 |
I recently finished reading the Chronicles of Narnia and my Bible study is currently going through the book Heaven by Randy Alcorn. Both have caused me to think a lot about what heaven is and looks like.
While I don't necessarily agree with all that Alcorn says, his thoughts and research have caused me to be a bit more excited about actually going to heaven. That may sound weird, but it's true.
My idea of heaven has always been that it's someplace cloudy, floaty, pristine-y and honestly, kind of boring. For some reason -- I don't know why -- I picture heaven being fairly monochromatic -- all white, all the time (with a couple streets of gold mixed in here and there). I've pictured us sitting around singing praise and worship to the Lord -- it brings new meaning to the song, "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever." Although I know in my head that it will be wonderful spending time with my Creator, I've always felt a bit guilty about wanting my time on earth to last as long as possible before I had to enter heaven's eternal realm.
What I've been learning, though, is that heaven will actually be pretty awesome. And I think it'll look a lot more like earth than we might think. First of all, Revelation 21 talks about how the new Jerusalem descends to earth and God comes to live here with us. The new Jerusalem will be a city -- something that we can understand. We probably won't float around on clouds as we strum harps all day long -- we'll fellowship, work, play, build, laugh and explore. And we'll worship God in all of those ways.
In The Chronicles of Narnia, I loved The Last Battle when the children enter the new Narnia and realize that the Narnia they had known and loved was only a shadow of the real thing. Aslan's real Narnia was similar to the old but it was more, it was better, it was real. Everything they had loved about the old Narnia was simply a small picture of what was to come: The new [Narnia] was a deeper country: every rock and flower and blade of grass looked as if it meant more. I can't describe it any better than that: if ever you get there you will know what I mean. It was the Unicorn who summed up what everyone was feeling. He stamped his right fore-hoof on the ground and neighed, and then he cried: "I have come home at last! This is my real country! I belong here. This is the land I have been looking for all my life, though I never knew it till now. The reason why we loved the old Narnia is that is sometimes looked a little like this. Bree-hee-hee! Come further up, come further in!"
The reason we love some of the good things on this earth is that it sometimes gives us a small glimpse of what is yet to come. And just imagine what this place -- mountains, streams, cities, relationships, light -- will be like when the curse has been lifted and all creation is redeemed!
It makes me excited for heaven's glory and it spurs me on to action so that those I love will be there with me.
In "The Dreaded Company Christmas Party," Camerin Courtney ponders the moments in life that find us uncomfortably without a date. I have a confession to make: Every year starting in about August, I begin stressing out about my company's Christmas party. Yes, August. Why so early, you may ask. It's got nothing to do with the dinner and play we see every year, the what-to-wear dilemma, or even some of the silly traditions a few of our company's VPs put us through. No, it's the date part that puts a knot in my stomach five months prior to the Big Event.
Courtney isn't alone in her stress over holiday singleness. A friend recently confessed to me that she feels more lonely as a single around Christmas than other times of year. And three months ago, I received a text message from my sister, detailing her holiday wish: a boyfriend by Christmas. The holidays can be a difficult time to grapple with singleness. I talked about this a couple of years ago in "Making it a Merry Christmas": Last Christmas, my brother and his wife celebrated Christmas with us, not only in wedded bliss, but expecting their first child. As the older sister, I found myself dwelling on the inequity of the situation. While I felt content with my life in Colorado — great church, good friends, fulfilling job — being around the happy couple made me feel left out and somehow inferior.
Even if you're not playing the comparison game, someone will gladly do it for you. "I'm sure the single thing will come up again this year," my friend Josh recently told me. "I'm hoping to distract them with the fact that my uncle is expecting a child and grandchild in the same month."
Not all of us are fortunate enough to have a tabloid-like family event to divert the attention, and it's demoralizing when relatives not-so-subtly imply that something might be wrong with you because you're, in their opinion, behind others your age. ("After all, you're 26 and unmarried. Aren't you afraid people might start to wonder if you're gay?") Like playing a game of life where your opponent already has the wife, the house and six kids, and you have — the empty car — differences become glaring.
While these feelings are valid, it's unfortunate that the days we've set apart to celebrate Christ's wonderful gift of Himself can become the source of such discontentment. In my situation, I discovered that the comparison game got to me because I wasn't firmly grounded in my primary identity: Child of God. When I considered the source of last year's post-holiday blues, I realized I was letting other people's comments and actions, instead of my position in Christ, inform how I felt about myself. This shouldn't have surprised me. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I didn't have a single quiet time while I was home. I got out of my spiritual routine and became an easy target for Satan's lies.
Giving Jesus the gift of regular devotional time this Christmas season will reap big benefits. It may even make that party a little less scary.
 Any past or current Adventures in Odyssey fans out there? If so, you may have already heard that this month is AIO's 20th birthday. If you go to http://www.whitsend.org/20/ you can join in on the brithday celebration. While you're there, you can sign up for The 12 Days of Christmas iPod Giveaway, where 36 winners will receive an iPod pre-loaded with over 80 hours of Adventures in Odyssey and Radio Theatre audio dramas.
I was surprised to read in an email this morning that those 20 years of Odyssey have vaulted the show to the brink of setting a world record. In March 2008, when Adventures in Odyssey airs its recently-recorded 634th episode, it will become the longest-running weekly drama with a consistent cast of characters. That will push AIO past the classic TV western Gunsmoke, which ended with 633 episodes.
Do you have any birthday greetings we can pass on to the Odyssey team?
There were a lot of great responses to my previous post, Godless Hollywood? and as I re-read it I realize I actually raised two issues: (1) how should Christians in Hollywood behave and (2) what makes a "Christian" movie. Let me tackle the first with this post, and I'll handle the second in an entirely different post.
Some asked, as did I, "How can openly Christian Denzel Washington make films like American Gangster that feature the sex and violence that many decry?" In many ways, the same issues arise in his Oscar-winning performance in Training Day. I haven't seen the former, but I have seen the latter -- and not the edited-for-TV version. In that film, he plays a very bad guy, and it's clear that he's a bad guy. In no way does he glorify the character's actions. It's clear he's a bad guy, and the consequences of his actions are driven home. It seems, from what I've read, that the same is true of American Gangster.
So does participating in a story that drives home a biblical message -- evil might triumph for a time, but good triumphs in the end -- justify the language and violence depicted on the screen? My opinion -- and I stress it's my personal opinion -- is it's up to the actor, just as it's up to the viewer whether to watch it I believe this falls under Christian liberty. If Denzel Washington feels comfortable doing this, I'm not going to question him. My opinion would be different if the film glorified violence, illicit sex and the like. When it's there just to titillate or rub it in our faces, then I believe a Christian has no business being involved on either side of the camera.
Unfortunately, sometimes that's the case. I know a man in Hollywood who is a professing Christian (and I have no reason to doubt his faith) who is involved with shows that feature questionable content and woldviews, including "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "That '70s Show." His rationale? Well, it would be worse if I weren't there. Yeah, but if you're there ostensibly to drain the swamp, have you succeeded if the swamp remains but just has a few less alligators in it? He also says that he's the only Christian some of these people will ever know. But what is their understanding of Christianity if they think there is no real cost as to what you will or won't do in the name of Christ? I try very hard not to judge this man, but I have to shake my head when I listen to him.
Finally, let me close with a personal example. I am presently working on a screenplay, and at least one producer is interested in seeing it. It's about Marines. Having been a Marine grunt for seven years, I know how Marines walk, talk and think, and, trust me, if a mortar round lands a hundred feet away, they don't say, "Golly!" I have wrestled with this as I write. I personally don't use the language you can imagine (there was a time when I did), but most Marines do. Will my story be true if I have my characters acting in ways that are not real, using the equivalent of "golly" when I know full well that's not what they would do? My story overall is built around a clear Christian worldview, but it doesn't hesitate to show evil for what it is. It's a struggle.
Thoughts?
I love songs about the cross of Christ. There is no greater mystery, nothing that inspires more wonder, than the crucifixion of our Lord. It was the greatest act of both love and hate ever portrayed. It's a manifestation of both the stratospheric height of God's mercy and the grimy depth of our sin.
Paul boasted in but one thing: the cross. The hosts of heaven include Jesus' death in their continuous expression of praise, day and night. My sin, as the old hymn goes, not in part but the whole, is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more. We are reconciled to God through the cross of Christ.
You could ponder the cross for a lifetime and never fully explore its depth and significance. It's both simple and complex. It's seen as both foolishness and the pinnacle of wisdom. It illustrates both divine compassion and divine wrath. Christ the all-powerful was crucified in weakness. It's both glorious and shameful. It shows us both God's fierce anger and His lovingkindness.
So if the cross is central to our faith, and will be throughout eternity, why is it so little referenced in the songs we sing at church?
In fact, as Director of Worship Development for Sovereign Grace Ministries Bob Kauflin writes in one of this week's Boundless articles, the cross is crucial in worship. Jesus' atoning work on the cross is our means of access. It makes our worship acceptable. It's the object of our adoration.
If you're a worship leader, please consider what Bob writes in this article. If you're not a worship leader, please take some time to read through it and wrestle with it. I find my faith fueled when I ponder the points of the article. I think yours will be as well.
I watched Dr. Seuss's "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" with my kids last night. It's one of my favorites. In addition to the great narration by Boris Karloff, the clever rhymes and Thurl Ravenscroft's excellent "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch," it's a perfect illustration of successful example evangelism.
We see old Grinch sitting at the top of his mountain bemoaning all the "noise, noise, noise" that is to come Christmas morning from Whos down in Who-ville. He'd endured it for 53 years and he'd had enough. So he set out to crash their party by stealing all their goodies down to the last crumb. And as we all know, that's exactly what he did.
But the Whos were true believers. Instead of wailing about all their lost stuff (as the Grinch had expected) the Whos came out singing praises. And it puzzled the Grinch's puzzler to be sure. At that moment, you can actually see the Holy Spirit speaking to the Grinch's spirit about the true meaning of Christmas, Emmanuel.
The rest is history. The Grinch is saved and with the power of the Holy Spirit, he lifts up a 1,000 pound sleigh full of Who-goodies, returns everything miraculously by sledding down a mountain with a grade of about 70 percent and breaks bread with the very forgiving Whos. I mean, this used to be a guy who nobody would touch with a 39 and half foot poll. Beautiful.
I also like Charlie Brown's conversion in "A Charlie Brown Christmas." This story is about the power of God's Word to save. The whole show Charlie walks around feeling all empty inside when he's supposed to be feeling happy. And then, after enduring his usual beat-down from the Peanuts gang, he yells out to God in desperation, "Is there anyone who can tell me what Christmas is all about?"
Well, God answered. Child evangelist Linus Van Pelt begins quoting Scripture to the ol' block head and what do ya know, Charlie gets it. Like with the Grinch, you can actually see the conversion. And it ends with Charlie skipping off with a big smile on his face and Luke 2:11-12 ringing in his head.
I like the other Christmas specials too, but they seem to have a bit too much Santa and not enough Jesus.
Few have stood so faithfully for the life of the unborn as Congressman Henry Hyde. And now Congressman Hyde, a man full of faith, is standing before his Lord.
Congressman Hyde, who died today at 83, was one of the first leaders I heard in person during my two-year stint as a staffer on Capitol Hill. It was a meeting of one of the Judiciary subcommittees in the House of Representatives and Cong. Hyde was speaking against a bill that would further erode the rights of the unborn. He spoke with deep emotion about the issue, including quoting a passage of literature about a father lamenting the loss of his daughter. It's been 15 years since I worked on Capitol Hill and much of the details are fuzzy. But I'll never forget Hyde, full of emotion, struggling through tears to finish reading that passage. It was no show.
Cong. Patricia Schroeder, as pro-abortion as Cong. Hyde was pro-life, was leading the meeting (at the time, her party was in the majority). She was moved, or appeared to be, but briefly. She quickly redirected the hearing back to the matter at hand -- advancing abortion in America.
I'm not sure what stood out more: his devout belief in the sanctity of life, or her utter disregard for it, and for him. Still, for all her contempt, he was well-liked, and well-respected, by members of both parties during his 32-year career in the House.
I sent him a note that day, letting him know I was deeply moved by his courage and commitment. He never backed down on this issue -- it's his name that represents the prohibition against government funding of abortion. Known as "the Hyde Amendment," it passed in 1976 and has stood in effect ever since.
To my great surprise, he wrote back. I received an official looking congressional note card -- handwritten -- thanking me for writing and for being part of the fight for the unborn. I still have it in a box of old letters and pictures. It's a rare treasure.
That was in June of 1992. The following spring, I was in the Longworth cafeteria getting my lunch and I saw Cong. Hyde eating at a table all by himself. Not being bashful and thinking it's never fun to eat alone, no matter who you are, I went up to him with my tray and asked if I might join him. He graciously invited me to sit down and we ate lunch together. He was nearly done so it wasn't a long lunch. But I do remember the kindness in his face and eyes. We chatted about upcoming plans for the Easter holiday, he mentioned being with his family.
It was hard to imagine someone of his stature and renown dining alone; unattended by numerous aides, without an entourage. But he was that kind of leader: in Washington not for fame or fortune, but to be faithful. He was a statesman.
Just three weeks ago, Congressman Hyde was honored by President Bush as one of eight recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, "the highest civilian award for distinguished Americans" for being a "powerful defender of life" and advocate of a strong national defense. I'm so glad he was still alive to receive it. Like William Wilberforce, he spent his career fighting for the freedom of others. I pray God will raise up leaders to continue his work.
We have a booklet here at Focus on the Family titled, "Should I Get a Divorce? Things You Should Know Before You Call the Attorney." It has a lot of data proving that for most, the grass isn't greener on the other side. Couples who get divorced are generally unhappier, unhealthier and financially poorer.
And the effects of divorce on their children are devastating.
Today, Tim Challies posted a blog by his mother, Barbara Challies, about the "carnage of divorce" as seen in the life of a child of divorce, a young woman named Heather.
Here's an excerpt from Challies' "Tears at Thanksgiving": Every holiday is a time of balancing all the family pushes and pulls for a child of divorce. No matter what uneasy solution a child arrives at, it does not satisfy everyone, and the child herself is ultimately blamed for causing unhappiness. In this case, ongoing pressure is placed on Heather to warmly embrace the woman who willingly displaced Mom when Dad decided to trade her in for a newer model several years ago. Mom was left bitter and potentially destitute -- without even medical insurance; certainly no current skills with which to provide for herself.
Dad goes on to a life of increased wealth as he marries a young, childless woman immersed in the corporate world. Do you challenge Mom about her bitterness? When? How? Do you refuse to acknowledge Dad's new acquisition as a relevant part of your life? When? How? And all this comes to a head at holiday time. You have to make specific choices that externalize your thinking on the matter.
Research shows that nearly two-thirds of young adults of divorced parents have poor relationships with their fathers. This story sort of brings that stat home for us, doesn't it?
Barbara Challies ends her blog with a prayer for her married children to rest in God's sovereignty "in bringing you together." I pray for you, my children, that you will all see with the eyes of eternity -- that through the trials and tribulations of life -- specifically marriage -- you will never have the shade of a doubt that, from all eternity, God planned for you to be with the one you have pledged to be faithful to. Guard your hearts and never allow the slightest strain of, "Well, maybe", or "What if", to enter your minds. Your unconditional commitment to your marriage, based on a total conviction of God's sovereignty in bringing you together, is its greatest strength!
The Focus booklet about divorce begins, "No couple goes into marriage thinking they'll be the ones who won't make it." But sadly, when trouble comes, many start thinking that they married the wrong person. And so begins the doubt and justification that often leads to divorce.
I agree with Barbara. Don't even think it.
Where do you see yourself in 10 years? In a decent job? Married? Maybe with a child or two?
People expect us to go to college to prepare for a career. How many of us are intentional enough, though, to prepare for things that are arguably more significant than bringing home the bacon? How many of us spend time even now studying to be a good spouse and a good parent?
I'm very grateful that I had opportunities to attend university and grad school. My years studying journalism and English and intercultural communication and education and squash have equipped me for the job I'm in now, a job I absolutely love. Those years of preparation have made me competent (some of you may disagree, I admit) to act as editor of Boundless.
During my early years I somehow found myself with a vision for marriage and parenting. And so just as I was preparing for my occupation, I was preparing to become a husband and father. I read books. I listened to audio messages. I listened to Focus on the Family (no, honestly, I did). I observed couples that were doing well with each other and their kids. I was enjoying my single years, but I was also getting ready for the next season of life.
I figured that just as I didn't want to show up at an employer's office unequipped to do the job, I didn't want to show up at the wedding altar unprepared for marriage. And I realized that cramming for either test would be foolish.
One of the goals of Boundless is to cast a vision for marriage and children, and to share what we've learned about how to have a great "next season of life." For some of you, marriage is years off. Some of you may end up serving the Lord unmarried until you go to your reward (a life commended by Scripture). And some of you have already set the date for your wedding (congrats!).
The thing is, just as it was prudent of me to prepare for a career years in advance of accepting the job here with Boundless, I'm thinking that it was wise to prepare years ahead for the season of life that I'm in now. My wife and two daughters (and the tiny tiny baby on its way) are happy that I did.
If a few serious students are good, wouldn't a huge classroom full of students be even better? Unlikely, says Thomas Sowell in Too Many Go to College. In a day when every 18-year-old feels entitled to a college experience, economics Professor Sowell says what's needed isn't more supply, but more demand.
He writes, Wanting to be in college is not the same as wanting an education. Among the other reasons for wanting to be in college is that it is a social scene with large concentrations of people of the same age and the opposite sex.
It is also a place where immaturity is not the handicap that it can be in other places, ranging from home to the workplace. In college immaturity is the norm, accepted not only by peers but even to a large extent by those in charge.
An academic campus can be a refuge from the realities of the world, not only for students but even for members of the faculty. Max Weber referred to some of his fellow academics as "big children in university chairs."
Many students really are there for a good education. Sowell talks about them, too. But it seems they're at the mercy of the goof-offs, ... the negative effect of students who are not serious can be detrimental to the education of those who are. I found this to be true in each of the five colleges and universities where I taught, as well as in each of the three universities from which I received degrees.
I used to try to get a front row seat on the first day of class. Knowing that most professors made their seating charts based on where we landed on day one, I wanted the incentive to pay attention. Maybe I should have paid more attention not just to where I sat, but next to whom.
It's become a matter of faith for many that Hollywood is hopelessly lost. It's a town full of heathen who hate God in general and Christians in particular, people who are determined to make foul movies that drag our culture ever farther into the gutter.
That some people hold this view may sound like an over-the-top caricature, but, trust me, this is a sincerely held view of a lot of Christians. So it's good to see that, despite the many acknowledged problems in Hollywood, there are Christians working in its midst trying to live faithfully and be whatever small witness they can.
In a recent interview in Reader's Digest, Oscar-winner Denzel Washington talks about how his faith sustains him and his marriage of 25 years. "I read the Bible every day. I'm in my second pass-through now, in the Book of John. My pastor told me to start with the New Testament, so I did, maybe two years ago. Worked my way through it, then through the Old Testament. Now I'm back in the New Testament. It's better the second time around."
What gets him through hard times? "You have faith. And discipline as well. You have to work at it. I was just reading today: One day you're going to have to walk with God when you can't understand where he's taking you. Your techniques, skill set and connections won't get you through. So don't try this on your own. ... My faith helps me understand that circumstances don't dictate my happiness, my inner peace."
Denzel is far from the only Christian in Hollywood, too. Act One is the brainchild of Barbara Nicolosi, who, motivated by her faith, started a movement to get Christians to make good movies, not by shunning Hollywood, but by becoming part of it and reforming it from within. (Full disclosure: I'm an Act One alum.) She's been called "a modern day anti-Jonah, passionately crashing the gates of today's Ninevehs -- Los Angeles and New York -- on behalf of an interdenominational campaign to find and train Christian artists to work in the entertainment business."
Anyone who knows Barbara knows she's not one to mince words. She is openly contemptuous of Christians trying to bypass Hollywood and make their own movies their own way. Her contempt arises chiefly because these movies almost uniformly are --to use a technical filmmaking term -- dreck that tells Hollywood that Christians are cheap and uncreative, satisfied with the schlocky and saccharine. She believes --rightly -- that Christians of all people should be creating the best movies.
So what makes a good movie? What makes a movie "Christian" -- or does such a thing even exist? How can openly Christian Denzel Washington make films that feature the sex and violence that many decry? Something to think about -- with more to follow in my next blog.
You know that part on your resume where you claim to have "excellent interpersonal skills"? Well, you'd better be telling the truth. Because companies are going out of their way to make you prove it in the hiring process.
Last week, the AP reported on the importance of the "plays well with others" factor. A resume and a brief job interview can't answer the question that matters most to a new hire's co-workers: Is this person an absolute pain? ... Businesses in fields where jobs are highly coveted -- or just sound like fun -- are stepping up efforts to weed out people who might have the right credentials but the wrong personality.
And to weed out the jerks, companies are holding all day, group interviews where the interviewers grill the candidate in an effort "to rub away fake pleasantness." Rackspace Chief Executive Officer Lanham Napier said, "We'd rather miss a good one than hire a bad one." ... "They're here for nine or 10 hours, " Napier said. "We're not aggressive, but we haven't met a human being yet who has the stamina to [misrepresent themselves to] us all day."
So why does personality trump competence in the hiring process? Because employers know that nobody wants to work with a competent jerk. And according to a study done by the Harvard Business School, the stats bear this out. We found that if someone is strongly disliked, it's almost irrelevant whether or not she is competent; people won't want to work with her anyway. By contrast, if someone is liked, his colleagues will seek out every little bit of competence he has to offer. And this tendency didn't exist only in extreme cases; it was true across the board. Generally speaking, a little extra likability goes a longer way than a little extra competence in making someone desirable to work with.
The problem is, most jerks don't have the gift of self-perception; they don't know they're jerks. If you're just beginning your job search or have had difficulty holding a job, it might be a good idea to humble yourself before some other believers and ask if they've discerned any rough edges that may keep you from getting, or keeping, a job.
Last night I had dinner with my friend who's a mom. The occasion: the celebration of her 8-year-old son receiving the "challenge" spelling list this week. He'd received a perfect score on his spelling pretest and been given a harder list of words. Obviously, Ethan was pretty pumped on school. But in some places, especially poor neighborhoods, kids view school only as a burden. Newsweek looks at the measures some school districts are taking to sell education to these kids. In 2008, New York City school chief Joel Klein plans to use an advertising agency to sell school achievement through a slick multimedia campaign. In January about 15,000 middle-schoolers from high-poverty neighborhoods will be given free cell phones. Through those phones kids will then receive taped—and perhaps even personal—messages from entertainment and sports celebrities reminding them to try their best in class. They'll be able to download "interviews" with well-to-do men and women who work as dentists, technicians, scientists and accountants and who will discuss the way they parlayed school success into financial security. Teachers will also use the phones to remind pupils about upcoming tests or an overdue homework assignment. When individuals or groups of kids improve their attendance, up their grades or display good citizenship in school, they'll be rewarded with free minutes on their phones and tickets to shows and sporting events. Kids who get phones will also be assigned mentors.
The Association of National Advertisers (who obviously have something to gain here) believe the campaign will be successful due to the sheer power of marketing. If kids are buying other messages via advertising -- such as the anti-smoking and drinking ads -- why not sell them on education as well? But some are skeptical of the overall effectiveness of such efforts. Other experts aren't so sure. They say the personal touch—the mentors and advisers—may work better than YouTube videos and text messaging. "When it comes to young people, marketing can only do so much," says Rick Boyko, former chief creative officer for advertising giant Ogilvy & Mather and now a Virginia Commonwealth University communications professor. "These are people who have been marketed to since they day they were born. They are very sophisticated consumers. They'll know that a prerecorded message is just that: prerecorded. That it is not sincere. And it will take them about three seconds to belittle it. Kids don't need commercials. They need dialogue. They need contact. They need good information from people they can trust."
Obviously a mom who takes her son out for a celebratory dinner when he achieves a perfect spelling score does more to motivate a child toward education that a text message that says: "Did u know high school graduates earn an average of $175 more per week than high school dropouts? Get your diploma." It's unfortunate that every child doesn't have the benefit of a supportive, involved parent.
 Why do you live where you do? What drew you there and what would keep you there?
City leaders ask those questions and then do what they can to keep their cities attractive for growth. One approach city leaders have taken according to an article in today's Wall Street Journal is to woo professional singles -- what the writer calls the "brew-latté-and-they-will-come approach." For much of the past decade, business recruiters, cities and urban developers have focused on the "young and restless," the "creative class," and the so-called "yuspie" -- the young urban single professional. Cities, they've said, should capture this so-called "dream demographic" if they wish to inhabit the top tiers of the economic food chain and enjoy the fastest and most sustained growth.
The article goes on, however, to report disappointing results: This focus -- epitomized by Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm's risible "Cool Cities" initiative -- is less successful than advertised. Cincinnati, Baltimore, Cleveland, Newark, Detroit and Memphis have danced to the tune of the hip and the cool, yet largely remain wallflowers in terms of economic and demographic growth.
The writer goes on to say that cities emphasizing great opportunities for single life shouldn't overlook the fact that most singles eventually marry and have children and will want to live somewhere that supports a family lifestyle. Indeed, if you talk with recruiters and developers in the nation's fastest growing regions, you find that the critical ability to lure skilled workers, long term, lies not with bright lights and nightclubs, but with ample economic opportunities, affordable housing and family friendly communities not too distant from work.
For cities seeking to grow, the writer makes the case that "the emphasis should be on retaining young people as they grow up, marry, start families and continue to raise them."
Can cities pull that off? Can they be both single-friendly and family-friendly? Is the place you live the kind of place you would stick around as you move into the family years?
Today is what retailers have dubbed "Cyber Monday," and the Boston Globe reports that online spending could surpass $700 million, a record one-day total. Even Black Friday online spending was up 22 percent from last year. Some companies are even extending "cyber Monday" into "cyber week," hoping to increase sales.
I know I've become a fan of online Christmas shopping. It's easy to shop around for good prices at overstock warehouses, and you don't have to deal with the crowds. Plus, if you're like me and go to a different state for Christmas, you can simply have your gifts mailed ahead and wrap them when you get there. For me, it removes a lot of stress from the holidays.
In light of the shopping season beginning -- and with it the consumerist rush -- I thought this week's Boundless article "How Big Is Your Latte?" was a timely reminder about the tendency to indulge. Author Dave Barshinger suggests: After recognizing the human gluttonous bent, think and act globally. The me-ism of our culture runs so coarsely in our blood that we often miss how selfishly we focus on ourselves. But fixing our eyes on God's love for people all over the world, most of whom have far, far less than you and me, helps us to give up something we don't need so we can redirect our resources of time and money to others with great needs.
Why not look for a way your family can give to others this Christmas? It's not difficult to find many wonderful Christian aide organizations that are providing for the neediest people. And the great news is, most of them are online.
In the midst of cooking, baking, decorating and cleaning, I found a few minutes to read a chapter of Edith Schaeffer's A Way of Seeing. Her perspective on harvest time was fitting for this holiday weekend. She wrote,
Harvesttime is so often synonymous in our minds with Thanksgiving time. It is right that we are meant to gather crops with thankfulness and enjoy the eating of them with an understanding of all that has gone into the beauty and sufficiency of what has been gathered after months of growing time. However, harvesttime can be a time of disappointment also. It is good not to brush aside the disappointing aspects of the harvest -- and just go out and buy sufficient things to load the table for a "harvest festival" or "Thanksgiving dinner" -- without remembering that God intends for the yearly time of harvesting or reaping to jog us into consciousness of the solemn reality and awareness that there is a specific connection between planting and harvesting.Harvesttime is the time to examine ourselves, alone before God...
It's not easy to get time alone with God during the rush of holiday planning and celebrating. But it's worth it to carve out an hour or more to think deeply about the year that is almost passed and to pray about how to spend the one upcoming. Even if looking back brings pain, the principle of the harvest offers hope for the future. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Galatians 6:7). Schaeffer said,
What you choose to do with your days and years and the decisions you make are like the planting of seeds--a reaping time specifically and definitely will follow, the harvest will be seen by you and others. As you act daily in the history of your life, the result of what you are 'sowing' will be the arrival of a moment of time when the 'reaping' will take place.
Each harvest ought to remind us that we will reap what we are sowing. It is both a promise and a warning. ... The beauty of this sowing is that we don't need to wait until next spring, nor even the time for winter wheat's sowing. ... 2 Corinthians 9:6: "But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully." This is true in this life. Today we can bow before the Lord and ask Him to help us in today's sowing, and tomorrow's, that the harvest might be changed.
It's easy in our culture to lose sight of what we're remembering -- what we're celebrating -- on Thanksgiving.
In the midst of garish glitter and premature pictures of Santa; of circular charges to "give thanks for thanksgiving," for a day off, for too much food, for friendships, for new toys and stylish clothes and beautiful homes and fancy cars and strong bodies, it's easy to forget. The Light and the Glory for Children says, During the winter of 1621-22, the Pilgrims entered a "starving time" like the settlers in Jamestown. Plymouth now had thirty-five extra people so the supplies went quickly. They were down to a daily ration of only five kernels of corn apiece. But, as always, they had a choice. They could either give in to bitterness and despair, or they could trust Jesus. They chose Jesus.
The people who came to America before any of this country's bounty was known or even imagined, sacrificed everything -- to the point of death. And then they fasted. Repeatedly they turned to God with fasting and prayer, even as they faced starvation, to seek His guidance and provision.
He was their source and they knew it. And when God sent help -- the Indians -- they recognized the rescue for what it was: God's answer to their prayers. I'm humbled and sobered by their example.
Today isn't a day for generic thanks for unparalleled wealth. It's a day for humility and gratitude to God. He is still our source.
Colossians 1:16-18 exalts Him saying, For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
Oh, that we would never forget. Lord, grant us a heart of gratitude.
Among our American readers celebrating Thanksgiving, who is going to be spending time with the broadest span of ages? Who will be connecting with friends and/or family on the furthest edges of young and old?
In my opinion, it's those bookends that provide the most fodder for giving thanks. Celebrating Thanksgiving in a house filled with both gray hair and young children can provide a healthy balance of wisdom and promise.
 It can give context for:
- How things have gotten better
- What things we've lost
- Where you came from
- What we have to be hopeful about
But it's also a helpful reminder that those of us between 20 and 40 are reaching our prime -- that we're coming up on the collision of vigor and wisdom, passion and reflection. Yes, it's still marked by things like eating at the "kid table" even though you have your master's degree, but it's also marked by those different looks you start to get from both young and old -- looking to see how you're embracing this prime season of life.
It can be a strange and stretching experience, but it's to be expected of those of us approaching our prime -- and it's a good reason to be thankful.
Last week's Boundless article from Matt Kaufman, "Dear Voter," lays the groundwork for a basic understanding of the biblical role of government and how it should affect our vote. Kaufman concedes that though the Bible doesn't necessarily provide a blueprint for governmental responsibility, Scripture is not silent on its primary purpose: protection.
Kaufman begins with Paul's letter to Timothy, In 1 Timothy 2:2, Paul writes that the reason we pray for "kings and all those in authority" is "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." Government is chiefly supposed to play a support role for society: Not to usurp the role of God's other institutions, like the family and the church, but to maintain the basic civil order that enables them to flourish. You can't go about the business of life if you're being terrorized by street gangs or invaded by Visigoths.
We see elsewhere (Proverbs 8:15,16; Romans 13:4) that God established government to make and enforce laws specifically so "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives." Beyond protection, there's no clear mandate for governmental responsibility found in Scripture, even when it comes to the physically poor. Proverbs 29 and Psalm 72 speak of rulers dealing justly with the poor. So the government has some responsibility. But not much. According to the Bible, the needy are to be cared for first by the family, and then the church.
Again, we go to 1 Timothy. 1 Timothy 5:16 says,
"If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need."
Given the government's limited role we see from Scripture, Kaufman argues that a Christian's primary civic responsibility should be to elect officials who make laws consistent with "God's design for the church, the family and the government." Here's another thing I hope we can all agree upon: A government must not undermine other institutions God made for their own good purposes — such as the family and the church. Should the state "help" those institutions, funneling money toward them through various social programs? Again, we can debate that. But surely the state should do no harm. For example, it shouldn't hand condoms to kids behind their parents' backs. It shouldn't distort marriage by treating "domestic partnerships" (heterosexual or homosexual) as its equivalents. These sorts of things violate God's design for the church, the family and the government.
So what criteria will you be using when you cast your vote in 2008?
Switchfoot, David Crowder, Reliant K, Jeff Caylor.
What do these names all have in common? The answer: Christianity Today has recognized them as having released among the best Christian albums of 2007. Jeff's album, Okay, was rated #5, ahead of the others in my paragraph 1 list.
Jeff traveled with the Boundless team to the recent Godblog conference, doing some guest blogging here on The Line. We were roommates during our time there. While winding down for the night, and getting ready for the day in the morning, we'd chat about music and relationships and stuff. Though he's a very proficient songwriter and musician and worship leader, I appreciate his humility and vulnerability. He's a really cool guy, and I'm glad we're co-workers and friends.
You can read CT's original review of Jeff's album, check out Jeff's Web site, listen to the songs, or pick up a copy of the album for yourself at Amazon or CD Baby.
According to this msnbc article, those who identify themselves as moral may become the worst cheats. In the new study, detailed in the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers find that when this line between right and wrong is ambiguous among people who think of themselves as having high moral standards, the do-gooders can become the worst of cheaters.
The results recall the seeming disconnect between the words and actions of folks like televangelist and fraud convict Jim Bakker or admitted meth-buyer Ted Haggard, former president of the National Evangelical Association, an umbrella group representing some 45,000 churches.
"The principle we uncovered is that when faced with a moral decision, those with a strong moral identity choose their fate (for good or for bad) and then the moral identity drives them to pursue that fate to the extreme," said researcher Scott Reynolds of the University of Washington Business School in Seattle. "So it makes sense that this principle would help explain what makes the greatest of saints and the foulest of hypocrites."
According to the study, a person who identifies himself as honest might cheat because he could view cheating as an OK thing to do, justifying the act as a means to a moral end. For example, if I cheat on this test, I will become a doctor and help lots of people. The person is intensely driven by his own perceived morality. But here's an interesting twist: Students who scored high on moral identity and also considered cheating to be morally wrong were the least likely to cheat. In contrast, the worst cheaters were the "moral" students who considered cheating to be an ethically justifiable behavior in certain situations.
So those who believed cheating was wrong and had a strong moral identity were the most honest. In response to the issue of cheating, Scott Reynolds of the University of Washington Business School in Seattle suggested the following: In order to encourage students and managers to forego cheating in exchange for ethical behaviors, Reynolds suggests ethics education. Classes, newsletters and other means of communication should help organizations to communicate which behaviors are morally acceptable and which are not.
My thought is that a newsletter isn't going to change someone's moral compass. Renewing of one's mind will. This study is a good reminder for Christians. Morality alone is easily perverted. True righteousness comes from walking consistently with God and allowing His Word to shape our beliefs on right and wrong.
Some of my time in Jordan was spent talking to various governmental and religious authorities on the state of religious freedom in that Middle Eastern country -- and, indirectly, in the Arab Muslim world in general.
At one briefing, moderated by Senator Aqel Biltaji, a close adviser to Jordan's King Abdullah II, we were told numerous stories of how well Christians and Muslims get along in Jordan and how tolerant Muslims are toward other faiths. Much was made of both "The Amman Message," a response to the radicalism sweeping through certain parts of the Muslim world, as well as "A Common Word," which was issued in response to Pope Benedict XVI's supposed dissing of the Muslim faith during an academic lecture at Regensburg, Germany, in September 2006.
Hana Mitri Shahin, a Christian who is executive director of the King Hussein Foundation, is testament to the fact that women in this predominantly Muslim country can rise to positions of authority. She also made much of the fact that her Muslim husband was very tolerant of her Christian traditions.
Fr. Nabil Haddad, a priest in the Greek Melkite Catholic Church, is founder of the Jordanian Interfaith Coexistence Research Center spoke of his hope to get all faiths to work together to solve common problems, such as combating AIDS.
But after more than two hours of this, I began to feel that, to paraphrase Shakespeare, the gentleman did protest too much. And sure enough, I later met with a man, an evangelical Christian working in Amman, who gave me a completely different story. He said Mrs. Shahin was surely an example to women in Jordan, but he stressed that if her husband demanded it, she would not only have to quit her high-powered job, but she would have to convert to Islam.
And despite official announcements that one is perfectly free to convert from Islam to any other religion, it's really not that simple. A Jordanian's religion is recorded on his birth certificate and passport/travel papers, and it cannot be changed from Muslim to something else even if the person requests it. (Converting from, say, Christianity to Islam carries no such restrictions, though.) Apparently the official position is that once a Muslim, always a Muslim.
I was told also that, despite King Abdullah II's sincere efforts to turn Jordan into a stable, Western-modeled constitutional monarchy, the people of that country actually live within three realities: the official government that is the face of Jordan to the world; the world of sharia law and the mosques; and, still in the 21st century, tribal law mediated by various sheiks. And in that murky reality, it is still possible for a Jordanian to be found guilty of apostasy, despite the government's assurances of freedom of religion. Indeed, Hasan abu Nimah, adviser to Crown Prince El Hassan bin Talal and the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies, admitted that Jordan has excepted itself from certain provisions of the International Declaration of Human Rights, to which it is otherwise a signatory. Those exceptions all deal with freedom of religion.
But the clincher came when an American journalist asked Senator Biltaji if there would be a problem with Christians evangelizing in Jordan. The senator responded, "But why would you want to?" When told that our Lord commands it, the senator became angry, and the tolerance façade fell -- if just for a moment.
And this illustrates a larger truth. Both Christianity and Islam, truly taught, are absolutist religions. They demand total allegiance. But they cannot both be right. Sure, Christians, Muslims, Jews and other theists-at-large can cooperate on many matters; many a Muslim in Jordan has been educated in Baptist-run schools. And, more important, Christians should strive to get along with everyone if at all possible. But we can never forget that, despite some Christians' instincts to lock arms and sing "Kumbaya" with just about anyone who says the right words, we face a religion in Islam that is unwilling to compromise with anyone, and this is true of both the "moderates" such as those found in Jordan as well as Osama bin Laden and his ilk.
How many friends can you really have? Well that depends on what you mean by friend.
Webster's 1828 American Dictionary defines friend as "One who is attached to another by affection; one who entertains for another sentiments of esteem, respect and affection, which lead him to desire his company and to seek to promote his happiness and prosperity..."
You'd be hard pressed to maintain that level of connection with hundreds of interlinked "friends" on Facebook or MySpace. Thankfully you don't have to. Social networking sites seem to be redefining friendship for the digital age.
And why not? If 12 friends are good, why wouldn't 1,200 be better?
Do you like adding friends to your life exponentially? Consider the cost. In "Sorry, You May Have Gone Over Your Limit of Network Friends," Carl Bialik of the Wall Street Journal writes, As users of Facebook, MySpace and other social-networking sites pile up hundreds, even thousands, of "friends," several commentators and news articles have cautioned that there is a natural limit to a friendship circle. They typically cite the so-called Dunbar's number, 150, as a ceiling on our personal contacts.
The question is whether those who keep ties to hundreds of people do so to the detriment of their closest relationships -- defined by Prof[essor] Dunbar as those formed with people you turn to when in severe distress.
For those with websites that announce without feeling, "Jane Doe has 1 friends," take heart. You may be better off than the alternative: ... U.K. researchers ... are looking at the effects of such friend-hoarding. "The cheapness of communication is a double-edged sword," Dr. Reader says. Whereas you might enrich your life with more contacts, the things that are "important for intimate friendships," such as presents, meals and a ride in your car, he says, don't exist.
In lots of churches this past Sunday, praise bands sang, "I am a friend of God, He calls me friend!" In an age where "friends" pile up like so much email, with little real connections to show for it, I hope God's still using the old definition.
In anticipation of next month's release of the film The Golden Compass, Plugged In's Adam Holz spent weeks studying author Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, the series on which the movie is based. His findings are compiled in an article published yesterday.
While the author's motivations certainly include such predictable things as making money and wanting to share a creative story, his ultimate reason for writing the series is more sinister, according to Holz: These three books, along with at least one (and presumably two more) movies, constitute British agnostic Philip Pullman's deliberate attempt to foist his viciously anti-God beliefs upon his audience.
Pullman explains his antipathy toward God by saying: ... if there is a God, and he is as the Christians describe him, then he deserves to be put down and rebelled against.
Elsewhere he explains, "My books are about killing God" and "I am of the Devil's party and know it."
This sentiment makes its way in Pullman's trilogy through sermonettes given by characters in the book (one of whom confesses, "The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all"). The Bride of Christ, the Church, is often the target of the characters' disgust, as Holz writes: Without exception, Pullman characterizes churches and anyone connected to them as agents of wickedness, oppression, torture, murder and malevolence.
So, what? Holz concludes: In the final analysis, Pullman has nothing of substance to offer when it comes to concocting an alternative to the Christian faith he detests so venomously.
While there may be some benefit in reading these books in order to better understand the bleakness of life without God, and the twisted logic that some employ to defend their agnosticism, it's clear that they should not be read for mere pleasure. Those who find themselves enjoying a book bent on diminishing God and His Bride should be terrified that they'd resonate positively with such a diabolical sentiment.
It should go without saying, though I'm afraid that in this world where most Christians don't practice media discernment it has become necessary to say, that parents would be wise to keep their kids away from Pullman's seductive books and the forthcoming movie based on them, The Golden Compass.
 My coworker alerted me to this story. When New York Illustrator Patrick Moberg couldn't get up the nerve to talk to the "woman of his dreams" on the Subway, he created a Web site to find her. It worked — sort of. Judging by their chemistry on this ABC News interview, I predict it won't last.
What about you? Have you ever missed an opportunity to strike up a conversation and regretted it later? With the Internet has come a myriad of new ways to develop relationships of varying degrees. For example, instead of talking to someone at an event, you can simply look them up on Facebook and add them as a "friend." Moberg's quest is extreme (and debatably a publicity stunt), but it's becoming easier for guys (and girls) to cyber-stalk instead of taking real-time risks. This can create confusion (as if relationships aren't perplexing enough). If a guy asks you out as a blog comment, adding a winking emoticon, is he joking, serious or testing the waters?
Evidently, copycat bloggers are taking Moberg's approach to getting the girl: blogging about her instead of talking to her — and then waiting to see what happens. It seems like a cowardly way to go about things. If a girl never responds to an Internet ask-out, it's possible it wasn't rejection — just a miscommunication. Some may view Moberg's actions as romantic; to me, they seem like an afterthought.
Anyone taking the time this week to review the historical details of the American Thanksgiving tradition will likely find the account of Squanto helping the pilgrims survive in their new world.
Something I came across this morning leaves me wondering what else the natives could have taught the pilgrims. An email I get from a guy who calls himself "The Wizard of Ads" included an insight on how some natives viewed education for men.
The email explains that in 1754, the Collected Chiefs of the Indian Nations met to discuss a letter from the College of William & Mary suggesting that they “send twelve of their young men to the college, that they might be taught to read and write.” The Chiefs sent the following reply:
Sirs,
We know that you highly esteem the kind of learning taught in Colleges, and that the Maintenance of our young Men, while with you, would be very expensive to you. We are convinc’d, therefore, that you mean to do us Good by your Proposal; and we thank you heartily. But you, who are wise, must know that different Nations have different Conceptions of things; and you will therefore not take it amiss, if our Ideas of this kind of Education happen not to be the same with yours. We have some experience of it. Several of our Young People were formerly brought up at the colleges of the Northern Provinces; they were instructed in all your sciences; but, when they came back to us they were bad Runners, ignorant of every means of living in the Woods, unable to bear either Cold or Hunger, knew neither how to build a cabin, take a Deer, or kill an Enemy, spoke our Language imperfectly, were therefore neither fit for Hunters, Warriors, nor Counselors; they were totally good for nothing. We are, however, not the less oblig’d by your kind Offer, tho’ we decline accepting it; and, to show our grateful Sense of it, if the Gentlemen of Virginia will send us a Dozen of their Sons, we will take care of their Education; instruct them in all we know, and make Men of them.
Reading this, I couldn't help but think of the various trips I took home throughout my time in college and graduate school. As I learned how to be a productive "knowledge worker," I was reminded hanging out with my dad in the backyard how poorly I had retained the hard skills he had worked to teach me and my brothers -- carpentry, gardening, raising animals, hunting, etc. I realize those skills only go so far when you're living in the suburbs and working an office job, but I do often feel like something is missing from my education.
This Thursday, I'll give thanks for the many benefits of living in the advanced world we live in today, but I'll also be wondering what the natives of the 17th century would have been able to teach me and the other "Knowledge worker pilgrims" of our day.
I'm reading the Chronicles of Narnia right now. Although it may seem nearly sacrilegious to you, I've never actually read all of them before now. Crazy! And as most of you probably already know, they're awesome.
I find the stories engaging, clever and meaningful. Right now I'm reading The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which is pretty good so far. (Although I am kind of sad that Peter and Susan don't get to return to Narnia.) My favorite book has been The Horse and His Boy, which was kind of a surprise since it doesn't even take place in Narnia. However, this book had my favorite moments with Aslan -- I loved how he showed protection and even how he purposely wounded someone in order to teach a lesson.
It's fun to fully experience Narnia as an adult -- to read these stories for entertainment but to also see how powerful God's story of redemption is, even when presented through fantasy novels. Although I know Lewis didn't set out to incorporate the Christian story of God's redemption, the parallels are quite powerful.
So, since I'm guessing most of you have read (and re-read) these stories, let me know which one is your favorite!
"... a stressful home environment really does impact children in many detrimental ways," said Dr. Julia Graber, in response to a study of families of 227 preschool children. The research shows a link between the home life of preschoolers and when they go through puberty.
One report said, What they found was that parental support -- or lack of it -- may partially determine at what age young girls hit puberty. Specifically, young girls with families who were more supportive in preschool years tended to hit puberty later than their counterparts in less supportive family environments.
The researchers are trying, given their evolutionary worldview, to understand why a negative environment would lead to a condition -- early onset of puberty -- that itself leads to other negative health consequences. According to lead study author Bruce Ellis: "In today's world, early puberty in girls is a risk for many things, such as breast cancer, teenage pregnancy and depression," Ellis said. "Effective prevention strategies depend on understanding the factors that speed up puberty."
It's a puzzle for the scientists, given their evolutionary worldview that says we naturally weed out negative traits in an effort to get better and better. This seems to follow an opposite pattern of survival of the fittest. Professor Graber had this to say,
"The body needs to be healthy in order to be pregnant, and stress seems to impact health negatively," she said. "What we're seeing is something that doesn't really fit in terms of what we'd expect."
What does fit is that we're not evolving to a higher state. We're fallen creatures in a fallen world. And sin has negatives consequences. In this case, parents who create a hostile, unsupportive, or unloving environment are likely contributing to the harm of their daughters. I think the more likely conclusion is that the growing interest in the protection of children, especially daughters, is exactly what's needed.
My coworker, Matthew, recently wrote a really great article about the balancing act between legalism and self-indulgence. It'll really make you think.
In the article, Matthew points out that the church as a whole has some problems with being legalistic. And whether or not you are a legalist, research published in the book unChristian show that people recognize legalism in general as a pretty big issue: [A]uthor David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Research Group, talks about young non-Christians' perceptions of modern-day Christianity. His research shows that "[t]he most common message people hear from us is that Christianity is a religion of rules and regulations." So, whether or not they'd use the term legalism, that's how non-Christians, or "outsiders," as Kinnaman refers to them, think of our faith.
As Matthew points out, legalism is a problem because 1) it causes us to think we can earn God's love and 2) it turns us into fake people: When we hold ourselves up to unattainably high standards, we're bound to fail. But when our standard of who's a good Christian and who's not is based almost entirely on our behavior, we're tempted to pretend we're doing better than we really are. We hide behind façades of piety, which our non-Christian counterparts see right through. They hear us say one thing — and then they see us do another. And we lose whatever semblance of credibility we may have had with them.
So, legalism is no good. However, as Matthew points out, many of us have the tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We run from legalism and turn to licentiousness. Many of us say we believe certain things, but our lifestyles show something different. We don't want to be legalistic and just do things because we have to, so we end up doing whatever we want to do, whatever feels good at the time.
Matthew proposes finding a balance between the two. We should pursue personal righteousness because we love the Lord and we want to obey Him. And we also need to accept God's grace and extend it to those caught in sin.
In a couple weeks, Matthew plans to follow up with what this balance might look like in our lives. I'm looking forward to it.
I published an article today talking about my issues with being hospitable. (So many issues, so little time.)
My roommates and I just moved into a new house, which has lots of room. It's great for entertaining, and we're really excited to have people over. Our spacious new place has caused me to think a lot about hospitality lately and what it means to open my house and my life to others: I realize that it's easy to be hospitable during a holiday season when everyone is supposed to feel all thankful and fellowship-y. But opening your home and your life just any old day when you may want to spend time on your own is something different.
But I think it's in this everyday hospitality that we can learn the deeper meaning of the word. God calls us to hospitality — not just in the sense of having people over, but of allowing people in. I think it is when we begin to allow people into our lives — into the messy room or the dirty kitchen, into the good and the bad of our lives, the happy days and the sad times — that we learn the deeper meaning of a hospitable spirit.
I talk about the importance of hospitality to strangers, but also about how it is crucial to be hospitable to those closest to us. For some reason, I find it much easier to be rude and inhospitable to my best friends and family.
I have also noticed that our idea of community and hospitality probably looks a lot different than it did in Jesus' time. Our society has become very individualistic, and because of this, we value our privacy and only show hospitality when we feel like it. This, however, is probably not the biblical way: Hospitality means that we open our lives and our homes to others, and allow them to do the same for us. It's a responsibility we have because we've been called to live in community, to love others as we love ourselves. It means giving up some of our privacy and our time, but gaining a godly perspective and better reflecting His Trinitarian nature.
As we ponder the meaning of a hospitality that involves inviting people into our real lives, do you think this is something you need to work on?
In keeping with my twice-annual blog posts about blog posts about Rob Bell, here's the final in the two-part series for this year. This one's about Pastor Justin Buzzard's blog about Rob Bell's the god's aren't angry tour stop 6 in San Francisco.
Here's how Pastor Buzzard (the best name ever) begins: Rob Bell is an excellent communicator, a very likable guy, and a man whose enthusiastic love for God and others is compelling and contagious. If I were to hang out with Rob, I think I'd really enjoy his company.
Can't you just sense the conjunction "but" coming? It does. Later in his blog, Buzzard writes: But it was here, during Rob's statements on Hebrews, that his message began to concern me. As Rob repeatedly emphasized that through the sacrifice of Jesus God has reconciled and made peace with all things, I began to see that Rob wasn't going to talk about a foundational biblical truth that runs from Genesis 3 straight through to the end of the Bible, the biblical truth which makes the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross both necessary and amazing, the biblical truth that makes the good news of the gospel so good: Sin.
Though Rob spoke articulately and personally about the guilty, shameful, inadequate feelings we all have and the false ways we go about dealing with those feelings, Rob never articulated humanity's sin problem. As Rob told the story of the Bible, he left out a central plotline. He left out a central doctrine. He left out the plotline of the Fall, the doctrine of sin, the tragedy of humanity's severe separation from God due to the distance between God's holiness and our sin.
Buzzard explains that it was at this point in the message where he felt he and Bell read different Bibles. He said that the central message of Bell's "the god's aren't angry" tour seemed to be that God isn't angry at us, and that we're all okay with Him. Because Christ's sacrifice was for all people, automatically, no need for repentance.
Buzzard was gracious in his concerns about Rob Bell's message. He was careful to make clear that he wasn't saying Bell believes this, just that the natural extension of Bell's message could be taken as universalism by non-believers. And universalism is definitely a different gospel.
HT: Tim Challies
I love to cook. For me, it's a joy to put together a good meal for my friends and family.
I've got a good knife, a couple of good cutting boards, a non-stick pad and rolling pin, a stove that has two ovens in it, a deep fryer, a gas grill and a few other gadgets.
But the coolest thing is that I've got a shelf full of good spices. Let's go through it together, shall we? Rubbed sage, parsley flakes, oregano, ground coriander seed, ground cumin, Dalmatian sage leaves, rosemary leaves, liquid smoke, kosher salt, Indian Malabar peppercorns, fennel seed, marjoram leaves, yellow mustard seed, cayenne pepper, chipotle chile pepper, whole cloves, cilantro, herbes de provence, sweet paprika, regular paprika, thyme, ground Mediterranean oregano, vanilla extract, bay leaves, ground nutmeg, whole cardamom, anise seed, dill weed, whole Jamaica allspice, poppy seed, curry powder, crushed red pepper, Mediterranean basil leaves, ground mustard, Stubb's chile-lime spice rub, juniper berries, cumin seed and something in a small Tupperware container that I don't recognize.
In the fridge I've got some aged balsamic vinegar, onions, garlic, cornichons, ginger, capers, lemon juice, Mr. Yoshida's marinade, organic chicken and beef broth, mole sauce, biryani curry paste, tandoori marinade and horseradish. Of course I have some EVOO and sesame oil and ghee and butter to bring the flavors to life.
I was whipping up some homemade chicken noodle soup last night, and it struck me how God conceived of such a variety of foods and spices. He could have provided us one type of nourishment, and bodies that couldn't appreciate flavor. And that would have been all right. But instead, He saw fit to create for our enjoyment a diversity of tastes and textures.
What am I to think of such a powerful God who in His manifold generosity went through all the effort to make our lives not just endurable, but enjoyable? What a kind God; His kindness is witnessed even in the diversity of food He's provided us to enjoy.
Marriage, kids, steady jobs, financial stability, self-sufficiency and other traits of adulthood are increasingly less common for twentysomethings than they were for their parents. As a result, sociologists are asking if a distinct new period of young adulthood has emerged that we should just expect instead of bemoan.
Various books and articles have provided thoughts and observations on this change, but few have effectively connected this change to both spiritual and family formation (two of our favorite issues here at Boundless). Dr. Chris Smith of the University of Notre Dame makes those connections in a new article in Books and Culture a sister publication of Christianity Today (thanks to David Neff, CT editor for clarifying that). Here's a highlight of the connection Dr. Smith makes: A matter related to religious and other beliefs worth pondering concerns emerging adults' social attachments to churches. We have long known that, for a variety of reasons, religious participation for many young people declines significantly when they leave home. Going away to college seems especially likely to kill regular church attendance for most. Historically, marriage and parenthood have then marked the return for many to church and more active faith. Regardless of what one thinks of these facts per se, the following general observation holds. When the space between high school graduation and full adulthood was fairly short, as it was 50 years ago, the length of time spent out of church tended to be rather short. But with the rise of emerging adulthood in recent decades, churches are now looking at 15-year or even 20-year absences by youth from churches between their leaving as teenagers and returning with toddlers—if indeed they ever return.
And these are crucial years in the formation of personal identity, behavioral patterns, and social relationships. Returning to church as full-fledged young adults with children in tow—yet having spent a decade or two forming their assumptions, priorities, and perspectives largely outside of church—they may very well bring to the churches of their choice motives, beliefs, and orientations difficult to make work from the perspective of faithful, orthodox Christianity. The phrase "consumer-oriented" comes to mind. The burden then placed on the tasks of serious Christian formation, education, and discipleship can be weighty. One has to wonder whether such church returnees may not be shaping the church more than the church shapes them.
Dr. Smith closes with some questions worth serious consideration: How does or should American Christianity speak to emerging adults as people and emerging adulthood as a cultural fact? How can the church faithfully speak the gospel to 18- to 30-year-olds? The answer is surely not for the church to fall all over itself to quickly reconstruct its message and practices to somehow become more "relevant" to emerging adults. But oblivious disregard for emerging adulthood and the larger meanings and challenges it raises for church and culture surely won't do either. For starters, American Christians—parents, pastors, seminary professors, counselors, educators, and more—can simply become better informed about the emerging adulthood phenomenon. Most people probably have at least a vague sense that something has changed on the road to full adulthood. But more clearly grasping the social forces generating emerging adulthood, its typical characteristics and concerns, and their implications for a faithful church will require sustained effort. Recently published good scholarship, in particular the books discussed here, provides a very helpful start in that direction. Having engaged and digested their findings, we will be better positioned to carry on the important discussions that emerging adulthood should provoke.
Finally, in considering the challenge of emerging adulthood, another approach that will not do is to project sole blame onto emerging adults themselves or "the culture" as some amorphous Other. If anything, the challenge of emerging adulthood raises hard questions about the extent to which American Christians have bought into the values and commitments of the larger world. How different, really, are American Christians when it comes to assumptions and practices around personal autonomy, money, lifestyle consumerism, self-gratification, and relational commitments? I am not suggesting there are clear and easy answers here. But it is worth remembering that a church that is not much different from the larger culture is going to have little distinctive or helpful to offer that culture when it comes to issues such as those posed by emerging adulthood. By grappling with emerging adulthood, then, we face the opportunity not so much for criticizing and lamenting others as for some good, hard, self-critical reflection and discussion.
I appreciate Dr. Smith's challenge not to just blame emerging adults or "the culture" as I'm often tempted to do. But I also appreciate his call for churches to be distinct from the larger culture in their efforts to serve emerging adults despite the warning from many corners that churches need to parrot the culture if they hope to be seen as relevant. The range of readers within the Boundless community makes this a great place to do some of the "good, hard, self-critical reflection and discussion" Dr. Smith encourages and I look forward to seeing what conversations his article might start.
I've been paying a small bit of attention to the current writer's strike all throughout the entertainment industry. In case you haven't heard, the writers of television shows and movies are on strike in order to change what they think are unfair practices by the companies who buy their scripts. This strike will have a big affect on entertainment as a whole. The late night shows have already felt it -- no new Jay Leno jokes for awhile (is anyone complaining?).
At first I thought the writers were just being babies. I mean, they work in Hollywood, the land of the rich and famous. Did they want more money so they could buy an even bigger Hummer? But writers in Hollywood are not the same as famous Hollywood actors. They write a script and sell it. Their income is not necessarily steady. As one writer puts it: There are long gaps between jobs; no one buys the movie you spent six months writing; you're a sitcom writer and the public's taste favors police procedurals—or vice versa; or you finally get a show on and you're scheduled opposite "American Idol." This is all part of the game, and no one expects it to be any different. The thing that gets you through these fallow periods is the residual.
A residual is paid to an author whenever their work is shown on TV. If their episode is rerun, they get a check. So whenever a network like NBC makes money from the ads that were bought during the show, the writer of the show sees some of that money as well.
The reason the writers are striking has to do with good old technology advancement. Many networks have started to show television shows on the Internet. Because of this, the shows don't get rerun as often. Writers don't see as many residuals. However, the networks are still showing ads during the shows on the Internet. I've watched a program on NBC.com and there are always pauses so that I can learn about Dove's latest product or Geico's fabulous car insurance. But as it is now, the writers of these shows are not getting any residuals from the money the networks are making when they provide the show online.
As Motte just blogged about, some of the future of television seems to be online. If shows aren't on television as much, the writers won't be getting paid as much.
So, what do you all think? Do the writers deserve residuals from the online showings? Or should the network be able to do what they want with a show once they've bought the script from the author?
I like the way Candice handles the topic of premarital kissing in her most recent Boundless Answers column, "He's a Bad Kisser." In short, she says it's not a good idea for reasons we've covered on this blog before, "Physical affection leads to more physical affection all the way to sexual fulfillment." But there's more to it.
Let's consider this portion taken from the young woman's inquiry:
"However, after kissing him, I started getting doubts. He is not a very good kisser. He is not experienced and I find myself not wanting to kiss him."
I'm going out on a limb but it seems that the boyfriend is suffering by comparison here. Meaning the girlfriend has been kissed before. And apparently her previous kiss or kisses clicked in a way that it didn't with him. Sad.
All dating couples who engage in passionate kissing and beyond run the risk of being compared to someone else. They also run the risk of arousing passions with someone not yet their spouse that may adversely affect expectations of passion with the one they end up with.
And even if you do end up with the one with whom you shared your first kisses, it can negatively affect |
