 |
I walked out of the clinic in a stupor. The sky seemed less colorful, the spring air less fresh, my legs less stable. I had testicular cancer.
More blood tests, ultrasounds, X-rays. My dad flying in a few days before the surgery date. Surgery. Almost passing out in the bathroom after getting home. Passing out in the hospital a few weeks later. Months of chest X-rays and CT scans and blood tests to determine whether or not they got it all. Years of chest X-rays and CT scans and blood tests.
Five years of this, and the doctor gave me the good news: The surgery five years earlier was completely successful. I was now officially cancer-free. I was a survivor.
Did God ordain my cancer? I don't know. Did I do something to cause the cancer? I don't know.
What I do know is that I am grateful for having gone through cancer. Yeah, you read that right. I'm grateful that the Lord used that time to teach me to trust more in Him, to not fear talking with others about Him, to place some things high on the priority list and other things lower on that list.
I didn't get tied in knots with all the "why" questions, frankly. I knew God was good, and He was guiding me each day through my illness. And that was exhilarating, as though I were on the cutting edge of life. Who knows what tomorrow might bring? God knows. And He had been faithful before; He would continue being faithful. Of course. Why should I question Him now?
My cancer solidified faith and character. And that's a good thing. (And I'm not the only one to see the potential benefits of going through cancer.)
I'm no biblical scholar, but that does sound consistent with Scripture. We know, for example, that for those who love God all things work together for good (Romans 8:28). For good!
And who knows? Maybe the cancer was being used as a kind of discipline. Not punishment, since God does not punish His children, but discipline. And if it was discipline, that's a good thing -- even a gift. After all, the Lord disciplines those He loves (Hebrews 12:6). He "disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it" (Hebrews 12:10-11).
Suffering does that: It produces in us fruit of righteousness. It allows us to share God's holiness.
Whether my cancer was brought about by God's decree, by Adam's sin or by my carelessness, I don't know. Regardless who was at fault for the cancer, the Lord used that season of suffering to discipline me for good.
* * *And now, oddly enough, I find myself thinking of another kind of suffering: the suffering of a single adult who longs to be married. They may be single because of bad choices; they may be single because of no fault of their own. I don't know. But just as the Lord did a good work in me through my suffering with cancer, I believe the Lord can do a good work in those who suffer in their singleness.
Of course, I sought out a physician to deal with my cancer. That was a good idea. And it's a fine idea for marriage-minded singles to seek help in bringing an end to their suffering as well. You don't just sit there and not deal with the root cause of your suffering.
But at the same time, I believe that one of the richest and most fulfilling joys of this life is serving the Lord in the midst of our suffering and allowing Him to make us more Christ-like through our suffering.
You may be called to a lifetime of serving the Lord as a single adult. I commend you. Suffering for the Lord by forfeiting spouse and children is honorable.
Or you may be called to marriage, and ache for it. Let me encourage you to do something about it, just as I dealt with the thing that brought me suffering. But don't despise this season: The suffering you experience may very well be a gift.
Thought it was interesting that on the same day that Candice is answering a question from a young woman who wants to be a stay-at-home mom, USA Today prints an article titled: "Day Care's New Frontier: Your Baby at Your Desk."
The article highlights several companies who have decided on one way to avoid losing employees after childbirth: Let new parents bring the baby to work. According to the Parenting in the Workplace Institute, more than 80 companies across the nation have such policies.
Some love it. Allie Hewlett, 33, a benefits administrator at T3, brings her 7-month-old daughter, Scout, to the office most days. Bringing Scout in, she says, helped alleviate the anguish over leaving the girl in day care, which Hewlett plans to do when Scout becomes more mobile.
Hewlett had been sharing an office with co-workers but moved to a private office now that Scout accompanies her to work. Along with her briefcase, Hewlett brought a Pack 'n Play, an Exersaucer, a bouncy swing and other baby paraphernalia that she set up beside her desk.
"Scout is so well-adjusted, and people come over all the time to play with her. They jump at the chance to watch Scout if I have a phone call," Hewlett says.
Others have their doubts. The babies-at-work trend is drawing criticism on several fronts. Bringing children to the office — whether once in a while or every day — raises legal concerns for employers, creates a distraction that can undermine workers' productivity and may not be the best environment for a baby to get interaction and stimulation, critics say.
"The reality is, the parent can't pay 100% attention to the job, and the child is often distracting to other employees," says Robin Ryan, a career coach.
This sounds like an arrangement I would have thought of as ideal ... that is, before I had kids. Continue my professional life without having to leave my baby in day care? Perfect! But then, as they say, reality hits. In those first months of life, while trying to fulfill my infants' needs, I barely found time in the day to get a shower, much less take care of them and work my full-time job.
It reminds me of what one friend confided recently. She is working a part-time arrangement, two days and two evenings, while staying at home with her infant son the other three working days. "I don't feel like a good mother and I don't feel like a good employee," she said. "When I'm doing one, I'm always thinking about the other."
It seems like these employers' attempted solution does continue to highlight one thing: New parents, most especially new moms, want to be with their babies. It's so important, I think, to understand that before you have kids. I'd recommend giving Candice's advice a read.
Most Americans get married at some point and an even higher percentage of Evangelicals do so. Evangelicals are less likely to get a divorce than other population segments, but have often been divorced before becoming believers. These are some of the findings in a new Barna study released today.
Only 22% of those Barna studied had never married and only 16% of born again Christians had not married. Additionally, Barna found that marriage and divorce percentages varied among population segments: For instance, the groups with the most prolific experience of marriage ending in divorce are downscale adults (39%), Baby Boomers (38%), those aligned with a non-Christian faith (38%), African-Americans (36%), and people who consider themselves to be liberal on social and political matters (37%).
Among the population segments with the lowest likelihood of having been divorced subsequent to marriage are Catholics (28%), evangelicals (26%), upscale adults (22%), Asians (20%) and those who deem themselves to be conservative on social and political matters (28%).
Barna's closer look at divorce among Christians helps explain why we so often hear that Christians aren't very distinct from the world in their divorce patterns: Born again Christians who are not evangelical were indistinguishable from the national average on the matter of divorce: 33% have been married and divorced. The survey did not determine if the divorce occurred before or after the person had become born again. However, previous research by Barna has shown that less than two out of every ten people who accept Christ as their savior do so after their first marriage.
In fact, when evangelicals and non-evangelical born again Christians are combined into an aggregate class of born again adults, their divorce figure is statistically identical to that of non-born again adults: 32% versus 33%, respectively.
A few days ago, Ted shared a DTR success story. The post generated some interesting comments. Some of them echoed similar good experiences; others reflected discouragement. Having my share of experience with the DTR, I've written a couple of articles on the subject. From "Confessions of a Relationship Consultant:" When I attended Bible college, "defining the relationship" (DTR) was a regular part of the vocabulary. As soon as two members of the opposite sex had been seen hanging out together, oh, say two or three times, the buzz would begin. A girl in the dorm would giddily declare, "Chad and I are having our DTR tonight." By the flurry of excitement that followed, you would have thought they were getting engaged — and often six months later they would.
A DTR became an expectation for men — the inevitable end to serial "hanging out" with one girl.
There was a time when I was tired of hearing about it, but I have observed that a well-timed DTR -- no matter what the outcome -- is a good thing. It either gives a relationship direction or frees up both parties to pursue other options. Still, when a clarity conversation doesn't go the way you planned, the fallout can be frustrating. For every happy ending there seems to be a, well, less-than-happy one.
I addressed this in, "You're a Great Guy, but...."
I talked about the aftermath of an "unsuccessful" DTR from a guy's perspective. Occasionally it's clear that the desired relationship won't happen — ever. Maybe the girl closes the door directly by expressing interest in another person or denying a connection. More often, the talk leaves the guy confused. Her words may seem to be expressing attraction while at the same time professing a lack of it. A man finds himself at a loss to know whether he should give up or try harder.
The confusion that sometimes accompanies the DTR process is not reason enough to quit trying. When it comes to seeking the clarity that precedes godly marriages, let hope spring eternal. From "Relationship Consultant:" Like many single adults, I have long since grown weary of Christian relationship lingo. That doesn't change the wisdom of such actions. My experiences as a DTR consultant have taught me that the first relationship conversation can be more than an exercise — it can be the beginning of true love.
My wife confesses to a list she wrote out before we met of characteristics she wanted in a husband. I'm told I was an exact match. But, as we both found out after the wedding, exact matches on some things aren't necessarily a good indicator for marital bliss. Because making two selfish people become one is hard work regardless of mere preferences.
Our roundtable this week revolves around Candice Watters's Boundless article, "When to Settle." During the discussion, Steve makes the observation that too often Christian singles seem willing to settle on biblical criteria when choosing a mate while not giving an inch on cultural ideals like ... a man's height. Is your ideal prohibiting you from moving forward in a relationship?
We have a timely culture segment with Plugged In Online's Bob Waliszewski previewing this week's new movie releases, 21, Run Fat Boy Run, College Road Trip, and Horton Hears a Who! That's right, Horton Hears a Who! Now I know you're thinking you're too old, but for all you 20-somethings who own a Bob the Tomato T-shirt -- and you know who you are -- this Bob says you'll love it.
Whether you're new to Boundless or an aficionado, you may not know much about our Hungry Years segment. In short, it's about life after college -- you know: MREs, training wheels, etc. Or maybe that was just Steve Watters's experience. Anyway, here he puts voice to his essay that started it all.
We end the show with a powerful Inbox segment with Melissa Fryrear, Director of Gender Issues department at Focus on the Family. We asked Melissa to answer a plea for help we received from a young woman who fears she may be a lesbian. Melissa dispels some myths about sexual confusion and provides some comforting answers to many who may be struggling with same-sex attraction.
And if you'd like to go straight to any of the segments I've described, here are the time breaks:
Intro
Roundtable -- 3:50
Culture -- 22:45
Hungry Years -- 34:30
Inbox -- 38:40
You may have noticed that the show's running longer and longer. I'm not sure if it's a trend we'll keep up but let us know what you think about the length, the segments, the music, etc. And if you want to leave us a great review on iTunes, feel free to do that too. ;-)
But if iTunes isn't your cup of tea for your online listening pleasure, you can listen now, subscribe through RSS, or download the MP3 for later consumption by going here.
It used to be a penny for your thoughts. Then, somewhere along the way (inflation, maybe?) it became "giving your two cents."
Come to think of it, I think I've seen several of you give your $.02 on this blog.
Well, whether it's one penny or two, it seems that our thoughts are worth even more than we thought. Thanks to the rising cost of metal, it now costs the U.S. Mint 1.7 cents to create a penny. Evidently, the Mint went $33 million in the hole in FY2006 on penny and nickel production, and $99 million in FY2007.
Congress has decided this is bad math. Two weeks ago, they held a hearing on the "Coin Modernization and Taxpayer Savings Act of 2008." (So like politicians, they couldn't just stop at "Coin Modernization.") It would give the U.S. Treasury the authority to tweak the weight and composition "of any coin whose production costs exceed its face value for five consecutive years" and would require the production of steel pennies (right now, they're copper-plated zinc) within 180 days of the bill's signing.
Of course, there is controversy. This is the government, after all. But, keep your eyes alert. You may be handling steel pennies in the foreseeable future.
And, until then, remember: Our two cents is actually worth 3.4. Nice!
 Recently, Candice and I introduced our kids to the classic movie Chariots of Fire. There's a lot we love about this movie, but we had forgotten the power of the address by the Master of Caius near the beginning of the movie. His message to the incoming freshmen of Caius college at Cambridge University opens with his reflection on the tragic loss of scores of Cambridge grads in the Great War and concludes with a charge to the students now taking their seats:
And now by tragic necessity their dreams have become yours.
Let me exhort you: examine yourselves.
Let each of you discover where your true chance of greatness lies.
For their sakes, for the sake of your College and your country, seize this chance, rejoice in it, and let no power or persuasion deter you in your task.
(You can hear the rest of the message here)
The news this week that 4,000 service men and women have died fighting in Iraq has been treated as a political football by some, but I wonder if there's any common ground between both the war's supporters and opponents to appreciate the high quality of the men and women who have died in this battle. More than that, I wonder how many of the people who were peers of those who died might feel the "tragic necessity" of fulfilling the hope and potential that remains in this generation that has lost some of its finest.
 Maybe you've already seen this, but I just now ran across an article from last week hinting that Disney might scale back on their plan to release movies based on all seven books from Chronicles of Narnia. According to JimHillMedia.com (an entertainment site):
...studio suits seem to be cooling to the idea of producing movie versions of all seven of C.S. Lewis's Narnia books. And unless The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian does truly huge box office once it's released to theaters in May of this year ... Disney & Walden Media (i.e. Mickey's partner on the Narnia film series) will probably still go forward with production of the already-in-development The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. But after that ... The Mouse would then mostly likely pull the plug on the rest of the proposed Narnia film series.
That would be lame. I know the stories don't work quite as closely together, but could you imagine if New Line Cinema had gotten Lord of the Rings fans all excited about a trilogy and then bailed after number two? Come on Disney, give us all seven.
We published a TrueU article today about Truth, Honesty and Politics. Hmm, those things don't seem to go together, do they?
Doc Leland, a professor at the Focus on the Family Institute, wrote this article to encourage us to ask the right questions when it comes to deciding which candidate we'll vote for. Much of the process has become a game, which Leland recognizes and hopes that we overcome: I used to work in politics. I've helped several candidates get elected (and a few get not elected as well). I know how the "spin" works and I know what the public wants to hear. Through my work in politics it became abundantly clear that only one in 1,000 folks — well, very few, anyway — had any idea what tax policy really looked like or how social welfare policy impacted them. I know that very few had even an inkling of what foreign policy or energy policy had to do with their own lives. Why, then, are we still seeing candidates present lofty policy goals, when so few people have any idea what these candidates are talking about?
Leland encourages us to ask three basic questions of candidates:
1. What are your basic beliefs and what do you believe to be true? When we dig this deep, we help people see a candidate for who they really are — which isn't all that different from us, really. That is, we all have a worldview, and that worldview manifests itself in the things we say we believe. Even more, it manifests itself in what we do with those beliefs.
2. How do you think those values and beliefs will impact the decisions you'll make while you're in office? Here's where the rubber meets the road. Once the candidate has identified their beliefs, we need to see the degree to which they integrate these beliefs into their actual decision making.
3. Do you have the strength of conviction to stand up for those beliefs when others line up against them and attack them? How many times have we been disappointed in governing leadership when they say they stand for something and then publicly decide in another direction? Too many, probably. I believe we need candidates who have convictions and stand by them.
Leland proposes that when we know the foundational beliefs of each candidate, we'll be able to understand more about why they believe what they do about specific policy issues. Many politicians know what to say to become more popular, and we're partially at fault for being voters who elect people based on snippets and popularity.
Everyone has a worldview that affects what they believe and why. We should ask honest questions of candidates in order to figure out how their beliefs will influence their leadership.
P.S. TrueU has a brand new video. You'll probably want to check it out as soon as possible.
The book of Jonah was the focus of my college inductive Bible study class. The instructor (who had written his master's thesis on Jonah) forced us to get beyond the storybook Jonah (by reading the book some 20 times) and arrive at the book's true implications: God shows mercy to whom He chooses, and He will use even the disobedient to accomplish His will.
In "Eaten Alive," Ronald F. Marshall addresses the way children's books have sanitized the story of the disobedient prophet and in so-doing removed its gospel message. Jonah is a horrifying book, with its raging storm and fierce sea-monster, a suicide attempt and near drowning, and, at the end, a confrontation with a massive enemy city. But in American children's literature it is largely a harmless adventure story, all about travel and intrigue, underwater hideouts, success and fame.
Jonah may not have been eaten alive in the Bible, but he has been in the children's books. In the nineteen versions I examined for this essay, the horror of the story has been extracted and removed from sight, and with it an important theological and imaginative preparation for the gospel.
Marshall observes that many storybooks justify or romanticize Jonah's disobedience, ignore the consequences of his sin and completely overlook the "death" of being swallowed by a whale. This treatment of God's Word extracts its power. The New Testament itself presses this connection when it says that only the "sign of Jonah" will point to Christ (Matt. 12:39; Luke 11:29). Just as Jonah was thrown to his (expected) death in the sea to save the sailors from the storm, so are we, "the entire boat of humanity," as the church father Jerome put it, saved from sin by Jesus when he is nailed to his death on the cross. So Jonah's headlong leap into the deadly sea prefigures Jesus' willing ascent to die on the cross.
Additionally, only a few versions included the scene in chapter four, in which God sends the worm to eat the shade tree and Jonah is left pouting and sulking. I'm ashamed to admit that it wasn't until college that I found out Jonah was not a role model. His obedience was unwilling even to the end. Marshall points out that we should not shield children from the scary truths of God's Word -- including the horrifying results of sin. Forget about cleaning up Jonah. Instead, tell the story the Bible tells. It is the story God wants your children to hear.
If you're as great as your resume says you are, you probably don't need one. At least that's what marketing expert Seth Godin says. Instead, just show potential employers a project you completed or your personal blog. Oh, and it helps if you can get recommended by someone your prospective boss knows and respects.
Come to think of it, if you can score the latter, you may not need the former.
I found this job-getting advice on the popular "how to" blog, Lifehacker.com. But if you lack such convenient recommendations or project experience, the post continues with some good resume tips from career adviser Penelope Trunk: Don't focus on your responsibilities, focus on what you achieved. [...] Most people do not think in terms of quantified achievements when they are in the job, but on the resume, that's the only part of the job that matters. No one can see that you were a "good team player" on your resume unless you can say "established a team to solve problem x and increased sales x%" or "joined under-performing team and helped that team beat production delivery dates by three weeks."
That's good advice. And it's applicable for recent grads and new job seekers too. You just need to develop the art of educing your accomplishments from whatever work experience you've had.
Here's one example:
Say you worked for a mortgage lender making cold calls to generate clients. You could say something like, "Sold loan programs to existing clients and other pre-selected leads." But it'd be much better to say, "Sold more loan programs than 80% of staff of 15 loan officers within three months of employment."
Or to follow Godin's advice, you could just blog about it and then send your prospective employer the loan files. =)
Last year when the Boundless team was laboring over our DTR (Define The Relationship) Assessment, we were hoping to help young adults find clarity in their relationships. From time to time we hear from those who've taken the test, and whose relationships have benefited as a result. Here's an e-mail we received from one such young woman just this afternoon: Dear Boundless,
Well, it was two more weeks before I had the guts enough to bring up the issue. When I finally did it was not as bad as I thought. The following is a recap of how it went down:
I felt the need to clarify our relationship because people were being to wonder why both he and I were busy at the same time. After being teased a bit at church I decided that something needed to be done.
We has just spend a large amount time together watching a movie, having dinner, and enjoying each other's company just talking and laughing. When I was ready to leave after "hanging out" he walked me out to my car and I simply asked him, "What are we?" Finally I told him that I wanted to be able to tell people something when they asked and was tired of not feeling like I was being honest with people as well as myself. He then took up the ball and told me that he liked me and that he would like to date me. To which I responded with a "yes." I felt kind of dumb for waiting as long as I did because when I told one of my friends, she said, "Finally, I thought that he would never ask!"
It's weird because after we agreed that we were officially dating, we talked about what we would say when people asked. We agreed that we tell them that we had been seeing each other least a month or two, but now we were officially dating ( aka, " boy-friend and girl-friend").
Moral of the story: Don't be afraid to ask. The worse that could happen is that he clarifies with a no.
I think for women, we are scared to bring up the issue because we don't feel like it is our place. I also think that many of us struggle with the idea of losing a close friend when we ask for clarification. I believe that it is a necessary risk that we all need to be willing to take regardless if your are a man or woman.
I took the risk, and it paid off. Be willing to take the risk: Sometimes you will win and sometime you won't, but you will never know unless you try.
Thank you so much for this resource. I have referred many of my friends to it and they love it.
How about you? How have you found our free DTR Assessment helpful? Feel free to either leave the specifics below (be as verbose as you'd like) or send your story to editor@boundless.org
The Washington Post used to run a contest in every Sunday edition called "The Style Invitational." It was usually some wacky contest and always a lot of fun. I even won second place one week when the challenge was to come up with new ways to label restrooms at public places such as sports stadiums. I suggested the ladies' room be labeled "Line Forms Here" and an alternative men's room labeled "Express Lane: Two Beers or Less."
Some time ago they challenged readers to come up with new words simply by adding or subtracting a single letter. Here are some of the winners: Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the reader who doesn't get it.
Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very high.
Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously.
Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease.
Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a refund from the IRS, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.
Another challenge was to come up with new definitions to existing words: Abdicate (v.): to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
Carcinoma (n.): a valley in California, notable for its heavy smog.
Flabbergasted (adj.): being appalled over how much weight you have gained.
Negligent (adj.): condition in which you absentmindedly answer the door in your nightie.
Lymph (v.): to walk with a lisp.
Coffee (n.): a person who is coughed upon.
Oyster (n.): a person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddish expressions.
And my favorite: Balderdash (n.): a rapidly receding hairline.
Math pays, says an article on MSN. According to the winter 2007 salary survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), college students graduating with math- or science-related degrees will earn significantly more than their liberal arts peers. According to the survey, mechanical engineering students graduating in 2007 reported snagging average offers of nearly $54,600. Computer science grads' job offers averaged about $51,070. Accounting grads got offers of about $46,500, while economics majors' offers averaged roughly $47,900. By contrast, liberal arts graduates reported average offers hovering mostly ranging between $30,000 and $35,000. It gets even better for numerically savvy graduates -- they might also have an easier time finding that coveted first job.
In fact, eight of the top 10 degrees in demand are quantitatively based, says the research. Supply and demand are the issues here. Alan Weiss, president of Summit Consulting Group, a firm specializing in management development, says a primary reason math and science graduates earn more out of college is a simple case of supply and demand: "They're much more immediately applicable in a much smaller supply." Students earning associate's and bachelor's degrees in liberal arts disciplines outnumber those in mathematic or scientific fields, according to data from the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics.
There's a silver lining for those of us who are math-impaired. Long-term career success is based more on people skills than a grasp of numbers. Lisa Earle McLeod, columnist and author of Forget Perfect (Penguin/Putnam), agrees that good communication skills are key to long-term career success. "Being the best scientist or engineer might make you the head of the department," she says, "but you have to be a good communicator to be put in charge of large groups of people."
Sara W. handed me another prayer request today, this time just a one-page print-out of an e-mail.
It was from a man who's going through some trials, including financial and business-related problems. He confessed that the difficulties may be intended by God to grow his faith, or they may be more diabolical. He's thankful for a "wonderful understanding wife," and asks us to pray for him and those he's working with.
And so I take a minute or two, push my chair away from my desk, close my eyes, and pray to the Lord for this man.
This isn't unusual. Sara gives me one or two prayer requests every week. From a mother who's concerned about her wayward daughter; from a single man struggling with a decision about college; from a grandfather whose daughter's marriage is on the ropes; from a wife whose husband is an unrepentant pornography user. And I take all of their prayer requests seriously. Because those asking us to pray for them take it seriously. And because God does as well.
And I'm not the only one receiving prayer requests from friends of Focus on the Family. Motte does. Steve does. Suzanne Does. Denise does. Tom does. Hundreds of us Focus on the Family employees receive these prayer requests every day, and every day we quietly take them to the Lord in prayer.
If you need a friend to come alongside you in prayer, feel free to let us know how we can pray. The sheets each employee receives include no personally identifying information, so you're assured that it's entirely confidential. And you can also be assured that we don't place them in a box and merely lay hands on the thousands of heart-felt requests for intercession, as I understand some busy ministries have done. We care enough to personally do something about each one.
Go here to let us know how we can pray for you. Personally.
My mother-in-law, Ella, was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's six years ago when she was just 54. Now she's in the late stages and well beyond caring for herself in the most basic sense. For example, she can't hold a cup of water and bring it to her mouth to drink. Someone has to take hold of her hands and lift the glass to her lips. And more and more she fails to recognize any of her loved ones, including her husband. Sometimes she doesn't even know who she is.
I thought mainly of Ella and her condition this Easter. And I thanked God for its transience. Because of the resurrection, I know she'll be perfect and whole again soon. You see, Ella is a believer. And more than the precious memories of her as wife and mother, we'll treasure the hope we have of her restoration in Christ.
We read The Jesus Storybook Bible as a family and I am often struck by the sweet simplicity of truth the author pulls out of scripture. In the chapter describing the resurrection, Sally Lloyd-Jones describes Mary's thoughts as she runs back to the city after just seeing the resurrected Christ: Mary ran and ran, all the way to the city. She had never run so fast or so far in all her life. She felt she could have run forever. She didn't even feel like her feet touched the ground. The sun seemed to be dancing and gleaming and bounding across the sky, racing with her and shining brighter than she could ever remember in the clear, fresh air.
And it seemed to her that morning, as she ran, almost as if the whole world had been made anew, almost as if the whole world was singing for joy -- the trees, the tiny sounds in the grass, the birds ... her heart.
Was God really making everything sad come untrue? Was he making even death come untrue? She couldn't wait to tell Jesus' friends. "They won't believe it!" she laughed.
In the brokenness of life, the hope found in the resurrection of Christ becomes most vivid and most dear. And who among us will be untouched by the sorrows life can bring. When they come, look to the resurrection. Know that whatever it is, it is most assuredly temporal. And for believers, paradise awaits.
Want a healthy marriage, girls? Fox News reports you should marry ugly. According to one study, the best marriages are those where women marry men who are less attractive than themselves.
The study seems a little subjective and shortsighted to me (the 82 couples included have been married less than six months, so other factors may come into play later in their marriages), but the results are interesting: Psychologists who studied newlyweds found men who were better-looking than their wives were more likely to be unhappy and have negative feelings about their marriage.
While I'm not planning to go out and find the ugliest potential mate I can, something like this is a good reminder that marrying a guy who looks like he stepped out of a fashion catalog isn't the secret to a happy marriage.
I'm reminded of a story Carolyn McCulley shares in her article "Humility that Attracts and Encourages:" I have a friend who married a man completely unlike the one who started to court her. The man who first asked her out was quiet, willing to be in the background, and was slightly fashion-challenged. The one who won her heart was romantic, thoughtful, funny, reliable, and willing to go shopping. What changed? Nothing but her own perspective.
When he asked to court her, she said yes — in faith that her affections could grow for a man she fundamentally respected. It happened. Not only did her affections grow, so did her attraction.
After she was engaged, her other single, female friends commented that her fiancé had blossomed during their courtship. When she relayed this comment to her future husband, he simply remarked that he had done that on purpose. He wanted to be more reserved around other single women he wasn't pursuing, so that he could save all that romance, attention, and effort for the woman whose heart he was trying to win.
Moral of the story: Keep looks in their place. And while this study seems to encourage men to marry girls prettier than them, don't forget the wise words of Jimmy Soul: If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife.
So for my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you.
HT: SingleMind.net
This is the last post in Suzanne's and my dating series. We're all out of wisdom and/or unwanted advice.
I thought it would be fitting to end with what I deem to be the most important aspect in any relationship -- the two greatest commandments: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:36-40, NIV)
As Christians, our goal should be to spend our lives fulfilling these commandments. We'll obviously mess up, but our desire should be to get better at loving God and loving those around us. Dating relationships are no different. If we focus on these things, I believe that our relationships will be healthier and more glorifying to God.
First of all, if we're attempting to love God with all that we are, our hearts and minds will be in the right place. We'll have our priorities straight and our energies will be focused on doing the simple things that God has asked us to do. Secondly, if we love our neighbor/girlfriend/boyfriend as ourselves, we'll have much healthier relationships. We won't be so caught up in our own needs or wants or preferences -- instead we'll be focused on serving and loving whomever we're in relationship with. We won't just be looking out for our own interests, instead we'll be concerned with the needs of others.
And as I've mentioned before, I believe that much of this "love" we're talking about is a choice we make. It's not based on romanticized notions of love or unrealistic expectations. It's based on finding someone with whom you serve the Lord well and then choosing to love that person in the good times and the bad, when you feel giddy about them and when you don't. Our love should be based on the sacrificial example we see of Christ and His bride.
Friendships, dating, courting, marriage -- all of them are difficult. All of them require risk. But we cannot be so concerned with guarding our hearts that we avoid relationships that God has called us to. God's triune nature reveals that He is a relational being. He created us to be in relationship with Him and one another. And as we can see through His relationship with us, the type of community we're supposed to foster with one another is loving, sacrificial and servant-hearted. In order to succeed in the "dating game" we must have the same attitude.
Finally, trust the Lord. He is good and His love endures forever. As you navigate the DTRs, the difficult conversations, the up-and-down feelings and the breakups, remember that you're not alone. Ask God to bring you wisdom and guidance. Practice love and apply it to your dating relationships. And pray that God will be glorified.
I confessed on this past week's podcast that I don't like the term "Easter," as it associates the day with one or more of the following fertility godesses: Ishtar, Eostre, Astarte, Ostera, Eastre.
Before I went to college, I didn't concern myself so much with words. But after History of the English Language classes, after studying etymology, after grad-level linguistics courses, after researching the non-Christian artifacts that accompany Resurrection Day (e.g., bunnies, eggs, chocolate) and other holidays ... I found myself caring about the word I used to talk about the day Jesus came back to life.
Would I, in essence, honor the fertility goddess and the ancient cultic spring festivals by calling it Easter? Or would I direct my mind back to the risen Savior by calling it Resurrection Day?
Of course I'm not calling for the calendar to change, or for schools and businesses to call this day "Resurrection Day." I'm not quarreling with anyone, arguing that they should change their vocabulary. That's not the point. It's about how my university-educated mind is influenced by the words I use, and how I prefer to influence it with Christian truth rather than Pagan tradition.
Some people say we shouldn't argue about words like this. Others point out the inconsistency with my concern over "Easter" and my lack of concern over the etymology of days of the week (e.g., Wednesday is "Woden's Day," Thursday is "Thor's Day," etc.) or Christmas (e.g., the Christ Mass). Maybe it's because I haven't spent a lot of time studying the background of the names of the days of the week, and because "Christ" is still part of "Christmas." Or maybe I see "Easter" as more blatantly trying to supplant "Resurrection Day." Not sure.
Regardless, I find it helpful, as I'm the forgetful kind, to refer to the day Jesus came back to life as "Resurrection Day." It helps me focus my attention on what we're really commemorating. Hearing "Easter" clouds my thoughts with visions of bunnies, chocolate, eggs, baskets, plastic grass, jelly beans, bonnets, sugar-plums and muskrats. And I've got enough clouds in my head.
It was all over the news yesterday: the 4,000th U.S. fatality since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. I greet the news with deep ambivalence.
First and most important, I think it is right and honorable to mark their sacrifice. The idea that young men and women would selflessly put themselves in harm's way for a cause larger than themselves is foreign to a large segment of our pampered culture of entitlement. Too many regard joining the military as a last gasp to avoid homelessness, the only option for lower class people. (Michael Moore, are you listening?) This condescending view is based on ignorance, since most who hold it don't know anyone who has served in uniform. They don't realize that many who volunteer come from solid middle class families, and some are even former stockbrokers and lawyers. A large percentage of the enlisted ranks have some college or even a college degree. Many officers have an advanced degree -- or two.
But -- and here's where the ambivalence comes in -- I believe that most of those we honor need not have died at all. I have been skeptical about this war from the very beginning. As I've said elsewhere, the most basic tactical question you ask before launching an attack is, "... and then what?" If you can't answer the question, you don't attack, especially when you have the option of waiting. In the case of this war, I think that question was never truly asked, or else it was answered with wishful thinking.
Which led immediately to the post-war fiasco. In the Marines we had a word for this sort of operational planning, but it doesn't appear in most dictionaries and can't be used in polite company. That more people have not been held accountable for this purely preventable and predictable disaster threatens to bring out the latent cynic in me.
But speaking of cynicism, look no farther than today's antiwar movement, such as it is. I have more contempt for them than I do for our senior leadership. It seems many in the antiwar movement are little more than malcontents who are capitalizing on it for their own political ends. Their tactics are transparent. For example, early in the war some lobbied to allow photos of flag-covered coffins being returned to Dover Air Force Base, even though it has never been military policy to show this out of deference to the families of the fallen. The antiwar activists said it was to show the cost of the war. More likely, it was intended to embarrass their political opponents. Immanuel Kant said we should never treat fellow humans as a means but always as an end in themselves. The antiwar crowd is violating this wisdom, using the tragedy of the war dead as a means to advance their political ends. (And I anticipate the immediate rejoinder: President Bush used soldiers for his political ends. This ignores the fact that every person in uniform is a volunteer.)
The antiwar types say they want to support the troops by bringing them home. Please, your condescension is showing again. We now have a tiger by the tail. Even if it was foolish to grab it in the first place, we dare not let go. The troops know this, and they want to finish the job. It's primarily a matter of "job satisfaction," but it's also to honor the sacrifices made thus far.
And, in context, the Iraq war has been remarkable in how few casualties we've suffered over five years. Yes, I know it's considered impolitic to say this, since every casualty is a tragedy, but consider that we lost 50 percent more troops in a mere five week's worth of fighting on Iwo Jima. We hit the 4,000-dead mark within days of the Normandy invasion. We lost nearly 10 times as many troops in five years in Vietnam, another misguided and unnecessary war.
So call me conflicted. I stand in awe of our brave troops. Even though I have been out of uniform for nearly 30 years now, I still feel the tug to be there with them. Indeed, I feel the duty to be there with them. (Yes, once a Marine, always a Marine.) But I also have to choke back a deep anger that so many of them who nobly answered the call of duty are now dead or maimed because of the mistakes and arrogance of others.
"Money can buy happiness, at least when you spend it on others," says a recent article.
Research has shown that when the average income rises in a society, the levels of satisfaction still remain static (sounds like Steve's recent blog). But how about what you spend your money on? Does that affect your happiness? That's what this study's authors wanted to know. Particularly, they studied what they called "pro-social" spending (spending on others). The results? "Pro-social" spenders are happier.
There were three different aspects to the study. One involved giving people envelopes containing money, along with instruction to either spend the money on themselves or on others (including charitable donations). Those who spent the money on others reported greater "post-windfall" happiness than those who spent on themselves.
I was not surprised. Last Friday, my husband and I were having a the-kids-are-at-grandmas brunch at a local restaurant. Normally, I'm a legalistic tipper. (My pastor is trying to encourage me to be an abundant tipper no matter the service as an outreach of my faith. I continue to ponder this.) But that morning I got a little Holy Spirit nudge. You know the kind? It became apparent that God was wanting to show some love to my sweet, but overwhelmed, waitress. So, I left a monstrous tip. It was so fun watching her face as I left and she opened the check. I practically giggled.
So, this study got me thinking. Which comes first, the cheerfulness or the giving? Do we, as Christians, give because we are joyful? Or does some of our joy come as a result of our giving? I'm starting to think that it's both/and.
I've heard some Christians state that they can't really tithe, or give, because "if you can't be a cheerful giver, you shouldn't give." Hmm. For me, I find that the more I give, the more I become a cheerful giver. But even when my only motivation is obedience I find that, just like this study, the cheerfulness comes after.
I'll be attending five services this weekend. No, not because I'm especially religious, but because I'm in the church worship team and am committed to playing for all five of our services: two tonight and three tomorrow morning.
I love serving this way, and there are benefits to singing and playing each song so many times, and hearing the sermon five times. I admit that it is a challenge to "be present" 100 percent for each service -- after the third or fourth I can start running out of steam. But it really is a joy to be on stage alongside friends as I serve the congregation this way.
Interested in going with me to see what it's like? Check back tonight and tomorrow for regular updates. Final rehearsal is at 2 p.m. sharp (Mountain Time), and the first service begins at 4:30. See you then!
1:45 p.m.
Jacob has given me access to the church's wireless internet. Works great!
The drummer, Julian, is here, as are the sound guys, the lighting guy, and the overhead guy. Some of the kids are here as well, full of energy. Julian is using two snares tonight -- a regular one, and a side snare that's pitched a bit higher. It sounds sweet. I expect the final "dress rehearsal" to begin within 15 minutes.
I forgot my black shirt at home. Hopefully my wife will bring it when she comes later this afternoon. I'm hoping Fletch brings me a tie. The guys in the band are all planning to wear black shirts and silky greenish ties, $8 from Wal-mart.
I'm going to go on stage and make sure my music is in order and the two keyboards sound right. I'll be using my Korg Triton Pro and my Clavia Nord Electro 2 (run through a Presonus tube amp to add a bit of "organic-ness"). We're using Avioms for our monitor mix, and I'm using Senheiser headphones -- the kind that wrap around the back of your head so your hair doesn't get messed up. The "dent" you get from regular headphones is just unacceptable. :-)
I expect to give the next update in a bit over three hours.
3:45 p.m.
Well, I'm back earlier than I thought. I've got a few minutes before we meet for pre-service prayer, so I figured I'd write a bit more....
Rehearsal went quite well. We're singing a combination of hymns (e.g., Crown Him with Many Crowns), contemporary songs (e.g., Chris Tomlin), and songs that members of our church have written. There's a short skit just prior to the sermon that introduces the concept of "God following us." In addition to the band, there'll be an adult choir on-stage (maybe 45 members) and some 100 kids during certain times -- the kids will be in front of the stage and in the aisles.
Weather is odd. It was in the 60s yesterday here in Colorado Springs. Today it's been blizzarding on and off. It's snowing now.
Just got a call from my wife. She's in the parking lot with my black shirt. Fletch brought the green tie, so I'm all set. All the guys in the band are wearing black pants and black shirts and green ties. The worship pastor Mike Burwell is wearing something a bit different. And that got me thinking that we looked like the guys' side of a wedding ceremony. Hm. There's a great band name: Mikey B. and the Groomsmen. :-)
Off to get my black shirt....
7:51 p.m.
Both of this evening's services are behind us. It was helpful to hear the sermon a second time. I think I can summarize it now.
The text was from Luke 24:13-35.
8:15 p.m.
I had been storing my old iBook in Pastor Mike's office, and was starting my previous post when it was time for him to close his office and head home. I'm at home now, so let me continue where I left off....
So two of Jesus' disciples were going to Emmaus -- that would be away from Jerusalem, the site of the crucifixion -- chatting about what had happened in the past few days. Jesus had been killed, some of the women were claiming that Jesus was alive ... but they had lost hope that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the "one to redeem Israel (verse 21).
Jesus met up with them, and through the course of the conversation, Jesus instilled hope in these men, first by pointing them to Scripture, referencing the books of Moses and the prophets and other books of the Bible. Their faith and hope began building. Then they invited Jesus to spend time with them in Emmaus. That fellowship instilled faith and hope. And finally enjoyed a meal with them ... and their eyes were opened to Who Jesus was.
The point? If you're feeling hopeless, turn to the Scriptures. They are words of life. And enjoy fellowship with Jesus, asking Him to fellowship with you. Such intimacy is life-giving, hope-instilling.
I like that none of the pastors used the term "Easter," that I remember. Instead, they spoke of Resurrection Day. The less I have to hear the name of that fertility goddess, the better, as far as I'm concerned. Hmf. :-)
From the stage, the two services went well. I played wrong notes at least four times, but think I served the songs well. Our bass player Dave played at least one wrong note. Keeps us humble, reminds us that only God is perfect. Our guitar player Fletch was all over the place. Not sure he hit one note right. (Just kidding, Fletch! Love you, man!)
I believe that the songs provided a fine context for the congregation to consider truths about the resurrection and consequently engage the Lord in worship. During the course of each service I used the following sounds on my keyboards: organ/B3, piano (with a bit of pad behind it), plain bright piano, rhodes, strings, orchestra, pads. For a few of the songs I played both synths at the same time -- organ on top and a pad beneath, or organ on top and strings/orchestra on bottom. Julian had programmed a drum/synth loop to start off one of the songs; that worked really well, in my opinion.
(KarlH -- I love my Electro. It's got the best Hammond/B3 sounds of any of the organ clones, in my opinion. The softsynth B4 is also quite good. If you need a good organ sound, and some cool "electro-mechanical" sounds like a Rhodes, Whurly and Clav, the Electro is for you. The Triton just doesn't give you the same organic energy as the Electro, and its "leslie ramp-up" is worthless compared to the Electro.)
Our sanctuary accommodates 900 people, and an additional couple hundred can be seated in the "old sanctuary," a room between the church entrance and the main sanctuary. Over the course of these five services, we're expecting some 6,000 folks to attend church.
I believe the church has grown so much over the past few years because our pastor speaks words of life. We don't use "seeker-sensitive" techniques to draw a crowd, but simply preach expositionally from Scripture, book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse. And the Word of God is powerful.
Sure, we have a mix of contemporary and classic worship songs, but the heart of the church is God-breathed Scripture. We've been in the book of Romans for a few months now. Sometimes Pastor Steve spends the entire sermon on one verse. We're in Romans 5 and 6 now. Powerful, powerful faith-inspiring Scripture.
Between the first two services tonight all those serving (band, choir, children's choir, parking lot folk, etc.) enjoyed a meal together. I was near the front of the food line, so I have a full 15 minutes to eat my pasta and salad. Those near the end of the line may have had 5 minutes. It was a bit rushed, but that's fine. The folks who prepared and served the food did an outstanding job.
We've got to be at the church at 6 a.m., and the first of tomorrow's three services begins at 7:30. I think tonight will be an early-to-bed early-to-rise kind of evening. :-)
He is risen!
4:54 a.m.
I wake up a minute before the alarm goes off. I shower, get dressed, leave an update on the blog ... and prepare to brave the newly fallen snow to get to church for our 6 a.m sound check....
9:12 a.m.
I have a few minutes between this morning's first and second services to catch you up....
We just enjoyed breakfast -- scrambled eggs (which makes me wonder if we ever use "scrambled" with any other kind of food), bacon (which is a nice pseudonym for what it really is), fruit, orange juice, and a donut. Not as rushed this morning as it was last night -- the children's choir ate during the first service, between the times they were needed in the sanctuary.
Pastor Mike's voice was acting up this morning, so another pastor, Josiah, took over song leading. He did a great job for agreeing to such a last-minute request.
You know, worship is fun. Reflecting on the Lord's kind provision to undeserving people like me ... lifts the spirits. I know it's not "all about me," but for some reason God does make this reflection/response singing activity a joy. I'm looking forward to our second service. Good times!
10:52 a.m.
Either Pastor Steve's sermon gets better with each service, or I'm just getting more each time I hear it. The fourth time was a charm, as they say. Here are two guys, men who had been followers of Jesus, who were sad and had given up hope. Jesus was dead, and the women were acting crazy, claiming to have seen angels and such. So they were heading away. To Emmaus.
And of all the places He could have shown up, Jesus met up with these two doubters. Through Scripture, through His presence, and through His talking with them, their faith and hope were restored. Am I so different from these two disciples who had given up hope, and who had seen their Master die? Thank God I have His word through the Scriptures, His presence, and the still small voice of the Holy Spirit to give me hope and purpose.
Pastor Mike's voice is a bit better, but Pastor Josiah is still leading all the songs. Going great.
We're now in between the fourth and fifth services, the second and third for this morning. We're in the choir practice room and Mike is honoring the various folks who helped put this series of services together. Lots of work involved. Lots of clapping. Lots of T-shirts. And there was much rejoicing.
I better close for now. I feel that Mike's going to call me up and give me a shirt any time now....
11:10 a.m.
My face is feeling hot and, um, "glisteny." It may be lack of sleep, having woken up before 5 this morning. Or it may be the stage lights. While I'm looking forward to serving alongside my friends onstage, helping facilitate worship, I'm also looking forward to getting home, putting on my shorts and a T-shirt, and washing my face with Noxema and cold water. Yeah, I use Noxema -- the blue jar with the hip drawing of a teen girl on it. I'm secure.
Well, the next service starts in 15 minutes. The band needs to be on-stage at T-4 minutes, and the choir joins us on-stage at T-2 minutes. Talk to you soon!
1:31 p.m.
Whew. I'm tired. After the final service came to a close, I got the cases for my two keyboards from the green room and packed away my synths, wrapped my cables, closed my Ultimate keyboard stand, boxed up my tube preamp, tucked my music away, and lugged it all to the car and drove home.
I didn't listen to any music in the car on the way home, but when I opened the door and began bringing my things inside, I heard a timely song on our home MP3 server:
When the music fades
All is stripped away
And I simply come
Longing just to bring
Something that's of worth
That will bless Your heart
I'll bring You more than a song
For a song in itself
Is not what You have required
You search much deeper within
Through the way things appear
You're looking into my heart
I'm coming back to the heart of worship
And it's all about You,
It's all about You, Jesus
Amen. And amen.
In the coming minutes, I'll be enjoying a fine non-kosher meal and a fine nap. The Lord is merciful.
7:31 p.m.
Lissa -- another option is to get a Yamaha YPG-625. It's got GREAT piano sounds, build-in speakers, has 88 weighted keys, and a lot of great sounds other than piano. You can find one for $750. Probably visit Guitar Center or somewhere else and play it before you plunk down the money. You can get its younger brother the YPG-525 for under $500 -- it has everything the YPG-625 has, except has non-weighted keys and is 24 pounds instead of 39 pounds. Both have some sort of multi-track recorder built in.
It's a decent starter keyboard, and has great "bread and butter" sounds. You could also look for a used Triton or Roland XP-80 (both of which sound wonderful, but don't have weighted keys).
My Triton is my "bread and butter" synth, with fine pianos, strings, pads and such. The Electro is great for organs and rhodes. I also have a Korg Prophecy for analog modeling sounds, and two Korg DSS-1s for analog/sampling sounds. I own some great soft-synths (Atmosphere is GREAT!), and am fantasizing about getting a Novation Supernova 2 (which I owned at one time, but had to sell to pay for my honeymoon).... Start with a good "bread and butter" synth, and then get others to complement it....
I've never highlighted our podcast chat in these updates but this week offers a potpourri of interesting tales which may or may not be Easter related. Ted tells us why he shuns the term "Easter"; Lisa discusses a profane experience at Starbucks; and Steve talks about ham, basketball, and sin -- all great topics this Holy Week.
Following the chat we have part two of our interview with Kurt Bruner, spiritual formation pastor of Lake Point Church. In this segment, Kurt discusses the benefits of serving in ways that stretch your comfort zone. It's part of choosing the sort of conflict we talked about last week that's vital to conforming to Christ. Convicting.
And you might think Brad Wilcox is a Boundless plant in our culture segment but he's not -- well, not really. He was visiting Focus on the Family and here Lisa asks him about what young single men and women should be doing to prepare for marriage and family.
For The Inbox this week we have a question from a woman who's giving her young adult life to God on the mission field in Nigeria. The thing is, she wants to get married too. And the prospects are slim while in country. So what to do? Well, Steve and Candice Watters provide some encouraging words along with some practical advice.
Here are the segment breaks for this week: Intro
Roundtable -- 6:02
Culture -- 17:22
Inbox -- 28:08
And, can I just end by saying that I love Salvador? They've allowed us to use their music again and I can't get enough of it. It really adds a lot to the show, doesn't it? So thanks guys.
* * *Thanks for the reminder about the links Adam T. Here is the podcast homepage where you have the option to listen now or subscribe through RSS or download the MP3. Or if you prefer, just click the podcast icon at the top of the page and it'll take you to our iTunes homepage.
I love the cross of Christ. There is no greater mystery, nothing that inspires more wonder, than the crucifixion of our Lord. It was the greatest act of both love and hate ever portrayed. It's a manifestation of both the stratospheric height of God's mercy and the grimy depth of our sin.
Paul boasted in but one thing: the cross. The hosts of heaven include Jesus' death in their continuous expression of praise, day and night. My sin, as the old hymn goes, not in part but the whole, is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more. We are reconciled to God through the cross of Christ.
I could ponder the cross for a lifetime and never fully explore its depth and significance. It's both simple and complex. It's seen as both foolishness and the pinnacle of wisdom. It illustrates both divine compassion and divine wrath. Christ the all-powerful was crucified in weakness. It's both glorious and shameful. It shows us both God's fierce anger and His lovingkindness.
If it weren't for the cross, my life would be without meaning, without purpose, without direction. Thank God for the horrific solution to my sin problem. I resonate with Mark Altrogge's song, "I Love the Cross":
All my sins forgiven
Far removed as east from west
Cast into the depths of the ocean
Of grace and redeeming love
All my guilt atoned for
Every debt is paid in full
Though my sins were scarlet
Now I’m clean as a fresh fallen snow
I love the place where my Savior died
I love the place where I was justified
I love the place
Where Your blood flowed down
To give me life
I love the Cross
I love the Cross
I love the Cross
The Cross of Christ
I thank You, Lord, for the terrible, wonderful cross of my Savior.
A friend once told me: "Expectations are stupid." I think he meant that since we can't control outcomes, expectations -- particularly unreasonable ones -- often lead to disappointment. I'm not sure I'd go that far. After all, expectations can create a framework that helps you see if you're wandering off course. But when it comes to romantic relationships, too many expectations at the onset can be stifling.
There are two main ways I think singles can combat relationship-squelching expectations:
1. Be open to someone who isn't what you've always had in mind. In "7 Myths Single Women Believe," I addressed the expectations some singles have about meeting "the one." Just as my junior high mind projected who I would recognize as "the one," my grown-up self entertains expectations of how I'll feel when my "soul mate" arrives on the scene. The truth is, God knows best the kind of man who will inspire me to greater devotion to Him. As I seek the Lord, I can trust Him to reveal that person to me in whatever way He sees fit.
Basically, throw out expectations that aren't related to the essentials -- essentials being character, godliness and connection. You may be surprised by the type of person who is good for you and brings out your best. There's a country song that goes: "She's not at all what I was looking for. She's more." Be open to God showing you "more."
2. Leave some room for a budding relationship to grow without the expectations that come later. Mark responded to my post on clarity with this comment: I feel pretty overwhelmed with all of the dos and don'ts of dating. In order to undertake all of the above-mentioned items at the outset, I'd have to be pretty blown away by the woman. Of course, it's not entirely likely that I'm going to feel that way immediately so I'd have to spend some time getting to know the girl.
Personally, I have no problem asking a girl out. It's the second or third date that perlplexes me. How do you get to know someone without giving off the signal "we're in a relationship" and not acting clingy?
Many of my guy friends have expressed this same frustration. It seems after a date or two, the woman may be already thinking about marriage, children and their future life together. I talk about this in "Not Your Buddy:" Song of Songs puts it this way, "Do not awaken love before it so desires." As a generation of women drunk on chick flicks, we want romance to happen so badly we allow ourselves to fantasize about relationships that have no founding.
In short, girls need to cool it (and guys, if they're expecting a woman to decide for or against them after one or two dates). If a guy asks you out, don't immediately fixate on him as your future husband. Allow a period of time to simply get to know who he is, without forcing him to state his intentions. There is a time for that -- I'm not condoning the lingering limbo relationship -- but don't send him into a panic after the second or third date by demanding clarity he's not ready to give.
Give lots of grace. Don't assume he's a villain if he decides not to pursue further after a few dates. Being gracious and giving the person in whom your interested the benefit of the doubt also makes acquaintance less awkward if the relationship doesn't work out and you have to part ways. Expectations may not be stupid, but letting them take control may be.
Tomorrow is Good Friday, the day that many Christians commemorate the crucifixion of Christ.
I can remember as a youth (raised in a denomination which recognized Good Friday with much more emphasis than the denomination I am now a part of) wondering, quite innocently and honestly, what's so good about Good Friday?
Back then I didn't see Good Friday as anything more than a day of mourning. That was the day that Jesus, my Lord, was crucified. That was a day of humiliation, of mocking, of indescribable pain and of unbearable aloneness. I can still remember the taunting crowds in Easter pageants I saw yelling, "Crucify Him!" Why in the world would we call it Good Friday?
I loved my Lord, but it was painful to contemplate what happened on that crucifixion day. Bring on Sunday and the empty tomb! "Up from the grave He arose, with a mighty triumph o'er His foes!...He arose! He arose! Hallelujah! Christ Arose!" There was power, glory and majesty in Easter!
But what I've learned since those days is that there is power, glory and majesty in Friday as well. There was suffering, but there was ultimate sacrifice as well. There was the perfect picture of love, that one would lay down His life for another. It was when Christ died that the temple curtain was torn in two, not when He arose.
Two articles on Boundless this week do a great job of putting perspective on the events that crucifixion day. "Cherish Grace" by Carolyn McCulley and "Share Christ's Sufferings" by Jim Tonkowich. I hope you'll give them both a read.
As for me, I am still moved by Christ's sufferings and death. And, sometimes, I still just want to get on to Sunday. But I remember: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
Good Friday. Yes, He is good.
There are some givens on Boundless. One is that babies do best when they're born to a mom and dad who are also married to each other. Though we likely all agree that the opposite is tragic (dare I say, sinful) when it happens, we don't spend much time building that case. Still, for all the cultural orthodoxy to the contrary, it doesn't hurt to bone up on the reasons why it's bad for babies to be born to single moms.
Thursday on Slate (as unlikely a source as any), Emily Yoffe, who doubles as their advice columnist "Dear Prudence," writes about just how bad life is for babies born without the benefit of marriage. In "... And Baby Makes Two," she says, In the last 50 years, there has been an extraordinary decoupling of marriage and procreation. In 1960 about 5 percent of births were to unwed mothers; that figure is now a record high of nearly 40 percent. ... When I extol the importance of marriage in the advice column, my inbox fills with e-mails from readers who don't see marriage as the passage from single life to a life of commitment. To them, the marriage certificate is the first document in a paper trail that will end with a divorce decree...."How dare you imply that an unexpected pregnancy should lead to marriage? You are simply out of touch with modern culture." That may be. But it also means that modern culture is out of touch with the needs of children.
She then goes on to cite studies, books (like Marriage and Caste in America), and real-life examples of that show just how weighted against success life is for children without a dad who is also a husband. Having unmarried parents can be devastating for children who start out with no cushion in life. In 1999 congressional testimony, Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution said that the increase in single-parent families—mostly due to unwed motherhood in the past few decades—"can account for virtually all of the increase in child poverty since 1970." A recent study found that the stress of early childhood poverty can literally damage developing brains.
Her conclusion is a welcome one. We should stop being afraid to state the obvious, she says. We'd all be better for a little common sense. ... perhaps in our desire not to make moral judgments about personal choices, young women wholly unprepared to be mothers are not getting the message that there are dire consequences of having (unprotected) sex with guys too lame to be fathers. ...Why is it verboten to express the truth that growing up with a lonely, overwhelmed mother and a missing father is a recipe for childhood pain?
Why, indeed.
 Today is the first day of spring for those of us who live north of the equator. If you find yourself wrapping up winter with a life filled with clutter -- in your home, your car, your to-do list and or even your head -- I'd like to suggest a quick read. I wrote Clear Decks a couple of years back (and you may have heard the commentary I pulled from it for a recent Boundless Show). It's something I'm re-reading as I head into spring and a busy season of life for me. I want to make sure I'm concentrating on the most important things and getting rid of any clutter that might keep me from being useful for God's purposes.
My motivation for clear decks is the same one that motivated my mentor, Dr. Hubert Morken: It was something that C.S. Lewis said that challenged him to apply "clear decks" to his use of time. "Lewis encourages us to do an inventory of our time. He says there are things we have to do — like working a job or parenting kids, things we ought to do like exercise or care for the needy and things we want to do like read or explore a hobby. The problem however, is that when we look closely it's astonishing how much we do that doesn't fit any of those categories." This motivated Dr. Morken to attack wasted time — to keep his decks clear for important things.
Apparently today is the 40th birthday of the cubicle. Umm ... woo hoo? 
For those of you who work in an office, you are probably familiar with the glory of the square, gray walls that surround you and your computer. But if you live in a sea of dull cubicles, no worries. Someone with way a lot of imagination has come up with the ultimate cubicle experience.
Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoons, has created a fancy cubicle complete with a hammock, "boss monitor" and a flower that wilts when you leave. Basically, you'll be so busy exploring your new work space that you would never get any work done.
I appreciate Adams' creativity, though. Cubicles are dull, and we spend a lot of time in them each week. That's why I've tried to jazz mine up a bit. I've got fabric on the walls, lamps to help me avoid the harsh lighting and pictures of friends and family. I'm also one of the few that has an actual window -- it's a blessing and also let's me know what the crazy Colorado weather is up to.
Have you done anything to spice up your work space, or is it still pretty bland?
There are some seemingly godly things being said that, upon closer inspection, just don't hold up as such. I blogged earlier today about one such phrase.
Now I want to draw attention to another phrase, one that pits getting married against serving the Lord with our whole being.
I challenged this "either/or" take on godliness last year, pointing out that some things are best thought of in terms of "both/and" -- you can BOTH serve the Lord AND be married. In fact, you can serve the Lord in unique ways THROUGH marriage.
Someone recently commented: "As Christians, our priorities must be biblical priorities if we want to live biblically. Jesus and the apostles placed a high value on marriage and family, but they did not make those things the be-all-end-all of our existence. Bringing Christ to the world in all we say, do, and think gets much higher billing in Scripture than these secondary matters."
There's some truth in this paragraph. The Scriptures do focus on the evangelistic activities of the Apostles rather than on the day-to-day of their marriages, for example.
But there are also some subtle misconceptions in this paragraph, starting with that pivotal word "but" and ending by disparaging marriage as a mere "secondary matter." The Scriptures focus on the Apostles' ministry to the unsaved; but that doesn't mean that their ministry within their own families, and through their own families, is somehow of less value before the Lord. Indeed it is THROUGH family that we reflect the marvel of the manifold nature of God, something that honors and magnifies the Lord.
Also note that some of the most crucial leaders in the church were to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:5-6), the implication being (at the very least) that people could serve the Lord and His Church just fine in a married state. Single adults may serve, of course, and serve well; I think back on how I served my church effectively for years as a single adult. But married adults are not disqualified from church leadership because of their having married.
Yes, Paul is clear in 1 Cor. 7 that those who are neither married nor struggling with their sexual drives are able to serve the Lord in a peculiarly undivided way. But if you're like most of us, wanting to share your life in an intimate way with the opposite sex, then you are not sinning by pursuing marriage. You are not shunning God's will to serve Him wholeheartedly by wanting to be married.
In other words, put your mind at ease: You truly can BOTH serve the Lord with your entire being AND get married. You're not settling for second best by pursuing marriage.
As I mentioned before, our romanticized ideas of dating, love and marriage sometimes cause us to sit back and wait for that perfect someone to fall right into our laps. The Christian version of this sentiment usually involves Bible verses plucked from their context and inserted into conversations about relationships.
So, just in case that guy/girl doesn't just magically appear before you one day, this post is about some proactive ways to pursue relationships.
Being proactive can sometimes be more difficult for women -- especially for those who believe that men should be the initiators in relationships. But that doesn't excuse us from being actively involved in the road to marriage. One thing every girl can do is to make herself available to the guy she's interested in. Go to events he'll be at, make an effort to talk to him, let him get to know who you really are.
And sometimes women need to take matters into their own hands. We see this in Ruth's situation, but hers was unusual. For today's women, sometimes being proactive means pulling away from relationships that aren't going anywhere. If the guy you've been hanging out with hasn't "made a move" then it might be necessary to end whatever sort of pseudo relationship you're involved in. The guy is either 1) not interested or 2) too comfortable with the way things are to define things. Either way, you're going nowhere. Although it may be painful and a difficult transition, sometimes the most healthy thing to do is to let it go.
For guys who are interested in pursuing a girl, Nike would tell you to "just do it." I agree. Take the steps to get to know a girl, ask her out and see where it goes. Be intentional about moving forward in the relationship. Be careful with your words and actions, but don't be paralyzed by the fear of something that might not work out in the end.
One thing that I think both sexes can work on when it comes to proactively pursuing dating is communication. We wrote about this on TrueU awhile back, for both the guys and the girls. Talking things out with the person you're interested in can be very helpful, even if it is awkward or uncomfortable. All of this will help you move toward the clarity that Suzanne talked about.
But what if there's just no one to pursue?! I feel ya. Finding the right guy/girl can be a challenge. But what can I do (besides complain) to change the situation?
Well, if I'm invited to hang out with a group of people I don't know very well, I should go. It might be uncomfortable to hang out with strangers, but if I do it, they won't be strangers for long. I could volunteer somewhere, do some social networking, get to know people at my church. Put up signs around my neighborhood (totally kidding!!).
Finally, both men and women need to be proactive in praying for their future spouses. For some reason, this one is difficult for me -- I either forget to do it, or I don't see automatic results so it feels useless. But it's obviously not. The Bible tells us to present our requests to God, and relationships should be no different. Pray for God to prepare you and your spouse for one another. Ask Him to give you wisdom and to bring that right guy/girl along.
Even if being proactive in one situation doesn't result in marrying the guy/girl of your dreams, it doesn't mean it wasn't worth it. If we approach things with the right attitude, God can and does use the relationships in our lives to make us more like Himself.
And, hey, at least no one can say you didn't try.
I heard this phrase recently: "When you stop wanting marriage, God will give it to you."
On one hand, it does feel like a humble and deferential sentiment, deferring to God and trusting in His gracious providence. It has the sense of being content, rather than discontent, with where the Lord has you. It communicates a kind of anti-idolatry.
But then I think of what Jesus had to say about desiring good things (and be assured: marriage is a very good thing).
Consider Matthew 7:7-11, which has Jesus saying, "Keep on asking and it will be given you; keep on seeking and you will find; keep on knocking [reverently] and [the door] will be opened to you." The implication is that when we desire something good and within His will, it is appropriate for us to ask God for that thing, and to keep asking. We're not to stifle such desires, but to confess them to our Lord.
Or consider the story Jesus told of the man who kept knocking at his friend's door, asking for three loaves of bread. Jesus explains that "because of his shameless persistence and insistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs" (Luke 11:8). As such persistence proves effective with a friend, such persistence will prove effective with God.
Are you single, and wanting to be married, and are you losing heart? Jesus directly addresses this, offering a parable "to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart." Jesus speaks of a widow (interestingly, an unmarried woman) who kept petitioning a judge for something. Finally that judge relented because "this widow keeps bothering me." In the same way, Jesus says, God will come to the aid of those "who cry to him day and night."
Jesus did not condemn people for strongly desiring good things. He affirmed persistent, even bothersome, prayer. Whether you're wanting your daily bread or a husband, taking your concerns to the Lord is a very good, and very appropriate, thing. Be encouraged and, as Jesus said, "Do not lose heart."
Michael Medved is calling HBO's "John Adams" a pop culture miracle. He writes: When a TV network offers new programming that's entertaining, inspiring and substantive it's enough to renew our faith in miracles. HBO's epic eight hours on John Adams is precisely that sort of pop culture miracle: a lovingly-rendered tribute to the most misunderstood, most under-rated of our founding fathers. Aside from admirable attention to historical detail, the HBO miniseries offers perfect casting -- with Paul Giamatti as an Adams who's simultaneously brave, pompous, and selflessly patriotic.
I've been encouraged by a trend toward some classic and historical fare on TV recently (think The Complete Jane Austen on PBS). It appears this new series -- hearty and wholesome for a network like HBO -- also lifts up marriage and clean politics. Meved writes: The luminous Laura Linney captures Adams' wife Abigail, with dialogue based frequently on actual letters, providing a singularly moving portrait of a romantic, richly functional, lifelong marital partnership. The series also stresses the nobility of politics – without which, even battlefield heroism could come to naught. Every American over the age of ten should see this rewarding piece of work -- while prepared to see brief, disturbing glimpses of war time violence. The John Adams miniseries runs on HBO every Sunday night through April.
I'm not a huge fan of TV, but in an age of television ruled by indulgence and perversion, it is refreshing to see a shift -- even a small one -- toward material more in line with Philippians 4:8: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." I look forward to watching "John Adams" when it comes out on DVD.
HT: Justin Taylor
HEY GUYS. Is it time for a manogram? Did you get your manimony check? Or is what you really need a (shudder) manzilian?
That's the lead from a Boston Globe article about the rise of "man words" we've seen recently in pop culture. Have you noticed this "menaissance"? I have. And I've laughed at some of the portmanteaux. But it may not be a laughing matter.
As Globe writer Mark Peters notes, these blends "say a great deal about our ever-in-flux gender roles" and are used primarily "to describe men behaving like women." Here's one theory behind these creative keywords: How to act like a man is a humdinger of an issue if you are one. The late Steven L. Nock, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, said in an e-mail to me last year that it doesn't take much for women to prove that they're "real women" in the widely accepted senses, but men are in a more slippery situation, especially with the role of father/protector/provider not considered as necessary or desirable as it once was. "[M}asculinity must be continuously earned and displayed. It is never won," Nock wrote. Without a traditional role to embrace, being a man requires constantly defining yourself in opposition to all things female: "No wonder things like man-purses attract attention."
Dr. Albert Mohler blogged about this article just after it was published saying that men should be uncomfortable if their view of masculinity isn't based on these roles. While the Bible clearly honors men who forfeit the blessings of wife and children for the sake of the Gospel (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 7:7-9, 32-28), the history of the Christian church indicates that these represent a minority. The normative expectation is that a young man will mature to take on the role of "father/protector/provider" that Peters correctly sees as "not considered as necessary or desirable as it once was" within the secular culture. Those men who are faithfully living out these responsibilities are not likely to be too concerned about finding true masculinity. They are living it.
So that's why I've never had a desire to get some manscaping so that I can wear a mankini while on some European mancation. Have you?
I found myself over at Focus on the Family's marriage forum again this morning. And was freshly reminded why I do what I do here at Boundless.
Consider some of the recent forum titles:
- My Marriage is falling apart
- trying to Deal
- How do I make dh understand?
- 36yr marriage, 2yrs since affair, now issue w/desire
- Wanting to save a marriage
- Lord hear my cries
- New Marriage on the rocks!
- Pastors and infidelity
- my husband needs to cut apron strings
- In-laws telling us what to do!!
- Confused
- I have So many Questions
- Is it okay for a husband to fantasize about other women?
- Lonely and unhappy in marriage
- Unequally yoked and hurt but still here...
- Heartbroken and Despondant
- Please pray for marriage restoration
- I have had enough...
The pain and confusion and heartbreak and devastation and broken trust go on and on.
And so I'm reminded of my passion and motivation as editor of Boundless: helping single adults make the most of their years of transition, yes, and more importantly helping singles prepare to have rich, successful, happy marriages.
So that instead of finding themselves posting comments on the Focus on the Family marriage forum with titles like "Wanting to QUIT" or "After 4 affairs - Divorce is my option," you'll be visiting the marriage forums and offering gracious, heart-felt encouragement and godly counsel.
So I like you. You like me. We're spending time together. But we're not dating.
I'm going to avoid terminology we've used in the past simply because I'm tired of it. Relationships are complex and each one is different. I wrote an article called "Not Your Buddy" to address the frustration many Christian singles feel when they have a special friend that seems to stay just that. The person obviously has the potential to be more -- otherwise he or she would be "special."
But how do you move from that ambiguous "we've got a connection" to something more intentional? It's not easy for either the guy or the girl. From the article by Jason Illian that Denise referenced in her last post, the author makes this observation: The normal model of male-female relationships is quite simple -- you are either dating or you are not dating. But the current Christian model is quite different. Perhaps we got held underwater a little too long during baptism, but our model looks like this: become friends, hang out, get to know one another, see where it goes, talk about possibly getting involved, discuss the north wind and how it may affect the relationship, talk to the youth pastor about it, pray about it, fast over it, court (which may mean dating), date (which may mean courting), and finally, date. Instead of having or not having a romance, we add a million meaningless micro-steps which muddy the already difficult waters.
So is the problem a lack of decisiveness (as discussed in the post "Holding Out")? Is it an unwillingness or lack of desire to commit to one option, even if it seems promising? Or is it general confusion about how to navigate the process when it seems so much is resting on it?
The last time I was getting to know a Christian guy, I almost felt paralyzed by all the dating and courtship advice I've absorbed over the years. I had a strong desire to do it just right. And I think that's the point Illian was making. We've made it more complicated than it needs to be. Just commit to it. Like any process in life -- getting a job, making a move, choosing a major, selecting a church -- courtship and dating require a certain degree of commitment to the process. And answers to big questions are revealed through that commitment -- not apart from it. Sometimes the answer will be yes, sometimes it will be no. Everything doesn't need to be decided before engaging in the process.
If you're wondering about the viability of a relationship with someone, take a few simple, intentional steps to test your theory. Being direct and seeking clarity will provide more answers -- and satisfaction -- than hanging on in a relationship shrouded in mystery. And if you've made things complicated for yourself, start afresh ... the simple answer is often the right answer.
I was putting my 8-year-old daughter to bed last night when she blurted out, "Daddy, you wanna hear the story of St. Patrick?" So while tucking her in I said, "Sure. Tell me about St. Patrick." Here's what she said ... all in one breath: Once there was a boy who lived in England with his family. Then there was a war and the bad guys won. And every single English boy was taken away to Ireland to be someone's slave. Patrick was one of them. In Ireland, they worshiped false idols. But Patrick's master wasn't cruel to him. But still, when he grew up, he escaped and went back to England. Later, he went back to Ireland as a missionary. And once when he was trying to explain the Trinity to someone, he looked down and saw a three-leaf clover. He picked it up and said, "This leaf represents the Father; this one the Son; and this one the Holy Ghost." And he spread the gospel all over Ireland.
That's about right. But if you'd like a little more detail on the life of St. Patrick, here's a quick read from Christianity Today.
Still, I enjoyed Sophie's best.
I received the following e-mail this past week from a Boundless reader:
I truly feel that God has told me that I can no longer be saved. That my "eyes were opened." I think I judged and accused and sinned so much after knowing Christ, that no sacrifice is left for me. Just a fearful expectation of things to come. Is this true?
While it was intended for John Thomas to address in one of his Boundless Answers columns, and I did forward it to him, I felt compelled to take some time to respond personally. Below is my reply. I've changed the letter-writer's name to protect his privacy.
* * *
Tim,
There are a lot of ideas floating around in this world. Some are true, and some are false. How do we know what's true? For one thing, we absolutely know that the Bible, a book unlike any other in the history of our world, is true. It presents words and ideas from God that are dependable and accurate and trustworthy. Consider the following:
"Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."
That's from Romans 5:20. If you have a chance, read the verses before and after that phrase, preferably starting at verse 1. It's such a powerful and encouraging passage of Scripture.
What it's saying is that God's grace, expressed in the willing sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, is more than your sin. If you sin a little, God's grace is more. If you sin a lot, God's grace is more. If you murder and steal and have sex with someone you're not married to and lie about someone — that's some hefty sin. But God's grace is more. More! Always more.
What Jesus' death on the cross has accomplished is unlike any other thing in the world. His death has *paid* — fully — for our sin. His death gave us life *in exchange* for our sin. Think about someone paying $5,000 for a used car, or "exchanging" $5,000 in cash for a used car. It's not like that. Instead, it's like that person is offering an **unlimited** amount of money for a used car. An inexhaustible amount of money for that used car.
Your sin, Tim, is that used car. The price that God paid is that inexhaustible bank account. No end to what He has already paid, and what will be paid from that account. None.
God is the God of second chances. And third chances. And tenth chances. And 2,000th chances. And 26,302nd chances. And so on.
God has provided this "exchange" for His glory. It reveals His wonder and loftiness and grandeur by offering such mercy to you. Sorry to say this, but it's really not about you and your sin. No, it's about God and His nature to be loving and gracious and forgiving. It's who He is. And practicing such great mercy shows how great He is.
Tim, you've sinned much. You've disobeyed God's commandments. You've disappointed people around you, including yourself. You've not just made "mistakes," but you've intentionally rejected what God had to say and decided to go your own way. You've really messed up. Your life is a disaster.
And here's the good news — really good news: "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more." Yeah, you're a scoundrel, just like me, but God is so much more glorious on the other end that His love envelopes and overtakes and more than covers what you've done.
One of my favorite passages of Scripture is Ephesians 2:1-7:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience — among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved — and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
I suspect you skipped over that, or just skimmed it. Let me encourage you to read it again, slowly. These words are God's words for you. They are life. They speak life to your spirit. And they're true. The words that condemn you are not true. These words, though, are true. Please go up one paragraph and read it again. Slowly.
OK, so you may be habitually sinning in some area. Maybe you're addicted to porn and masturbation. Maybe you're stealing things from stores or from your employer. Maybe you've said things that have really hurt others. Maybe you've physically hurt someone. Those things are lousy, and God wants you to stop and repent from those things. You may have to face consequences for what you've done. You may even go to prison, if what you've done is bad enough.
But if you accept the loving grace of God, which is so much more "weighty" than your sin, and if you continue in fellowship with Him, He'll help you overcome those sinful things you've been doing. There'll come a time when we're introduced to Christ in heaven as a sort of "bride," and God wants you, Tim, to be presented as a pure and spotless bride. And you'll love being introduced as such.
I know it's an odd metaphor, since you're a guy (as am I), but the point is that God is committed to seeing you become more Christ-like over time. With help from other Christian guys, and with the Lord's help, by speaking biblical truth to yourself and being willing to change, I'm confident that you will change into someone more Christ-like.
Take heart, Tim. Let me leave you with words Jesus Himself said in John 16:33: "I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." God has overcome the world. He has overcome your sin.
Ted.
* * *
What would you add? How can you encourage "Tim" in his faith?
Are you being more conformed to the image of Christ by sitting alone reading your Bible or by being in close community with fellow believers? Not that's it's an either/or, but it's a lot easier to discern conformity with the latter. At least that's what Kurt Bruner argues on this week's The Boundless Show.
Kurt is the former vice president of "the fun stuff" at Focus on the Family and current spiritual formation pastor at Lake Point Church just outside of Dallas. He's authored over a dozen books (a few of which have the phrase "Finding God in...") and we were honored to have him drop in on our roundtable and answer some questions from The Inbox.
But before we get to that, we have Kara Schwab with this week's segment of The Hungry Years. From the mouths of her own babes we get a glimpse of what it means to have faith like a child. And sometimes how uncomfortable it can make adults feel.
Now, back to Bruner. One of the books he wrote that didn't have "Finding God" in it is Playstation Nation. It's not a Christian book per se but I think a lot of Christian gamers will find it helpful. Here, Kurt answers some skeptics from our blog in response to a post I wrote about his book.
And because you want your media whenever, wherever and whichever way you like, here are this week's segment breaks: Intro
Roundtable -- 4:00
Hungry Years -- 23:15
Inbox -- 28:10
I'd like to thank Jesse Butterworth and Jim Adam for providing this week's music. Good stuff. So go check them out. And if you haven't already, you can subscribe to The Boundless Show via iTunes or RSS.
I'm swimming about 20 feet down through a colorful reef off the Pacific coast of Panama. My dive buddy comes around a corner of the reef, pointing behind him and making a fin shape on the top of his head -- the universal scuba signal for shark.
So what do I do? I head right for the spot he's pointing to. I swim over a small outgrowth of coral and see below me about 8 feet worth of whitetip reef shark tucked into a small overhang.
Thought No. 1: Dude, you're swimming toward a shark!
Thought No. 2: He's probably more afraid of you than you are of him.
Thought No. 3: That was probably the last thought that went through the heads of a lot of guys who are now dead!
Thought No. 2 turned out to be correct. As I drifted closer to the shark, all the better to get a picture of him, he darted off with a swish of his tail. (That's him in the photo. Okay, it was a cheap camera.)
I've been diving nearly 30 years in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans, the Caribbean and Red seas (that's me in the photo), but nowhere have I seen more fish in one place -- clouds of them swimming around the reefs.
On one of our deeper dives -- about 90 feet down -- we saw a huge school of spadefish, the light glinting off the silvery-black mass of their bodies as the entire school turned on a dime. In other spots, teeny-tiny, rainbow-hued fish quivered among the nooks and crannies of the coral. Slithery, colorful morays slipped among the coral while brightly colored sergeant major fish, Moorish idols, tangs and triggerfish swam by in huge schools. Colorful starfish hugged the rocks and coral at the bottom.
 And then I realized something: Man has been scuba diving only since 1943, when Jacques Cousteau invented the scuba regulator. From the beginning of time until 1943, these beautiful fish lived in their own world, unseen by human eyes. Yet they were just as beautiful, created that way by God for His own good pleasure. He made them beautiful simply for the sake of making them beautiful. That tells you a lot about the God we worship.
Beauty is an essential part of God's nature. The psalmist wrote, "One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple" (Psalm 27:4) (emphasis mine). The apostle Paul assumes we have the ability recognize what is aesthetically good when we see it.
Look at the directions God gives for making the Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle, the priests' robes, and other such things. The details are intricate, the materials of the highest quality. This is a true craftsman at work. Take, for example, this passage: "[The ephod's] skillfully woven waistband is to be like it -- of one piece with the ephod and made with gold, and with blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and with finely twisted linen" (Exodus 28:8) (emphasis mine). The artisans who were to make these things are the first people in the Bible described as being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Christians are people of the word and the Word. God has chosen to communicate with us through the written word, but he has also chosen to use art -- music, images, poetry -- to help communicate these truths. The rainbow was a piece of art, used to illustrate God's promise to Noah.
During that dive trip to Panama last May, I had one of those epiphanies that come all too infrequently: God loves beauty, whether or not anyone else actually sees that beauty. That tells me I should strive to be "beautiful" in all I do, not because anyone is watching -- although God certainly is -- but to do it simply for its own sake.
It's not often you find profound truth about marriage on television. But it happened last night. A married man from the hit series Lost took responsibility for his wife's affair because of his "abdication."
Let me explain.
Before married characters Jin and Sun crashed on an island somewhere in the Pacific, they had a tumultuous marriage. Jin had fits of rage and was distant. Sun had an affair (which was revealed to Jin in last night's episode "Ji Yeon"). Jin was devastated but after a time of reflection, he recognized his culpability in his wife's unfaithful act and forgave her.
Just like the way Douglas Wilson describes in his book Reforming Marriage. When a couple comes for marriage counseling, my operating assumption is always that the man is completely responsible for the all the problems. Some may be inclined to react to this, but it is important to note that responsibility is not the same thing as guilt. If a woman has been unfaithful to her husband, of course she bears the guilt of her adultery. But at the same time, he is responsible for it.
... Husbands are responsible for their wives. They are the head of their wives as Christ is the head of the church. Taking a covenant oath to become a husband involves assuming responsibility for that home. This means that men, whether through tyranny or abdication, are responsible for any problems in the home.
Okay, so maybe this wasn't exactly what was portrayed last night. Maybe Jin didn't have a sudden conviction of biblical headship. Still, given the reality that only 14.5% of marriages remain "intact and are characterized by improvement or growth" after an affair, it was a welcome message.
Over at Yahoo Finance, Laura Rowley has written an article whose title just made me smile: "The Wages of Financial Sin is Debt (among other things)." Clever.
In it, she creates her own list of the seven deadly financial sins.
- Failing to identify what thy money is for
- Not living within thy means
- Believing that material wealth will solve all of thy problems
- Shopping while feeling sorry for thyself
- Not saving for college because thou expects financial aid (or a higher power) to take care of it
- Receiving a whopping refund after filing thy tax return
- Not saving for thy golden years
I would wholeheartedly agree with most of these. And so would Proverbs. Frankly, if most of the U.S. (including our elected officials) could get down #2, we'd be a whole lot better off. And the study that Rowley quotes under point #4 is humorous and a little cautionary.
As to #6 ... well. I know that if I get a big refund that I'm actually lending the government money interest free for a year. I get it. It just doesn't ruffle my feathers so much. I do due diligence and give my best guess at my deductions at the beginning of the year and then chill out. Extra giving this year = bigger refund. Not going to sweat about it.
So if I was making my own list, I'd boot #6 and add, of course, "Not giving to my Lord and the needy."
Then, maybe adding in somewhere: "Thinking thy student loans will be easy to pay off and will not consumest thy life for years."
Or how about: "Taking out thy adjustable rate mortgage and then protestingeth when it adjusts."
Or how about: "Spending the majority of thy paycheck on things that wilt be in a junkyard in less than a decade."
Or how about ... never mind. My list is too long.
"I have never confronted such universal pessimism from a young audience," writes Stephen Moore in today's Wall Street Journal -- referring to a crowd he met at a recent political event. "Its members acted as if the hardships of modern life are making it nearly impossible for them to get out of bed in the morning."
 Moore goes on to write:
So I conducted a survey of these grim youngsters. How many of you, I asked, own a laptop? A cellphone? An iPod, a DVD player, a flat-screen digital TV? To every question somewhere between two-thirds and all of the hands in the room rose. But they didn't even get my point. "Well duh," one of them scoffed, "who doesn't have an iPod these days?"
Moore explains in his article that while times are tough in many old industrial areas of the country and while "middle-class anxiety about the costs of health care and higher education is real," Americans are still experiencing unprecedented new heights in their standard of living: ...new data from the Census Bureau reveal that Americans of all income groups have made enormous gains in their standard of living in recent decades. As late as 1970, air conditioning, color TVs, washing machines, dryers and microwaves were considered luxuries. Today the vast majority of even poor families have these things in their homes.
Perhaps the anxiety Moore encountered is tied to the fact that abundance doesn't neatly translate into happiness. "Abundance has brought beautiful things to our lives, but that bevy of material goods has not necessarily made us much happier," writes Daniel Pink in his book A Whole New Mind, "The paradox of prosperity is that while living standards have risen steadily decade after decade, personal, family and life satisfaction haven’t budged. That’s why more people—liberated by prosperity but not fulfilled by it—are resolving the paradox by searching for meaning."
Political campaigns can promise some of that missing meaning (and even a little more abundance to those who still feel disenfranchised) but something tells me that around this time next year, regardless of who gets elected (and regardless of what new material good they may have acquired) America's young adults will still feel a certain nagging depression and will be left with a meaning gap that needs to be filled from a more satisfying source.
When I saw the title of a book that Boundless author Thabiti Anyabwile recently published, "The Decline of African American Theology," I knew it was something our readers would find interesting.
It's an awkward issue: evaluating the strengths -- and weaknesses -- of a theology brought about through an experience that include slavery, oppression, segregation and lingering racism.
Certainly there are strengths. A passion for a God who liberates, an enthusiasm for community, an awareness of the Lord's practical daily provision, and so on.
But, according to Anyabwile, an African American himself, there are some serious failings in contemporary African American theology. Failings that hinder true faith in Christ while promoting, as he says, "materialism and black nationalism masquerading as Christology."
The good news: By identifying weaknesses in one's theology, one may then go on to address those weaknesses.
Thabiti provides clear and convincing arguments in his article, and I think it -- and the book from which the article is excerpted -- has the potential to impact Christendom for good. Some may find such a topic inherently racist, and dismiss discussion of it altogether. But others may find it a refreshing challenge to explore such a mine-field in hopes of fostering a stronger, truer faith in Christ.
I'd be in that latter group.
In a recent comment, I defended my having married Ashleigh, a fine woman who happened to be 12 years younger than I am.
Intending to be an encouragement to women not to *intentionally* postpone getting married for sake of career, education, travel, and whatnot, I added: And perhaps my story may serve as a warning to some women who are *intentionally* putting off marriage for some particular reason; they may be passed by by a man her age, who may be looking for someone with more vigor and youthfulness.
My intention was not to make older single women feel bad for not being married. In fact, I've previously affirmed older single women who, through no apparent fault of their own, remain unmarried: In *many* other instances, though, it's just a mystery. Why are my friends Ann, Debbie, Jan and Karen still single? I don't know. They're wonderfully loving, godly, insightful, hospitable, deferential women ... but still single after all these years. And that breaks my heart. These women deserve grace and honor, and not blame.
While my intention was not to be hurtful to older single women, my wife and some friends have told me that what I wrote could be interpreted as being insensitive.
So here's my humble request: Please help me understand how I could have communicated in a more sensitive manner. Feel free to provide an example or two. Remember, I'm a guy, and in some ways am clueless about how women think and feel. So try to be patient with me as you bring your correction.
In case you haven't heard, "group dating" has become the spiritual way to date for Christian singles. This method involves guys and girls hanging out in platonic groups. It is supposed to help people build friendships that eventually become "something more." However, the reality is that this group dating mentality has morphed into coed packs of friends who never actually get around to dating. Consider Anna and Cody:
Anna and Cody are part of a group of coed friends hanging out at someone's house. Anna sits down on the couch, strategically leaving a wide open space next to her. Cody wanders over and casually takes a seat next to Anna. They ignore one another.
After about a year and a half of pretending to watch TV, Cody turns and asks Anna how things are going. She answers. They turn back to the TV.
The group of friends decides to hang out this weekend to go hiking. Cody and Anna are pleased that they'll see one another again, but do not let on. They are no fools -- they can't let anyone know that they are interested in one another! Besides, this type of group dating is ideal. There is no commitment and no fear of rejection. Perfect!
* * * The whole "guys and girls hanging out all of the time but never actually dating" is somewhat popular in Christian culture. Sometime these group get-togethers are wonderful -- they allow you to meet new people, have fun and spend time with good friends. But, in my opinion, these group outings are not always good, for the following reasons:
For one thing, if you want to be in a relationship with someone, you eventually have to get to know them at a deeper level. Group dating can be great in the beginning -- it's a non-threatening way to figure out who someone is. But groups have a lot of people, a lot of interruptions and a lot of surface-level conversation.
An article by Jason Illian talks about why group dating has become popular in Christian culture, but adds that, when it goes on for too long, it can become hurtful: The church devised the group dating concept because it recognized the futility and dangers of how most people date in American culture. With pregnancies, diseases, and divorces on the rise, they wanted to protect their flock from having similar heart-wrenching results. I can appreciate their intentions, but going from one extreme to another has not alleviated our problems. It has just given most singles a whole new set of issues to deal with—loneliness, despair, and confusion ranking at the top of the list.
I think that possible problems that can arise from co-ed groups just "hanging out" for all eternity is that it allows for a lack of commitment on both sides. Girls and guys get a lot of the emotional support that they would be getting from a boyfriend/girlfriend without having to take the risk of possibly getting hurt. Illian thinks this is a bigger issue for the guys: One of the biggest problems with group dating is that it allows men to be passive. In a group setting, men can shun accountability and responsibility. They don't have to make any plans because someone else will. They don't have to be responsible for anything because it is easy to disperse ownership with others involved. And they don't have to ask any one girl out because they can enjoy all of them at the same time! Men don't have to be proactive leaders—they can simply be pack hunters.
Illian points out that marriage is not a group outing. Eventually it has to be two people figuring out how they're going to live life together. In Illian's opinion, one-on-one dating is a great way for men to learn how to lead in a society where they have not been taught what leadership looks like.
As for women, hanging out with guys in groups sometimes feel more emotionally safe. Dating and commitment can be scary because it's possible that your heart can get broken. We've been taught to "guard our hearts" (something we'll address in another post), and group dating seems like a safe way to do that. However, we girls often end up getting emotionally involved even without commitment -- group dating doesn't always protect us from heartbreak. And, when we're constantly willing to hang out with guys without requiring any commitment, we're encouraging behavior that allows for tedious, non-relationship relationships. No bueno.
So, in the end, I think it's great to hang out with friends -- guys and girls. However, as singles who want to move toward marriage, I think we need to be wise and intentional with our time -- including the time we spend just "hanging out."
Watch any teen show (think The CW) and sex among teens is presented as commonplace. However, the consequences of sex -- unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and emotional fallout -- are not. And yet the reality of sexual activity among teens is bleak. Citizenlink reports: One in four teen girls in the U.S. has a sexually transmitted infection (STI), according to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That adds up to more than 3 million girls.
Among girls who admitted having had sex, the rate was 40 percent, The Associated Press reported. Human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer, is the most common STI in teen girls ages 14 to 19, the CDC found.
In light of this finding, you'd think the CDC would take the opportunity to at least mention the benefits of abstinence before marriage. It seems like the responsible thing to do. However, not only are they not mentioning abstinence-until-marriage as a valid solution, but experts at the CDS mock the idea. Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said bad public policy is to blame for the STI epidemic.
"Current public health policies are clearly failing to reduce the spread of STDs among young women," she said. "Public health officials need to admit their failures that have led to kids paying the price. Funding irresponsible sex-ed programs, ones that encourage kids to be sexually active, 12 times higher than funding abstinence programs unsurprisingly results in more kids being sexually active."
How foolish -- and very sad -- that the only surefire protection against STIs -- abstinence from sexual activity before marriage -- is overlooked and even mocked but the gatekeepers of disease control. And we all have to pay for the irresponsibility. Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for Focus on the Family Action, explains: "In addition, after the government funds education to assist kids in becoming sexually active, the taxpayers have to pay $15.5 billion more per year for health care to take care of STIs."
I've had a couple of interesting conversations over the last couple of weeks.
The first was with my sister-in-law. After discussing the upcoming presidential primary in our state, she told me, "Well, I talked to my Dad about it and, after hearing what he had to say, it really made me reconsider who I'm going to vote for."
Huh, I thought. Talk to your dad about who to vote for? I hadn't done this. In fact, hadn't even thought about it. Fast forward a couple of days. I'm chatting with a girlfriend about whether she plans to enroll her child in a private Christian school.
"My husband and I are still talking about it," she told me. "But my parents are coming up this weekend and we really want to talk to them about it."
Again ... huh. Neither my husband nor I talked to our parents about our kids' education.
So, for the past couple of weeks, these two conversations have been bouncing around my head. Then, while reading Sacred Parenting by Gary Thomas, I read the following quote from Peyton Manning, NFL quarterback and former Super Bowl MVP. Later in life, when someone asked Peyton how he felt earning more for playing one game than his dad earned for an entire season, Peyton replied with a clipped, "I don't compete with my father. I learn from him."
Even Ted goes and talks about asking his dad for counsel (though that was about leftovers).
Which got me to wondering, do I still learn from my parents and mentors? Am I still teachable? Or, have I left behind godly counsel like I left my childhood home?
I'm doing a study of Proverbs by Beth Moore and this issue of accepting godly counsel is coming up quite a bit. We need to get over the idea that we know it all, Moore said in this week's lesson, and, instead, we need to be "small on ego, big on effectiveness." The fact is that I don't know it all. The fact is that there are wiser, more mature Christians all around me and I should be grateful, not avoiding, their counsel. Especially on the important issues of life.
To be sure, there need to be guidelines. I should only seek the wisdom of those with godly fruit in their lives. And I should test their advice against Scripture. But as God tells me, He has provided me with counsel and He wants me to trust Him. I need to make sure I do both.
I had an interesting conversation on a plane the other day. (No rudeness occurred, thankfully.) I was sitting next to a single, Christian guy (I know, how often does that happen?), and we began discussing the Christian dating scene. "It seems like the majority of Christian singles are holding out for something," my new friend said. "Like the guys are waiting for a pastor's daughter/cheerleader that just popped out of Bible college, and girls are looking for...I don't know, a guy who just returned from a four-year missions trip to Peru."
I smiled at that analysis. I'm sure each single could generate his or her own similar "fantasy." And true, this notion that something better (or cuter or funnier) may be just around the corner, has the tendency to paralyze us in the "choosing" process.
Candice considers this very topic in her article "When to Settle." She explains that when she began dating Steve, a friend questioned whether she might be "settling," because Steve planned to use his degree to be a small town principal. Candice writes:
My friend was a believer in the notion that to marry a man without certain traits or ambitions would be settling. And in her mind, settling was bad. No longer just a guideline, not settling was itself a goal. Something worth striving for. As in: Finish that report for work, lose 20 pounds, get a boyfriend, don't settle.
And so we find ourselves in the midst of a massive shift in marriage trends: women waiting longer than ever to marry, all the while holding out for their soul mate -- "the one." When a nice guy asks a woman out, if the sparks of attraction aren't hot from the start, she turns him down, reasoning, sure, I want to get married someday, but I'm not about to ... settle.
But this kind of "holding out" may be hurting us in the end. As my new friend observed," It creates this weird vibe. People are always evaluating each other like, 'Are you it? Will you meet the criteria? " That, plus the fear of settling may drive us to pass by perfectly good options. Candice explains:
Have you ever known a man that you've thought about dating, but in the end, ruled him out because to do otherwise would be settling? If you're holding out for perfection, or have a long list of must-haves, it's possible you're overlooking some good men who are already in your life. Knowing what about a potential mate is worth appreciating and what's just eye candy has everything to do with when you should "settle."
Choosing to marry a man — whomever he is — inevitably involves compromise (on his part, and yours). That's why it's not truly settling. It's just making a decision. Something we do every time we pick one thing over another. In most areas, it's called being decisive. For some reason we've made indecision noble when it comes to dating.
And that's the crux of this issue. We've spiritualized "holding out." And yet is there even one biblical character who passed up perfectly good marriage options in the name of not settling? No. Read Candice's article. She provides a great list to evaluate whether a person has the potential to be God's best for you. Then move forward with confidence!
I was in the Denver airport this weekend, returning from a personal trip to the East Coast. While waiting for my short connecting flight to Colorado Springs, I witnessed a certain type you've probably seen yourself: Mr. Self-Important Businessman, talking too loud on his cell phone, his appointment calendar/portfolio open on the seat next to him as he worked on his laptop.
Even as we were boarding he had his laptop open in his cradled arm, click-clacking away with one hand as he walked down the jetway. After the flight attendant told us to turn off all electronic devices, he merely closed his laptop and stashed it under the seat. (I know it was still on because I was in the row behind him and could see its power light still glowing.) The moment we reached altitude, Mr. Self-Important had the laptop out, typing away. Now you have to understand that the flight from Denver to Colorado Springs lasts barely 15 minutes and never really reaches a cruising altitude; it's basically climb and then descend. They have no beverage service on this flight, it's so short, so I wonder why they even bother to tell passengers they can turn on electronic devices.
Meanwhile, sitting diagonally across from me in the aisle seat was a United Airlines flight attendant, in uniform but obviously not on duty for this flight. As we were descending into the Colorado Springs airport, the flight attendant up front announced that it was time to turn off all electronic devices -- less than five minutes after she said they could be used. At that point we were about three minutes from touchdown.
About 10 seconds elapsed, and Mr. Self-Important showed no signs of turning off the laptop. The off-duty flight attendant leaned forward and, in a professional voice, said, "Sir, you need to turn off the laptop." Whereupon he exploded. Red in the face, he yelled across the aisle that he was going to if she'd just give him a chance. "You people are so rude!" he yelled at her. "Give me a [expletive] chance! I can't believe how rude you people are!"
This 40-something man didn't just yell at her; he physically leaned in on her. The young woman, maybe all of 25 years old, was taken aback. I was appalled, and I nearly came out of my seat because I thought he was going to physically attack her. He continued to mumble under his breath, still red in the face. (He still didn't turn it off, either, but did his previous trick of merely closing the lid.) The young lady stared ahead with the look of someone who'd just been deeply frightened and humiliated.
He had the nerve to call her rude. Rude! "Hello, Mr. Pot? Kettle calling." I should have said something. Instead, I just seethed. But we were already on the ground, and discretion was probably the better part of valor at that point.
We pulled up to the gate, and Mr. Self-Important was one of the first into the aisle to get off the plane. I was behind him, still seething. I could not believe the disrespect and unbridled anger this supposedly respectable businessman showed in public. I wonder what he’s like at home.
I'm still angry at myself for not speaking up. (No one else did, either.) But I did make a point of stopping momentarily by the young woman. I patted her shoulder: "Thank you for doing your job," I said. It's all I could think to say.
I never caught Mr. Self-Important's name, but his business cards had a Verizon logo on them. (There's a large Verizon operation in Colorado Springs.) I hope he reads this. More important, I hope his bosses do too.
Copyright 2009 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. The Line and Boundless Line are trademarks of Focus on the Family.
|
Recent Comments