 |
Townhall.com's Bob Burney reported yesterday on a multi-year study of the programs and "seeker sensitive" philosophy of ministry of mega church Willow Creek Community. And the results aren't good for churches that replaced "sin, salvation and sanctification" with "Starbucks, strategy and sensitivity." The report reveals that most of what they have been doing for these many years and what they have taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not disciples. It gets worse. [Senior Pastor Bill] Hybels laments:
"Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasn't helping people that much. Other things that we didn't put that much money into and didn't put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for."
If you simply want a crowd, the "seeker sensitive" model produces results. If you want solid, sincere, mature followers of Christ, it's a bust. In a shocking confession, Hybels states:
"We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become 'self feeders.' We should have gotten people, taught people how to read their bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own."
You have to give Pastor Hybels credit for owning this disaster. Burney reports that he called the findings "earth shaking," "ground breaking" and "mind blowing." Such humility is encouraging but as Burney points out, the damage has already been done. ... the error of the seeker sensitive movement is monumental in its scope. The foundation of thousands of American churches is now discovered to be mere sand. The one individual who has had perhaps the greatest influence on the American church in our generation has now admitted his philosophy of ministry, in large part, was a "mistake." The extent of this error defies measurement.
Last year I attended Willow Creek's The Leadership Summit at a satellite location. The tag line read, "70,000 Leaders. 160 Cities. 1 Worldwide Event." I wonder how many of the 70,000 are now asking for their money back.
A little while back, I blogged about the concept of the seven year itch in marriage. Today, a report out of London says that itch is occurring earlier and that "married couples are at their greatest risk of divorcing just before their fifth anniversary." "The crisis point for the modern marriage is arriving sooner," said Aiva Jasilioniene, who helped conduct the study.
She said the early years of marriage can be tough because they are often characterized by challenging experiences involving the building of careers and the bearing of children.
... Anastasia de Waal, head of family and education issues at Civitas, a research organization in London, agreed that married people are definitely becoming "itchier" earlier these days.
"The main reason seems to be increased expectations of both relationships and what a happy marriage should be like," she said. "In a climate of media-enhanced instant gratification, the stakes have been raised as mere contentedness is no longer enough in a marriage.
"We increasingly expect that more passionate element to continue indefinitely," she said.
This report is a reminder of how inflated expectations can keep people from marrying well. A good Biblical marriage provides plenty of potential for passion and happiness, but it was never intended to be just a vending machine for personal happiness (that you leave when the variety gets old).
Our best foundation for a marriage that can go the distance is still the Christlike other-centeredness of Philippians 2:3-11 that begins, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others."
I cannot conclude this series without considering the formidable task of trusting God with relationships in the absence of possibilities. When there's a promising online match, a friendship that appears to be blossoming into more or an interesting fellow you met at that last wedding you attended, trust is a bit easier. There's something tangible to rest your hope in (even if it never goes anywhere).
But what of the dry spells? I discussed this in an article I wrote last year: I am single.
I'm not ashamed to say it. Most of the time I'm OK with it. By "OK" I mean I don't break down in tears after attending my fifth wedding in one summer. I don't mourn with a tub of mint chocolate chip and "Sleepless in Seattle" every time I have a quiet Saturday night ... or four. And I barely cringe when my married friends get a twinkle in their eye and utter those dreaded words: "Soooo (they drag this word out endlessly), is there a guy in your life?"
I smile and explain (with maybe a bit of overcompensating enthusiasm) that there's not currently a special someone (nor has there been for three years), but I'm confident, in God's perfect timing, the right one will come along.
I know from experience, this kind of waiting gets old. Really old. Relationship advice is all well and good, but how do you apply it to the reality of no viable options? I cannot tell you that God will deliver you a spouse. I can tell you He cares about you deeply, is invested in this idea of marriage and has the power to provide a godly mate. Still, I also know you can't negotiate with God to secure that person.
For the everyday pain singles face while they're waiting for a spouse, I am reminded of two principles for living. First, regardless of whether God blesses me in this way, I am called to trust Him. In a very painful and confusing situation, Job said: "Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him" (Job 13:15).
Second, God is all powerful and my lack of a spouse has nothing to do with His ability to provide. Not only that, but He wants good for me. Consider 1 Corinthians 2:9: "However, as it is written: 'No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.' "
Perhaps the most important thing to remember when enduring a dry spell is to avoid giving in to bitterness. Not only will it render you spiritually useless, but others will cease to be drawn to you. Along with pursuing the straight path, rejoicing in God's romantic heart, actively building community and seeking to respect and build up the men I know, I must choose to live in the life-giving joy of Christ. The truth is, the Lord is worthy of my trust even when I don't see how He's working. And because of that, in the dry spell, I still have hope.
"When I was their age, I was a bunch of grapes." So said Cheryl Cirenza, noting the contrast between her pre-teen Halloween costume and the trashy lineup her daughters are sorting through. Consider: Playboy Racy Referee, Sexy Super Girl, Funky Punk Pirate, Fairy-Licious Purrrfect Kitty, Devilicious, the list goes on. So reports the Washington Post in Preteens Trading Fairy Wands for Fishnets.
The controversy continues. According to the story, Cirenza's grapes get-up dates back to... the days when Halloween was still a homemade kind of holiday, when an old sheet with eye holes was a perfectly acceptable ghost and clumsily carved pumpkins on the front porch were about as elaborate as the decorations got. Now, Halloween is big business. Americans are expected to spend upwards of $5 billion this year on candy, ghoulish decorations and costumes. And the hottest trend in costumes, retailers say, is sexy. And young. Fishnet tights, once associated with smoky cabarets or strip joints,
now come in girls' sizes and cost $3.99.
I cringed as I read the reporter's first-hand account of watching parents, mostly mothers, battling with their pre-teens about which costume to get. Sadly most of the moms eventually caved. And so we'll be turning the lights off Wednesday night and skipping the candy giveaway. No sense opening the door on so much sin, ah, skin.
Last year I wrote a defense of my unapologetically dark house on Halloween. It was in response to a blog Tim Challies wrote in which he said that dark houses on Halloween are poor witnesses for Christ (a stance he has since softened). It made for good blogging but I came to regret my unfriendly tone directed toward Tim; particularly when I ran into him a few months later at a conference.
The following excerpt should give you an idea why. After explaining why my family doesn't participate in Halloween, I wrote: It's our personal conviction. One that my wife and I have talked about, prayed about, and sought the advice of Christians we respect. Apparently, that's not good enough for Tim Challies.
Challies writes on his blog today that "(Christians) have to trust our consciences" on the matter but then proceeds to condemn those who would abstain as "a very poor witness." First, if it is a matter of conscience, he shouldn't make judgments on Christians who have prayed about it and concluded that they can best honor God another way. After all, as Paul instructs the Colossians, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath."
It's not awful; just a wee bit graceless. But as Suzanne Hadley pointed out in her Boundless article "Blog Responsibly," this kind of gracelessness is not anomalous among Christian bloggers. Unfortunately this kind of graceless conversation among Christians is all too common in the blogosphere. "The secular world is not impressed with the Christian world of blogging," says Justin Taylor, proprietor of the blog "Between Two Worlds."
Justin, whose blog receives up to 1,800 visits per day, believes that many Christ-followers are abandoning the basics when it comes to their online conversations. "Jesus said they will know us by our fruit and by our love, and a lot of blogs are failing in that."
When I met Tim last May, I was embarrassed. I should have apologized then and there but I didn't. So Tim, if you're reading, I'm sorry for my graceless blog. Still though, my conscience is clear on what will be a dark house again this Halloween.
With what is perhaps impeccable timing, my Netflix queue recently delivered up the documentary Hell House just in time for Halloween. This 2001 film profiles Trinity Church of Cedar Hill, Texas, which has put on the ultimate Halloween haunted house since 1991. This "haunted" house, which the church itself has dubbed Hell House, is really a series of short vignettes depicting various symptoms of a fallen world: gang violence, drug dealing, homosexuality, rape, abortion, suicide, and even a full-on rave party complete with demon-faced DJ spinnin' the platters.
I was ambivalent about the whole idea of hell houses since I first heard that a church in Denver was selling kits so that other churches could put on their own "outreach" events. After watching this film, I'm ambivalent no more.
Where to begin? Set aside the really bad acting in these vignettes. (All the "cast members" seem to mistake emoting for acting.) Or the unintentional comic moments, such as when, as opening time looms, the stage manager realizes that a prop knife is not in the suicide scene, where it belongs, but rather in, of all places, the hell vignette. He promptly gets on his radio and says, "Tim, could you please go to hell for me ..."
No, what first bothered me was the fact that not a single person at this large church auditioned for the role of Jesus or an angel. After the casting sheet is posted, we see kids saying gleefully, "I get to be abortion girl!" Or teen guys saying, "We get to be rapists!" There's also suicide girl, pedophile, adulteress, homosexual man dying of AIDS, and numerous demons, to name a few. Oh yeah, and the rave DJ. One kid is heard saying he's happy he got the rave scene "because you get to dance."
And then, finally, in the last room, the variously amused, bemused, or scared-witless people who paid $7 for the pleasure are told that they must immediately make a decision to allow Jesus to forgive their sins -- complete with a countdown: "Decide now, folks ... six, five, four ... or forever know the consequences ... two, one ... okay, leave now." No invitation to attend the church, no choice to get to know more about Jesus, to better understand Christianity -- no nothing other than a sense that you've lost your final chance. (The few people who do decide are led into another room, where church members await to pray with them. There's no way of knowing, based just on this film, if there's any kind of follow-up or discipling afterwards.)
Then there is the whole "theology" behind the hell house phenomenon. An entire book could be written about people deciding to become Christian solely as "fire insurance." To be sure, Jesus often warned of hell. But note that in these instances, it is God himself condemning the people to hell. In Hell House, it is demons, often seen taunting and then dragging off sinners amid much thrashing and emoting.
And that leads to the biggest problem with Hell House and its many progeny: It gives an exaggerated and, in a way, false sense of what gets a person eternally damned. It's not just the "big" sins depicted here; it's the subtle pride that leads a person to say, "Well, I haven't murdered or raped anyone, I don't do drugs, and I've never cheated on my spouse, so I guess I'm okay." It's the petty backbiting, gossip, self-centeredness, and the everyday being ourselves that condemns sinners. As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce, There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it.
Short of knowing that we are desperate sinners in our everyday state and consciously choosing to agree with Jesus' sentence and while accepting his forgiveness -- that's the literal meaning of "believed in his name" in John 1:12 -- will we escape the just sentence awaiting all sinners.
Hell House, unfortunately, makes it easy to miss this most basic message of the Gospel.
And I'm too poor to be a metrosexual.
Part of my job is to attend conferences for 20-somethings. It's a humbling experience for a balding 30-something. Everybody there looks so cool; especially their stylishly disheveled hair. I don't even have a soul-patch. But according to Carl Trueman, that may be a good thing.
In his Reformation 21 blog "To Baldly Go," Trueman says that aging ministers to 20-somethings are way too interested in cool, and put too much emphasis on being culturally relevant. [W]hat is it with ministers and Christian leaders who seem to feel a compulsive need to talk about youth culture all the time and to adopt the styles of self-obsessed teenagers in order to demonstrate how 'relevant' their ministries are and how hidebound everybody else’s are? Above all, the arrival among the forty-somethings of the soul patch, that absurdly redundant tuft of hair just below the bottom lip, says it all. That middle-aged ministers think that they are somehow culturally more attuned or useful because they lecture their peers about what kids do or do not believe, and because they adopt the aesthetics and style of the modern metrosexual is a bizarre and sad turn of events.
So 20-something ministers should deprioritize cool. What then? The priority of the minister is not to be hip or cool. It is not even to 'connect with the kids.' It is to immerse himself in the word, to know the gospel inside out, and to communicate that gospel with care, clarity, love, and force. ... Let's hope that the hairstyles of the forty-something clergy with soul patches are not sacramental: outward signs of inward spiritual realities. As to my brothers who are follicle-challenged but who faithfully study, pray and preach the gospel week by week; Be bald, be strong, for the Lord your God is with you.
Good stuff. And I'm glad it's the prioritization Trueman's primarily concerned with. Surely he thinks it's OK to know the gospel well, preach it with clarity and use Rogain and love shopping at H&M. I hope so. =)
 This time last year we were debating on the Line about the merits of participating in Halloween. In addition to commentary about the slutty and grotesque nature of current costumes -- even for small children -- we went back and forth about trick-or-treating vs. staying home.
This year we're going to branch out (after getting candy, preferably chocolate, from our closest neighbors, of course) and attend a Reformation Day celebration at Motte's church. Should be fun. The kids are excited about it and I'm eager to learn more about the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Door at Wittenberg.
What's everyone else planning for Wednesday?
A couple of weeks ago, Ann Coulter appeared on a CNBC talk show and got herself into trouble for what she said. Shocking.
I don't often watch or listen to Coulter, but I've heard enough about her to know that some of what she says is either extreme or can be taken out of context to seem that way. Her latest trouble-causing statement was about how Christians are "perfected Jews." (She also went on about how some interracial couples have a chip on their shoulder, which I thought was a bit ridiculous, but that's for another blog post.) Donny Deutsch, the host of the show, was immediately offended and began arguing with Coulter about the meaning of her statement and the supposed absurdity of saying that everyone should be Christians.
After reading through the transcript of the interview, I have some thoughts. And I'm sure you're all dying to hear them. ;-)
I understand what Coulter was trying to say. Evangelical Christians do believe that Jesus is the only means by which we can be saved -- He is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except by Him. Christians are people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah the Jews have been waiting for -- He fulfilled the law, and our salvation comes through Him. As I've blogged about before, I love knowing more about the Hebrew understanding of the Bible, because I think it helps us understand Jesus and who He was, much better. I believe a true Christian is someone who has accepted God's grace and understood God's plan for salvation, which was started with the Jewish people. So, I understand that Coulter was trying to get this point across. And after reading the transcript, I see that Deutsch heard the phrase "perfected Jews," was immediately offended and wouldn't listen to anything she was trying to say after that. Deutsch heard something he didn't like, and immediately flew off the handle.
However, I honestly believe that Coulter needs to be more careful with what she's saying. If Coulter is claiming Christianity, than she needs to be concerned with representing Christ well. She's made some off-color comments before about political candidates and people groups, and some of those comments should not be repeated. Whether they have been taken out of context or not, some things are just plain rude and hateful and shouldn't be said. I'm sure much of what she says is to start controversy -- it's part of the what has made her famous. But when you are defending Christianity and its beliefs, I would recommend taking a different approach -- one that doesn't make everyone think you're a cruel, and your faith ridiculous.
Del Tackett, creator of The Truth Project, talks about the importance of Christians being winsome in their approach. We are not to back down from the truth, but we are to share it in a way that is full of grace. Personally, I've learned that the best way to share my opinion with someone and to convince them that I have something worth believing, is to listen to them, ask questions, share my thoughts and be polite. It's not that difficult of a concept, but some people seem to have a hard time putting it into practice.
What are some positive examples of ways you all have found to share your beliefs with those around you?
I love December -- snow, Christmas and blockbuster films. This year it's The Golden Compass, the first in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, a story many are comparing to the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and J.K. Rowling. He even hails from Oxford.
In Shedding Light on His Dark Materials, author Kurt Bruner writes: Unlike Tolkien's works of Christian imagination or Rowling's relatively innocent fun, many of Pullman's spiritual undercurrents run in direct opposition to the God of Christianity.
Some have gone so far as to call Pullman "the most dangerous author in Britain" because his trilogy presents a universe in which rebellion against a tyrannical "Authority" is encouraged, the church is depicted as an oppressive institution that suppresses truth and freedom, and "his dark materials" (a concept borrowed from Milton's Paradise Lost, regarding Satan's rebellion) open our eyes to the "truth" that we came into existence out of our own energy rather than being created by some illegitimate, decrepit deity.
Though Pullman lives in Oxford, "he has never achieved the scholarly merits or academic status of either [Tolkien or Lewis]," writes Bruner, though "he did teach part-time for several years at Oxford's Westminster College before dedicating himself to writing full-time. So while only on the fringe of the academy, Pullman's imagination has flourished in the city many consider the capital of fantasy literature. And it shows. His brilliant craftsmanship betrays a love for some of the most influential British authors of all time."
An article in the Washington Times focuses on the concerns of Catholic blogger Mark Shea: Pullman's a zealous atheist, so you get what you pay for. Unlike [J.K.] Rowling, Pullman is not subtle. He states in interviews that he is writing an anti-Narnia series."
"What Pullman wants to do is proselytize for atheism," said Mr. Shea. "Pullman is writing with an agenda. He's a good writer, what it makes his books even more insidious.
Pullman's not just a good writer, but an award-winning one. The Golden Compass won England's Carnegie Medal and the Guardian Fiction Prize. The American Library Association deemed it a Top Ten Best Book for Young Adults.
The Times article notes that according to Shea, what makes Pullman's books so worrisome is their appeal to the masses, most notably, masses of children. Most atheists promote their ideas through dry academic treatises, said Mr. Shea, "but the masses don't pay attention to that. They pay attention to story and fiction. And this is where Pullman is dangerous — he promotes atheism through children's story.
Come December, in addition to an extra-large bucket of buttery popcorn, you can get a heaping dose of angry anti-God propaganda for children.
One reason it is difficult to trust God with relationships is a lack of confidence or distrust in the opposite sex. Christian singles may be hitting the same barriers to marriage as those with a worldly mindset -- hesitancy to commit, lack of viable choices in partner, a desire to establish wealth and possessions first -- but here's the honest truth: Christians need to have a radically different perspective about the opposite sex, dating and marriage. Consider Corinthians 5:17-19: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
Several months ago, I was stunned by one Boundless Line reader's response to my blog. He said, "It's obvious there's a lot of woundedness here." Each sex feels wounded by the other. Women feel slighted because the men they believe should be asking them out either won't take a risk or seem uninterested in committing to a relationship. Men are frustrated because the women they'd like to get to know either won't give them a chance or send them mix signals. Our first reaction is to blame others. "I'm doing everything right. It's him/her who is holding up the process!"
I recently heard some great advice for getting along with people who naturally irritate you. When this person says something that irritates you, instead of assigning motives (I know she said that to boast or I know he said that to manipulate), pour in as much grace as possible. Choose to be compassionate and look for what is really going on beneath the statement (Maybe she's feeling insecure or maybe he feels I don't trust him). Perhaps your reaction wasn't appropriate or was fueled by your own past hurts.
Focus on the Family promotes the Love and Respect conference. The central idea of these conferences is that women need love and men need respect. This is a breakthrough concept for married couples. However, single men and women are motivated by these same responses. As a woman, are you seeking to respect the single men you know or are you tearing them down (even just in your mind)? As a man, are you looking to care for the women you know or do you cast a suspicious eye on them, afraid they'll get the wrong idea? As singles, we have not been very successful in cultivating an attitude of love and respect. I have experienced a love and respect dynamic in micro-settings, and I believe it's the best start for a healthy, godly relationship.
Part of trusting God with relationships is discerning how He would renew our minds and make us new creations. If we're not seeking this with all our hearts, the ministry of reconciliation -- particularly between the sexes -- will fail. If Christian relationships, and the way we go about them, were radically different from the world, it might send a message to the world about the reconciliation offered in God through Christ.
Sorry to bring you such a downer on the weekend, but did you see this sad story in the Buffalo News by Ken Ilganus? I am 24, live with my parents, can't find work and am floundering in a sea of debt five figures high. I think of myself as ambitious, independent and hardworking. Now I'm dependent, unemployed and sleeping under the same Super Mario ceiling fan that I did when I was 7.
How did this happen? I did what every upstanding citizen is supposed to do. I went to college. I took out loans so I could enroll at Alfred University, a pricey private school. The next year, I transferred to the more finance-friendly University at Buffalo, where I could commute from home and push carts part-time at Home Depot.
...
Upon graduating, I was helplessly launched headfirst into the "real world," equipped with a degree in history and $32,000 in student loans. Before ricocheting back home, I would learn two important lessons: 1) There are no well-paying — let alone paying — jobs for history majors. 2) The real world is really tough.
Desperate times called for desperate measures, and I had no intention of living in a society that was as unfair as this one. To seek a haven devoid of the ruthless 9-to-5 ebb and flow of contemporary America, I moved to Alaska.
As a liberal arts major, I dreamed of making a profound difference in people's lives. Instead, for a year, I lived in Coldfoot, a town north of the Arctic Circle that resembles a Soviet Gulag camp. My job as a tour guide for visitors temporarily alleviated my money woes because it provided room and board, but when the season ended and I moved back home, I was again confronted with the grim realities of debt.
Desperate, I browsed through insurance and bank job descriptions. I had hit an all-time low. Could I surrender my soul for health coverage and a steady income? Could I sacrifice my ideals by falling into line?
Suddenly, living at home didn't seem nearly as degrading as selling out. But sadly, other graduates don't have any choice but to work for temp agencies and retail stores to eke by.
That's the tragedy of student debt: it doesn't just limit what we do, but who we become. Forget volunteering. Forget traveling. Forget trying to improve your country, or yourself. You've got bills to pay, young man.
...
My loan payments can't wait much longer, and soon I must leave home to find work that doesn't compromise my integrity. Although I sometimes wonder what it would be like if I had declared as an accounting major and got a cushy job punching numbers somewhere, I'll take my history major, my debt and my mom's cooking any day of the week.
I agree that education debt is a real pain and that there probably are creative solutions out there somewhere for how we can more affordably educate the next generation, but I can't help but ask a couple of questions:
Why would Ken think a history major would help him land a job lucrative enough to help him quickly vanquish his five figure school debt?
What makes some of today's grads think it's beneath them to take entry-level jobs to pay their bills?
Do you get the sense that Ken's funk might be the result of something more than education financing?
There's a reason we call the twenties "the hungry years."
A good amount of what we believe about relationships is just off. And that includes what we believe about divorce. According to David Popenoe, co-director of Rutgers National Marriage Project, the following are myths:
- Because people learn from their bad experiences, second marriages tend to be more successful than first marriages. Not true.
- Living together before marriage is a good way to reduce the chances of eventually divorcing. Not true.
- Divorce may cause problems for many of the children who are affected by it, but by and large these problems are not long lasting and the children recover relatively quickly. Not true.
- Having a child together will help a couple to improve their marital satisfaction and prevent a divorce. Not true.
- Following divorce, the woman's standard of living plummets by seventy three percent while that of the man's improves by forty two percent. Not true.
- When parents don't get along, children are better off if their parents divorce than if they stay together. Not true.
- Because they are more cautious in entering marital relationships and also have a strong determination to avoid the possibility of divorce, children who grow up in a home broken by divorce tend to have as much success in their own marriages as those from intact homes. Not true.
- Following divorce, the children involved are better off in stepfamilies than in single-parent families. Not true.
- Being very unhappy at certain points in a marriage is a good sign that the marriage will eventually end in divorce. Not true.
- It is usually men who initiate divorce proceedings. Not true.
If you've been divorced, please understand that you have my sympathies. I can't imagine the pain you've experienced, and may still be experiencing. For you, which of these "myths" had you already recognized as such? Do any of these statements strike you as in fact not myths?
If you haven't been divorced, were you surprised by any of these statements? Did you already know, for example, that living together before marriage actually increases your chance for divorce?
We published a TrueU article yesterday which talks about how much television has influenced the way we do politics in the U.S. It's quite amazing, really.
The author, Michael Bauman, first talks about how much time we spend watching TV and how it really has changed our reality into fantasy: In the aftermath of television's conquest of our eyes and of our waking moments, its artificial reality became the measure by which we judge reality itself, much the same way a person standing on an Alpine peak, surrounded by breathtaking beauty on every side, can say something truly ridiculous: "Why, it's as pretty as a post card!" Rather than judging our fantasies by reality, we have reversed the process.
He then goes on to show how much television affects the way we view (get it?!) political candidates. When Nixon and Kennedy debated one another back in the 60s, those who saw the debate on TV thought Kennedy won, but those who listened to it on the radio, though Nixon was the clear victor. Kennedy was younger and good looking, Nixon hadn't shaved and as Bauman puts it he "deprived himself of the presidency of the United States because he looked like the criminal he turned out later to be."
And in today's voting system, we have created politicians who rely on polls and what's popular instead of values and truth: In other words, because it engenders the rule of the telegenic and the aphoristic, tele-politics makes it far easier for the small-minded politician to come to power. The makeup artist has replaced the wise political counselor as the adviser of choice in many campaigns and administrations. Superficial news coverage and political commercials that are little more than verbal drive-by shootings, reduce public policy to a sentence, to half-true truisms. We now vote on the basis of shrunken political ideas so shallow they can fit on a bumper sticker.
Even sound bites from candidates on the news have been dramatically cut. In 2004, the average sound bite was 6 seconds, down from 45 seconds in 1980. We can't sit still for long enough to listen to what people have to say. It's pretty sad.
What do you all think? Do politicians really have anything useful to say -- do any of them really believe anything anymore -- or are they just trying to win elections by flashing smiles and saying the right things in the six seconds alloted to them? And if it is the case that elections are won by those who are pretty, popular and fake, what does that say about us?
Guys -- you're explaining something to your girlfriend, and while her eyes seem uncertain, her nodding is telling you that she understands and agrees. Right?
Wrong.
Apparently, the going research indicates that a woman's nod is different from a man's nod: Body language differs by gender. Men tend to stare as they listen and nod to signify they understand. Women may nod when they don't yet understand to encourage the speaker to keep talking.
So my wife's nodding to me when I was explaining my desire to buy a new keyboard wasn't an expression of her approval? Oops.
HT: Al Mohler
Growing up in an historic part of North Carolina, I remember hearing lots of ghost stories -- about ghosts of Blackbeard the Pirate, about something called "the devil's footprints," about strange lights in a place where a train wreck occurred and more. I was never quite sure how to reconcile those stories with my Christianity. I thought at the time maybe those paranormal activities fit in somehow with the things I had heard about demons and evil spirits.
I haven't thought much about ghosts in a while, but I read in USA Today that one-third of Americans believe in them. If you're a Christian who falls into that one-third, what theological context do you see ghosts in?
I often notice people becoming uptight when we begin discussing the issue of trusting God with relationships. This is because they equate trust in God with passivity. But since when did "trusting God" mean "do nothing?" We're all rather attached to eating, right? But do we sit at home waiting for meals to come to us? No, we work to purchase food. Similarly, if you want the job, you apply for the job. If you want to get involved in your church, you show up at the small group. And if you want to get married, you take initiative with members of the opposite sex by building healthy relationships with them and either pursuing or being open to pursuit.
This doesn't mean just go out and pursue anyone and everyone. From a female perspective, I can say that this is perhaps one of the most odious patterns we observe in single guys. The guy who is clearly not discerning in his choice of date but employs a shotgun approach. One time I turned down a guy's invite to accompany him to a party because I already had plans. Thirty minutes later he called back and asked my roommate to the same party. I'm sure his intentions were pure, but his actions gave the impression that it mattered little to him which girl he took.
However, if you want to get married and the Lord has clearly (or possibly) put a godly woman in your life, do something about it. My friend Jacob is a missionary in Europe. He met Amber when he first moved there three years ago, and their paths continued to cross. One night a group got together to watch a movie, and Jacob looked at Amber sitting next to him on the couch and thought, Why have I never considered her? Wow. She’s a godly woman. They began dating and last month he proposed to her during a team trip to Paris. They'll marry in January.
Women often feel they are completely powerless. But they may not realize that their negative perceptions of the guys who are not asking them out may be keeping those very guys away. One male friend described this attitude as "poison." I had to confront this attitude in myself several years ago: My mom recently asked, "So what are you looking for in a guy these days?"
My reply was, "I'm not sure, but I know what I'm not looking for." This statement reveals a critical attitude that on further consideration I believe is unbecoming of a Christian woman. Regardless of whether these men are potential mates, I should be considering how I can spur them on to love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24). As I allow God to replace judgment and criticism with openness and love, I will be nurturing characteristics valuable in a marriage relationship.
Women, do your very best to be receptive to every guy who shows interest. It doesn't mean you have to say yes to every date. It does mean that you treat men with respect and choose to look for the best in them. It may also mean being open beyond your comfort zone. I'm not talking undisciplined vulnerability here. I'm suggesting Christian women not rely on worldly dating games, such as playing "hard to get." Certainly you will make yourself unattractive if you throw yourself at the guy, but staunchly refusing to ever reciprocate signs of interest may discourage him. These tendencies are often based in pride: It's his job to pursue ME. I deserve to be pursued. What you mean is "I deserve to be pursued in the way I THINK a man should pursue me."
A lot of healing needs to take place between the sexes. I will address this more in my next blog. We should be the aroma of Christ to one another. Trusting God with relationships does not mean sitting at home and never interacting with the opposite sex. It means deliberately walking the straight path, keeping your eyes open to the possibilities.
Several weeks ago Thabiti Anyabwile explored the issue of authority in "Question Authority," an article we bloggged about on The Line. Among the six types of authority he identified, he mentioned "authority in the local church," specifically "pastoral authority."
Now what does that really look like? Are we required to do whatever he asks of us? Are we free to disregard his counsel? The answer to both questions, of course, is "no."
This week Michael Lawrence takes on the difficult topic of pastoral authority in "Obey Your Pastor?" Eye-opening stuff. And especially relevant in light of this month's being recognized as "Clergy Appreciation Month."
Michael asks pointedly, "So do you have to obey your pastor when he says, "You should (or should not) marry him/her"? It all depends."
Depends on what? Hm. Guess you'll have to read the article to figure out what it depends on.
For those of you who don't know, the bloggers of the Boundless Line live in Colorado. And, in case you haven't heard, the Colorado Rockies just happen to be in the World Series.
Suddenly this state has thousands of avid baseball fans who are rushing to the stores to buy as much black and purple gear as possible. I am one of them. The bandwagon is here and I have jumped on and found a seat. (I even get to attend a World Series game on Sunday!) In my defense, I did attend a Rockies game early in the year and cheered for the team even though they were doing poorly. There were about four other people at the game and they all seemed to be cheering for the other team. Oh how times have changed.
There are a couple of awesome things about Rocktober. One of them is that it's practically a miracle that the Rockies have made it this far; they weren't expected to even get a playoff spot, much less sweep their last two series to end up in their first-time appearance at the World Series.
The second thing was brought up by Chuck Colson's BreakPoint commentary today: The Rockies organization is organized on Christian principles, which is pretty cool: That does not mean that the Rockies only sign Christian players. General Manager Dan O'Dowd told USA Today that while he knows "some of the guys who are Christians," he "can't tell you who is and who isn't."
The Rockies' way means "[doing] the best job [they] can to get [the right] people with the right sense of moral values ... " To that end, prospective Rockies are interviewed to see if they are compatible with the Rockies' approach.
Once players join the Rockies, they are put in an environment that reinforces these values: "Quotes from Scripture are posted in the weight room. Chapel service is packed on Sundays. Prayer and fellowship groups each Tuesday are well-attended."
It's refreshing to see a team that puts an emphasis on excelling at things beyond baseball. The organization seems to care for the spiritual wellbeing of its team and the moral implications of how they act. As Colson says: With all the news these days about steroids, cheating, and felony arrests, modern-day pro sports needs a story about the good guys. And athletes need the reminder that it is possible to excel both as a player and as a human being—that character counts.
I agree. So, I'll be cheering for the Rockies for the next few days, but whether or not they win, it's good to know that the leadership knows that our purpose goes beyond baseball.
Go Rockies!
After years of researching relationship statistics, studying principles for godly relationships and analyzing what the opposite sex is thinking (or attempting to), it sometimes seems as if I've reduced dating and marriage to a sterile series of rules and decisions. In recent years, I've veered toward viewing relationships in a depressingly pragmatic way: Find someone with godly character and as little baggage as possible and make a choice to intentionally pursue marriage with that person.
While intentionality is good (and I'll address this more in depth in a future blog), part of me is sad that I've developed such low expectations for romance. I believe this is, in part, due to a misunderstanding of God. Consider the following question: Is God interested in romance or did He create marriage as a pragmatic arrangement?
Yes.
There are some stories in the Bible that seem to hint at God's romantic nature. When Isaac meets Rebekah, for example. Abraham sends his servant to retrieve a wife for his son. And through a strange turn of events (which involves an extensive camel-watering episode), God leads the servant to Rebekah. There's undeniable romance in the conclusion of this tale. Isaac sees Rebekah. Rebekah sees Isaac. Sparks fly. And: Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.
Song of Solomon offers a blush-worthy description of physical attraction. You find bona fide "girl talk" in Ruth. And it's pretty romantic when King David intentionally seeks out the virtuous Abigail after her husband has died. God is clearly into romance. The very scenario of Him sending His Son to be our sacrifice and ultimately our bridegroom speaks of His romantic nature.
Why is it then, that the longer I wait, the more inclined I am to believe I must leave romance out of the mix? Michael Lawrence and I have both downplayed the importance of attraction. Addressing this issue is a fine line, simply because the way the world defines "romance" is different from the committed and sacrificial romantic love advocated by the Creator.
We can be easily tricked into believing attraction is eyes meeting across the room in an electric jolt. When, in actuality, romance is more in line with Boaz hearing of Ruth's outstanding character, noticing her in the field, pouring out special favor on her, protecting her from his men and ultimately becoming her kinsman redeemer. As you can see, the second romantic scenario contains far more substance than the first.
I recently saw a video about Iraqi believers receiving the Bible in their own language for the first time. One woman equated receiving the Bibles to an Iraqi saying that went something like this: "I thought that when I saw my beloved, I would experience the greatest happiness possible. But now that he is here with me, that happiness is exceeded." It's a beautiful picture of romance and so very powerful when you consider this woman's joy at receiving God's Word. God is into romance.
While it's important to guard against worldly, unrealistic standards of romance (Do you think those Seattle doctors are seriously happy anyway?), it is exciting to know that God established romance and celebrates it. Romantic love may appear in ways unanticipated, but at its source it flows from God's character.
I found the one my heart loves. — Song of Solomon 3:4
Dorotholomew* regularly exchanged e-mails with her husband, who's serving in Iraq. But these ones were a bit odd. He was saying that he needed to update some financial matters, and had forgotten his passwords and could she remind him what they were.
She saw no good reason to distrust this e-mail, sent from her husband's Yahoo mail account, and so she forwarded them to him.
Providentially, she received a rare international phone call from her husband within a couple of hours of sending off the e-mail. Dorotholomew and her husband chatted about this and that, and then she asked how the financial matters were panning out. Pause. He knew nothing about that. In fact, he'd been locked out of his Yahoo mail account for a couple of days now.
Panic. And feelings of violation. Someone had been impersonating her husband, using words like "Honey" and "Love" to trick her into giving out financial information. Worse, someone may be in the very process of stealing her financial accounts, along with her identity.
We live in a corrupt world. Unscrupulous people are eager to grow wealthy in dishonorable ways, ways that can destroy others' lives.
I've signed myself and my entire family, including my wife and two baby girls, up for two different identity theft protection services -- LifeLock and Discover's Identity Theft Protection program. While I am cautious to guard financial information and social security numbers, to the point of using a paper shredder for anything that has my last name on it, I'm still aware that there are clever people out there eager to step on me and my family for their gain. So I've gone on a preemptive offense against them.
What are you doing to prevent your identity from being stolen? Do you know anyone whose identity or financial information has been stolen? Is it even a concern for you?
Oh, by the way, my co-worker Dorotholomew was able to cancel all her credit cards and change her passwords before the scammer took advantage of her. Others aren't so lucky.
* not her real name
I love looking at old photos. I try to imagine what was going through people's heads as they posed for photos 25 years ago, 50 years ago, a hundred years ago.
So imagine the thoughts that went through my head when I came upon a collection of photos posted on the Web site of U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. This photo album once belonged to a Nazi officer named Karl Hoecker, a member of Hitler's SS and adjutant to the commander of the Auschwitz death camp. (The photo album was recently donated to the museum by an American who found it in an abandoned building at the end of the war.)
The photos are revealing mostly for what they don't show. No sign of these men's (and women's!) primary occupation: the killing and disposing of tens of thousands of Jews. No, these photos show Hoecker and his comrades relaxing at a vacation lodge that was nestled in the woods near Auschwitz. Sunning themselves on deck chairs. Laughing when caught by a surprise cloudburst. Preparing to go hunting or, more bizarre (and sickening), lighting a Christmas tree as they prepare to celebrate the birth of our Savior.
What were they thinking? Did they have any idea what was going on within a mile or so of their little vacation retreat? Of course they did. After all, the SS Death's Head emblem affixed to their uniforms was surely a reminder of their primary business.
It's easy to think of the Nazis as raving madmen. About our only film footage of Hitler shows him in full rant while speaking to a rally of the faithful. It's easy to think that what happened in Germany was an aberration, an entire society fallen victim to a one-of-a-kind monster who bamboozled them with his rhetoric. That's why I appreciated the film Downfall. (It's in German with English subtitles.) Actor Bruno Ganz studied rare footage and voice recordings of Hitler and, in a stunning performance, captures the real man: the boss who was kind to his secretary, who loved dogs and children, who was often ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the lowly. It makes what Hitler did all the more scary: a pretty ordinary guy in most circumstances was allowed to give full vent to his penchant for evil with the help of an entire nation.
Or watch Conspiracy, a chilling portrayal of the conference where the Nazis formulated their "final solution" for the Jews, all chaired with über-efficiency and politesse by Adolf Eichman, the man for whom Hannah Arendt coined the phrase "the banality of evil."
The photos of SS adjutant Hoecker and his friends show people behaving in perfectly ordinary ways while great horrors took place, under their supervision, on just the other side of the trees. I ask myself, What were they thinking!? in more ways than one.
I often wonder what I would have done had I been a young man in Nazi Germany. Would I have been laughing alongside those SS officers in Hoecker's photo album? The fact that I can't readily answer that question scares me. Scripture tells us, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). The job of civilization is to temper that wickedness. Unfortunately, civilization often fails or, all too often, readily joins in the evil.
That's why it's important never to become sentimental about our fellow man as did men like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His sentimentalism vs. clear-headed realism contributed to another great evil -- the French Revolution.
We are to love our fellow man as our Lord loves him, but we must also be aware that, given free rein, he is capable of great evil. We can never let down our guard. Otherwise, we might find ourselves and our society in photos terribly similar to those in Herr Hoecker's album.
Last week I published an article from an author who was married to a woman. The thing is, the author is a woman.
If you're interested in gaining a heart of compassion for those in the gay lifestyle, if you're wanting to grow in empathy for their struggle, if you'd like to see what our redemptive Lord can do with a broken life given over to sexual sin, check out "Out of Lesbianism."
The Lord is kind and forgiving.
It's official. Marriage makes you fatter.
USAToday.com reports on a study from the Obesity Society comparing weight gain among single and married young adults in their late teens and early 20s. What they found was that getting married adds about 6 to 9 pounds more than singles the same age.
Here's USA Today's lead quip, Young adults might want to change their wedding vows to say they are taking each other "for better or girth."
Funny.
Researchers suggest that single young adults aren't as fat because they're more active, watch less television and have the incentive of maintaining one's appearance for dates. Hmm. Maybe we marrieds should take note. It seems staying active, limiting television and maintaining one's appearance could prove helpful in marriage as well.
My next installment was going to deal with God's perspective on romance, but I'm going to hold off on that. From the comment section of my last blog, it's evident people are interested in this issue of free will versus God's sovereignty in relationships, which Scott Stanley talks about here.
Stanley seemed to play both sides in his discussion, but he concludes that whatever your view on God's sovereignty versus man's free will, you should be careful to avoid the potential relationship pitfalls that accompany each.
Stanley points out someone with a high sovereignty view may believe God will deliver "the one" to his or her doorstep. The resulting mistake might be passivity (e.g. He never asks her out; she never makes an effort to show herself friendly) and waiting for a "burning bush" moment that never arrives.
The freewill person, on the other hand, believes it is up to him to make the best possible choice. And considering there are approximately 1.5 billion women worldwide to evaluate, he will most likely be overwhelmed with choice and be tempted to spend exorbitant time and effort seeking out his soul mate while perhaps never deciding on one.
I resonated with what Stanley says about the freewill person: If I'm the freewill guy, then the error that I might make is that not only should I search and search and search, but God isn't even that invested in who I make the choice about. It doesn't matter a lot who I make the choice about. Because, you know, He's not really thinking at that level of detail about my life.
It's unnerving to think about a God who doesn't care about something I care about so deeply. Stanley suggests a more moderate perspective: If I don't want to believe in the one thing, the one woman, one mate idea, I at least should have a balanced view that it should take a fair amount of my effort and thought. I should be wise about this. There are things I should be paying attention to. And at the same time, I should believe a bit from the sovereignty perspective. This really matters to God not just because He's hoping I really make the right choice, because it somehow fits into His big plan of what He's trying to do.
Something I have found helpful is to look at relationships through the filter of the same biblical worldview that colors other areas of my life. For example, Proverbs 3:5-6 says, "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight." Whether I lean toward total sovereignty or free will, this is a practical step. Trust God at a deep heart level. Don't rely on my own wisdom. Invite God into every area of my life...relationships, singleness, ministry. And He will make my paths straight. That's comforting. However the details are working out, if I'm acknowledging Him, He is making my path straight.
Stanley also employs the path analogy: I want to end by talking to that reader who looks at the disappointing direction their life has taken in the area of relationships and wonders where God is in it all and how they are to face the future. It's so important to realize that God will take whatever path we're on and get the maximum mileage out of us learning on it.
If I am on a straight path where God can teach me and use me, that is the most important thing. As Stanley suggests, I need to be aware of actions or attitudes that may be leading me away from the marriage and family I desire, but there is no need for me to be panicked that I'm on the wrong path.
Writing from one of the biggest porn producing regions in the country, L.A. Times columnist Meghan Daum says that the porn age has lost its sexiness. She writes that "sexiness itself, which is rooted in mystery, has been replaced by the far less interesting -- and less titillating -- 'porniness.'"
"As the Porn Age marches onward," she writes, "it seems only logical that fake sex between fake people will become increasingly humdrum." She explains how it's already driving viewers to boredom: Mainstream entertainment outlets were once forced to treat sexual material with coyness and innuendo; today's characters -- at least those on cable -- can just rip their clothes off and get it on. This is worth watching ... once. After that, it's easy to change the channel and get sucked into a Cold War documentary on the History Channel. And no wonder -- compared to naked bodies, Sputnik seems downright fresh.
Daum writes,"it's human nature to become inured to repeated images of anything, but pornography throws a kink in that assumption because demand for the product seems to increase even as genuine enthusiasm wanes."
This observation is very similar to the one made by C.S. Lewis -- that men and women have an "ever-increasing appetite for ever-decreasing pleasure." Ultimately, images and pleasure lose their "sexiness" when they are severed from the mystery of intimacy that God weaved into marriage. Our culture's current binge on cheap and easy pornography is proving it.
I had my first cup of Starbucks 14 years ago in Washington, D.C. It was a skinny iced latte with a pack of Equal stirred in after the fact. (I didn't learn till a decade later that if you want an iced latte sweet, you have to add the sweetener while the coffee's still hot or it just sits on the bottom of the cup.) I remember wondering what the hype was all about. But like so many coffee lovers, I got hooked -- and eventually moved on to more interesting drinks.
Lately, though, I've been in a bit of a boycott mood. I rarely go to Starbucks anymore and when I do, I get the tall brew of the day, $1.66 at last count. I just can't bear paying over $3.50 for a single cup of flavored coffee. Apparently me staying away because they're overpriced is doing little to hurt the behemoth. Did you know Starbucks has had 14 straight years of growth?
According to a new unauthorized biography of the company, reviewed in the November issue of Fast Company magazine: * Starbucks's closest competitor in the coffeehouse market, Caribou Coffee, is just one-twenty-fifth its size. Every 10 weeks, Starbucks opens as many stores as the total number of Caribou outlets.
* Contrary to popular opinion, Starbucks increases sales at rival nearby coffeehouses.
* The average customer spends $4.05 per visit for coffee; the average fast-food-restaurant visitor spends $4.34 for an entire meal.
* For a cup that costs $3.40, at least 40 cents is profit. When Starbucks bumped the 8-ounce cup off the menu, the 10-ounce "tall" increased profits by 25 cents per cup for only 2 cents of added product.
I like Starbucks' coffee and the coffeehouse environment. But their in-store prices leave me with a bitter aftertaste.
I've recently been thinking a lot about God's participation in my love life. Mostly, I've been wondering to what extent He cares about it. There was a time when I believed that the Lord was carefully preparing and refining my future spouse and orchestrating the exact events that would bring us together. I still want to believe that, but it's a struggle.
Does God really care about who I marry? Is my waiting period part of His plan or just a side-effect of a culture confused about marriage? Is marriage a standard-issue arrangement ordained by God or is He interested in my specific choice? My theology on this will deeply affect the way I view my Heavenly Father and His involvement in my life. It will impact how I go about relationships. It will affect the way I live while I'm waiting.
As I considered my current state of disillusionment with my former view, I thought it would be helpful to consider again some of the basic truths about God's purpose for and involvement in human relationships.
One foundational truth about my singleness is God sees my need. Moments after creation, God takes a personal interest in Adam's lonely state. "It is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18). God did not create humans to live in isolation. He designed us to long for and experience companionship and love. And if He had compassion toward Adam's loneliness, I can trust that He sees and understands mine.
Not only did God see Adam's need; He responded to it in a specific way. "I will make a helper suitable for him" (Gen. 2:18). As a remedy to Adam's loneliness, God created Eve. God designed her to be Adam's helper. It's true that we don't know if "helper suitable for him" was simply talking about Eve's complimentary attributes as a woman. But this declaration seems to show God's detail in providing a perfect match for Adam.
I know a lot of singles who wish they were married. For most of us, these circumstances seem out of our control. It is easier to trust someone when you believe he cares. The Lord is compassionate toward singles. Adam started out as one. It seems a little unfair (to me) that Adam's match materialized almost immediately while mine is slow in coming. But in God's dealings with Adam, we discover two realities: 1. God established marriage as the antidote to a basic human need ("It is not good for the man to be alone"); 2. God was concerned about the individual fit of the relationship ("a helper suitable for him").
For couples who've been dating a year or more, it's as simple as this: Get married or break up. Here's an excerpt from Scott Croft's "From 'Hi' to 'I Do' in a Year" explaining why.
To put it simply, "not acting married before you're married" ... gets exponentially more difficult the longer a pre-marital relationship persists. If ... our goal is to move positively toward God-glorifying lives (rather than simply to "walk the line" by attempting to satisfy our fleshly desires as much as possible without sinning), wisdom and godliness would seem to counsel keeping relationships shorter.
And if you think your circumstance (e.g., long distance relationship, in college, etc.) warrants a longer relationship, Scott provides some compelling reasons why it doesn't matter.
Here's his answer to the "long distance" excuse:
"This argument doesn't really apply to us, because we're in a long-distance relationship."
I think it does, even if the physical circumstances are different. As to emotional intimacy, we live in the age of e-mail, free long distance and unlimited any-time minutes, and cheap flights. It's still really easy to "act married" emotionally, even in a long-distance relationship.
As to physical intimacy, many long-distance couples have told me that because they are not physically close to one another as often, they actually experience more intense physical temptation when they're together. And again, if you believe the stats, long-distance couples don't do any better than others at staying physically pure.
My situation was pretty straight forward -- two singles going to the same church begin dating. Still, I had no intentions to marry six months into the relationship. Thankfully, a mature Christian intervened with a firm but gentle, "Son, that's plenty long enough for you to know whether or not you want to marry her. You need to fish or cut bait."
Maybe your circumstance is different. Or maybe you just need someone you trust to tell you to get married or break up. It worked for me.
Last month I wrote about your online footprint. I never thought about countries having one as well.
Based on statistics provided by Google, Inc., Reuters lists some random keywords and the countries that searched them most. Here are some of the results ,
"Sex" - 1) Egypt 2) India 3) Turkey
"Hangover" - 1) Ireland 2) U.K. 3) U.S.
"Burrito" - 1) U.S. 2) Argentina 3) Canada
"Viagra" - 1) Italy 2) U.K. 3) Germany
"Jihad" - 1) Morocco 2) Indonesia 3) Pakistan
Interestingly, these keywords seem to support certain stereotypes of some countries: Irish like to drink, Americans like to eat, and Italians ... well, you know. But I'm a little confused about the top searches for "sex." I thought the western countries were supposed to be most sex obsessed.
I was just taking a look at the Newsweek article Denise posted on a few days ago, which examined the age-old question: Can money buy happiness? The answer is no, of course. Denise highlighted one reason for this cited in the article -- this issue of overwhelming choice we keep talking about. With increased wealth, comes increased choice. And increased choice does not equal happy.
While those suffering abject poverty experienced greater happiness when boosted into the middle class, a person's sense of well-being varied little between the middle class and the millionaires. In a survey, people were asked to rank their sense of well-being or happiness on a scale of 1 to 7. (One meant "not at all satisfied with my life" and 7 meant "completely satisfied.") Of the American multimillionaires who responded, the average happiness score was 5.8. Pretty good. But consider this: the Inuit of northern Greenland and the cattle-herding Masai of Kenya scored the same happiness quotient.
Harvard University psychologist Daniel Gilbert explains why wealth doesn't satisfy: In an expanding economy, in which former luxuries such as washing machines become necessities, the newly affluent don't feel the same joy in having a machine do the laundry that their grandparents, suddenly freed from washboards, did. They just take the Maytag for granted. "Americans who earn $50,000 per year are much happier than those who earn $10,000 per year," writes Gilbert, "but Americans who earn $5 million per year are not much happier than those who earn $100,000 per year." Another reason is that an expanding paycheck, especially in an expanding economy, produces expanding aspirations and a sense that there is always one more cool thing out there that you absolutely have to have.
Remember the "poor millionaires" of Silicon Valley? Research found that social relationships and enjoyment at work, not cash, play a greater role in personal happiness.
The article closes with an interesting twist that applies directly to young adults: (Curiously, although money doesn't buy happiness, happiness can buy money. Young people who describe themselves as happy typically earn higher incomes, years later, than those who said they were unhappy. It seems that a sense of well-being can make you more productive and more likely to show initiative and other traits that lead to a higher income. Contented people are also more likely to marry and stay married, as well as to be healthy, both of which increase happiness.)
So let's review: Money doesn't buy happiness. Happiness may lead to wealth. True happiness comes from God. Add to that Proverbs 22:4: "Humility and the fear of the LORD bring wealth and honor and life." Bottom line: Seek true contentment that comes from Christ, be wise and leave money to take care of itself.
Is your path to marriage all in God's hands or are you supposed to be playing a big role? That's one of the most common questions we get at Boundless. How you've been approaching God's role in your path may have a lot to do with your theological convictions -- whether you lean more toward a sovereignty or a freewill perspective.
Dr. Scott Stanley, a marriage researcher who grew up Southern Baptist and then became a Presbyterian has spent many years in both traditions and recognizes how Christians can compromise their path to marriage one of two ways -- by either overestimating God's role or overestimating their own.
We captured his thoughts in a bonus piece called Path to Marriage: Predestined or Freewilled. He bases his comments on insights from J.I. Packer's book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. In that book, Packer talks about how our views on freewill or predestination can lead us to errors in evangelism. Stanley's connection from this book to errors in the path to marriage can give you a lot to think about.
How does this perspective strike you? What questions does it spark in you about your path and God's role?
I enjoyed reading this dialogue between The Year of Living Biblically author A.J. Jacobs and Slate religion writer (and professing Christian) Matt Labash. Although, I take issue with Labash's irreverent tone at points, I found the conversation fascinating.
If you recall from my earlier post, Jacobs (a professing agnostic from a Jewish background) spent one year doing his best to follow 700 rules he identified in the Bible. Then he wrote a book about it. From reading this dialogue, it's fairly clear that immersion in Scripture did not leave Jacobs unscathed.
Jacobs addresses a comfort of Christianity that Denise touched on a few days ago: freedom from choice. I also began to see the beauty of freedom from choice. We all love to talk about freedom of choice. But there's something very appealing about limiting your options. After my year was up and my biblically structured life came to a close, I felt unanchored, overwhelmed by choice.
I've recently been more aware of the "anything goes" mentality that pervades culture. While it may appear to be liberation, unlimited choice doesn't actually satisfy. It's chaos, and people are overwhelmed by it. It's true: There is a certain comfort in obeying a set of rules -- especially when they are in your best interest. And though media may exalt "choice," I have not detected a better quality of life for those who answer only to their fleshly desires.
Jacobs also addresses the "deed over creed" mentality he discovered in Jewish tradition. This tradition, he says, emphasizes actions over actual belief in God. But even an agnostic could not bear up under such legalism. The weird thing is, my creed eventually started to catch up to my deeds. I became more spiritual during my year. I couldn't handle the cognitive dissonance. Which is how I ended up calling myself a reverent agnostic. I was praying several times a day, and it gave me a sense of awe.... my prayers helped remind me of the miracle that there is something instead of nothing, of the unlikely fact the world exists at all.
I have not yet read Jacobs' book, but it seems his encounter with the Bible has left a mark. It's not really surprising that the Word would resonate with someone who gives it such a chance. Scripture offers truth to anyone who chooses to engage with it.
Gamblers engaged in unethical practices? Tell me it isn't so.
Turns out that folks at the popular online gambling site Absolute Poker have allegedly been caught cheating their customers.
According to Freakonomics, one of the part-owners of Absolute Poker was allegedly telling a friend, in real time, what the other players' cards were. As a result, that friend had a severely unfair advantage, and was winning money hand over fist from those gullible enough to squander their money there.
Gambling has long been known to attract those who have a bent toward earning money in, ahem, non-traditional ways. So I guess we shouldn't be too surprised when we find out that those in the industry are doing just that.
As one of the Freakonomics commenters said, "I think the REAL lesson here is that gambling in a virtual world is a gamble in and of itself."
After this weekend, I know what it feels like to hold the minority opinion. I participated in an acting workshop where it was clear marriage, faithfulness and sexual propriety -- let alone virginity -- were not virtues. Discussing and/or including immorality was presented as the norm -- and even required -- for the acting community. I found myself wondering how all these opinions, many of which I do not hold, became "the norm."
In this New York Times Blog opinion piece, Stanley Fish considers the offering of documentary filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney: Indoctrinate U. "Indoctrinate U"'s thesis is contained in its title. You may think that universities are places where ideas are explored and evaluated in a spirit of objective inquiry. But in fact, Maloney tells us, they are places of indoctrination where a left-leaning faculty teaches every subject, including chemistry and horticulture, through the prism of race, class and gender; where minorities and women are taught that they are victims of oppression; where admissions policies are racially gerrymandered; where identity-based programs reproduce the patterns of segregation that the left supposedly abhors; where students and faculty who speak against the prevailing orthodoxy are ostracized, disciplined and subjected to sensitivity training; where conservative speakers like Ward Connerly are shouted down; where radical speakers like Ward Churchill are welcomed; where speech codes mandate speech that offends no one; where the faculty preaches diversity but is itself starkly homogeneous with respect to political affiliation; where professors regularly use the classroom as a platform for their political views; where students parrot back the views they know their instructors to hold; where course reading lists are heavy on radical texts and light on texts celebrating the Western tradition; where the American flag is held in suspicion; where military recruiting personnel are either treated rudely or barred from campus; where the default assumption is that anything the United States and Israel do is evil.
You can take a breath now. Fish goes on to point out some of red herrings and fake issues that Maloney creates -- for example, biased reading lists (such lists have always been based on instructor preference, not balance of opinions) -- and yet he admits that Maloney's point about professors using the classroom to tout their own political views is valid.
I haven't seen the documentary, but by this account it seems like Maloney may use some cheap tricks to make a true case. Most recognize that universities increasingly have a liberal slant. And in some cases, this influence is oppressive to those who don't share these views. (Remember this discussion about second-year ob-gyn residents at Yale being required to complete eight weeks of rotations at Planned Parenthood clinics?).
It seems though "Indoctrinate U" may be a case of sloppy journalism, its point is certainly not moot. Any environment that fosters one voice while silencing others is oppressive to those with a minority opinion. This should not be the case in a public learning institution.
HT: The Point
First jobs out of college can be absolutely dull. Mine was. Or at least most of it was. A large part of my day was spent entering data into a DOS system to generate constituent response letters. I used to tell my wife that a chicken could do it if you sprinkled enough feed around the F9 key.
It's just difficult to do well on tasks we find boring. But according to Lifehacker.com, it's a skill worth developing if you want to succeed in life. Whether you're a college student struggling with a boring subject or just starting a job doing nothing but data entry, mastering the mundane matters.
Lifehacker explains why with this quote from a tech recruiter, I'm going to look for consistently high grades, not just high grades in computer science. Why should I, as an employer looking for software developers, care about what grade you got in European History? After all, history is boring. Oh, so, you're saying I should hire you because you don't work very hard when the work is boring? Well, there's boring stuff in programming, too. Every job has its boring moments. And I don't want to hire people that only want to do the fun stuff.
Everybody always wants to do the fun stuff, but it's the menial stuff that defines you, especially Christians. It's sort of like that saying about what you do when nobody's looking. Anyway, Lifehacker has some tips on how to do it and like it.
- Look at the long-term benefit
- Find what you can learn from it
- Think of doing it for someone you love
- Enjoy the interaction with the people
- Think and say something positive
- Gather with passionate people
It seems that number three fits perfectly with Paul's command in Colossians to work "as working for the Lord." All the others could become a natural outflow from it if you get that one right.
Many years ago I was visiting an old high school friend. That evening for dinner his wife, a vegetarian, served us some sort of carrot-asparagus-cauliflower-eggplant soufflé. And while I'm sure it was really healthy, it suffered from one main defect: it contained not a single molecule of meat.
That would not do for two strapping young men like Rob and me -- I, a Marine, he, a lumberjack. We politely picked at the all-vegetable concoction for a bit before Rob stood up and, in an authoritative voice, said, "Honey, Tom and I are going out for a while," whereupon we sped as quickly as possible to the nearest Wendy's and ordered a triple.
That was more than 30 years ago, and yet I find that comical situation replicated in a recent TV commercial for Burger King. A man sits with a fabulously beautiful woman in a froufrou restaurant (and, yes, I realize that's the second time I've used froufrou in a week). He snaps, however, when his meal arrives -- an artfully arranged something-or-other that barely takes up a tenth of the plate's surface.
No, this will not do! The man jumps up and, in a send-up of the 1970s feminist anthem I Am Woman, sings, "I am man, hear me roar/In numbers too big to ignore/And I'm too hungry to settle for chick food." He barges out of the restaurant and, joined by various other manly men, orders a Burger King product so big it comes with instructions for the Heimlich maneuver.
OK, I laughed, and not just at the memory it evoked. The commercial is so over the top in its caricature of men that few can take it seriously. But it's part of a trend presently coursing through the culture: What does it mean to be a man?
It's the topic of everything from scholarly tomes, such as the book Manliness by Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield, to a silly primer on all things testosterone called The Alphabet of Manliness. But these relatively benign depictions of manliness pale in comparison to what can be found on cable networks such as Spike TV ("The First Network for Men") to G4 TV. Neutral fare such as "Star Trek" reruns mingles with "Beer Goggle Theater" and extreme fighting on Spike.
And then there is "The Man Show" on G4, which offers supposedly humorous segments such as "the ins and outs of shopping for porn at your local video store." "The Man Show" also features buxom dancers, called The Juggies, who cavort in bikinis and lingerie on a set that looks suspiciously like a strip club.
Aside from the more grotesque definitions of what it means to be a man found in these examples, I'm struck by the fact that so often they define manliness by what it's not -- that is, not female. (Marketing copy for The Alphabet of Manliness says, "It's so manly, even its sentences don't have periods!")
Where is the confident, positive portrayal of manhood? To my mind, it's pretty wimpy to say what you're not, strong and confident to say what you are. Yes, I realize a lot of this is a joke, but where is the portrayal of a real man, the guy who is not afraid to admit that sometimes he doesn't have it all together, doesn't know what that tool is for and -- gasp! -- he likes quiche? Or to cry? To be the example to and leader of our families, even if we often stumble in the role.
No, I still don't much care for vegetable soufflé, and I still love a big, juicy, medium-rare slab-o-meat at Outback. (My motto: If it doesn't go moo when you cut it, it's overcooked.) I hope, though, in the 30 or so years since that outing that at least one thing has changed about me: that I have become more closely conformed to the image of the Ultimate Man.
I just blogged about a Newsweek article that mentioned that money doesn't buy happiness. The idea behind the "money buys happiness" theory has to do with wealth giving you more options. You can decide between vacationing in Florida or in Austria. You can buy a Mercedes or a BMW. You can eat at a steakhouse or McDonald's. It's up to you.
What has been found, though, is that too many options is paralyzing. When you have so many things to choose from, you don't know which choice is the best. You stress about it and worry that you'll make the wrong decision. When we have so many options, we feel the pressure to make the very best choice.
Honestly, I think this has greatly affected my generation. Those of us who are Americans (or Westerners in general) have been pretty blessed. We don't really know what it's like to suffer, and we don't know what it's like to not have options. Even those among us who are a bit poorer have the option to work hard, earn college scholarships, and get high-paying jobs. It's the American dream.
Where I see the negative aspects of all of our choices is when it comes to choosing a career and a spouse. We can be anything we want to be -- but what exactly should I be? Will I want to be in that career forever? What if something better comes along? When you can major in everything from hotel management to sculpture to Slavic studies, making the "right" decision can be difficult.
The same thing applies when it comes to choosing a husband or wife. We've been influenced by Hollywood, so we expect a perfect romance. We can travel around the world, so what if "the one" just happens to live in Asia -- better not get married until I've traveled the world. What if I marry the wrong man, and then the right one shows up -- I should just wait until I know I've found the perfect person.
I really believe that all of our options have made us afraid to choose. We don't want to make the wrong decision, so we just don't make any at all. But in my opinion (and I'm not excluding myself from this mentality), this is an attitude of fear and failure to trust the Lord.
We want to make wise decisions, but at the same time, we don't want to avoid making a choice. God has called us to go, to work, to marry, to be fruitful, to be in community, to live. Fear of failure means that we can become stagnant -- not doing anything for ourselves, for those around us or for the Lord.
So, basically, I wonder if all of our choices (which we would normally consider a good thing) might not be so great after all. What do you all think?
Well, it's been confirmed by Newsweek, so it must be true: Money doesn't buy happiness.
According to the article, studies have shown that while money does make people happier when it lifts them out of extreme poverty, there isn't that much difference in the happiness levels of the middle class and the extremely wealthy. (Although, I wouldn't be opposed to trying the "extremely wealthy" gig for awhile and letting you know how it turns out. ;-)
One of the things that makes this study interesting is that according to economics, one of the best things that wealth affords you is choice. When you have more money, you have more options. But in reality, the choices in front of us sometimes give us cause for more anxiety than joy: The trouble is, choice is not all it's cracked up to be. Studies show that people like selecting from among maybe half a dozen kinds of pasta at the grocery store but find 27 choices overwhelming, leaving them chronically on edge that they could have chosen a better one than they did. And wants, which are nice to be able to afford, have a bad habit of becoming needs (iPod, anyone?), of which an advertising- and media-saturated culture create endless numbers. Satisfying needs brings less emotional well-being than satisfying wants.
Because so many of us are much more affluent than societies in the past, things that would've been considered luxuries are now commonplace. We may be excited about a nicer car or our new iPod, but that excitement wears off pretty quickly. We've come to expect nice things and wonderful vacations, and when you expect something, you don't get as much joy out of it.
According to the article, what does make people happier is engaging in certain activities or finding meaning in life: If money doesn't buy happiness, what does? Grandma was right when she told you to value health and friends, not money and stuff. Or as Diener and Seligman put it, once your basic needs are met "differences in well-being are less frequently due to income, and are more frequently due to factors such as social relationships and enjoyment at work." Other researchers add fulfillment, a sense that life has meaning, belonging to civic and other groups, and living in a democracy that respects individual rights and the rule of law.
Although it's not explicitly mentioned, I would guess that "a sense that life has meaning" can be related to those of us who believe in a God and a graceful Savior. When life becomes less about making money and more about glorifying Him, our happiness comes from something much deeper than our newest pair of Gucci shoes.
It's good to see articles like this because it reminds me of what's really important. I very easily get caught up in wishing I had more money, and in believing that if I had this or that I would feel more joy. But the truth of the matter is that we can learn to be "content whatever the circumstances." And the happiness and security that comes from knowing the one true God is something that money definitely can't buy.
The top article on Fox News today is disturbing: "Forecast: Sex and Marriage With Robots by 2050." It sounds like the twisted plot of a sci-fi movie, but it's not. This prediction comes from researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands. In his thesis, "Intimate Relationships with Artificial Partners," Levy conjectures that robots will become so human-like in appearance, function and personality that many people will fall in love with them, have sex with them and even marry them.
"It may sound a little weird, but it isn't," Levy said. "Love and sex with robots are inevitable."
I think it's an understatement to say that this strays far from God's plan for sex. Intimate relationships with soulless objects seems founded completely in self-gratification. No children. No bonding between flesh-and-blood marriage partners. No reflection of Christ's covenant with believers. It's sex devoid of God's purpose for it. And yet it seems people will go for this in an attempt to gain happiness. The main benefit of human-robot marriage could be to make people who otherwise could not get married happier, "people who find it hard to form relationships, because they are extremely shy, or have psychological problems, or are just plain ugly or have unpleasant personalities," Levy said. "Of course, such people who completely give up the idea of forming relationships with other people are going to be few and far between, but they will be out there."
I see this only adding to the loneliness and lack of intimacy people feel (not to mention raising a myriad of ethical issues). I've mentioned this verse before, but Jeremiah 2:13 seems to apply here: "My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water." From my perspective, using a robot to fulfill intimacy needs is a broken cistern. Roboticist Ronald Arkin questions how this will affect society: Arkin noted that "if we allow robots to become a part of everyday life and bond with them, we'll have to ask questions about what's going to happen to our social fabric. How will they change humanity and civilization? I don't have any answers, but I think it's something we need to study.
The Netherlands have led the way in other developments that break down the family and society, including gay marriage and euthanasia. It seems they're welcoming another evil practice; I hope someone fights it.
My jaw dropped when I read this lead from WorldNetDaily.com's "'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California." "Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.
WorldNetDaily.com has since inserted the word "effectively" before "banned." But it was so over-the-top I had to check for myself. I read the language in the bill word for word to see if it specifically banned the terms mom, dad, husband and wife, or was written to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms.
It didn't. And it wasn't. But it's possible to see how WorldNetDaily.com and others might infer it from the bill's language.
The new law says a government school cannot have "instructional materials" or school-based "activities" that reflect adversely upon persons because of their gender or sexual orientation. Opponents say that this, in effect, means that schools can ban books or teaching aids which have the terms mom, dad, husband and wife without also having positive references to gay, bisexual and transgender couples or parents.
And as for boys and girls using the same bathrooms and locker rooms, since the California definition of gender "includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior," then boys can use the girls' bathroom or locker room as long as they dress like or identify themselves as girls (I wonder if there is some official registration process for this).
What do you think will happen to public schools in California as a result of this law? Will these warnings prove prophetic or are they just hyperbolic?
As a rebellious teen, I had no use for my father's advice. He was an old, out-of-touch grownup during a time we were being told to trust no one over 30. At the same time, I loved military history and devoured books on the topic, including, when I was about 15, To Hell and Back. No, it's not a Frank Peretti novel. This book contains the memoirs of Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier of World War II, who was awarded every commendation possible, including the Medal of Honor.
In the course of reading this book I came to admire Murphy and the men he fought alongside, which in a sort of literal sense included my father, who was a veteran of the European campaign in World War II. And simply by coming to know a bit about my father's youth -- he has never, to this day, talked about his war experiences -- I suddenly saw him in a new light. I came to admire him immensely. Don't trust anyone over 30? Baloney! These guys were now my heroes!
Unfortunately, we live in an age without heroes. Yeah, we have those spandex-clad guys in comics and on the big screen, and also those guys on NBC who have extraordinary powers and their own TV show, but our storytelling today is notably bereft of old-fashioned heroes, guys who were afraid but went forward to do the right thing despite their fear. In fact, we live in the age of the anti-hero. Perhaps it started with 1953's The Wild One and accelerated with 1955's Rebel Without a Cause. (Others might have their own thoughts on when the anti-hero became popular in Hollywood.) You then had the 1960s' spaghetti westerns and, in the '70s, Dirty Harry and its several sequels (common denominator: Clint Eastwood).
It's gone pretty much downhill since. So that's why I looked forward to the remake of one of my favorite westerns, 3:10 to Yuma. I should have known better. In the original down-on-his luck rancher Dan Evans (Van Heflin) agrees to escort captured desperado Ben Wade (Glenn Ford) to Contention, Ariz., to put him on a train bound for justice, knowing full well that Ben's murderous gang would try to stop him. What follows is every bit as much a psychological thriller as a western shoot-'em-up. But Dan's motivation throughout remains heroic: to bring a murderer to justice and to reap the $200 reward, which will provide enough money to prevent his ranch from being seized by the bank.
The new version follows the same basic story -- with one noticeable difference. Dan, who is shy a leg from a Civil War injury, is motivated primarily to make himself look better in the eyes of his son, who scorns his father for the number of times he has backed down from fighting evil. (Dan's one saving grace to his son is that the boy thinks his dad lost his leg in battle, but it's revealed in the new version that he was shot by one of his own men while retreating.) It's a subtle but important distinctive: doing the dangerous thing to save your family vs. doing the dangerous thing to make yourself look better in front of your family.
In a trenchant blog about Hollywood's treatment of heroes, Barbara Nicolosi says moviemakers today are uncomfortable with the idea of heroes: Hollywood creatives are very often jaded. Because most don't have the example of the Crucified Jesus, they are very suspicious about the idea that people can really do selfless things.
The idea of someone doing something strictly for the benefit of others, despite the risk to himself, is foreign to them. How does this play out in culture? See if she's made a fair judgment: What does a kid look like who has no heroes? Cynical, haughty, suspicious, jaded, irreverent, entitled, self-absorbed.
Does that sound a lot like today's youth culture? Cynicism and irony are prized. Earnestness is mocked, as is reverence. Self-absorbed? Hold on, let me turn off my iPod and save this change to my Facebook page.
So, who needs a hero? I think we all do. Our culture suffers otherwise.
In her latest Boundless Answers column, Candice talks about how to become a writer. Her sound advice includes an encouragement to just sit down and write, to read, to start a blog, and to pray.
Let me add some to her answer:
- Write what you know. And be honest about what you're writing. Readers can discern when you're being phony. A corollary: Use words within your vocabulary.
- Kill your beauties. You might have a few spots in your article that strike you as the height of poetic brilliance. These may have served to spark the idea for the article in the first place. But if they're too distracting from the whole purpose of the article, it might be best to remove them.
- Try to be winsome, conversational, not preachy, engaging.
- Don't rely on clichés, but look for fresh ways to communicate your ideas. Take a look at some of Chesterton's writings -- he had a way of making even the mundane seem fascinating.
- Edit your work, and consider asking someone else to provide you feedback on your work. While God may have inspired you to write something, it's likely that your first (or even second or third) draft isn't ready for publication.
- Balance hope and realism. It may take some time for your work to be published. If you sense the Lord's leading you to share something through your writing, keep at it. It may suffice to publish it on your blog for now. The Lord in His timing may see fit to open bigger doors some day, but be content in seeing it be an encouragement to those few who visit your blog.
- If you're wanting to have something of yours published in a particular magazine, spend time familiarizing yourself with their style and messaging.
- Tell stories. Chuck Colson says it best: "[S]tories well told can communicate truth in a way that didactic 'telling' does not, bypassing intellectual barriers to penetrate straight to the heart. Jesus told parables; earthly stories with a heavenly point. I firmly believe the best writing does the same."
- Be vulnerable, within reason. We'll tend to lend you our ears if we have feelings for you. But don't exceed propriety; beyond a certain point, we just get to feeling uncomfortable with "too much information."
- Don't be cynical. Angst-laden cynicism is self-serving and a chore to read. It's fine for your diary. It's not fine to share with readers. It's not "cool."
- Consider the "take-away" -- what do you want your readers to "take away" from your article after they've read it? You should be able to explain the take-away in a sentence or two.
- Show me, don't tell me. Engage my senses.
- Rather than rely on adverbs and adjectives to add color to your article, use strong verbs.
- Reference specific things in your article, rather than vague categories. Instead of "eating a candy bar," "munch on a Snickers."
- If you are having a hard time writing on a particular subject, consider narrowing your focus. You may be better off, for example, to write about a specific brick than to write about an entire building
Some of you are writers. What would you add (or subtract) from this list?
If true, Ramzi Yousef's conversion is fascinating considering his ambitious plans to kill Americans.
According to the 9/11 Commission report, Yousef was an engineering explosives mastermind who thought his bomb was a failure because it didn't bring down one or both of the World Trade Center buildings. His ambitious plan was to kill tens of thousands of Americans by blowing up one building and have it come down on top of the other. Instead, only six people were killed in the 1993 bombing.
In January 1995, he was plotting to blow up 11 U.S. commercial jets in one day when the liquid explosives he was mixing caught fire in an apartment in Manila, forcing him to evacuate and leave behind his laptop. When it was discovered, it led officials to Pakistan where Yousef was arrested only a month later.
Yousef had ambitious plans for terror against Americans. The Lord graciously led to his capture before that happened. And now it seems the Lord has been gracious to Yousef himself.
It's funny. Sometimes when I'm praying for my unbelieving relatives, I've caught myself thinking, They're too far from the Lord. Will the Lord ever show them his mercy? But the next time I think it, I'll whisper Ramzi Yousef and remember that no one is ever "too far from the Lord."
The Kingdom of Heaven includes people with all sorts of backgrounds. The heaven-bound include sinners who've done drug, who've lied, who've stolen, who've committed sexual sins, who've cursed God ... and who've murdered.
The man who wrote most of the New Testament facilitated -- even encouraged -- the murder of Christians millennia ago. Notorious serial murderers Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy and "Son of Sam" David Berkowitz turned to Christ for salvation, crediting Him for redeeming their catastrophic lives.
And now it appears that Muslim terrorist Ramzi Yousef, responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and nephew of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, has turned to Christ. Amazing if true!
According to this article, "Yousef has shaved his beard, stopped reading the Muslim holy book, the Koran, and now eats pork, which is forbidden in Islam."
True, the man could be lying. As former New York federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said, "It could be sincere. On the other hand, the Prophet Muhammed said war is deceit."
But I'd like to believe that the Lord truly has poured out his incomprehensible mercy on Ramzi Yousef. After all, it wouldn't be against His character to carry out such a unfathomably gracious thing. He saved me, after all, and I'm the worst sinner I know.
I once had the opportunity to sit in a Bedouin tent in the desert as they made coffee, starting with the raw, green coffee beans to finished cup of extra-strong Arabic coffee. The smells that emanated from that goat-hair tent during the process surely are but a small reflection of what heaven will be like.
Upon serving, the Bedouins said that good coffee should be black as the night, as strong as a warrior, and as bitter as marriage. Hmm, I thought. I get the black as night and strong as a warrior part, but where does "bitter" and "marriage" come in? "Ah," my host explained, "Bedouin men are allowed four wives, which means four mothers-in-law."
Which is a good example of how we tend to use coffee to define ourselves. I just saw an item on TV in which a "relationship expert" (whatever that is, and how does one sign up for this in the first place?) told men to take a woman to Starbucks on the first date. If she orders a really complex drink, beware that she's a high-maintenance woman. And women, order your normal drink so the man can get a good idea of what type of person you are.
Can you spell S-H-A-L-L-O-W? But I have to admit that it got me to thinking. The two women in my life, my wife and daughter, have differing tastes in coffee. My wife likes a relatively simple café latte, which, if you know her, pretty well captures her: not really complicated but sweet. My daughter is as unpretentious and plain-spoken as they come, yet she orders a triple froufrou vanilla caramel chai latte with 1/3 powder at 140 degrees with an extra shot of unnecessary stuff. That's as about un-her has you can get.
So, I think this so-called relationship expert needs to go back to the drawing board. Oh, and me? Just give me a cuppa joe, extra strong and black. After all, if you wanted cream and sugar, why'd you order coffee?
 The past month has been busy for me with vacation, trips for work and moving. (I hate moving, by the way.) During one of the weeks I was out of town, I visited my home -- Minnesota. This trip was a bit different for me, though, because my mom recently got remarried and moved to the tiny town of Deer River. 900 people (which I think may be a stretch of the numbers). One stoplight. Bazillions of deer.
I'm originally from Minneapolis, so it was a an interesting experience to spend a few days in Deer River. Much of the conversation in the town revolves around hunting season, what people are doing with their acreage (usually selling it, building on it, or hunting on it), and making playful jokes about Swedish or Finnish heritage. If you live outside of town, you have a tree-lined road leading up to your house. And the inside of your house usually contains a few deer or moose antlers proudly displayed over the fireplace. Put simply: It's very different than the city.
 Although I can't see myself living in such a small town, it was fun to visit and be reminded of God's creativity in creation. Because the area doesn't have many people, the landscape is beautiful. The leaves were changing, and the brilliant reds and golds of the leaves were breathtaking -- something I barely notice as I'm trying to weave my way through traffic in Colorado Springs.
As we know, God shows off His creativity through His people. Some of us love the bustle of city life, and others thrive in the great outdoors. Some people fellowship through meals at trendy downtown restaurants, and others converse over Sunday dinners at the Lutheran church down the road. And in my opinion, all of it is beautiful.
 God has created so many different types of people, and all of them are precious to Him. I am so grateful for the times I have gotten to interact with those who grew up differently than I did -- we all have so much to learn from one another. Whether we enjoy city living or small-town life, God can use everyone to glorify Himself and show off more facets of His nature as they are reflected in us.
We're having some issues sending out this week's Boundless e-newsletter, so let me just go ahead and publish it here. Enjoy!
* * *
After weeks of rehearsals, my church's series of Easter services was finally upon us. I was looking forward to the second song in particular, when dozens of children would storm down the aisles and join in the singing.
It was months later that I realized that a new friend of mine, Glenn Packiam, had a hand in writing that stirring, lyrically-rich song, "My Savior Lives." Since then, I've seen his name at the top of other song sheets in the worship band's repertoire. This is a humble man with a heart for God, a heart for engaging Him and inviting others to do the same.
It was around that time that the Boundless team met with leaders of the young adults ministry at New Life Church here in Colorado Springs. That's how I met Glenn. Over the months we chatted about what young adults find relevant and challenging, and I asked him if he'd write a few articles for Boundless. I'm happy that he agreed to my request.
I have to say that this first article of his, "Change is Local," isn't actually something he wrote specifically for Boundless, but is an excerpt from his recently-published book, Butterfly in Brazil: How Your Life Can Make a World of Difference. In this article Glenn challenges us to question our big dreams, to consider rather the humble act of simple obedience and sharing with those around us what Christ has done in our lives. And if God wants to move us to a position of prominence, say as a nationally-recognized songwriter, He'll do that in His own good time.
Candice Watters wrote this week's second article, "Crash and Burn." It's about a long distance relationship that takes a turn for the worse ... and then the car they're in gets totaled. What's the "burn" in the title all about? Well, that's what happens to their affections for each other as a result. If you're in a long distance relationship, one where you mainly communicate online, you should check out this article.
Our final article is brought to us by Carolyn McCulley. "With Those Who Rejoice" challenges us to resist the urge to grumble and be discontent when good things happen to our friends, things that we've been praying would happen to us. If you've been single for a while, and have friends who have gotten engaged or married, you know what I'm talking about. The thing is, Scripture instructs us to "rejoice with those who rejoice." And though we may not feel like doing so, the rewards for doing so make the efforts for having done so worth it.
This last week I wrote a TrueU article about the path to forgiveness. It's a tough one, let me tell you.
In the article I talk about listening to an old Psalty song (remember him?!) about forgiving 70x7 times. It seemed easy back then, when the biggest offense committed against me was my brother eating the last cookie. But as we grow older, forgiveness can get more serious. It oftentimes involves a lot more than just saying "I forgive you." In fact, it can be quite painful.
One of the things I was reminded of is that forgiveness is another way we can follow the commandments to love the Lord and our neighbor. When we show love to those who have wronged us, we are showing them the love of God. And it's not about whether or not they deserve to be forgiven -- remember we don't deserve that love either.
Another thing I struggled with is what it looks like to "forgive and forget." This is where forgiveness gets a bit tricky for me: I can forgive someone for the wrong they committed against me, but forgetting seems pretty much impossible to do. The hurt feelings and unjustness of a situation do not simply disappear once you've decided to forgive someone. We all know that we need to pardon people because Jesus has asked us to. But does that forgiveness entail being good friends or trusting again? Perhaps.
What do you guys think? Does the amount of restoration depend on the offense committed?
Anyway -- this article doesn't have all the answers, so I would love some thoughts from you guys. Is there someone you need to forgive or something you need to ask forgiveness for? If so, you probably shouldn't put it off -- Psalty wouldn't approve. ;-)
What do airports and Disney World have in common?
They both serve millions of people every year and everyone must stand in line before they can get on a ride.
But if you're like most travelers, you would not equate airports to the "Happiest Place on Earth." Still, MSNBC reports that airports and Disney share more in common than you might first think: Airports and Disney parks operate or coordinate parking and transportation services, restaurants and shops. And both entities employ teams of security, maintenance and custodial personnel. And there's rarely any downtime in the business day.
But while workers (or "cast members") at the Magic Kingdom routinely get high marks for courtesy and customer service, the staff at our nation's airports rarely do. So when the folks at Miami International Airport decided to beef up their service to passengers, they turned to the Disney folks for help.
As a result of their consultations with Disney, some airports are offering free Wi-Fi, greeting travelers with fresh-baked cookies, providing free shuttle rides, controlling the quality of taxi services and even spicing up the dress code. Airport spokesman Greg Chin says travelers will be able to easily identify all those nice employees by their festive Florida-themed shirts with the airport's large palm tree logo on the back. "We're not a theme park," he says, "but we can take some of the Disney magic and put that here at the airport."
As someone who travels a lot, I'm glad to hear airports are beefing up their customer service. It's also a good reminder that courtesy and extra kindness go a long way in any environment. Churches and Christian organizations may have something to learn from Mickey, too.
Copyright 2009 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. The Line and Boundless Line are trademarks of Focus on the Family.
|
Recent Comments