 |
I have a side project (work I'm getting paid to do outside the context of my job at Focus) that I'm having trouble completing. And of the many circumstantial reasons I could cite for being unproductive, I think the main thing is not having a technique for working at home.
Doing business surrounded by my trappings isn't easy for me. And I highly esteem the "distractions" of my wife and kids after eight hours at the office. So how do I get back into a work mindset when there's margin at home? According to Jerry Seinfeld (yes, that Jerry Seinfeld), it's as simple as doing a little bit everyday, and not breaking the chain.
Lifehacker recently published software developer Brad Isaac's account of his encounter with Seinfeld that he claims has helped him throughout his life.
It began like this, Years ago when Seinfeld was a new television show, Jerry Seinfeld was still a touring comic. At the time, I was hanging around clubs doing open mic nights and trying to learn the ropes. One night I was in the club where Seinfeld was working, and before he went on stage, I saw my chance. I had to ask Seinfeld if he had any tips for a young comic. What he told me was something that would benefit me a lifetime...
He said the way to be a better comic was to create better jokes and the way to create better jokes was to write every day. But his advice was better than that. He had a gem of a leverage technique he used on himself and you can use it to motivate yourself -- even when you don't feel like it.
Brad says that Seinfeld told him to get a big wall calendar with the whole year on one page, a red magic marker and begin putting a big red X over each day he worked on his task. In just a few days, you'll have a chain. And after a few weeks your job will be to not break the chain.
Sounds simple, doesn't it? But if the visual motivates me to leverage my capacity for extra work in a home environment, then I'll give it a go. Oh, and if you're wondering about keeping the Sabbath, you can X Sunday because resting in the Lord is the most important action you can take before your Seinfeld calendar begins again on Monday.
HT: Tim Challies
We are entering a "post-homosexualist" era. Or so hopes Will Young whose article on the subject was published in The Times [London] over the weekend. The trademark of this era, he says, would be to get people to view gays as "utterly normal." Dr. Al Mohler comments on why this "next stage" is improbable: Young, who is a well-known figure in Britain, became famous when he won the first "Pop Idol" contest on British television. In his view, a public acknowledgement of homosexuality should be a matter of no real interest. As he wrote, "Coming out should just be a statement of fact –- I have red hair, I drink tea, I sleep with the same sex."
It isn't that simple, of course. And it isn't that simple precisely because there is a deep moral instinct within us that continually reminds that sex between persons of the same sex is not natural or normal....
The stubborn fact is that most people still notice when two men or two women hold hands in public. When two men tell their colleagues and neighbors that they are "having" a baby, those neighbors can't help wondering how.
Will Young undoubtedly believes that this inability to see homosexuality as a matter of no consequence is explained by deep prejudices that are woven throughout the culture. But Christians believe that this moral instinct is explained, not by social custom and prejudice, but by the revelation of God in nature and in the human conscience -- the very knowledge the Apostle Paul described in the first chapter of Romans. God has given his human creatures the knowledge that homosexuality is just not "utterly normal." This knowledge may be denied or suppressed, but it will not disappear.
While same-sex attraction may feel utterly normal, God has established a natural order. In his article "Still Struggling With Same-Sex Attraction," Mike Ensley asserts that this natural order is motivated by love: I also am confident that when God said, "Do not practice homosexuality," he wasn't switching gears from "Loving God" to "Rule-Making, Fun-Hating God." His commands come from his loving heart, the same heart that sent his Son to save me.
The fact that temptation remains is only to be expected, for many reasons. First of all because while my sinful nature is fading away to make room for Christ's new life -- and it is -- I will not be fully free of it until Heaven.
As Dr. Mohler affirms, an intolerant culture is not the reason homosexuality cannot be considered "normal." The reason is the plan for life, sex and procreation that God has established and revealed to people's hearts.
I hear people quip that "God is a crutch." They say that we Christians found ourselves needing help through the day, and so we looked outside of ourselves to the "Higher Power," God.
They do have a valid point, but they don't go far enough. We weren't limping along, looking for a bit of assistance. We were dead, in need of life. We weren't flailing about in the ocean waves, grasping for a hand to draw us to safety. We were laying breathless on the bottom of the ocean, helplessly tangled up in seaweed.
And then one day, Christ breathed life into us.
We didn't need help. We needed life.
This topic has been hashed and rehashed for centuries, and I hesitate to bring it up again. I don't want to open wounds or incite contention. I don't want to hurt anyone or lead them to feel condemned.
For no particular reason, though, I found myself awake in bed late last night, wrestling with this issue. What is it? Who has it? Is "singleness" a gift? And so on. I believe the Lord laid it on my heart to raise it again in order to dispel misconceptions about it and to stir up hope and renew your motivations.
The term is drawn from 1 Cor. 7:6-9: Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
It is clear that the "gift" refers to a freedom from "burning with passion" in order to focus all one's energies on serving others in a perpetually non-married state, unencumbered by the joyful responsibility of spouse and kids. I can't relate to this gift, but a few (such as Paul, Jesus, John the Baptist, "eunuchs," Manuel Arenas and others) were given this gift so that they might best serve God and others in that capacity.
So what is the "gift of singleness"? It is not singleness itself. If you find yourself single, you most likely don't have the "gift of singleness." Your state is a gift -- but only as much as life is a gift; it may sound harsh, but there's nothing uniquely special about your singleness itself.
The state of singleness is not a sin -- though some singles' motivations for prolonging it are sinful, and the temptations to sin sexually during an extended season of singleness are heightened, often resulting in sexual sin. Calling singleness a "gift" facilitates prolonging this season of sexual temptation, and that contributes to the problems of sexual sin plaguing single adults.
The thing is, just as singleness is not itself "sin," it's also not a "gift."
Too many people say, "If you are single, then you have the gift of singleness." That sounds cute, and affirms those who are single, but it's unbiblical and meaningless and unhelpful. It's just wrong. Again, Paul clearly says that if you "burn with passion," then you don't have the "gift of singleness" and you "should marry." Would Paul command those with the "gift of singleness" to reject that gift and instead pursue marriage? No, he wouldn't. And so "if you are single, then you have the gift of singleness" is pure unbiblical vapidity.
On the other hand, marriage and kids are gifts, things given to us by God and clearly considered blessings by Scripture.
God wants people married. I'm not a "marriage mandate" advocate by any means, but I do see how God expects people to marry. He's commanded it in Scripture (Genesis 1:27-28) and affirms it by putting into the vast majority of us the passionate desire to "know" (in a sexual sense) another person intimately. The only way that desire can be fulfilled in a God-honoring way is within marriage.
If you desire marriage, if you "burn with passion," then you do not have the "gift of singleness." If you burn with passion, take that as a sign from God that you should be preparing for married life. And if you're at a "marrying age," with the blessing of your parents or mentors, you are free -- even encouraged -- to pursue it. As Paul wrote, you "should marry."
(I can hear the complaints already, from women who are "older" and discouraged that they're still single, from men who continue to be rebuffed by women they pursue, by those whose careers inhibit their being able to be in marriage-minded relationships, from those who live in small towns or attend small churches where there are few options. While you're free to express your complaints below, my hope is that you'd instead try to dig into what Paul is saying in the passage of Scripture I referenced above, that you'd humbly and prayerfully examine your heart in an effort to determine what God would have you do now. My intention is to inspire hope -- if you feel that passion, then God is for you, and eager to conspire with you to bring about the end for which that passion exists: marriage.)
This week I've been enjoying a vacation to the Northwest. On Saturday, I had the privilege of seeing my sister and 25 other voice students of Kristi Foster Studios perform "Heart and Music" a review of contemporary musical theater. The performances were dynamic, but the behind-the-scenes is what captured my heart. In the past, Kristi, 33, has passed on donations received at her two concerts toward a Christian charity, raising an average of $400.
This year was different.
Instead of two concerts, the students would perform only one. Instead of $400, they would attempt to raise $1,100 — enough to rescue one girl out of sex trafficking through "Shared Hope." That was only at first.
A week and a half before the show, Kristi made the mistake of telling one of her students that she was secretly hoping to rescue five girls. "It's not a secret anymore," the student said. And so Kristi shared her "secret hope" with her students — a majority of them teens. Kristi challenged them to not only pray that God would inspire others to give toward this big goal, but also to consider if He might ask them to give sacrificially. They began praying. And then they watched God work.
This past week, $2,300 came in before the show — much of it through sacrificial gifts. By intermission, $4,300 had been given (including a significant amount from the students themselves). And when the money was counted after the show, it totaled $5,780.29.
In one of the final numbers, "On the Deck of a Spanish Sailing Ship, 1492" by Jason Robert Brown, Kristi joined her students, singing these words: Lord, give me hope
I am not strong enough
I am not strong enough
Lord, give me light
I am unworthy
I am unworthy
Stop, take a look
At the children, at the children
Who believe in this promised land
You gotta have mercy, Lord
Have mercy, Lord
Give us strength so that we can grow
Stop, shine your light
On these children who have faith in divine command
As each student extended a hand in the air, to represent the five girls God would save, I knew the Lord had answered that prayer.
Candice and I are about to take off for a week of vacation and our hope is that it can be Sabbath like. But I'm still not sure quite how to achieve that. Through trial and error, we've learned not to plan our agenda too tightly and to simplify the traveling portion as much as possible, but I still have a lot to learn about how to truly rest, find replenishment and make meaningful relationship investments in the process. Any suggestions (especially ones that factor young kids into the picture)?
A friend of mine, Eli Bremer, is going to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.
No, not as a spectator. As a competitor.
Earlier this week Eli won gold in the PanAmerican Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. His sport is the Modern Pentathlon, a competition that Baron Pierre de Cubriton, the founder of the modern Olympic movement, felt would showcase the best all-around sportsmen. Debuting in 1912, the pentathlon includes shooting, fencing, swimming, horseback riding, and running.
Here's a portion of an e-mail Eli's wife Cami sent me last night: Eli said that, for the first time in his life, he had this overwhelming sense of tons of people praying for him DURING the competition and that made all the difference in the world to him. So for that, we both thank you! ... To God be the Glory....
God doesn't always see to it that His children win. I find it exciting, though, when our siblings-in-Christ do win! Especially when that brother in the Lord is a friend.
Um, no it's not.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Oh, and you want to have your cake and eat it too? Not me. I want to eat my cake ... and have it too. After that, I'm taking a nap.
"Friendship offers support, laughter -- and the occasional spare tire," said Thursday's Wall Street Journal. Reporter Jennifer Levitz asks, "Can Your Friends Make You Fat?"
A study in this week's New England Journal of Medicine finds that social networks have an even greater effect on chances of becoming obese than genes do. The findings may help explain why obesity is rising in America despite widespread dieting and other weight-loss techniques, and why people's best efforts to slim down on their own are so often short-lived.
According to the study,
A person's chance of becoming obese jumped 57% if he or she also had a friend who became obese during a given time. If on e adult sibling became obese, the chance that the other would follow suit increased by 40%. These findings were particularly true if siblings and friends were of the same sex -- since, researchers say, people are more influenced by those they resemble than those they do not. Indeed, the chance of becoming obese rose 71% if it was a same-sex friend who gained the weight.
Before you delete the phone numbers and emails of all your friends on the chubby side, keep two things in mind: one, the 12,067 people studied underwent body measurements over 32 years. So they're not young. This is something you may not need to worry about till you're older. (But of course, good friendships form early and stay long so that may be a moot point.)
The second is more helpful: If the influence of friends is so powerful that their eating habits can contribute to your weight gain, think of all the other, less visible, influences they have over you and you have on them. Your friendships can be a powerful motivation toward good, or ill, and it goes both ways. What kind of influence are you?
Levitz' article went on to say,
The study is part of a larger trend in science and social science to examine the effect of networks, from the role that interconnected neurons play in cognition, to even networks of terrorism. There's evidence, for instance, that political attitudes are shaped by social circles, and that when it comes to sexual behavior, teens are more influenced by their immediate friends than by the most popular group at school or by the media.
Solomon knew the power of friendship. In his letters of wisdom to his
son he talked about the influence of his son's pals and urged him to choose
wisely. They'll rub off on you, son, so make sure the residue is worthy stuff. You can hear him saying as much in Proverbs 13:20,
He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm.
We've had a few people talking about interracial dating in the TrueU Coffee Shop lately. The topic has come up before, and I'm always interested in hearing people's opinions. It's a subject that's very close to my heart, since I am bi-racial (my mom is white and my dad is black).
I've heard all of the questions that come along with the discussion: Is it wrong to date someone with a different skin color? Is it more difficult? Do children of interracial parents face discrimination or identity problems?
In my experience, the answer to all of these questions is "no" although I'm sure some would disagree with me. I've personally never experienced any discrimination based on my bi-racial status, and I feel fully confident in who I am (and, by the way, who I am really has nothing to do with being black or white -- it has to do with being awesome ;-).
I wrote a three-part series on this topic, addressing as many issues as I could think of when it came to this subject. Overall, I find absolutely no biblical basis for not dating interracially; I believe God has called us to marry believers -- red, yellow, black or white.
However, some people still do seem to be quite concerned with the possibility that there could be difficulties or discrimination in an interracial relationship. Maybe that's true. But, so what? As I talk about in my article, sometimes we're more effective when we understand the difficulties of life: When my mom and dad got married, my mom's white parents received a few whispered questions from some of their friends. "Hmm, are they sure that's a good idea?" they would gently ask. "Won't it be tough for them if they have mixed-race babies?" My grandma answered them matter-of-factly: "Well, his kids will be black and face possible difficulties in society no matter whom he marries. What makes our family so special that we should be exempt from prejudices?"
Grandma was right. People in this world face racism, sexism and every other kind of "ism" all of the time. So many of us are simply clueless to these struggles. Who's to say you shouldn't be able to relate to the hurts of others? It may make you a more effective witness. If an interracial relationship does result in a few trials, all it means is that this old world is still sinful. But here's the good news: God is still in control.
I get asked about this topic a lot, and I have nothing but good things to say about interracial dating and marriage. But what do you think? Would you consider dating someone with more or less melanin than you?
In a column about the uproar following Pope Benedict's statements about proper churches, columnist Rod Dreher made an interesting observation about what faith looks like among a new generation of Americans:
Several years ago, researchers with the University of North Carolina's National Study of Youth and Religion polled American teenagers and found that faith was important to them. But it's faith not in established religion but rather in what NYSR's social scientists termed "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, as researchers explain, teaches that a vaguely defined God exists, cares about us and wants us to be good, nice and fair. You don't need to get too involved with God, absent a problem or crisis. The point of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself. Good people go to heaven.
Whatever that relativist mush is, it has little to do with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or any traditional religion. Researchers concluded that either American youths don't know their traditions' teaching, or don't much care. Strikingly, they found that many teenagers interviewed had never discussed theology with an adult. The theological content of our faiths is fast eroding because of the lazy indifference of older generations to whom the traditions were delivered.
Have you heard this term -- Moralistic Therapeutic Deism -- before? M.T.D. seems like a helpful description in a day when so many people aspire to be simultaneously freelance theologians and libertarian cultural consumers.
A writer at World Magazine Blog recently wrote that "[i]f TV fries your brain, then TV in the summer deep fries your brain in old funnel cake oil from the 1972 Mississippi State Fair." Meaning, there isn't a great selection of quality television programming during the summer months. Except, I would argue, for Discovery Channel's "Man vs. Wild."
"Man vs. Wild" is a reality production where survival-expert and host Bear Grylls gets dropped in remote locations with extreme climates and terrain like Australia's outback, Utah's Moab desert and the Costa Rican rain forest. A camera crew follows him as he tries to make it to civilization by climbing down snow covered mountains, fording rivers, crossing glaciers, and surviving sub-zero temperatures by sleeping in snow caves and motels.
Motels?!
That's right, allegations have surfaced that Grylls may have "misled" viewers into thinking he was bedding down in the wild while staying in motels; or building a raft to get off a deserted island when consultants for the show built it for him; or happening upon "wild horses" that were brought in from a trekking station.
Grylls is a confessing Christian (though not overtly on the show) and he often speaks of God's grandeur exhibited through his creation while he's trying get out of these exotic locations. So I'll be a little disappointed if these allegations prove true. But only a little. I mean, the guy still has to eat grubs for energy and drink his own urine to stay hydrated.
Reports are that the Discovery Channel has no plans to cut the popular series, only to ensure that future productions are completely transparent. I'm glad to hear it. If there's one thing I need to know it's how to squeeze water out of poo if I'm ever stranded in the African savannah.
Over at Desiring God's blog, Abraham Piper has a helpful post on reading blogs well for those who want to be good stewards of their time on the Internet. He recommends that we read the Bible first, stay away from trash, and utilize time saving tools and methods such as RSS feeds and scanning articles.
Piper also provides some useful advice about the comments section, which is particularly relevant for our blog given the recent Catholic/Protestant debate. Be quick to listen, slow to comment.
The comments section beneath a blog post is meant to further the discussion that the post began. If commenters keep this goal in mind, comments can be very helpful. I try to do my part by asking myself whether I am making a contribution to the discussion with my comment. I don't mean anything fancy -- just something that is encouraging, clarifying, or maybe just pleasant. Often I discover that my goal is not to contribute but to correct, or worse, criticize. In these cases, I delete the comment and stay out of the fray.
Another good rule is, if you wouldn't say it to someone in person, don't say it on a blog either. Of course, this isn't a perfect rule, since some of us are mean in person too. Maybe better would just be: Be kind and be positive.
How would you characterize our comments section? Is it too much correction and not enough kindness? And can we meld the two? Is it possible to correct and criticize (in the evaluation sense, not the finding fault sense) in a kind and positive manner? Or should we follow Piper's example and never correct or criticize?
HT: Between Two Worlds
Newsweek reports today on America's growing caffeine addiction. As an unabashed coffee lover, I relate.
The article reports that sales of energy drinks like Red Bull and Full Throttle have grown tenfold since 2001. Plus, novelty items, including caffeinated lip balm, sunflower seeds and soap, are appearing. Why is the caffeine obsession growing? Studies show Americans have regularly been getting eight hours of sleep since 1960. It seems we go for caffeine because it makes us happy. For the general public, the trend is more about getting a legal high. "Caffeine is the world's most popular mood-altering drug," says David Schardt, senior nutritionist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. And companies have been banking on its addictive properties to bring repeat business. Caffeine can lift your mood, improve concentration, boost physical stamina and, as an active ingredient in Excedrin, help cure headaches. More than 50 percent of caffeine drinkers experience withdrawal symptoms when they stop.
Besides the obnoxious price of feeding a caffeine addiction (Starbucks prices go up 3 percent on July 31), there are other dangers, such as the glamorization of a sleepless existence. Roland Griffiths, a neuroscientist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine shares this concern about teens hooked on energy drinks (up to 31 percent according to this article): "I'm concerned that impressionable adolescents exposed to marketing messages that promote caffeine as a performance enhancer will later turn to stronger drugs, like steroids or Ritalin or cocaine."
Is our love for all things caffeinated creating a pattern of dependence and addiction? I'm wondering if eventually we will pay a price for our obsession — something worse than nine cents more for a cup of Joe.
Last week we re-featured an article by one of TrueU's contributing authors, Jessica Inman. The article, "In Search of a Self-Esteem Fix," is about our culture's obsession with ourselves. Jessica talks about her struggle with truly believing that she is all the things God says she is, but she also talks about how this quest for a strong self-esteem can turn the wrong way fairly quickly: America has had an unyielding devotion to self-esteem since I was a little kid. It's a major component of our education system and a staple theme of Oprah shows. I guess there are worse things. Peace with self is by all accounts a necessity for emotional health. There's something deeply embedded in the human psyche that demands self-esteem, a sense of being all right.
But sometime in the last decade or so, the self-esteem talk reached a new high. Low self-esteem became the great and only societal ill. Why did we become so obsessed? Was it just American excess, taking a good idea to extremes? Are we just too wealthy — do so many of us have so few problems that we need to panic about trans-fats and self-esteem? Or is it something more fundamental?
Jessica thinks that some of this obsession may come from our postmodern culture's rejection of a metanarrative. When we forget that we're one piece in God's large story, it's easy for us to become obsessed with our own individual story. And our story, Jessica proposes, is all about us: Maybe I'm over speculating. But sometimes I look at the way we're running — sprinting through life in tight, isolated circles — and wonder if this is where we're going wrong. Our lives are so highly individualized that we lose each other. And thus we insatiably need self-esteem because we're lacking love and connectedness in our lives.
In any case, our lives certainly seem to be more about ourselves than anything else.
It's important for us to acknowledge the struggle many of us have with self-image. I think one of the devil's tricks is to get us to ignore the truth of what God says about who we are and what we're capable of doing. But at the same time, I think a self-image that is either too inflated or too low is dangerous. Both cause us to think way too much about ourselves when the Bible is clear that we are to spend most of our time focused on those around us.
If you're a high school graduate and have a superior command of the English language, here are 100 words you should know. It's a list compiled by the Editors of The American Heritage Dictionaries that "is representative of the words that serious students will encounter in their coursework and will come to use as adults, whether in conversation or while reading the daily newspaper."
And of course, here on this blog as well.
And if you try to belie it, I'll expurgate your comment.
Football player Michael Vick has made headlines for allegedly sponsoring some pretty gruesome dog fights. Which leads us to ask how a successful athlete could fall into such perversion.
According to some, Vick's apparent downfall has resulted from his aligning himself with the gangsta rap subculture, something done in an effort to gain credibility, or "street cred."
Columnist Bryan Burwell explains that a transition has taken place among black athletes in America. The ultimate symbols of black athletes in our society used to be men of substance and positive image.... But somewhere between Jackie Robinson and Michael Vick, things got all fouled up. "Street cred" became the anthem of the modern black athlete, this misguided notion that the only way to appeal to the young demographic of the sneaker-buying public was to adopt the negative attitudes of the thug life popularized by black hip-hop/gangster rappers.
He goes on: The problem is the hijacking of African-American culture by the hip-hop generation that has helped glorify every rotten, foul and disgusting racial stereotype it took generations to eradicate.
The minstrels used to show up in black face, shuckin' and jivin' like Amos and Andy or Stepin Fetchit. Now they come in baggy pants sagging over their butts, glamorizing thug life and prison fashion, legitimizing derogatory racial insults into the mainstream, and convincing an entire generation that this is the measure of true blackness and anyone who bucks this system is either a racist, hopelessly out of touch or a sad Uncle Tom.
I agree with Burwell: These gangstas are the sellouts, not the decent African-American men and women who strive to live noble lives.
It takes time to make good cheese. The cheddar I prefer ages for several years before it makes its way to my home. It started with high-quality ingredients, of course, but wasn't too notable until years passed.
Single women take note: That's what good men are like.
None of the single guys you know have the character of "the greats" in Christendom. Don't expect to marry a John Piper, Ravi Zacharias, R.C. Sproul, Gary Thomas, A.W. Tozer or C.J. Mahaney. You can, though, marry a man who will grow in such character.
How?
Just as it takes good ingredients and time to make good cheese, it takes good ingredients and time to make a good man. Your challenge is to determine which of the currently immature men has a "trajectory of godliness."
Maybe what I'm saying is that you shouldn't necessarily be looking for a man who's a pillar of godly maturity. Instead, look for a man who -- though he's immature in perhaps many ways -- has "trajectory." And once you've found him, pray that the Lord brings you together. And maybe some day you'll find yourself married and sitting in your pajamas, enjoying some metaphorically apt aged cheddar together.
OK, that was cheesy.
That's the perspective Dr. Albert Mohler gives in his blog about documents released last month by the Vatican proclaiming that the Catholic church is the only true church. Dr. Mohler said that rather than being offended, evangelicals should be grateful for the Pope's clarifying statements because it "brings attention to the crucial issues of ecclesiology."
He writes, Evangelicals should appreciate the candor reflected in this document. There is no effort here to confuse the issues. To the contrary, the document is an obvious attempt to set the record straight. The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Christ is working redemptively through Protestant and evangelical churches, but it does deny that these churches which deny the authority of the papacy are true churches in the most important sense. The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are "ecclesial Communities," not churches "in the proper sense."
Dr. Mohler is also appreciative because he believes that this document reflects Pope Benedict's sincere concern for the souls of evangelicals. I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments.
He continues that if the Pope is right, our souls are in danger. But, Dr. Mohler says, the Pope is not right. And consequently, evangelicals should be as equally concerned for the souls of Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.
Dr. Mohler writes that in our world of ecumenical confusion, the Roman Catholic Church's candor on this issue is a welcome change. After all, the stakes couldn't be higher.
You've heard the saying that we only use 10 percent of our brains. Of course, as Snopes points out, that's a myth.
Or is it?
A recent New Scientist article discusses the case of a 44-year-old French man who, because of medical problems when he was a child, has a brain some 75 percent smaller than other men. He lives a relatively normal life as a husband and father and civil servant, though his IQ is 75 (below average, but not considered "mentally retarded").
How can this be? How can he go for decades with a brain 25 percent the size of others' brains (smaller, FWIW, than Terri Schiavo's brain when she died) and function just fine? I thought it was stunning what humans can do with a mere three pounds of brain. That God has created us in such a fashion that we can function relatively normally with only a pound of brain is beyond my comprehension.
(Click on the link above to see ultrasound photos showing this man's brain vs. a typical brain.)
Why Won't Women Commit?
That's a headline you're not likely to see. Everyone knows it's men, not women, who have trouble committing to a relationship and that's why we get a lot of commentary about what can be done to get men to commit. But what if we're missing something in the analysis of how men and women view marriage and commitment?
In our latest Mentor Series interview, Dr. Scott Stanley makes the following observation: The classic view is that men are commitment phobic, and they really don't want to commit, and that's why it's harder for women to get men to walk down the aisle. Whether that was historically true or not, I'm not so sure. What I think is true, now, (and there're different kinds of research that show this), is that men see a much firmer line between marriage and "not marriage" than women do in terms of what it means for their identity and behavior.
...women start giving all their best and sacrificing for men regardless of the clarity about commitment to the future. They do this when they're really emotionally attached to a guy.
I don't think that really clicks for a guy until he has decided "you're the one; you're my future." Until that switch is flipped in a guy evidence suggests it affects the degree to which they're going to sacrifice for a woman and that has lots of ramifications.
Does the insight from this Mentor Series interview add any clarity to how you see commitment demonstrated among men and women?
The Boundless Line has been getting some recognition in the blogosphere recently. First, famed blogger Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost and Family Research Council Blog lists us as a top 100 Christian blog.
And now we've been nominated for Best Religion Blog by the Bloggers Choice Awards.
The Bloggers Choice Awards works like the Peoples Choice Awards or the All-Star Game, meaning it's up to the people! The rules are pretty simple. You sign-up, nominate and vote for any and as many blogs as you want. And nominees such as the Boundless Line are encouraged to solicit votes.
So this is me soliciting you to vote for us.
And thanks to all the Boundless Line contributors, readers and comment contributors. Recognition or no recognition, I think we've succeeded in building "a community of believers who care passionately about how faith in a boundless God intersects with this boundless season of our lives."
What is the state of marriage today? The researchers over at The National Marriage Project (based at Rutgers) have just released the latest. For the past nine years, they have produced an annual report called "The State of our Unions" providing a current snapshot of trends in marriage, cohabitation, childbirth, divorce and more. Their report also includes a feature essay each year on an emerging trend. This year's essay looks at marriage in America compared to other Western nations. Here's an excerpt: The recent family trends in the Western nations have been largely generated by a distinctive set of cultural values that scholars have come to label "secular individualism." It features the gradual abandonment of religious attendance and beliefs, a strong leaning toward "expressive" values that are preoccupied with personal autonomy and self-fulfillment, and a political emphasis on egalitarianism and the tolerance of diverse lifestyles. An established empirical generalization is that the greater the dominance of secular individualism in a culture, the more fragmented the families. The fundamental reason is that the traditional nuclear family is a somewhat inegalitarian group (not only between husbands and wives but also parents and children) that requires the suppression of some individuality and also has been strongly supported by, and governed by the rules of, orthodox religions. As a seeming impediment to personal autonomy and social equality, therefore, the traditional family is an especially attractive unit for attacks from a secular individualistic perspective.
The essay goes on to examine a divide in marital trends within America: The Red State/Blue State divide has become a familiar theme in national politics. In a series of recent presidential elections, the so-called Red states have tended to vote Republican and the Blue states have voted Democratic. The Red states consist of the South (e.g. Alabama), the lower Midwest (e.g. Oklahoma), and the Mountain Region of the West (e.g. Montana). The Blue states are those of the Northeast (e.g. Massachusetts), the upper Midwest (e.g. Minnesota), and the West Coast (e.g. California). Less well known is the fact that the Red and Blue states also differ significantly in family terms, and this may help to explain their politics.
David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, the researchers behind this report, are well-respected for their insights on marriage trends. Anyone looking for an objective analysis of the issues we often banter about here on BoundlessLine can find it by reading the full report.
An article on WSJ.online celebrated the 10th anniversary of the blog this week. Besides the fact that blogging is no longer for computer geeks but is now the tool of actors, CEOs and moms, the article discussed the downside of sloppy discourse: In the decade since their conception, blogs, once a smorgasbord of links, have evolved into vehicles for a fuller, more forceful and opinionated prose. Not all of it has been lovely to behold, or even edifying. Inevitably, there has been bombast, verbosity and exposure to the public eye of thoughts that, ideally, should have remained locked inside fevered heads. (The impact of blogs on public discourse has included, I contend, the emergence of a form of "oral blogging," noticeable at seminars and the like, where people who might once have asked brisk questions are now empowered by the blog form to hold forth at length, with little attempt at self-editing.)
At the advent of the Boundless Line, I considered the believer's responsibility when engaging in the blogosphere in my article "Blog Responsibly." Christian bloggers Carolyn McCulley of Solo Femininity and Justin Taylor of Between Two Worlds offered some points to ponder when blogging and commenting. Here are a few of the gems:
Carolyn on grace: "Christian blogging is often characterized by gracelessness. As we write we should not be above the commands of Proverbs 31 to open our mouths with kindness and love, instruction and the law of wisdom on our tongues."
Justin on maturity: "A lot of people assume that just because they can blog they should blog. There are probably a lot of people out there who shouldn't be blogging. The Bible has a lot to say about teachers and their increased level of accountability to God. The more you blog — and the more people read your blog — the more responsibility you have."
Carolyn on self-control: "In a digital world, we have to work very hard to refuse the pressure of the immediate. Just because you can hit publish, doesn't mean you should. If you're questioning your motives, there's nothing so important that you can't wait 24 hours to post it."
Justin on the spiritual potential for blogs: "Without the blogosphere, people like Tim [Challies] would just be reading books in their offices. And yet people keep going back to his blog day after day because they find it helpful and informative and edifying. We need more people like Tim out there: people who are godly and have good minds and can speak the truth winsomely."
These are good reminders for me. And, as the Line approaches its first birthday, I'd like to challenge all of us to make our conversations here edifying, grace-filled and self-controlled, so that we may continue to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
Female students at Oxford are embracing the reality feminists have long denied. So reports fellow student Lucy Tobin in The Independent. In "Mum's the Word: Why Oxford Students are Putting Motherhood before Career" she writes, Feminists may be shocked. But while students do not see the glass ceiling as intact, there is a strong belief that women can only soar to the career heights of men if they choose not to have children.
The twist is that they're OK with that. Some female undergraduates believe that women can't have it all, so they should not bother trying. Amy Butler, 20, a chemistry student at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, wants to work in forensic chemistry, and identifies archaeological research as a potential specialism. But she believes she will put her career aside when she is ready to settle down. Butler would refuse to take a job requiring her to spend long periods away from home because she believes it would affect her relationship with a partner, and, later, the children. "I am ambitious in that I would like to have a stable, well-paid job that I enjoy, but I don't care about advancing up the career ladder. I would willingly sacrifice job promotion for family's sake," she says.
It's a shift in attitudes that frustrates the old guard feminists, but one their future children will undoubtedly praise. Maybe the fact that so many of today's college women were themselves raised largely in daycare while their own activist-minded mothers went off to break ceilings that they're against doing the same with their own children. They know first hand what it's like to spend long days and even summers away from their homes, their back yards, their mums. "When you are in a career for a few years, you reach a point when a possible career change or pay rise comes up," she says. "Then you have to choose whether you want a family or not." ... The reality, they say, is black and white – you can have children and a mediocre career or be a top CEO and sacrifice a family. ...
Chloe Mattison, 20 ... thinks she has to choose because having it all is a myth: she wants to bring up her children herself, so would not be able to work full-time. " Society thinks that having a career is a much more praiseworthy thing to do than having children and bringing up a family. But that's wrong."
I was on vacation last week when it happened but I wanted to mark the passing of Dr. Harold O. J. Brown on Sunday, July 8, 2007. Dr. Brown was the founder of Care Net, a pro-life organization that supports a network of 1,090 pregnancy centers in North America.
Here's an excerpt from Care Net's press release: Considered one of the great theological and philosophical minds of our generation, Dr. Brown gave his life to impacting the culture with the hope and healing offered through Jesus Christ. After the Roe v. Wade decision, Dr. Brown was moved by the tragedy of abortion, both for the unborn child and the mother, and troubled by the apathy within the Protestant church. With the inspiration of philosopher Francis Schaeffer, and the guidance of Billy Graham and pro-life Catholic leaders, Dr. Brown founded the Christian Action Council in 1975. In 1980, one of the first pregnancy centers was opened in Baltimore, Maryland. In 1993, the organization changed its name to Care Net, with a new, laser-focused mission of mobilizing Christians to plant and support pregnancy resource centers.
In a 2003 interview with the Care Net Report, Dr. Brown spoke about the apathy within the Protestant church and of how Roe v. Wade caught evangelicals by surprise when the decision was handed down. It was Sunday night, the 21st of January and Arimond Nicolia (Professor at Harvard), including [myself] and others were gathered to discuss the impending decision. Dr. Lou Bird, then with the Christian Medical Society (later to teach at Grove City College, PA) said, "What are we to say regarding the extreme cases of abortion?" Most people thought only about the really "hard cases."
Then the next morning the Supreme Court dropped the bomb. But few Evangelicals really thought through the consequences of Roe v. Wade. The late A. W. Criswell (head of the Southern Baptist Convention) was critical of the early pro-life movement, saying essentially "we don't really know" what abortion is. Later, Criswell changed his mind and came out against it. The Evangelical response was weak. The mainline churches basically supported the decision as it was the "law of the land" and this was generally viewed as a good thing. The Baptists waffled, the Presbyterian Church USA, United Methodist Church and the Religious Coalition of Abortion Rights all supported abortion rights. Only the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the various conservative Lutheran denominations opposed the decision.
It took the late apologist Francis Schaeffer to galvanize the Evangelical community against Roe v. Wade.
But as Kurt Entsminger, President of Care Net, said, it was Dr. Brown's rallying call that led hundreds of thousands of Christians to open pregnancy centers in their communities. And hundreds of thousands of children's lives have been spared from abortion as a result.
Modesty is on the rise according to an article in Newsweek. The article examines proponents of the "modesty movement," such as Pure Fashion, a modeling and etiquette program for teen girls. "Happiness is...living a life of virtue," the Web site, associated with the Roman Catholic church, proclaims. Its goal? "To show the public it is possible to be cute, stylish and modest."
Web sites and organizations promoting modesty are gaining popularity: They cater to what writer Wendy Shalit claims is a growing movement of "girls gone mild"—teens and young women who are rejecting promiscuous "bad girl" roles embodied by Britney Spears, Bratz Dolls and the nameless, shirtless thousands in "Girls Gone Wild" videos. Instead, these girls cover up, insist on enforced curfews on college campuses, bring their moms on their dates and pledge to stay virgins until married.
Shalit who wrote A Return to Modesty and Girls Gone Mild, is an Orthodox Jew and points out that faith is a motivating factor for many of these girls. She also notes the affect of mothers on their daughters' behavior and modesty. She blames the usual suspects: media, misguided feminist professors, overly permissive parents. Sharman also points a finger at Moms Gone Wild. "It used to be that moms would control the way their daughters dressed. But now we have this 'Desperate Housewives' culture, and the moms are as influenced by the media as the kids," she says. "They've lost the sense of encouraging their daughters to be ladylike."
One of the best things about the modesty movement is the ownership the girls themselves are taking. According to the article, a group of high school girls in Pennsylvania recently "girlcotted" Abercrombie & Fitch for selling t-shirts with suggestive slogans. It is refreshing to see young women craving an alternative to the provocative clothing offerings of an over-sexed culture.
For a Christian perspective on this topic, check out the Modesty Survey offered at the Rebelution.
A few weeks ago, my wife and I bought a retro audio system. It was built by Crosley, an audio company that has been making radios since 1920 and offers a lot of modern technology packaged in classic radio boxes. Our motivation was to have a system that could play cassettes and records. We've enjoyed pulling out a couple of old 45s that my dad recorded when he was in rock'n'roll in the 60s and 70s. Having the player motivated us to pick up some older Ella Fitzgerald and Andrews Sisters records on eBay as well. What came as news to me, however, was that there is now new music coming out again on vinyl.
In this article from yesterday's issue of The Guardian, Katie Allen writes: The format was supposed to have been badly wounded by the introduction of CDs and killed off completely by the ipod-generation that bought music online.
But in a rare case of cheerful news for the record labels, the latest phenomenon in a notoriously fickle industry is one nobody dared predict: a vinyl revival. Latest figures show a big jump in vinyl sales in the first half of this year, confirming the anecdotal evidence from specialist shops throughout the UK.
It comes as sales of CD singles continue to slide - and it is not being driven by technophobic middle-aged consumers. Teenagers and students are developing a taste for records and are turning away from the clinical method of downloading music on to an MP3 player.
Vinyl fans interviewed for the article pointed to the tangibility, artistic vinyl covers and the community of buying records alongside other fans as part of their motivation. Cara Henn, a DJ, echoed the reason I like records when she said, "I like to hear crackling, as if it's actually real." This reminds me of a post Ted ran back in April about how the new digital audio formats we play our music in these days may be missing some of the quality found in old analog formats that we've thrown on the ash heap of history.
Any other vinyl fans out there? Any under 30?
HT: AlbertMohler.com
Any fellow editors or wordsmiths out there know how satisfying it is to discover a mistake. That is why I practically began foaming at the mouth when I read Ted's post on attitudes toward the church. In the portion where he describes why he values a church that emphasizes homeschooling, Ted wrote: "I wasn't homeschooled, but do find a comradery among those who choose to homeschool."
I immediately sent him a know-it-all e-mail pointing out his misspelling of the word "camaraderie." I was quickly rebuffed by Ted, who pointed out that there are, in fact, two spellings of the word. Dictionary.com and Websters both list "comradery" as an acceptable spelling while the (more uptight?) Oxford Dictionary cites it as a misspelling: "Camaraderie is routinely misspelled comraderie, comraderie, and even comradery because of the mistaken association with comrade."
I took our dilemma to the Focus periodicals copy chief, who wrote: "I usually see 'camaraderie,' and that's the version I'd go with, since it's originally a French word, and that retains the French spelling."
It seems there is no definitive opinion on the spelling of camaraderie. And, I'll admit, that bugs me. But it did provide a lively discussion (that perhaps built camaraderie) between three editors. The takeaway value for me—don't be so quick to point out the mistakes of others. Thanks for the nerdy exchange, Ted.
Churches are rotten. Or so I gather from some of the comments on The Line and some of the songs in CCM.
One of yesterday's comments speaks of attending a "country clubbish church that sometimes focuses too much on ourselves, that talks a lot of prosperity but little on the fact that God wants to use our prosperity to bless people beyond belief." The comment writer went on to speak of hearing "sermon after sermon about changing the world and then doing nothing."
The comments bemoaning the state of churches aren't limited to cyberspace. In his song "My Jesus," CCM artist Todd Agnew complains over the airwaves about his church with the following lines: 'Cause my Jesus would never be accepted in my church
The blood and dirt on His feet might stain the carpet
These lyrics point to something tragic -- that such a godless church exists and that Agnew was unable to sufficiently work through his concerns with his pastor before he began broadcasting them to the masses.
Part of me wonders, to be honest, if the people posting the comments and writing the song lyrics really are members of bad churches, or if they're just trying to be relevant by simply repeating the postmodern cliché that churches are severely and universally flawed.
My advice to those complaining about their churches: Stop grumbling and instead engage the leadership to understand your church's policies and offer your time to be part of the solution. If that proves fruitless, find another church.
There are a number of ways to find a good church (here's one organization's recommendations about what to look for). The way I found my church was to do a Google search to see which ones emphasized homeschooling (I wasn't homeschooled, but do find a comradery among those who choose to homeschool). I confess that I visited a handful before I found "the right one."
If you're at the place where it's just time to move on, you can start by identifying characteristics of a church that you find valuable (e.g., it teaches Scripture verse-by-verse, has relevant/biblical music, offers small groups, is missions-minded, respects marriage and parenting, values intergenerational and interethnic community, shows a proper understanding of authority, has members in your season of life, etc.). Then either ask around or search the Web for churches in your area that fit some of these descriptions. Finally, go and check them out.
In other words, instead of sticking with a bad church and grumbling about it, either do something to address the problems, or find a different church. What a blessing it is to be part of a good church!
"The New New Atheism" by Peter Berkowitz is a welcome critique of Christopher Hitchens, who is himself, "nothing new under the sun." God-haters (that is at root, the definition of an atheist) have been around since the beginning of time. It's one thing to hear your pastor say Hitchens is baselessly anti-God (as I did yesterday in church), quite another to read it on the pages of a mainstream secular newspaper. In today's Wall Street Journal, Berkowitz, a senior fellow at Standford's Hoover Institution recognizes Mr. Hitchens as his friend and asserts that he is "simply incapable of uttering or writing a dull sentence."
Fair enough. But the truth telling doesn't stop there. Berkowitz writes, "But his arguments do not come close to disproving God's existence or demonstrating that religion is irredeemably evil." On the contrary, it's Hitchens unwillingness to honestly read history that leads him to blame where he should thank. While it's true that some people have done horrible things in the name of religion, other reasonable people can see it was in name only. Berkowitz says, Nor is his case bolstered by his observation that 20th-century totalitarianism took on many features of religion. That only brings home the need to distinguish, as Mr. Hitchens resolutely refuses to do, between authentic and corrupt, and just and unjust, religious teachings. And it begs the question of why the 20th-century embrace of secularism unleashed human depravity of unprecedented proportions.
While Hitler, et.al., were claiming to do evil in the name of religion, true believers were hiding Jews, rescuing the persecuted and themselves suffering for it.
It's Christopher Hitchens' double-standard, his hypocrisy, that ensnares him. Berkowitz again, In making his case that reason must regard faith as an enemy to be wiped out, Mr. Hitches declares Socrates's teaching that knowledge consists in knowing one's ignorance to be "the definition of an educated person." And yet Mr. Hitchens shows no awareness that his atheism, far from resulting from skeptical inquiry, is the rigidly dogmatic premise from which his inquiries proceed, and that it colors all his observations and determines his conclusions.
Sounds a lot like faith to me.
Sadly, the poison Hitchens says spews from religion is instead what comes from his pen. Without true religion, the West is without a moral foundation. And without that foundation, "belief in the dignity of all men and women" is baseless, says Berkowitz. It's a "belief that our new new atheists take for granted and for which they provide no compelling alternative foundation." That's "reason enough to respect believers as decent human beings struggling to make sense of a mysterious world.
During a study-abroad program in the early nineties, my fascination with jaw-dropping European cathedrals was always tempered by the reality that church attendance and active faith has been shrinking towards extinction in most corners of Europe in the past hundred years. I still remember a Lutheran pastor giving a tour of his church and telling us sadly about having to remove a balcony because of his dwindling number of parishioners.
I've wondered over the years what it would take for a religious revival in Europe. An article in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend implied that the answer might be supply-side economics. In a piece called "In Europe, God is (Not) Dead," Andrew Higgins writes: After decades of secularization, religion in Europe has slowed its slide toward what had seemed inevitable oblivion. There are even nascent signs of a modest comeback. Most church pews are still empty. But belief in heaven, hell and concepts such as the soul has risen in parts of Europe, especially among the young, according to surveys. Religion, once a dead issue, now figures prominently in public discourse.
While scholars and theologians question the cause of this renewed interest, Higgins points to the law of economics as a possibility. As centuries-old churches long favored by the state lose their monopoly grip, Europe's highly regulated market for religion is opening up to leaner, more aggressive religious "firms." The result, they say, is a supply-side stimulus to faith. "Monopoly churches get lazy," says Eva Hamberg, a professor at Lund University's Centre for Theology and Religious Studies and co-author of academic articles that, based on Swedish data, suggest a correlation between an increase in religious competition and a rise in church-going.
He goes on: The enemy of faith, say the supply-siders, is not modernity but state-regulated markets that shield big, established churches from competition. In America, where church and state stand apart, more than 50% of the population worships at least once a month. In Europe, where the state has often supported--but also controlled--the church with money and favors, the rate in many countries is 20% or less.
Higgins tells about Hedvig Eleonara Church in Stockholm--a beautiful building capable of seating 1,000 but only attracting 40 on a given Sunday (most elderly and nearly a fifth of them employees of the church): Hedvig Eleonora has three full-time salaried priests and gets over $2 million each year through a state levy. Annika Sandstrom, head of its governing board, says she doesn't believe in God and took the post "on the one condition that no one expects me to go each Sunday. The church scrapped Sunday school last fall because only five children attended.
Just a few blocks away, Passion Church, an eight-month-old evangelical outfit, fizzed with fervor. Nearly 100 young Swedes rocked to a high-decibel band: "It's like adrenaline running through my blood," they sang in English. "We're talking about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.
Passion, set up by Andreas Nielsen, a 32-year-old Swede who found God in Florida, gets no money from the state. It holds its service in a small, low-ceilinged hall rented from Stockholm's Casino Theatre, a drama company.
...
Passion Church and other such ventures rely mostly on voluntary donations by their worshippers. This, says Kjell-Axel Johanson, an evangelical priest, keeps upstarts more in tune with their flock. He recently set up a new church that, unable to afford a permanent home, rents a bar for a few hours. "God doesn't care about packaging," he says.
Maybe a growing number of upstarts in the religious marketplace of Europe could even bring new life back to its aging cathedrals. One of the highlights of my study abroad was touring a cathedral in France that posted a sign at the entrance with a message along these lines: "Please be reverent, this is not a lifeless monument. It is a living temple of the body of Christ."
I'd love to hear from our readers currently (or recently) living in Europe. Any early signs of revival there?
I'm sure you've considered what is called the "peace and justice" movement. I've been attracted to its mercy and social justice messages. But in a column in Touchstone, Russell D. Moore, urges us to look deeper at inconsistencies within the movement. He writes:
“Peace and justice” Christians are insistent in telling us they do not wish to move away from the protection of unborn life when they point to other social issues. They simply seek to “expand” Christian social witness from the “Religious Right's” narrow focus on abortion and marriage to the full range of life issues.
If this is the case, the movement is choosing some unlikely representatives. Case in point, the Reverend Donna Schaper:
Last summer, the Reverend Donna Schaper, pastor of Judson Memorial Baptist Church, an American Baptist congregation in New York City, wrote in Tikkun magazine about aborting her daughter, a daughter she named “Alma.”
She wrote that she doesn’t apologize for or even regret her decision. Abortion, she said, has been a positive development, allowing sex to be “recreational” for both men and women. In a chilling line, she declared, “I did what was right for me, for my family, for my work, for my husband, and for my three children.”
Schaper, who concedes abortion is "a form of murder," recently wrote on the topic of responding to violence for “God’s Politics” weblog, a leading forum of the “peace and justice” movement. Does something seem wrong with this picture? Moore thinks so. He makes this observation:
It would be appropriate and commendable for that weblog to ask a self-confessed murderer to speak to the issue of violence. After all, a repentant and forgiven murderer stands as one of the pillars of the foundation of the Church, the former Saul of Tarsus. A repentant killer could speak to the horror of violence, as one culpable and redeemed.
But Schaper has walked no Damascus Road. She has justified and celebrated the taking of an innocent human life, an act she says she knows is murder. And yet she is the one, for “God’s Politics,” who can instruct us on how God views violence, indeed how to worship in its wake. It is a revealing choice.
Indeed. I would love to see Christians be better Samaritans, pouring mercy on those they meet. And it's clear from Scripture that we bear responsibility to work for justice. But just because a movement claims to stand for peace and justice does not mean it's delivering the same.
This is a different kind of post. It's from an email written by a friend of mine in his eighties whose wife is dying. He shared this update with a lot of friends by email and so I don't think he would mind me sharing it with you. I wanted to post this not only to show the dignity he brings to the tragedy of losing a wife, but to the snapshots he recounts here of the life that unfolded after he and his wife promised to be together until parted by death.
I arose early this morning to lay in bed and watch the darkened sky be washed in shades of grey. Toby, our Bichon we acquired in April and who I now see as a gift from God, pawed at the grating forming the door to his sleeping crate. I arose, left him out and lifted him on my bed where he promptly went to Lynn's side, his nose hoping to acquire that familiar odor he loved and his tiny teeth eager to once again gently nip her arm - but such was not to be. His demeanor told me that both of our hearts were aching at the sight of a vacant pillow that had been occupied by Lynn's tousled reddish-grey hair just one week ago.
Toby made his familiar rounds of our back yard while I hastily showered, dressed and prepared his breakfast. He watched with questioning eyes as I scratched his back and bid goodbye before closing the door to our sun porch. Fifteen minutes later I was at Lynn's bedside kissing her forehead, caressing her cheek and whispering words of love and devotion into her ear. She seemed at rest though her breath indicated phlegm in her air passages.
As I sat at her bedside and held her hand in that early morning hour I could almost sense God's presence as His peace erased the feeling of anxiety experienced during the short drive to Odyssey Home. How kind and loving our gracious God has been to lead us to this wonderful hospice where our entire family can gather in a homelike room for love, laughter, tears and prayer.
Looking at her lovely face brought back a flood of memories and I couldn't help but think of those pictures of by-gone days as God's great gift to me. Through the prism of tears that bathed my eyes I again saw with greatest clarity the beautiful young air evac nurse, standing in her quonset-hut quarters at Ft Stotsenburg, Luzon, PI on May 5, 1945 and indicating that she was to be my blind-date. How fortunate I felt at the moment. Six of us crammed into a jeep and left for our squadron party and before the night was over I was deeply in love.
Other scenes flashed before my eyes in rapid succession - proposing in the back seat of a jeep - a vision of beauty coming down the aisle of a thatched-roof chapel where she took my hand and promised to remain at my side "until death do us part" - reuniting in Chicago in November after an agonizing 2-month separation - our first child - our first apartment - the births of 3 other children - first home - trips, vacations - growing children - empty nests - different jobs - and now these final years that have been heavenly in nature. As the scenes unfolded, so clear that I could again experience the emotions and embrace the odors, I came to realize that memories are God's great gift to each of us. I know that within hours or days our Savior, who is already in the room with us, will reach out and take Lynn in his loving arms to carry his bride to the home he has prepared for her. But I also know that God has filled my mind with memories that will fill my days and ease my nights. What a wonderful thoughtful God to have given us this wonderful gift.
Like many people my age, I love wearing flip flops. I have half a dozen different kinds. But as someone who works at an establishment with a dress code, I am not allowed to wear them at work. And according to Reuters, flip flop addiction may be having an adverse affect on young women's careers.
Style gurus warn that flip-flops, which are worn mainly by younger women, could be harmful to a career.
"Shoes convey the mood of a woman. Wearing flip-flops conveys the mood that you are relaxed and on vacation. That's not a good message in the office," said Meghan Cleary, a style commentator who wrote the book "The Perfect Fit: What Your Shoes Say About You."
Not only may flip flops be considered an unprofessional form of workplace footwear, they also carry a more serious risk.
Physicians at the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons say flip-flops are linked to a growing number of heel problems among teens and young adults.
"We're seeing more heel pain than ever in patients 15 to 25 years old, a group that usually doesn't have this problem," said spokeswoman Marybeth Crane in a recent statement.
She said flip-flops with thin soles have no arch support and can accentuate any abnormal biomechanics in foot motion which eventually brings pain and inflammation.
So as much as we love them, it may be prudent to save the wearing of flip flops for the beach.
This post isn't about China's growing military and how some see that as a threat to national and global security.
This is about poisonous products coming out of China, toxic goods that cost less to produce due to their lower quality ingredients or components, which in turn boost the short-term profits of the manufacturers and businesses that distribute them. I say "short-term" because it's my prayer that these companies be held accountable for the damage they cause their customers.
It seems that everything is made in China nowadays. The apple juice that I give to my daughters and the garlic I put in my spaghetti sauce is from China. Medicines and supplements are from China. Toys are from China. Toothpaste and dog food and tires come from China. Of course, that's not bad in itself. But when a desire for profit exceeds a concern for those using your product, it is bad.
Though we may save money (and certain businesses earn more profit) by capitalizing on Chinese child slave labor and indiscriminate cost-cutting, the dangers of relying on China are more and more coming to light.
Dogs and cats have died because an ingredient in their packaged food, tainted wheat gluten, was from China. Toothpaste from China has included diethylene glycol (an ingredient in antifreeze) because it's a cheap way to sweeten the paste; hundreds in Panama have died as a result. Seafood from China (some 10 percent of catfish eaten in the United States comes from China) has been banned because of the toxins in it. Thomas the Tank Engine toys, made in China, were recalled because they contained poisonous lead-based paint. Some soy sauce made in China is made from human hair gathered from salons, barbershops and hospitals rather than from more expensive soybeans. In order to cut costs, some bakeries are deceptively making their dumplings with 60 percent cardboard waste, and 40 percent fatty meat. (Brings new meaning to "box lunch.") Chinese pickled vegetables contain DDVP, an acutely toxic, carcinogenic chemical used as a pesticide. Fish and pig farms in China have been caught feeding infected chicken manure to their animals. Chinese vegetable and fruit imports were found to have been grown in sewage and sprayed with DDT.
I could go on. The point is that there seems to be a culture both here and abroad of profiting from selling inferior products, products that can be deadly to consumers. Because of corruption and lax safeguards, China is especially susceptive to this practice.
Besides the direct negative effects on those using Chinese products, this profit-at-all-costs approach has resulted in a dangerously polluted environment. Ten per cent of the Yellow River today is sewage, and 10 percent of the Yangtze is considered to be in "critical" condition. Some 30 per cent of China's major tributaries are heavily polluted, with high levels of ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorus. About a third of all Chinese have no access to safe drinking water, and up to 90 per cent of the ground water in Chinese cities is too polluted to drink.
The World Bank recently reported that about 750,000 people in China die prematurely each year from pollution.
Beijing’s food safety boss recently confessed that the country’s food industry is so unhygienic that consumers risked disease. His acknowledgement was timely, uttered just a day after the execution of former State Food and Drug Administration director Zheng Xiaoyu for corruption related to the exporting of fake medicines.
So what are we to do? Besides encouraging (through correspondence, our buying habits and lawsuits) businesses to be more careful about the products they offer, and doing our best to buy locally produced food, I'm frankly not sure.
Truly, the love of money is a root of all kinds of damnable evils.
Lady Bird Johnson, wife of former president Lyndon B. Johnson died Wednesday at age 94. I was intrigued by the headline of this article that touted her as a conservationist and family woman. Wife of the 36th president of the United States, Lady Bird outlived her husband by 34 years.
I enjoyed reading her story. How she received her nickname "Lady Bird" (a name she first disliked and eventually accepted) from a childhood caretaker who said she was as pretty as a lady bird. And how after receiving two bachelors degrees and qualifying to be a public school teacher, she accepted Lyndon Johnson's proposal a single day after their first date (they were married within two months). How she was so terrified of public speaking in high school that she turned down a class valedictorian's medal but later appeared at her husband's side for 47 speeches in four days.
Smart and unassuming, Lady Bird blossomed into a confident woman whose loyalty and resourcefulness is credited for her husband's political success. And it's obvious he loved and admired her for it.
“How Lady Bird can do all the things she does without ever stubbing her toe, I’ll just never know, because I sure stub mine sometimes,” her husband once said.
And Lyndon Johnson was not the only one to benefit from their union. It seems marriage gave Lady Bird her wings.
Lady Bird Johnson said her husband “bullied, shoved, pushed and loved me into being more outgoing, more of an achiever. I gave him comfort, tenderness and some judgment — at least I think I did.”
What a beautiful sentiment. I imagine more than one veteran spouse would concede that their partner, "bullied, shoved, pushed and loved" them into their best. There is a biblical precedent for this kind of transformation within relationship. Proverbs 27:17: "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."
I was encouraged today by the story of this woman and the obvious way in which marriage shaped her. It's increasingly rare to hear such sweet, wholesome thoughts about marriage. I think it's admirable that Lady Bird's devotion to her husband was counted among her top life achievements.
A recent Newsweek blog post talked about the Live Earth concerts and a presidential candidate debate about climate change. The author points out that most of the suggestions about what we can do to help out the environment are |
