 |
I own and maintain a number of Web sites, and on the recommendation of a friend have been using GoDaddy.com to register my domain names. A few days ago someone pointed out GoDaddy's questionable advertising practices (to put it mildly), as well as the founder's tasteless blog. As a result, I'm looking for a new domain name registrar.
I've looked into what other Christians are using, and while several are registering their sites through GoDaddy, most are registering them elsewhere.
So here's my question from one heartbroken SWM to those who've found DNS bliss: Which registrar should I pursue? I'm leaning toward either NameCheap or pairNIC. But should I consider Yahoo, BlueHost, Register.com, Dotster, 1&1 Hosting, DreamHost, Doteasy, Moniker ... or someone else?
How's your June going? For those readers in the Northern Hemisphere, have you been able to enjoy some summertime relaxation? Or have recent news headlines robbed you of peace? All the talk about the weather, the economy, gas prices, and more led an AP writer recently to ask "Is Everything Spinning out of Control?" I enjoyed Michael Craven's response to these anxiety inducing headlines in his commentary today for the Center for Christ & Culture: Of course the "news of the day," as Neil Postman observed, is a "figment of our technological imagination. It is ... a media event" (Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death, p. 8). It is a concentrated compilation of the most distressing, sordid, and scandalous events that appeal to our voyeuristic tendencies and heighten our sense that "everything is spinning out of control."
For many Christians, this sense of frustration with the country's direction is not all that new and recent events, as well as the news, have only exacerbated their concerns. However, I am amazed at the level of pessimism among so many Christians that I encounter. I think this may also be a product of too much reliance on politics. This is, after all, the pressing concern of the population whose frustrations center mostly on the failed expectations of their political leaders and government: the economy, the war, fuel prices, and so on. Add to that concerns over the moral direction of the nation, and the church often appears indifferent or defeated.
This is puzzling to me. How can Christians be pessimistic about the future when they serve the risen King whose kingdom has no end? Do so many fail to realize that our God reigns? Do so many fail to understand that God is sovereign over all things and that His redemptive work in the world is and will be carried to its full completion?
Thanks for that perspective Michael.
Thank you to everyone who commented on my post about VBS and shared their experiences. I had a wonderful, tiring, exhilarating, messy, blessed week. I've compiled a list of the top seven things I've learned from VBS:
- When conducting a hula outfit making competition, do not divide teams into boys and girls. Boys will immediately use crepe paper to create a mummy and then spin him until he falls down.
- Rewards work. Throughout the week, my kids earned beads by reciting memory verses and completing acts of service. Today they could redeem the beads for prizes. Almost every child in class learned all five verses for the week. God offers us rewards; we shouldn't hesitate to reward others.
- A little bit of kindness goes a long way.
- Sixth graders aren't too old for stickers.
- Example is the most powerful motivator.
- A sixth grade boy can eat five donuts in one sitting.
- Sometimes a troublemaker just needs a mission.
But the best VBS moment happened yesterday after Sunday school. One of my sixth-grade boys approached me. "I accepted Jesus last night!" he said with a big smile. Sure, it didn't happen at VBS, but I know the Holy Spirit used those messages in this boy's life. Today the angels and I are rejoicing for one sinner who has repented and become part of God's family.
Last week The Boundless Show host Lisa Anderson got a big diss on our iTunes page from a listener who took offense to a derogatory comment about the South. Something about fatback and green beans, I don't know.
But don't feel too bad for her. She also receives tons of love from us and others, particularly Australians, as you'll hear in this week's show.
The thing is, Lisa's big diss got The Boundless Show a two star review. Come on! Two stars? I'm incensed. I'm offended. I'm worried about our ranking. Not really. But you can help.
If you like The Boundless Show, leave an iTunes review. See room for improvement? Contact us at editor@boundless.org and give us your keen insights.
And we're really thankful to have music from Sovereign Grace this week. Or as Lisa calls them, the charismatic Calvinists. Thanks guys.
Roundtable -- 6:30
Our roundtable discussion starts with a CNN.com article about sex and housework. But the bigger issue we tackle is how much weight should be put on figuring out the whole "division of labor" thing before marriage? Maybe more than you think because it often reflects what you believe about gender roles. And you want to make sure your views are complementary before you head toward the altar.
Culture -- 23:10
After hearing Plugged In's Bob Waliszewski talk about the summer movies in this week's Culture segment, I know exactly what I will and won't see. He does a great job of breaking down the content and artistic value of each film so that it's pretty clear which ones are worth our time and money. This week, he and Lisa talk Kung Fu Panda, Get Smart, The Love Guru, The Hulk, and upcoming attractions.
Hungry Years -- 32:10
How do you feel about your singleness? Proud? Ambivalent? A bit exposed like a big pimple? This week Patrick Dunn taps into the anxiety that can come with being a twenty- and thirty-something single.
Inbox -- 39:40
We talk a lot on Boundless about preparing yourself for marriage. But how do you know when you're ready? This week, Candice and Lisa discuss a listener's lament about her own spiritual readiness for marriage.
Friday's SFGate.com, home of the San Francisco Chronicle, has what will surely be a little-reported story by same-sex marriage opponent, David Benkof. Though he's a regular blogger at GaysDefendMarriage.com, Benkof's revelation in his article "Monogamous same-sex adultery" is one homosexuals will want to keep under wraps.
Why? Because what they mean by marriage likely isn't what you and I mean by marriage. Think homosexuals who say they want to be able to marry are sincere? Think they feel cheated by their perceived "second class status"? Think they'll rush to the justices of the peace in every community where renegade courts say they may? Regardless of how they answer those questions, and how much their answers tug at your heart strings, when homosexuals say monogamy, it's not what they mean.
Benkof says they may use the same words as heterosexuals, but they mean a whole different arrangement. His source? The Partners Task Force website, buddybuddy.com -- a site "that is promoted as a marriage resource by several major gay Web sites, including those of Marriage Equality USA, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educators Network, Equality Texas, the Kentucky Fairness Alliance, and even the Metropolitan Community Church."
Benkof goes on to say that though the site does contain a few friendly words about monogamy, those are "mostly from heterosexual, married allies of the cause."
The bulk of the site presents a totally different message. Consider, ... the site defines monogamy as being married to one person at a time, no matter how many sexual partners one has. When two gay men say they are monogamous, the vast majority of people assume they don't sleep around. From now on, I suggest, gays who say they are monogamous need to be asked if they mean monogamous using the usual connotation, or the little-known gay definition of having only one spouse.
The site quotes a therapist who criticizes sexual exclusivity as inadequate for male couples because of the nature of gay relationships.
An essay on relationship tips gives 15 suggestions for working adultery into your marriage without going overboard. For example, it suggests, feel free to have extramarital sex in your home, but not in the bedroom.
Keep the adultery confined to the kitchen and the living room. Now that's great marriage advice. Sounds like a recipe for divorce. Certainly not an environment well-suited to the rearing of children (adopted, conceived via sperm-donor or otherwise).
Benkof suggests a way to clear away the confusion: If you hear gay people objecting to the argument that same-sex marriage is fundamentally different from marriage, ask them if they consider sexual exclusivity (don't say monogamy because they might answer using the gay definition) an essential part of a proper marriage. Feel free to ask straight people the same question. Then you decide based on what you hear.
Hello, Friends!
I haven't been blogging much lately, but I have good reason. I'm going on a missions trip tomorrow, so I've been busy at work to make sure that life at TrueU will go on without me.
Both members of the TrueU staff have the opportunity to serve others this summer. Matthew John, our assistant editor, is currently on a Campus Crusade trip in Juneau, Alaska. I'm leaving tomorrow for a two-week trip to Lima, Peru with Brio missions. I'm pretty excited.
I've never been to Lima, and I think it will be a challenging, but rewarding trip. There are more than 500 of us going (most of them high school girls!), and we'll be doing dramas, work projects and whatever else is needed of us. It'll be great to get out and serve, and I should have a good chance to practice my rusty Spanish skills.
Anyway, I would appreciate your prayers as I head out. If you're interested in staying updated on my trip to Peru and Matthew's escapades in Juneau, please check out the TrueU Adventures blog. We'll be keeping everyone informed as we serve in separate hemispheres!
Perhaps I've spoken too much about sports already, but the NBA draft is tonight, and I just can't resist. Through the fortunate bounce of some numbered ping pong balls, the Chicago Bulls won last month's draft lottery and will thus have the first pick of the night.
Until recently, Michael Beasley of Kansas State was the consensus number one choice of most hoops experts. He's big, athletic and is a great scorer and rebounder. In fact, he was a dominating power forward as a college freshman, the likes of which hasn't been seen in years. Yet in the past few weeks, Derrick Rose of Memphis has jumped ahead of Beasley in almost everyone's mock draft. So what happened? Well, in addition to some inspired play from Rose in the NCAA tournament, the truth is that Beasley has suffered from what pro scouts describe as "character issues." They question Beasley's focus, his maturity and his tendency to gravitate toward trouble -- especially during his high school days, from which he is barely a year removed.
Thus the inevitable question: How important is character in sports? Should teams simply draft the best player available to them, or is it more important to look at citizenship first and ability second? It's a dilemma for many teams, as we all know plenty of questionable characters who've led their teams to victory. When it comes to sports, nice guys don't always finish first.
NBA general managers don't get paid to fill their rosters with nice guys; they get paid to fill their rosters with winners. But as the Portland Trailblazers and the Indiana Pacers have learned the hard way in recent years -- thanks to off-court troubles with several of their players -- sometimes talent alone isn't the most important factor when building a team.
So, when does an athlete's "baggage" start to outweigh their value to the team?
Steve's post about ideological "moments" extends beyond politics. Over at Reformation 21, Rev. Richard Phillips writes about a shift in doctrine he's seen in his own church among twenty-somethings toward "gender complementarity." ... I think there is a misconception on the gender issue, namely, that if we want to be considered relevant by the young then we cannot afford to be openly complementarian. The great majority of my experience (and admittedly, this is among people who are attracted to a church like ours) shows exactly the opposite. The young people I meet are fed up with the egalitarianism of their upbringing and yearn for counter-cultural biblical authenticity. I would suggest that the examples of younger preachers like Josh Harris and Mark Driscoll, both of whom are in-your-face complementarians and draw in flocks of young people argues in the same direction. Based on these examples, I suspect that the gender debate is much more of a baby-boomer issue.
Could this be the beginning of what Longman predicts will be a comeback of "patriarchy and other traditional values"?
Journalists are falling all over each other to write obituaries for the "religious right." Liberals are getting the court wins, they have the best prospects for elected office this November and popular culture continues to elevate their causes as the ones that matter most. And as we see surveys about the beliefs of younger generations on various issues, it's easy to think America is destined to grow more and more liberal.
But what if liberalism is close to peaking? What if a mixture of favorable political timing and selective media coverage are aligning with a demographic high point for liberals? That's the question I've been contemplating since reading an article called "The Liberal Baby Bust" that ran in USA Today before the current upswing for liberalism.
The article starts out with the observation that in liberal Seattle, dogs outnumber children. That's far from true in conservative Salt Lake City -- where they still like dogs, but also have lots of kids. Longman explains what this means for the years ahead: It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.
It's Longman's analysis of baby boomers that makes me wonder if the liberal moment may be closer to peaking than it is to building momentum for a prosperous future: This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.
Phillip Longman writes as a warning to people who share his liberal views. He's convinced that liberalism will wane if it's not coupled with reproduction. He worries about a world that will be increasingly conservative. This is the last thing you would imagine if you've been keeping up with the news and commentary these days.
I often hear the comment, "Elections have consequences." Longman seems to be saying that family formation has consequences too. And while Longman may be enjoying the current surge in liberalism, it's obvious he thinks that surge could be short-lived.
I found this list interesting. It's the top 10 websites you can't live without.
1) Wikipedia
2) Yahoo! Finance
3) Craigslist
4) ESPN
5) Yelp
6) Facebook
7) Digg
8) Google
9) TMZ
10) Flickr
I only use Craigslist and Google from this list. But it got me thinking about the ones I can't do without. There's only about five that I'd really miss (not including anything work related). Here they are with a personal take:
1) Drudgereport -- I've been hooked ever since the Monica Lewinski animated-gif siren.
2) National Review Online -- Just great content on world affairs. And their blogs were way ahead of the MSM in the 2004 presidential election when all the exit polls showed Kerry was a lock.
3) Google -- Obvious. But I had to include it because I use it daily.
4) USA Today -- I love the McPaper. It's a great one stop shop for all things culture.
5) The Tigernet -- I fully admit that Clemson sports is an excess in my life. And this site is where that excess begins.
OK. I feel a bit exposed now. My frequency on these sites say something about me. Maybe I've overshared.
But what about you guys? Care to overshare?
HT: WorldMagBlog
This week I'm working at my church's Vacation Bible Camp with sixth graders—29 of them. Together we're learning five truths about God: God is real; Jesus is God's Son; Jesus is the only way; the Bible is God's Word; my actions show what I believe.
Good stuff.
And helping out isn't all that hard. Aside from classroom time, my duties consist of circulating through the stations—games, crafts, missions time—and just talking to and encouraging my kids. Because this is their last year of VBS, the sixth graders are Counselors in Training (CITs). Our mission this week is to serve the teachers and younger children as helpers.
I have had most of these kids in my Sunday school class this past year, which makes my interaction with them this week even more rewarding. Yesterday, I watched as James, one of my more challenging students, worked diligently at the registration table handing out t-shirts. Today, I saw Kendra give her water bottle to a younger child when she didn't know I was watching. And after Andy and Jacob asked me what they could do, they came up with the idea of picking up trash on their own.
I could offer you a lot of good reasons to get involved in your church and serve younger generations. 1. God commands it; 2. Your church needs your help; 3. You could impact lives. But all I really want to tell you is that if you're not serving, you're missing out. It's that simple. The Lord is filling my cup this week, and it's happening while I make bead crosses, listen to memory verses and munch on trail mix. If you think you're too busy to serve, make time. It's worth it.
According to figures in a recent New York Times Magazine article, I do an average of 38 hours a week of housework and my husband does about 12 (the figures for a stay-at-home mom and a sole-earner husband).
Not surprising, considering "the home" is part of my job description. Though when I told my hubbie, he frowned, "I don't think I do 12 hours of work around here." But I informed him that they were including yard work in the mix. "Yeah, okay, that might be closer." And how I rarely touch a shower stall. "Hmm, maybe."
But what is a little surprising, or at least surprising to New York Magazine, is how the housework is divided when both couples have full-time paying jobs. Then, the woman does 26 hours of housework to the man's 14 hours -- a ratio of almost two-to one (and a ratio very similar to the ratio 90 years ago).
What's also surprising to Sampson Lee Blair, a professor of sociology quoted in the article, is the unity across classes: "Working class, middle class, upper class, it stays at two to one," Blair reports. Perhaps those nice, upper class girls are supposed to know better?
"And the most sadly comic data is from my own research," Blair adds, which show that in married couples "where she has a job and he doesn't, and where you would anticipate a complete reversal, even then you find the wife doing the majority of the housework."
That's a little bit frustrating for Blair: "When you look at this rationally, it is very difficult to understand why things are the way they are." The ratios on child care on even more lopsided.
So, in the article, they try to come up with "rational" explanations like "societal norms" and "contextual choices." But, still, there's that question that keeps popping up: Are women just anal or are men just lazy? As one of the moms in the article put it: "His level of alertness to mess is quite different than mine. I see dirt two or three days before he does."
Perhaps it's neither norms nor contexts, though. Perhaps it's just in us.
As Kathleen Parker writes on National Review: "[L]ittle truck is given to the obvious: Men and women are hard-wired differently. Of course, that sort of statement will get you run off of college campuses these days — ask Lawrence Summers — but common sense and experience often explain what science cannot."
On his blog, Al Mohler puts it this way: Those who operate from a secular worldview informed by feminism must assume that this is just another representation of enduring cultural prejudice. Those operating from an evolutionary worldview will be tempted to suggest that this is evidence of the enduring power of ancient adaptations.
The Christian, operating out of a biblical worldview, must see this as an affirmation of the fact that men and women are assigned complementary, and not identical roles.
So why is it that a shoe left on the floor bugs me but not my husband? Societal norms? Why did I want to stay home to raise our kids? Contextual choices? After 13 years of marriage (yippee), I have come to a very scientific conclusion: that's a lot of hooey. If I was working 50 hours a week, a shoe would still bug me and I would still want to raise my kids. I'm very thankful that I don't have to do both.
It's a classic tale: Girl moves to big city. Girl blogs in her spare time about life in big city. Girl blogs with nearly reckless abandon -- about what she's "reading and watching and thinking about," and about her longtime boyfriend, who doesn't particularly enjoy the attention. But since it is a small blog for just "a few hundred people," girl insists on her right to blog without boundaries.
Girl gets a full-time job at big-name blog. Girl's posts are now read by thousands every day. Girl begins flirting with male co-blogger. Girl breaks up with longtime boyfriend, begins dating coworker and proceeds to craft not-so-veiled blog posts about her new relationship. Girl's new boyfriend -- much like her previous boyfriend -- does not appreciate the public dissemination of their relationship's every twist and turn.
And this, dear readers, is where the classic tale takes a turn. Unlike the previous boyfriend, the new guy is a blogger, too, and thus has vast, untold media channels at his disposal. So, when their relationship eventually falters -- and how could it not, given the DEFCON 2-level breach in trust? -- the male co-blogger retaliates in kind, with an article titled "The Dangers of Blogger Love."
The author uses only the girl's first name, but the details are just a Google search away. He uses her words, her own posts, against her. He doesn't come across very well, but she looks even worse. "You should have known better," he quotes her as saying. "After all, I'm a blogger." But she apparently didn't know better, either, and her insistence on baring both her privacy and others' is likewise laid bare.
So what does she do? After a time spent in the fetal position on her kitchen floor, the girl responds with an article of her own -- a cover story, in fact, The New York Times Magazine. It's called "Exposed," and in it the girl tells all, admits all. In case you haven't figured it out by now, the girl just can't help it. She is, as the kids like to call it these days, an "oversharer."
Is this what the blogging culture has done to us? Are we more willing to share (overshare) things online that we would never otherwise reveal in public? Has the Internet created some sort of artificial anonymity that makes many people feel "safe" when discussing the details of their personal lives?
Truth is, oversharing works, at least in terms of increasing Web traffic or reader response. Whether they admit it or not, plenty of readers enjoy those revealing details. It's why we watch reality TV, why we read People magazine and its less-seemly spawn, why we like to sit in the park or at the mall and simply watch the world walk by. This even holds true at Boundless, where readers tend to respond more when an author illustrates a point with personal anecdotes than with straightforward exposition. Boundless Answers' columnist Candice Watters, for example, has often referenced the story of her transition from friendship to courtship with her now-husband, Steve. Not surprisingly, some Boundless bloggers are personally more forthcoming than others.
Making a point with a personal story certainly isn't wrong, not at all. (Look at Jesus' use of parables.) And it's often very effective. (Again, parables.) But when does sharing cross the line into oversharing? And who makes the call? After all, one person's oversharing is another's everyday conversation. And as long as we're playing the role of innocent bystanders -- i.e. readers -- oversharing seems like harmless people-watching.
At least until somebody gets hurt.
I just stumbled upon a very cool, though ultimately not very meaningful, little application that creates "beautiful word clouds" from collections of words.
Curious, I wanted to see what our article "Biblical Dating: An Introduction" would look like. Here it is (click on the image to see it full size):
And here's what "Brother, You're Like a Six" looks like:
Who knew that such doctrinally engaging articles on relationship could look so cool?
Stuff I've learned from others -- and from hard experience -- during my 50-odd year journey on this planet:
In a showdown between foolhardiness and gravity, gravity usually wins.
Throw the firecracker, not the match!
Middle school boy. (Okay, boy of any age.) Bendy plastic spoon. Orange Jell-O. The worst possible combination of those three things in all known universes. (Other colors just as hazardous.)
Figure out what you don't do well and don't do it.
Never end a sentence with a preposition? That's the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put.
Every house has a junk drawer.
Corollary One: No matter what you're looking for, it's always at the back of the drawer.
Corollary Two: No matter what you take out, no matter how small, you can't get the
drawer closed again.
Don't sweat the petty things.
Don't pet the sweaty things.
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. (HT: Yogi Berra)
If you had an infinite number of good ol' boys with an infinite number of shotguns and an infinite number of stop signs, could they reproduce the works of Shakespeare in Braille?
Every toolbox requires only two tools: duct tape and WD-40. If it moves and ain't supposed to, duct tape. If it's supposed to move and don't, WD-40. (A hammer comes in handy every once in a while, too.)
Where I grew up, y'all is singular. The plural is all y'alls.
If a good ol' boy says, "Hey, y'all, come watch this!" stand clear. They're likely the last words he'll ever speak.
I bet all those people who bought Hummers to shop at the local grocery store are feeling kinda stupid now.
Five things you'll never hear a Texan say: 1. I'll take Shakespeare for a thousand, Alex.
2. Pass the arugula, please.
3. Wrasslin's fake!
4. No kids in the back of the pickup. That's dangerous.
5. Why, yes, Sam Houston was indeed a cad and a coward.
The high heels on Barbie's shoes were specifically engineered to penetrate the first three layers of skin on the bottom of your foot at 3 in the morning.
A Lego block was specifically engineered to separate the bones in your foot at 3 in the morning after you leap off a Barbie high heel.
It's hard to explain what certain words mean at 3 in the morning because your 5-year-old just happened to be up getting a drink of water, and, no, you really don't wish that Barbie and Legos had never been invented, although you didn't word it quite that way in the heat of the moment.
I own probably over 800 CDs, most of them produced by Christian artists, and many of them in the "worship" genre. As a piano/synth/organ player in church and elsewhere, I feel a responsibility to try to keep up to speed on what's happening in contemporary Western worship music.
I'm opinionated about music. I'm cynical about CCM lyrics that sound like they've been pumped out of an RCCG ("Random Chrisitanese Cliche Generator"), about vocals that aren't believable, about instrumentation and chord progressions that are uncreative, about production that strips the life out of a performance, and so on.
All that to introduce my current favorite worship CD: "O For That Day" by Enfield. Enfield was the house band for the Resolved conference I attended last week.
Most of the songs on the album deal with heaven: our desire for it, our impending experience of it, and so on. A theme lacking in most CCM.
The lyrics are fresh and meaningful, the musicians play with skill, the production is undistracting, the vocals are believable and facilitate worship. I had a chance to chat with some of the guys in the band while at the conference, and clicked with them. Unpretentious, upbeat, real. I'm looking forward to featuring music from this album in a forthcoming episode of our podcast.
I highly, highly recommend this album. I'm pointed toward heaven because of it.
We have tons of cool info to open up this week's The Boundless Show. Like, for example, why Lisa thinks Casting Crowns lead singer Mark Hall is so humble ... because he buys his shirts from Wal-Mart. Oh, and because he and other members of the band have a passion for serving the local church.
Also, if you like mysteries, you'll love our discussion about Lisa's disappearing fence slats from her downtown home. Ah, the perils of being a single young woman and a home owner. Lisa ends with an appeal to all single men who specialize in fence repair to call in with marriage proposals.
Roundtable -- 6:19
Teens have True Love Waits, Purity Rings, and parents to encourage abstinence until marriage. But what about 20- and 30-something singles trying to remain pure? What can they do to live chaste lives during this season of transition? Lisa, Steve and I discuss sex and singles in this week's Roundtable. And the importance of a young man's role in protecting his "sister's'" purity.
Culture -- 20:02
We have Casting Crowns with us for this week's Culture segment. And in case you're one of those Christians who never listens to Christian music, they're the Grammy and Dove Award winning Christian band that rocketed to popularity in 2003. They're also very involved in their local church and here they discuss why fellowship is more than just sharing pizza and coke on Sunday nights.
Hungry Years -- 29:34
Steve Watters used to struggle with a critical spirit, particularly with academic and ministry leaders. Here Steve tells us how he overcame his eagerness "to hold everyone up to an impossible standard." And you'll probably learn why "deconstruction" isn't one of the spiritual gifts Paul writes about in Romans 12.
Inbox -- 34:38
So there's this guys who's really attracted to a young woman in his college group at church. And I mean, really, really, really attracted. So much so that he's a bit paralyzed by his own objectification of her. But Steve Watters has some great advice for him, drawing from our interview with Christopher West about Theology of the Body.
My dad took a class in medical school that dealt with emergency care. Over the course of the semester, his professor showed the students photos of gruesome car accidents, bloody shooting victims, gray bloated drowning victims, victims of suicide, and so on. They saw every kind of horror you can imagine.
Initially the images were nauseatingly shocking. But over time, as the students grew more familiar with grisly death, they became less disturbed. Eventually, the sight of death for these medical students became common. They had become inured.
Another series of visual images have similarly desensitized me: movies.
I was in college, and had gone to see the latest psychological thriller. As the closing credits of "Silence of the Lambs" crawled up the screen, I remained in my seat, stunned. I was deeply affected by the fascinating story, the masterful acting and production, the insights into sexual perversity and cannibalism.
Years later I found myself similarly moved by "Fargo" and, to a lesser degree, "The Professional."
One night I came home from work, and my roommate had gathered some friends to watch "Fight Club" in our living room. I joined them, and that eerie feeling returned. I could feel my heart hardening, becoming brittle and dark, could feel it grow less sensitive, more cynical. As I sat at the top of the stairs following the movie, I had no choice but to determine not to continue doing this to myself. For the sake of my heart, what Scripture calls "the wellspring of life," I must not pour into it things that make it less sensitive to the gentle voice of my Lord.
Gradually, my sensitivity has returned. Last time I watched "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," for example, I was surprised and embarrassed at how much sexual innuendo was threaded throughout, something I hadn't noticed years earlier.
I've wanted to watch the "Matrix" sequels, but after reading what was in them, determined that they would probably not be good for me. The trailers for "Sin City," a modern film noir, fascinated me. So did the ones for "300." But in an effort to "guard my heart," I chose not to ingest these films.
These edgy movies may help me explore intriguing aspects of life. They may spark fascinating discussions with my unsaved friends. But the potential benefits aren't worth the damage they might inflict on my heart and mind. To paraphrase from a recent Plugged In Online review, the danger in watching these movies was that I might become just a little bit more comfortable with my own sinful self.
Sometimes I have to say "no" to my inclination to see a movie, despite its cultural significance. Yes, for the sake of spiritual sensitivity and at the expense of cultural relevance, sometimes I have to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I have a little collection of advertising slogans that I keep in a file. It's kind of a little mini-museum to slobbering, staggering consumerism.
One of my favorites is a magazine ad for Ethan Allen: "Good things come to those who don't wait," it reads, encouraging consumers to buy an entire room of furniture on credit.
I got a new one today. While driving by a bank, I read its message board: "We Finance Fun! Boats, RVs and Vacations!"
We finance fun. Hmmm. Well, according to a new report titled "For a New Thrift: Confronting the Debt Culture," America has, indeed, been financing our fun. And it's about to bite us back -- hard.
The report contains many of the statistics which should (but probably don't) cause us embarrassment. Like, for the first time since the Great Depression, Americans as a group spent more than they earned in 2005 and 2006.
The report blames much of the crisis on what it terms "anti-thrift" institutions.
"It's these anti-thrifts -- payday lenders, auto-title lenders, credit card issuers, subprime-mortgage lenders, private student-loan companies, and state-owned and sanctioned lottery operations -- that have created a climate where being thrifty isn't the norm anymore," writes Michelle Singletary in the Washington Post.
The report then offers two overarching goals, according to an article by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead:
- Renew thrift as an American value (through public awareness campaigns)
- Create broadly democratic, pro-thrift institutions as alternatives to the current crops of "anti-thrifts" (this goal includes a thrift savings plan for all Americans, encouraging financial institutions to move into low-income areas to help combat payday lenders and, this is interesting, "re-purposing" the lottery...see the details of that here)
Personally, I'm glad to see thrift encouraged (shocker, I know). I have no problem with a public awareness campaign. (Maybe they could hire the team that came up with that "F-R-E-E, that's spells free.." jingle.) Trying to redeem the lottery is original, but will ultimately be unsuccessful, I believe. And, certainly, it would be great to have "pro-thrift" financial institutions move into low-income areas.
But, in the end, it always seems to me to come down to individuals. As Whitehead acknowledges, the lure of "anti-thrift business" is "they all offer instant gratification." By all means, educate me. But if I'm determined that "good things come to those who don't wait;" If I'm set on financing my fun; If I refuse to acknowledge that haste leads to poverty, isn't that my fault?
"[J]ust blaming or railing against consumers won't fix our debt problem," writes Singletary.
Maybe not. Maybe some of these ideas have merit. Or maybe, pointing the finger at myself wouldn't be a bad place to start.
I'm hyper-sensitive to cursing. Maybe it's because I'm reminded of my own boorish behavior when I hear it. You see, I could weave a stream of obscenities that would make Tiger Woods blush before regeneration. Whatever the case, I notice it immediately when I'm in public places, especially if my wife and kids are with.
Such was the case a couple of nights ago.
My family and I were out celebrating at one of our favorite restaurants when group of four business men sat down at a table next to us, each with cocktail in hand. And it started immediately with a cool "f this s." Then pretty much all the biggies were said.
Right now my kids are a bit oblivious to it. But my wife isn't. And as her protector, as well as for the sake of decent society, I felt an obligation to do or say something. But after entertaining a few options in my head, I didn't do anything. I settled on the thought that my interference could evoke a visceral response that would make matters worse.
I'm not at all convinced that was the right conclusion though. So I've decided to come up with a plan since I'm certain it'll happen again. Here are the possible responses I'm considering:
1) Speak to the manager. After all, it's their job to maintain a enjoyable dining atmosphere. So it should be no problem for the manager to politely ask for the patrons to keep a civil tongue. And the establishment may be more sensitive to it in the future.
2) Confront the offender(s) directly. I really have no problem with humbly asking an individual or group to stop cursing, particularly on behalf of my wife and children. However, there's always the risk of inciting additional unpleasantness given the character of those prone to public cursing.
3) Let it go if it's not too loud. This is what I did the other night. I let it go because it wasn't overly boisterous. I'm not even sure if my wife would have noticed if I hadn't pointed it out to her. But regardless of who's offended, don't I have a civic duty to confront indecency?
I guess things like this are decided on a case by case bases. But it may prove worthwhile to have thought this through. I'll let you know how it turns out.
What about you? Have you ever done anything to quiet some barbarians?
The Shack has become a publishing phenomenon, a bestseller by a first-time author that has rocketed up the sales charts with rumors of an impending movie, not bad for a book that was self-published by the author, William P. Young, and is being sold out of a garage.
The glowing reviews for The Shack hail it as everything from the new Pilgrim’s Progress (theologian Eugene Peterson, translator of the Bible paraphrase The Message) to "the best novel of 2007" and "one of the rare fiction books that could change your life" (various Amazon.com five-star reviewers). According to the book jacket, Young was raised by missionary parents living among a stone-age tribe in New Guinea. He wrote the novel for his six children to explain his own journey through pain and misery to "light, love and transformation," according to a profile in USA Today. The "shack" of the story was the ugly place inside him where everything awful was hidden away, a result of his history as a victim of sexual abuse, his own adultery and the ensuing shame and pain, all stuffed deep in his psyche, Young explained.
This background is important, because Young's past appears to greatly color his view of both God and Christianity, resulting in a severely flawed view of both. The story begins with Mackenzie "Mack" Phillips, a father suffering great pain -- a Great Sadness, according to the story -- because of the death of his young daughter at the hands of a serial killer. Mack receives a note from "Papa" to meet him at the rundown shack in the woods where police had found evidence of his daughter’s murder six years earlier. Mack already understands that "Papa" is God based on his upbringing by a hypocritical, vicious and abusive father who was also a pastor. Mack approaches the shack with rising anger, wanting to lash out at God for allowing his young girl to be killed. Instead of the old man with a long white beard, as Mack expects, he's suddenly embraced by "a large beaming African-American woman" who introduces herself as Papa. (How many of you are already visually casting Oprah Winfrey or Maya Angelou in the movie version?)
Mack is then introduced to the rest of the Trinity: Jesus, a Middle Eastern man dressed as a laborer, and the Holy Spirit, a woman of "maybe northern Chinese or Nepalese or even Mongolian ethnicity" named Sarayu. The rest of the story is a conversation among the three members of the Trinity and Mack as they work through issues of creation, fall and redemption.
Subtle and not-so-subtle heresies
Young's intentions are good. He wants to introduce readers to a loving God who was willing to sacrifice his own Son to save us from our sins. But all heresies begin with misconstruing the nature of God. From Jehovah's Witnesses to Mormonism to even Islam, they all get it wrong when it comes to understanding the God of Scripture. Young joins their company. Part of the problem arises because his story is confused and inconsistent. I don't think he sets out to mislead, but he himself is misled, either by himself or others.
He wants desperately to show us the God of love as found in Scripture, but he ignores the other side, the God of utter holiness and, ultimately, the final Judge. Any presentation of God that shows only one side of His nature is wrong. In an effort to counter a false view of God as only the judging avenger of wrath, we must not go the opposite direction and present Him only as a loving, indulgent parent who never judges sin. Both extremes are false in that they present an incomplete picture of God as He shows himself to us in Scripture. (And, really now, if you're going to try to explain God to unbelievers, why would you start with the Trinity, a doctrine theologians have been striving to understand for millennia?)
I will not attempt to go into an exhaustive account of the many distortions in The Shack. Tim Challies has ably done this on his Web site. But I do want to point out some of the more obvious ones. First, we anthropomorphize God the Father at our peril. He is spirit, and when he refers to himself in anthropomorphic terms, it is always as a father. This is important, I think, because any attempt to make God a female inevitably leads to goddess religion and God’s becoming some sort of fertility figure, a worship of the creation instead of the Creator.
And for some reason Papa changes form later in the book to become a gray-haired, pony-tailed male. (I vote for Sam Elliott to play him in the movie.) No, God does not change himself to accommodate our flawed understanding of Him. He changes us so we can see Him as He truly is.
Papa acknowledges that Jesus is both fully human and fully God, but she adds, [H]e has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being. He is just to do it to the uttermost—the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my appearance without regard for appearance or consequence.
Really? I read that Jesus in fact was before all things and through Him all things were created and hold together. The words Papa speaks are a form of the ancient heresy of subordinationism, which puts Jesus in a lower rank within the Trinity. Scripture teaches that all three persons of the Trinity are equal in essence.
But Scripture also teaches that there is a hierarchy of authority and submission within the Trinity, but as evidence of his sloppy thinking, Young gets this wrong, too. Papa tells Mack that authority and submission are a result of sin, and the Trinity is a perfect circle of communion. Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or "great chain of being" as your ancestors termed it. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us.
But Scripture teaches that authority and submission are inherent to the Godhead and have existed from the beginning. Jesus was sent by the Father, and Jesus says it is his intention to obey the Father's will. The Holy Spirit obeys both the Father and the Son. These are not the result of sin; they are the very nature of the Godhead in which all three persons are equal in essence but exist within a hierarchy of authority and submission.
Finally, in his confusion, Young also teaches a form of patripassionism, another ancient heresy that teaches that God the Father suffered on the cross. At one point, Mack notices "scars in [Papa's] wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his," and later Papa says, "When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood." (I'm not even going to go into detail on the implied heresy that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are created beings, spoken into existence.)
A low view of Scripture
Young wants to make God accessible to a hurting world, but he also has a very low view of Scripture, and in fact he mocks anyone who holds that there is such a thing as correct doctrine. In seminary [Mack] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners' access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges.
If one is to teach error, it is important to do away with Scripture, either by adding to it (Mormonism), mistranslating it (Jehovah's Witnesses) or simply mocking it (The Shack, Brian McLaren and some other "emergent" types). But if you are going to claim to teach about God, you must stick to what He has declared to be His revelation about himself and His will to us. In other words, correct doctrine, a point stressed here, here, here and here.Yes, we are not just to be hearers (and readers) of the Word; we are to live it. But we can't live it unless we know it, believe it, and trust it. Otherwise, the God you present is merely a creation of your own imagination and not the God that everyone must stand before on that final day, either as friend or condemned sinner.
Young's ramshackle theology, unfortunately, is giving a lot of people an incomplete and false image of God. He is doing them no favors.
 In today's Boundless article, Nathan Zacharias talks about a topic I can relate to: failure. Or more precisely, what should be a believer's response to it? Nathan writes:
After some of life's breakdowns, it's tempting to throw in the towel on what the future holds. Sometimes I think that I've messed up so badly, that God will never be able to use me to do any good. That thought, though, warns me that I'm seriously underestimating the redemptive power of Christ.
When I look at the stories of the Bible, I have the benefit of seeing the big picture. I can read the story of Peter and realize that God restored him after he denied knowing Jesus, and that Peter went on to do many great things. But in having that big picture, I fail to see that Peter didn't know that at the time. In the midst of his greatest meltdown, he didn't know that he'd recover. He felt the same doubt, the same regret, and the same heartache that I do when I fail.
As much as we'd all like to avoid it, failure is part of being human. If we never said a harsh word, told a lie or made a sinful choice, how would we know of God's amazing grace? Nathan's article is a good reminder of the fresh start constantly offered to those who follow God and cling to the cross. We all fail. Many times miserably. But in that heartbreaking moment when we realize we've become the worst version of ourselves, God will use that realization to restore us and direct us back to the right path. As Akaash sings as he recognizes his failure, "The journey home is never too long." Thank God, I've found that to be true.
I have also found that to be true. It is our enemy who wants us to feel defeated. Our Savior, on the other hand, is a God of short tallies and clean slates.
Sex before marriage might lead to an STD. But what if it doesn't? Tithing can open the door to greater wealth, but what if it doesn't? Believing in God can make you happier and more peaceful, but what if it doesn't?
How often do we put our trust in God primarily because there are potential practical benefits? How often do we follow a Biblical approach because it can answer a question or deliver a positive outcome? Those were some questions Leon Wirth, a colleague of mine, raised this morning during our staff devotions.
He made the sobering point that even though we are called to obey God and submit to His will, our response often has more to do with the cost/benefit analysis we run. We are a self-help generation that values any tips and techniques that can give us an advantage in life, but we know that if the advice we get doesn't score too well in our cost/benefit analysis, we can always go find other advice.
It's kind of like the old Groucho Marx gag line: "These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." In the grocery store of approaches to life, we are motivated to keep shopping for the best deal.
People bounce around from the words of self-help gurus like the guests on Oprah, Dr. Phil, Tony Robbins and others and patch together the pieces that tend to give the best answers and outcomes.
Unlike any of these gurus, however, the God of the Old and New Testament asks for obedience and submission ... regardless of what that means for us. Leon pointed out in his devotions how the book of Job shows that we can follow God's will even if we lose everything and don't have a clue what's still in it for us.
We find out in the book of Daniel that we should obey God even if we don't know for sure if He'll rescue us from the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:16-18). And then we see in the story of Jesus, that we should submit our will even if our "soul is overwhelmed to the point of death" (Matthew 26:36-42).
You will have plenty of opportunities before this year is over to obey God and submit to His plans for your money, your relationships, what you do in your free time and more. There's a reasonable chance you'll do the right thing when there's a practical payoff, but what will you do if obeying God isn't practical?
Two weeks ago it was the Red Wings over the Penguins for the Stanley Cup. Last night it was the Celtics over the Lakers for the NBA Championship. And in both cases, Boundless readers had plenty to say -- some of them quite passionately -- about their favored teams.
I remember more than one occasion when I was younger, when the score was perilously close heading into the final minutes, I would fold my hands and bow my head during a time-out (the commercial breaks were mercifully shorter back then) to say a quick prayer for my team of choice. Something haunting and poetic, such as: Dear Lord, please help [my team] to win. Please! There were no mentions of honorable competition or good sportsmanship or character building of any kind. Plain and simple, I wanted my favorite to emerge victorious. I wasn't concerned with the other team's hopes and dreams, what they were going through, or even how many fans were praying for them. Just give us the win, in Jesus' name!
To be honest, I don't ever recall uttering those prayers in Christ's name, because deep down I somehow knew that Jesus probably wasn't taking sides in the Super Bowl or the World Series. Indeed, as I got older and more mature in my faith, my fervent pleas for a God-sanctioned win became more infrequent. Eventually I stopped saying them altogether.
That's right -- I no longer believe that God plays a major role in the outcome of sporting events. I don't believe He tallies up the number of professing Christians on each team. For that matter, I don't believe He counts the number of heathens, either. Most of the time, it's the team that plays the best defense, or whose shots are falling, or simply the one that "wants it more" that ends up hoisting the trophy. I don't care how enthusiastically a coach or athlete credits God in the post-game interview, I am convinced that speed, strength, skill and coaching have more do with winning than currying the favor of heaven.
Am I suggesting that God doesn't care about professional sports? Well, kind of. I have no doubt that He cares immensely about each player and coach and every single person involved in every single game or match, but I don't for a second believe that He's rooting for one club over another -- because that means that for every team He chooses to win, He must also pick another team to lose. (Sounds a bit Calvinist when you think about it, but that's another debate.) Perhaps I've watched too many rosters filled with believers get blown out by the statistical leaders in nightclub brawls and out-of-wedlock-children.
Now, my personal theology won't keep me from cheering for my favorite team when a championship is on the line. In fact, I will even admit to still bowing my head on occasion. But the words I use nowadays are a bit different: Dear Lord, please help [my team] to play their best. And if they happen to win -- well, that's certainly OK with me.
So, do you think God heeds the prayers of loyal sports fans? Have you ever prayed for your team to win?
There's a new movement afoot that gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "friends with benefits." It's so friends can have the same rights and privileges as spouses.
Here's the gist from The Boston Globe article, "I Now Pronounce You ... Friend and Friend:" [A] number of scholars are seeking to shore up friendship in a surprising way: by granting it legal recognition. Some of the rights and privileges restricted to family, they argue, should be given to friends. These could be invoked on a case-by-case basis -- eligibility to take time off to care for a sick friend under an equivalent of the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example. Or they could take the form of an official legal arrangement between two friends, designating a bundle of mutual rights and privileges -- literally "friends with benefits," as Laura Rosenbury, a law professor at Washington University, puts it. One scholar even suggests giving friends standing in the tax code, allowing taxpayers to write off certain "friend expenditures."
Once marital rights were given to couples based on whether or not they have sex, I suppose it was only a matter of time before the argument was made to extend it to good buddies. It's the logical next step.
At least that's what Washington University law professor Laura Rosenbury thinks. "If the law decides to support some relationships, why not others that similarly involve care and support?" asks Washington University's Rosenbury. "What is it about marriage or marriage-like relationships -- that is, relationships that are assumed to have sex in them?"
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because I would never make a life-long commitment to honor and cherish my buddy Chuck in sickness and in health. I'm pretty sure I would bolt the first sign of a stomach flu.
One thing is for certain though, privileges like these would serve only to extend adultescence among 20- and 30-somethings. Here's more from "Friend and Friend:" If the law were to move systematically toward recognizing friendship, it could trigger deeper changes in the way we structure our lives. The most radical effect might be to disaggregate the components of relationships. Most people grow up expecting to eventually find a long-term relationship -- whether marriage or not -- that combines sex, domesticity, friendship, some degree of economic interdependence, and caregiving. But some wonder whether it is healthy, or even realistic, to expect one relationship to meet all of those needs. ...
If the state were to sanction a wider variety of relationships, unconventional arrangements could gain currency as long-term, legitimate options. This could foster increased flexibility in forming relationships and the expectations people bring to them.
Especially for guys. Given the plethora of women available for casual, guilt-free sex, a friends with benefits law would pretty much be the end of marriage.
But maybe that's exactly what the proponents want.
Last week I wrote a blog post imploring the editors of CT to reconsider their ongoing advocacy for the movie "Sex and the City."
Since then, a number of folks have joined in the conversation, which I think can be helpful. Sadly, some of them have mistaken what I was calling for, have gotten distracted by my "sanctimonious" deference to Scripture, and have misunderstood my motivation for writing that post.
Let me clear things up.
I wasn't condemning those who choose to watch this movie. I wasn't even primarily challenging Camerin Courtney's review of this movie. I was calling on the editors of CT to re-think their stance on media consumption, summed up in the following quote: "It's good to see what the world looks like through the eyes of even the depraved."
(As if we're so unfamiliar with sin that we need a movie to introduce us to the concept. To be honest, when I need to look through the eyes of "the depraved," all I have to do is open mine. I don't need a movie to help me understand what breaks God's heart and disrupts lives.)
Let me condense my concerns down to two points:
1) The original review observed that SATC is "soft-core pornography," perhaps made more palatable because the characters explore themes relevant to single women. The thing is, in order to have "enjoyed" this movie, in order to find the themes "refreshing," you'll have had to endure "a lot of sex and nudity," "a threesome, a naked man in a shower, some steamy makeup sex," "sex scenes between married folk," and so on.
2) The defense of this review encourages CT constituents to engage media that allows them to "enter into the minds" of "the depraved." In this context, that means that CT is encouraging their constituents to view SATC, an admittedly "depraved" movie. Sitting through the "muck" of SATC is "good," they are saying.
Put point 1 and point 2 together, and what we have is a prominent Christian publication clearly saying to their constituents that watching pornography is "good." There are other worrisome things about their review of this movie -- the cynicism about Christian messages regarding sexual purity, for example, or the demeaning objectification of men as "eye-candy" -- but this diminishing of the dangers of pornography is what I was primarily drawing attention to in my blog post.
I felt that that was a watershed moment for CT, and felt that I had to draw a line in the sand.
I'm embarrassed for CT. And for the sake of their constituents and their credibility, I've called on them to change their position, to, by definition, "repent."
Sometimes we have to choose not to watch something that will pollute our souls, even though that thing has the potential to help us grapple with important themes. Even though the trailers look fascinating. It's not worth the cost.
All of us have different thresholds; some of us don't watch R-rated movies, some do. Some tolerate sexual innuendo or graphic violence or degrading language, and others choose not to. That's up to the individual's conscience, of course.
The thing is, I firmly believe that there's a point where the content of a film is such that the benefit to our minds is not worth the cost to the purity of our souls. I firmly believe this movie, which I haven't seen, crosses that threshold.
It's my prayer that the stewards of CT's legacy rightly identify that threshold and take a stand for purity and righteousness.
 Suzanne's recent blog, "For Heaven's Sake, Don't Follow Your Heart," prompted me to rethink a lesson I learned many years ago when learning to fly.
Rookie pilots often make a mistake called "chasing the instruments." They concentrate so much on pegging their altitude, air speed, and compass heading that they keep their eyes focused on the instruments and have no idea what's going on outside the cockpit. But there's an inevitable lag of a half-second or so between the pilot's actions and the instrument's reflecting that action, and as a result the pilot overshoots and then over corrects each action. The plane yo-yos through the sky as if being flown by a drunk.
My first flying epiphany came when I learned to keep my eyes focused outside the cockpit on a point on the horizon, only occasionally glancing at the instruments for confirmation. That made for a much smoother ride. The view outside the cockpit is usually a lot prettier, too.
It's similar to what Jesus said in Luke 9:62: "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God." A good plowman fixes his eyes on a distant point and aims for it. Any looking away, especially to the rear, results in a crooked furrow.
Too much inward focus on feelings and endless internal analysis can become like chasing the instruments. You live a yo-yo life, and you miss the view along the way.
But I know you pilots out there are inevitably saying, "But what about instrument flying?" Yes, I'm aware of that, and it actually reinforces my point. So-called IFR flying (FAA-speak for "instrument flight rules") means you're in conditions where the view outside the cockpit is obscured or nonexistent. In such case, your instruments are your life.
And this is where maturity comes in. No one earns an IFR rating without mastering the basics of VFR (visual flight rules). If you don't know how to take off, turn, navigate and land the airplane by sight, no amount of instrument training will help. In such case, I regard my instruments as being like God's Word. You learn to trust the instruments no matter what your feelings are telling you. (John F. Kennedy Jr. likely died because he flew into IFR conditions even though he wasn't IFR rated, even after being warned by the tower at his point of departure.) In such conditions, a pilot trusting his feelings instead of his instruments can suffer spatial disorientation and vertigo and put his plane into a death spiral, flying it into the ground as his feelings continue to tell him to pull back on the yoke while the instruments tell him to level the wings. (When in a turn pulling back on the yoke tightens the spiral and reinforces the vertigo.)
In short, I empathize with Suzanne's blog, and her instincts are right. Always trust your instruments and God's Word, especially in murky conditions. But when conditions permit, which is most of the time, don't forget to enjoy the view along the way.
A few things before I begin my photologue:
1) It is a tragedy that Tim Challies is not here. Nobody live blogs like he does.
2) There's nothing wrong with "mountain top experiences" like this conference. I consider them a refreshing gift from God, a place along the road of life to joyfully consider, in a concentrated way, His grace toward me. Just because I don't live on the mountain doesn't mean that it's wrong to climb it once in a while, to relish who He is and what He's done for sinners like me.
3) I thank God for C.J. Mahaney. He is a timely gift to the Church. Last night, in an effort to encourage me that, yes, God indeed does love me, he quoted Spurgeon:
"Once I knew a good woman who was the subject of many doubts and when I got to the bottom of her doubt it was this: she knew she loved Christ but she was afraid He did not love her. Oh, I said that is a doubt that will never trouble me, never by any possibility because I am sure of this: that the heart is so corrupt naturally that love to God never did get there without God putting it there. You may rest quite certain that if you love God it is a fruit and not a root. It is the fruit of God’s love to you and it did not get there by the force of any goodness in you. You may therefore conclude with absolute certainty that God loves you if you love God."
4) The guys from my adopted church, Fellowship in the Pass, are cool. Thanks, Rick, Mike, Mike, Mike, and the rest of you for inviting me to hang out with you during the conference. You still owe me coffee.
5) Palm Springs is not as hot as hell, but it is hot.
I've been in California attending the annual Resolved conference since Friday, taking notes and photos and enjoying the fellowship. I'm looking forward to sharing my experiences with you when I get a chance.
In the meantime, if any of you are here, it'd be cool to meet up.
I've been thinking the past few days how much I depend upon my feelings. I may think I'm being logical, but I often make decisions based on how I feel.
Exhibit A: I am emotionally touched by that romantic comedy with slightly immoral content. I resonate with the plight and feelings of the main character. Sure, her values are different than mine, but I like her and I'm rooting for her. I justify the inappropriate content, because watching this film makes me feel good.
Exhibit B: I'm indignant. That fellow Christian did something that offended me. I find it unacceptable, not because it violated a Scriptural command but because it hurt my feelings. Surely something that upsets me that much is wrong. And I certainly won't be the first to seek reconciliation.
Exhibit C: I like Skip*. Even though Skip exhibits signs of spiritual immaturity and is clearly not pursuing (just) me, I feel this strong pull toward him. This must mean something deep and significant, right?
In each of these situations I am allowing my feelings to be my primary guiding factor. There's one big problem with that: My heart is the last thing I should be trusting.
Jeremiah writes: The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
This message flies in the face of our culture's obsession with "follow your heart." Unless your heart is captive to the Savior, it is the last thing you should be following. Jesus offers a different mantra: follow me. Comparing Himself to a shepherd, Jesus says: "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."
So don't let your heart deceive you. It's not infallible. In fact, its default mode is to lead you the wrong direction. Don't follow your heart; follow your Savior.
*Fictional name
Oh my goodness. Who saw the game Thursday night?
Let me tell you right now -- it made me very happy. I'm definitely cheering for the Celtics to win over the Lakers in this series. And last night's comeback victory was amazing to watch. Here are the reasons:
1. The Lakers annoy me.
2. All of the celebrities who are suddenly Lakers fans just because they moved to southern California also annoy me.
3. I love Kevin Garnett. He does not annoy me.
3. The Celtics are a good defensive team -- something you rarely see in the NBA.
4. I like the green jerseys better than the yellow.
5. The L.A. Lakers used to be the Minneapolis Lakers, which makes much more sense. They should've changed their name when they moved.
6. Seriously, I really like KG.
I'm from Minnesota, so I watched Kevin Garnett play with the Timberwolves for a long time. He's an intense player, he's a hard worker, and he deserves to win a championship. I hope this is his year.
Who are you cheering for?
My dad was in town last weekend. He came out to visit and watch me compete in a sprint triathlon. I enjoyed our time together -- although my dad and I don't always agree about everything, we're able to have thought-provoking conversations in a way that usually challenge me. We can talk about anything from sports to politics and have fun along the way.
Speaking of dads, it's Father's Day on Sunday. (Get that card in the mail in case you forgot. I just sent mine off today. My dad has learned to just expect things to be late.)
Anyway, in the spirit of appreciating our dads, I'd encourage you to listen to this heartwarming Focus on the Family broadcast highlighting Josh McDowell and his family.
Over at TrueU.org, we published a letter that our assistant editor, Matthew John, wrote to his dad. He took the time to sit down and point out many positive memories and valuable life lessons that his dad taught him throughout the years. Most of us don't do this often enough with our family and friends, so it's refreshing to see these heartfelt words from a son to a father.
As Matthew points out, we all have different types of relationships with our dads. But either way, we should focus on the good things this coming Sunday: As Father's Day approaches, I'd encourage you to consider the ways your dad has influenced your life. If he's had a primarily positive effect, then it would probably do you — and him — some good to tell him so.
But if things between you and your dad are less than stellar, well, perhaps this Father's Day could be the start of something new between you and him.
Anyway, take some time to acknowledge your dad this coming Sunday. He'll appreciate it.
This Sunday is Father's Day. And we begin the show with several claims of "best father ever" -- either their own (Candice and Lisa) or self-appointed (Ted). Very sweet ... and vain.
Anyway, it was a great tribute to dads everywhere. Except my dad. I couldn't get a word in edgewise. It's OK though. I gave him a little shout-out months ago on this blog. But I'll give him another here ... Happy Father's Day, Pop!
Lisa ends the segment intro-ing Reilly, the indie band providing this week's music. My favorite is "Run." What's yours?
Roundtable -- 4:10
Over the last decade or so, there's been a renewed focus in Evangelical churches on "finding your spiritual gifts." Which means there's also been a renewed focus on awareness of things that are not your spiritual gifts. Like, for example, serving in children's ministry. I guess God just didn't provide enough people with the gift of liking kids. :-/
Culture -- 17:08
Ted Slater caused quite a stir this week on the blog with his open letter to Christianity Today for their glowing review of the movie "Sex and the City"; which received 150 comments and was picked up by some major Christian bloggers like Tim Challies. And he chats about it here with Lisa Anderson, who offers her own insights.
Hungry Years -- 25:42
This week Kara Schwab describes how she went from brushing potato chips crumbs off her belly to becoming a prolific marathoner. Hmm. There's an application about the Christian life in there somewhere. What are you running for?
Inbox -- 31:18
Is there such a thing as too little intimacy before marriage? An engaged woman fears that she and her fiance haven't had a chance to become a "couple" yet because of their long-distance relationship. Candice Watters gives her some things to think about in this week's Inbox segment.
Rebecca Walker is 38, a writer and a mother. She's also the daughter of feminist movement leader Alice Walker (author of, among others, The Color Purple).
In a recent article, the younger Walker writes about the realities of growing up under feminism, because, she says, "I honestly believe it's time to puncture the myth and to reveal what life was really like to grow up as a child of the feminist revolution." The picture is not pretty.
Rebecca especially remembers the lessons her mother taught her about children. "You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale. ... As a little girl, I wasn't even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery."
But, in her 30's, Rebecca found the longing to be a mother incredibly intense. After having her child, Rebecca realized that her mother was wrong. "In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from 'enslaving' me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late -- I have been trying for a second child for two years, but so far with no luck."
Which is why she wants other to know her story. She writes about meeting women in their 20's and 30's who are ambivalent about motherhood: "If it happens, it happens." Then she meets the women in their 40's who are devastated because they put careers before family and now have only their careers. "Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating. But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women's movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them -- as I have learned to my cost. I don't want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations."
Rebecca Walker does not seem to write from a Christian's worldview. But even those who don't serve our Lord seem to recognize the deep longings of His design.
I didn't grow up with a feminist leader mother. Still, as a Christian young woman, I struggled with seeds of doubt planted by feminism. Doesn't pursuing motherhood mean giving up the "bigger" dreams? Won't I be unfulfilled? Won't I be bored to tears? What I've found is that I can truly answer each of those questions with a joyful, resounding "No."
I think that it's just like Satan to try to make us fear one of the most precious gifts God has given us. I hope, like 1 Peter encourages us, that we won't give in to the fear.
HT: Modestly Yours Blog
It's odd what people latch on to. I've latched onto the cross, music, media discernment, global warming, chicken wings ... and Zimbabwe. I've been following the collapse of Zimbabwe from the "Breadbasket of Africa" into a bewildering disaster for years now, and continue to be puzzled that the descent can even descend further.
But it does.
A couple of months ago Robert Mugabe lost the presidential election to Morgan Tsvangirai. I wrote about it then, hoping that the country would stop their downward spiral into total devastation.
But Mugabe has not honored the will of the people of Zimbabwe, and has stayed in office.
His latest horror is the murder of an opposition leader's wife a couple of days ago. A few of Mugabe's men stopped by the home of Patson Chipiro, head of the Zimbabwean opposition party in Mhondoro district, found only his wife there, and proceeded to cut off a hand and both of her feet, and then burned her to death.
Mugabe needs a Savior. He needs the Lord's forgiveness for his great sins. He also needs to be out of the picture. Now.
We begin tomorrow's podcast with a heartwarming chat about Father's Day. This post is anything but heartwarming.
A couple of days ago on National Review Online, Katheryn Jean Lopez wrote about the "countless" fathers of aborted unborn babies who'll feel "sadness and regret" this Sunday.
Here's the testimony of one of them Lopez highlights from Kathleen Parker's book, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care. With no foreknowledge of the abortion, one man writing on a website writes of "nauseating feelings of helplessness and dereliction of duty. ... " He displays a deep compassion for the child he will never father and the mother of his child. And even while feeling guilt over being party to "the thoughtless and criminally careless conception of a child" and anger for having no choice over what happened next, he expresses a profound sense of regret that he could not protect his girlfriend from the "violent procedure. ... Such a cold, soulless, and brutal experience."
There's a lot to unpack here. It could be that this man's feelings about his role in the abortion aren't all that common. But his "anger for having no choice" is a legitimate issue to consider. And Parker picks up this plight in her book.
More Parker from the article: "Given that every baby has a father, at least technically, shouldn't men have a voice in the decision to abort? The feminist playbook has an absolute response: No. Men legally have no voice when it comes to abortion, even though the child is theirs to either love or disown. They can neither force a woman to carry a baby to term — Hallelujah! — nor force her to have an abortion. Ibid., chorus. Yet by law, men can be forced to become fathers against their will and held financially responsible until the child reaches adulthood. Is that fair, or is fairness mandated only when women are the beneficiaries?"
The state of parental politics and law today is such that "Woman is arbiter of the life force, while man is reduced to sperm and a wallet."
True. But woman is only the arbiter of life if first the man leads her down the path of fornication.
I asked Adam Holz, Senior Associate Editor with Plugged In, to explain why a Christian organization would review R-rated movies, and what goes on behind the scenes as they do so. Here's his reply.
* * *
At Plugged In, we occasionally get inquiries from people wondering why we bother to review R-rated movies. Usually that kind of mail comes in when there's something that's obviously over the top, content-wise, such as the Saw and Hostel franchises. Sex and the City is another recent film that prompted some concerned folks to ask us, "What's the point in sitting through a movie that the Motion Picture Association of America has rated R for 'strong sexual content, graphic nudity and language'?"
The argument against reviewing such material (and, similarly, M-rated video games and music with parental advisory stickers) is usually two-fold:
- the content warnings tell us everything we need to know, and any Christian who's even remotely paying attention should know to avoid it; and,
- reviewing these films exposes staff to extreme material that's potentially damaging to reviewers' souls and walk with God.
Those are definitely legitimate arguments. There are, however, several reasons why we believe it's important to inform our readers (both in print and online) about what kind of content a given film, album, TV show or video game may contain.
First, though we might wish otherwise, the evidence suggests that many people of faith are consuming these entertainment products. We recently asked our Plugged In Online readers if they intended to see Sex and the City, for example. Just under 10 percent said they intended to go. Now, that's not a super-high percentage. But it's a percentage that represents thousands of our readers. Likewise, a recent study commissioned by Variety magazine and MarketCast found that people who described themselves as "very religious" were just about as likely to see a movie that was rated R for sexual content as those who described themselves as "nonreligious" (25 percent to 33 percent, respectively).
While some Christians may do so out of a desire to know what's happening in the culture (that's another important conversation for another time), we believe some are likely making those decisions without much forethought. They're being shaped by the culture in deep and significant ways, and they're often not critically assessing the ideas, images and worldviews that are washing over them.
As we review these products, we hope to challenge our readers to think more deeply about their choices and model what the process of media discernment looks like in action.
Next, we review these films (as well as music, video games and television shows) to help parents whose children may be interested in them. A 2005 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the average 8- to 18-year old in America is exposed to a whopping 44.5 hours of media a week! Young people today are swimming in a sea of nonstop images. We believe that parents represent the first and best line of defense when it comes to helping their children think biblically about these media. Accordingly, Plugged In serves as a resource to equip parents to guide their kids' decisions and interests in an intelligent and informed way.
With regard to how we deal with the graphic content we're exposed to, there are several important factors in play. First, we take the potential influence of films with graphic images (be they sexual or violent) very seriously. Before difficult movies, we often pray for the person(s) reviewing the movie and we make sure that there's time to talk about it afterward as well. That intentional engagement alone provides a hedge of protection.
Second, the way we watch movies might best be compared to an autopsy. During the average two-hour film, I'll take pages and pages of notes. I'm constantly recording exactly what I see. That's a very different way of watching a film, and it makes it a decidedly clinical kind of experience. Images aren't washing over my passive eyes and mind for recreational purposes; rather, I'm extraordinarily engaged as I look for positive messages and damaging worldviews, in addition to recording content concerns in the areas of sex, violence, drug use, language and other negative content. I usually walk out after a movie screening with a cramped right arm and feel like I've just had a workout.
Third, we also try to make sure that no one person has to go see multiple hard films in a row. And there's always room to say, "I just don't think I want to review that film."
While these safeguards don't completely eliminate the possibility of negative influence, they go a long way to combat the graphic imagery we sometimes see. I can honestly say that there are very few things, if any, that have stayed with me from the R-rated films I've critiqued during my 4-year-stint at Plugged In. I also believe deeply that God has called each of our writers to this place, and that He equips us to serve the body of Christ in this unique way.
I realize this may not satisfy some who believe Christians should never see R-rated movies, period — even from the perspective of reviewing them for others. But hopefully what I've shared has given you a better idea of why we take the time to inform our readers what's going on in certain R-rated fare (and in other graphic entertainment media as well).
Who wrote this letter? I appreciate your letter containing your views on abortion. There are many moral and legal aspects arising from this complex issue which is gaining the acceptance of large numbers of women faced with unwanted pregnancies, while disturbing the consciences of a great many other Americans.
Opponents maintain that abortion is wrong from every theological, moral and medical aspect. Proponents are firmly convinced that the woman, alone, has the right to decide.
While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merit consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized - the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.
On the question of the individual’s freedom of choice there are easily available birth control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire. [editor's emphasis]
I share the confidence of those who feel that America is willing to care for its unwanted as well as wanted children, protecting particularly those who cannot protect themselves. I also share the opinions of those who do not accept abortion as a response to our society’ s problem - an inadequate welfare system, unsatisfactory job training programs, and insufficient financial support for all its citizens.
When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.
Give up? Look here.
Big HT to Creative Minority Report.
My friend and I both had our toes in the sand and our noses buried in books. After a few minutes, I heard her sigh. "Heather," she said, "don't you ever just read beach trash?"
We giggled. "I mean, all I ever see you read is the paper or financial books or heavy stuff," she smiled. "Where's the beach trash?"
Now, my friend is not a temptress and I am not a saint. She's right. I do read a lot of "heavy stuff," because I enjoy it and because it's part of my work. But my friend wanted to make sure I relaxed on my vacation. Sometimes, the heavy stuff is relaxing, but I assured her that I had brought along some lighter fare.
But her comment did get me thinking about my diet, not just with books but with media in general. How much of it is just plain trash?
When pregnant with my son, I gained about 50 pounds. To take that weight off, I had to learn that salad wasn't just a Southern side dish of iceberg covered in ranch dressing. It could be a meal -- and a really good one. Spinach, pine nuts, havarti cheese, English cucumber and balsamic vinaigrette. Yum.
Ice cream was okay every once in a long while. But to get fit, it couldn't be a 50/50 ice cream-salad ratio. I also had to learn where the good food was. Just because something is a salad, doesn't mean it's tasty. (I really do like the McDonald's Asian salad. But one of my kids' favorite fast food joints has horrible salads. Oh yeah, you know who you are. Simply slapping a grilled chicken breast onto lettuce does not a salad make.) Not only did the weight come off, but my body responded with a gusto to the good fuel.
Makes me wonder. If my soul is feeling a little dull, is it what I'm feeding it? How much of my media is a yummy salad? How much is ice cream? And how much is ice cream laced with a little arsenic?
I've often theorized that the reason my eyelids get heavy after only 15 minutes of reading is because my brain was trained on television, not books. And television requires almost nothing from you. Books do.
And now I have my Internet habits to worry about.
In The Atlantic's "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Nicholas Carr writes about his struggles with reading after spending more than a decade online. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I'd spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That's rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I'm always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.
And it's not just anecdotal testimonials. According to a study conducted by scholars from University College London, the Internet is changing the way think and read. It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of "reading" are emerging as users "power browse" horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense
I've actually become a pro at one new form of reading: skimming. If I'm reading something that's more than a couple of paragraphs long, I skim. It's actually gotten me into a lot of trouble at work when I'm approving comments on this blog; and at home when my wife asks me to read something.
What about you? Are you having trouble maintaining concentration when you're reading? Do you feel the urge to move on to something else after only a few pages?
Christian culture has produced lots of weird stuff you can buy, from Jesus action figures to bible-themed breath mints. But one man is capitalizing on the Web with an innovative service for the prepared dispensationlist. According to ABC news: A new Web site is offering a first-of-its-kind service: sending e-mails to nonbelieving friends and family who are "left behind" after you are whisked away by God in the rapture.
And all for the yearly subscription fee of $40. Billed as the last chance to "snatch them from the flames," youvebeenleftbehind.com is the month-old brainchild of Mark Heard, a 49-year-old supermarket shelf-stocker who lives in Cape Cod, Mass.
"You've Been Left Behind gives you one last opportunity to reach your lost family and friends For Christ," the site reads. "Imagine being in the presence of the Lord and hearing all of heaven rejoice over the salvation of your loved ones. It is our prayer that this site makes it happen."
Skeptical about how the service would work in the event of the rapture? Heard, who wouldn't reveal how many people have signed up for the service, has set up his e-mail server with what he calls a "fail-safe" clause: if three of his five employees fail to log on to their work accounts after six days, the service will be triggered and the e-mails be sent out.
That assumes, of course, that the Internet would still be working, says skeptic Randy Maddox, a theology professor at Duke divinity school: "In one sense, they're arguing it will be a time of great disaster, but in another sense he's saying, 'I promise my Web site will be working.' There are logical incongruities with the model, and there's basic theological incongruities."
I don't want to knock the service too hard (although it does seem motivated by commercial gain—the Gospel isn't shared anywhere on the site). If the rapture occurs and people learn of Christ through it, praise God. However, why not tell your friends and family about Jesus now and save the 40 bucks?
HT: WorldMag Blog
I love attending church. But I'm a girl.
In his new book How Women Help Men Find God, David Murrow discusses why the typical guy dislikes church. Multnomah Bible College's student newspaper, the Voice (article not available online), chatted with Murrow about how the church can improve:
the Voice: How can preaching be improved to attract men to church?
Murrow: Make it shorter. One of the main complaints that men have with church is that the sermons are long and boring. The average parable of Jesus takes 38 seconds to preach. Why does it take a preacher 30 minutes or an hour?
And then the other thing you can do is use a strong visual or object-lesson component every time you enter the pulpit. When Jesus taught, he often used a prop, like a coin or a sheep or some wheat. We need to recover visual preaching because that's what Jesus did.
Is there anything in the structure and organization of the service that could be improved to appeal to men?
Men like a service that is vertical-focused, focused more on God. A lot of churches have a horizontal focus, where the focus is on the people; people stand up and share prayer requests, for example. Men usually hate that.
If your worship service reflects "God is my buddy," then you're going to attract more women. If your God is a little more remote, absolute, powerful and mighty, then you are going to attract more men.
What style would appeal to men?
The focus on a mission. One hundred years ago, preachers talked about our mission. Today they talk about a personal relationship with Jesus. If that's the punch line of the gospel, then you're going to have more women than men responding because women are all about relationships.
How does church music affect men?
We used to have hymns, which were pretty well-suited to the masculine heart; they talked about battle and blood and victory. Today we have praise and worship choruses, which I call "Jesus is my boyfriend music." We use words that no man would dare say to another, and yet we ask men every week to express their love to God using these very romantic words.
How can churches change?
It's a long process. You have to disciple your men first. But once thy have roots, then you can start offering them ministries oriented toward their tastes.
What should churches do to make boys grow up to love going to church?
We really start losing boys in Sunday school. The behaviors we value in Sunday school are sit still, listen, memorize and verbalize. The verbal centers of a girl's brain mature about 18 months ahead of those of a boy's. So if we have a highly verbal, reading, memorize-type Sunday school, who is going to do better? The way you retain boys in Sunday school is you give them a chance to win, to perform as well as the girls.
So what do you think, guys? Is Murrow onto something? What methods and styles within the church have you found compelling?
 Getting married is one of the most important transitions in a man's or woman's life. It's not surprising that some people get cold feet in their approach, but some well-intentioned parents are trying to "help" by adding ice packs.
Writing in Touchstone magazine this month, Joan Frawley Desmond raises this concern. She opens with the story of a mom counseling her son who was a senior at a top university: "He wanted to marry his long-time girlfriend. His mother retorted that she was more ambitious for him than his girlfriend was; she advised him to avoid an 'early' marriage that might limit his options."
Desmond also mentions a dad directing his daughter: "[H]e had counseled his high-school age daughter to establish a decade's worth of graduate school and career development before marrying. Marriage would complicate the task of achieving financial independence. And he just wasn't sure that men could be trusted."
These parents, to be sure, mean well, but Desmond believes they are being too cautious: Their children are deemed incapable of bearing the weight of marriage. Everything must be in place before they can contemplate such a momentous -- potentially "destabilizing" -- step.
Parents today rightfully observe that their children aren't quite ready for marriage. But instead of encouraging them to hold out until they are completely ready, Desmond believes parents should prepare their children for what it takes to commit to the vows of permanence, faithfulness and fruitfulness: Though most young people enter marriage without fully understanding what is ahead, the vows guide them in developing necessary virtues: perseverance, temperance, courage, justice, and humility. The challenges keep coming -- sickness, financial difficulties, family crises -- and the vows help to lift the spouses over each hurdle.
This focus on committing to the vows of marriage instead of holding out for a magical moment of future maturity seems more helpful than the advice Desmond says parents appear to be giving instead: Delay the wedding date, ignore the broken hearts, along the way, center your hopes and goals in yourself or your job rather than the man and woman in your bed, always leave yourself an out, get on with your career. In other words, keep love at arm's length, and pay the price.
 It was 1972. President Richard Nixon had made the first overtures toward communist China. With the thaw in diplomatic relations came multiple visits from Chinese delegations decked out in Mao jackets, all wanting to learn as much as possible about their erstwhile enemy here in the United States. A lot of Americans were still uncomfortable with this development. After all, these were still Communists in the stripe of Chairman Mao, and many Americans were still skeptical of the "erstwhile" part of that previous statement.
During one such visit, a Chinese delegation asked the governor of Alaska what he thought of China. Ever the diplomat, the governor paused and then said, "Any country that has done away with the necktie can't be all bad."
The good news is that 30-plus years later, the U.S. might have finally caught on. By this, I mean the hopeful news that the necktie might be going the way of the dodo. (HT: Jolly Blogger.) When even the CEO of tie manufacturer JA Apparel Corp. and a member of the trade group representing tie-makers declines to wear a tie, it must be a good sign for civilization.
This oppressive, completely useless piece of cloth should have died a violent death long ago. Every other piece of clothing we wear serves some practical function, even if it can be fashionable at the same time. The tie? What purpose does it serve other than providing a handy place for little boys to surreptitiously wipe their noses in church?
Alas, the dress code here at Focus on the Family requires men to wear ties. (Nose-wiping optional.) So, if I must wear a noose garrote tie, I figure I might as well have some fun while doing so. At right is a small collection of the ties I wear to work. But say the word and I wouldn't mind in the slightest to donate those ties to a good cause -- bonfire, anyone? -- and live as man was intended to live: free.
 I just got back from a week vacation to the Florida coast. (Yes, Ronnica, you were right. At least, about me.)
It was simply amazing. There were several moments during the trip (watching my kiddos giggle and play in the surf, basking in the sun with no "to do" list running through my head, walking arm-in-arm with my husband through a beautiful outdoor shopping area enjoying the cool, ocean breezes) when I would let out a great sigh and think, "it just doesn't get any better than this."
Thankfully, though, I had brought along a bushel-full of library books to enjoy and one of them, Randy Alcorn's book, Heaven, reminded me of something: It does get better than this. Alcorn writes: "It doesn't get any better than this." Can you think of even one time in your life when, even for a fleeting moment, that seemed to be true?
Well, it isn't true.
The most ordinary moment on the New Earth will be greater than the most perfect moments in this life -- those experiences you wanted to bottle or hang on to but couldn't. It can get better, far better, than this -- and it will. Life on the New Earth will be like sitting in front of the fire with family and friends, basking in the warmth, laughing uproariously, dreaming of the adventures to come -- and then going out and living those adventures together. With no fear that life will ever end or that tragedy will descend like a dark cloud. With no fear that dreams will be shattered or relationships broken.
I really enjoyed this book. Alcorn challenged me about my thinking on Heaven. He tackles some tough questions that most of us don't want to admit we even ask: Will heaven be just one big boring church service? Will the Old Earth be destroyed ... or renewed? What will our resurrected bodies be like? Will we remember our lives? What will it be like to look on God's face? Whom will we meet in heaven and what will we experience together?
It was so interesting to read answers to those questions. (Spoiler warning: It will be anything but boring. Heaven will be a great adventure.) But what I enjoyed most about the book was that it really got me jazzed about heaven again. I think I had lost a lot of my childlike wonder at heaven. After all, there are some things that I really do enjoy about this life. But Alcorn reminded me that the good things I enjoy in this life are just a taste -- just the dimmest shadow -- of what is to come.
Alcorn also reminded me not to be wasteful of my time: "By God's grace, use the time you have left on the present Earth to store up for yourself treasures on the New Earth, to be laid at Christ's feet for His glory." Alcorn quotes C.T. Studd: "Only one life, 'twill soon be past; only what's done for Christ will last."
So now that I'm back to laundry and grocery shopping and games of Sorry on the living room floor, I'm still content. Florida was great. But Heaven...well... Heaven will be more glorious than I can even begin to imagine.
What follows is my open letter to Christianity Today Movies.
Last week your movie review came out endorsing the perversion of Sex and the City, giving it more stars than Prince Caspian.
Your review grudgingly admitted that "there is a lot of sex and nudity in the movie." Your disclaimer went on to say that this movie isn't for "some adults." By "some adults," do you mean those who take the call of Christ seriously, to flee sexual immorality and pursue a life of righteousness? And that other, less conscientious adults should disregard the pursuit of holiness and "enjoy" (to use a term from the original review) this portrayal of illicit vulgarity?
A few days after your review was published, and the letters from those who take their faith in Christ seriously started coming in, you bristled and came to the defense of your endorsement of Sex and the City.
Your defense is a study in spin and Straw Man fallacies. You insist that you were simply "reviewing" the film. No, you are promoting it. You say that those who disapprove of CT's endorsement are calling for a boycott of it ("there should be no choice," the prudish Christians bellow, having "decided that no one should see it, period"). No, we're simply stunned that you advocate watching something that you yourselves consider "soft-core porn."
Yes, your review promotes this movie. Consider what you wrote in the defense of the original review: "It's good to see what the world looks like through the eyes of even the depraved." Do you not see that what you are doing is in direct opposition to Scripture, which says, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter"? By promoting this movie, by denigrating those who reject this movie, by so slyly encouraging your constituents to embrace sin as "enjoyable" ... you are putting yourselves into a woeful place.
"And why not do evil that good may come?" you whisper in our ears. I join Paul in condemning such satanic counsel. I join Jesus Himself in condemning such counsel.
As for me, in the words of Paul, "I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil." Watching SATC does not facilitate being "innocent as to what is evil." Ogling at "a threesome, a naked man in a shower, some steamy makeup sex" and the "sex scenes between married folk" pollutes the soul. Whatever insights one might get into modern society isn't worth the cost of acquiring such pollution.
Bringing in C.S. Lewis to defend your encouragement that your constituents immerse themselves in sexual perversion is a little much, wouldn't you admit? Your conclusion -- "We will 'see through the eyes of others' and yet 'remain' ourselves" -- sounds enlightened, but it's really foolishness. The truth is that "Bad company corrupts good character." Those who want to grow in character, who want to grow in purity and godliness are wise to reject your slick words.
My advice to you, the editors of CT, in the words of Jesus: repent.
Don't make excuses. Don't try to spin what Christians find offensive in this movie. Don't try to point out the virtues of this movie that redeem it. Just humble yourselves and repent, and pull your God-dishonoring promotion of this vile movie.
* * *
Editor's note: This blog post has been revised in order to reflect our desire to focus on a specific film review from the Christianity Today Movies team, instead of CT as a whole.
I hope everyone is enjoying the music we feature each week on The Boundless Show. Our engineer Dave Salkeld does a great job mixing in our limited stable of artists.
Lisa and I open this week's show chatting about the difficulties getting permissions from the "Industry people" for artists like Casting Crowns, Leeland, and Rebecca St. James ... though we're making headway. In the meantime, we're really thankful for great Indy bands like Zelos, whom we're priveleged to feature again this week.
Our music schedule for the next couple of weeks looks great with bands like Reilly, Casting Crowns, and Sovereign Grace. So enjoy.
Rountable -- 4:02
Our culture doesn't expect much from teens. And more and more the cultural messages to 20-somethings encourages them take a vacation from responsibility. After all, 30 is the new 20, right? But this week's guests Alex and Brett Harris are doing everything they can to rebel against the low expectations of our culture. In their book Do Hard Things, they offer an alternative vision for young people to help fight against our sinful tendencies "to be able to get away with doing as little as possible."
Culture -- 29:21
What can Protestants learn from the Catholic teaching "The Theology of the Body"? It's a theology that may radically change your perspective on human sexuality.
Hungry Years -- 43:21
Messages on T-shirts can be a powerful medium. They can move people to attend a colleges and choose majors on a whim. Just ask John Thomas. But God sometimes uses decisions like that to set us on a course quite different from the one we choose.
Inbox -- 48:46
We're still leveraging some great content from our trip to Louisville. This one features Dr. Albert Mohler answering a question I asked informally when Lisa finished her interview (which can be found on last week's show). It was related to a question he received in his keynote session at New Attitude: Can you be both a Christian and practicing homosexual?
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and other atheists are currently selling lots of books claiming that religious fervor is a tremendous force for ill in our culture and that much good would come from eliminating it.
But just how much of a force is religion in the lives of most believers? In a commentary for Wall Street Journal, Wheaton College professor Alan Jacobs claims that we might be putting too much faith in faith. In responding to the general perception that "for good or ill, the sheer impact of religion is enormous," Jacobs is skeptical: I have my doubts, and they begin with personal experience. I am by most measures a pretty deeply committed Christian. I am quite active in my church; I teach at a Christian college; I have written extensively in support of Christian ideas and belief. Yet when I ask myself how much of what I do and think is driven by my religious beliefs, the honest answer is "not so much." The books I read, the food I eat, the music I listen to, my hobbies and interests, the thoughts that occupy my mind throughout the greater part of every day -- these are, if truth be told, far less indebted to my Christianity than to my status as a middle-aged, middle-class American man.
Of course, I can't universalize my own experience -- but that experience does give me pause when people talk about the immense power of religion to make people do extraordinary things. When people say that they are acting out of religious conviction, I tend to be skeptical; I tend to wonder whether they're not acting as I usually do, out of motives and impulses over which I could paint a thin religious veneer but which are really not religious at all.
So what exactly is Jacobs saying here -- that atheists are overstating their case and that much of the ugliness that gets marked up as religiously motivated activity is often just someone applying a religious veneer to justify their less-than-religious agenda?
Is that insight helpful or problematic?
Recently I wrote an article about world-friendliness. In it, I talked about how my media choices don't always line up with my beliefs. Honestly, sometimes shows that promote values vastly different from mine seem pretty attractive. In discussing this disconnect, I gave the example of a professing Christian who openly raved about "Sex and the City" being her favorite show. Something seemed amiss.
Then yesterday I read an overall positive review of the movie Sex and the City ... on Christianity Today. Author Camerin Courtney is up front that "hedonism abounds" and calls the show "randy," but she seems to be looking for redemption in the wrong place. She writes: Most of the few Christian voices speaking to the growing single segment of the population offer ten easy steps to find our soulmate. As if it's that wondrously simple. Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda, however, show how challenging it really can be for intelligent, accomplished, and admittedly neurotic women to find lasting love. They, unlike many Christians, don't insult my intelligence. Instead they speak to the complexities of relationships in a postmodern age—addressing baby lust, the mommy wars, sexual temptation, dating outside your "class," commitment-phobia, the reluctant desire to be rescued by a man, and the simultaneous fear that you'll lose your own hard-won identity in the process.
While we may have a few things in common — we're single and we like shoes — these women are hardly role models to help me to navigate my singleness. In fact, they are living their TV lives in a way that opposes God. If anything, they are a cautionary tale. On her blog, Carolyn McCulley writes: I do think that churches by and large have camped out on the "just say no" message for so long that we've obscured clear, biblically-grounded messages on sexuality.
But I don't think watching "Sex and the City" is either helpful for obtaining this clarity or God-honoring. And I think it is particularly unhelpful for single Christians. I can relate to the frustration that Camerin expresses when she writes: "And, like the TV series, the film offers much that will resonate with singles—and yes, even Christians—who see themselves not just as a demographic in a Barna poll but as sexual beings who wrestle with balancing loneliness and a desire for romantic love with a commitment to purity and platitudes like 'true love waits.' (And waits. And waits.)"
Girl, I hear you on the waiting. I know all about that. But I fail to understand how filling one's eyes and mind with depictions of sexual sin makes it any easier to wait. In fact, I think it has a direct correlation on why so many are still waiting for marriage. Monogamous commitment to one flesh-and-blood person is hard to initiate or maintain with the visual feast of flesh that we so casually accept.
And there's the crux: "the visual feast of flesh that we so casually accept." This kind of world-friendliness carries consequences — the biggest one being is sets us in opposition to God. Dealing with an over-sexed Corinthian culture, Paul wrote: "Flee from sexual immorality." And he wasn't only instructing us to flee the actual act. After all, Jesus said: "Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart"
I'm disappointed with CT's casual acceptance of a movie that is so far from biblical values. I hope for better in the future.
[Spoiler Alert] If you haven't seen the season finale of "Lost," do not read this post. Also, if you are not a hardcore "Lost" fan, this post will probably bore you to tears. I feel sorry for you.
OK, so I know the season finale was last week, but I can't stop thinking about it! This may be a serious issue. Lostitis or something. I can't get Sawyer, Kate and Hurley off the brain!
Anyway, I think that one of the most interesting aspects of the show is the battle between faith and science -- most often portrayed through Jack and John Locke. Jack is Mr. Science and Locke has some kind of weird faith in the island -- he believes that fate brought them there and will keep them there. This faith/science conversation came up in the season finale right before Jack left the island. Locke went on and on about how Jack wasn't supposed to leave and how the island produces miracles. Jack says there's no such thing as miracles (something he might have to reconsider now that the island has completely disappeared). However, as we can see from the flash forwards, Jack goes off the deep end and eventually accepts whatever is going on on the island. Do you think he comes around and begins to believe in something?
Anyway, here's what I would like us to discuss: the depiction of faith and science in "Lost." Do you think that, in the end, one of the two will "win" or will there be some recognition of the two working together? What do you think of faith as it's portrayed on the show through the characters (Locke, Rose, Echo, Hurley's mom)? Do you think the series will end with everyone accepting "fate" or will there be a scientific explanation for everything we've seen?
OK, I'll round up some Dharma snacks and let's get to discussing.
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