 |
As a new college grad, I had aspirations of a career in advertising. I used to picture myself wearing JoS. A. Bank suits, meeting in glass wall offices storyboarding commercials with imaginary colleagues. But the only marketing jobs available at the time were in sales. And since that reality didn't match my expectations, I settled for waiting tables until I got my big break.
Not an advisable career move.
I languished in restaurants and bars for three years after college. Thankfully, my ambition propelled me onto bigger and better things; things I wouldn't have imagined for myself just a few years earlier. But it took time, hard work, and a luncheon my dad had with a United States Senator's right hand man.
On this week's The Boundless Show, we discuss the many paths people take in their careers and ask, "Are you where you thought you'd be?" I'm not. But I love where I've ended up.
And I'm really excited about our culture segment this week ... and our music. A couple of weeks ago Lisa and Ted got to sit down with Nick Gonzales and Chris Bevins from CCM band Salvador. Both are pastor's kids and provide some keen insight on growing up in the church. It's only part one of a two-part series, so be sure the check back next week.
A word about the music -- it's from their yet-to-be-released album (its name escapes me). Very cool that they gave us a copy and let us share some of it with you before just about anyone else! Let us know what you think of it.
For our The Hungry Years we have Steve Watters voicing a great essay called "Clear the Decks" about making sure your life isn't cluttered with activities that aren't bearing fruit. Steve says you have to be willing to cut those things off so you can grow in other areas. It's a convicting segment.
We round out this week's show with a quandary from The Inbox: A young man and woman want to marry but her parents do not approve. Steve and Candice provide some parent-honoring advice that's sure to give hope for this young couple.
Before I close, I have to give another shout out to Salvador. They are talented, gracious, and it was a real treat to sit down with them. Be sure to visit their Web site for more information about the musicians, their forthcoming CD, and tour dates and locations.
Remember, the best way to get The Boundless Show is via iTunes. If you click the "subscribe" button, you'll be assured of not missing a single show. You can also subscribe via RSS.
I'm enjoying some leftover spinach and chicken curry I made a week ago, and just had to stop and share my experience with you. It really is too good to keep just to myself.
While the saag itself is sublime, the thing that pushes it over the top into rapturous is the condiment accompanying it: mango pickle.
I just don't have words.
That is all.
What does Scripture say about workplace leadership? How can managers and supervisors bring their Sunday faith with them to work on Monday?
Bruce E. Winston, Ph.D., dean for the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship at Regent University, has wrestled for years with these questions and has found a perhaps-unlikely answer in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Specifically, the Beatitudes.
Interestingly, he found that the most common workplace problems were solved by applying the first Beatitude. The second most common issues were resolved by applying the second Beatitude. And so on down the list.
Dr. Winston has written a series, applying these biblical principles to leadership, for Boundless. We published the introduction back in December 2007. Since then, we've seen the roles of humility, empathy, and discipline in workplace leadership.
I'm personally challenged by this series, and am trying to put these principles into practice where I work. I'm eager to see what might happen should others in positions of leadership adopt these principles.
Larry Norman died this week. I remember seeing him on a video with DC Talk singing his classic ballad "Wish We'd All Been Ready." In "Larry Norman: Coffee Shop Evangelist," Susan Perlman tells how a chance encounter with Norman in the early 70s led to her salvation. She approached the rocker to talk about the sticker he was wearing: "Smile. God Loves You." And she ended up hearing about Christ over a cup of coffee. At the end of the conversation, Norman invited Perlman to attend one of his concerts. I accompanied Larry to the concert. His music and its message rocked my heart. He didn't have any of the corny sentimentality I'd associated with Christians. Actually, he was kind of rough around the edges, in a good way. Larry didn't offer pat answers to the hard questions of life; he was real and that resonated with this Jewish girl's desire to know if the rabbis got it wrong and if Jesus really is our Messiah.
Larry was elated when I later came to believe in Jesus. He rejoiced in seeing me serve the Lord these past 37 years through a ministry I helped found, Jews for Jesus. You could say that anyone I've been able to influence for Christ can thank those who influenced me — and that certainly includes Larry Norman.
The 60-year-old Christian music legend died Sunday of heart failure. He is said to have paved the way for artists like Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith. But according to the obituary posted on CT, it was Norman's heart for Jesus -- not his music alone -- that made him a star. Norman, a blonde, long-haired rocker who is often called the father of Christian rock music, was a giant in the Christian music industry, said Chris Willman, senior music writer for Entertainment Weekly.
"His influence outweighed his sales so much that it's comical," Willman said. "He certainly had a heart for evangelism — almost to his detriment, I might say. He really could've been a star if he were singing about something other than Jesus."
Perlman's story shows the depth of Norman's commitment to evangelism -- not only from stage but on a very personal level. Before there was Starbucks, Norman was witnessing over a cup of coffee. Pretty pioneering stuff. I hope that legacy will go forward more than the highs and lows of a groundbreaking music career. Perlman writes: "Thank you, Larry, for bringing your sweet song of salvation to so many."
I was over at Modestly Yours (a blog by Wendy Shalit and other women "who value modesty in its various forms") and read about a contest whose prize is a hope chest. And not just any hope chest, but an "authentic, cedar-lined chest filled with $1000 worth of fantabulous stuff for her future marriage and a $500 contribution toward the big day."
A hope chest -- for those not versed in the custom -- is a chest where a young woman stores things she plans to bring to her future marriage (often linens, clothing and dishware). Wikipedia informs me it is also called a "glory box" in Australia and the United Kingdom.
Contest aside, the blog's author expressed her enthusiasm for the tradition of hope chests: I actually think it a shame this tradition has died out. Many of the happiest couples I know, be they newlywed or not, admit that much of their marital happiness is due to being dedicated to their spouse, even before knowing who their spouse would be. In other words, before marriage (and sometimes even before meeting their future spouse) they would pray for him/her, and certainly they would save themselves sexually for him/her.
Their love for and fidelity to each other did not start upon saying "I do," but was rather developed and strengthened long before then. A hope chest could very easily assist such spousal commitment by orienting a young woman's thoughts and heart in that direction. The more she thinks about her future husband and prepares for life with him, the less likely she will be to get distracted from this goal through casual relationships. Her hope chest would serve as a reminder of her future husband and their life together, thereby strengthening her love and commitment to him.
Although filling a chest with linens and dishware doesn't seem practical to me for our times (most of us no longer sew our own linens or quilts), there are two things I really like about the general idea.
First, it shows intentionality. Young women who packed their hope chests weren't just waiting around for marriage, they were preparing for it.
Second, I love the use of "hope" in this context. It is not just wishing. It is not just dreaming. It is a very biblical definition of hope -- present action in the joy and expectation of a future event.
It got me to thinking. What could a young woman in 2008 do to prepare, and not just wait, for her marriage? What could she put into her "hope chest," even if she doesn't have a big cedar box?
Suzanne's blog referencing Timothy Keller's caution against "brashly" claiming the truths of Christianity to non-believers goes well with an interview I just read of him by First Things. In addition to humbly claiming the truths of Christianity, Keller warns against getting side tracked with non-salvific issues like evolution.
Here he talks about a section in his book, The Reason for God, where he goes into the various problems with different views on creation: I do know that I say in the book, "This is an absolute red herring -- to get mired in this before you look at the certainties of the faith. Because the fact is that real orthodox believers with a high view of Scripture are all over the map on this. I can line up ten really smart people in all those different buckets, which I'll call "theistic evolution," "young-Earth creationism," and let's call it "progressive creationism" or "semi-theistic evolution." There are all these different views. And when you see a lot of smart people disagreeing on this stuff, well ...
How could there have been death before Adam and Eve fell? The answer is, I don't know. But all I know is, didn't animals eat bugs? Didn't bugs eat plants? There must have been death. In other words, when you realize, "Oh wait, this is really complicated," then you realize, "I don't have to figure this out before I figure out is Jesus Christ raised from the dead."
So should we ever debate evolution vs. various forms of creationism with a non-believer? I think so. But we should do it being mindful of the gospel and make sure the non-believer knows they have a much greater problem than explaining how life came from dead chemicals.
Someone sent me a link to this article today. They're talking about it over here. We won't be talking about it here, for c3rtain reasons I can't get into right now.
America has sometimes been compared to Babylon in its indulgence and tolerance for sin. But in a CT essay, Tim Stafford says American culture is more akin to Samaria than Babylon. We live in a culture that does not ignore Christianity but views it with suspicion. The problem is not that my religion is strange. The problem is that my religion is familiar. Like Samaritans and Jews, Christians and non-Christians have a partly shared worldview (our Western traditions, which include the Bible), a shared point of origin (Christendom), and well-defined points of contention (the exclusivity of Christ). We are familiar with what each other believes. We're suspicious of one another. So we start off with a grudge.
Stafford offers an example of the strong reactions religious activities can evoke. This is what happened when a new church in my city applied for a zoning amendment. I expected plans for a small neighborhood church to be met with attitudes somewhere between warmth and indifference. What erupted instead was organized hostility. Residents drew up and circulated petitions. Large crowds turned out at both planning commission and city council meetings. The brief speeches permitted for those opposing the church went on for hours because so many had something to say. Many complained about traffic (on Sunday morning?), safety, and noise. But the underlying sentiment seemed clear: We don't like churches, and we don't want one in our neighborhood. As one man told the planning commission, "I didn't move into this neighborhood in order to have a church within walking distance."
Diversity and tolerance are high societal values, and Christianity -- with its "one way" claims -- naturally grates against that. Tolerance has come to mean affirming others' beliefs as equally valuable and valid -- something believers cannot do. Stafford offers advice from Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, on interacting with Samaria. Keller recognizes that certain language pushes the power-and-superiority button at the heart of the Samaritan grudge. We may know the way, the truth, and the life, but what is gained by announcing it so brashly?
Instead, Keller seeks to repair the grudge by focusing on the distinctiveness of Jesus and Christianity -- the humility and gentleness of Christ. After all, Jesus Himself, humbly interacted with the Samaritan woman and skillfully diffused her combatant comments. Stafford concludes: More than requiring skillful communication, living in Samaria requires patience and love for the long haul. No one can change a grudge by direct assault. You have to outlive it, and look for fresh opportunities to begin anew. You have to love the people on the other side of the grudge.
Jesus clearly did. He honored Samaria for all time when he chose a Samaritan for his parable of neighborliness. (Who do we choose for our illustrations of virtue?) He sent his disciples to Samaria to announce his resurrection (Acts 1:8). Philip the evangelist obeyed and had a great response. "There was great joy in that city" (Acts 8:8).
Which suggests that grudges can be undone.
Have you heard "The Mom Song"? It's comedian Anita Renfroe's ode to motherhood sung cleverly to the William Tell Overture. It's become pretty popular. Popular enough to catch the notice of the New York Times. Evidently, Renfroe's kids encouraged her to post the video on YouTube this summer; then it went viral. By Oct. 1, approximately 1.5 million people had seen the video. By Oct. 19, the number had risen to 8 million; the video had gone viral. "That's pretty impressive until you realize that the guy who eats live locusts has, like, 12 million hits," Renfroe told me. Then a producer from "Good Morning America" called at 5:30 one morning to ask whether the show could run the clip. The song got even bigger when iTunes put the video on its lineup. After that, Renfroe was fending off offers like a Hollywood starlet.
Renfroe, who is a popular speaker at Christian women's conferences, is enjoying recognition outside evangelical circles. It's something that doesn't happen often, as the article points out. Renfroe is also a devout Christian and for about eight years has been slowly building a career as a comedian on the Christian women's circuit. Like Mike Huckabee's easy humor, Renfroe's wit comes as a surprise to nonevangelicals. "I love the way God lets you use everything in your life," she says about her chosen career as a comic. "It's cool how it all comes together."
"I have a good time almost all the time," Renfroe told me. "But I do feel a little bit of pressure." That's understandable given her most important task: proving that being a Christian comedian is not an oxymoron.
As an improv performer and Christian, I have faced this same challenge. My faith has provided interesting conversations with other improv actors who are convinced Christians can't be funny. "You met at church?" they ask wide-eyed when we tell them how our group formed. Still, our art speaks for itself. Renfroe's success reminds me that God can use any person who's willing to use her gift -- no matter how unusual. So, go ahead. Laugh it up. What out-of-the-ordinary means have you discovered for connecting with the culture?
HT: The Point
Okay, admit it: at one time or another you sang a song but messed up the lyrics. Instead of singing the classic hymn "Reign On, O King Eternal," you sang, "Rain on the kinky turtle." Instead of the grand old "Gladly the Cross I'd Bear" you sang, "Gladly, the cross-eyed bear." (And what kid wouldn't want Gladly as a cute pet?)
These misheard words are called "mondegreens," a term coined by Harper's writer Sylvia Wright, who, in a 1954 column, wrote the wrong lyrics to a Scottish ballad she'd learned as a child. Commenting on "The Bonny Earl of Murray," she wrote: They ha'e slain the Earl of Murray,
And Lady Mondegreen
For years Wright was taken by the tragic tale of the good lady who died alongside her liege. The problem is, the real lyrics are: They ha'e slain the Earl of Murray,
And they laid him on the Green.
Upon learning that her fabled lady never existed -- in song or in reality -- Wright coined the word in her honor.
Of course, mondegreens do not have to come from songs. Many a child has prayed for his "jelly bread" or pledged allegiance to the flag of the "Republic of Richard Stans." And one woman I know for years thought really expensive things cost "a nominal egg." (She grew up on Long Island; think about it.)
Classic mondegreens can be found in Credence Clearwater Revival's "Bad Moon on the Rise," which was heard by many to say, "There's a bathroom on the right." Or Jimi Hendrix's line in "Purple Haze": "'scuse me while I kiss the sky," which became, "'scuse me while I kiss this guy."
Or the classic Cuban love song "Guantanamera" became "One Ton Tomato." (Weird Al, are you listening?)
The universal tendency to create mondegreens -– yes, they exist in other languages, too -– I think points to the human mind's desire to create order from disorder. Badly heard words are forced into some semblance of order, no matter how silly. It's the same as staring at the wood grain on a door, the stucco pattern on the ceiling or clouds in the sky; our minds start to see faces or animals in the random patterns. There's a larger theological truth in that, too. We were created by an orderly God in His image, and we crave order in a seriously disordered world.
What are your favorite mondegreens, spoken or sung? Oh, and a hundred Extra-Special Brownie Points to the first person who knows the mondegreen that makes up this post's title.
I'm going to this year's Resolved conference, and am really looking forward to it. It's taking place in Palm Springs from June 13-16.
It's not a "business trip," in that we won't have a booth and aren't a sponsor. It's a time for me, personally, to pause and reflect on the richness of God's character. I'm really looking forward to the expository preaching, the times of worship and the fellowship.
The folks putting on the conference took its inspiration from young Jonathan Edwards's resolutions to honor the Lord through his thoughts and actions. Speakers include John MacArthur, John Piper, C.J. Mahaney, Steve Lawson, Rick Holland and Randy Alcorn. Though I anticipate being inspired by each of them, I'm especially looking forward to hearing C.J., as I suspect he'll preach about the mysterious cross of Christ.
If you're thinking of going, or have already decided to go, let me know. It'd be cool to meet up.
The last time Burma made national news was in September 2007 when the ruling junta's security forces quelled mass pro-democracy rallies by killing hundreds and arresting thousands. Today, The Wall Street Journal released an editorial about the junta's efforts to silence yet another threat ... Sylvester Stallone's Rambo. A few days after the film was released world-wide last month, Mr. Stallone reported that family members of two Burmese actors in the film had been arrested. The movie is banned from Burmese theaters and shopkeepers can be jailed for up to seven years for selling a copy of the DVD. Though this means there's no legal way to watch "Rambo" in Burma, last week the generals ordered all local media to run negative reviews of the movie.
It seems that these Burmese reviewers are panning Rambo for its excessive bloodshed like the American reviewers did. But not because it's gratuitous, but because it's too close to reality. As the Journal reports, Rambo's portrayal of government forces "plundering and raping their way through Karen villages don't match the regime's official script of a nation at peace."
It's dichotomic to think that a Rambo movie would be disliked for being too realistic. And what's weird is that I sort of want to see it now. But is it possible to enjoy its realistic commentary on Burma's junta while suspending my disbelief long enough to buy into Rambo singlehandedly killing a thousand bad guys? Probably not.
Global Cooling
Turns out we probably don't need to panic about global warming after all. According to DailyTech: All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.... The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years.
As the non-panicky have known, the sun is (surprise, surprise) the primary cause of global warming. Solar activity has been down a bit lately, and so (surprise, surprise) temperatures have declined a bit.
Actually, this could be seen as bad news, as crops prefer slightly warmer temperatures. Those of you who are inclined to panic about this latest news on the climate change front are free to do so. As for me, I'll continue to trust that the One who created "all this" will exercise right control over the sun.
(I have to add: I don't hate God's creation. I don't advocate wasteful use of resources. I don't promote polluting either the air or the water. Just had to add that, as too many people confuse issues related to climate change with issues related to pollution.)
The High Price of Food
I'll be generous and call it an "unintended" consequences. Because of the fear-inducing words proclaimed by certain climate change profiteers, and because of purportedly well-meaning government incentives, ethanol use has skyrocketed. Ethanol, as many of you know, is being proclaimed as the environmentally friendly alternative to petroleum products such as gasoline. Though it's less efficient than gasoline (and therefore decreases your MPG pretty dramatically), it ends up in your tank anyway.
So as demand for ethanol increases, the price of corn, from which it's made, increases. It's more than doubled over the past two years. Example of an unintended consequence: The cost of tortillas has more than doubled, leaving Mexicans "in the grip of the worst tortilla crisis in its modern history."
Farmers have opted for growing this more expensive crop, rather than, say, wheat, and so the wheat supply decreases. Prices consequently rise for wheat; dramatically so. Over the past month, according to the Christian Science Monitor, the price of some types of wheat has risen 90 percent!
As ENN reports, the rising price of these staples affects so many other products: With corn supplies tightening fast, rising prices will affect not only products made directly from corn, such as breakfast cereals, but also those produced using corn, including milk, eggs, cheese, butter, poultry, pork, beef, yogurt, and ice cream.
All because some politician thought that mandating the use of the inefficient fuel ethanol in cars would save the planet.
Why I Care
I've got a few reasons for continuing to bring up so-called global warming. First, because I care about the truth. I'm pleased to be seeing the arguments and "proof" that climate change profiteers have been promoting ... falling apart. I'm pleased because that's an indication that the truth is coming to light. As a Christian, I value truth.
Second, I'm concerned about this issue because certain individuals (including politicians and light bulb makers and others) are using fears over climate change to exert control over the rest of us, control that doesn't benefit anyone but their bank accounts.
Third, I keep coming back to this issue because it shows us that by mandating, top-down, sweeping societal changes based on flimsy global warming evidence (see section 2 above on ethanol) there may be "unintended" consequences that affect all of us.
 Fourth (and I could probably add a fifth, sixth, and so on), global warming fearmongering can induce anxiety and faithlessness. What if the earth warms up 30 degree over the coming decade! What if my energy squandering causes the oceans to swallow California and Florida! What if the planet loses all vegetation because of my neighbor's SUV! Such fearful thinking facilitates faithlessness and an arrogance against those who haven't fallen for the hysteria. And that doesn't honor God.
Let's continue to continue evaluating the evidence. And if it leads us to see the sun, and not my light bulbs, as the primary cause of global warming, let's do the hard thing and admit that anthropogenic global warming is largely -- if not entirely -- a myth.
(Again, I need to add that I'm not in favor of raping the planet. I do advocate wise and gracious and loving and generous stewardship of the earth. I want my kids and yours to enjoy clean air and water. I'm content to use a bit less so that others may have a bit more. And, oh, I sure am grateful for cuddly puppies.)
Have you ever dated a co-worker? If so, did you have to sign a "love contract"?
Earlier this month, The Christian Science Monitor reported on employers asking dating employees to sign "consensual relationship agreements."
 David Ritter, a partner in employment law at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg in Chicago explains in the article what the agreements do:
It's an acknowledgment by two people that they're in a consensual relationship, have not been forced to be in this relationship, and understand the company's policy on sexual harassment. If either one of the people in the relationship ever claims sexual harassment as a result of this, this is pretty powerful evidence.
Agreements like this are being considered by more HR departments because of the explosion of workplace dating -- according to this article "more than 40 percent of workers say they have dated a co-worker."
Challenges mentioned in the article for workplace romance included subordinates dating superiors, couples showing affection in the office or through workplace equipment and also the "teenager" aspects of workplace breakups.
While these challenges can motivate employers to require "love contracts," how do couples feel about signing such agreements? How would you feel about someone saying, "I've sure enjoyed all the time we've spent together over sushi and spreadsheets -- would you be interested in signing a consensual relationship agreement?"
In his book God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens says, "Religion poisons everything." Touchstone writer Logan Paul Gage set out to test the accuracy of Hitchens's claim. Do the religious really have a negative impact on society? The answer is no. In fact, it's the opposite. For starters, regular church attenders are more likely to do good -- particularly men. According to the 2002–2004 GSS, for every 100 altruistic acts—like giving blood or letting someone ahead of you in the checkout line—performed by nonreligious people, the religious perform 144.
Volunteerism also benefits from religion, according to Baylor's Christopher Bader and F. Carson Mencken (finally, a religion-friendly Mencken), who cited the Baylor Religion Survey. Weekly church attendees volunteer more often in their communities, both through the church and through secular organizations.
The correlation is most striking among men. The volunteer rate for weekly-attending men is nearly ten percent higher than for weekly-attending women, whereas on the whole women volunteer much more than men. And while income has very little connection with volunteering, among those with higher incomes (i.e., a family income of $100,000 or more), weekly attendance noticeably correlates with volunteerism.
Studies show that regular church attendance has a stronger tie to volunteerism than education, income or class. Additionally, the religious exhibit more ethical behavior. For nearly 40 years, psychologists and sociologists have studied the connection between religion and various negative outcomes in adolescents. According to one meta-study (a study of the studies), 97 percent of studies found a negative relationship between religion and sexual activity; 94 percent claimed a negative link between alcohol use and religion; and 87 percent alleged a negative correlation between suicide and religion.
Using a sophisticated methodology, Pennsylvania State's Jeffery Ulmer, Purdue's Scott Desmond, and Baylor's Christopher Bader tried to answer why religion tends to inhibit delinquency. Following psychological research showing that self-control is like a muscle, which will grow or atrophy with use or disuse, they concluded that religious observance inhibits deviant behavior in two ways: It increases individuals' self-control, and it provides moral norms. Religious youth display higher self-control against cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana than their nonreligious peers.
Clearly religion does not poison society as Hitchens would have us believe. In my article "Hypocrite," I considered this same question. Some of my unbelieving friends try to convince me that Christianity is fake, oppressive and bad for society. The truth is religion -- and faith in Christ specifically -- produces good fruit; it's hypocrisy that does the damage.
I went to a TobyMac concert this weekend and got to meet him.
Basically, I just wanted you to know that. The end.
OK, fine. Here's some other information from the concert. Besides the fact that TobyMac concerts are so entertaining (dancers, turntables, beatboxing, awesome vocals, TOBY), there were also some great things to think about.
Matthew West opened the concert and talked about the two voiceless months he spent after having surgery on his vocal chords. It was a frightening time for him -- he wondered if he'd still be able to sing afterward and, if not, how he would support his family. His voice was in great shape at the concert, though -- he was brought through the trying time and sounds better than ever.
Next came Jeremy Camp, whose songs always touch my heart. He sings a lot about God getting him through the tough times, most likely due to the fact that his first wife died of cancer. His testimony and his reliance on God's truth -- even when he couldn't feel it -- is encouraging.
Then came Toby. His concerts are really fun, but he is also very passionate about spreading a message of unity within the church. He thinks the body of Christ should be united, especially when it comes to race. He spoke for a bit and reminded us that we can sit and talk about Christ all day long, but if we don't show it -- if we don't love one another -- no one is going to listen.
All in all, it was a great concert. And I'm sure Toby loved meeting me.
Do you ever get the sense that people you know are reading some kind of book that teaches them how to be jerks and how to live destructively? If so, there's a chance they got a hold of Life's Little Destruction Book that came out back in the nineties. Here are a few entries from that book: Use more plastic.
Stand up your date.
Name drop.
Reserve compliments for people who can do you some good.
Ask her if the diamond ring is real.
Apologize a lot but don't change.
Let your blind date know she isn't up to what you were told.
Ride on the shoulder until you pass all the jammed traffic; then cut in.
Forget the punch line, but don't let that stop you from telling jokes.
Assume the authority but not the responsibility.
Swear this time you mean it -- really.
Overconsume and buy on impulse.
Eat out with friends and "forget" your wallet.
Eat off your date's plate.
Put your feet on the table.
Pretend you're listening.
RSVP on the last possible day.
Show up late and leave early.
Don't replace the toilet paper roll.
Always play devil's advocate.
Go ahead: ask what your country can do for you.
I bought this book (that's clearly labeled "a parody") for material to use in a Freshman Orientation class I taught. The irony is, my students (and I) were more motivated to do the right thing by this book than by the popular Life's Little Instruction book it was based on.
The Boundless Show host Lisa Anderson has another bee in her bonnet this week. This time it's about the stereotypes some co-workers, family, and church members have about singles. You know: that they're self-absorbed, immature, ambitionless recreation-seekers who won't commit. Or something like that.
Of course, people shouldn't generalize about anyone or any group. But still, it does seem to be a problem. So download this week's The Boundless Show for a lively discussion that just may save you from being relegated to kids table this Easter.
We also have Patrick Dunn, the guy from down the hall, with this week's The Hungry Years explaining how wonderfully compatible guys and girls are despite our differences. I mean, so what if all guys like to talk about is how cool it would be if we could shoot lasers from our eyes?
Our Q&A segment (aka "The Inbox") delves into a gray area of spiritual compatibility -- differences in preferences of worship styles. The questioner, David, asks how much weight should be given to these "peripheral" issues when deciding whom to marry. Steve, Ted and I tag team this one.
I think you'll enjoy the bumper music this week provided by Jesse Butterworth of Daily Planet fame and Jeff Caylor. And for your convenience, here are the segment breaks:
Intro
Roundtable -- 5:16
Hungry Years -- 20:24
The Inbox -- 25:00
You can subscribe to the show on iTunes or with RSS. Also be sure and tell your friends about us or send them a link to the show. And as always, we appreciate your feedback and questions for The Inbox segment. You can write us at editor@boundless.org.
I remember a day in college when I held a friend's hand and listened. Her face was nearly emotionless, yet her words told of deep frustration. "I can hardly pray," she said. "I feel like my prayers are hitting the ceiling and bouncing off." I prayed for her that day. I prayed that God's comfort would return; that she would be aware of His presence. My heart was able to connect with the Lord in a way hers couldn't that day. In the years that followed, she would return the favor many times.
On TrueU, author Matthew John offers some good thoughts on moving past spiritual dryness -- and encouraging those who may be struggling. He talks about the catalyst 2 Timothy 1:7 has been in his own spiritual growth: "For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline." I particularly liked what he had to say about accepting spiritual power. I don't speak Greek, but I can't help but think Timothy must have been struggling: Sure, he was called to spread the gospel, but Timothy was young and surrounded by a pantheistic culture. Paul reminds his mentee that God's will for him is not that he be timid, but instead that he be assertive, through the power of the Holy Spirit.
That's an exhortation I need sometimes.
I'm a pretty laid back kind of guy. Oftentimes I just assume it's OK for me to sit back and let things happen. God's convicted me that this kind of attitude just won't cut it.
God has taught me not only that I ought to reach out to other young men, but also that I'm able.
I mean, what happens when I get into a relationship? I'm going to have to step up, so to speak, because I believe that, as a man, Christ calls me to be the spiritual leader of that relationship. As Jason Boyett points out in another Men's Hall article, Marriage Prep 101 (Whether You've Met Her Yet or Not)," I need to be preparing for marriage now.
For me, that means learning not only how to lead, but understanding God wants me to.
Part of being spiritually "wet" is engaging with the process of faith. As you read the Bible, what do you feel God wants you to change? How is He urging you to grow? Whom is He prompting you to reach out to? Making these discoveries adds vigor and substance to your walk with Christ and can combat feelings of spiritual monotony. Simply taking action may boost your spiritual enthusiasm. But engaging requires self-discipline. John writes: I do not do mornings, which means I don't get up early to do devotions or whatever you want to call them. But a few weeks ago I decided it was time I give the morning quiet time thing a try. It's been a big adjustment for this self-identified night owl, getting up at 6:26 a.m. every single weekday morning. I have to say, though, the comfort I feel from having started my day with God is worth going to bed a little earlier. It's worth planning ahead so I can give the first part of my day — my "first fruits," as it were — to God.
Overcoming spiritual dryness is not easy. It requires commitment to seek the Lord daily and engage with His Word and the people around you. And when you can't, seek out a Christian brother or sister who can take your hand and help you.
So, as long as we're talking about evangelism and finding the perfect church, how much are you influenced by the church's name? It might sound like a silly question, but clearly a lot Christian groups have thought about it.
Would you be more likely to check out, say, First Baptist Church or The Gathering? Main Street Presbyterian or Mosaic? St. Mark's Lutheran or Common Ground?
The trend to name Christian, um … gatherings/mosaics/grounds in ways that will make them not seem like "church" is just the latest trend that began with the seeker movement. The quintessential seeker-sensitive church, Willow Creek, wouldn't even put a cross on its property lest it trip up some people. (And we now know how well that all worked out.)
But the sentiment has continued with the so-called emergent church. In an effort to be as unlike today's evangelicalism as possible, they shun names normally associated with Christian churches in an effort to make themselves sound more consumer-friendly, more inclusive, more "missional." Unfortunately, in shunning the admittedly not-so-good things about today's evangelicalism, they often shun the things that make Christianity … well, Christianity.
Take, for example, one of the churches with an unchurchy name: the real Mosaic, founded by Erwin McManus. In his book Soul Cravings (a work so eager to be unconventional it even eschews page numbers!), McManus writes, "If you pay attention to your soul, it will guide you to God." Elsewhere he writes, "If you take the time to explore nowhere else except deep within yourself, I have no doubt that you will come face-to-face with God."
McManus is right that we all sense a God-shaped hole within. But merely exploring a hole will get you nowhere. The truth about God is to be found in Scripture, not in some navel-gazing exercise. Otherwise, you wind up with this.
More to the point, these "churches" make the same theological error as the seeker movement: They assume there is such a thing as a sincere "seeker." (Yes, I'm aware of the several verses that talk about seeking, drawing close, answering the door, etc. But note that every one of them is addressed to people already chosen by God, not to those outside a relationship with Him.) Now, I have no doubt that there are people out there "seeking" something, but insofar as they're being wooed by God, we owe it to them to preach the real thing, not the watered-down, inoffensive pap that so many trendy churches seem to think they need.
As Trevin Wax so aptly points out: [M]ost of the non-Christians that I meet with (and most of the Christians I minister to as well) want to do business with serious theological issues, like Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to God? How can a good God send people to hell? Isn’t it intolerant to proselytize? They don't want to hear pontifications on how "these are complex questions… maybe we can search together and eventually find some answers." They want to know what Christians believe.
In a world of gray, black-and-white answers are not a turn-off to unbelievers. They are appealing if explained with grace and love.
The other problem with this movement is it introduces "seekers" to an incomplete Gospel, a one-dimensional Jesus. In his trenchant review of Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz, a book popular with people who shun conventional Christianity, Shane Walker gets to the heart of the problem: As an evangelistic tract Blue Like Jazz is too narrow. Jesus is presented as a nice fellow who meets one at the campfire and swaps stories. He's a listener, a friend, accepting, warm, kind, and gentle. And Jesus is all these things. But the meta-narrative of the Bible, also reminds us that Jesus is terrible. He is the judge, the king, the warrior, the avenger (Rev. 19:2). The good news is not merely that Jesus wants to listen to your story, but rather that he wants to save you from his just wrath.
The postmodern convert who comes to Christ the friendly listener has yet to meet the authentic Jesus. He's met the aspects of Jesus that are most comforting to contemporary Westerners, but he has never experienced the stripping bare of all fleshly dignity before the reigning king of the universe. And this nakedness before God is necessary for salvation.
The invitation to a "journey of discovery" or to "join the conversation" and similar language that you'll find in so much "emergent" writing does not give the most important truth these people need to hear: Everyone, including you and me, is a sinner in need of a savior. Until you realize this, all the other journeying and conversing are missing the point.
Solomon tells us there is nothing new under the sun, and some of these non-churchy churches are preaching, without realizing it, the same type of liberal Christianity criticized by H. Reinhold Niebuhr more than 60 years ago: A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.
So, in reality it doesn't really matter what you call yourselves so long as you preach the full Word of God. But that begs the question: Why would you want to hide that behind some vague, consumer-friendly name? I am a member of the Evangelical Free Church of America, and I’m not ashamed to say that. How about you?
Well Done
I appreciate the dynamic conversations we have on The Line. The breadth of perspectives is thought-provoking, pushing us to think beyond our Christian assumptions.
I've got a suggestion on how to improve the discussion even more: Use the "sandwich" technique. Here's how it works.
When you find yourself disagreeing with either the original post or one of the comments, first find some common ground, something you agree with. When you write your comment, start by affirming the person you're responding to. Then state your disagreement, trying to do so without impugning the person. Finally, end with affirmation. So you've got an affirmation-disagreement-affirmation sandwich.
Here's an example.
"I appreciate, James, how you make Scripture a priority, how you look to it for truth, and how you are really wrestling with its meaning here. I have to disagree, though, on your interpretation: That verse is more an invitation to marry than a command to do so. Such an interpretation speaks of the Lord's grace, and not so much of His being a dictator. See what I mean? Anyway, I look forward to the ensuing discussion!"
By using this technique, the person you're interacting with doesn't feel like you're dismissing them out of hand, but that you're indeed interested in understanding them and furthering a conversation. And so the discussion continues, perhaps with one or both sides being able to improve their understanding of an issue.
I've found this technique very helpful in my marriage. If I sense a bit of "attitude" in my wife's response to someone, I might first let her know that I can see how difficult the situation is, that the other person truly has done or said something offensive. And then I encourage her to consider how her heart is reacting; perhaps it's a bit too harsh or judgmental. And then I try to again affirm that resisting such a negative attitude is hard work, and that I understand why she might find herself grumbling.
What do you think? Is it do-able? Or is it merely psychobabble? I personally think it's very helpful, and do hope to see more of it used around The Line. Thanks for thinking about it with me! |
|
Badly Done
I'm finding the conversations on The Line to too-easily spiral into ad hominem attacks and close-mindedness. And, frankly, that gets old.
I might post a provocative blog, and then within moments someone finds one little thing that they disagree with. They may agree with 95 percent of it, but they knee-jerk against the precious nugget they've unearthed that they find emphatically unacceptable. Like I'm supposed to congratulate them on their insightful discovery of my incompetence and heresy!
And so they jump right in: "Ted, you ignorant slug. Your exegesis is repulsive, your allowing heretical comments to be published is irresponsible, your mandating pet ownership is intolerable, and your use of the term "sandwich" is insensitive to those who don't like sandwiches. Badly done, Ted. Badly done."
And the conversation is poisoned.
The next comment may either pile on with "this is just creepy talk" or may rebuke the first comment with "you're a communist, and probably not even a Christian."
Soon we're talking about the relationship between honey bees and Marx, and how so-and-so is a Hitleresque mud baby. And I just feel like deleting the entire thread, turning off comments on The Line altogether, and even canceling our agreement with TypePad to host our blog.
I remember one post I'd written, in which I expressed my passionate admiration for an aspect of God's creation. And, predictably, the very first comment was a downer. It began "I cannot stand ..." and ended with "we have some theological differences." That is not the way to win someone over to your position.
Instead, Suzanne that person should have just sat on her hands and bit her tongue, allowing those who appreciate the Lord's kindness to relish the moment.
Your communication doesn't have to be this way. You could try just a bit harder to say something nice once in a while, rather than always hunt for the negative. You could count to 10 before pressing the "post" button and count to 20 before entering in those hard-to-read letters on the confirmation page.
So I implore you: Shape up or I'll ban all of you. I mean it. |
The editors over at AOL Television have just announced their list of Top 20 Couples of TV history. Here's the top 10: - Sam and Diane, "Cheers"
- David and Maddie, "Moonlighting"
- Carrie and Big, "Sex and the City"
- Lucy and Ricky, "I Love Lucy"
- Buffy and Angel, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
- Furillo and Joyce, "Hill Street Blues"
- Ross and Rachel, "Friends"
- Rob and Laura, "The Dick Van Dyke Show"
- Cliff and Claire, "The Cosby Show"
- Veronica and Logan, "Veronica Mars"
Notice anything? Yeah, me too. Only three of these couples are married and none of those three are even from the last twenty years (although they are in syndication).
So, what shall I do? Shall I rail against the television industry? About how they claim to covet creativity but can't even come up with well-written, spunky, in love married couples? Or shall I rail against the AOL editors for agreeing, in a sense, that characters who engage in decade-long, non-committed bed-hopping are the best representatives of couples?
No, I think I shall go for option number three. I want to create a list of top 20 married couples in entertainment (how's that -- I even broadened the category for any of you movie buffs out there). Not that any of these couples will compare to the fun, godly couples I see every day around me. But, let's have a shout.
Wanna help? I'll start us off. My fave TV married couple is ... Charles and Caroline Ingalls, "Little House on the Prairie."
 Mark Dever has written an excellent blog to help free Christians from "the bondage of 'guidance.'" He says that though Christ has given us freedom and liberty in decision making, and the Scriptures and wise counselors to provide direction, many Christians won't make a move unless they receive a "sense of leading" from God.
Here Mark uses a personal example to illustrate how freedom and subjective leading, informed by Scripture and wise counsel, can work together to help us make good choices: I do believe that God's Spirit will sometimes lead us subjectively. So, for instance, I am choosing to spend my life here on Capitol Hill because my wife & I sensed in 1993 that that is what God wanted us to do. However, I realized then (and now) that I could be wrong about that supposition. ... I was free in 1993 to stay in England, or teach at a seminary, either of which would have been delightful opportunities. I understand that I was free to make those choices. But I chose, consulting Scripture, friends, wisdom, and my own subjective sense of the Lord's will, to come to DC. And even if I were wrong about that, I had (and have) that freedom in Christ to act in a way that is not sin. And I understand my pastoring here not to be sin. So I am free. Regardless of the sense of leading I had.
You would think that Mark's fruitful ministry at Capitol Hill Baptist would prove to confirm his decision. And it does to an extent. But he realizes that had he chose instead to do one of the many things he could have done, a fruitful ministry could (and probably would) have resulted as well.
Now let's apply this to choosing a wife (c'mon, you knew I was going there). If the girl you're dating meets the following biblical criteria -- which has similarities with how Mark chose to go to DC -- then beware the bondage of "guidance."
1) You are both members of the opposite sex
2) You are both believers evidenced by signs of regeneration
3) Your Christian friends bear witness to your edifying relationship
4) Your Christian parents believe it to be a good match
Carolyn McCulley, over at Solo Feminity, wrote yesterday about an article she came across doing research for her current book. The article, titled "Soccer Mom Wannabe," details one mom's struggle with the choice she has made to continue her full-time career after her child is born. The mom writes: The screen updates every five seconds or so. It reminds me of dancing under a strobe light. Flash: He's sitting on the floor. Flash: Here comes a little girl. Flash: She whacks him on the head. Flash: He's crying. Flash: Here comes the teacher...
Now, where is he? Flash: He's crawled over to the cubby holes. Flash: What's in there?
Every morning the alarm screams at 6:00am. We get up, get washed, get fed, get dressed, strap his flailing body into the car seat, and haul him out to the daycare where two 18 year old girls watch him and ten other kids so I can go to my job that pays the daycare bill. And I become the voyeur. Welcome to postmodern child rearing: I watch my son at daycare over the internet. He is growing up in Technicolor, right on my screen...
Then, after acknowledging how hard our mother's generation worked to open doors for women, this mom admits her frustration: Problem is, this world sucks. I miss my family. On a typical day I am with my son (awake) for about 30 minutes in the morning, 30 minutes at lunch, and about 2 hours in the evening for a grand total of 3 hours per day. I spend more time with my co-workers than my husband or son.
There's such a haunting sadness about this article. This mom seems to understand in her gut that something is wrong, but is either unwilling to make a change or feels powerless to do so. If she is unwilling, that's a chilling commentary on our society's priorities. If it's that she feels powerless, it makes me wonder how much we've gained in the "women's movement." Do women really feel like they have more choices, or are the choices just more painful?
According to this article on LiveScience, people who are socially awkward may have an edge in long-term relationship success. Research shows that some of the best daters make the worst marriage partners. The reason? Good daters often self-monitor. Popular people who monitor themselves carefully in social situations and thereby appear to be the most socially appropriate are often highly sought after as romantic partners, a study finds, but these people show less satisfaction and commitment in relationships than socially-awkward people.
Self-monitors have that magical aptitude for fitting into any social group, because they "screen their words and behavior to suit the people around them." While self-monitors are popular and often successful in their jobs, they may flounder in relationships. Northwestern University professor of communication studies Michael E. Roloff, who conducted the study, explains: "The desire to alter one's personality to appropriately fit a given situation or social climate prevents high self-monitors from presenting their true selves during intimate interactions with their romantic partners," Roloff said. "High self-monitors are very likeable and successful people. However, it appears they’re just not deep."
Let me be honest here. Women flock to the self-monitor. This person appears to be what we're looking for because, well...he's talented at making himself appear to be what we're looking for. Being aware of this may shed some scales from our eyes as we evaluate potential matches. Conversely, the researchers found that low self-monitors — people who are the least concerned with social appropriateness and are unlikely to mask their feelings or opinions to avoid confrontation or preserve their self-image — are more committed to and more satisfied with their relationships.
Keeping this in mind, don't be excessively dazzled by the talented dater. And don't rule out the guy who's less socially polished -- he may turn out to be the better match.
My super-smart friend Blake is getting his master's in philosophy at Northern Illinois University. Last week there was a shooting there -- a guy went on a rampage and killed five people and then himself. Blake was in a building adjacent to where the shooting took place.
In an article we published today on TrueU.org, Blake talks a bit about his experience and how this shooting relates to the Christian response to the problem of evil: Because the shootings were random — because any victim would have done just as well as any other in the minds of their killers — there is a real sense in which Kazmierczak and the Virginia Tech gunman targeted you and me just as much as they targeted the people they actually shot.
This is scary if anything is, and one can't help but wonder why God would allow the world to slip into such a depraved state.
Blake goes on to talk about a series he wrote awhile back about the problem of evil. He mentions that, because of his conclusion, the argument was raised that the best thing for Christians to do is just sit back and let things happen because we don't know God's plans.
This results in "skeptical theism," which Blake explains like this: But then it seems clear that we humans aren't in any position at all to say what goods God might bring about via a given instance of evil. More specifically, it seems clear that we're in no position to say what goods God might bring about via a shooting like the one at NIU. But if we are in no position to say what goods God might bring about via a shooting like the one at NIU, then we have no basis for any confidence that a being like God would have stopped Kazmierczak from shooting strangers in Cole Hall.
The fact that Kazmierczak did shoot strangers in Cole Hall therefore gives us little (if any) evidence that God does not exist.
Because this response expresses skepticism about our ability to predict the behavior of a being like God, call it the response from "skeptical theism."
The problem is that some reject skeptical theism because we could just throw up our hands and say "Well, God has a plan. We shouldn't interfere." It seems as though Christians are left with the following options:
Option 1: Reject skeptical theism.
Option 2: Reject (2), the claim that it is always morally permissible for us to not interfere with God's plans.
Option 3: Accept (3), the claim that, for all we know, it would be morally permissible for us to not interfere with someone's plans to copy the NIU and Virginia Tech shootings.
None of these options seem all that great -- in fact, they all seem pretty bad.
As the series continues, Blake will address these options and give us his conclusion. What do you think? How should Christians respond to these arguments against skeptical theism?
P.S. This whole discussion is very philosophical and very difficult to put into a concise blog post. I really encourage you to read the full article to avoid confusion.
First, apologies for taking so long to get back to this. Some looming book deadlines prevented me from devoting as much time to this as I would have liked.
In part 1 of this post I brought up some of the logical problems associated with Darwinian explanations for things, particularly their frequent resort to the ad hoc fallacy, otherwise known as the "just-so story."
Here I want to talk about the moral implications of a Darwinian worldview and, more broadly, of the worldview called "scientific naturalism," the belief that all that exists is matter and energy and the natural laws that govern them. In such a worldview, morality is impossible, at least in the sense that morality means a transcendent norm that applies to all people in all places at all times in all similar situations. Do not murder would be such an example.
Right about now a lot of people are indignantly rising out of their chairs, saying, "I can be good without having to believe in your imaginary sky-daddy. I do it because it's right, not because I expect some reward in an afterlife." (And, no, I didn't just make that up; I've actually read this response, and many similar to it, in numerous places.)
I respond, "Yes, I believe you can." But these people miss the point, because their retort begs a larger question: good as compared to what? Right as compared to what? These words imply an objective standard against which they can be measured. Where does this come from? The usual explanation is that our penchant for making moral judgments evolved, but this is rank speculation. There's absolutely no evidence for this. To say, It could have (doubtful in itself) is not the same as, It did. It's a classic just-so story, taking what exists and concocting a story to fit the evidence.
More important, in a world in which nothing exists but matter and energy, to call something good or right is merely an opinion, since these concepts cannot be tested empirically. They are metaphysical claims, not physical. The opposite is also true: to call something wrong or immoral is merely personal opinion. But that hasn't stopped the Darwinists and their ilk from condemning others hither and yon. For example, here's a famous line from über-Darwinist Richard Dawkins that, upon close examination, is utter nonsense: It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
Wicked? Wicked as compared to what? In Dawkins' world, the word is meaningless, since it's a moral judgment, a metaphysical claim. He might as well have said, "... or jabberwocky, but I'd rather not consider that." A concept of wicked is not empirically derived, nor is it empirically testable or falsifiable. In Dawkins' world it is, literally, nonsense. But Dawkins is too full of himself to realize this, and his legions of worshipers apparently can't see it as well.
More important, Darwinian evolutionists such as Dawkins cannot answer a key question: Why be moral in the first place? If by force or by guile I can steal everything they own, why should I not? They'll point to all sorts of utilitarian justifications for morality, but there's an easy response: I just don't see it that way. Why should their utilitarian calculation or moral judgment obligate me to do anything? A utilitarian judgment carries no moral force. Moreover, it wouldn't be too hard to construct a counter-claim based on similar utilitarian thinking. After all, this "calculus" depends on the presuppositions you bring to it. There is no objective math in this philosophical system.
"Well," you might say, "if you steal from others we'll lock you up to keep you from doing it again." In such case, this is not punishment for a moral wrong but merely self-protection -- certainly a valid reason for locking someone up, but not one based on moral norms. In fact, it would simply be a case of the powerful forcing their opinion on the less powerful. It's akin to saying, "There are more of us who don't like having our stuff taken than there are of you, and we'll use our strength in numbers to force you to do what we want by locking you up." It's not saying, "What you did was morally wrong, and therefore you're being punished." It's might makes right.
It shows that in the absence of objective morality, all that remains is power. And, at root, that's the world Darwinian evolution would bequeath us.
In case you missed it, Glenn Packiam wrote an instant classic for Boundless this week. His article, "Subversive Jesus and His Trojan Horse" reminds us just how upside down the kingdom of God is.
Just this paragraph alone will keep my head spinning for the rest of the week: This faith that we have embraced, this Life that we have taken into our hearts, will be our undoing. And it means to be that. It is designed to be the end of us. The Jesus I've come to see and know at work in my life is the One who comes to undermine my own small-minded and wrong-headed plans. He is the Trojan Horse of blessing that we readily welcome into our hearts without knowing His mission to destroy us.
OK, I should really be more clear here. It's not adoption that I hate -- I absolutely love adoption itself -- it's the process that I hate.
Several friends have been in "the process" of adopting children for over a year, some for over three years. They've gone through the applications and home studies and money games ... and now they wait. And wait. Some have made multiple overseas trips to visit the children they're scheduled to adopt, and the children ask when they can go home with them. It's really heartbreaking.
Meanwhile, the bureaucrats and lawyers drag things to a near-halt. They want more money. They want more paperwork. And because of backlogs, corruption and inefficiencies, that paperwork doesn't get processed in a timely manner. They need special permission to get this done. They need another application to get that done. And then they need more money to process that paperwork.
My wife and I would love to adopt a baby. But it's disheartening to hear the horror stories -- $10,000 to $20,000 of palm-greasing and bureaucracy and travel expenses, and finalizing the adoption gets pushed out another two months. Four months. Six months. An insecure bureaucrat plays power games, and the Russian adoption falls through. Let's adopt from Liberia. OK, for whatever reason, that just fell through. How about China or Uganda? Nope, they just imposed new adoption policies that make it all but impossible. Let's try Haiti. All right, they now need a "presidential pardon" in order to allow the kids to join their adoptive parents (seriously -- a "presidential pardon").
My prayer is that this process be streamlined to favor decent people who want to adopt and who want to be adopted. And that greed and the lust for power become institutionally prohibited.
I'll admit it. I can't change a tire. I definitely can't program my VCR. And I'm nervous about doing my taxes on my own. In an article on MSN, Glenn Harlan Reynolds discusses the decline of do-it-yourself skills in a high-tech society. Science-fiction author Robert A. Heinlein once wrote: "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
That's a tall order. Although I can only do some of those things, I approve of the principle. Nowadays, though, we're specializing more. A popular Internet essay is titled: "I Can't Do One-Quarter of the Things My Father Can." Are hands-on skills — building things, fixing things, operating machines and so on — really in decline?
Reynolds thinks so. He points out that while handiness cannot be measured they way academic smarts can, anecdotal evidence supports a loss of hands-on skills. For example, I am not alone in my fear of changing a tire, evidently. Even the simplest of automotive tasks, changing a tire, seems to be beyond the ken of many people. According to AAA, nearly 4 million motorists requested roadside assistance last year — for flat tires.
So what's the big deal? We have new skills that replace the old ones. Isn't specialization a good thing? There are advantages to where-with-all, Reynolds says. Through hands-on projects, a person can exercise problem solving skills, gain an accurate picture of his limitations (aka humility) and increase his chances of responding well in an emergency. We don't all have to be MacGyver, but from time to time all of us will face problems that can't be addressed with a laptop and a cellphone. In a genuine emergency, having some basic manual skills could be the difference between surviving comfortably and being totally helpless.
Reynolds applauds the home renovation boom (thanks, in part, to home improvement corporations with slogans like: "You can do it; we can help") and the Dangerous Book for Boys, which encourages fathers and sons to tackle hands-on projects like building catapults and constructing bows and arrows. In the past, fathers and sons connected through the passing down of mechanical skills and household tasks. Reynolds hopes to see this tradition revived. After reading his article, I do, too. Next time I see my dad, I think I'll ask him to teach me how to change a tire.
A year ago I confessed my admiration for American Idol contestant Melinda Doolittle.
It's probably premature to have a favorite so early in this year's season, but if pressed, I have to admit that David Archuleta would be at the top of my list. Jason Castro and Michael Johns did fine last night, but I do have to have a favorite, no?
Tonight the women are singing. I may have to write another blog post tomorrow identifying a new favorite....
Do you ever feel you have little to show for the work you do -- and therefore have a limited sense of accomplishment at the end of the day?
 That's a topic Jared Sandberg addresses in his Cubicle Culture feature in the Wall Street Journal this week. His observation is that when work is invisible, so are its satisfactions.
In the information age, so much is worked on in a day at the office but so little gets done. In the past, people could see the fruits of their labor immediately: a chair made or a ball bearing produced. But it can be hard to find gratification from work that is largely invisible, or from delivering goods that are often metaphorical.
I see a dramatic difference between the more physical labor I did as my primary job into my mid-twenties and the more digital work I do now. Projects like cleaning the basement or even mowing the yard continue to give a more immediate sense of payoff than today's digital office.
I remember a co-worker telling me a few years ago about his motivation to finish his basement. "I realized recently that all the work I did over the past five years could fit onto a floppy disc," he said, "I need to do something with my hands that creates more tangible results."
One person the Wall Street Journal interviewed described his jealousy of how Fred Flintstone felt at the end of his day at the quarry. "He seems so happy sliding down that dinosaur's tail when the whistle-bird blows," he says.
Do you find satisfaction in your work? If not, do you have any side projects or hobbies that give you a sense of a job well done?
It's tempting to think the people sitting next to us in the pews don't want to be bothered, particularly if they're in a different life stage. And if you're like me, you probably think someone else "like them" will make the effort to get to know them.
In this week's The Boundless Show, we discuss how easy it is for Christians to form little cliques within the church and how prohibitive it can be to outreach and healthy community. Is it a characteristic of a consumer mentality?
For our culture segment Lisa and Candice discuss Juno, an Indy film that's getting a lot of attention from Christians because of its "back-handed" pro-life message. I went to see it over the weekend and think it's sort of a raunchy Napoleon Dynamite. So before you go, be sure to read the review at PluggedInOnline.com because there's content that may offend your sensibilities.
Kara Schwab is back for The Hungry Years with a story about how God uses big Italian grandmothers to bring children to himself. It's funny and truly heartwarming. Ted confessed that he teared up when he heard it.
We end the show with a question from a reader who's addicted to explicit romance novels. Candice tackles this one with some solid advice like throwing away the smutty books on your shelves and replacing them with good ones; and putting down the fiction for awhile and picking up some biographies. She also provides list of books on The Line here.
Here are the segment breaks in case you want to skip to your favorite or go back and listen to something twice: Intro
Roundtable -- 2:53
Culture -- 11:29
Hungry Years -- 18:25
Inbox -- 22:50
As always you can subscribe to the show on iTunes or with RSS. Listen and let us know what you think.
Thanks to those of you who've written to comment on this week's Q&A, "Female Self-Pleasure." I was distressed that until a few minutes ago, all the e-mail coming in was from men saying that while I gave good tactical advice, I had missed the boat by not focusing on grace and forgiveness. Then the female perspective emerged with a comment that said, I have faced my own struggles with the issue in question, and know many other women who have. I also know that, even more than our male counterparts, it is very hard to ask for support in this area, because it is thought that females simply do not have this problem. Hopefully articles of this sort will open people's eyes and [they] "won't blush when [we] confess [o]ur sin," but instead will be "honest about sin's grip and ... willing to walk through this with [us]."
To those who think I missed the mark, I hope you know that I believe strongly in grace and forgiveness. I said as much in the Q&A that ran last month ("A Hopeless Sinner"). And the letter I answered this week came in after that one ran. So I figured the person writing had read that. Maybe I assumed too much. If so, the section that also applies to this week's column appears below. It applies to every question I answer about sin. It's just that I don't have room to restate this point every time I write. Typically I only have room to answer the specific question being asked. I will, however, work harder to include relevant links for more in-depth information on the overarching worldview of sin and forgiveness. Here's what I should have linked to: Christ came to die for sinners. Sinners like you and me. Sinners like all the readers of this column. Though we may not be in a situation that feels as hopeless as yours does, it's just a matter of degrees, not kind. Jesus said he came to heal the sick. They're the ones who need a doctor.
The good news is that no one is beyond salvation. Romans 1:16 says the gospel "is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" (emphasis added).
Christ's gift of salvation is good news. But it's only good news if the person hearing it recognizes that they need it. Jesus came to forgive sinners, but He called them out of their sin. You don't get a pass because you face such seemingly hard, seemingly unique temptations.
1 Corinthians 10:13 says, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."
Stop thinking it's all up to you. You can't do this alone. Thankfully, you don't have to. Jesus is the ultimate intercessor precisely because He came in the flesh and knows what's it like to be tempted — and to successfully resist that temptation. He even told us what to do: "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak" (Matthew 26:41).
Instead of agonizing over how much you've failed ... take the focus off you and put it on Christ. Seek His forgiveness, as well as a community of Bible believers who will walk alongside you and help you mature in your faith. And stop doing the things that set you up for failure. ...
It's not helpful to camp out on the idea that you're the worst of sinners. While it is essential to acknowledge your sin, it's also important to realize you're not alone. Romans 3:23 says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The danger of convincing yourself that you've blown it more than any other is that you'll start thinking you should get a pass because you're in a category by yourself. That you're somehow "the exception." You're not. Paul wrote, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners — of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:15-17)
John MacArthur's commentary on this passage says, "Paul was living proof that God could save any sinner, no matter how great a one he might be."
When you're tempted to stop fighting sin, remember it's not just you you're at war with. Peter wrote, "Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). The battle raging in and around you isn't just physical. It's spiritual. And to fight it, you need both physical boundaries and spiritual protection (Ephesians 6:10-12).
...You can't continue living this way without suffering the effects of your sin. I suspect you realize that and that's why you wrote. In fact, your e-mail is evidence that your conscience is still working, trying to move to back toward right living. It's not too late to change; not too late to act on what guilt remains. I'm really glad you wrote. I think it's a sign of God's mercy, evidence that He does love you and wants you to get right with Him. It's not too late to repent; truly repent, as evidenced by sorrow for your rebellion against God and His ways and His laws. Just because you don't feel like repenting doesn't mean you can't confess even that to Him in prayer.
But don't stop there. You can do a lot to make it less likely that you'll fall again.
...If you are truly a follower of Christ, you have access to the power that brought Him back to life. But it's up to you. You have a choice to make.
In a press release published today, Toshiba announced it would "no longer develop, manufacture and market HD DVD players and recorders."
The dust has finally settled for those of us who've been waiting to jump into the hi-def world: it's Sony; it's Blu-ray.
 I spent most of last week in North Carolina with activities surrounding the funeral for my mom. She just turned 60 last month and I'm sure she wouldn't have died so young if my dad hadn't died at the young age of 56 a few years ago. There was probably a lot more that could have been done to treat the physical problems she had, but even when she said otherwise, it seemed she wanted to go on to be with my dad.
And so on what would have been the fortieth anniversary of their first Valentine's Day together, we buried mom beside dad in the graveyard behind the church that they started.
Just before she died, mom sat up in her hospital bed, looked into the distance, laughed and said, "hey" -- as if she was being greeted by someone very familiar.
This story, along with the incredible outpouring of love and support from family, from the church and from the staff here at Focus on the Family offer a comforting silver lining to the gray cloud of my mom's death.
But it is still a cloud. I appreciate how passionately C.S. Lewis grieved the loss of his wife even though he held on to the hope of a reunion in heaven. I'm reminded again that God did not originally create humans to experience the separation of death. That is the gray cloud of our fallen state. And the pain and great loss of death continues to weigh on us all.
The primary silver lining that gives us all hope is that Christ has ultimately conquered death and holds out to us the promise of an eternal life that will swallow in magnitude the all-too-short chapter of our time in mortal bodies.
I blogged about the book unChristian awhile back. I won't recap too much, but the basic gist is that among young people (ages 16-29) the Church isn't doing too hot. Negative perceptions about Christians abound, and it's hurting our witness -- young people aren't willing to listen to us because they think we're anti-homosexual, judgmental, hypocritical, sheltered and so on.
David Kinnaman, the co-author of unChristian, did an interview with Focus on the Family, and it's posted here. The questions are great and Kinnaman's answers are even better. He acknowledges this problem that faces Christians, and he gives some solutions.
Some of his answers reminded me of this blog and the conversation about the tone of our conversations. Kinnaman points out that, even when we disagree, we need to be willing to listen: We need to be willing to have very frank and open conversations with people who are not Christians. And while we want to hold fast to biblical truths, we need to learn from people about why they've come to the conclusions that they've come to. So that even if we disagree with them, we haven't simply come to them trying to convince them of our views. We may have a time and a place for that, but my take from the data is that we're far too often in the position of trying to convince everybody we’re right than trying to understand why people might disagree with us — particularly people who are not Christians.
Take a look at the interview. What do you think of Kinnaman's suggestions?
Speaking of George Washington, National Review senior editor and presidential historian Richard Brookhiser takes a look at political campaigning of yore. Because of his stellar reputation, it seems Washington had little to do in convincing voters he was right for the job besides offer them "refreshments": Washington ran for the House of Burgesses in 1758 while still serving as a colonel in the militia. He could not be at the polling place on Election Day, but he delegated a friend, Lt. Charles Smith, to tend bar in his absence. We know from their correspondence what the Washington campaign served: 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, two gallons of cider (probably hard), for a total of 160 gallons of booze. There were 397 voters.
Refreshments aside, Washington exhibited a knack for self-control and artful politics that ultimately led to his success. Brookhiser gives this example: Elections are one of the public faces of politics — putting yourself and your convictions (if you have any) out there. But it can be equally important to hold back. How many candidates shoot themselves in the foot by shooting off their mouths (Verb sap, Senator McCain)? Washington possessed in an eminent degree what John Adams called “the gift of silence.”
We have an account of a dinner party he hosted in August 1789 during his first presidential term, thanks to one of the guests, Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania, who wrote it up in his diary. Maclay thought it was “the most solemn dinner I ever ate at.” Washington “with great formality drank the health of every individual by name round the table. Everybody imitated him.” Then came “dead silence.”
The ladies left the table, as was customary, and Maclay expected the gentlemen to get down to business. “The same stillness prevailed.” A few jokes were told; Washington drummed on the table with his fork. Maclay was baffled, but Washington knew what he was doing, or better, what he wasn’t doing. He had been in office for four months; the Constitution had been ratified just a year ago, and the government was brand new. Everyone was bursting to know whom he would appoint, and what he would do. Let them wait. If it was not necessary for him to speak, it was necessary for him not to.
Motte says: "Reading about Washington made me wonder if any of the current presidential candidates have the character to forsake personal aggrandizement for the sake of our nation." That is yet to be seen. However, Washington showed that decent politics are possible. Brookhiser concludes: There was a lot more politics in Washington’s life, much of it intricate, some of it sordid. It should encourage us to know that the ways and means of politics, however clownish and grubby, have also served great men and great ends. It’s possible to do what you have to do, and do the right thing.
HT: World Mag Blog
After the Revolutionary War, George Washington put down his sword and resigned his commission to Congress; just as he promised he would do. It was an act that forever secured civilian rule over America's military. When King George III heard of it he said, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
In today's National Review Online article, "It's Washington's Birthday, Not Presidents' Day," Gleaves Whitney, director of the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley State University, recounts how Washington repeatedly turned down chances to increase his personal power for the sake of the American experiment. Earlier in the 1780s, Washington had been approached twice by army officers who promised their support if he decided to seize civilian power. In one famous incident in 1782, Col. Lewis Nicola wrote a letter urging Washington to overthrow Congress and become America’s king. The commanding general scolded Nicola the very same day.
In 1783, Washington caught wind of officers wanting to stage a coup d'état against Congress. The so-called Newburgh Conspirators were frustrated that Congress was not paying them what had been promised when the nation desperately needed their sacrifice. Washington would not be moved — that die would not be cast. On the Ides of March, he called the men together and sternly reprimanded them for losing faith in the idea of America. The new nation had a chance to succeed only if its leaders and military adhered to the rule of law.
Whitney writes that by putting down his sword and picking up his plow, Washington became the most trusted man in America. He said Washington's personal example of putting service before self was his greatest gift to America.
I was inspired this President's Day after reading Whitney's article. But it didn't last long. Because reading about Washington made me wonder if any of the current presidential candidates have the character to forsake personal aggrandizement for the sake of our nation.
Today is Presidents Day, which means that some people don't have to work. I am not some people.
It is also a good day to remember past presidents, specifically George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. The day is officially designated to remember Washington's birthday (February 22), but Lincoln was also much admired and his birthday was also in February, so the tradition now includes both of them.
Washington, the first U.S. president, was known for being the father of our country, leading the Revolutionary war, and his inability to lie about fallen fruit trees. He also said some pretty wise things:
"I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them."
"Let your heart feel for the afflictions and distress of everyone, and let your hand give in proportion to your purse."
"Friendship is a plant of slow growth and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity before it is entitled to the appellation."
Abraham Lincoln is well-known for his height, the Civil War and the emancipation of the slaves. He has some great quotes as well, although I think Michael Scott may have gotten this one wrong: "Abraham Lincoln once said, 'If you are a racist, I will attack you with the North.' "
Here are some sayings we can actually attribute to the president:
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
"The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me."
"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
So whether you're working today or not, please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Who are some of your favorite past presidents? Why do you like them? What good things did they say and do for the United States?
At the request of MarkB, I've configured the blog so that each comment is numbered. That way you can easily reference an earlier comment: "In comment #109, BDB said...." Those of you who know HTML can link to those specific comments by pointing to the URL you get when you click on a comment number.
Here's the thing: I've included the comment number in two places: a small number to the left of your name in the gray bar above each comment and a large number to the right of each comment. If you don't see that large number, "refresh" this page. It'll then show up. If it still doesn't show up, go here and refresh that page until you see ".comment-number" at the bottom of that page.
Here's the question for you: Do you prefer the small number or the large number? Can you suggest a tweak that'd make your preference look even cooler? Is there anything else you'd like us to do to improve your experience on The Line? Am I trying to be too much of a people-pleaser? (Thanks, Carrie, for pointing out the typo 'd made in that previous sentence.)
In this week's podcast, we talk about our part in plugging into a church. Interesting given that this week's CT Singles article, " The Church Drift," is about the difficulty singles have feeling fully engaged in a church body. I've found it's not that much different for singles or marrieds -- what's required of all of us is intentionality. It's not our nature to do uncomfortable things. But that's what's required. Or as Motte says, "Your life should be the church." Wow. Some challenge.
After the church conversation, I answer a question from a woman who's hooked on explicit romance novels. In the process of talking about breaking free, I promised a list of good books to take the place of the bad.
Here it is:
- Elizabeth Goudge (hard to get, but great stories with romance)
- Janette Oke series
- The Journeyman, Elizabeth Yates
- Hue and Cry, Elizabeth Yates
- Gene Stratton Porter: Freckles, The Girl of the Limberlost, The Bee Keeper
- Lloyd Douglas: The Robe, The Magnificent Obsession
- Vienna Prelude (or Chronicles) by Brock and Bodie Thoene
- George Eliot (very classic, but oh such good storytelling) Middlemarch, Daniel Deronda
- Jane Austen (thanks for the spelling correction, Apryl!)
- George MacDonald novels: The Marquis' Secret, The Fisherman's Lady
Many of these are classics, available from the library. I'd love to hear from any readers who've read these titles and can give a brief synopsis.
Most of us are fairly familiar with theories of evolution. The basic premise is that the variety of life around us resulted from one common ancestor, that over the course of millions of years, genetic change and natural selection have given us rats and pigs and boys.
Please allow me present a particular theory of creation that I'm drawn to: the "orchard" model.
I first came across this theory in Jonathan Sarfati's Refuting Evolution. He's made this book available online; chapter 2 is where he explains this model most clearly.
This theory concurs with the Scriptural account of God creating various "kinds" of organisms, each which reproduced "according to its kind." Sarfati writes, "Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments."
The theory goes on to posit that over the course of many generations, as a result of The Fall, genetic information deteriorated and the offspring that were "fittest" for a particular environment "survived." That resulted in genetic variation within each "kind" of organism (note that we're not talking "species" here, but the larger category of "kind").
So we have finches and vultures, beagles and bulldogs, rats and mice, chimpanzees and orangutans, Aboriginals and Pygmies.
Let me copy-paste a very helpful excerpt from the chapter, a portion that differentiates the theory of evolution and a "caricature of creationism" with this "orchard" model.
 Figure 1: The evolutionary "tree" which postulates that all today's species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals). This is what evolution is really all about. |
 Figure 2: The alleged creationist "lawn" this represents the caricature of creationism presented by Teaching about Evolution—the Genesis "kinds" were the same as today's species. |
 Figure 3: The true creationist "orchard" diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis "kinds" (creationists often call them baramin, from Hebrew bara = create, and min = kind). Much of the evidence of variation presented by Teaching about Evolution refutes only the straw-man version of creationism in Figure 2, but fits the true creationist "orchard" model perfectly well. |
If you find this as fascinating as I did, I'd encourage you to check out chapter 2 of Sarfati's book, and perhaps the rest of the book as well.
I remember the first time I came across this theory. It wasn't like anything I'd ever heard before, but it made sense. It seemed consistent with the Scriptural account of creation (which I have to add presents itself as historical, rather than myth or metaphor). It also seemed consistent with evidence unearthed by the scientific community. It was as though all the puzzle pieces just came together.
I've never been satisfied with the simplistic model put out by some creationists that God made everything "this way" and nothing's changed, that there is absolutely no genetic drift. I'm also dissatisfied with the evolutionists' theory that "all this" resulted from cycles of death and an increase of beneficial genetic information over time, a theory that diminishes the Creator/Designer as irrelevant.
This theory, the "orchard" model, just makes sense to me. I appreciate Jonathan Sarfati's bringing it to my attention.
I had planned on writing only two installments on this, but rather than try to respond in piecemeal fashion to some of the good comments and questions raised by part 1, let me try to answer some here. I'll try to answer representative questions, since I can't possibly answer all in a short space.
First, Andrew Spivack. Yes, I'm afraid your neighbor's puppy has probably outclassed me in all fields of science. I'm hopeless there, including the physics and geology courses I took in college. I mean, I got only a measly A in each subject. I should have gotten an A++, as your neighbor's puppy no doubt did. I still remember with a sense of shame getting back my physics term paper with a big, fat red A on the top. Where was the ++ with the little smiley sticker I surely deserved? Even today, a tear forms in my eye as I think back on the ignominy of it all.
I did, however, take courses in learning to read and think carefully. I'm sure I have the pup beat on that front. And I notice that as I go back and re-read my original post, I explicitly said I did not wish to go into the scientific arguments for or against evolution, intelligent design, etc., and so I didn't. Perhaps you missed that part. These things happen when you jump to conclusions. I also learned to address what a writer has actually said and not what I wished/thought/assumed he said. Perhaps your brilliant mind accidentally flashed past that part.
Oh, and the altruism thing? Clearly Darwin thought it was a problem, since he went out of his way to address it, as did Richard Dawkins. But with your vast scientific background, perhaps you could help Professor Dawkins see how silly he's being.
Now, your response to Farmer Tom is just bizarre. I'd say it was a non sequitur, but that would give it too much credit. No one says they don't believe in Darwinian evolution because Nazis also believed it. They say that Darwinian theory leads naturally to abuses such as what the Nazis committed. Your false analogy to Heisenberg shows you are unable to connect these logical dots. I think you probably spent so much time studying science that you weren't able to squeeze in any courses in basic logic. (I'm guessing, too, that the puppy did better than you on the analogies portion of the SAT.)
In fact, Andrew, what you've done is the rhetorical equivalent of running into someone's house, urinating all over the carpet and running out again, thinking you've been clever. In what branch of science does one learn this?
PS. Say hi to the pup for me, and tell him to tune in for part 2. I'll deal with more of the logical and moral implications of Darwinian evolution. Ciao for now.
JB [Dawkins] says that altruism is explainable because members of a kin group share a large number of genes and efforts to support the survival of members of your kin group actually enhances the survival potential of your genes. So behavior that is "selfish" on the molecular level looks "altruistic" at the organism level. Kind of cool.
First, what does he mean by "kin group"? It"s an undefined and endlessly elastic term that can be made to mean whatever you want it to mean. But even being generous in assuming what he means, this explanation misses the point. Altruism is not caring for your siblings, family, clan and the like. It"s forgiving your enemies. It"s giving to the poor who clearly cannot be construed as anywhere near my "kin group," e.g., a Scandinavian building hospitals for the poor in Zimbabwe. It's laying down my life to save the life of a complete stranger. This is very hard to explain through Darwinian reasoning. Dawkins does say that we should strive to teach altruism because we are inherently selfish; no argument there. But why? (I’ll deal with this more in part 2.)
Also, altruism is a complex behavior that cannot be explained by mere genetic code. If Dawkins' explanation were true, it would imply biological determinism; all we do is simply a product of our genes, and therefore there are no morally praiseworthy or morally corrupt acts. It's just what we were programmed to do. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela are indistinguishable from Charles Manson and Josef Stalin. My genes made me do it. It's neither good nor bad; it just is.
Peter Wells A lot of people try and claim Intelligent Design is a science, but the thing is with a scientific theory, you take the evidence and come up with a solution, instead of taking the solution (God) and then trying to find evidence to justify Him. … And 'just-so' stories? How would they be any different from a scientist's point of view from Genesis? Isn't that just one big 'just-so' story?
But what precisely is the evidence of, say, Dawkins' theory of the selfish gene? How does one study it? How does one test the hypothesis? In fact, Dawkins took something that is and resorted to his own form of 'god," i.e., evolutionary theory, and shoehorned the evidence to fit it. It's very much god-of-the-gaps thinking. Dawkins did not take observed human behavior and reason from that to evolutionary theory; he started with evolutionary theory and made the evidence fit that.
I see your point that Genesis could be construed as a just-so story -- except for one thing. There happens to be some historical evidence to support the claims of the book. Chiefly, it's pretty clear from archeological and documentary evidence that a person named Jesus lived in 1st century Palestine, and he said and did certain things, including claiming to be God, proving it with various miracles and His resurrection from the dead. (Even his enemies, the Sanhedrin, acknowledge this but try to explain it away.) No, it's not QED evidence such as we would find in a mathematical proof, but epistemologically it does lead to what's called "justified true belief." (In fact, much of what we take to be "true" in everyday life falls into this same epistemological category.) Among the things this Jesus said was that the things written in Genesis were true.
Louise Here's another interesting Darwin fact...he was married to a member of the Wedgewood family, as in the tableware/china.
Indeed, and Josiah Wedgwood (no second "e") was active in the abolition movement and worked with William Wilberforce.
Peter Wells In creationism, there are two explanations for [entropy]. First, God made Entropy as a system of His universe and therefore things aren't perfect like Genesis claimed, because His creation is actually in the process of dying.
Alternatively, Adam and Eve's Sin causes God to 'break' His perfect creation and thus creates Entropy. Which begs... a)God can change the laws of physics if he wants, so scientifically it's anything goes. What's the point in studying anything when God might change it tomorrow? b) How did anything work without Entropy? It's kind of necessary in order to make things happen. c) Adam and Eve mess up and so God decides to damn the entire universe to heat death? I don't want to question God, but it seems a little extreme. There are simpler ways to achieve the same thing, if you're God.
I'm aware that some people think the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, sometimes just reduced to the term entropy, is a product of the Fall of Adam and Eve or somehow a sign that the creation is not perfect or is "broken," but that's not the case. (Even Answers in Genesis had to modify their answer on this.) The creation simply cannot function without it. The physical law is part of the process of digestion and breathing, and you wouldn't be able to walk across the floor if the mechanical energy of your foot did not degrade into friction against the floor. In short, there's a lot of confused thinking about the 2nd law and entropy, way more than can be addressed here. Briefly, I would say your question is based on a flawed understanding of the concept.
What I would add, too, is that without constant sustaining, the entire universe would degrade from order to disorder, as my backyard has the unfortunate tendency to do. Christianity teaches that Jesus is not only the creator of all things but also their sustainer.
John Its amazing to me the twisting and turning that some creationists will do to support their view. They will look you in the eye and tell you that scientific evidence is not admissible against the Biblical record and that it doesn't matter, and then five seconds later they will try their hardest to show that science *does* support the Bible. Procrustean gymnastics at its finest.
Show me anyplace where someone has said anything close to this. Sure, there are some things that are nonscientific in Scripture, i.e., they can't be explained by scientific means, but that is true also of the everyday world we live in. But here's a key distinction: that doesn't mean they are unscientific. In other words, that does not mean they necessarily violate science; we just can't explain them with our present level of knowledge. Besides, most of the stuff I've read actually appeals to science and other empirical reasoning to explain Christianity. In fact, the Bible itself does that with constant appeals to evidence.
My young daughter has a scar at the top of her rib cage, just under her right arm. Sometimes I'll go for weeks, even months, forgetting that it's there. Then, in a moment, I'll catch a glimpse of it. And, in that moment, it's like I'm transported back in time.
I can see the doctor, in his turquoise scrubs, informing me that my four-year-old must have emergency lung surgery or very likely die. I can hear her small, weak voice asking me to please...please lay with her on the gurney. I remember the hospital hallway lights flickering on her fevered face as they wheeled the two of us down to the operating room. I can remember stroking her hair, telling her in the calmest voice I could muster that everything was going to be all right.
Three years later, you would never know that my laughing, dancing little girl went through that ordeal. But I remember it. I remember it when I see the scar.
I thought about that last night as I attended the kick-off concert for the Point of Grace/Selah tour and heard a powerful song from POG called "Heal the Wound." The chorus (you can hear it here) goes like this:
Heal the wound, but leave the scar
A reminder of how merciful you are
I am broken, torn apart,
Take the pieces of this heart and
Heal the wound, but leave the scar.
My daughter's scar is a reminder of her ordeal but, much more, it's a reminder of God's mercy and faithfulness in our lives during those weeks. The song last night reminded me that scars aren't just physical. So many of us have wounds from our lives, some fresh and some old. Have you asked the Lord to heal that wound? He will. Then thank Him for the scar. Thank Him everytime you remember His unfailing love.
Happy Valentine's Day! My dad called me this morning with a singing telegram (to the tune of "Happy Birthday"): "Happy Valentine's Day to you; we both [Mom and Dad] love you; Happy Valentine's Day to You-oo; we both love you." Refreshing. (Not to mention the brilliance of multiple rhyming yous.)
Speaking of love among family members, Gina at the Point brought to my attention this column, perfect for Valentine's Day. Author Jennifer Roback Morse recounts a day when she and her husband, her grandpa, uncle, birth daughter, two foster children and adopted son piled into their mini-van: I realized that all these people were counting on my husband and I to love one another. Obviously, our kids are legitimately dependent on us. Our love for each other sustains them. We couldn't really be much help to the foster kids if we weren't able to work together as a team, for their good, as well as the good of the whole family. Without our love for each other, our middle-class lifestyle would be an empty sham, and not nearly so valuable for them.
And there was grandpa nodding off in the front seat. Because my husband and I love each other, he doesn't have to worry about us. A lot of elderly people end up taking care of their grandchildren because their adult children's marriages have collapsed, or exploded. In the back seat, my husband’s brother was tickling the nieces and nephews we provide him. Our marriage enriches him, even though he is perfectly capable of taking care of himself. If we didn't love each other, my husband and I wouldn't have that van full of people who love us and count on us.
On Ungrind, Ashleigh Slater writes a great piece about loving your spouse by starving crushes: Five years, one month, and twenty-something days ago, I walked down the aisle of a century-old church and committed to forsake all others for the man standing beside me at the altar. There, I publicly proclaimed the days of schoolgirl crushes to be behind me.
As a new bride, I determined that from then on the only man who'd make me weak in my knees was my husband. And that even on those days when I didn't swoon in his presence, my heart would still remain steadfastly faithful to him.
And for those of us who are still waiting this Valentine's Day, consider the wisdom in Frederica Matthews Green's response to a young woman praying for a spouse: Does this young man seem like a companion for the entire life journey toward salvation? Would he help you always to put God first-would he want you to love God even more than himself? Also, take a hard look at yourself. Do you like him because of his sterling qualities, or because he makes you feel desirable (which indicates that he is stirring up vanity in you), or because you could boss him around (pride, arrogance), or because he makes a good salary (greed)? If the main thing drawing you toward this man is rooted in one of your sins, he’s not the right one.
We serve a God who is love. So whether you're single, married, loving on a family or serving others this Valentine's Day, love big. "No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us" (1 John 4:12).
Focus on the Family holds pretty traditional beliefs about Scripture, God, government and family. As a ministry of Focus on the Family, Boundless also tends to be fairly conservative. That should surprise nobody.
I've noticed that a good number of those leaving comments on The Line hold more "progressive" beliefs about these things. Comments that are "pro-choice" and pro-Democrat, that hold much of Scripture to be myth/fable/metaphor, that are in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, that advocate global warming alarmism, that reject principles of biblical dating/courtship, that denigrate those who practice media discernment, that question the efficacy of the gospel, and so on -- these types of comments are not uncommon on The Line.
Personally, I'm fine with that. I'm happy that readers across the ideological spectrum are engaging the ideas being brought up by the Boundless team.
But I'm wondering if the consistent resistance to the ideas presented in our articles and posts is off-putting to those on the more conservative end of that spectrum. We want to serve all of our readers, but I'm concerned that we may be alienating some by allowing such disagreeable comments through.
So here's the question for our more "conservative" friends: Do you find some of the comment discouraging? Do you find yourself inclined not to visit The Line because of the argumentative nature of some of the discussions? Or are you more drawn in by the feisty tone of post-blog commentary, challenged and strengthened by the lively back-and-forth?
Please understand, dear readers -- this is really a question I have for our more conservative/traditional readers, especially those who don't comment much. I'd prefer that our more "progressive" friends sit back and observe for right now.
Lisa Anderson and I are scheduled to go into the studio this Friday to interview the guys from CCM group Salvador for our podcast, The Boundless Show.
Last week we spent some time with CCM groups Leeland and Casting Crowns, and you were helpful in providing great questions for those interviews. If you've got any questions for Salvador, pose them below; we'll run them by the guys on Friday.
Christian Brotherhood
Today's Boundless article written by Mike Ensley is a haunting look into what he believes is the root of so much sexual activity among the young -- lack of intimacy. And he isn't talking about romantic intimacy. He's talking about an intimacy that should be found in the church, but isn't; he found it in the gay community instead, and warns that others may too unless we wake up.
American Presidential Idol
I'm starting to feel about the presidential race like I feel about American Idol. The early rounds are exciting and fun with a bunch of interesting characters. Then around the middle of the season I get bored with all the same faces and same voices. Sort of like where we are with the presidential race right now. But like Idol, I'm certain to tune back in when it's the final two.
Hmmm SpaghettiOs
I read a blurb in The Wall Street Journal today about young adults and heart disease. Apparently, researchers found that many younger adults who died of unnatural causes had clogged arteries. I wonder if the delay in marriage has anything to with it -- at least in the case of men. Before I was married, I lived on a diet of Frosted Flakes, bologna sandwiches, and SpaghettiOs. It's true.
I sit stunned as the closing credits roll. Though I've seen The Lord of the Rings series in its entirety several times, once again I find myself speechless. Sam has just lovingly gathered his youngest child into his arms, followed his wife and other child indoors, and pulled the door shut behind him. And as the music swells, I'm overwhelmed by what I've once again experienced.
The credits list those responsible for overseeing production, those who manage the sound design, those who man the cameras, those in charge of special effects. The credits roll for those who wrote and performed the music, for the soloists, for the foley artists, for the hair stylists, the costume designers, the set designers, those who created the miniatures. The credits continue rolling for the actors, the assistants, the caterers, the physicians, the storyboard artists, the stunt artists, the horse trainers. The credits continue scrolling up the screen for minutes.
It really is overwhelming to experience the fruit of such intentional collaboration.
One person could not bring such a monumental work as The Lord of the Rings into being. A handful couldn't do it. A hundred weren't able to do it. It took thousands of people hundreds of thousands of hours over the course of years to bring Tolkien's masterpiece to the screen.
Over this past weekend I finished reading the manuscript for Alex and Brett Harris's forthcoming book Do Hard Things. In it, they identify five "kinds of hard" that, when engaged, propel us into the realm of the extraordinary. The third "hard" is the power of collaboration: "How to do hard things that are too big for you to do alone."
Reflecting now on The Lord of the Rings leads me to wonder what great things I might be able to accomplish in collaboration with others. It certainly takes a team to pull off the Boundless webzine, blog and podcast. Couldn't do that on my own. And I've seen great things when folks at church come together to work on some common goal.
But I wonder what other vision I could gather together that requires collaboration to bring to fruition. I wonder if there's something the Lord would have me invest my life in that simply can't be accomplished on my own. Hm.
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