 |
A New America Media study released Friday shows American young people are marked by optimism.
The study, called "California Dreamers: the most diverse generation the nation has known," queried 600, 16-22 year olds. The interviews, conducted by cell phone -- this demographic's primary mode of communication -- focused on perceived problems, plans for the future and attitudes about race.
"Though they view the breakdown of the family as the biggest challenge facing their generation, California young people hope and expect to raise children (63 percent) in lasting partnerships themselves (64 percent)."
They're optimistic about the future (78 percent), hope to get 4-year degrees (36 percent), think with hard work they will achieve their goals (96 percent) and expect to exceed their parents' standard of living (73 percent).
So far a rosy picture. But what about 10 years from now -- when the respondents will range in age from 26-32? Only 12 percent say they will likely be married, have kids or be starting a family.
A bright view of the future of family is a great place to start. But without a plan, it's unlikely this groups' results will be any different, or better, than their own parents' unhappy tales.
Last year I was a first-time attendee to New Attitude. I agree with Ted that following the conference, "I found myself more in love with the Lord, more in wonder of the cross, and more challenged in my faith."
I wrote the following blog after hearing Joshua Harris' opening message about embracing a humble orthodoxy. Orthodoxy: the practice of observing established social customs and definitions of appropriateness.
Saturated. That is how I would describe my state of mind having passed through my first 24 hours of New Attitude. I have always loved 1 Timothy 4:12, where Paul encourages the young man to not let people look down on him because he is young. The 2,500 attendees of New Attitude embody a bold answer to that call. There is an urgency here — in everything from worship to witnessing on the plane to conversations with friends — that is often missing in young people.
Last night, Joshua Harris talked about rediscovering a "humble orthodoxy." He charged us to be a generation that faithfully handles the truth as Paul encourages in 2 Timothy 2:15: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." Instead of viewing the gospel as play dough that we can shape into something new and innovative, Josh encouraged us to view the gospel as a diamond. How can we best hold up God's truth, untarnished, for all to see?
The first step is to live the truth personally. Paul compares believers to vessels in a house (v. 20). Some vessels are set aside for honorable use and some for dishonorable use. The dishonorable vessels are followers of Jesus who continue to dwell in sin. Paul says, "flee from youthful lusts, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace." (v. 22) Though we often think of lust in a sexual context, Josh pointed out that in this context Paul seems to be encouraging Timothy to put aside the arrogant and impulsive attitude of youth.
This was convicting. Our generation is proud. We act as if we have it figured out. We forge ahead without counsel. We bristle at accountability. We reject authority. And yet these are the very things that God uses to cultivate greater righteousness and faith in our lives. Part of faithfully handling the truth, Josh said, is representing the truth with humility. We have not earned the gospel, so we have no reason to be arrogant about it. "We need to be humbled by the truth," he said, "and, in turn, share that truth in humility. Rediscover what has always been true. Embrace a humble orthodoxy."
Last year I was humbled by the truth. And I'm looking forward to returning for more. See you at the Boundless booth!
The Daily Transcript reports that as the most praised generation heads into the workforce, bosses are scrambling to compliment twentysomethings enough to keep them motivated. Employers are dishing out kudos to workers for little more than showing up. Corporations including Lands' End and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) are hiring consultants to teach managers how to compliment employees using e-mail, prize packages and public displays of appreciation. The 1,000-employee Scooter Store Inc., a power-wheelchair and scooter firm in New Braunfels, Texas, has a staff "celebrations assistant" whose job it is to throw confetti -- 25 pounds a week -- at employees. She also passes out 100 to 500 celebratory helium balloons a week. The Container Store Inc. estimates that one of its 4,000 employees receives praise every 20 seconds, through such efforts as its "Celebration Voice Mailboxes."
While these measures seem ridiculous, the article reports that today's young adults feel insecure if they're not praised. This insecurity can greatly reduce their success in the workplace. On the downside, undeserved kudos have created "narcissistic praise-junkies" who are hooked on inflated language. People's positive traits can be exaggerated until the words feel meaningless. "There's a runaway inflation of everyday speech," warns Linda Sapadin, a psychologist in Valley Stream, N.Y. These days, she says, it’s an insult unless you describe a pretty girl as "drop-dead gorgeous" or a smart person as "a genius." "And no one wants to be told they live in a nice house," says Dr. Sapadin. "'Nice' was once sufficient. That was a good word. Now it's a put-down."
The recent Boundless article "Ordinary People" touches on this same idea when it discusses our disenchantment with being ordinary. Turning "ordinary" into an epithet requires forgetting (or denying) that "ordinary" is the stuff that real life is made of. "Ordinary" comes from the Latin ordinarius meaning "customary, regular, usual, orderly." How we handle the ordinary -- and not how many people know who we are -- is the standard against which we should measure our lives. It, and not some fleeting (or even not-so-fleeting) attention, is what gives our lives significance. (For the Christian, it's what Jesus meant when He said, "He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much.")
And that is the heart of the matter. Addressing the issue of praise addiction at its core would be more effective (and less expensive) than providing vats of confetti.
I found Carolyn McCulley's commentary on Candice Watters' recent Boundless article, "Misguided Compassion," very balanced.
As a refresher, Candice proposed that some singles groups could do better at preparing and enabling their members for the next season of life, marriage. Sometimes they focus so much on affirming the state of singleness and encouraging their members to simply "wait on God" that they end up discouraging singles from taking steps to move from that state.
Carolyn elaborated on the article, wisely pointing out that it's not either/or -- either you "wait on the Lord" and trust His sovereignty or you take steps to assure a "timely" marriage. Instead, she insists it be both/and -- both place your trust in the sovereign Lord of relationship and intentionally work toward marriage (unless, of course, you sense a calling to sanctified singleness / celibate service).
This reminds me of when I was provoked earlier this decade to bring an end to my years of contented adultescence and pursue marriage.
In the midst of pursuing the woman who ended up telling me "I do," I believe I heard from the Lord. I put it that way because if I've ever heard from Him, it was then. While seeking His counsel and direction and approval, I had the strong sense that He was "conspiring with me to win Ashleigh's heart." Yeah, that's the word -- "conspiring." Instead of Him doing "all the work" which would allow me to be passive, and instead of me "going for it" without depending on the Lord, I felt that He was right beside me like a great Mentor, cheering for me and enjoying watching the relationship blossom.
Our situation was atypical, I think, in that we placed such an emphasis on physical and emotional purity that we both consequently had a keen and uncluttered sense of the Lord's direction. But I think our experience reveals what could take place -- a fine balance of both my taking initiative and our trusting in the sovereign grace of the Lord.
Ted's last post was very interesting to me because it brought up a lot of things I've been thinking about lately when it comes to faith, evangelism and the Christian life in general. I have not read the book he's talking about, so I'm not going to comment on what he said about the author or his views. However, I do want to share my thoughts about the Great Commission and the Great Commandments.
To be honest, the evangelism I've seen (and that I've been a part of in the past) bothers me. I've counseled at huge evangelical crusades and I've been part of leading numerous campers to Christ each summer. What I've seen through this type of evangelism is the idea of making converts -- just ask Jesus into your heart and you'll be set! Where on earth did we get this idea? I don't think it's biblical at all. Take a look: Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)
So, what do we have here? First of all, Jesus never says to make converts -- He says to make disciples. Unfortunately, we modern-day Americans have no clue what discipleship really looks like. To be a disciple meant trying your best, every single moment, to be like your rabbi. Jesus asked us to go show people how to live as He did, how to walk as He walked.
Now, the first step to becoming a disciple is obviously believing that Jesus is worth following -- that He is God's son, sent to save us from our sins. But in the evangelism I've seen, we often make belief the only crucial step, and I think that is a grave mistake. (By the way, you can learn more about biblical discipleship through the teachings of Ray Vanderlaan. Good stuff.)
Secondly, Jesus says to make disciples and teach them "to obey everything I have commanded you." What did Jesus command? He told us to love the Lord with all we are and love our neighbor as ourselves. These are the greatest commandments -- the things we should be striving for every day. 1 John talks about this over and over again:
"We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands" (1 John 2:3).
"This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another" (1 John 3:11).
"And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them" (1 John 3:23-24a).
"This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands" (1 John 5:2-3a).
So, those who love Jesus will obey His commands -- the commands to love God and our neighbor. As we strive to live these things out, we should desire to bring others along with us on this journey -- on this road of discipleship. Our evangelism should be entirely entwined in showing our love to God by obeying His command to love others.
I do think we are called to evangelize -- I believe we have the Truth and should share it with others. I just hope that we go about it in the most biblical way. We need to show non-believers that following Christ requires belief, action and love -- and the only way to effectively show them this truth is to live it out in front of them.
Whenever The Line posts a blog questioning the actions or words of, well, anyone -- Rosie O'Donnell, Hip Hop artists, Islamic jihadists, etc. -- our readers typically respond in favor of being non-judgemental. We read things like, "well, he/she isn't a Christian" or "we're all sinners" or "I've done worse" or "we should just forgive." And while these sentiments have merit, I believe the compassion behind them is often misapplied.
Let me explain.
I ran across a broadcast from talk show host Dennis Prager in which he discusses the conflict between standards and compassion. He argues that, on a societal level, standards should dominate; but on a personal level, compassion should dominate. Let's use the recent Rosie O'Donnell episode as an illustration.
Rosie hosted an award luncheon for professional women in media and used the F-word, grabbed her crotch and screamed "Eat me!" (and to make matters worse, there were high school-aged girls present). Her behavior was rightly condemned by many because it was an affront to decent society. If we can't say that what she did was wrong, then culture becomes even more debased.
Now this would be different if any of us knew Rosie on a personal level. Like Prager says, compassion should dominate. But since we don't, instead of excusing her behavior because "we're all sinners," we should denounce all indecent behavior, ours and Rosie's, and hold up a higher standard.
HT: Stand To Reason
As editor of Boundless, I receive a number of books from publishers interested in my evaluation.
One landed on my desk a couple of weeks ago, sent from a large Christian publishing house, that shocked me. While it asked some legitimate questions and raised some valid points, the take-away was stunning: "Maybe it's simply time to take our focus off of evangelism."
With twisted logic, the author encourages us to put the Great Commission on the backburner, and instead focus on the "Great Commandment" to love your neighbor. I personally think a key way we "love our neighbor" is by introducing them to the Savior, but perhaps that's too simple for the post-modern audience he's targeting with his self-conscious stream-of-consciousness Donald-Miller-wannabe writing style.
What drove the author of this book to such faith-crippling heresy?
The author poses some good questions at the beginning of his book: Do you believe the religion founded on Christ is true, and that all others are faulty? Do you believe that those who haven't placed their faith in Christ are holding to an inferior faith? Should we seek to see them leave their faith and instead place their faith in Christ? The problem is, instead of proposing a non-PC answer, he succumbs to the popular multicultural mantra that no culture is better than another, not even the culture propagated by Christ: Christianity.
So here are the questions for you:
- Is Christ and the religion he presents the truth, and other religions faulty?
- Do you really believe that what non-Christians believe is at its very core faulty?
- How can you convey the truth of Christ without making nonbelievers somehow feel inferior or patronized?
I personally think repentance is the first step in our saving walk with Christ, repentance being the act of recognizing the inferiority of what we've believed and turning from it to Christ. Recognizing our lack is the first step toward repentance.
I don't think this is just about "method." Of course we shouldn't intend to offend. Of course we should be sensitive and relevant and appropriately affirming. But at some point, don't we need to convey the message that life without Jesus is inferior and hell-bound? Don't we have to convey the message that the Savior truly saves people, not just from mere inferiority, but from death itself?
Are Christians arrogant to hold that non-Christians really should convert from a religion that is at its very nature inferior?
Hey Friends,
I wanted to let you know about an article Lauren F. Winner wrote for TrueU. It's about the Virginia Tech shooting and tragedy in general. It's only been a bit more than a week since the massacre, and pain is still very fresh for most people. Lauren takes the time to acknowledge this pain and to ask questions about it. Where was God when this was happening? How on earth could He allow it?
In the midst of these questions, Lauren gives a very insightful reminder: It is our tendency, in the midst of a tragedy, to feel abandoned by God — and those feelings are understandable. It is one thing to name God Immanuel, God with us, during the happy Christmas season. It is another to insist that God is Immanuel, God with us, when the world feels its most lawless, its most dangerous, its most insane, its most frightening, its most unjust.
But the truth is God never abandons the suffering, the bleeding, the dying, the bereaved. Our God who mourned His friend Lazarus, and who was killed in a violent, unjust death, is truly the God of compassion — not simply God with us, but the God who suffers with us.
God is with us at all times. He's there in the good times and the bad.
In our staff devotions today, we read a passage in Job that reminds us of the God who disciplines, corrects and heals -- although it is often painful, He never leaves our side: Blessed is the man whom God corrects; so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty. For he wounds, but he also binds up; he injures, but his hands also heal. (Job 5:17-18, NIV)
As I blogged about before, I don't always understand why God allows our friends to die, our hearts to break, our plans to fail. But He is with us through it all. He is Immanuel at all times. And even though that doesn't lesson the pain, it does bring me some comfort.
We've talked a little bit about global warming, but what about the more imminent threat of disappearing bees? The Independent reports this month that cell phones may be contributing to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) among bees. It seems like the plot of a particularly far-fetched horror film. But some scientists suggest that our love of the mobile phone could cause massive food shortages, as the world's harvests fail.
They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world -- the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon -- which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe -- was beginning to hit Britain as well.
The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.
According to the article, in recent years the West coast of the United States has lost 60 percent of its commercial bees, while the East coast has lost 70. CCD is also affecting European countries, including Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece.
A study at Landau University found that bees refuse to return to their hives when cell phones are placed near them. More research will surely follow. Josh Sowin reports: More studies will follow. But let this be a reminder how technology is a bargain -- for every advantage, there is a disadvantage that isn't always obvious. Sometimes "progress" is one step forward, two steps back.
Something to think about.
A while back, when I first heard Christian artist Chris Rice was going to produce a more "secular" brand of music, I was disappointed. I don't know why exactly. I guess it's because I thought it would be the end of his doctrinally rich lyrics that always made me think, and wonder, and praise God.
I would describe Chris's music as contemporary soulful with a touch of jazz. It's a sound that can be popular with a more secular audience, sans the overt Christianity. He explained his decision at a concert over a year ago saying that he felt his gifting was hidden by being considered just a Christian artist. Chris said his ministry was for a broader audience.
I hope Chris is right. But there haven't been many long-term success stories of Christian-artist-gone-secular. Amy Grant anyone? People are best doing what they do best. And Chris is one of the best at Christian music. But that doesn't mean it can't happen or that one shouldn't try.
Gina Dalfonzo of The Point grapples with this issue in her post, "What is 'Christian music,' anyway?" She links to an article in Variety examining the very dilemma Chris faced and answered. There's also a poll to get your opinion on "the wisest path for a Christian musician to take."
So, what is your opinion?
 A few weeks ago I finished reading Miss Manners On {Painfully Proper} Weddings by Judith Martin. Aside from making me cringe over all the faux pas in my own wedding, it reminded me what weddings are for and how we, as a culture, have totally missed the point of late.
Take this recent Q&A in Dear Abby's newspaper column: DEAR ABBY: Is it socially correct to have a housewarming party for someone who has lived in the home for more than 10 years? The party is scheduled to be held at a restaurant.
The idea for this party was the "honoree's" mother's because her daughter has never been married or had a child, and her mother thinks that the people she has given gifts to all these years owe her something back. I have never heard of such a party, but others think it's a great idea.
Confused in Spencerport, N.Y.
DEAR CONFUSED: Although unusual, it's not unheard of. This kind of party is sometimes thrown for a "confirmed bachelorette." However, it is not referred to as a housewarming party. It's called a "happily single" shower, and the happy single registers at stores the same way a bride-to-be or expectant mother does.
It's hard to imagine Miss Manners responding so nonchalantly to this question. The purpose of bridal and baby showers is not to get what's coming to you -- all the gifts you're owed by people you gifted in years past. Could anything be more crass? Showers are about helping a young bride or first-time mom get started on this new season of her life -- for which she is not yet prepared. Also, an invitation to a shower is not a demand for a gift. The givers do so not because it's their admission ticket but because they want to help the young couple prepare for what's ahead. Those gifts are a blessing, not a right.
She writes: In her darker moments, Miss Manners wonders if the shower hasn't become more important than the wedding itself. The shower has been perceived as one more opportunity to turn a milestone to material advantage and all these rules [of etiquette] are being violated right and left. This should neither exonerate those who practice intimidation, nor discourage guests from abiding by the rules of etiquette always available to them: They may decline the invitation, sending nothing more than their good wishes. Some couples used to think that in itself was quite valuable.
This, along with all the other advice in her book about weddings, is a must read for every engaged couple. And if Dear Abby is representative, for lots of "happily single" women as well.
OK, that's misleading on three points. It's not a Boundless conference, it's not sponsored by Boundless, and it's not just a singles conference.
But three of us (Motte, Suzanne, and myself) will be there at New Attitude, surrounded by thousands of twentysomethings, most of them single. Speakers include Boundless authors C.J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris, Al Mohler, Bob Kauflin and Eric Simmons.
So the title is kind of non-misleading.
Some of you've suggested we sponsor a conference or meeting for the Boundless family (that's you!). Until we're able to put something together ourselves, this might just be the best thing out there. I've been to several of the conferences, sometimes spending time on stage, and have never returned home unchanged. I've found myself more in love with the Lord, more in wonder of the cross, and more challenged in my faith every year I've attended. In all honesty, I credit one of the New Attitude speakers for motivating me to bring an end to my own years of extended adolescence, something that led to my getting married within a couple of years.
The event takes place May 26-29 in Louisville, Kentucky; registration is open until May 7.
If you're going, please let us know. It'd be great to meet you there. We'll be giving away stuff at our booth, sitting with other bloggers in the prestigious "bloggers section" during some of the main sessions, and taking naps back on our hotel rooms. Maybe just greet us at our booth or in the bloggers section.
I'm sure few are surprised that Rosie O'Donnell is leaving daytime talk show "The View" after using offensive language in front of an audience that included high school girls. According to Fox News, O'Donnell uttered the obscenities at the annual luncheon of New York Women in Communications. Among those in the audience, were 17 high school girls who had scholarships to pursue media careers. "I was offended by how vulgar and common O'Donnell was," Robert Zimmerman, a Democrat active in progressive causes, told the New York Post's Page Six gossip column. "It was especially inappropriate with young people present."
Inappropriate, yes. But worse than that, damaging. O'Donnell had the opportunity to inspire and encourage young women aspiring to media careers, and instead she let angry, hate-filled, debasing words fly. I was interested to read of Focus on the Family's involvement. Statements by public figures are being watched more closely in the post-Don Imus era. The lobbying group Focus on the Family said it was preparing to contact advertisers on "The View" as part of a campaign against O'Donnell. The group is angry at O'Donnell for comments they feel were insulting to Catholics.
I think it's good that Christians are speaking up about inappropriate speech. James offers a pretty severe warning about the tongue: The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell...no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness (3:6;8-9).
Even the secular world recognizes there is something wrong with disrespectful speech -- particularly when it is uttered within the hearing of our youth. Words have the power to impart life and blessing or to poison the hearer. Whether you subscribe to a biblical worldview or not, the fruit of vulgar speech speaks for itself. It communicates to the hearer that she is not worthy of respect. "The View" will be better off without O'Donnell's poisoning words.
If you're not a subscriber to our free e-newsletter, you really should be. Let me tell you why:
- You are notified of the week's freshest articles, sometimes before those articles even appear on the Boundless.org homepage.
- You get a bit of "backstory" to the articles.
- Sometimes I give our e-newsletter subscribers a heads-up on what we're working on for the coming week.
- We've offered product giveaways only available to e-newsletter subscribers.
- You express your appreciation for our work in a tangible way by signing up.
- We don't share your name or contact information outside out ministry. You won't be getting spammed. And if you decide you don't want to receive it any more, you're just a mouse click away from unsubscribing.
Here's an example of the e-newsletter I sent out two weeks ago, in which I spill the beans on forthcoming articles.
There are other reasons why you should sign up to receive our complimentary e-newsletter, but you'll have to find those out yourself by signing up now.
;-)
Last Thursday's lineup included what I think may be the best article we've yet published for men. "Blinded by the Sight" by Gary Thomas made me feel valued as a woman for the very things I most want to be esteemed. He wrote,
One of the things I love about marriage,
as God designed it, is that it can free us up from viewing women as
potential sex objects, in which appearance is the most desirable trait.
If I'm committed to not have sex before marriage, I won't relate to
young women based on whether they would be good in bed. Who I spend my
time with, and who I choose to get to know, won't be dictated by the
size of their breasts or the color of their hair or the shape of their
legs. And if I'm committed to my wife after marriage — mentally as well
as physically — I won't undress women in my mind, I won't give
stereotypically attractive women more attention than others because I'm
not viewing them as potential sex objects. I'm able to really get to
know them, and appreciate them, on multiple levels — their (non-sexual)
passions in life, their wisdom and understanding, their spiritual
insight, how God's "divine nature" is seen in them.
He also reminded me of the standard I should be striving to achieve as I raise two sons, saying,
Here's what, as believers, godly men are
supposed to be. Listen to this glorious picture from Isaiah
32:1-4:
"Each man will be like a shelter from the wind
and a refuge from the storm,
like streams of water in the desert
and the shadow of a great rock in a thirsty land."
A holy man is a spiritual force, a "God oasis" in a world that needs
spiritually strong people. When the winds of turmoil hit, such men are
shelters. When the storms of life unleash their fury, such saints
provide a refuge. When people are thirsty to be valued for who they are
and for what God made them to be, holy men are like streams of water in
the desert. By their words, actions, and eyes, they affirm what God
values most in a woman's worth. When the heat of temptation is tearing
this world apart, godly men become like the shadow of a great rock.
I know it's a challenge for many Boundless readers to find the kind of mentoring we encourage, especially in the absence of involved, godly fathers. Thanks to believers like Gary -- who contribute some of their best ideas to Boundless at a fraction of the profit they could earn elsewhere -- we are not left without fatherly guidance.
Gary Thomas's article "Blinded By the Sight" is an instant Boundless classic. His focus on how men view women as objects to be enjoyed rather than sisters to be protected cuts right to the heart of sin -- the exulting gratification of self.
Here's an excerpt (from many worthy of excerpting): If I'm committed to not have sex before marriage, I won't relate to young women based on whether they would be good in bed. Who I spend my time with, and who I choose to get to know, won't be dictated by the size of their breasts or the color of their hair or the shape of their legs. And if I'm committed to my wife after marriage — mentally as well as physically — I won't undress women in my mind, I won't give stereotypically attractive women more attention than others because I'm not viewing them as potential sex objects.
We treat our lustful glances like the five second rule, thinking a few seconds won't hurt anybody. But it does. Because when we do, we certainly aren't thinking of them as sisters or ourselves as their protectors or valuing them as God does. No, they are our prey and we are their hunters, if only for those few seconds.
I would add that a man's role extends to the protection of women not only from our lustful eyes, but from fraudulent, flirtatious eyes as well. Whenever we enjoy knowing glances with a woman with whom we have no intention of pursuing, we're lying to her by signaling that we're "interested" or "available" when we're not.
In another Boundless classic "Physical Intimacy and the Single Man," Matt Schmucker writes, "a single man should recognize that any single woman with whom he speaks will probably be someone's wife ... maybe each other's, maybe not." The same is true for every woman he sees.
In the wake of deadly suicide bombings in Baghdad, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., NV) announced last week "this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything." Aside from the question of whether or not Reid's declaration undermines the mission, is he right? The short answer is "no" according to U.S. Navy Lt. Jason Nichols.
In today's National Review Online article "Baghdad Calling," columnist W. Thomas Smith, Jr. writes of his conversation with Nichols before Reid's statement in which they list five reasons why "we are winning" the war.
Here's a summary:
- We have a better plan for victory than the enemy. Ours is based on developing the Iraqi military and police forces so that they can defend themselves against both foreign and domestic enemies. Theirs is to force us to leave before that happens.
- The enemy is being divided and splintering off into subgroups, some of which are now providing intelligence to us.
- We are receiving better intelligence from Iraqi civilians.
- The Iraqi general population is turning more and more against the insurgents.
- Petraeu's strategy to "kill, capture, or run the enemy out" of areas of responsibility and then stay there is working.
This does not mean, however, there wont be more suicide bombings. This is war and in the course of war the enemy will remain deadly. If not, as Professor Walid Phares wrote for Real Clear Politics, "we would find ourselves at the end of the war, not in the middle of the war pursuing, and moving towards, victory which is where we are."
It's honestly not a priority for us here at Boundless. It's frankly not something I think we need to spend much time discussing. But for the sake of truth, I think it's become necessary to address head-on some misunderstandings about this divisive issue.
1) So-called "greenhouse gases" really shouldn't be considered "pollutants."
"Greenhouse gases" include water vapor, CO2 and a miniscule amount of methane and nitrous oxide and other things. Forests thrive on water and CO2, so we shouldn't think of them as necessarily dangerous to our environment, the way factory refuse and oil spills are. When we're talking about greenhouse gases, we're not talking about the sludge that ruins rivers or the black smog that makes breathing difficult. Those are truly pollutants, and I think we'd all agree that we should make it a priority to minimize the amount of such pollutants in our water and air.
2) Those who question man-caused global warming are not anti-environmentalists.
This is a correlation to the first point. If I hesitate to say that increased global temperatures are primarily caused by humans, that does not make me a mindless anti-environmentalist with a hidden agenda. As I mentioned, I'm in favor of clean air and water. I use those energy-saving fluorescent bulbs at home. My wife and I recycle. We don't own an SUV. We try not to waste resources. I am, though, cautious about preaching a hypothesis that is inconclusive, against which there is plenty of evidence, and which is propounded by politicians bent on growing wealthy and expanding their control over us by facilitating hysteria. I'm not eager to see our liberties curtailed and income confiscated over something so scientifically shaky as the threat of impending catastrophic climate change.
3) We shouldn't commit ad hominem attacks against global warming dissenters.
Too often I've heard people slam those who aren't on the global warming bandwagon, dismissing them as speaking outside their field or being funded by Big Oil. Using that same logic, I could (and sometimes, rightly, do) dismiss the energy-consuming, opportunistic global warming alarmists, many of whom are funded by the far left and/or stand to profit from this hysteria through the movies they make and "carbon offsets" that they sell. Instead, let's primarily consider these individuals' arguments, the facts they present before us. Some are begging for our ridicule, it's true, but perhaps we shouldn't knee-jerk react against those whose presentations go against the "prevailing wisdom."
4) Climatologists are not of one mind on global warming.
Many legitimate climate scientists find the evidence inconclusive as to how much humans are affecting global warming. They might argue, for example, that there seems to be a correlation between CO2 and global warming, but they can't say that increased levels of CO2 *cause* global warming; it may be the other way around. Others argue that increased solar activity has increased temperatures on planets in our solar system, including the earth. Still others even argue that we'd be better off if the global temperature rose a degree or two.
5) Science is about testing hypotheses.
This is related to the previous point -- it is unscientific to settle on a conclusion (e.g., "People are the primary cause of increased global temperatures") and not be open to considering alternate conclusions. It's even worse to ridicule those who consider the evidence inconclusive. I'm stunned that some students are laughing at other students who are still engaged in the scientific process. Science allows our understanding of phenomena to evolve. One test indicates one thing. Another test indicates something else. We propose a new hypothesis, and our understanding grows. If we shut out all opposing views, we have ceased being scientific in our thinking.
6) The oceans will not rise 20 feet over the next century.
A recent award-winning film reported that global warming is set to raise the sea level by 20 feet over the next century, wiping out coastal cities and towns. The truth is that even the recent (and suspect) IPCC report gives a worst-case climate change scenario causing a rise of 7-23 inches. It's frankly more realistic to expect sea levels to rise by 0.35 millimeters per year, which over a century amounts to a little less than an inch and a half.
7) Global warming is not a recent phenomenon.
The earth has been going through cycles of warming and cooling for thousands of years. Life has endured these changes. Life will continue to endure these cyclic changes.
I could go on, but I'll stop now. My point is that there is still room for discussion here. We mustn't decry those who question the current dogma that global warming is a crisis that requires a curtailment of our freedoms and finances. We mustn't denounce them as mindlessly anti-science and anti-environment.
I recommend that we slow down and ask how much we are willing to forfeit in order to address the manufactured "crisis" foisted upon us by certain politicians and policy makers. And while our environment is important (we are called to steward this planet, after all), our priority should be to share the good news of Jesus with those around us, not dictate how many squares of toilet paper an individual should be allotted.
As a children's magazine editor, I love teaching kids about God. I recently heard someone say, "It's a sin to bore a child with God's Word." While I'm not sure you could find a passage to back that up (exactly), I agree with the concept. God's Word is exciting and compelling and life giving. It should never be boring.
At the same time, sometimes we take this idea too far, feeling a need to dress up the Scripture to make it fancy and attractive to those we minister to. Unfortunately, adding "bells and whistles," as pastor Ligon Duncan calls them on Preachingtoday.com, may end in diminishing the pure Gospel message. His advice is to pastors, but I think it applies to anyone who seeks to correctly handle the word of truth. The truth of the Bible is the most exciting truth in all the world, and so, while our job is not to make it exciting, our presentation of it ought not to diminish the excitement, practicality, and power of the truth of God's Word. We always ought to aim to do justice to the power and practicality of whatever passage we're preaching.
We should never look outside of the passage for something that will make the sermon especially attractive and compelling to the people -- the Word of God itself is compelling and attractive to those who are regenerate. And it is compelling and attractive to those upon whom the Holy Spirit is working his convicting and converting work. If we have to go to something outside of the Word, then what we're trying to do is make the Scripture compelling and attractive to the natural man, who hates the Word of God, and thereby we starve the sheep and cut off the one hope of salvation to the unconverted.
This is a refreshing reminder that none of us, no matter how gifted, can offer the words of life that come from God's Word alone. That takes some pressure off as I trust the Holy Spirit to intervene in these children's lives as they consider the Scriptures. But, of course, God can use my enthusiasm and love for His words, and my faithfulness to share them with others. And that should never be boring.
What difference does age make in getting married?
Are people who marry young too immature for such a serious commitment? Are older couples better prepared for the challenges and costs of marriage?
A commentary this week by the Times Online makes the interesting point that a twentysomething is more likely to approach the responsibility of marriage with the valour of youth vs. the risk adverse calculation of maturity that is more typical of those past their twenties.
Here's the best part of the commentary: Marriage is a relationship that requires the paradoxical virtues of both fortitude and flexibility, of courage and tolerance, and these characteristics are best found in the young. The young are brave; they have valour; they are ready to plunge into the whirlpool and take the risk. And surely the marriage of true minds and one flesh has its most radiant flowering in the full sunshine of youth's idealism — not of maturity's calculation?
The article itself is about the debate over whether 24-year-old Prince William is too young to marry Kate Middleton. I don't want to start a discussion about their particular relationship. Furthermore, the article is called "Marry Young: Matrimony is Wasted on the Old" and I think it comes across more critical than necessary of those who marry old (especially since we know that C.S. Lewis, William Wilberforce and others experienced good marriages after their twenties). And so I don't want to defend the assertion that marriage is "wasted" on the old.
I think, however, that it's hard to argue with the heart of this commentary -- that a twentysomething brings a certain youthful courage and idealism to marriage that often gets replaced with calculation (bordering on the edge of being too careful) as one increases in age.
Any opinions on this idea?
And now for something completely different....
It's recently come to my attention -- and I'm surprised more people aren't expressing their concern over this -- that we're daily exposed to the potentially very dangerous chemical compound Dihydrogen Monoxide.
This colorless, odorless chemical can cause a number of maladies. The Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division reports the following perils associated with DHMO:
- Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
- Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
- Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
- DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
- Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
- Contributes to soil erosion.
- Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
- Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
- Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
- Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
- Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
This chemical is present in industrial solvents, nuclear power plants, biological and chemical weapons, and so on. But more alarming is that it's also an ingredient in food products such as jarred baby food, soups and juices.
I'm not certain why the dangers of this compound have been understated, though it's my understanding that certain organizations, including global warming alarmists, may be developing a campaign to eradicate its use.
;-)
According to an article on Newsweek.com, Korean-Americans are afraid of possible backlash from Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech University. Because the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, was Korean, many people are worried that Koreans in general will be stereotyped or face physical backlash. Some have already taken pro-active measures to try to prevent any possible threat: Inside the United States, social-network users set up online forums with names like "Don't Hate Koreans Because of Cho Seung-Hui" and "Cho Seung-Hui Does NOT Represent Asians." Some spoke of launching a fund-raising drive for the families of those who died in the most deadly school shooting in U.S. history. But many fear these measures won't be enough to blunt the hatred. "In the wake of 9/11, we saw so many racially charged incidents that I don't think it's out of the question to suspect this [prejudice] will happen," says Aimee Baldillo, a spokeswoman for the Asian American Justice Center, a Washington-based civil-rights group. "The lesson we learned then was that individuals are going to get targeted on the basis of a perceived race or ethnicity with connection to a suspect."
Eugene Kim, a Korean tech consultant told Newsweek that since the shooting, his ethnicity has been used as a joke: "One guy at work said, 'You guys better be real nice to Kim. Make sure he doesn't get stressed out so he doesn't come in and shoot everyone.'"
For some reason -- sin, I suppose -- we are quick to find reasons to turn against others. Instead of looking at the heart of the issue, we point fingers at other things -- race, wealth, guns, whatever. I would hope that this tragedy doesn't just turn people toward another argument about racial profiling or gun control. This was obviously one disturbed man who was deeply entrenched in lies from the enemy.
It just seems so obvious to me that our energy should be focused on praying for those affected, not on bigoted comments. Hopefully everyone else feels the same way.
I had considered the title "Faith Painting," but went with something a little less ... lighthearted: "Faith Imitates Art."
In her article, Enuma Okoro explains that, yes, she's affected deeply by art that includes Christian imagery. But she goes on to show how even artwork devoid of Christian imagery can affect her spirit in positive ways.
What do you think? Have you seen your soul lifted by such art? Are there dangers to your spirit inherent in some seemingly innocuous artwork? Can a Christian be propelled Godward by the work of an artist who doesn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah? How should we practice discernment in what we view, in what we look to for inspiration?
We published an article this morning, "Men and Friendship." In his article, author Thabiti Anyabwile challenges men to consider the depth of their relationships with other men, offering pointers on how to enrich them.
He concludes with the following sentences: Intimacy created by sharing with godly friends is the path to deep friendships. And such friendships are not only manly, they are necessary and wise. Without them, we are more vulnerable than we think. And with them, we are more settled on the path of godliness than we think. To put it bluntly, the absence of deep friendships and an active cultivation of such relationships may be evidence of real immaturity and self-protective cowardice. No man of God should live that way.
What do you think? Men -- what are some ways you've been able to further your friendships with other men? Do you even think it's important to have close male friends? Do you agree with his conclusions linking lack of deep male friendships with immaturity and cowardice?
I'll admit, I am an optimist. But a step in a moral direction — even a tiny one — is worth praising the Lord for. Motte makes an important point: Today's Supreme Court decision offers piteously little actual protection to preborn children. But it is a step away from the tide of evil. I am reminded of the article by Drew Dyck on William Wilberforce: Success didn't come quickly. When it came to slavery, Wilberforce had his work cut out for him. England's powerful economy was reliant on the slave trade. In 1789 Wilberforce made his first speech on slavery in the House of Commons, arguing that the practice was morally reprehensible. The next year the Parliament agreed to consider the evidence he had compiled on the issue and in 1791 Wilberforce put forth the first parliamentary Bill to abolish slavery. Unfortunately the Bill was defeated by a vote of 163 to 88.
But Wilberforce was far from done. He redoubled his efforts. Along with his fellow abolitionists, Wilberforce mobilized a campaign to shift public opinion on the issue. He raised it in parliament again, though his next efforts, in 1792, 1793, 1795, 1796 and 1797, were all unsuccessful.
Where others may have grown discouraged, Wilberforce pressed on.
Motte writes: "Still, I agree that the decision is a victory, if only a small one. It's the first limitation on abortion that has held up in court since Roe v. Wade." Praise the Lord for that! I would hope that as believers, today's victory would not cause us to rest on our laurels but instead galvanize us to remain on task and continue championing righteousness one small step at a time. Dyck concludes: We need more Wilberforces today. Our world is still marred by injustice and sin. There's no shortage of atrocities to tackle: sex slavery, abortion, genocide, hunger, poverty. The list goes on.
To combat these ills we need Christians who are unafraid and unashamed of championing the values of the gospel in the public arena. We need leaders dedicated to changing the world for the good of humanity and the glory of God.
We are not all called to conventional ministry. But we are all called to be salt and light where God places us. When we are faithful in heeding that call, God always does His part. And suddenly, like Wilberforce did, we see the world begin to change.
God always does his part. And all things are possible with Him.
 Though many might think of him primarily as the genius inventor of sudoku, after looking into his rich life I now have a broader view of Leonhard Euler as a spirited man who loved the Lord and loved his family.
Born 300 years ago this week, Euler spent his youth preparing to be a minister, just like his father. His aptitude for math was discovered in college, where he was sent to study biblical languages and theology. He completed a master's degree when he was 17 years old, and two years later he became a university professor in St. Petersburg. He went on to become among the greatest mathematicians in history.
Over the course of his life he published over 1,100 books and papers in a variety of languages, including German, Latin, and French. Though he was blind during his final dozen or so years (an affliction that led this optimistic man to say, "Now I will have less distraction"), Euler still managed to produce some 300 additional texts. In his final year he brought us sudoku.
Here are some details about the man that affect me even more than his stunning brilliance:
He was friendly, outgoing and generous and, unlike Albert Einstein's turbulent family relations, Euler relished his home life. Of his 13 children, only five survived infancy, and he often took them to the zoo. He wrote in his memoirs that he was never more content than when he was at home: "I made some of my most important discoveries while holding a baby in my arms with other children playing around my feet.''
A man who often read to his cherished family from the Bible, Euler's keen humor was evident in a public debate he is said to have had with atheist French philosopher Diderot, in which:
Euler opened proceedings by stating: "Sir, (a + b^n)/n = x, hence God exists; reply". His learned adversary, whose mathematical knowledge was unfortunately slight, was unable to respond and lost the debate.
While that event probably never happened, it does say something about the man's thoughtful levity that such a rumor would even be considered believable.
Professor Edward Sandifer, of Western Connecticut State University, summed up Euler's distinguished life this way: "A lot of people polish the happiness out of math, but Euler left the happiness in."
Euler inspires me to find joy in the metaphysical, yes, but also in the normal stuff of life: family and faith. The next time I'm grappling with a sudoku grid, I suspect I'll find myself thinking of the winsome Leonhard Euler, standing there with a sly grin on his face and his kids playing at his ankles.
Buried in the comments on my post "Women Don't Work Like Men" was this question from Claire Jones: Hi Candice. What should I do when my boyfriend has trouble discerning the secret will of God regarding our relationship? He often tells me he is deeply in love with me, and longs to be with me, but he "hasn't heard from God" about what step to take regarding marriage.
Have other Christian girls longing for marriage had this problem? What should I tell my boyfriend?
Help.
Rather than answer in the comments of that post, I thought it off-topic enough to start a new discussion here.
For my part, I think a good starting point would be Steve's article, "Taking a Relationship from Good to Great." In it, he talks about our courtship -- about how he kept waiting for a burning bush to know if I was "the one." His Dad had a burning bush experience just before meeting his mom and a whirlwind romance after. Steve assumed it must be genetic and was awaiting his own "Moses-moment." But it never came.
You can read about his path to the altar here.
If Claire's young man were to ask me if he should marry her, I'd tell him God's will about marriage is no secret. He's said plainly in His Word that He created marriage for us (Genesis 2), that "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD," and "Houses and wealth are inherited from parents, but a prudent wife is from the LORD."
Discerning if a specific girl is "the one" is probably the wrong question. Michael Lawrence says as much in his "Stop Test-Driving Your Girlfriend." I'd suggest that instead, he pray for the wisdom to know if he and his girlfriend are better able to serve God together than apart.
It sounds like in Claire's situation, the best course of action is suggesting to her boyfriend that he meet with a trusted male mentor to walk through his doubts, concerns and intentions toward her. In most cases, clarity doesn't come from just waiting for more time to pass.
My immediate thought was, It's an Islamic Jihadist. Who else would want to kill so many innocents?
In the aftermath of heinous acts like yesterday's Virginia Tech massacre, I inevitably look for someone or something to blame. And an ideology bent on killing innocent Americans would allow me to bring some sense to the senseless. But often, there's nothing to make sense of.
I think it's also why everyone wants to see a picture of the killer. We think, There's probably something telling about the way he looks. But despite the likely headlines, "The Face of Evil," that will accompany his photo, it's usually someone who looks just like us.
While we're grieving and praying with the rest of the country for the families of those lost, we're receiving more information about the gunman. Maybe we'll find some answers there. We're hearing he was a loner, a jilted lover, and that there were "warning signs."
But really, after it's all out, we'll probably be left with nothing that will reasonably explain this mass murder. At least, no reasonable explanation from the world's perspective. What happened, however, reminds me of Solomon's words about life and death found in this passage of Ecclesiastes:
For a man does not know his time. Like fish that are taken in an evil net, and like birds that are caught in a snare, so the children of man are snared at an evil time, when it suddenly falls upon them.
But thankfully, that isn't where it ends. It ends with the hope found in Jesus Christ from John 16:33:
In this world you will have tribulation. But take heart: I have overcome the world.
In regard to the Barna research I blogged about yesterday, Laura S. wrote: My two cents worth is this: the reasoning behind "Revolutionary Parenting" seems to suggest that if parents will do "A, B, and C" in parenting, they *will* have godly kids who grow into adults with a desire for God.
Most parents I know that raise their kids with this philosophy end up being very controlling who are parenting with the motivation of pride: wanting good kids for their own glory.
Furthermore, what about a child with rotten parents who accepts the grace of God and goes on to love and serve the Lord?
What about a child with incredible, godly parents who resist the grace of God and turn his/her back on the Lord?
Laura captured some of the thoughts I'd had on revolutionary parenting. The principles are sound, but a child ultimately must choose for himself whether to follow Christ or his own desires. There is no formula for producing a godly child. I think we can all think of examples of godly parents who grieve over a prodigal child; or the reverse: a godly young adult who came from a dysfunctional family.
I'm currently doing the Beth Moore Bible study Breaking Free. The study opens by considering the kings of Israel: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. Uzziah, 2 Chronicles says, "did what was right in the eyes of the LORD" (26:4). His son, "Jotham grew powerful because he walked steadfastly before the LORD his God" (27:6). And then there was Ahaz: "He did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD" (28:1). Ahaz was followed by Hezekiah who "did what was right in the eyes of the LORD" (29:2). The examples are all there. Jotham was a godly man with an ungodly son. Ahaz was an ungodly man with a godly son.
The issue behind godly parenting, like many things, is righteousness. A parent's devotion to weeding out sin in his own life, honoring God and His Word, lovingly disciplining his children and modeling a vital relationship with Christ will remove barriers that might discourage his children. But ultimately the child will make her own decision.
With this in mind, Barna's revolutionary parenting should be considered a rule of thumb -- not a formula. I suspect that what many of the "revolutionary" parents had in common was a desire for righteousness.
I came across a blog yesterday that got me thinking about adding "social bookmarking"-type links at the bottom of each post. Here are some examples:
- Digg This!
- Discuss on Newsvine
- Add to del.icio.us
- Reddit
- Share on Facebook
- Furl
Would any of you find these kinds of links on The Line useful, or are they just clutter? Are there other kinds of links you'd like to see at the bottom of our posts in addition to or instead of these?
It's tempting to think, as one commenter to my last post did, that whatever your viewpoint about mothers in the workforce, it's "me and my friends journalism." I said Leslie Bennett's book, The Feminine Mistake, falls into this category and Jethro said my post about her book did, too.
But such thinking overlooks one thing: facts. The fact is that most women do take time away from the office to care for children and increasingly, aging parents. So says Sylvia Ann Hewlitt in her soon-to-be-released book Off-Ramps and On-Ramps: Keeping Talented Women on the Road to Success.
Her research, including interviews with nearly 2,500 women and 650 men, shows that Bennetts, who believes women must work the way men do to be successful and secure, is out of sync with real women.
In an interview in today's Wall Street Journal, Hewlitt talks about the unique way women work. She says, ...women aren't male clones. They find it very difficult to replicate the competitive-white-male career path. ...fully 60 percent of women have nonlinear careers. ...About 37 percent of women take an off-ramp at some point in their career ... another substantial number take scenic routes for a while -- intentionally not ratcheting up their assignments.
While I don't agree with all of Hewlett's proposed solutions, I do appreciate her recognition that women aren't men. Many women want to take time off from what she calls "extreme careers" -- jobs that require more than 60 hours per week, 24/7 availability for global clients and lots of travel -- for other priorities.
"At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said, 'Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.'" (Job 1:20-21, NIV)
Across the country from me, 32 people have been murdered at Virginia Tech University. There aren't many details yet -- it seems as though one man went on a shooting rampage, killing as many people as he could. At least 21 more people are injured, and Fox News is reporting it as the "most deadly shooting spree in U.S. history."
Here in Colorado, I am mourning the loss of a dear friend and co-worker, Sheryl Dewitt. Sheryl was one of my professors at the Focus on the Family Institute, and she became my friend and trusted adviser after I began my job here. She died yesterday of a cancer that came on so quickly and fiercely that we barely had time to say goodbye. As the president of the Institute, Del Tackett, said in a blog post today, Sheryl was someone it is difficult to live without: It was impossible not to love Sheryl. She was as selfless an individual as I have ever met. You just wanted to be around her. Sheryl was a wife, a mother, a teacher, a counselor, a bouquet of yellow daisies, a bubbling brook and a fountain that brought forth an ever-fresh spring of joy to everyone that came in contact with her.
All of this loss -- the young students at Virginia Tech and the vibrant mother here in Colorado -- is difficult to understand. Why did God allow it? How do you survive the tragedy? How do you react to this sorrow like Job did -- or do I even want to?
I don't know how to answer those questions.
What I do know is that, all of a sudden, most things seem a bit more trivial than they used to. I know that I am in pain for the families who are experiencing shock, grief, relief, anger and so much more. And I am thankful that Sheryl has reached her ultimate destination on her journey toward the Holy One.
In the end, all I really know is that we are to bless our God who gives and takes away. We don't understand why He allows these things. We only try to desperately cling to the hope that death has been swallowed up in victory because of the promise we have in Jesus.
Though there's pain in the offering, blessed be Your name....
New Barna research explores the connection between parenting approaches and kids who grow up to become devoted Christians. In his book Revolutionary Parenting, Barna examines three styles of parenting. Parenting by default, or the path of least resistance, is characterized by parents doing whatever comes naturally with the motive of keeping everyone happy. Trial-and-error parenting is based on the idea that every parent is an amateur at raising children, and that parents must experiment, observe outcomes and improve based on successes and failures. Revolutionary parenting, the least common approach, requires parents to take God's Word at face value, and apply it faithfully and consistently. "Parenting by default and trial-and-error parenting are both approaches that enable parents to raise their children without the effort of defining their life," Barna explained. "Revolutionary parenting, which is based on one’s faith in God, makes parenting a life priority. Those who engage in revolutionary parenting define success as intentionally facilitating faith-based transformation in the lives of their children, rather than simply accepting the aging and survival of the child as a satisfactory result."
Research was gathered by interviewing adults between the ages of 21 and 29. Then the parents of those adults who identified knowing, loving, and serving God as their top priority in life, were active in a faith community and had a biblical worldview were interviewed. (Less than 1 out of 10 young adults in the study met these criteria.) "Our strategy was to start by identifying desirable attributes that parents would want to see in their children, then work backwards from the existence of those attributes in young adults to figure out what produced them. We expected that studying people in their twenties who exhibited such qualities would reveal some common practices that the parents of such children had implemented," Barna explained.
It's encouraging to know that intentional parenting can make such a difference. Chances are, if you are walking devotedly with Christ, your parents had something to do with it. Take time to thank them.
Solomon wrote "of the making of many books there is no end and too much study wearies the bones." And that was when books were written and copied by hand. With quills. On papyrus.
Thanks to Salon.com's review of The Feminine Mistake I can get author Leslie Bennetts' point and still save my strength and self-respect for books I want to read. Books that don't make a mockery of my commitment to my husband, our marriage and our children.
The author of the book, Leslie Bennetts, wants women to stop giving up their highly fulfilling careers for what she considers the far less important work of rearing their children, tending their marriages and maintaining their homes. And because men are so prone to let us down, and marriages so prone to end messily in divorce, anything less than financial independence, no matter what your marital state, is foolish.
The Salon reviewer says Bennetts' is another in the category of books by upper-class, Ivy-League -educated, white women, for upper-class, Ivy-League-educated white women. She notes that such "me and my friends journalism" can be annoying. I agree. Particularly if you're not one those friends. I know very few women who are as shrill, as anti-man and as purely motivated by economics as Bennetts is. And I know a lot of women.
Still, the small number of women who share her point of view (8 percent) do set important trends.
The Salon reviewer writes,
I agree with [Bennetts] ... about why these privileged women's choices matter to all of us: because they're disproportionately visible to the privileged men who run the world -- they are their wives and daughters and, if things continue, their mothers. And as long as affluent women opt out or get pushed out of top jobs and decision-making positions in order to raise children, men with stay-at-home wives and daughters and mothers will continue to make rules that make it hard for less privileged women -- and men -- to balance work and family. So these advantaged women and their decisions do matter.
This is a key point. Especially for Christian women who are trying to follow their design as women, rather than the feminist script constantly forced upon them. Yes, what elite women do when it comes to career and family matters, precisely because so many people are watching. When those most able to stay home and raise their own children -- informing their values and nurturing their character -- are discouraged from doing so, is it any surprise that the women who would have to make heroic sacrifices to do so don't?
When a powerful man's mother, wife and daughter make the next generation of leaders a priority, society fares well. When the responsibilities of children are removed from the protection of marriage and their care is cobbled together -- a mix of hours in daycare, government schools, nannies, and extended-day programs -- we all suffer.
But women like Bennetts don't see it that way. In the words of the Salon reviewer, Bennetts believes that
for certain soulless, status-seeking women (yes, they get under my skin, too) it seems that in a world of abundance and excess, the best way to prove your worth is to squander it, to forgo making a difference in the wider world while pretending that raising children is a lifelong endeavor (it isn't) that makes you better than other women (it doesn't).
It's tragic that we may actually have to go a whole generation to have the proof we need (in the form of offspring with mal-formed character, limping through life) that rearing children is making a difference and that, at least until they are adults, a present, engaged mom is essential.
To her credit, the Salon reviewer chides Bennetts for trying to rehabilitate "have it all" feminism, which she thinks "was retired with good reason years ago. It's very, very tricky to have it all -- great careers, great kids, great marriages. It's possible to have all three, but rarely all three at once. I'd rather not establish a new paradigm for feminine success that many young women will be unable to attain," she writes.
Research shows the climate has never been better for women to take time off from their careers to have and rear their kids and eventually, go back to what they were doing before the babies arrived. I just hope they hear this good news to balance out the fearful picture of financial doom Bennetts paints.
Jonathan from Canada provided a subtle hint that we should start a thread on The Imus Situation.
I really don't want to, since there are so many complex issues surrounding what's happened, and as a result it's inevitable that there are going to be misunderstandings among those commenting. And tempers will likely flare.
That said, it does puzzle that one person can lose his job for saying something that's ignorant and racist, while others make millions of dollars for saying the same and worse. Perhaps it's just our free market at work -- a vulgar left-wing shock jock (he voted for Kerry, for example) is proving a liability for a network and for corporate sponsors, so he's dropped. That's fine. But if we're going to advocate cleaning the airwaves of this debasing filth, let's be consistent and address cleaning the airwaves of defiling music like that found listed on the link above.
What concerns me most about this situation is how some are using it to call for a crack-down on other talk shows, rather than addressing the cesspool of vulgarity that's bubbled to the top of the Billboard Hot Rap Tracks chart. Outlets such as talk radio and blogs and forums are like release valves on a boiler; If Americans are unable to voice their opinions through these particular media, some of them may find other, perhaps more violent, ways to express their opinions. This feigned dismay and concern over debased speech is facilitating a chilling effect on free speech. And that's not just not fine, it's outright dangerous.
A final thought: I am holding out hope that individuals such as Sharpton and Jackson will soon come down hard, publicly and consistently, against the popular rappers and the labels that distribute their filth (Capitol Records, Columbia/Jive, Crunk/BME/Reprise, Warner Bros., and others) who profit from denigrating society.
It's better to be single and wish you were married than be married and wish you were single. So says a host of columns, blogs and books for singles. I've seen it stated subtly by many Christian authors and most recently, boldly, in USA Today's "Free as a bird and loving it: Being single has its benefits."
This article, by Sharon Jayson, reports that not only are singles a growing segment of the population, they're increasingly happy to stay that way. But it doesn't stop there.
A new wave of books is making the case that being single is better. Among them are Better Single Than Sorry: A No-Regrets Guide to Loving Yourself and Never Settling, I'd Rather Be Single Than Settle: Satisfied Solitude and How to Achieve It, Naked on the Page: The Misadventures of My Unmarried Midlife, On My Own: The Art of Being a Woman Alone, Singular Existence: Because It's Better to be Alone Than Wish You Were! (Speaking of "naked," I wonder how long these authors would be happily single if they weren't also having sex.)
I realize these authors don't claim to be promoting a biblical worldview. But we should take notice nonetheless. Books like these and articles like "Free as a Bird" are affecting the way we view singleness in our culture. And that does affect believers and non-believers alike.
They're not content to say "single is great" and leave it at that. It seems they're on a mission to tear down marriage in the process.
It's one thing for people who don't profess faith in Christ to talk this way. But as believers, we're called to a higher standard. Hebrews 13:4 says, "Marriage should be honored by all." It's tempting to adopt a stance of moral equivalency: "Being single's hard, but marriage is no picnic either." But that's a far cry from the biblical standard of honor.
Interestingly, all five of those books listed above are by women. It's hard to imagine a man getting away with writing books about how marriage to most women would be "settling." With titles like those, it makes me think they've got a bad case of sour grapes or they simply hate men. (And for the man's part, can you imagine him wanting to date a woman who will likely dump him because to commit to him would be "settling"?)
It's like deciding it's better to walk everywhere than simply drive a car (the car, after all, could need repairs some day).
Several months ago I read an intriguing article at True U. In "Guarding Your Heart … From What?" Lindy Keffer talks about the mistake of guarding one's heart against the wrong thing. She writes: When we talk about guarding our hearts, we usually mean being super careful about how much personal stuff we disclose to someone in whom we're romantically interested. We think of it as a way to save our emotional intimacy for our future spouses. There's only one problem with this idea. It's not actually biblical. The phrase "guard your heart" comes from Proverbs 4:23. Read in context, it's clearly talking about guarding our hearts against sin, not people.
This was new information to me. As someone who grew up in the church, I had this verse drilled into me as a caution against emotional intimacy with the opposite sex (not a bad idea in high school). Guarding myself from potential heartbreak became my guiding principle -- an indicator that I was "doing things right" in my relationships with the opposite sex. I now see that I also hid behind it to avoid being hurt. Lindy goes beneath the surface: For those of us who once felt safe and justified living within the Christian dating box, the demands of righteousness can come as a shock. Suddenly, it's not about checking all the boxes on the list, but about being intimately attuned to the Holy Spirit, even as we are growing closer to another person.
Using the prophet Hosea as an example, Lindy points out that not all romances have happy endings. I think this is the hardest part about dating and marriage. In order to get to the point of making a lifelong commitment to love someone, we must open ourselves up to (at least one) sinful person who will hurt us. Somehow, I think we've taken the Christian relationship books to mean that if we follow all the steps, we can avoid the hurt, but it just isn't so.
And yet there is something of spiritual value in the process. When we make the focus guarding our hearts against sin, not people, we risk being hurt. But when you consider the many ways God can be glorified in righteous vulnerability, it is a risk worth taking.
It doesn't take much to misspell someone's name.
It's pretty common, for example, for people to misspell Candice's name with an extra "a" and my wife Ashleigh's name with a "y" and Motte's name without the "e."
It's even harder to correctly spell (let alone pronounce) the names of Boundless authors Thabiti Anyabwile and Enuma Okoro and J. Budziszewski.
There's really no point to this post. I'm just competing for the distinction of having written this week's oddest Line post.
Here's some data I ran across which may be of interest to our readers. It's from an article on the ad-laden Forbes.com Website titled "Men's And Women's Fertility Facts -- Explained."
First, the women's fertility facts:
[A] woman's fertility starts to measurably decline around age 27, due to the depletion and aging of her eggs. For those under 30, it's estimated that the chance of getting pregnant in any one cycle is 20% to 30%.
And for the men:
Men over 35 are twice as likely to be infertile as those under 25. Studies also are showing that, as with older women, older men are more likely to have children with birth defects due to the decreased genetic quality of their sperm.
The writer warns couples who want children that age is one of the most important factors to consider. This is helpful stuff. I would just add one thing for the Christian audience. Marry first, then have children. Marriage wasn't mentioned once in the article.
When I think about the future, I often wonder how I will someday equip my children to stand for truth in a culture that rejects it. Gina at the Point references this story of a mother's quest to guide her 7-year-old son when a Lesbian couple moves in across the street. An excerpt from the the article: Early one Saturday morning the doorbell rang. It was a young girl -- taller than I am, heavily built, but still a young girl. "Last night we moved in across the street," she said. "And I've heard you have a daughter my age. Can she come out to play?"
I called my eleven-year-old daughter, and she and one of our sons -- the seven-year-old -- went out to meet the new neighbor. They played with her all morning, building a fort and planning a club, and at lunchtime she asked if she could eat with us, "because we don't have any food in the house yet."
"Sure," I said, and made burritos. After lunch the kids went back out to play some more, but within a few minutes my two came bursting back in, looking bewildered and upset.
The seven-year-old had learned a new word. "Her mother is a lesbian!" he announced.
I encourage you to read this article (if for no other reason, for it's stunning conclusion). I was touched and encouraged by Amanda Witt's faithful response to an unwelcome parenting challenge, and the evidence of God redeeming the situation. Even in a society with a less-than-ideal moral climate, truth can shine -- sometimes brightest through Christian families.
Last month, I was drawn to an engaging full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal. It was a long checklist with the heading "Things to do while you're alive." Among the 40 items in the list were entries such as "read and finish Moby-Dick," "find the big dipper," "write a screenplay" and "eat an insect." These were among the few items in the list that didn't require a reasonable outlay of money. Then I noticed the promotional message: "Life Takes Visa." That explains why the list of must-do items for life includes entries such as "have a chauffeur," "go to the Olymic Games," "go to the Super Bowl" and "travel with handmade fitted luggage."
How much of the big things in life really do require money? It obviously takes money to acheive a lot of our life goals such as getting an education, getting married, having kids, buying a house, attending reunions, and so forth. But, how often do you think we end up confusing our lists of big dreams and life goals with the lists of "must-have" and "must-do" items marketers offer us?
Candice and I compile a list each December of things we want to prioritize in the year ahead. We've also started adding to our list big life goals we hope to accomplish over the long term. After we finished our list this past year, I reviewed it to see what impact our priorities would have on our budget. What surprised me was how few of the life accomplishments we prioritized had a big price tag.
I'd love to see our readers recommendations for things to do while you're alive that don't take Visa -- or at least wouldn't put much of a dent in your credit card. Suggestions?
Author Robert Samuelson leads today's Real Clear Politics article on the coming health care crisis with excerpts from Christopher Buckley's satirical novel Boomsday. He highlights a fictional blogger in the novel, Cassandra Devine, who becomes famous for her "incendiary rhetoric," suggesting the government should pay Boomers to kill themselves before the age of 70 so that "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid will be solvent."
Here's more Devine: "Someone my age will have to spend their entire life paying unfair taxes, just so the Boomers can hit the golf course at sixty-two and drink gin and tonics until they're ninety,'' she tells one TV reporter. Her plan, once in cyberspace, incites spontaneous uprisings. In Florida, "several hundred people in their twenties stormed the gates of a retirement community.... Residents were assaulted as they played golf.''
Such exaggerated writing has a way of bringing clarity to the incredible burden young workers will face once Boomers begin hitting retirement in 2011. By 2030, just as today's 25-year-olds are putting their children through college, they'll also have to bear a 30 to 50 percent increase in taxes to cover the health care gap.
So why hasn't the government done anything about it? According to Samuelson, it's "because voters -- present and prospective retirees -- have wanted them to do nothing."
What are you going to do about it?
We have a number of Boundless and Boundless Line readers from around the world, including Canada, the UK, Australia, the Philippines, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Malaysia, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, France, China, Mexico, Ireland, South Korea, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Turkey, Brazil, Jamaica, Spain, Switzerland, Israel, Italy, Poland, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Romania, to name a few.
(If you're from a country I haven't listed, please forgive me; I'd have to type 150 more country names to include each of you.)
Oh, I do need to mention one more country: Singapore. We average some 5-10 visits on our sites per day from this small Asian republic, which puts it among the top 10 represented countries on Boundless.
I spent a couple of weeks in Singapore a few years ago. The software company I worked for at the time had me travel there as a consultant for one of the region's large banks, and I was more than happy to go. I love experiencing other cultures, as shown by my having spent about a year in central Mexico and a couple of months in Colombia, among other places. I felt particularly eager to immerse myself in this one; it would be my first time outside the States since earning a master's degree in International Communication a few years earlier.
The 30-hour flight wasn't as uncomfortable as it could have been, since I flew Singapore Airlines most of the way. I've done a lot of flying; they're the best I've come across, by far. Every seat feels like first class.
I found my co-workers and new friends warm and welcoming. We enjoyed some great meals together, and great laughs together. I was offered a bite of durian, the "king of fruits," but couldn't bring myself to try it. I did savor a few meals of raw fish, though, along with more "normal" food such as curry and noodles and hamburgers.
Though the form of government and high taxation rub me the wrong way, it seems to work "fine" for Singaporeans. It's a well-run place: very modern, very productive, very clean and very verdant.
If you've ever considered traveling to Asia, because of its cultural diversity, modernity, and friendliness I'd recommend visiting Singapore. Below are a few photos from my trip, for your enjoyment and inspiration. I've included snapshots of their seaport (the largest in the world, I'm told), a church I visited, Sentosa Island, me growling with a 10-story merlion, me eating with some new friends and walking through a mall, and the very swimmable pools outside the apartment I stayed at.
Thanks for reminding me of my wonderful visit to your country, Singaporean Boundless readers!
FWIW, I've had wonderfully memorable visits to Canada, France, England, Wales, Germany (I was born there) and Italy as well. If you're from outside the U.S., I'd love to hear a bit about your country -- what's wonderful about it, what I should eat if I visit, where I should visit, what your neighbors are like, and so on....
Babies need dads, but they also need moms. Al Mohler leads an interesting discussion on motherhood and combat, focusing on the recent capture of British sailors by Iran. Among those captured was Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the mother of a 3-year-old daughter. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "Why is it that the most difficult work like patrolling at sea should be given to a woman? Why is there no respect for motherhood? Why does the West not value its women?"
Mohler writes: Ahmadinejad's questions still reverberate around the Muslim world. Nothing could more effectively demonstrate the immorality of Western values before Muslim eyes than this -- a mother of a little girl sent as a warrior.
Driven by a fanatical ideology of feminism, the West has turned its back on a reality as basic as motherhood. We have adopted a new morality that insists -- nature's obstinacy notwithstanding -- that there is no difference between men and women. This produces mothers of babies and toddlers in uniform and in the killing zones.
Seaman Turney's own words about her daughter drive home the point: "She's getting more of a character each day. It's a shame I'm missing that but she's a top girl and will grow up to be a very reliable, independent, strong young woman, which is exactly what I want for her."
Mohler's response: Yes, her absence is a shame. And so is the presence of mothers in combat zones, whether in British or American uniforms.
What Iran did in capturing these hostages and playing them as media pawns was evil and reprehensible -- and very effective. The moral weakness of the West was made all the more clear to the watching world, and our ideological fanaticism was open for all to see.
I deeply appreciate the men and women who are risking their lives on my behalf, but mommies in combat leave behind collateral damage.
Any readers of Wizard of Id or B.C. in the Boundless community? If so, you probably heard that Johnny Hart, the creator of those scripts died over the weekend at the age of 76. Hart , an adult convert, didn't mind stirring up controversy every once in a while by injecting bold Christian messages in the Christmas and Easter versions of B.C. -- a habit that not only annoyed people who believed in "the separation of the church and comics," but also perplexed people who saw the obvious irony of a message about Christ in a comic strip set in the time "before Christ."
I enjoyed reading this older article that Christianity Today dug up to honor Hart following his death -- especially this inviting opening about Hart's routine as an artist: Johnny Hart's house is about a half-mile from any paved road. His mind, meanwhile, is several millennia away: back in the cave man days — dwelling with his friend, B.C. The two of them took up residence together several decades ago, with the consent and support of Hart's wife, Bobby. Then came another comic strip pal, "The Wizard of Id." Today, there's a communal cheer in the leafy woods where the Harts reside in rural New York State.
Johnny often rises at four in the morning, trying not to wake the wife of his youth (they've been married 44 years). He sneaks into the cool pre-dawn as geese honk down the hill on his lake.
He winds about a quarter of a mile around his lake ("As the crow walks," jokes Johnny), past his boat house, through some woods, up another hill, and — voila! — there in his studio they wait, his old pals.
"I wash my face and brush my teeth and it's dark out and I get to watch the sun come over the lake and it's really very blissful and fun," he says.
Any thoughts/memories?
I just finished reading The Chronicles of Narnia to my 7-year-old daughter. She loved it of course and had a hard time letting go as we neared the end of the series. In the final chapter of The Last Battle, she asked if we could read just a few pages at a time. I could tell she wanted more of Aslan.
Before the movie premier of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, C.S. Lewis's step-son, Douglas Gresham, came to Focus on the Family as part of a grassroots effort to promote the movie. He told the story of an encounter between Lewis and a mother who was afraid that her child loved Aslan more than Jesus. Jack, as Gresham called him, assured the mother that it was impossible because Aslan the Lion is the allegorical Jesus the Man.
Lewis takes the truths of Jesus and, through Aslan, puts them in fantasized settings that not only capture the child's imagination, but heightens their understanding of the greatest story ever told. So their attraction to Aslan simply reveals their deep hunger for the real Savior. And not surprisingly, there are revelations for adults as well.
In the same way my daughter was drawn to Lewis's God Lion, I was drawn to his vision of heaven; the loss of the sense of time in The Magician's Nephew; the sweet, satisfying water in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader; the tireless, speedy running in The Last Battle. Jesus doesn't paint a picture of heaven in the gospels in that way. The language is vague and then the picture we are given in Revelation is so outside of our realm of understanding that we are mostly just left confused by John's vision.
Lewis sketches a picture of heaven based on truth with tangible factors that really gives us an ability to relate to the idea of heaven and, of course, makes us crave what it will be.
Columnist Leonard Pitt has a standout article in Tuesday's Chicago Tribune. In "I'll say it again: Dad's shouldn't be optional," Pitt talks about the firestorm he's encountered for criticizing Mary Cheney's decision to have a baby with her lesbian "life partner." Pitt's certainly no conservative -- he writes that he'll be receiving an award from PFLAG in a few weeks. Still he's adamant: it's bad news for babies born without dads.
He writes,
My objection to Cheney and Poe is precisely the same one I have to heterosexual single women who decide to conceive children without the benefit of a stable and involved father. I believe that our slide toward a fatherless society, a society where the male parent is considered optional, irrelevant or interchangeable, is toxic for our children.
That concern is buttressed by a growing body of research that tells us the child raised without his or her biological father is significantly more likely to live in poverty, do poorly in school, drop out altogether, become a teen parent, exhibit behavioral problems, smoke, drink, use drugs or wind up in jail.
So dad's involvement would seem vital to a child's well-being.
Pitt explains that on this issue, he's on the side of Dr. James Dobson. I'm glad to have his support.
Roberto Rivera y Carlo's recent article, "Ordinary People," got me thinking about the growing problem of narcissism. The aversion to "ordinariness" carries a lot of nasty side effects. This Boston Globe article considers a recent study showing that today's college students are the most narcissistic and self-centered in decades. And experts are saying: "We have no one to blame but ourselves." "Things went too far," says psychologist Jean Twenge, lead author of the study and a professor at San Diego State University.
What she means is that parents overcorrected for the harshness of a previous generation that preferred children to be "seen and not heard." She points to the soccer trophies that coaches hand out to all team members just for showing up rather than to a few for outstanding athleticism, and to a song taught in a colleague's daughter's preschool to the tune of "Frère Jacques": "I am special/I am special/Look at me."
"If you're that child, it's not surprising that pretty soon you start to believe it," says Twenge, whose new book, "Generation Me," examines feelings of entitlement among young Americans.
I'm fascinated by how this approach seeped into Christian culture as well. The Bible clubs I taught as a teen had competitions in which it was stressed that there were no losers. There was the winning team and the second place team. This may have been a harmless effort to make everyone feel accepted, but it was reflective of the sentiment Twenge is talking about. She continues: "We live in a very individualistic culture. Telling each child he or she is special is based on the premise that building self-esteem leads to good outcomes. It works the other way around: Good outcomes lead to self-esteem. What people thought builds self-esteem turns out to build narcissism."
That's pretty provocative stuff. Somewhere along the line, we decided that high self-esteem automatically produces good fruit. While pride (narcissism) is condemned repeatedly in Scripture, Proverbs 13:4 says, "the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied." Diligence, not "specialness," leads to a good outcome and proper self-esteem. Wouldn't it be great if schoolroom songs taught messages of diligence and responsibility? Sounds a little too ordinary.
HT: Justin Taylor
We've received a couple of comments and e-mails recently accusing us of "censoring" reader comments.
The truth is that we publish the vast majority of comments, whether they agree with the original post or not, and whether the tone is cordial or not. We consider comments a wonderful way to allow our readers to provide their feedback (both positive and negative), to expand the discussion and to get to know each other.
Perhaps this is a good time to reiterate our comments-publishing policy, something I addressed head-on in January and something that's outlined on every blog page in the paragraph just above where you enter your comment.
At the outset, I need to correct the improper use of the term "censor." Censorship typically is something done by government officials in an effort to infringe on free speech; private individuals who make decisions about what to publish on their sites is not such an infringement. As a private organization, what we are doing is "moderating" -- choosing to publish those comments that facilitate conversation and further the discussion, and not publish comments that are vulgar, irrelevant, and otherwise detrimental to the conversation.
In the past several weeks, we've not published just a few comments: two were personal ads, one was a vicious attack against a blog moderator, one went over the top accusing us of "censoring" comments, one included too much intimate information, one used vulgarity, one misrepresented us, and one was from a man who talked about how he enjoys having sex with other men.
In none of these cases did we "censor" a comment because we disagreed with that comment. We're confident that our readers will be able to evaluate those comments we personally disagree with, and so we're not afraid to let them go through.
I also need to remind our readers that because each comment is not published until either Motte or I have a chance to read through it, sometimes it can take a day or two before your comment hits the site. We do take time between our other Boundless-related responsibilities to publish comments, and even review and publish them after work hours and on the weekends and holidays. That said, sometimes it may take more time than you'd like for your comment to be published.
As I did with my last post on this topic, I'd like to invite your comments about our policy as stated and as practiced. Please submit your comments below or e-mail them to us at editor@boundless.org.
This past Wednesday, I led a Seder with my Bible study. Seder is a dinner to commemorate the beginning of the Jewish holiday of Passover. Now, I'm not Jewish (although I am fascinated with learning more about the culture of biblical Israel). I like to celebrate Passover because there is so much to learn about the ways the Jewish people worship God -- the way Jesus worshiped God when He was here on earth.
Passover is celebrated by the Jews because God commanded that they do so in Exodus 12. It is a holiday to commemorate their deliverance from slavery in Egypt. Passover speaks of freedom and redemption, all the while remembering God's goodness.
Throughout the meal you bless God for specific acts and you eat elements from the Seder plate to remind you of slavery in Egypt. There is a retelling of the plagues and there is a section for remembering that even one act from God would've been enough for us -- because we deserve nothing.
Jesus' Last Supper was a Seder -- when He gave the command for us to remember Him through communion, He was simply using elements that were already part of the meal. In the book of Mark when it says that Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn, they most likely sang the "Hallel" -- words from the Psalms that are sung during a Seder.
There is so much during Passover that points to Christ. It is a beautiful way for us to remember our redemption this Easter season. I would encourage all of you to check out this article I wrote about Passover, and, if you can, participate in a Seder yourself. It's a wonderful way to experience the Jewish roots of Christianity.
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