guy think soberly about how his current video habits might undermine the intimacy of his future marriage.
Thoughts?
If you're a young adult female, you'll likely get cervical cancer because you'll likely contract HPV (human papillomavirus) because you'll likely have multiple sex partners before you get married. At least that's what Texas Governor Rick Perry likely believes. And doggone it, he'll inoculate you against the consequences of having premarital sex whether you engage in it or not.
Last month, Gov. Perry issued an executive order requiring schoolgirls ages 11-12 to receive the HPV vaccination before being admitted to the sixth grade. Yesterday, the Texas House voted to reverse this order because of concern about long-term affects of the vaccine, parental rights and drug costs. Gina Dalfonzo over at The Point writes all about the latest developments.
I'd like to believe Gov. Perry is all about "protecting life" as his spokeswoman says and that his mandate had nothing to do with the $5,000 he received from Merck, the maker of the HPV vaccine. Still, I'm suspicious, given a recent study showing that only 2.2% of women infected with HPV have the kind that may cause cancer.
Fox News reports that a non-profit organization in San Francisco has begun offering post-abortion e-cards. The non-profit, which runs a national post-abortion telephone talk line is seeking to offer women support following abortion. Like Exhale's confidential talk line, the six e-cards available on the group's Web site were designed to be nonpartisan and encompass the range of someone's potential responses to going through an abortion.
One expresses sympathy, offering the gentle reminder that, "As you grieve, remember that you are loved." Another provides encouragement for someone who "did the right thing." Yet another strikes a religious tone with the thought that "God will never leave you or forsake you."
At first read, the idea sickened me. An e-card seems a trivial response to the horror of abortion. But , without a doubt, Exhale, a non-profit that identifies itself as nonpartisan (although most of the women who founded it identify themselves as pro-abortion and all have had an abortion), is responding to a real need. The organization, which provides phone counseling in six languages, fields calls five hours a day on weekdays and 10 hours on weekends. "Women having abortions are calling our line because often they don't have someone to talk to — it's a stigmatized issue," said Aspen Baker, founder and executive director of Oakland-based Exhale.
As I browsed the site, I thought about how a service like this — while well-meaning — is stopping short of offering true healing. Believers have the opportunity to offer more: the hope and forgiveness of Christ that comes through repentance. I know there are Christian organizations reaching out to post-abortive women, but I have not been familiar with them. (For post-abortion resources available through Focus on the Family, visit Heartlink.) Nor have I personally reached out to these women.
Interestingly, one of the e-cards acknowledged that the woman is feeling loss — as in the death of a loved one. It said, "There are no words to express my sympathy for your loss." No matter what pro-abortion advocates say about a preborn child being tissue, a mother feels differently. I am reminded of Jesus' words: "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17).
I would like to embrace the same compassionate calling. And I can have confidence that when I talk to a woman affected by the pain and guilt of abortion, I can offer her more than an electronic pat on the back — I can introduce her to a Savior who heals.
I have to say that I'm disappointed in the responses to a post published yesterday.
The original post discussed a "purity ball" in which a father commemorates his role -- as head of the household, as a "covering" for those in his household, as a type of "priest" of that household -- through a signed commitment to purity, and within the context of an elegant evening with one of his daughters.
It's about roles, it's about responsibilities, it's about a father's counter-cultural commitment to lead his family with intentionality and purity before the Lord. And the girls and young women who attend love it.
The responses from some of our readers? They found it creepy. Creepy that a father would make such a public commitment. Creepy that a father has such a close relationship with his daughter or daughters. Creepy that fathers and daughters dress up for the event and, gasp!, dance together. Creepy that a father has a unique role in the family, and that a daughter has a different role, and that these roles can be recognized and celebrated. Creepy that a father would see that his behavior affects his entire family, including his daughters.
This ball was also labeled "new age" and "horrible" and "less than impressive" and "weird" and "horrendously embarrassing" in other comments.
I find that sad and sobering, that those who call themselves Christians (I'm assuming that much) would be so quick to denounce fathers for bucking societal norms and wanting to take a bold Christian stand on behalf of their families. For doing their best to submit to Scripture, even when it seems oddly counter-cultural, these men are labeled "creepy."
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Even if we're thought foolish for doing so.
I went to the movies recently and sat beside a girl and her friend who text messaged every five minutes. Besides being annoyed by the constant activity and soft glow of their cell phones, I was amazed at their unwillingness -- or inability -- to focus on the movie. They were what WIRED magazine calls, "media snacking."
Today, media snacking is a way of life. In the morning, we check news and tap out emails on our laptops. At work, we graze all day on videos and blogs. Back home, the giant HDTV is for 10-course feasting -- say, an entire season of 24. In between are the morsels that fill those whenever minutes, as your mobile phone carrier calls them: a 30-second game on your Nintendo DS, a 60-second webisode on your cell, a three-minute podcast on your MP3 player.
Dr. Albert Mohler blogged about this article and wonders what all this "snacking" is doing to our attention spans. He writes, "How will people be able to listen to a serious biblical sermon if their minds are set to pay attention only for a few minutes -- or even less?"
I confess. I'm a media snacker. Maybe not like those teenagers at the theater, but I do enjoy television, the Internet and the WSJ. It's probably why I can't do any heavy reading after 8 pm without falling asleep and why my mind wanders during worship on Sunday. I should remember this the next time I flip open my laptop for a little snack.
It seems whenever we talk about biblical dating, one of the most common complaints is that most young women simply don't have the necessary involvement of their dads. It always strikes me how emphatically women make this point: It's unrealistic. It's not an option!
I think their strong reaction against our suggestion that a dad's role is pivotal is not that they think we're wrong, but that their situation is unfair. Our position only deepens their ache for something they don't have.
That's why we suggest that for the women whose dads aren't involved because they're too far away, not involved in their lives, not believers or simply not interested, it's desirable to ask a surrogate to fill that role. Whether your pastor, professor, mentor, uncle or another godly man, the point is to have the protection that comes from a spiritual head in this all-important, high-stakes decision about a mate.
Not only are believers aware of this vacuum, it seems now that the world is noticing, too.
This past November, two friends of Boundless, Randy and Lisa Wilson, hosted their eighth annual "Purity Ball" at The Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. They created the ball in 1998 primarily for their own daughters. They have five. But the idea caught on. Hundreds of fathers and daughters have attended events like this one since its inception, and similar events are being replicated across the country. Still, it takes a lot of work and energy to put together a large formal event, and the Wilsons were starting to wonder if maybe this ball would be their last.
Then something happened. The ball, described in the Wilson's press release as "a formal dinner-dance featuring ballet performance and a covenant signing ceremony where fathers pledge to be models of purity, integrity, and the protectors of their daughters," caught the attention of the national media.
First it was Glamour magazine. Then Oprah sent a reporter to cover the story for O magazine. And now local and national news outlets are reporting on the "Purity Ball movement," including ABC World News Tonight, NBC’s Today show, Fox News and the Dr. Phil show.
Most notably, these balls are not about abstinence and virginity pledges. They're about fathers promising to be pure themselves, the necessary first step for protecting their daughters. According to Ball founder Randy Wilson, “Fatherhood is the defining issue in our culture today. No one can underestimate a father’s powerful influence on his daughter’s life. The Father-Daughter Purity Ball calls fathers to love, lead and empower their daughters to make healthy choices.”
“There is no place in our culture that celebrates the relationship of a father and daughter,” said Ball co-founder Lisa Wilson. “We created an extravagantly beautiful celebration to affirm a father’s place of protection and authority and a daughter’s incredible worth and dignity.”
More involved fathers. Few things could so radically improve the nature of relationships and marriage in our culture.
A top U.S. general is getting slack from some in the media and gay lobby for his statement that he believes homosexual acts to be "immoral."
According to the Chicago Tribune, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.... I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way. As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior."
This morning I heard that some in the media and homosexual lobby are outraged at Pace's conviction that homosexual behavior is "immoral," and that therefore there's no place for it in the U.S. military. Their claim seems to be that morality is either irrelevant or merely situational. And regardless of which it is, it is undoubtedly quaint -- not something someone in public service should reference to support their policy position.
But the truth remains that morality is the foundation of all rules and laws. We have laws against murder because murder is immoral. We have laws against lying in court because bearing false witness is immoral. We have laws against rape and theft and adultery because these are immoral activities.
Why should we pooh-pooh Gen. Pace, then, for his position that out-of-the-closet practicing homosexuals should not serve in the military, a conviction based on his belief that homosexual behavior is immoral? Should we not strive for a morally straight military?
A friendly heads-up. Second Life will be unavailable for 5 hours on Wednesday while it upgrades to version 1.13.4.
OK, are you a) bummed about that announcement because you're one of the millions of people who spends time in virtual worlds like Second Life, b) laughing at the goofiness of "virtual worlds" or c) scratching your head because Second Life wasn't even on your radar screen?
I'd love to know which camps Boundless readers fall into. For a long time I was in the "c" camp. Now that I've spent some time reading about Second Life, I'm having a hard time getting out of the "b" camp. All the accounts of pornographic content, sexual immorality, anti-social behavior and player addiction taking place in virtual environments like Second Life leaves me wondering what its redemptive elements are.
Any Christians out there with a good explanation of where Second Life fits into a full and abundant Christian life?
Today, Joe Carter of the Evangelical Outpost considers the debt of gratitude evangelicals owe Catholics. Along with providing solid positions on many social issues, such as just war, contraception and the death penalty, Catholicism has led the way on defending life. It has also taught us to honor the mother of our Savior and encouraged us to not neglect the universal Body of Christ. Carter writes: One of the first principles of Reformed ecclesiology is that there is but one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Because this principle is difficult to square with the existence 10,000+ different Protestant denominations, we claim that this refers only to the invisible church. But what about the church that is visible? After all, it is Jesus desire to "gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." (John 11:51-52)
Although the split with the Catholic Church was tragically necessary, the reconciliation into one visible body should be an ecclesiological goal. In this area Catholics have often taken the lead in imparting a spirit of ecumenism. Documents such as Ut unum sint reflect the seriousness which Catholics approach the "call for Christian unity."
Carter points out that such unity must never compromise our commitment to doctrine, including that of salvation by faith alone. Instead, he says, believers should pray that "the Spirit will reconcile the invisible church into one holy, catholic, apostolic, and visible Body of Christ." Amen.
In response to Ted's post about Suzanne's article on church membership, one person asks, "What do I look for in a church?" At the risk of sounding incredibly simplistic, I would say it's expositional preaching.
Seven years ago when I had to leave Capitol Hill Baptist Church because of a move, I asked Pastor Mark Dever what I should look for in a church. He said by far the most important thing is expositional preaching. If the pastor gets that one right, he said, his church should be healthy.
So what is expositional preaching? In Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, Mark says it's "preaching which takes for the point of a sermon, the point of a particular passage of Scripture." In other words, expositional preaching begins with Scripture, not a predetermined topic from the pastor. That's called topical preaching. And Mark says that pastor's who do this regularly "will never preach more than what they already knew when they began the whole exercise."
He writes: A preacher should have his mind increasingly shaped by Scripture. He shouldn't just use Scripture as an excuse for what he already knows he wants say. When that happens, when someone regularly preaches in a way that is not expositional, the sermons tend to be only on the topics that interest the preacher. The result is that the preacher and the congregation only hear in Scripture what they already thought when they came to the text. There's nothing new being added to their understanding. They're not continuing to be challenged by the Bible.
Mark Dever is a gifted preacher of the Word. Anyone who's been under his teaching for any length of time would probably agree. However, Mark stressed that being a gifted orator isn't important -- being faithful is. Faithfully preaching through the Word, in its context, enables us to "hear from God what we didn't intend to hear when we set out to study the passage." Even more than parking and pews and greetings and programs and nursery and music ... even more than the preacher, it is what is preached -- it is the Word of God. Because "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matt.4:4).
In response to "frustrated females googling for answers," Adam offers an explanation for why men fear intimacy. "Intimacy phobia is a learned habit," he says, and men are especially at risk during college. Usually, the well-adjusted male goes through some kind of deep trauma in this vulnerable time, most likely a break up. But it doesn't have to be that. It can be anything that strikes the inner world of emotional stability.
So far this doesn't explain much, because women go through much of the same, and yet seem to have a greater ability to relate on deeper and more intimate levels. Why is it that women seem more able to heal from emotional pain than men? When a woman is suffering from the hurt from a painful break up there is a sense among other women to rally around her in support. This "support mode" that women operate in simply does not exist within the company of men. When men go through a break up, they usually go through it alone. To be sure, they get a few sympathetic comments and pats on the back, but the wound usually festers until the heart hardens. Yet, for women, their social environment of comfort and support is much more conducive to healing.
This makes sense. The emotional community that is natural for women provides a comforting place to go in times of heartbreak. Intimacy is always a risk, but a woman is more likely to be invested in multiple intimate relationships with friends and family members, making the loss of a romantic relationship more bearable. So what's the solution? There is not a quick fix. Only the long, unpredictable process of the dealing with past hurts, most effectively with another man who has been through the same. The process is slow, because there just isn't that much male camaraderie out there to supply that need.
Modern dating conventions can be confusing. The number of books in Christian bookstores celebrating this fact confirms that many singles find pre-marriage relationship ambiguity frustrating. And the terms being thrown around -- "dating," "courting," and so on -- as well as the different interpretations of these terms -- lend to the confusion.
Last week and this week we published two articles that may bring some clarity about the current dating scene, by outlining how we've come to where we're at. In the first part of "A Brief History of Courtship and Dating in America," author Skip Burzumato defines courtship and dating, noting that "... we have not moved from a courtship system to a dating system, but instead, we have added a dating system into our courtship system."
He goes on to note four changes over the past 100 or so years that have influenced modern dating:
- courtship moving from public acts conducted in private spaces to private or individual acts conducted in public spaces
- the rise of "public advice" literature as well as the rise of an "expert" class of advisers
- a change in sexual norms in the West, including the introduction of The Pill
- a change in the models and metaphors used to describe the home and family
In his second part, Burzumato talks about where terms such as "dating," "going out" and "going steady" have come from, and how World War II has affected our dating conventions. The author concludes by saying he's encouraged by some of the conversation going on in Christian circles regarding courtship/dating.
What do you think? Are you encouraged by some of the dating models being offered over the past decade, and how the Christian community is evaluating them and putting them into practice? Do you find the modern dating scene hopelessly confusing? Or can we bring clarity by understanding the context of modern dating?
Why do people believe in God? Following several decades of research on the topic, anthropologist and atheist Scott Atran is saying that humans seem to be hard-wired to believe. The New York Times article reports: He had received a doctorate in anthropology from Columbia University and, in the course of his fieldwork, saw evidence of religion everywhere he looked — at archaeological digs in Israel, among the Mayans in Guatemala, in artifact drawers at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Atran is Darwinian in his approach, which means he tries to explain behavior by how it might once have solved problems of survival and reproduction for our early ancestors. But it was not clear to him what evolutionary problems might have been solved by religious belief. Religion seemed to use up physical and mental resources without an obvious benefit for survival. Why, he wondered, was religion so pervasive, when it was something that seemed so costly from an evolutionary point of view?
His conclusion: Maybe cognitive effort was precisely the point. Maybe it took less mental work than Atran realized to hold belief in God in one's mind. Maybe, in fact, belief was the default position for the human mind, something that took no cognitive effort at all.
This confirms something I know to be true from reading Romans 1: "Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (19-20). It shouldn't be surprising that science shows we are genetically predisposed to believe God exists. From the time God breathed life into Adam's lungs, we were given the capacity to know Him. How wonderful!
Byproduct theorist Justin Barrett, a Christian and psychologist, has no problem reconciling these findings with his Christian beliefs. "Christian theology teaches that people were crafted by God to be in a loving relationship with him and other people," Barrett wrote in his e-mail message. "Why wouldn't God, then, design us in such a way as to find belief in divinity quite natural?" Having a scientific explanation for mental phenomena does not mean we should stop believing in them, he wrote. "Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me — should I then stop believing that she does?"
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