 |
So here's something: I'll be running a half marathon on Labor Day.
Most of you don't know me personally so you don't understand how ridiculous it is to hear me talking about running for multiple miles. I hate running and I always have. It's painful and difficult and exhausting for me. But for some reason I decided to run 13.1 miles in honor of my birthday this weekend. (Apparently I've gone senile in my old age.)
I began my training in June and have been huffing and puffing my way through mile after mile all summer long. There were many times I wanted to give up, many times I thought my goal was unattainable, but I've gotten this far. My long run last weekend was 11 miles, so if I can add two more to that on Monday, I'll have accomplished my goal.
I learned a lot about myself this summer -- I learned a lot about perseverance, discipline and Gatorade as well. I'll be sharing more in a TrueU article this coming Thursday if you want to check it out.
Anyway, if you think of it, pray for me on Monday morning. Ask the Lord to help me run and not grow weary! If I'm still able to move any of my extremities after I'm done, I'll let you know how it went. ;-)
I brought up the question of "short-term missions" in yesterday's Boundless e-newsletter, asking our readers to tell me a bit about their experiences.
A number of you wrote in, telling me about your time in such places as Mexico, Fiji, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Ukraine, Mozambique, with Hurricane Katrina evacuees, China, Ethiopia, Asia, Slovakia and Chile. Some of you spent a week or two, others have lived for years on "the mission field."
I had several reasons for bringing up intercultural missions work, not all of which I'm going to divulge here.
- I want to affirm those who go, either for a brief time, or for an extended time; I also want to affirm those who support those who go.
- I want to "put a bug in your ear" about missions; maybe you'll consider engaging in it if you haven't yet.
- I want to emphasize such intercultural Christian engagements more on Boundless over the coming months (and years, I hope!); this serves as a kind of "kick-off" discussion.
I've got other motivations, some of which I'll address later. I'll also share my own experiences with intercultural missions work -- how with others I've been able to truly help people, and how it's changed my life.
I acknowledge that "doing short-term missions" can be both a blessing and a waste of time. Sometimes it's useless, or worse than useless and even harmful, for both the "missionary" and the national. I don't want to spend much time on that, though. Instead I want to explore take a good long look at the benefits of such intercultural service for all involved.
I also don't want to get too deep into definitions right now. Yes, we are technically all "missionaries," directed to take the gospel to our neighbors. And, yes, this is the "mission field," right where we live right now. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm talking about intercultural engagements whose goals include sharing the love of God in word and deed.
So, tell me about your experiences. How were you able to effectively minister to the folks you traveled to be with? How did it affect you personally -- your relationships, your "calling," your educational pursuits? What were highlights? What were "lowlights"?
It seems the adults have left the building, or the society. Or maybe, in our generation, they never arrived. That's the premise of Diana West's new book, The Death of the Grown Up. In it she laments the growing popularity of perpetual adolescence, even among the elderly. And she's under fire from none other than the perpetual adolescents she criticizes. But it's not just the fool factor of an over-the-hill grandma still dressing like a twentysomething rock star. It's the consequence to society of everyone acting no better than rowdy teenagers.
In an interview with Newsweek West says, What I'm mostly trying to define is the change in attitudes toward growing up. Reading Lionel Trilling, I was struck by what he saw. He noted the complete eradication of the notion of making a life with a beginning, middle and end. That would be the sea change, that aspiration has disappeared. It used to be a reflexive action to reject your growing years. People were expected to grow out of adolescence and lose certain traits such as the self-absorption, lack of identity and striving of a young person to find himself. We as a society no longer expect to find ourselves, it's become an open-ended process.
And it's not just thirtysomething guys spending a whole weekend playing Xbox or Wii. Women are complicit, too. She says, Where womanhood stands today is deeply affected by the death of grown-up. I would say the sexualized female is part of the phenomenon I'm talking about, so I don't think they're immune to the death of the grown-up. Women are still emulating young fashion. Where sex is more available, there are no longer the same incentives building toward married life, which once was a big motivation toward the maturing process.
The New York Times review, "Dress Like Your Child, and the Terrorists Win," slammed the book, calling her theories "half-baked." But really, when has the Times liked anything that challenges self-absorbed Babyboomer culture?
I think West is onto something. It's not hard to find examples of a lack of respectable, responsible authorities (Larry Craig, anyone?) wherever you look. Isn't it time we grew up?
We know worship is about God, not us. But in his article "The Real Worship War," Mark Labberton considers the connection between worship and loving our neighbor. For all of our apparent passion about God, in the end much of our worship seems to be mostly about us. We presume we can worship in a way that will find God but lose track of our neighbor. Yet it was this very pattern in Israel's worship life that brought God's judgment. Biblical worship that finds God will also find our neighbor.
What is ironic and especially pertinent is that many debates about worship are just indirect ways of talking about ourselves, not God. Our debates devolve into how we like our worship served up each week. It's worship as consumption rather than offering. It's an expression of human taste, not a longing to reflect God's glory.
The heart of the battle over worship is this: our worship practices are separated from our call to justice and, worse, foster the self-indulgent tendencies of our culture rather than nurturing the self-sacrificing life of the kingdom of God.
Labberton essentially pushes aside the argument over the logistics of worship (choruses versus hymns, anyone?) in favor of discovering the purpose of worship. He writes: True worship reclarifies the purposes of God and our part in them. False worship, which can be found as much among God's people as elsewhere, leads to distorted mission.
I found this article extremely challenging and practical. The author points out that often our "worship" is distorted because of our blessed perspective. We have so much! And while our problems are legitimate, we can lose site of the larger issues in the world around us. Labberton claims that when we fail to recognize the needs of others we disqualify ourselves from true worship. Consider this statement: This disparity between economics and justice is an issue of worship. According to Scripture, the very heart of how we show and distinguish true worship from false worship is apparent in how we respond to the poor, the oppressed, the neglected and the forgotten. As of now, I do not see this theme troubling the waters of worship in the American church. But justice and mercy are not add-ons to worship, nor are they the consequences of worship. Justice and mercy are intrinsic to God and therefore intrinsic to the worship of God.
Our worship should lead us to greater mercy, to costly acts of justice, for those who are the least seen, the least remembered, the least desired.
What do you believe is the purpose of worship? This article makes some good points. Perhaps when we bicker over the style of worship, we miss the point. I know I will consider more deeply what God would do in my heart as I come to Him. What should be the outcome of praise?
I wanted to pass on another insight that came out of our interview with Dr. Scott Stanley. At one point I made the observation that we often think most of the hard work of marriage will be on the front end -- selecting the perfect mate God has for us and and then hoping it will be easy after that. Dr. Stanley responded by talking about dogs. Yep. You know, we all fall in love with the front end of the puppy, but every puppy has got a backend. And how it works out -- this is my puppy theology -- is that it's not all about the front end of the puppy. God would hope for us great blessings on the front end, but you cannot be married and not have a backend to deal with. That's part of what you do in life, in struggling together, is you manage the difficult parts of life and the things that aren't so easy about the relationship. And if you do well in marriage, you manage them well and you actually have opportunities to grow spiritually in that. And if not, those things just grow over time to destroy what was so good about the front end to begin with.
I remember when we had this discussion thinking about the disappointment couples so often have when they shift from the fun, recreational days of their dating relationship into the dailiness of marriage and family. That can be a tough transition for a lot of people who feel their relationship has lost its excitement and wonder if they should look for someone who can bring the joy without the less fun parts. The problem in that case is not the dailiness of the marriage, but the unrealistic expectation that the recreational side would be the primary nature of the relationship. It's like someone getting so excited about a puppy at the pet store and then feeling cheated when they bring him home and find out that he likes to climb on furniture and poop in their shoes.
OK, I know you can only take puppy theology so far, but what do you think of this insight?
Ben Stein is best known for his portrayal as the monotone economics teacher from the popular '80s movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off. You remember, "Bueller." (long pause) "Bueller." (long pause) "Bueller." But he also has a pretty impressive academic resume.
He graduated from Columbia University with honors and was elected valedictorian of Yale Law School by his classmates. He's worked as a poverty lawyer, a trial lawyer and a university adjunct at three prominent universities. Stein also served as Richard Nixon's attorney and as a speechwriter for both Nixon and Gerald Ford.
He's done a lot of other stuff too. But his credentials won't mean a hill of beans come this February. That's when he'll be maligned, mocked and generally mistreated by the mainstream media, ivory tower elitists, scientists, atheists, Darwinists, and maybe even a few politicians.
In February 2008, Ben Stein will release the documentary film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" about how "educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired -– for the 'crime' of merely believing that there might be evidence of 'design' in nature." Beliefnet.com describes it as an "unabashedly Michael-Moore-style, in-your-face documentary" with "liberals on the receiving end" for a change.
Liberals shouldn't worry though. They have at the their disposal the mainstream media, ivory tower elitists, scientists, atheists, Darwinists, and maybe even a few politicians who'll all come to their defense.
All Ben Stein will have is the Truth. That and maybe Fox News.
My coworker, Matthew John, published an article today called "Entertainment: The Gospel of Avoidance." He talks mainly to the guys in this one, but the point of the article is relevant to all of us. In it, he mentions how easy it is to be distracted by different forms of media. We're constantly looking to avoid boredom, and in our culture today, being entertained often seems to be the most important goal in life: We are a highly entertained lot. We have so many entertainment options — the Internet, video games and TV, to name a few — that we've come to think that entertaining ourselves is the task at hand.
I think our generation welcomes this cultural shift, and guys especially. I mean, how much easier — not to mention more fun — is it to hone our Halo skills or develop an encyclopedic knowledge of shows like "The Simpsons" than, say, develop your capacity to be a spiritual leader? I'm not trying to establish a false dichotomy here, as if you have to choose between watching some TV and becoming the sort of Christian man you should be. But I do think a little temperance is in order.
Matthew points out that sometimes our overuse of entertainment is a way to avoid what we should be doing. The true gospel is about truth and healing and redemption. But to embrace the gospel often involves painful realizations and difficult growth. So, instead, we have the tendency to embrace what's easy: In our entertainment-saturated culture we find another kind of gospel, however — the gospel of avoidance. And this gospel is about putting our faith in distractions. We use entertainment to save ourselves from the pain of our lives. Unlike the real gospel, though, the "good news" of entertainment doesn't truly save us from our problems. It only masks them, helps us repress them. Keeps us from becoming the men God created us to be.
Rather than going to the cross, many of us take our wounds to our computers, TVs or game consoles and say, "Here, you take them." And all these technologies oblige … for a time. At some point, though, we have to press the off button, go to class and face the challenges of the world outside our entertainment bubble. What do we do then? Distract ourselves to such a degree that we haven't got the time to ponder what's really going on in our lives?
That's the gospel of avoidance. And for too many of us, it's our only saving grace.
Matthew is not suggesting that we quit watching television or reading books. He just asks us to look at the motives behind why we spend so much time immersed in things that can ultimately take away from our growth. Time we could be spending growing, learning and being transformed is often "wasted" in front of the computer.
What do you think? Do you find yourself spending too much time distracting yourself? Do you see a need for change?
One of the features of dating in our time is technology. Lots of my friends met their future husbands online. Whether on a matching service or through email, they started their relationships from behind computer screens. And as good as their connections were online, meeting offline for the first time was surprisingly awkward. Many were shocked by just how foreign the man seemed. They thought they knew him inside and out -- their phone and email conversations were so intimate. Yet they found themselves struggling to even make conversation, let alone grow in relationship.
Since it's unlikely we'll go back to meeting and mating without the aid of technology any time soon, I'm working on an article for Boundless with ideas for making the meeting-in-person less awkward, and hopefully, more rewarding.
I'd love to hear from any of you who've met a great guy online and started a friendship or relationship only to feel, when you finally met him in person, like you were starting from scratch with a perfect stranger.
What lessons did you learn? What did you do right? What do you wish you could do over?
 Guys, have you ever prayed for "a burning bush" to let you know that a girl was the right one for you? I know I did. In fact, my dad's experience of sensing God lead him to a specific church to find his future wife one day made me think that was the norm for Christian men seeking wives. But is it possible that we seek burning bushes because we want a shortcut around learning and applying the principles God has already given us? This week's Mentor Series installment addresses this question. Here's the setup for our interview with Dr. Scott Stanley:
Would you marry someone without knowing if it was God's will for your lives? Few Christians would say "yes" to that question. But how do we know when marrying someone is God's will? Could it be that our requests for "a burning bush" of proof might reflect our desire to avoid the risks of stewardship God expects of us?
In this last installment from our interview with Dr. Scott Stanley, we discuss how men can address one of the primary obstacles that keep them from jumping into a marriage.
Newsweek reports that China is making a move to prohibit reincarnation. In one of history's more absurd acts of totalitarianism, China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation."
The reason for the law: the 72-year-old Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual and political leader, is threatening not to be reborn in Tibet if it is under Chinese control. By barring any Buddhist monk living outside China from seeking reincarnation, the law effectively gives Chinese authorities the power to choose the next Dalai Lama, whose soul, by tradition, is reborn as a new human to continue the work of relieving suffering.
Interestingly, the article cites a recent Barna Group survey that found a quarter of U.S. Christians, including 10 percent of all born-again Christians, embrace reincarnation as their favored end-of-life view. (Talk about a confused Worldview.)
It's yet to be seen if the Chinese government will be able to enforce this law. Josh, who sent me the link to this article, quipped: "Illegal reincarnation carries a sentence of life in prison. Your sentence begins immediately. Thank you."
In keeping with my books theme (thanks to all you readers who commented and shared your favorite titles), is an article that says Evangelicals are nothing if not bad writers. "My fellow Evangelicals publish reams upon reams of prose. What we have not tended to write is anything recognized as having literary value by the literary world," writes Donald T. Williams, a Professor of English and Director of the School of Arts and Sciences at Toccoa Falls College in Georgia, in "Writers Cramped."
He asserts that the really good literary writers anymore aren't Evangelicals. "The modern Christians who are important writers are all from liturgical churches: Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox." Among the examples he gives are G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, T. S. Eliot, Graham Greene, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Walker Percy, and Flannery O'Connor. They are, he says, "all recognized as important literary figures even by people who do not share their Christian commitment. ... The closest thing Evangelicalism has to a name that could rank with these is probably Walter Wangerin, Jr., who is not really a mainstream Evangelical but a Lutheran -- again, from a liturgical tradition."
He continues: Try to think of a conservative Baptist, a Free or Wesleyan Methodist or a Nazarene, a conservative Presbyterian, a Plymouth Brother, a member of the Evangelical Free Church or the Christian and Missionary Alliance, a Pentecostal, or a member of an independent Bible church who belongs in that company. (Some have mentioned writers who used to be in those churches—but the phrase "used to" in the observation is telling.)
The liturgical churches foster a lot of schlock and kitsch of their own, but they also nurture great writers and great writing. So far, we Evangelicals have not. In fact, we often positively discourage "literary" writing as being of questionable spiritual value.
The rest of the article is a tribute to the writings of Flannery O'Connor. Though I don't disagree that most of what lines the shelves of modern Christian bookstores lacks the weight of books by Lewis, Chesterton and the rest, I'm not convinced the blame lies with where modern writers go to church. I'm more inclined to think it's the fault of where they went to school.
How many of you who went to public schools and universities studied, or even read, the above mentioned authors? Isn't it hard to imagine a generation of literary geniuses coming from schools that have all but done away with the literary greats?
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Elizabeth Holmes reports on the lack of career mentors for 20-somethings entering today's job market. Here's an excerpt explaining why: The mentor-mentee relationship used to be a partnership between a manager and a new hire. The experienced boss coached his rookie. When the newbie looked good, the boss looked better. Now, with managers stuck volleying emails, tackling expense-account systems and dodging high-velocity blame, time for teaching has evaporated.
She says the HR answer to this has been the assigned-mentor program which matches rookies with someone who's been there awhile. The problem is that these peer advisers "have no attachments to their mentee and no stake in the person's future." As a result, they'll show them where the office supplies are but not much else.
My first professional job was in a U.S. Senator's military liaison office. I'll never forget Colonel Miller's kind but inattentive management style. It was a sink or swim atmosphere, which has its own pros and cons. Since then I've had the privilege of being in a supervisory role and would like to share some general tips for all you mentor deprived rookies that may help you transition well into the workplace.
- Be on time. Even if the boss has flexible work hours and comes and goes as he pleases, don't assume that gives you license to.
- Be eager to listen. Don't talk too much. When you're in a meeting or have face time with the boss, listen well, take notes and ask questions when needed. That said, don't be afraid to offer your opinion. Just wait for an appropriate opening.
- Be eager to work. Having a "can do" attitude goes a long way when starting out. Most bosses don't expect great wonders from new hires. But they do expect someone who's willing to try anything that's asked of them.
- Be a good steward of the work day. Take care not to spend an inordinate amount of time surfing websites of personal interest, sending personal emails, and talking on your cell to friends. You can do things on your own time, over lunch if it's permitted.
- Be well groomed. Don't get too crazy expressing yourself with your hair, head, facial or otherwise. And look sharp whatever your office dress code.
- Ask questions. The old adage that there's no such thing as a dumb question is true. Put aside your fear of looking stupid and ask lots of questions.
- Take responsibility for your mistakes. When you mess up, own it. Don't shift the blame or make excuses. Be direct and say "the fault is mine." Then move on.
- Stay put. Unless you're going through some unbearable circumstance, stick around for at least a year before moving on.
I could literally go on and on but these should get you started. And I know these seem fairly obvious, but you'd be surprised at how even seasoned professionals forget the little things.
Today Taliban militants agreed to release the 19 South Korean church volunteers held hostage for six weeks in Afghanistan. (Two of the original 23 hostages kidnapped on July 19 were killed in late July, while two others were freed earlier this month.) World Magazine reports: Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi said that the South Koreans — mostly women in their 20s and 30s — would be freed "in the coming days" and that tribal elders would act as go-betweens. He gave no further details.
The deal for the hostages' release was struck during talks between Taliban negotiators and South Korean diplomats in the central city of Ghazni. The Afghan government was not party to the negotiations, which were mediated by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
In return for the hostages' release, Seoul pledged to withdraw its troops by year's end and prevent Christian missionaries from working in Afghanistan. Worldviews blog reflects on the implications of the trade-off: While the release of the remaining hostages is great news, has South Korea considered the long-term cost of its actions?
Negotiating with terrorists is a recognized no-no, but what makes this capitulation all the more embarrassing for the South Koreans is what they agreed to:
"...the government in Seoul agreed to end all missionary work and keep a promise to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year."
What do you think of South Korea's decision to strike a deal with the Taliban? The World Magazine article speculates the deal will give terrorists more credibility. The militants apparently backed away from demands for a prisoner exchange. But the Taliban, who killed two South Korean hostages last month, could emerge with enhanced political legitimacy for negotiating successfully with a foreign government.
My first reaction to the news is joy for the release of these Christian sisters. Their impending deliverance is something to be thankful for. However, I wonder what kingdom work will be lost as the Taliban gains greater credibility and control.
I never formalized a mentoring relationship until I was in my thirties, but it seems like I've always had a mentor -- someone I've informally learned from about work, relationships, faith, money and life in general.
An administrator at my Christian college gave me a valuable head start in publishing, leading teams and creativity. A professor in graduate school provided timely guidance on calling, marriage and starting a family. A couple of different mentors are currently giving me examples and occasional words of advice about leadership, communication and family development.
We haven't used a curriculum or textbook for our interactions. We've interacted in all kinds of settings and schedules. Some mentors have been more challenging than others. Some have even contradicted the others. The takeaway I've found from each, however, is that they gave me a scouting report -- a heads-up on paths ahead. That heads-up gave me warnings about detours and dead-ends I could have easily taken, but more importantly it gave me additional confidence that I could make it.
What are you learning from your mentor(s)?
A recent Newsweek article highlights Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee and his struggle to gain recognition in the polls. The article highlights the fact that Huckabee agrees with all of the major points of conservative politics: He explained he's unshakably pro-life, opposes same-sex marriage and supports the troop surge in Iraq. He promised to protect gun rights and vowed to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, the agency Republicans love to hate most. "I want April 15 to be just another beautiful spring day," Huckabee declared. "Amen!" one man called out.
However, the article also points out that Huckabee is not well-recognized by the Republican party. He's not raising nearly as much money as his counterparts and although his message is right-on for many conservatives, the fear that he couldn't defeat the Democrats is what keeps him from gaining strength: His debate performances have been praised, but he barely registers in polls. It's a problem that vexes his staff: He's got the message. He's got the story. He's got the charisma. So why can't Mike Huckabee get any respect? The short, cruel answer is that many people who should be his most enthusiastic supporters don't think he could win if he were pitted in a nasty race against the one Democrat conservatives loathe most. "We like Mike a lot," says Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention. "But nobody thinks he can beat Hillary, and a fear of another Clinton White House outweighs almost everything."
I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about each of the presidential hopefuls and their views. In fact, I sometimes try to ignore all of the hype. The election bid seems to start earlier every year, and I'm quite sick of the 2008 election already. However, I have wondered about the point the Newsweek article makes. Do we ignore good candidates just because we don't believe they can win?
Both ends of the spectrum appear so afraid that the other side will win, that they seem willing to ignore rather large faults in their party's front runner. Some Democrats don't like Hillary, but they'll vote for her if they have to, in order to keep the other party out. The current Republican party candidates waver on abortion (something most conservatives feel strongly about), but they'll probably end up voting for whoever that Republican candidate is, just to avoid having a Democrat in the White House.
So, this is my question: If we want to see actual change in the political realm, should we consider voting for the underdogs or parties other than Democrat or Republican? Would it work?
I honestly don't have an answer, but I have wondered. I'm from Minnesota, where we ended up electing a third party candidate as governor. It kind of came as a surprise to everyone -- someone who was not definitively Democrat or Republican could actually win something?! (However, I don't know that it was the wisest choice to go with a former pro-wrestler as governor. ;-)
Anyway, please share your thoughts. Do you think there's a way to support or elevate some quality candidates who get lost in the shuffle?
Whenever I see a report on the skyrocketing cost of staging a wedding, I wonder how in the world we did it. With so many stories about the average wedding costing in the 30k range, I wonder how we managed to avoid a totally tacky affair for a mere 10k. What a bargain.
But then I read a report about how the average cost is figured. The Wall Street Journal's Numbers Guy, Carl Bialik, says, The so-called average cost -- between $27,400 and $28,000, according to the latest iteration of these surveys -- is a mean. That's the kind of average you might remember from grade-school math: In this case, it's the sum of all the survey responses, divided by the number of people surveyed. The mean is especially susceptible to a single lavish exception: One $1 million wedding put into the mix with 54 weddings costing $10,000 each would boost the mean to $28,000, although among the 55 couples, $10,000 would seem a much better representation of the typical cost.
Why does this matter? Peer pressure. If all the brides-to-be are bombarded with the notion that the average wedding costs nearly $30,000, they're going to at least be primed to spend more than they would have had they been told the average is $10,000. This way of arriving at an inflated average is all about marketing.
The Numbers Guy again, quoting Rebecca Mead, author of One Perfect Day: The Selling of the American Wedding, says, Couples who hear the numbers may think, "There's no way around it; there's no alternative. That means, from the perspective of the wedding industry, you have this group of consumers who are resigned to spending a huge amount of money."
Bingo.
We talk a lot of singleness theory here at Boundless. We hail the merits of preparing for marriage and family, give tips for getting out of the singleness rut and provide biblical perspective on courtship and marriage.
It's easy to talk theory. For example, God most likely desires for you to marry and have a family or He has equipped you for celibate service. But what about everything in between? What about the woman eager to marry who has no prospective suitors? Or what about the man who feels prepared to lead a family, but has not met the right woman?
Single through most of my 20s, I have struggled with the dynamic of agreeing with God's plan for marriage and family, and yet finding my reality to be different. In these moments, it has been crucial for me to know that God is using me for His glory as I wait. Though Scripture advocates marriage, many godly men and women find themselves single longer than anticipated.
In her article, "A Single Blessing," Denise Morris writes about what she found to be the blessing in singleness: an opportunity to learn to praise God in all circumstances. I always thought that I would meet my spouse in college. We would date for about a year, graduate, get fabulous jobs, and then have a wonderful wedding. Picture perfect. However, since I am currently holding my college diploma in my diamondless left hand, I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong. Very wrong.
This is a sentiment many 20-something singles relate to. What is your response when God has not given what you believe is promised? Denise continues: I told myself: I will not praise God for my loneliness, for the times I've been passed over for someone else. I will not thank God for refusing to provide someone to marry, or someone who wants to marry me. I will not be grateful for the hot tears that escape when the feelings of inadequacy, ugliness and self-doubt overwhelm me. I can praise God for a lot of things, I told myself. But I cannot praise Him for singleness … I just can't.
I was not comforted that night. Although I knew that God was in control, that He loved me, that He was everything He had always been, I did not feel any of those things. I felt like God was mean — that He knew I needed encouragement and yet refused to give it to me. I felt frustrated with God, and I wanted to yell at Him. So I did. Well, I yelled at Him a little bit, but mostly I pleaded. I pleaded for God to give me what I wanted. I pleaded with Him to show me favor in this area. I cried big tears to show God just how serious I was.
A truth about single life is that God has the same expectations for me that He has for my married friends: "To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). He is just as capable of teaching me and refining me in my single state as He will one day mold me through my marriage. I also have no excuse not to praise Him for what He is doing in my life today. Denise describes her own eventual response: When I verbally praised God for my lack of a boyfriend, I don't know if I meant it. I couldn't fully mean it; my heart hurt too much. I don't know if that muffled exaltation counted as true praise. But I tried to be obedient. I did it, even though I knew I wouldn't be comforted. I did it because I knew that God was who He said He was. And I eventually fell asleep that night.
There is peace in trusting God in your reality — even if it isn't the one you desire. Theory aside, God is for you. He is working in you for His glory. And it is possible to praise Him. Thank you for pointing that out, Denise.
Ted's post got me thinking about which colleges are most represented on the blog when measured by visits. So I did some checking and thought it'd be fun to announce a top ten.
Over the last year (and it'll be a year August 31st since our first blog), Azusa Pacific University registered the most visits to our little blog with 1,246. Azusa Pacific is a Christian school in Southern California with an enrollment of about 4,200. Go Cougars!
Here's the rest of the ten (and a couple of notables):
2) Amherst College -- 1,224
3) Hillsdale College -- 1,058
4) University of Oklahoma -- 1,010
5) University of Chicago -- 990
6) University of Michigan -- 891
7) Yale University -- 847
8) St. John's College -- 786
9) Purdue University -- 669
10) University of Notre Dame -- 617
Overall, there were over 2,000 colleges with at least one visit to The Line. My alma mater, Clemson University in good ol' South Kakalaky, came in at number 20 with about 350 visits, about the same number as the University of Oxford. Not bad Tigers.
So whether it's one zealous fan with many visits or a group of you getting together at coffee shops to log-on, thanks so much for your participation. And keep reading. =)
If you like, you can use this thread to give a shout out for your school.
Ted wrote about retaining your faith in college. Would you believe, that college students are more likely to stay connected to church than those who don't go to college.
In an interview with Christianity Today, Mark Regenerus (head of a research project on faith and education) makes this unconventional observation: ...we're now convinced that it's not higher education that secularizes, but rather the freedoms that young adults experience during this period of life. We think the story is in what kind of young people avoid college today: They're largely not the familial types from previous generations who would rather marry and start families than pursue higher education. Instead, they're more troubled, they're more likely to come from broken families, exhibit a lack of planfulness about the future, and struggle with substance use and abuse. And we know from plenty of social science research that the most religious Americans tend not to exhibit these traits. As a result, an increasing number of devout youth are pursuing higher education (though largely not growing in faith during those years).
Here are some other interesting findings from Regenerus: One thing that we're quite convinced of is that most of the seeds for "secularization" are planted well before college, but it's only during college that the diminished participation in organized religion emerges and becomes evident.
... a key finding of our research is that young Americans aren't changing their minds about religion as much as we had thought. Most of them are just putting their religious faith in the closet during the college years, only to pull it out after a time, dust it off, and put it on again.
I see the point Regenerus is making about the difference between college students and those not attending college today and I also see his point about faith going dormant during college without dying altogether. I have to wonder, however, just what the long-term impact is of the secularization that colleges do emphasize. Specifically, what is the impact of a student's faith going dormant during an incredible season of discovery and transition?
While this study provides hope that faith can survive college, wouldn't a student still need to be especially intentional if they want their faith to thrive in college?
About half of you who visit Boundless and The Line are in college, either undergrad or grad school. And so thousands of you have either made your way back to campus, or are preparing to do so over the coming weeks.
University is an exciting place to learn, to grow friendships, to wrestle with ideas. It can also be dangerous to your faith, as seen by the number of Christians who lose their faith in college.
Don't want to become a statistic? Good. Interested in getting some tips on how to thrive as a Christian in College? We've got just what you need, an article first published in February titled, "How Not to Lose Your Faith in College."
Specific words of advice include "find and join a good church," "choose your friends with biblical criteria in view" and "remain sexually pure." Let me challenge you to spend a few minutes to read the article, to consider these tips and the others offered there. I honestly believe this one article could prove pivotal for you.
Yes, they're only words, but words are wrappers for ideas, and ideas have consequences. It's my sincere prayer that these words produce blessed consequences in your life.
I'm not talking about the magazine, I'm talking about the stock with the New York Stock Exchange ticker "PLA."
In yesterday's Boundless article "Investing with a Conscience," Heather Koerner says that you might be contributing to Hugh Hefner's conglomerate without even knowing it. She asks, "Would it bother you?" I have to admit that I've never really thought about my investment dollars in terms of morality. My mutual funds are just that: "mutual funds." I balance my diversification and juggle the percentages — but I've never thought much about which companies the funds hold or who I might be supporting.
But a growing number of Christians are wrestling with that question: Are my investment dollars going to support companies which I, as a Christian, am against? And if they are, is that OK?
I just posed the question to a friend of mine and he said, "I may as well roll over and die. Everything we touch goes to some liberal cause. The world is sick, Motte." He's right of course. But does that mean we turn a blind eye to it when it's brought to our attention? Meghan Kleppinger didn't.
Meghan wrote an article a couple of years ago and estimated she's given over $4,000 in latte purchases to an organization that supports "gay" pride events ("where children will be exposed to sexually explicit materials and pedophiles") and pro-abortion Planned Parenthood. After her research, she decided to give up Starbucks.
Like my friend, many Christians feel it's a futile exercise. And Koerner does a great job of exploring both sides of the debate. But I tend to side with Mary Naber of FaithfulSteward.org whom Koerner quotes, "But when God commands, 'Do not share in the sins of others, keep yourself pure' (1 Tim. 5:22), he does not add, 'unless it's impossible; then give up trying altogether.'"
What about you? Have you checked your 401(k) or stopped buying Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream or sworn off Johnson & Johnson products or ... well, you get the picture.
Earlier this week, I posted on an interview with Josh Harris about evangelism and the church. Now I'd like to call your attention to his convictions on what is perhaps an even more pressing matter: Facebook.
Harris writes: Last week, on a whim, I signed up for a Facebook account. I had no friends and no idea what I was doing. So I asked for advice and begged for friends. I got both. A bunch of people — everyone from students at my church, to a very helpful atheist professional blogger, to Christian uber-blogger Tim Challies — took the time to thoughtfully answer my questions. I learned a lot and got a kick out of many of the humorous answers. And if all that weren't enough, many of you "friended" me.
For the past seven days I've really enjoyed Facebook. It is a lot fun and a great way to connect with people. I now understand why it's so incredibly popular. But today I decided to bring my Facebook career to an abrupt end. I'm weird, huh? But here are some of the reasons I'm calling it quits...
I'm no stranger to social networking sites. My little sister got my hooked on one of the main ones two years ago (It's always best to blame someone else when you succumb to a teen fad). And so, when I read Josh Harris' reasons for abandoning Facebook after just one week, I related: wasted time, competition with face-to-face relationships and one more pitiful reason to stare at a computer screen.
But one of his arguments stood out about the rest: The other reason I feel right about making my time with Facebook just a visit is a little harder to explain. How do I put this? I found that it encouraged me to think about me even more than I already do — which is admittedly already quite a bit. Does that make any sense? Without any help from the Internet I'm inclined to give way too much time to evaluating myself, thinking about myself and wondering what other people think of me. If that egocentrism is a little flame, than Facebook for me is a gasoline IV feeding the fire. I need to grow in self-forgetfulness. I need to worry more about what God is thinking of me. I need to be preoccupied with what he's written in his word, not what somebody just wrote on my "wall."
Ouch.
I love to get "feedback" on myself. And I have to admit that's part of the lure of social networking. "What will someone say about me today?" It can, occasionally feel like a popularity contest. But, like Harris, I need to grow in self-forgetfulness. What about you? Do social networking sites feed your ego or are they simply a place to connect?
Thankfully, my particular social networking site is now out of style (I'm told), so activity there is minimal. And it's comforting to know 117 of my nearest and dearest friends (plus Steven Curtis Chapman, the guy who made my lattes in college and a dozen people I've never met) are only a comment away if I need them.
HT: Justin Taylor
I enjoyed Denise's post about choosing to love. That choice is a key ingredient for a loving relationship, but it comes on the other side of what's proving to be an almost impossible task -- choosing who to love.
It's an issue Thomas Jeffries addressed in a Boundless article a while back. In that article, Jeffries talks about how difficult it's become for us to make good choices -- about purchases, work, faith, relationships, etc. -- in a world of overwhelming choices. He includes a key quote from the book The Paradox of Choice, where Barry Schwartz explains how our range of choices can tyrannize us: When people have no choice, life is almost unbearable. As the number of available choices increases ... the autonomy, control and liberation this variety brings are powerful and positive. But as the number of choices keeps growing, negative aspects of having a multitude of options begin to appear. As the number of choices grows further, the negatives escalate until we become overloaded. At this point, choice no longer liberates, but debilitates. It might even be said to tyrannize.
Have you noticed this? Do you find yourself standing in shopping aisles paralyzed by choices that used to be easier to make? Do you find yourself wishing for fewer buttons on a remote control instead of for more? Do you often second guess the choices you've made and wonder if you should have explored your options more? Do you see the anxiety of choice-making spilling over into other areas of your life?
We republished an article on TrueU.org today that talks about the choices we make when it comes to love. The author, Micah Wierenga, talks about his first year of marriage, when both he and his wife really realized what it means to choose to love someone.
Unfortunately, our culture has made "falling in love" the most important aspect of a relationship. If those fuzzy feelings aren't strong enough or if they fade away, you better move on to someone else. But what about the idea that we choose to love people even when we don't feel like it? You've probably heard that marriage is a covenant and that's true. But it's probably more accurate to broaden this to say that love is a covenant, the definition of which is an agreement or contract between two parties.
Do you want to know why arranged marriages don't work in our culture today? Just think about our approach to finding a mate. We shop around asking the question, "Who will make me the happiest?" Once we've made our decision, we decide to marry that person. Then, after a while, we begin to have unhappy times and slowly but surely we begin to wonder if we've made the wrong choice. Maybe I should've waited, we think. Maybe this other person over here was the right person because they would've made me happier. Then, of course, we join that 50 percent of people who asked the same question about happiness.
In fact, what I find wholly fascinating and repulsively ironic about our attitude on love is that, on the one hand, we would rather die than not be able to choose our spouse and, on the other hand, we would rather divorce that same spouse than choose to love them. We want the option to choose without the responsibility to choose.
Micah encourages people to quit looking for what will make them happiest and instead focus on making others happy. In fact, according to the greatest commandments, our goal should be to love those around us -- quite crucial when it comes to having healthy relationships.
Micah points out one of the best examples of the choice to love in the story of God and Israel as presented in the book of Hosea. The prophet Hosea is asked to marry a prostitute who continues to run off and sleep with other men. It's a picture of God's relationship with Israel -- how He continues to love and pursue her even when she turns away: But, why did Yahweh continue the chase? Because He had "fallen in love"? Not really. It was because He made a covenant to love Israel and refused to abandon it despite her failures.
In the same way, Hosea maintained his pursuit of Gomer because, for him, love was a covenant, not an emotion; a choice, not a feeling.
It's no wonder that the Bible is fairly silent about romance, or more accurately, it's no wonder that the Bible doesn't equate romance and love. Romance is fleeting though it feels wonderful. Love is lasting despite how it feels.
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments in this article, although I know that deciding to love someone is much easier said than done. What do you think? Is love a choice?
As I am sure all vampire aficionados are aware, novelist Anne Rice has publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Her reason, odd as it may sound, is because she believes that Hillary and the Democrats are our nations best chance to "find a solution to the horror of abortion." She writes: I have heard many anti-abortion statements made by people who are not Democrats, but many of these statements do not strike me as constructive or convincing. I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms.
Without Rice providing specific anti-abortion statements, it's difficult for me to believe she's doing anything more than setting up a strawman to justify her support for a pro-abortion politician. Because if you go by the statements of each party platform, it's pretty clear who believes in the sanctity of human life, at least on paper.
Like many pro-abortion Democrats, Rice speaks about abortion like it's something bad, calling it a "horror." But she never says why it's a "horror." Is it a horror because it is the murder of a human being that is yet to be born? Is it a horror because the "product of reproduction" actually looks like a baby, even when it's been torn apart by abortion?
And if it's a horror because of these things, then it is right to force Americans to "give birth to children" they do not want to bear. Anything less would be to justify murder for the sake of convenience, which is what this country does. And like it or not, this is what the majority of Democrats stand for. The following is taken from The Democratic Platform for America in 2004: Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
How Anne Rice gets from this statement to this one taken from her blog, I'll never know. Again, I believe the Democratic Party is the party that is most likely to help Americans make a transition away from the abortion crisis that we face today. Its values and its programs -- on a whole variety of issues -- most clearly reflect my values. Hillary Clinton is the candidate whom I most admire.
In her article "Married With Children: Could Anything be Crazier?" Kate Bluett defends the increasingly counter-cultural path of permanent marriage and multiple children. Among issues she considers are the later marrying age, the increase of cohabitation and the decrease in childbearing.
Of the transition from singlehood to marriage and family, Bluett writes: It is made harder by the fact that parenthood is losing its respect in the culture at large. This is, after all, the age in which father no longer knows best and all housewives are desperate. What's more, the childless, with their greater amounts of disposable income, have become an important demographic. More and more advertising is aimed at them; their lives are made to look better and better. Meanwhile, parents' lives are looking harder, poorer, and generally worse. Fewer and fewer are choosing parenthood; who, after all, would voluntarily choose the worse life?
This seems to be an ongoing issue with the pursuits of both marriage and family. As Ted described, the grass doesn't always appear greener on the other side of the fence. And as Bluett points out, gone are the days when children were inherently desirable: To older ears, this may sound like merely a rhetorical question. Of course people want to have kids, don't they? But my generation, caught between "Imagine" and American Idol, grew up being told that "me-time" at the spa is one of life's little necessities and that self-fulfillment is the first duty of every person, but especially of every self-respecting woman. Add to that self-involved psyche the trauma of divorce and an overwhelmingly consumerist milieu, and suddenly the reasons for "breeding" no longer seem self-evident. Parenthood doesn't just look worse; it looks like madness.
If you measure sanity by the size of your checking account, parenthood is madness. If you seek sanity in self-sufficiency, marriage is crazy. If, on the other hand, you want a sane culture — one that can not only perpetuate itself and pass on its values but also work to establish justice and care for the least powerful of its members — then the divorce culture and childfree-by-choice demographics must be dismissed as the products of a diseased mind. Because culturally speaking, sanity is the ability to love others; only compassion can drive the search for justice and the effort of social perpetuation. And my generation's minds have been warped by the mad scientists of divorce and consumerism.
"Products of a diseased mind." Bluett's statement seems harsh. But it's worth considering if perhaps we do suffer from an unhealthy mindset. The benefits of family life, such as increased church involvement and the gentling affect of children, are many. Within the body of Christ, especially, we need to restore a perspective that honors family life instead of relegating it to madness.
I need to say at the outset that "worship" includes any reverent engagement with, or response to, the Lord. It can include acts of service, financial giving, working, eating, writing blog posts ... and singing. Bob Kauflin does a fine job further defining worship on his blog, WorshipMatters.
In the context of this blog post, I'll use the term "worship" to mean songs we sing either about God or to God.
So what is the "purpose" of such worship?
I think there are several, but I'd put at the top that worship music should instill sound doctrine. "Whoa!" you might be thinking. "That sounds dry!"
But it's not dry. Sound doctrine serves to inform us of who God is and what He's done, as well as who we are in Him. Such engagements with the glorious truth about God invigorate us, helping our hearts resonate with His and spurring us to respond with gratefulness. How can pondering the wonder of God and what He's done be dry? How can exploring the rich truth of the wondrous and efficacious cross be anything but thrilling?
Is there biblical support for such a position? I think so. Consider Colossians 3:16: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
Singing is spoken of in context of "teaching" and "admonishing" (which can be thought of as "correcting," in the sense of reinforcing correct, or sound, doctrine). The result of such singing is heart-felt thankfulness to God.
As Bob Kauflin acknowledges, "exploring objective truth about God" isn't the only purpose of worship songs. The lyrics can also be subjective or reflective, words that allow us opportunities to confess our emotional response to who the Lord is and what He's done. Elsewhere he suggests that we sing for the following three reasons:
- We sing to remember God's word.
- We sing to respond to God's grace.
- We sing to reflect God's glory.
So what's the purpose of worship music? Why do you worship God in song? And if you're a "worship leader," how might a better grasp of the purpose of worship aid you as you select songs for your congregation or small group to sing this week?
HT: Ted Slater
I don't know how I missed this yesterday, but apparently a winner was announced in the Best American Restroom contest. And the winner is Jungle Jim's International Market. I was a little bummed to see that the entry from a restaurant in Flushing, MI didn't win (that would have made for some creative headlines), but Jungle Jim's does deserve a prize for re-thinking the whole public restroom experience. Here's how their setup was described in a Fox News report: What appears to be portable toilets in the store in this northern Cincinnati suburb actually are entrances to a hallway, adorned in a jungle motif, leading to restrooms with flowers, marble, green tile and tropical pictures.
This approach to sprucing up a public restroom is much better than the story a co-worker told me about a hotel in Denver that added a bowl of (not individually packaged) snack mix in the men's bathroom. Really, what were they thinking?
HT: OpinionJournal
Yes, weddings are deadly. At least, for me, mine was.
Having been single for 36 years before finally getting married, I was concerned that I wouldn't make the transition well. I was concerned that many of the habits I picked up during my single years would be so ingrained that I'd continue them into my marriage, to the detriment of that marriage.
"Habits" were a big part of who I was, pre-marriage. Habits like staying up late working on my audio or Web site projects, taking naps whenever I felt like it, eating whenever (and whatever) I wanted, spending money impulsively on new musical or computer equipment, enjoying flirt-tinged conversations with single women, hanging out late with my buddies after worship band practice, getting to work late and staying at the office late, and so on.
The way I prepared for married life was by telling myself, and my bride-to-be, that our wedding day marked the death of the single Ted. On Dec. 21, 2002, the single Ted would be no longer. He would be dead.
The truth is that it took years to shed some of my more self-centered habits, but I do think it was helpful to begin the process by having a specific time in mind where those habits were no longer what characterized me.
The single Ted is long dead. And the happily married Ted doesn't miss him.
Speaking of reading, it seems not everyone is bothered by a nightstand with just a lamp, alarm clock and box of tissues. "One in four adults say they read no books at all in the past year," says an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday.
"The survey reveals a nation whose book readers, on the whole, can hardly be called ravenous. The typical person claimed to have read four books in the last year — half read more and half read fewer. Excluding those who hadn't read any, the usual number read was seven."
What do the one-in-four non-readers do instead? The poll blamed competition from the Internet and other entertainment-oriented media.
What about you? Are you a reader, and if so, what's on your nightstand? And if you're not, what do you prefer to books?
Few things seem worse than a vacancy on my nightstand. To not have good books to read feels like not having any friends. Usually I have a stack of books there. But an article I read a few weeks back has me rethinking my list of must-reads.
In it, the author chided Americans for not reading enough, but he also went on to chide those who do read, for only reading non-fiction. Not good enough he said. The really worthy, soul-altering stories are just that, stories. And so I've been scrutinizing my list of holds at the library of late and realized he's right. I read mostly non-fiction. And while a lot of it is worthwhile and challenging reading, important even, much of it lacks that magical draw I feel when I'm reading a delicious novel.
It's not that I don't like fiction. But that it's elusive. It seems delicious novels are like gems: rare and hard to find.
Just when I was about to despair of ever finding one again, I discovered a wealth of stories in an unlikely place: children's literature. We started reading The Hobbit to the kids in the evenings after dinner, and I was transfixed. I remembered loving the story as a kid. But I was loving it even more as an adult.
Yesterday I was reading a friend's books blog where she talked about being at L'Abri reading, of all things, Winnie the Pooh (the real one by A.A. Milne, not the Disneyfied version). We ran a review of Milne's classic during the early years of Boundless that echoes her sentiments.
In it, Sam Torode writes: As James S. Taylor states in his study of the philosophy of education, Poetic Knowledge, "there can be no real advancement in knowledge unless it first begin in leisure or wonder, where the controlling motive throughout remains to be delight and love."
Sitting on carpet squares and listening intently: this is the proper posture for receiving literature. Not analyzing, or using, literature, mind you, but receiving it. C. S. Lewis, in An Experiment in Criticism, makes this distinction: while the unliterary reader "uses" literature, the literary reader "receives" it, allowing the work to move him in new directions, expanding his view of the world.
Torode concludes, Undeniably, next to Hamlet or The Divine Comedy, Winnie-the-Pooh is fluff. Yes-but it is exquisite fluff. Beautiful fluff. Fluff which prepares us to encounter greater authors and more profound works. The children's classics provide a solid foundation for life-long learning.
And so of late, my nightstand is piled high with E. Nesbit, Roald Dahl, Noel Streatfeild, Hans Christian Anderson and Louisa May Alcott. Reading hasn't been this fun, and this transformational, since I was a kid.
Conservative against liberal. Black against white. Mac against PC. Our culture likes to pit groups against each other. Not surprisingly, the issues we discuss on Boundless regarding marriage and singleness are often perceived as a pitting of one against the other. That hasn't been our intention.
The main distinction we've tried to make is between a popular culture of singleness and the callings to either Biblical marriage or celibacy. There aren't a lot of differences between those on the path to Biblical marriage and those on the celibacy path. Both are called to sexual purity, stewardship of gifts and talents and Christian community. Those on the path to marriage, however, are also called to integrity in dating/courting relationships and preparation for Biblical marriage.
There are, however, major differences between these two paths and what we often call "the third path" of singleness in our popular culture. The third path is marked by recreational hookups, consumer attitudes toward relationships, hyper individualism and sex beyond marriage. I think of "the third path" as a single version of what Paul describes as "the pattern of this world." We think it's essential that Christian singles be set apart from this third path and on either a path toward Biblical celibacy or marriage (even if they don't know how long that path will be).
For a good message on moving beyond pitting marriage against singleness, I recommend "I Do or I Don't?" by Rob Reinow, Family Pastor at Wheaton Bible Church. You can find it on the church's Website by scrolling through the sermon options until you get to the July 23rd message (I found it worked best to download the message instead of streaming it).
I especially enjoyed the excerpt Rob opens with from an older Boundless article by Kara Schwab called "Believing in the Dream of Marriage." I'm curious to hear what you think of Rob's message.
I recently saw a poster for a church in New York that read: As Christians, we're sorry for being self-righteous, judgmental b-------.
A church for people who have given up on the church.
While the sentiment may ring true for many in our generation, a declaration like this wounds my heart. And, I believe, it wounds Christ's heart, who "loved the church and gave himself up for her."
Joshua Harris, 32-year-old pastor of Covenant Life Church, had some good things to say about our generation's critical attitude toward the church in an interview with Outreach Magazine. He says: Our generation wants to relate to the unchurched, to show them that we're not associated with things in the church that are less than appealing. But it's much more compelling when we say, "You know what, there are problems here, and I'll be honest with you, I've contributed my own set of problems. But here is who Jesus is and here's how He's changing us. And I want to be a part of a generation that's seeking to fix the problems and be obedient."
Ultimately, a church only changes when people claim their role in the body of Christ and work hard to contribute and strengthen other members.
I've often heard, "If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain." I think the same is true of being involved in the church. It's valid to raise concerns about unhealthy policies or behavior within the body. But as a Christ-follower, you should never view the church as your enemy. You are called to love the church, serve her and correct with gentleness.
And how much of our desire to disassociate from unappealing church traits is motivated by wanting to maintain a cool, open-minded image rather than illuminate who Christ truly is? Harris responds: Adapting is something a lot of pastors my age are struggling with. Yes, we should be adaptable when it comes to methodology. But if we're adapting our message to get people in the door, then what they are hearing is not challenging their false views of life and God.
We absolutely need to study people and understand their assumptions and hindrances to share truth with them. However, it's a very unloving thing if we're so concerned with impressing people that we don't recognize the cross is always going to be foolish, despised by many. We need to be ready for that!
The main point, Harris explains, is to discern what is offending. Is it human error? Or the light? Essentially, we want the only stumbling block to be the message of Christ crucified — not politics, our religious lingo or religiosity that's not a part of the central truth of Christ crucified. If people are going to stumble, let them stumble over the message that they are sinners who need a Savior — let's get the other stuff out of the way.
HT: Justin Taylor
Speaking of eating...
A relative went to a party a while back hosted by a couple from their church. During a break in the activities, she began looking at the photos displayed throughout the home. She focused in on a wedding picture of a young, thin couple and asked the host innocently, "Who are they?" The host responded, "That's us. I just love to eat."
I thought of this story as I read a post on The Dallas Observer blog called "What Would Jesus Eat?" In it, blogger Bible Girl explores American Christians' latitudinarian approach to gluttony. Christians don't talk about gluttony because we don't think we are gluttons. Gluttony has been divorced from obesity in our minds so that it becomes merely a health issue rather than a spiritual and moral one. We don't gain weight because we eat to excess. We gain weight because of our glands and our genes. Weight problems, we tell ourselves, are a result of living in a fast-food, high-pressure culture. There's some truth to that, but instead of going against the culture and striving for a healthier lifestyle, we have embraced the culture. There are some people out there with legitimate problems such as thyroid conditions, but for most of us "the rapidly expanding man" disease is a result of our greed and poor choices.
And some blame portly pastors. Dr. Don Colbert, author of The Seven Pillars of Health and What Would Jesus Eat?, points out that many Christians don't view overeating as sin because their pastors look past it or condone it. In fact, many of Colbert's patients are obese pastors. Colbert says that if parishioners see their minister eating junk food, sporting a bulging waistline and not exercising, they will often feel free to emulate his example. As the head goes, so goes the body.
Bible Girl's blog makes for an interesting read. She has compelling stats and snarky one-liners -- "We prefer to point a pudgy finger at others and decry the evils of drugs and alcohol, pornography, abortion and homosexuality." But I'm not sure her suggestion for more sermons on "being self-controlled in your eating" is the answer. I think most of the obese know their sin very intimately.
Maybe I'm too sympathetic. If I am, it's not to justify over eating or make light of its consequences. It's just that it's so much more obvious than other sins. While everyone else hides in anonymity of their secret sins, the obese bear the burden of silent judgments daily.
Gluttony manifests itself in many ways. So let's be sure that our chastening encompasses more than the lack of temperance with food.
"Don't disagree with me because that will make me angry, and if I'm angry, I'll just have to call you names and attack your character." Welcome to politics and public discourse in the 21st century!
Mark Early's last couple of BreakPoint commentaries have talked about the rising amount of anger and vitriol in our culture today. People on both the right and left have taken to name-calling, generalizations and downright hatred of those they disagree with. But Early points out that according to the new book, A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Now by Peter Wood, this anger from public leaders is encouraged and expected. He notes that attacks on opponents are not recent, but there's a certain type of "new anger" that he sees in the culture today: New Anger, the book explains, is not just a by-product of the political process. It has become central to it. The discourse of our time has become about anger, with pundits, politicians, and their supporters acting as if their anger and hatred were virtues in themselves. Political and journalistic careers are built on being angry. It's a nationwide case of "I-hate-therefore-I-am," says Wood. As traditional virtues like self-control have eroded, replaced by new "virtues" like self-expression, anger and hatred have become celebrated, even cherished.
Unfortunately, Wood seems to be correct in his assertions -- we see this hatred it every election cycle, in articles, on television, and so on. Now, we live in a free country and we have the right to say what we think about those in office. But I have personally become increasingly frustrated with the generalizations and blatant hatred that I see from both ends of the spectrum. Claiming that all conservatives hate the poor or that the greatest goal of every liberal is to destroy families is just untrue and unhelpful.
And for those of us who are professing Christians, we need to be very careful with the words we use. There is such a thing as righteous indignation, but as Steve blogged about, we are to speak truth in love. It's a balance, to be sure, but that balance shouldn't include words or accusations made simply out of anger.
What's wrong with the following sentences?
What's wrong is that the verbs are transitive verbs, and require a "direct object." Those sentences omitted this "object." The following sentences are correct:
Now, what's wrong with the following sentence?
Again, what's wrong is that "worship" is a transitive verb, and therefore requires an "object." In this case, the object is God:
This is meaningful, because instead of focusing on the action -- worshiping -- we should focus on the object -- God. Using correct grammar facilitates this right focus.
OK, there are two possible ways we can go from here:
- We can become critical of people and songs that omit the "object" in sentences that require one.
- We can focus on the "object" of our worship, rather than on the act of worshiping.
I'm doing my best to go down path #2.
(FWIW, I love the song "Here I Am to Worship" by Tim Hughes, and find myself quietly adding "You" to the end of that phrase when I sing it in church.)
Today would have been my dad's 60th birthday, but he died prematurely at 56. I posted last week about the time my dad met Elvis. As I re-read part 2 of that story, I was reminded of the way my dad sought in his life to speak truth in love -- and I was convicted about how much I still need to grow in that area.
Early on in my dad's ministry, he studied the Christian faith fervently and he loved getting the opportunity to argue with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who came to our door. While he would win his arguments with them, he noticed he wasn't winning any of them to Christ. After awhile he came to realize the truth of the old cliche -- "people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." While dad never gave up on the truth, he realized that he needed to be more deliberate in reflecting both God's truth and His love. I noticed that as dad showed unconditional love to people of all backgrounds, he found openings to present God's truth in a way that changed their lives dramatically.
I have to admit that my M.O. is often to fight for truth and to win arguments. I'm convinced that as Christians we can't retreat from the truth wars of our day. However, I confess that I still have to grow a lot in how I reflect God's love. Sometimes I think it's tied to my own insecurities about loving people and not knowing how they will react. I've also worried at times that maybe somehow my attempts to be loving may undermine God's truth. What I'm continuing to learn is that the two have to go solidly hand in hand. Without love, I'm a clanging cymbal. On the other hand, love without truth is incomplete. Our model is Ephesians chapter 4 where we read about "speaking the truth in love."
I love truth but I know I need to keep growing in how I communicate it in a way that reflect God's love. My dad's example reminds me of what God can do when the two go hand in hand.
Jill wrote an e-mail to us today, referencing a meal she had last night of "lentils, carrots, and pepperoni." She then went on to ask what kinds of meals we ate during our "hungry years" -- the time in our 20s when we're growing more independent from our folks.
I was 18 years old when a friend and I moved from our parents' homes in Michigan to an apartment in Texas, taking a year off from college to figure out what we'd be doing with our lives. I had never really learned how to cook, so when I went to the grocery store I bought what I figured every kitchen should have: a bag of flour.
I remember standing in my kitchen, pondering what to do with that flour. I mixed it with some water and fried it up with some vegetable oil, another kitchen staple. I think I even ate it.
I didn't know how to boil spaghetti noodles, so instead I would pour some spaghetti sauce over a couple of slices of bread and put that in the microwave for 30 seconds.
I was shopping one day, and as I passed the spice shelves, on a whim I bought some tapioca. It made for some fun experiments, but I never did use it in food.
I was fortunate enough to have a job as an assistant manager at a Burger King up on Westheimer Street, so I didn't starve.
Once I was in college, I began experimenting with Ramen noodles, Campbell's soup, various off-brand cereals (eaten with water, since I couldn't store milk in my dorm room) and bullion cubes. My meal plan enabled me to eat in the cafeteria once a day, so again, I didn't starve.
Years have passed, and while I remember those days fondly (maybe that's not the right word), I'm more likely to make chicken marsala, lamb saag, homemade chili, chicken fried steak or spaghetti a la carbonara in my kitchen nowadays.
What are some of the crazier meals you've prepared for yourself (or, heaven forbid, your friends) during your "hungry years"?
|
