 |
We've got a pretty civil blog here. For the most part, I'm impressed with the level of discourse among those leaving comments on The Line.
But in other areas of the blogosphere, things are not so pleasant.
One thing contributing to the degradation of communication in forums and blogs is anonymity. When nobody knows who you are, there is no accountability. Consider what Dennis Prager wrote about this issue: Some might argue that anonymity enables people to more freely express their thoughts. But this is not true. Anonymity only enables people to more freely express their feelings. Anonymity values feelings over thought, and immediate expression over thoughtful reflection.
There is not one good reason for any website, left or right, or non-political, to allow people to avoid identifying themselves. Anyone interested in serious political discourse, or in merely lowering the hate levels in our country, should welcome the banning of anonymous postings.
... I doubt I am alone in reading fewer and fewer comments sections because of the low level of so many of the postings. Just as bad money chases away good money, moronic postings chase away intelligent ones. I have come to the point where I even read fewer comments posted about my own columns.
Tim Challies also spoke about this a few weeks back. In his blog post, he quotes Os Guinness, who said that in the past, "those who did right and those who did not do wrong often acted as they did because they knew they were seen by others. Their morality was accountability through visibility."
Tim went on to say that God "helped me understand that accountability is closely tied to visibility and that personal holiness will come not through anonymity but through deep and personal relationships with my brothers and sisters in the local church." He concludes: And so this is my challenge to bloggers and to those who comment on blogs: make yourself accountable through visibility. Commit yourself to purity of heart and to only speaking or writing what is honoring to God. And then ensure that there are people who know you, who read your words, who will lovingly exhort and correct you when you do not keep this commitment. In this way we can honor God and maintain a focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I think this is a great idea. The bloggers on The Line are all held accountable to someone; no blog post is published without first being reviewed by someone else on the team. We discuss when someone may have gone too far, or may have poorly chosen words. Some blog posts are irredeemable; some never get published.
There may be a place for anonymity, for holding yourself unaccountable to others. But there are benefits to being known, to have your words associated with your name. Benefits that, as Dennis Prager points out, contribute to more a more civil exchange of ideas. Benefits that, as Tim Challies points out, contribute to personal holiness.
My name is Ted Slater, and I approved this message.
HT: Jack Hudson
Ted just sent me this link from freerepublic.com about the United Methodists changing their mission statement this week at conference. Previous mission:
The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ.
New mission:
The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
Rejected amendment:
The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the salvation of souls and the transformation of the world.
Now I don't want to read too much into this. I mean, I'm a marketing guy so I understand wanting a pithy mission statement. But it seems they should have rejected the latter phrase of the rejected amendment, not the former. It's just too man (and earth) centered. You know, how about something like, "... for God's glory."
As freerepublic.com notes,"transforming the world" sounds more like a political agenda than a church mission. And from my experience, it will likely be a leftist political agenda.
Anyway, it appears my optimism about the "conservative governing majority" was a little premature.
I attend two or three writing conferences each year, and I've talked one-on-one with hundreds of writers. Some of them are great and don't know it. Others are, well, not great and don't know it. My personal feeling is that writing is probably more simple and more difficult than most people think.
That's why I appreciated "On Writing" by Andrée Seu. Both the novice and experienced writer can benefit from the rapid-fire writing advice contained in this article: Replace generalities with vivid details. Avoid clichés. Write things that are helpful.
I'm tempted to make copies of this article and hand it out to every writer I meet. If you want to be a writer (or a better writer), read this article every day for a month. In a similar vein, I encourage students to read Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" once each year.
I particularly liked Seu's words to the Christian writer: What's good for life is good for the writing life: Write "anything that would be helpful" (Acts 20:20). Also, you have heard that it was said, "The writer makes his own luck" — meaning that he should go out and live an exciting life. But the Lord says, "Defend the cause of the weak" (Psalms 82:3) — and you will have material aplenty.
Don't be intimidated by the "other guys" (Time, Newsweek). "Since they have rejected the word of the Lord, what kind of wisdom do they have?" (Jeremiah 8:9). Besides, they throw around phrases like "a house divided cannot stand" without a clue as to where they come from.
Dirty little secrets of the trade: Writers don't know where they're going till they get there; first drafts are always pathetic; there is no such thing as an original thought.
That's good advice.
I can identify with a point Thomas Jeffries makes in his article featured on Boundless today about the best response to writer's block. He writes: I need to read.
That's right, no fresh air for me. No vigorous exercise. No peaceful meditation. My remedy for writer's block is a healthy dose of quality prose, maybe even some poetry.
I'm going through this right now trying to get a book written before July. At the time I should be writing in every spare moment, I have a stack of books on my bedside table and more on order from the library. But that's what pushes me on and stretches me beyond my own little world.
I also appreciate the point Thomas makes about which book can best stretch writers. He continues: Sometimes it's something I've read before, other times I go back to the old standbys — classic pieces that never fail to inspire. Occasionally I'll go back a couple millennia or more, because — despite the barriers of time and translation — modern writers can still learn plenty from the most inspirational (and best-selling) book of all.
Over the years, I've read writing coaches who find inspiration for their writing from the Bible even if they aren't believers. They praise its simplicity, its strong appeal to the senses, its stories and its poetry. I've been able to appreciate more about this recently as I've been digging into the Literary Study Bible that Crossway produced as a companion to their ESV translation. The insights in this study Bible go beyond entertaining English majors like me, they remind us all of the creativity the Holy Spirit brought to communicating the logos.
For the writers among our readers, how has the Bible inspired your writing?
Over on the Radical Womanhood blog, Carolyn McCulley has released an unedited chapter from her upcoming book, also titled Radical Womanhood. In the chapter, Carolyn reminds us that there was one thing that feminists and Christians used to agree upon--the fight against pornography.
McCulley writes about the group, Women Against Pornography, which, "coalesced in the late ‘70s out of several organizations, and was loosely led by feminist author Susan Brownmiller...and the militant feminist Andrea Dworkin, among others... Dworkin campaigned frequently on the subject, helping to draft a law in 1983 that defined pornography as a civil rights violation against women. The law was later overturned by an appeal court as unconstitutional."
McCulley writes later in her post: "Opposition to pornography was the link between two groups that typically had little else in common: the Christian Right and feminist activists. For a brief period in 1980s, they found themselves on the same page."
And what about today? For myself, I haven't heard a whole lot from either the church or the feminists about this issue.
As Steve pointed out in the latest podcast, around 60 percent of guys now feel that viewing pornography is perfectly okay (listen to find out why Lisa blames Chandler from Friends). Not only is this a problem because of the violence against women that pornography can encourage, but also, as Steve pointed out, that it makes "consumers" of men.
That phrase really struck me. God has designed and commanded men to protect women. But pornography turns God's design completely around, encouraging men to be "consumers"--to shop for, be entertained by and exploit women to serve their own purposes.
Thankfully, some in the church are taking a stand against pornography. Focus on the Family, specifically, created pureintimacy.org, to explain the biblical view of sex and also to give advice on how to overcome sexual addictions.
Though I couldn't find much about pornography at the National Organization for Women website, I did find one reference to a workshop at a 2005 conference called "Sexploitation: Trafficking, Prostitution and Pornography." The workshop description states that: "Scholars and activists pinpoint pornography and the rising acceptance by the mainstream as a major cause for demand of prostitution and trafficking—especially in wealthy destination countries like the U.S...Only by focusing on ways to reduce demand will this destructive trade come to an end."
Who knows? Maybe 30 years later, though we still can't agree on much else, Christians and feminists could agree on the danger of pornography and fight it.
I'm a conservationist. I care about the environment, care about minimizing waste, care about clean water and air, and care about my neighbor's clean water and air.
I'm also thoughtful about how I conserve.
Which is why I haven't bought into the so-called "green" movement. Some in the green movement are good-willed, though uninformed. Others are manipulating these naive lemmings in order to pad their wallets. I'm in neither category, for a variety of reasons.
Let's take the recent ethanol craze, for example. In an effort to save the environment and reduce fossil fuel use, the U.S. government is subsidizing its production between $1.05 and $1.38 a gallon. As a result, corn production for ethanol has increased, while corn production for food use has decreased. Corn prices have consequently increased, to the dismay of those who actually eat the stuff.
Here's another thing: It takes more energy to create ethanol than it provides us. Yeah, you read that right. What some see as a "green solution to fossil fuels" is actually anti-green.
Consider the facts: The creation of one gallon of ethanol requires 1.29 gallons of fossil fuel (for plowing, planting, harvesting, transporting, processing), 1,700 gallons of water and plenty of chemical fertilizers and insecticides. It takes 450 pounds of corn -- enough to feed a person for a year -- to produce enough ethanol to fill up your SUV or minivan. And on top of that, ethanol fuel is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, which compounds the wasted energy used in creating it.
So I question how ethanol can be considered a green alternative to fossil fuels. It is less efficient, requires more energy than it provides, is eco-unfriendly to produce, and has caused food crises in third world countries.
Maybe the solution is for our government to get out of the anti-free enterprise, market-manipulating, pro-subsidy business. And for more of us to take a closer look at what is being pushed on us as "green." It may, in fact, be merely a grungy shade of black.
See this and this for more info.
Last week, Boundless published my article "Girls Need Girls." In it, I talked about the importance of female friendships and wrote about five kinds of female friends I think every woman should have: the intercessor, the encourager, the celebrator, the teacher and the questioner.
Jerry* wrote in with this concern: Would not all of the qualities described be facets of a thriving marriage? I have read elsewhere on the site where warnings are given about intimate boy-girl "friendships" that go nowhere because fulfillment is already taking place. Would not an intimate girl-girl friendship to some extent have the same effect?
I see a valid concern here. Based on Genesis, humans are designed to desire a companion and helpmate. Something we've addressed before on Boundless, is that when a guy and girl are spending a lot of time together in an intimate friendship that is not heading toward marriage, they may be satiating some of those natural longings for a spouse (and thus prolonging singleness). I think Jerry makes a good point that a close friendship with the same sex could do the same thing...or a close guy-girl friends group...or a close-knit family of origin.
Every meaningful relationship in your life has the potential to make you grow complacent about marriage. However, that level of emotional dependence was not what I was suggesting in my article. Scripture is clear about the benefits of female friendship (Titus 2:3-5). By design, women have emotional needs that even the best husband in the world will not be able to meet at all times. If she forsakes female friends, she will put tremendous pressure on her mate.
Personally, I feel that my female friends are an asset in my search for a mate, not a deterrent. They pray for me, counsel me, hold me accountable and challenge me to break past complacency. They are also a hedge of protection, like the friends mentioned in Song of Solomon. If I were to seek out this same level of camaraderie from guys, at best it would be shallow and at worst inappropriate.
I agree with Jerry that the five qualities mentioned in the article would be great in a marriage relationship. Obviously this level of intimacy is appropriate and good in that context. My intent was not to take away from anything marriage has to offer but to highlight the benefits of godly friendships. Friendships, family ties and social circles have their place. They are not a replacement for marriage, but they can be a wonderful (and biblical) supplement.
*Not his real name.
Hans Christian Andersen knew a thing or two about human nature, but I wonder if he could have imagined the insanity of today's scammers and swindlers.
I just read about the newest must-have watch manufactured by Geneva's finest. This fine timepiece is not for ordinary mortals, who might actually need to know the time. No, this watch is for the rarified breed of people who need not concern themselves with such petty matters as what hour it might happen to be; no, they merely need to know if it's day or night. As the sales copy so elegantly puts it, this timepiece splits "the universe of time into two fundamentally opposing sections: day versus night."
Wow, who could resist?
Well, I could, seeing as they want $300,000 for this glorified hunk of metal. Oh, and also because I happen to have windows in my house.
Reading about his reminded me of Edgar Allan Poe's "The Masque of the Red Death." The people this watch appeals to are locked away in their safe castles, thinking the destruction of the world will pass them by. They do not see that death is walking among us every day. But such has always been the case, and still we never learn.
Last week we broke the story of eHarmony's promotion of the hook-up culture with an article they published on their advice site titled, "Navigating the One Night Stand." Well, not only did they unpublish it immediately, the vice president of publishing issued a public apology. Kinda. Anyway, our host Lisa Anderson gives the final word on the eHarmony saga to open up this week's The Boundless Show.
Roundtable -- 3:10
Speaking of eHarmony, it's been almost two months since we hosted four single gals to discuss their online dating experiences. When I listened again, I noticed a lot of talk about "freaky" matches. Now you can hear the guy's side of things. This week, we invited four "striking" young men to speak about their experiences with online dating. I think you'll appreciate the balanced perspective they provide.
Culture -- 21:32
We were honored this week to have Focus on the Family President and CEO Jim Daly join us to discuss his book, "Finding Home: An Imperfect Path to Faith and Family." Let's set the stage: Jim's parents were alcoholics and divorced when he was 5. His mom died of cancer when he was nine. He entered the foster care system until his alcoholic father showed up again at age 11. But as Jim says, "God's hand was on us." Listen to find out the rest of the story in this inspirational segment.
Hungry Years -- 35:37
What's it like to graduate with honors and then have to slip on a drug store vest as a first job? This week, Patrick Dunn looks back at what he and his college degree did in his first years on the job market. And how his frustrations caused him to focus on other things during that season -- other things like ... waiting.
Inbox -- 41:48
This week's Inbox is about online pornography. But it's not really about overcoming it; it's when to tell your girlfriend you used to struggle with it. It's a difficult question but Steve Watters handles it with sensitivity and gives the questioner some great thoughts on what to do.
I think you'll be encouraged by this week's episode. And we'd love to hear from you with your thoughts or questions. So write us at editor@boundless.org.
With college admission getting more competitive, you'd expect that colleges would be demanding more of high school graduates. But some prestigious universities seem to be doing the opposite -- they're encouraging students to take the year off. MSN reports: It's called a "gap year." And while it's been a common and popular rite of passage in Australia and the U.K. for decades, the concept is now starting to gain significant steam here in America.
One reason for its rise in popularity, is that the gap year provides a much-needed mental break for kids who have ridden "the academic conveyor belt from preschool all the way to university." Taking a gap year can actually make kids more focused and ready for the rigors of academic life. In fact, Harvard, arguably the most competitive university in the country, believes so much in the gap year that they encourage every student they admit to consider a year off before matriculation. And Princeton has just announced a new program called the "bridge year" that will allow newly admitted students to spend a year performing public service abroad before beginning their freshman year.
Better-prepared students mean better completion rates for colleges. According to the College Board, close to 30 percent of college freshmen don't return for sophomore year. And three out of five students fail to earn a degree within five years.
Those who take a year off may spend the time writing, traveling, serving or working. Have any of you tried the gap year? How did it go?
Have you ever found yourself doubting your faith -- even just a little bit? Does God really exist? Is Christianity the only way? How can we be sure?
I've had these questions, and I would guess that many of you have as well. But how do we deal with them?
Well, I have a few suggestions. First you should watch our new TrueU video -- I, apparently, am a very doubtful person.
Second, you should definitely check out Jason Boyett's latest TrueU article. In it, he talks about one of his weaknesses -- doubt. But instead of hiding in shame because he's not always sure about his faith, he decided to take Paul's advice and boast in his weakness: I'll willingly identify myself as a Christian. I live as a Christian. I write magazine articles and books for Christians. But there are days that I don't feel like a Christian. Faith for me is hard.
There are plenty of reasons for this. Maybe you identify with them. Sometimes I doubt because of sin. Willful disobedience doesn't remove me from God's presence or love — nothing can do that, according to Romans 8:38-39 — but it can certainly mess up my experience of His presence and love. Sometimes I doubt because of negligence. When I'm going through a spell of prayerlessness or spiritual apathy, God begins to feel distant. It should be no surprise, then, when it feels like He's not just far away, but completely absent.
Jason recommends admitting our doubts, refusing to fear them, and then understanding how doubt and faith work together. He points out that to get beyond doubt, we must practice our faith: In the presence of doubt, the best way to express faith is by living it out. There may be a lot of things that bring me uncertainty, but there are plenty of things about which I'm very certain. I know that it's good to worship God and to gather with fellow believers. I know that it's good to extend mercy and grace to others, just like it's been extended to me. I know that I am to show love without discretion, I am to give without selfishness, and I am to care for those who can't pay me back. So when I'm faced with theological or philosophical uncertainty, the most faithful thing for me to do is to practice those things I'm certain about. So I worship. I give. I love. I obey.
I think this is beautiful. It's faith in action -- it's us living what we say we believe, even when it is difficult. It is recognizing that, as Jason says, "Jesus frees us -- not the absence of doubt."
Who's in the mood to fight about evolution versus intelligent design?! Just kidding. Let's not do that -- let's all be friends today.
What I would like to mention is that the Discovery Institute has a pretty sweet summer program about intelligent design, and they would like you to attend. That's right -- you!
If you're a college junior, senior or in your first year of graduate school, you should consider attending the nine-day seminar that the Discovery Institute is hosting. It's July 11-20, and if you're majoring in the natural sciences, social sciences or humanities, this course is for you.
Whether you're a science junkie or just want to know more about the intelligent design debate, it looks like this course has something interesting and challenging for everyone: The seminar focusing on ID in the natural sciences will explore the scientific issues in greater technical detail and include a visit to a laboratory where molecular biological research is pursued from an ID perspective. The seminar on ID in the social sciences and humanities will give more in-depth attention to the social impact of science, the moral implications of science, and legal issues surrounding the debate between neo-Darwinism and intelligent design. Participants in both seminars will benefit from classroom instruction and interaction with prominent ID researchers and scholars such as Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, Douglas Axe, Scott Minnich, Bruce Gordon, John West, and Casey Luskin.
So, you should probably consider attending, especially since students who are accepted have their travel to Seattle, most meals and lodging expenses covered. What's not to like?
The application deadline is April 30, so get to it. Then make sure to let us know what you learned!
Last night, Focus on the Family Institute's Dr. Chris Leland debated atheist Dr. Michael Newdow about the constitutionality of allowing "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It was an interesting debate -- and I'm glad I wasn't the one doing the talking.
Newdow has filed lawsuits that bring into question whether or not "under God" and the words "in God we trust" on American currency are constitutional. He argues that government is not allowed to establish religion, and that the founding fathers were very careful to avoid references to any type of deity. As I wrote in an article: Newdow repeatedly stated that currency with references to God, or pledges that acknowledge a deity, violate the equality that Americans — and specifically, him as an atheist — are entitled to. Just as Christians wouldn't want their children reciting a pledge that stated that God doesn't exist, he, as an atheist, doesn't want his children reciting a pledge that states God does exist.
Leland, on the other hand, talked about the history of religion in American discourse. God has repeatedly been acknowledge in the pledge, on our currency, at sessions of congress, by presidents and so on. He also pointed out that if God is removed from government, that spot won't be left vacant. Some type of ideology will replace it.
This debate brought up some interesting questions, most of which are in my article. I'll outline a couple of them here:
- Leland argued that it is not possible for everyone to be treated completely equally. Someone's ideas will be imposed and someone else's will not. He argued that the will of the majority rules — it's the way our democratic republic operates. Do you think this is a valid point?
- Newdow continued to talk about how laws change based on oppression or incorrect interpretation (e.g. slavery was legal for many years and is now considered morally repugnant). Newdow acknowledges that religion has been a part of America's history, but he believes acknowledgment of God by the government is unconstitutional. So the question becomes, would Newdow support a popular vote about whether or not to keep the phrases "in God we trust" and "under God" in our public discourse?
What do you think about the constitutionality of these phrases? Do you agree with the idea that if God is removed, some ideology will replace Him?
I grew up attending a quaint United Methodist Church down South. The people were nice, the services were reverent, and music was worshipful. But I can't say the Bible was preached well there. Either that or I just didn't have ears to hear it then.
Maybe it was both.
I left the church when I left for college. But not with animosity or anything like that, I just wanted to do my own thing on Sundays. And I did my own thing for about the next 10 years.
When I was 27 years old and working in D.C., I decided I needed church again (in hindsight though, it was really the Lord beginning to call me). So I began attending a United Methodist Church very near my apartment. The female reverend took some getting used to, but other than that, I felt right at home there ... until I heard my first sermon on the beauty of homosexual love.
And that was enough to make this conservative good ol' boy head for the doors right in the middle of the service, never to return.
I became a Christian about a year after that through a U.S. Senate staff Bible study. A brother immediately took me under his wing and took me to a Bible believing, expositional preaching, reformed Baptist church (though he himself was a Presbyterian). And it was only then that I began to see my upbringing in a new light; to see the difference sound doctrine makes in denominations.
So today I was interested to read this article from The Daily Standard titled "Will Methodism Tilt Right?" It's about how plummeting membership among the liberal United Methodist Churches in America has left the door open for a "strongly evangelical" influence at this years quadrennial General Conference.
The African United Methodists are strongly evangelical. While U.S. church elites are confused by their declining influence and give their attention to fading political causes of the left, the Africans are quietly assuming wide influence over what was once almost an entirely American institution. Thirty percent of the delegates at the General Conference will come from Africa, the Philippines or Europe. In coalition with another 30 percent of delegates who are U.S. evangelicals, mostly from the South, there is likely for the first time in modern Methodist history a conservative governing majority. Just 4 years ago, U.S. evangelicals and overseas delegates comprised less than 50 percent.
The articles ends with a warning not to expect changes overnight like it did with the Southern Baptists in the late '80s. But still, it's encouraging.
Thank God for African evangelicals.
I swore I'd never blog about American Idol after the first time, but Ted got me hooked on the show. I'm beginning to wonder why I got hooked, though, especially after last night. The two single best performers this week -- yes, better even than the two Davids -- were Syesha Mercado and Carly Smithson. Hands down they blew the roof off the place Tuesday night, both technically and aesthetically. Yet there they were, both in the bottom two.
Two people who should have been eliminated weeks ago, Jason Castro and Brooke White, turned in predictably dismal performances Tuesday, yet they were both safe. (How many times is Brooke going to get away with stopping and starting over in a song?)
Last week Kristy, whose trajectory had been steadily upward, lost to Brooke, whose has been headed steadily in the other direction. Jason Castro, with his limited range and reed-thin voice, should never have made it into the top 12, yet there he was this week besting two powerhouse voices like Syesha's and Carly's.
American Idol is, alas, just as I feared: high school writ large. In the end, it's not about true talent. It's about who's cute and who's popular.
Ridiculous.
So I get home from VBS training at my church last night to a not-so-nice phone message.
It's from a collection agency. Evidently, it is imperative that I call them immediately regarding my delinquent account ASAP. Oh, and did she mention that she wants a call back soon?
First reaction: mild panic. I hit "hunker down" mode. Pull out the Quicken. Check the bills. Check the accounts. Hmmm...no....all looks good.
Second reaction: major panic. Oh, great! Someone has stolen my identity. I begin a moderate freak-out session. Jump online to check my credit report at www.annualcreditreport.com. {Sidenote: "F-R-E-E, that spells free...credit report dot com, baby." Yeah, their commercials are clever. But they're trying to sell you a credit monitoring service. Listen very carefully to the last line of the commercial. If you really want your free credit report, hit the link above.]
Hmmm...still looks okay. No new accounts. No negative information. Still, random blog headlines start running through my head: "Boundless Financial Writer Turns Out to Be Dead Beat Debtor."
With my heart beating a little fast, I call the collections agency back. After a few operators, I give the gal my "file number" (da-da-da-da-daaaa).
"Yes, Ms. Koerner, we're calling about the delinquent balance of $5,000 on your Citibank card and want to know how you would like to pay for that."
"Uh-huh," I say. "But I don't have a Citibank card."
The gal is not buying it. "Oh, really? Your name is Heather?"
"Yep."
"Heather Koerner?"
"Yep."
"Born in 19**?"
"Nope."
"Oh...." she pauses. "Are the last four digits of your social security number ****?"
"Nope."
"Thank you." Click.
She didn't apologize for taking up ten minutes of my time or for causing a temporary increase in my blood pressure, but I really didn't care.
So, this is my personal PSA. Go check your credit report. Right now.
And, Heather...if you are out there, somebody's looking for you. You might want to pay that bill.
In "The Stench of Dead Presidents," my friend Dave considers the sin of greed. I'll admit, it's a sin I rarely think about, but Dave points out the staunch warning Paul gave against it. To help us grasp the seriousness of greed and its subtle forms, Scripture lists greed amongst more external, obvious sins. In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 Paul says that if a fellow Christian "is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler — not even to eat with such a one" (v. 11). He calls to "purge the evil person from among you" (v. 13) and by using this phrase he invokes a legal tradition in Israel attested throughout the book of Deuteronomy, where God commanded Israel to stone individuals caught in certain egregious sins (e.g., Deut. 31:1-5; 17:2-7; 22:22-24).
Paul's point must be made clear. He's warning that when a community of believers condones certain gross sins, including greed, it weakens the whole community and opens a floodgate to the decline of the entire church. Instead, standards must be maintained to keep the community pure.
A main reason for this weakening is that greed has the potential to rule a heart. And as Matthew 6:24 warns: "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." Instead of "What's in your wallet?" a better question may be "Who owns your wallet?" A spirit of joyful giving characterized early Christians: The early church in Acts joyfully shared "all things in common," "selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need" (Acts 2:44-45). Consumed with love for Christ, they happily sacrificed things of this world to lay up treasure in the next.
Dave exhorts: We need to test our attachment to stuff: Could I go without my plasma screen? Could I lend my car to someone who needs it, even if that creates a hardship for me? Perhaps we can learn, as the early church did, to share what we have as if we didn't own it. The best action for overcoming greed is to give.
What about you? Do you struggle with greed? Read the article, and you may be surprised by the answer. Greed is gross. It's true.
Many years ago I worked for Time-Life in Washington, D.C. It was an odd place, full of people of earnest political correctness, well-meaning but clueless that someone could possibly hold ideas different from theirs. It was for the most part an amusing experience for me -- amusing in the sense one is amused when reading Lewis Carroll.
For example, during a United Way appeal for employees, I asked our HR person if the charity still supported the Boy Scouts. My concern was that if they had withdrawn support over the Scouts' refusal to accept homosexual scoutmasters, I would not have contributed. Completely misunderstanding my point of view and assuming I thought like everyone else in the building, the HR lady answered with an exasperated, "Unfortunately, yes."
Later, the employee newsletter featured a story about a longtime editor's retirement, mentioning that he had made the "ultimate sacrifice" (their words, not mine) by fleeing to Canada to avoid the draft in the 1960s. Again, they simply assumed everyone within the Time-Life universe would think this was something heroic -- until they got a very agitated letter from me, that is. I got a lot of Whoa! looks from my fellow employees after that.
Now, the denizens of Time-Life land have committed a similar error, and they're again clueless that anyone could take offense. The cover of a "special environment issue" of Time magazine -- the Time staffers on Sixth Avenue do indeed live in a "special" environment -- have exceeded the bounds of silliness and entered rarefied territory: fatuousness combined with historical ignorance.
First, to equate alleged global warming with a true existential struggle against an implacable enemy -- look up the "Rape of Nanking" -- is fatuous times inane squared.
Second, I'm old enough to remember when all the news magazines, Time among them, were running scare stories about the impending ice age. It's hard to take them seriously this time around.
Finally, to take a classic photo and rejigger it for some petty political cause is contemptible. (Imagine the uproar if someone took the classic image of Dr. Martin Luther King on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and manipulated it for unrelated political purposes.)
I encourage everyone to read the book Flags of Our Fathers. (Don't bother with the movie, which doesn't begin to capture the complexity of this story and invented some scenes out of thin air.) Learn about the real struggles of those six men and the heroic effort to raise that flag on Mount Suribachi. Comparing that valor to today's dubious political correctness is enough to set one's teeth on edge. And I'm not the only one. This is only the second time in the history of the magazine that Time has changed the red border on the cover. The first time was a black border after 9/11. And now this. What's wrong with this picture?
By the way, there is a persistent (and false) rumor that the Iwo Jima flag-raising was staged. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In "Dear Disillusioned Church," twenty-something Katie Galli reviews two books about the church. Though the books are targeted at young adults who may feel at odds with some aspects of the American church, Galli expressed frustration with the authors' failure to encourage their readers to meaningfully connect with the body of believers: An oft-disillusioned (and hopelessly idealistic) 20-something myself, I picked up Life After Church: God's Call to Disillusioned Christians (InterVarsity), and Dear Church: Letters from a Disillusioned Generation (Zondervan). I figured that I'd find writers who share my frustrations. But I was also hoping they would push me toward a deeper and richer relationship with the church -- and in this, I was left unsatisfied.
Instead of encouraging young people to invest in and commit to their local churches, the books essentially give twenty-somethings a free pass to abandon the "failed experiment" of the church and start something new (like a home groups). This kind of attitude frustrates me. I wrote about it in "Designer Church" and "Quarantining a Generation."
Despite the church's flaws, we are wrong to pridefully reject it. Whether or not the church is satisfying our personal tastes or expectations, we are responsible to be part of it simply to be obedient to Christ. Galli points out we shouldn't look down our noses at church just because it operates in an orderly (and American) way and bears marks of tradition. Yes, we're Americans. We multitask all day long. Efficiency is one of our top cultural values. I, too, am pragmatic. I'd like to use Sunday morning to worship God, to get a few pointers on how to improve my relationship with Jesus, and to reconnect with community. But every Sunday, the first words heard at my institutional church are, "Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." And I'm reminded that we gather weekly not to hear a practical talk on how to better live out our faith or to provide a venue to tell our friends about Jesus. We gather corporately to worship God, to celebrate the redeeming work of Christ on the cross, and to remember that our lives are not about us.
And that kind of weekly reminder is far more valuable than a constant diet of cynicism or a critical attitude toward the church. Katie concludes with this: The church can indeed be bureaucratic, inefficient, and, at times, hopelessly outdated. It remains one of the most embarrassing institutions to which one can belong. But it has also given us a 2,000-year legacy of saints and social reformers, and a rich liturgy and theology -- the very gift 20-somethings need to grow into the full stature of Christ.
eHarmony says that they "regret" having published an advice column last week titled "Navigating the One Night Stand." Truth is, saying "We apologize to anyone who read the column and found it inappropriate" is only a step above the "I'm sorry if you were offended" pseudo-apology.
I think it's actually more of a damage control editorial than a sincere mea culpa. In my opinion, eHarmony has become all about market share and money, and only tangentially about facilitating healthy marriages. They seem more concerned about affirming its less-virtuous dues-paying members than about guiding couples into forming good marriages. Consider another not-yet-deleted advice column, "How to Fan the Flames of Desire," which begins by affirming premarital sex: "You meet that special someone. You talk, you date, oh and did I mention that you two have amazing chemistry in the bedroom."
Elsewhere, eHarmony published an advice column that assumes that after a few dates with a guy you met through eHarmony, "you're probably crashing at his place." It goes on to characterize sleeping together as quaint: "spending an impromptu night at your significant other's house is a lot like camping."
As Lisa said in this past week's Boundless Show podcast, "This is not your mother's eHarmony."
It's my prayer that Boundless and Focus on the Family never put the love of money and increasing market share over the love of ministering in the name of the Lord, as eHarmony seems to have done.
Yale student Aliza Shvarts is having her fifteen minutes of fame whether or not all the aspects of her "abortion art" project were true. What's most fascinating are the comments she made in defense of her project in the Yale Daily News last Friday: As an intervention into our normative understanding of "the real" and its accompanying politics of convention, this performance piece has numerous conceptual goals. The first is to assert that often, normative understandings of biological function are a mythology imposed on form. It is this mythology that creates the sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are "meant" to do from their physical capability. The myth that a certain set of functions are "natural" (while all the other potential functions are "unnatural") undermines that sense of capability, confining lifestyle choices to the bounds of normatively defined narratives.
The first thing I thought when I read this defense is how -- behind all the academic buzz words -- you could apply the same kind of reasoning to how Sid chose to view his toys in the movie Toy Story.
While Sid clearly broke free from the "confining lifestyle choices" in order to rip heads and body parts off of dolls and to mix parts to create mutant toys, that still didn't improve on the "normative understanding" that Pixar communicates -- that toys were meant to be loved.
Aliza makes her individualistic statement that she is able to manipulate design, but she is unable to negate the beauty and the mystery of the human reproductive system that continues to transcend the tinkering and re-engineering efforts of an elitist art student more interested in deconstructing than producing art.
The garden is still beautiful. Tucked among the deep green canopy of leaves, birds chirp and squirrels play. The air is fresh with the scent of flowers and dew. Being there, it just feels good to be alive.
Except that the first two humans have just disobeyed their Creator, bringing shame and discord upon all of creation.
Perhaps the Lord is heart-broken. Perhaps He's infuriated. Certainly He is not surprised.
So God the Just metes out the punishments. The serpent will be cursed, will eat the dust from which Adam was created, and will some day be further punished by the Offspring of God and humanity. Eve, the life-giver, will experience pain in bringing about that life, and will continue yearning to usurp her husband's authority. And Adam's work will no longer be pleasant, but a grueling chore.
But then the Lord does something both peculiar and prophetic. He calls over a lamb, a gentle creature that has been grazing deeper in the garden. As the animal walks over, the Lord bends down and gathers it in His arms, pained at the terrible grace He is about to extend to Adam and to Eve. The Maker and Sustainer of life slices deeply into the lamb's neck, blood splattering down His arm and collecting onto the ground in crimson puddles. Never before has He killed one of His creatures, but this moment calls for a death, a providential and atoning death.
The frantic bleating comes to an end and the flow of blood slows. The Lord peels the animal's skin off its muscle in sheets. Adam and Eve look on, horrified. He folds this edge of the skin back over, affixing it to that edge, pulling this flap under and that section over.
And then it's done. He instructs Adam and Eve to remove the clothes they had made of leaves. As they do, they're freshly made aware of the shame of their sin. Trembling, Adam stares at the ground, trying to take in what he has just seen, trying not to think too much about the difficult road ahead of him. Eve stands next to him, tears flowing down her blushing face.
Then the Lord tells the first couple to look at Him. As they do, they are stunned to find not a face of anger, but of compassion. And there in His hands they see it, still moist with the blood of the lamb, something divinely crafted to cover their shame: a garment for Adam, and a garment for Eve....
Did you know that today is Patriot's Day? I didn't.
It's observed in only Massachusetts and Maine but every third Monday in April marks the 'shot heard round the world,' Patriots Day. Here's an excerpt from Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald commemorating the event: Patriots Day may be the least known American holiday, and the day most deserving of our recognition. Observed in Massachusetts and Maine only. Don't know it? It marks the day, April 19, 1775, on which Americans took up arms against their king, and bled, at the crack of terrible dawn.
Crittenden posts written accounts from the eyewitnesses of the brief skirmish that started the Revolutionary War. Paul Revere's account of his famous midnight ride to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams is fascinating.
HT: Hugh Hewitt
I love fresh tomatoes, as I've mentioned before on The Line.
I was tomato shopping a few months ago and found myself wrestling over whether I could justify paying $4 for a fist-sized bag of cherry tomatoes. I couldn't.
But I was able to justify buying a four small bags of tomato seeds from the local gardening store. The seeds have sprouted, and I anticipate transplanting them from the little cardboard cubes that they're emerging from into something larger within a month or so, as soon as the weather outdoors is reliably over 40 degrees.
I'm excited to be growing my own food. It'll taste better than what I can find at the local grocery store, and will be significantly cheaper.
In an article we published last week, "Go Garden," Kimberly Eddy talks about the many benefits of gardening. The cool thing is that she provides a number of practical gardening tips as well.
OK, I've told you about my garden. Tell me about yours!
IntroIt's tax week. And we begin this episode of The Boundless Show with a chat on refunds and rebates. The ladies have all kinds of suggestions on how to spend my money. What about you? What will you be doing with your hard earned money?
Roundtable -- 3:35
Dr. Neil Clark Warren launched eHarmony in 2000 with a goal of helping Christian singles build long-lasting relationships by finding their soul mates. But in 2005, Dr. Warren took a decidedly secular turn with his service and it seems to have culminated with an advice site that gives people tips on one night stands and looking great while crashing at your boyfriend's house. As Lisa says in this week's roundtable, "This is not your mother's eHarmony." And we think it's important to expose eHarmony's hedonistic ways to singles who still believe it's a "Christian" dating service.
Culture -- 19:05
What do lightning, crystals and aliens have in common? They're all theories Darwinians have come up with to explain how life began. And though it sounds a bit ridiculous, you'd better not question it if you have a career in academia. Tom Neven explains that that's essentially what Ben Stein's new movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is all about. Timely stuff because the movie opens tonight. Go see it!
Hungry Years -- 34:05
This week, Steve Watters brings us a Hungry Years that I guarantee everyone can relate to. I know because we all say things we regret. We all say things that we immediately feel ashamed of because they were said out of anger, selfishness or pride. Here, Steve gives us some great advice on taming the tongue like, "A closed mouth gathers no feet." Awesome.
Inbox -- 38:45
Listen ladies. You have something men want. Actually, you have a lot of things men want. And some men will take and take and take until you stop giving them access "to your heart, to your emotions, and to your time and availability." That's what this week's Inbox is about. Sort of. Anyway, don't miss this one because Candice doesn't hold anything back in this segment.
And remember, you can get to The Boundless Show via either iTunes or Feedburner (our RSS feed).
It's much easier to simply take a side in the culture wars than to actually engage the issues we fight over. I confess that I've found myself taking sides perhaps too quickly on perhaps too many occasions.
So how, then, might we engage culture ... Christianly?
In his article "v. Culture," Boundless author Jonathan Dodson suggests six great ways to start: prayerfully, carefully, biblically-theologically, redemptively, humbly and selectively.
So what do you think? How might these six things help you experience a more robust, redemptive, critical and theological engagement with culture?
When words are few, each one carries a considerable weight.
Saturday is the first day of Passover this year. Although we already celebrated Easter at the end of last month, I think it's so important to remember the Passover celebration as well.
Celebrating Passover by having a Seder dinner is something I've done for the past three years. It has radically changed the way I see the Resurrection and the symbolism of what Jesus did and when He chose to do it.
A lot goes on during a Seder dinner -- it's a time for all participants to remember how God rescued them from slavery in Egypt. During the dinner, we remember the ten plagues God sent, the redemption as He brought us out of Egypt and the future glory and joy when Messiah comes. For the Christian, it is no different. It is beautiful to remember what God did so long ago in Egypt -- how He has set us free from our slavery and redeemed what was broken.
One of my favorite parts of the Seder ceremony has to do with Matzoh -- the unleavened bread required at Passover. God told the Israelites to only eat unleavened bread during Passover to remind them of the fact that there was no time for the bread to rise when they left Egypt.
At the beginning of the Seder, the leader takes out a container that has three sections for three different pieces of Matzoh. There isn't any agreement as to why, where or how this tradition of three pieces began. Some say it symbolizes the three fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). Others say it symbolizes the priests, Levites and the congregation. Either way, there are three pieces of matzoh.
The leader takes the middle matzoh out of the container and breaks it in two parts. He puts one back, and the other he wraps in a separate napkin. This pieces becomes the afikoman, which means dessert. The leader hides the afikoman and moves on with the ceremony. After the meal, the children go to look for the afikoman. The child who finds it brings it to the leader, but holds it as a ransom until a price has been paid -- usually a treat for the child. The service cannot continue until the afikoman has been redeemed.
So, let's review: The afikoman, the middle piece of the three matzot, was broken, hidden away and brought back. For its redemption, a ransom had to be paid. Symbolism, anyone??!!
After the afikoman has been redeemed, the leader breaks it into pieces and distributes it to the whole group. It is the dessert, and its taste is to remain in their mouths as long as possible to remind everyone of God's deliverance in the past, present and future.
So let's go back to a room with a few guys in it a couple thousand years ago. The group has just finished their Passover meal, the youngest person in the room (perhaps his name was John) has found the afikoman and redeemed it. The leader begins the ceremony: And as He had done earlier, Yeshua took the afikoman and gave thanks.
"Baruch atah Adonai, elohaynu melech haolam hamotzee lechem min haaretz." Or, in English, "Blessed are you, O LORD our God, King of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.
Yeshua broke the afikoman, passed it to His disciples, and then said something new: "Take, eat, this is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
It is so much more powerful to me to know that the elements in the Last Supper were already part of a bigger tradition. Jesus didn't take random pieces of bread or a meaningless cup of wine. They are part of the ceremony of the Seder dinner. They are part of the Jewish tradition. They take on new meaning when Jesus breaks that second piece of matzoh and tells us that what's been broken, hidden, and redeemed is what He is going to do for all of creation.
It's a beautiful thing.
I almost laughed last week when I received a press release about the children's picture book "My Beautiful Mommy," a book about Mommy getting plastic surgery. Plastic surgeon Michael Salzhauer wrote the book to help his patients explain to their children why they were getting surgery. Newsweek reports about one of his patients, Gabriela Acosta: Acosta told Salzhauer that she wasn't sure how to talk to her son about the procedures she was considering. That's when he showed her the manuscript for his children's picture book, "My Beautiful Mommy" (Big Tent Books), out this Mother's Day. It features a perky mother explaining to her child why she's having cosmetic surgery (a nose job and tummy tuck). Naturally, it has a happy ending: mommy winds up "even more" beautiful than before, and her daughter is thrilled.
The reassuring tale helped win Acosta over—she scheduled breast augmentation and a tummy tuck. Since February, when she had the surgery, she and Junior have read the book a half dozen times, and she says it helped him feel excited rather than scared. "I didn't want him to think [the surgery] was because I was hurting. It was to make me feel good," she says.
That message seems to have gotten through. Instead of being uncomfortable about the surgery, Acosta says her son actually spoke up about it at a big party. "Did you see her new belly button? It's so pretty!" he said of his mom. "I think he was proud," she says.
After reading the article, I no longer think this book is funny. It's evident that it is a response to how mothers are already behaving. "Mommy Makeovers" are on the rise. According to the press release, more than 400,000 U.S. women with young children underwent elective cosmetic surgery during 2007. One disturbing issue is that the book makes a nose job seem "necessary." Child psychiatrist Elizabeth Berger, author of "Raising Kids With Character," likes the idea of a book for kids. "If the mother is determined to pursue cosmetic surgery, I think it's terribly important to discuss it with the child," Berger says. But she says the book is incomplete. She wishes that the mom had just said something like, "This is silly, but I really want it anyway," she says. "That is more honest and more helpful to the child."
I appreciated what one of my coworkers (a husband and father) had to say about the book when I forwarded the release to him [note: sarcasm alert]: What a relief! Just the book we need in this world, to assure young children that the best way for Mommy to be beautiful is to undergo elective cosmetic surgery! I am so glad this book isn't about the beauty of motherhood, how beautiful mommy is when she loves on her kids and serves their needs and disciplines them...I'm so glad this is cleared up so that no child will ever mistake the beauty of the heart and soul of a mother towards her child for the REAL beauty that only money can buy!
Whether this book makes it or not, the fact that there is a market for it is sad. If only a book by the same title could have been written on the mother described in Proverbs 31: "Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her" (vs 28).
Believing that a right to abortion trumps all other considerations leads to today's absurdity in the Senate. While Pope Benedict XVI's historic visit to Washington received wall to wall coverage, Sen. Barbara Boxer briefly held up a Senate resolution welcoming the pontiff because she objected to language about how the pope values "each and every human life."
It's not surprising that Sen. Barbara Boxer of California is the force behind the utterly silly hold-up, but I have to say that I'm disappointed that Sen. Sam Brownback relented.
What have we come to that it's controversial to respect "each and every human life"?
It's a significant split; the conservative, evangelical community nourished Warren's nascent business, and now he appears to be leaving it behind for the secular world.
That's a line from an interview with Dr. Neil Clark Warren, founder of eHarmony, on Salon.com published almost three years ago. It's about Dr. Warren's ties with, and subsequent separation from, Focus on the Family. But it has proved prophetic in ways beyond Dr. Warren's decision to promote his services to non-Christians.
A Focus on the Family colleague sent me an article published on eHarmony's advice site titled "Navigating the One Night Stand." And it's one of the most hedonistic articles I've ever read. Here's the lead: While most of us are looking for that special someone to spend our lives with, the single life dictates that sometimes the opportunity for companionship presents itself in the form of a one-night stand. While a one-time roll in the hay isn't exactly emotionally fulfilling, sex in any form can be relaxing, enjoyable, and fun.
That's right. Sex is as consequenceless as watching television. So go ahead and get your orgasm on with someone you've just met. But be warned, it's profitable only if you don't read too much into it. After all, it's only sex. It's not like you two have done something as intimate as *gasp* holding hands.
I'm not sure of Dr. Warren's oversight of eHarmony these days. But he is still very much a part of its brand. And it's clear from his Web site's content (and from his interviews) that he thinks it's possible to separate business interests from Christian principles. Or maybe this new direction is simply a reflection of what has always been his Christian principles.
God or mammon, Dr. Warren. God or mammon.
Oh, and we'll be discussing this in this week's Boundless Show podcast. Check back tomorrow afternoon for that.
I submitted a post on a popular Christian Singles forum recently, and was disappointed that the first comment essentially dismissed me because I'm married.
Sadly, that reminds me of something 24-year-old Berkeley activist Jack Weinberg said in 1970: "Don't trust anybody over 30."
I'm trying to understand why there's this initial distrust of those who've moved to a different season of life.
Perhaps it's because too many married people have said insensitive things to their non-married friends. Maybe it's because they're years away from living single, and so what they say is naturally kind of irrelevant, right? Maybe non-married and married folks just tend not to hang out with each other, and therefore don't find much common ground with each other.
I've been married for five years now, after having been unmarried for 36. I confess that I don't rub shoulders with as many single adults as I used to, and have forgotten some of the pain of wanting to be married, but not being married. I've also got going against me that I never really felt excluded from my Christian community (my church) because of my marital status; I admit that I don't really grasp what that feels like for many singles, especially older singles.
But I do want to. I do want to continue being sensitive to those who haven't made the transition at the altar. I want to continue learning what singles find relevant, what issues you're struggling with, how you might legitimately take offense at an insensitive word casually spoken or written. While I have plenty to draw from, having personally experienced a broad spectrum of single life, I'm compelled to keep learning more.
Are you able to help me in this area? Do you have any ideas on how we can cut through whatever it is that tends to dull our ears to what each other is saying?
For those who think that living together before marriage can act as a "trial marriage," Michael McManus, president of Marriage Savers, has some news.
"Actually, it's more like a trial divorce," McManus says in a recent article.
McManus cites some disturbing statistics. For example, 85 percent of couples who cohabitate will end up either breaking up before the marriage or divorcing within 10 years.
But, if some of those couples broke up before the marriage, doesn't that mean that they probably shouldn't have gotten married and have saved themselves the pain of divorce? Absolutely not, he says.
First, cohabitating results in negative relationship behaviors. He cites a Penn State study which showed that even a month of cohabitation decreased the quality of a couple's relationships. Cohabitators were "more negative when they discussed an issue, more demeaning, more flippant, more likely to deride the other person." Couples who had never cohabited "have much more respect for one another, and settled issues more amicably."
Second, McManus points out, that a "premarital divorce" (when cohabitating couples break up) can be just as painful as the "real" thing. It isn't that a man and woman living together avoid a divorce. It's more accurate to say that they practically guarantee that they will break up and go through an experience very similar to exactly what they are trying to avoid.
If you really want to increase your chances for a successful marriage, McManus advises, try three things. First, don't have sex before marriage.
Second, get good, solid premarital counseling. "I wrote that of couples who took a premarital inventory, a tenth decided not to marry. And their scores were equal to those who married and later divorced. So they avoided a bad marriage before it had begun."
Third, find a mentor couple.
McManus also has a word for the church: don't just marry people, get involved in making marriages successful. The only long-term hope for reversing the culture's embrace of cohabitation is for the church to exercise the moral leadership we expect of the clergy. Churches are the gatekeepers of weddings, marrying 86 percent of all American couples. If they succumb to Hollywood's standards, there is no hope. But churches can educate, equip and elevate marriage to the position of honor it deserves.
We live in a society that is increasingly accepting of those living the gay lifestyle. Media portrays homosexuals as a vibrant part of social circles. Many young people today can claim multiple gay friends. And, in the name of tolerance, many in our society would eagerly say, "Gay is OK."
That's why it's surprising that Details magazine, a magazine for the hip, young adult male, published an article called "Would You Really Be Okay With a Gay Kid?" [warning: offensive language]
The article considers Jerry and Geoff, progressive, self-proclaimed liberal dads who interact with homosexuals on a daily basis but are squeamish about the idea of their kids being gay. Dr. Al Mohler comments: These are men who clearly want to say that homosexuality is okay. They live and work in a social world in which that is the only politically correct position. And yet, when it comes to their own sons -- they would definitely not be okay with them being gay.
One interesting observation reported in the article has to do with a discovery made by Ritch C. Savin-Williams, the director of Cornell University's Sex & Gender Lab. Parents who say they're open to the idea of homosexuality are often the most difficult for a child to come out to. "Perhaps they make a distinction between your kid and mine," he says. "It's nice for other people's children to be gay or to have gay friends, but one's own child is a different story. Indeed, some of the young people say religiously conservative parents respond the best, because of the value of family. But it's the progressive, holier-than-thou parents who often can't cope."
An obvious reason for that is the biblical expectation that parents love their children no matter what, but Mohler believes there is more: I hope there is another key reason that Christian parents might respond differently. Christians believe in the transforming power of the Gospel. What strikes the world as increasingly out-of-step is the biblical belief that homosexual behavior in any form is a sin. But the idea that people can change -- or even ought to change -- is increasingly out-of-step with the cultural mood as well.
The situation detailed in Details reveals tremendous confusion on the cultural left about the question of homosexuality, not in the culture, but in the lives of their own children. Is hypocrisy revealed in this picture? Of course it is. But hypocrisy is the danger inherent in any moral position -- on both sides of the debates over homosexuality.
The men interviewed in this article also reveal the power of common grace -- a lingering shadow of moral conscience. The hesitation concerning their sons and homosexuality -- almost a panic -- is a subtle sign that they possess a moral knowledge that complicates their moral reasoning. They want to be okay with their sons and homosexuality -- they just can't.
It's commendable that a magazine like Details took on a counter-cultural topic. As Dr. Mohler says: "God sometimes has a strange way of getting our attention."
I noticed among the heartfelt comments on my post about divorce an underlying fear and reservation about marriage among adult children of divorce. This is understandable. Author John Trent concedes that "When you come from a home of divorce, making your own marriage work is even tougher than the norm."
John writes not only as a marriage and family expert, but as a child of divorce. His father went through three divorces and his mother went through two.
In his book Breaking the Cycle of Divorce, John offers hope. He writes: My parents' marital failure does not have to dictate the fate or our relationship, and your parents' divorce doesn't have to doom your marriage either. ...it is possible to break the cycle of divorce. You can learn to create and maintain a healthy, strong, lasting marriage relationship. You can learn to paint that picture of something you haven't yet seen. There is real hope for your future and your marriage.
I'm consistently surprised to find out which of my married friends are children of divorce. It's encouraging how many of them were able to work through the pain, fears and poor modeling in their background in order to craft strong families of their own. I hope this book can be of some encouragement for those of you seeking to do the same.
If it's hard, scary or dangerous, I'm there. I volunteered for the Marines and the infantry -- while there was still a war going on. I traveled with guerrillas in southern Sudan to report on the war and Christian persecution in that country. When I lived in Switzerland I skied double-black-diamond, parachute-optional runs in the Alps. I look for sharks when scuba diving. And, as research for a magazine article, I pulled 9 G's in an F-16.
But when it comes to my faith ... well, sometimes I'm a wimp. I take the easy way out. It's easy to say I'm on fire for the Lord, but all too often it's simpler to just stick with that and forget the "therefore go ..." part of Christ's commands.
That's why I'm thrilled to see Do Hard Things by Alex and Brett Harris, brothers of Joshua Harris of I Kissed Dating Goodbye fame. (The foreword is by Chuck Norris, and our very own Ted Slater has written an endorsement.) The twin brothers have started a movement they call The Rebelution to urge Christians to recognize that God has commanded us to do hard things.
I think it's the new generation's answer to the problem of cheap grace addressed by Dietrich Bonhoeffer more than 60 years ago. The Harris brothers say: We're not just saying that hard things happen and that you can benefit from them. We're not just saying that you have the ability to do hard things. We're telling you that you should do hard things because it's the best and only way to experience true growth in your life. ... Our big, crazy idea is that this is the life God has called us to live now—not 10 or 20 years from now, but right now, as young people. This is your best life, not your easiest life; the only way to avoid wasting your single years and ultimately your life.
It's a great insight that I think we have to rediscover with every generation. Me, I have to rediscover it every week or so.
What kind of hard things are you doing? What do you wish you were doing?
I'm passionate about a few things: my wife and daughters, grace, the music I perform and listen to, media discernment, humble orthodoxy.
And chicken wings, as I confessed earlier this month: I've been doing my research over the past 18 months, reading online and in books. I've gone through perhaps dozens of different wing sauces, comparing each one, sometimes mixing two or three together. I've tried deep frying, baking, broiling and a combination of the three. I've tried both fresh and frozen chicken wings. I've tried them with breading and without. I've cooked them at temperatures ranging from 350 degrees to 500 degrees. I've tried marinating them and brining with vegetable broth, kosher salt, brown sugar, EVOO, and a variety of spices. And through it all I've been keeping accurate notes of ingredients and times and temperatures.
I've done some more cooking since writing that blog post, and found myself disappointed that I had once again fallen short of wing nirvana. My quest continues. In the meantime, enjoy the photos below, which chronicle my latest heroic attempt at "getting it right."
Our friend Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost just announced a contest for young bloggers which I'm sure you'll want to enter. All you have to do is post a blog providing the best (or one of the best) response to the following question: If the medium affects the message, how will the Christian message be affected by the new media?
Here's Joe's lead that explains the assumption in the first part of the question: As communication theorist Marshall McLuhan argued, the tools we use to communicate a message can shape that message in ways we may or may not intend. If this is true then Christians have a duty to critically evaluate the effect of our media choices on our message. Do our choices of media forms allow the message to remain Christian? Or are the tools with which we communicate at odds with the message of the Gospel?
In my blogging experience, there's one aspect of the Internet that can prove particularly harmful to the Christian message ... anonymity. Ben Domenech writes in his article "Blogging: The History and the Spirit" that "[n]o one can look you in the face over the Internet — which means that it's tough to establish trust, conversations can get angry a lot quicker, and civility is often in short supply."
There's just something about the virtual world that lowers our inhibitions.
It reminds me of how I react in my car when someone cuts me off. To me, people aren't people behind the wheel, they're just in the way of the place I want to be. Maybe it's the same online. The people sitting at their computers are just idiots in the way of my own personal revelations about truth. And that's just unChristian.
I'm not sure if this is what Joe's getting at with his question but still, it's true.
That was my wife yesterday.
That is all.
When legislators, lawyers, and academicians talked about the pros and cons of changing divorce laws a generation ago, they often had little to go on when it came to potential impact on children. Over the past few years, they have been given more than enough. As the cover story of the latest Newsweek magazine indicates, the divorce generation has grown up.
Like the groundbreaking book, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce that tracked people for 25 years, this article taps into the broad range of experiences encountered by those who have lived out the divorce statistics that exploded in the seventies and early eighties.
It focuses specifically on the Grant High School class of 1982: It's been more than a quarter century since the Grant High class of '82 donned tuxes and taffeta and danced to Styx's "Come Sail Away" at the senior prom, and nearly four decades have passed since no-fault divorce laws began spreading across the country. In our parents' generation, marriage was still the most powerful social force. In ours, it was divorce.
The writer goes on to describe the pain lying behind the normalization of divorce: My 44-year-old classmates and I have watched divorce morph from something shocking, even shameful, into a routine fact of American life.
But while it may be a common occurrence, divorce remains a profound experience for those who've lived through it. Researchers have churned out all sorts of depressing statistics about the impact of divorce. Each year, about 1 million children watch their parents split, triple the number in the '50s. These children are twice as likely as their peers to get divorced themselves and more likely to have mental-health problems, studies show. While divorce rates have been dropping—off from their 1981 peak to just 3.6 per 1,000 people in 2006—marriage has also declined sharply, falling to 7.3 per 1,000 people in 2006 from 10.6 in 1970. Sociologists decry a growing "marriage gap" in which the well educated and better paid are staying married, while the poor are still getting divorced (people with college degrees are half as likely to be divorced or separated as their less-educated peers). And the younger you marry, the more likely you are to get divorced.
Yet all these statistics fail to show the very personal impact of divorce on the individual, or how those effects can change over a lifetime as children of divorce start families of their own.
My brothers and I were an exception among our classmates because our parents stayed together. Now, we're watching many of our classmates follow their parents' footsteps even though they had hoped to do better.
What are you seeing?
Hurray for Suzanne in today's blog. I personally am bothered by the architecture of so many of our churches today. Some are either featureless concrete blocks not much different from a Home Depot, or else they resemble a shopping mall, with atriums, bookstores, coffee bars and huge parking lots. ("Now did we park in Peter or Paul today?") 
I understand the twin desires to look current and to be good stewards of building funds. And large congregations have to accommodate the parking needs of their people -- if not out of courtesy, then out of building-code requirements. But do we consider that, as with any art form, the medium is part of the message? Our church architecture tells the world something about the people who inhabit the building. Do we want to blend in? Show off? Do we want to say something about the God we worship? Art consists of both form (e.g., painting, architecture, film) and content (what the artist is trying to communicate). And both form and content should reinforce each other. (I realize, too, that you can have some art that is all form and no content, such as instrumental music.)
Think about the Gothic cathedrals of Europe. The architecture of these buildings was intended to create an elevated sensory experience; the high vaulted ceilings, stained glass windows, and soaring space evoked a sense of awe in anyone who walked inside. The spire reached toward heaven, and the building itself was built  in the shape of a cross. For example, the cathedral in Exeter, England -- that's its interior vault to the left -- must consist of thousands of tons of stone, yet it looks light and airy enough that you can imagine it floating among the clouds. Consider also God's instructions for both the Tabernacle and the Temple. Artistic excellence was a defining feature.
Now I know God can be worshiped anywhere, and I realize some churches don't have the budget to build a soaring structure. (My church meets in a YMCA.) But what message are we sending to the world when we want our churches to be "non-threatening," to blend in as much as possible with the surroundings? (One famous megachurch won't even put a cross on the outside of the building.) Or what happens when they try to be so trendy that all sense of majesty and wonder is lost? I know a lot of Roman Catholics were appalled at the new Cathedral of Los Angeles when it opened. It's a boxy mishmash of conflicting angles and squat ugliness. (It at least has a cross out front.)
And some churches scrimp on the building fund, insisting that they can do more good works with the money saved. But consider this story: While [Jesus] was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.
"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me."
Are we the equivalent to those who rebuked this woman because she gave the best she had to worship God? Are we like the artisans of the Old Testament who used their best materials and greatest talents to make something that glorifies God?
I'm not saying we need to build gothic cathedrals or even Christopher Wren Gothic-Classical mash-ups. But our church buildings, whenever possible, should say something about us as a people and the God we worship. After all, some people may never get to the content of our message if they can't stomach the form it's preached in.
I was surprised to hear a report on Christian radio the other day that said those who don't attend church prefer a church to look like ... well, a church. According to the Baptist Press article: By a nearly 2-to-1 ratio over any other option, unchurched Americans prefer churches that look more like a medieval cathedral than what most think of as a more contemporary church building.
The findings come from a survey conducted by LifeWay Research for the Cornerstone Knowledge Network (CKN), a group of church-focused facilities development firms. The online survey included 1,684 unchurched adults -– defined as those who had not attended a church, mosque or synagogue in the past six months except for religious holidays or special events.
Ultimately, this preference probably won't impact someone's decision to attend church. Early Christians met in homes and held secret, underground meetings. There was no building style associated with "church." And some of the most utilitarian buildings today hold the most thriving congregations. Still, the unchurched's preference for a traditional church building is interesting. "Quite honestly, this research surprised us," said Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research and LifeWay Christian Resource's missiologist in residence. "We expected they'd choose the more contemporary options, but they were clearly more drawn to the aesthetics of the Gothic building than the run-of-the-mill, modern church building."
Stetzer suggested that the unchurched may prefer the more aesthetically pleasing look of the Gothic cathedral because it speaks to a connectedness to the past. Young unchurched people were particularly drawn to the Gothic look. Those between the ages of 25 to 34 used an average of 58.9 of their preference points on the more ornate church exterior. Those over the age of 70 only used an average of 32.9 of their 100 preference points on that particular church exterior.
This brings up again the issue of art and Christianity. Even someone who doesn't understand or have a relationship with God has an inkling that His dwelling place should be grand. While multipurpose buildings may be practical, they lack aesthetic evidence of God. I remember hearing a lecture by a woman who had participated in communion as a little girl. The bread was always warm and fresh baked, the drink rich and flavorful. She bemoaned how this beautiful experience of celebrating the Lord's body and blood had been replaced with stale crackers and little plastic cups of juice.
This study seems to be a similar cry for a return to the beauty and grandeur of God.
I've streamlined the format this week. Better or worse? Let me know.
Roundtable -- 5:35
We had the pleasure of hosting three Focus on the Family Institute students for The Boundless Show this week. Jolene, Jenna, and Grant are all recent grads and talk openly about their upcoming transition from college to career; and from the comforts of their parents' home (and insurance) to their own.
Culture -- 15:55
The Emergent Church has always been a bit of an enigma to me. Not anymore. Tom Neven, Focus on the Family's Youth Outreach Director and Boundless contributor, joins our culture segment this week with an in-depth discussion on the beliefs behind the emergent movement. Here's one of those beliefs from an emergent leader that'll pique your interest: I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. ... I don't hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian religion. But I do hope all who feel so called will become Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus.
Listen to the show to find out who said it and what it means.
Inbox -- 35:50
By far the show that's generated the most feedback was Online Dating Mavens. In this Inbox, Lisa goes through the varied responses we received and offers additional insights. Some of the stories she reads give us a look behind the curtain of online profiles at the real people who've found success or have been frustrated by it.
That's about it. If you have questions you'd like us to answer or discuss, please write us at editor@boundless.org.
And as usual, you can get to The Boundless Show via either iTunes or Feedburner (our RSS feed).
Evidently, if you caught Monday night's NCAA basketball championship game (go Hawks!), you got a lot more than just an incredible game. You also got 270 seconds of beer commercials.
Not good, say about 100 college presidents. "Given the persistent problems caused by underage and excessive college drinking, much of it in the form of beer, we find it inconceivable that the NCAA's profiting from beer promotion during the telecasts of college basketball games comports with the best interests of higher education, sports, or student welfare," said a letter organized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and signed by over 100 college presidents.
Especially not good since the NCAA's own policies supposedly limit beer advertising to 60 seconds per hour and no more than 120 seconds per telecast.
But does it really make a difference whether we see 120 seconds of cavemen carrying beer on a stone wheel rather than 270 seconds of it? I'm not sure. But it is refreshing to see college presidents at least standing for something.
It reminded me of a conversation I heard on ESPN's "Mike and Mike" show. On it, Mike Greenberg talked about how he attends lots of sporting events and has seen more than his share of absolutely inexcusable behavior. But, he noted, it was different when he attended an NCAA tournament college basketball game. "We were sitting right behind the Kansas student section, and the Niagara student section is not far away, and there are a lot of obviously hardcore fans around us ...
And I got a little nervous because I mostly go to football games, and I've got a 6-year-old and an 8-year-old with me, and I'm thinking, 'Boy, you know, I hope this thing doesn't get--I don't know how I'm going to handle this if it really gets uncomfortable...
At which time, Mike reported that his friend returned from a trip to the concession stand and reported that no beer was for sale. Greenberg continued, "Now I don't know that there is a direct correlation between these two things, but there was no beer sold at this game, and let me tell you there was nothing around us that made me even remotely uncomfortable ... Now I can't sit here and tell you that it was exclusively because there was no alcohol being sold at this game, but I don't think you would have to be Einstein to put those together...
I've sometimes said that, you know, 'It's the people, not so much the drunk.' Maybe it is the drunk. At least that day the not-so-drunk was kind of fun."
I, too, have been to my share of collegiate and professional games. I've heard some language at college games that I don't appreciate, but, overall, I'm happy to take my two kiddos to our local college basketball games. After hearing the language at pro games and having beer spilled down my back more times than I can count, I wouldn't let my kids step foot in a pro arena.
It's nice to see that some college presidents and, even, ESPN commentators can express some common sense on this issue.
And, on a side note, what's up with me and the sports posts lately? First, golf. Now, basketball. I think I may have to blog on hockey next, though I admit I've never seen any hockey beyond the movie Miracle.
Boundless published a very powerful article this week called "Grace and Gay Men." The author, Randy Thomas, talks about an area where the Church has faltered: Over the past 20-plus years there have been valiant efforts to humanize the AIDS issue with regard to African American community, drug abusers and orphans in Uganda. The thing is, when it comes to gay identified males ... the corporate Church has been estranged and reluctant.
Thomas talks about his own experience of losing his former partner to AIDS -- the grief he experienced and his community of gay friends who helped him through the difficult time. He also talks about his fear of waiting to find out if he had AIDS -- a process that took months before his tests finally showed negative results.
Thomas points out that his gay friends warned him about being too promiscuous, they comforted him during his loss, and ultimately, they loved him. The true love he found in his friends was helpful to him, while "the rantings of TV preachers fell on deaf ears."
He concludes his article by pointing out something interesting, and perhaps uncomfortable for some of us: Do you think Christ used a gay man's hands to wipe away my tears at 3:15 a.m. in a Nashville restaurant, as I mourned the loss of Ron and feared for my own life? Do you think Christ was using a gay man's hands to hold my own as I grappled with "inconclusive" test results? Is it possible that Jesus goes places that the Church is sometimes afraid to?
I would really encourage you to read this article. It's powerful and asks some good questions. What do you think?
I read an interesting article on Slate this morning. In "The Eligible-Bachelor Paradox," Mark Gimein explores what seems to be a shortage of available, appealing men. Let me preface this by saying I mean no disrespect to any of our excellent male Boundless readers. That said, I have oft heard my female friends complain about the lack of quality single men to pursue them.
Gimein first points out that the woman controls the central decision when it comes to marriage. They are the ones who have to power to say "yes" or "no" to a proposal (or at a micro level, a date). Gimein then explains the paradox (more eligible women than men) in terms of an auction. You can think of this traditional concept of the search for marriage partners as a kind of an auction. In this auction, some women will be more confident of their prospects, others less so. In game-theory terms, you would call the first group "strong bidders" and the second "weak bidders." Your first thought might be that the "strong bidders" -- women who (whether because of looks, social ability, or any other reason) are conventionally deemed more of a catch -- would consistently win this kind of auction.
But this is not true. In fact, game theory predicts, and empirical studies of auctions bear out, that auctions will often be won by "weak" bidders, who know that they can be outbid and so bid more aggressively, while the "strong" bidders will hold out for a really great deal.
The result? The pool of appealing men shrinks as many are married off and taken out of the game, leaving a disproportionate number of men who are notably imperfect (perhaps they are short, socially awkward, underemployed). And at the same time, you get a pool of women weighted toward the attractive, desirable "strong bidders."
Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them -- and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness.
This reminded me of an earlier post I wrote, which considered our propensity to hold out. Perhaps the value in an article like this is to bring us back to reality, ladies. The "great deal" we're waiting for may not exist. This is not to say that a "great deal" for us -- from God -- doesn't. If, indeed, selecting a godly mate is something like an auction, I'd like to think of my Heavenly Father standing beside me, staying my hand when I'm tempted to bid on the wrong thing. And then when it's right: "Bid on this one."
What do you think of game theory and the eligible-bachelor paradox? Have women become too indecisive for their own good?
The Masters started today. Gorgeous course. Great golfers. There's even an Amen Corner.
I was reading a bit of tourney news this morning -- Tiger's going for the grand slam, Els got a new swing coach, etc. -- when I was struck by something. Sort of like Sherlock Holmes and the curious dog, it hit me what was not in the news. No protests.
Five years ago, you couldn't get away from the protests. In 2003, Martha Burk and the National Council of Women's Organizations started a serious media firestorm to try to pressure the Augusta National Golf Club (where the Masters is held) to allow women as club members (the club has a men-only membership policy). It made for a lot of headlines, but the club didn't budge -- despite protests and an attempted advertiser boycott.
Since then, Burk has continued her protests. On her web site, she argues that since business is sometimes transacted on golf courses, Augusta's male-only membership keeps women below the "glass ceiling" of business leadership. She then goes on to equate it with businesses that entertain clients at strip clubs or have management meetings at Hooters.
Burk and other feminists want me, as a woman, to be offended by Augusta. But, I admit it, I'm not.
To me, these comparisons are just a little ridiculous. Males wanting a golf club to themselves is one thing. But it simply is not the same as forcing a woman, as a condition of her employment, to attend strip clubs. I may agree with Augusta or I may not. Either way, I have the option to vote with my pocketbook. But the fact is that Augusta is a private and optional recreational club, funded by private dollars. I don't want them to lose their right to associate with their own gender because I don't want to lose my right to do it either. After all, I don't want the law telling me that I had to let men into my college sorority or my ladies Bible study. I like that I have the option to work out at a gym for females only or to belong to a club that is exclusively for stay-at-home moms.
To be sure, I enjoy that I have equal protection under U.S. law and that I'm guaranteed equal pay for equal work. But I will also enjoy the azaleas as I watch the Masters this weekend, quite contentedly ... with the bonus of not having to hear about the protests.
In case you didn't know, I'm the editor of a pretty great site called TrueU.org. Want me to tell you a little bit about it? OK!
TrueU is an online community for college students who want to know and confidently discuss the Christian worldview. By working at TrueU and interacting with our readers, I am constantly learning more about what I believe and why I believe it. Since I've been working here, I honestly feel much more confident about articulating my beliefs.
Much of this is due to the fact that we have really great authors writing for us. One of them is J. Budziszewski, or as some of you probably know him, Professor Theophilus. We published one of his articles today -- in it he chats with a student about some biblical errors. Good stuff. If you have your own questions for Theophilus, make sure to email him. He spends lots of time answering questions from readers.
TrueU is set up to look like a campus, and you'll probably be able to find something that suits your interest. We have really smart professors writing in Academics about things like philosophy, evolution, the environment, ethics and more.
In the Dorms area, we discuss the always important topics of community, dating, sex, marriage and money. Also, this is where we discuss dog droppings.
Last but not least is the TrueU Coffee Shop. This is our forum where we encourage students to come chat with us about our articles or pretty much anything else. We don't always agree with one another, but the conversation is always interesting and challenging.
Anyhoo, I encourage you to roam around TrueU for a bit. Watch this video that our fabulous interns created, sign up for our free e-newsletter and email me with suggestions, article ideas, compliments and smiley faces.
Hope to see you around the site!
Gender roles. Are men and women different? And if we're different, might we tend to have different roles in marriage? Do men tend to take on the role of provider, and women tend to take on the role of nurturer? If so, is this because God designed us to be this way?
In a comment left on our blog yesterday, Jennie explains how Scripture challenges us when it comes to gender roles:
Why are people so offended at this? It's biblical that women should be primary homemakers, helpers to their husbands, and caretakers to their children. It's biblical that men should be primary breadwinners. Read Genesis 3 (and the rest of the Bible).
For men: 1 Timothy 5:8 "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
For women: Titus 2:3-5 "... the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things - that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed."
I don't know what it's like in the States, but in Canada, undergrad students finish with an average of $20,000 debt. Paying that back at 7-10% interest per annum and it adds up pretty quickly. Since a woman's main responsibility in marriage is in the home, obviously she should be pretty careful about racking up that kind of debt (and often more).
That being said, if you can take care of that primary responsibility and also find creative ways to pursue a career (whether that's part time, work from home, even full time out of the home at some point), I don't think there's a problem with that. Nor do I believe it's contrary to Scripture IF you've got your priorities right. Although I'd hope you wouldn't be working full time from the month your child was born - even the secular world recognizes that's not good.
Obviously Ted's not advocating that women don't get educated. He's just suggesting that we women make informed decisions with a biblical perspective on the long-term that won't force us to compromise our biblical responsibilities, and that men take their responsibility as providers seriously.
And if we women are prone to bristling at the idea that we might just have to make some tough decisions about our education or our careers, perhaps the problem's with us. If we're upset about the possibility that we might just have a responsibility to our families that might just mean that we actually live our lives selflessly on occasion, and not exactly as we might want, maybe we need to spend more time studying the Word and the humility and love Christ demonstrated to us, that we're supposed to be mirroring.
I know I'm sometimes frustrated because I know that marrying (which I'm doing in 3 weeks) and having children (which Lord-willing will happen within a few years), will mean that I can't do exactly what I want. If I had it my own selfish way, I wouldn't stay home with the kids. I'd make sure I was educated and able to pursue my career as much as my little wretched heart desires. But it's good to remember that selfishness, no matter what noble guise we might hide it under, is NOT a Christian virtue.
Isn't the Christian life all about denying self? Isn't that what it means to follow Christ? Aren't we supposed to be putting off that old nature that only wants to look out for Number 1?
It doesn't necessarily mean that we give everything up - obviously it is important to use the gifts the Lord gives us, and to pursue opportunities he opens up - but there will be times when we have to make tough decisions about giving some things up that we'd really, really like.
HT: Amir Larijani's blog
Ted has raised some interesting questions about what should be our response to the undeniable evil being perpetrated by Robert Mugabe. (I have a personal interest, too, having lived in South Africa during the apartheid era and visiting its immediate neighbor to the north when the country was still called Rhodesia. In fact, I have a souvenir sculpture of a springbok whose plaque reads, "Made of the finest Rhodesian copper.")
If I might gently correct Ted, though, I think there's a third option not being considered. We must pray for Mugabe. Prayer does not necessarily preclude other actions but it might make them unnecessary.
I know I often turn to prayer as a last resort when it should be my first resort. But I was reminded of this when I saw this recent news report. The fact that Pope Benedict XVI would want to pray for the redemption of terrorists during his upcoming visit to Ground Zero in New York City should not be remarkable, yet it is causing controversy in some quarters. Why?
In fact, let's go one better. Let's adopt a terrorist for a personal prayer bombardment. Instead of letting hatred fester or living in fear, let's deploy the greatest weapon we have. We worship a God of great wonders and power. Let's urge Him to show mercy toward and soften the hearts of so many who are today twisted with hatred.
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