 |
Continuing on with my recent theme of commenting on the commenters, I can't help but notice the way many Boundless Line readers respond to posts related to finding a mate. Perhaps the topic is the lack of single Christian men in a particular church, town or even geographic area. Maybe the post deals with indecisiveness among singles, an unwillingness to "settle" or the pros and cons of enlisting a matchmaker. Yet no matter what advice or opinion is expressed, the comments that follow usually include one or more that go something like: "Yeah, it might be easier to get a date if I wasn't the only one under age 65 in my singles group, but I'm trusting that God will bring along the right person in His timing."
Call it another variation of the "Yeah, but ..." syndrome.
This sentiment does have some basis in truth. Yes, it's true that God is in control of your destiny. Yes, it's true that God can cause that special someone to happen across your path. Yes, it's even true that God can have Mr. Right parachute into the remote jungle village in Borneo where you've been serving as the only English-speaking missionary for the last 10 years. Yes, it's true that God can do anything He wants.
That said, how likely is it that He will make sure every Christian who wants to get married will experience an unscripted meeting with just the right spousal candidate at just the right time?
Judging from the comments on this blog, such meetings are not unheard of, but nonetheless extremely rare.
I'm reminded of my (slightly) younger days, back when I dreamed of success as a rock musician. The bands I played in were for the most part filled with talented musicians, singers and songwriters, but we never experienced the success that leads to lucrative record contracts or nationwide tours. At least one reason for this is obvious: We didn't make ourselves available to the right people. Sure, we played at a few local clubs and recorded a decent-sounding demo, but we never performed our songs for well-connected promoters or music industry executives.
To be honest, we were a little too content simply rehearsing; and the last time I checked, very few talent scouts tend to wander through suburban neighborhoods at night in the hope that they'll overhear the next U2 practicing in someone's basement. While it's true that the occasional "unknown" artist gets signed merely on the basis of an extraordinary demo, the vast majority are recognized after they appear in front of as many people as possible.
The same principle holds true for unmarried Christians. You may have lots to offer as a spouse, but if the only times you leave your home involve work and the grocery store, then your odds of meeting a potential mate are greatly reduced. If you've never been willing to be "set up" by friends and family, then perhaps it's time to make yourself available. If you live in a rural community where the only single man at church is a World War II veteran, then you might want to reassess whether it's the right place to be if marriage is important to you.
Still, many Christian singles cling to the hope that God has a "one and only" in mind for each of us, and that we need only wait for that day when the Lord delivers that person to our doorstep. Yet as Focus founder Dr. James Dobson once wrote: "I do not believe that God performs a routine match-making service for everyone who worships Him. He has given us judgment, common sense, and discretionary powers, and He expects us to exercise these abilities in manners matrimonial."
In other words, while it's critical to seeks God's wisdom regarding whom you should marry, it's not realistic to assume that He will deliver the answer to your door.
Some of you have seen the movie Fireproof. I'd like to share with those who haven't yet seen it the comments from those who have seen it. These are all taken from Boundless Line blog posts "Watching 'Fireproof'" and "Kirk Cameron Made Me Cry."
Laurie wrote:
My boyfriend and I went to see Fireproof yesterday. It was excellent. I didn't really care that it was low budget or whatever, because I went to hear the message. The message of the movie is powerful. My boyfriend and I were both crying almost the whole movie through! It was a wonderful conversation starter for us, and very encouraging. We are telling all of our friends to go see it!
Victoria wrote:
I almost didn't see this movie because of some of the negative comments about it, but my husband and I had already purchased tickets. Going in we both had really low expectations about the quality of this film. However, we both thought it was not just a great Christian movie, it was a great movie, period....
I thought it was incredibly well-done, made me laugh in some places and cry in others, and the story kept my attention. Not to mention that although my husband and I are definitely not emotional and almost never cry in movies, we were both BAWLING at the end.
Shame on any Christian who pretentiously dismisses it or is needlessly critical. We should be encouraging others to see this film, not talking it down so much that others would think it is awful and won't see it (as I almost did).
Geneva wrote:
Christians bashing other Christians' efforts is grating on my nerves these days. And for the record, I saw Fireproof and thought it was a great movie.
Ceres wrote:
I just watched it and I loved it! Much better than I anticipated.... Great movie!
Holly wrote:
It exceeded all my expectations.
Josh wrote:
Bottom line, this film is lengths and strides better than their last film, Facing the Giants. These guys have tightened up the plot and the dialogue. Places where I was worried they were going to hammer me, they were subtle instead.
Sure there's room for growth, but they had me crying and I went in cynical, as is my bent. The pacing of the change in their marriage is perfect, and you don't get the payoff until near the end.
Worth seeing.
David wrote:
What it will do is challenge you and your commitment to your marriage. It will strike close to home for many who fight the urge to confront their spouses about their shortcomings. Above all, it will demonstrate the awesome power of restoration and forgiveness that can be found in the Word.
I would encourage you to avoid measuring the success of this picture with a traditional movie industry ruler. Instead, if success must be measured, think of the number of lives that will be changed, relationships restored and renewed commitments to family that will be made. In the end, I think Fireproof, judged by those criteria, will surpass everyone's expectations.
Amir wrote:
It will promote some very important realities dear to Christians and vital to the Christian message: the persevering work of Jesus Christ, demonstrated on the cross; the sanctity of the marriage covenant; that tough marriages are–more often than not–salvageable. For those reasons alone, it is worth the viewing. For the Christian considering marriage, it is recommended for reasons on which I will elaborate....
Still, there are themes that make the movie worth watching: (a) the Gospel is well-represented, especially against the backdrop of a husband’s heartfelt attempt to woo his wife, and her rejection of him; and (b) the sanctity and permanence of the marriage covenant. Those items alone make the movie a good one to see before you get married.
Mrs. R wrote:
I went to see Fireproof yesterday afternoon by myself. The message of the movie was so encouraging to me. I personally thought that it was beautifully done and that this was the best acting I've ever seen by Kirk Cameron.... I would have gladly paid $20 instead of the $10 that I paid to see this movie in order to support these Christian filmmakers.
Alyss wrote:
The amazing message totally conquers any other silly audio/visual technicalities that even the most harsh moviegoer could possibly conjure up. To all the haters: listen to the dialogue, think of all the families/couples that you know whose marriages and lives could be saved if only they applied some of these concepts revealed in the movie.
Karen wrote:
My husband and I saw the movie yesterday. I thought it was refreshing to see people acting more closely to the real life persons in my life. I have friends like the nurses at the hospital, the parents were very much like mine, and the firemen reminded me of stories my dad tells from work. Too often the "good" actors in the movies portray people too perfect, too funny, too everything to be real. The message was good and I'm recommending it.
Lorraine wrote:
I just saw the movie today and it was fantastic!!
Kimberly wrote:
At a preview screening I attended, nearly every man in the building was sobbing or at least had tears. A full month later, all of us as wives can testify that we have been pampered beyond comprehension (big grin), which to me says it all. My hubby is a great guy anyway, but he has gone the extra mile after experiencing quite a bit of conviction watching Fireproof, and another couple I know who were (unbeknownst to us) having problems have experienced restoration and renewal they didn't think possible.
Carrie wrote:
I would say that this is way more than a movie. It's life-changing. For those who are married, aren't married, or are considering it as an option, I'd say see this movie. It will help you prevent a truck-load of pain. I cried at Facing the Giants, but this one had me shouting, clapping and booing too.
This final comment was submitted by Catherine, who hadn't yet seen the movie but was already benefiting from its messages powerfully told. She wrote:
My husband and I have been separated for 8 months. We started talking about the possibility of getting back together and making our family work about a month and a half ago. We decided that we DID want our marriage to work. The very next Sunday, our pastor announced that he was starting a month-long series on marriage based on the movie. God's timing amazes me!
Looking back at the last month... we have begun the process of not only putting our marriage back together... but making it FIREPROOF!
Those who've seen the movie have been deeply touched by it. And that is not a bad thing -- to be provoked toward godliness by a film.
Let me encourage those who haven't yet seen it not to knock it. Your uninformed ignorance may discourage someone from being blessed by this film.
As for me, if I can be a conduit of the Lord's blessing, how cool is that? So I say, unabashedly, "See this movie."
And then urge your church to follow the innovative, brave, trail-blazing ways of Sherwood Baptist Church ... by producing engaging, enjoyable, life-changing movies for the glory of God and the blessing of those for whom Christ died.
I think I've mentioned before how much I enjoy top 10 lists. And this one by Anthony Esolen from Mere Comments is no exception. (Though it's actually a top 20 list.) It's his personal observations about whom not to marry. He confesses they're a little "facetious" but you can tell he thinks they're true. Indeed, some are no-brainers, some are funny, and some are just plain ridiculous. Here's a sample of each:
The No-Brainer
4. Don't marry anybody who insists on a separate bank account, bed, bathroom, vacation, or zip code. It makes no sense to be one flesh and two wallets.
The Funny
7. Don't marry a woman who exercises so frequently that you cannot tell if she is a woman or a very strange looking 13-year-old boy. I'm going out on a line here, but the real purpose of the rule is to determine whether she will mind getting fat, as happens when you are going to have a child. In other words, don't marry a woman whom you cannot imagine having a child. Do not marry a woman who does not like children.
The Ridiculous
6. Don't marry a man who does not like dogs. Such men do not like children. Don't marry a man who does not like children. On the other hand, I have known at least one excellent man who thought he didn't like children, until he had some; seven, I think, at last count. Perhaps the rule may be rephrased: Don't marry a man whom you cannot imagine rolling on the ground in a wrestling hold, with a Labrador retriever or three children, or hollering on a ferris wheel, with a Labrador retriever or three children.
Number six is ridiculous because I love children, but not dogs. So much so, I'm adopting four from Ethiopia sometime in December, Lord willing. I just don't see the connection.
Which "rules" fit these categories for you?
A few weeks ago, I bought a new TV. My 19-inch and I were pretty happy together, but there were a few drawbacks. My house is never the place to watch movies with friends—even though I have a cozy TV room. And my college-aged roommate once blurted: "I hate our TV." (She was having a bad day.)
And so, I finally decided to upgrade. With the new TV came the hassle of dealing with the cable company for the right hook-ups. Of course, everything that could go wrong did, and as the cable representative became my new best friend, I found myself thinking, I shouldn't have to deal with this!
Finally, I asked a male friend to stop by after work to take a look at the connecting cables. Predictably, my roommate and I had hooked them up incorrectly. Problem solved.
Several of my single female friends have disclosed their own unwelcome hassles: spiders, car troubles, broken appliances. As single women, we've all had moments where we've had to ask others to bail us out. Author Stephanie Voiland asks: "Does Being Single Make Me High Maintenance?" For the second time in two days, I found myself staring at the contact list on my phone, trying to figure out who would be least inconvenienced by a call from a stranded motorist—or more accurately, a homebound motorist. Thankfully, I found someone who was willing to help me, and the repair was minor (my diagnosis was right: it wasn't the windshield wiper fluid). But mixed in with my gratitude at having wheels again was a certain sense of indebtedness. I couldn't shake my feeling of guilt that once again I'd needed to be bailed out.
I've come to realize that sometimes it's a blessing to others when you allow them to help you. Sure, it might be an inconvenience, but it gives them the opportunity to serve. And it's a two-way street: As I wrestle with my fear of being a burden, though, it occurs to me that maybe the very thing that makes me feel high maintenance—my single-woman status—might be what enables me to be there for my community in ways I wouldn't be able to otherwise. I may not be able to change my friends' tires for them, but I can go to their house at the last minute to watch their kids in an emergency. I can use my vacation days to help a nonprofit organization in a third-world country. I can get involved somewhere in the evening without fear of interfering with the family dinner.
Dependence is a driving force in the Body of Christ. It's the world that tells women they must be independent. Voiland concludes: So I suppose when it comes down to it, I am high maintenance. But then again, in one way or another, maybe we're all high maintenance. And perhaps that's not such a bad thing. In fact, that very well may be how God planned it all along, so we'd have to acknowledge our need for each other and our need to live interdependently. The apostle Paul puts it this way: "We are many parts of one body, and we all belong to each other" (Romans 12:5).
Neediness is good. Everyone is dependent on Christ for salvation, and He has designed us to be dependent on each other as well. So go ahead, let someone bail you out. It will be your turn, soon enough.
I'm sore today. As I mention on the front end of this week's show, I started a weightlifting program a couple months ago. It's been going well, though I just took a week off, and then resumed my workouts on Wednesday. Wednesday's lunges and squats stayed with me as though I had never done them before, and I'm finding it difficult to walk today. What is it about lunges and squats that is so unnatural? Is it because I'm accustomed to bending down only when it's to retrieve an Oreo from the floor (and then dust it off and pop it into my mouth)? Is it because no one can do these exercises without obsessing about the size of his/her backside?
The encouraging thing is that as I discuss this with the team, I quickly discover that I exercise more than all of them combined. They're all hung up on the pros and cons of their particular fitness equipment, which is incredibly sad given that we live in Colorado, a decidedly "outdoor" state. Can't anyone burn calories in the fresh mountain air? Apparently not, as Candice is pregnant and must be under supervision, Steve is afraid of running (literally) into a deer, and Motte refuses to exercise in front of people. Eish.
Facebook Nation -- 10:39
While exercise is a sobering topic, the team is much more willing to talk about living vicariously through Facebook. Motte needs Facebook friends, so I shamelessly plead with you to add him. We also muddle through our experiences with the various applications: quizzes, flair, drink orders, "give a gift that no one cares about" ... you know the drill. Finally, I put the real question on the table: are we way too up in one another's business through status updates and wall posts? Are any of us having real (or even private) conversations anymore? What's the weirdest thing you've seen posted? Maybe you posted it?
Brandon Heath: Not Who He Was -- 23:30
I'm going to give Brandon Heath an endorsement right here, because he was so fun and friendly when he joined me in the studio. And he told me his real name, which I'm pretty sure is a groundbreaking interview first. Take that, Barbara Walters. But in-between the chit-chat and the very obvious admiration he had for my interviewing skills, we actually get to talking about his music and his mission. And this dude has both. This week's music is provided by Brandon, so check it out!
This World Is Not My Home -- 50:51
John Thomas is back with the tale of a double-wide trailer. You heard me right. He is from Arkansas, after all. But in the process of upgrading to these accommodations, John learned about what's permanent, and what's definitely, well...not.
Money Madness -- 56:39
Fighting over money is the number one cause of divorce in America. But what if you're not married yet? This week's question addresses sharing financial burdens as a dating couple. Should bfs and gfs lend or give money to one another, especially if it's to bail the other out, or worse, to bail out their family and friends? Candice takes on the mighty dollar in this week's Inbox, and as always, prepares to ruffle some feathers.
It's a packed week, friends. I'll look forward to reading your comments as soon as I stretch my hamstrings and take some ibuprofen. Putting the bag of Oreos on the floor now....
It's stunning how many commenters are rooting for homosexual adoption. Not that I'm surprised by the show of support -- the culture we live in seems all for it. What's distressing is the effort by readers of the The Line, many who claim to be Christ followers, to justify their support as consistent with the message of "God's Love," Scripture, and presume to know "it's what God would want us to do."
The most common appeal is to "love." We're "unloving" if we try to deny anyone access to marriage, even a definition of marriage that's completely unlike what God made marriage to be. The only problem with this argument is that is totally ignores the definition of love. If you're going to talk about love and say it's what Jesus commanded of us, you have to stop and see what Jesus meant when he said "love."
John 14:15 says, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." Jesus came as a fulfillment of the law, not an abolition of it. (Matthew 5:17) To claim we should support things God Himself forbids, out of love, is popular these days, but it's not biblical; claiming it's "loving" doesn't make it so.
But even beyond Scripture, there are very good secular reasons -- removed from Scripture, faith and religion -- for opposing and fighting against the sweeping tide to redefine marriage and give parenting rights to a union that is, by it's nature, always sterile. J. Budziszewski's "So-Called Marriage" is a great place to start for anyone who's feeling a little fuzzy on this issue.
I may not post as often as some of the other Boundless Line regulars, but I try to check the site whenever possible throughout the day. With that in mind, I've noticed a rather troubling trend in the comments section.
Whether the topic is voting, adoption or texting while driving, there are more and more commenters these days who seem to acknowledge the "rightness" of a position right before proclaiming that they will likely continue to ignore said position. I'll call it the "Yeah, but ..." syndrome.
In other words, "Yeah, I know that God hates abortion, but I'd rather cast my vote this year based on No Child Left Behind ..."
Or, "Yeah, I agree that kids should have both a mother and father, but lots of important professional organizations endorse same-sex parenting ..."
Or even, "Yeah, it's obvious that texting while driving is extremely dangerous, but I don't plan on stopping ..."
Perhaps I'm just one of those old-school kids who watched the crash test dummies go flying through the air and henceforth concluded that seat belts were a pretty good idea. Similarly, I only have to read Jeremiah 32:35 once to comprehend that child sacrifice is detestable in the sight of God.
Of course, I've also managed to repeatedly disregard the biblical admonitions against lying, coveting and lusting in my heart. Simply put, I'd rather admit I'm a hapless sinner than casually justify behavior that flies in the face of Holy Scripture and common sense.
You might think I'm a hypocrite for even bringing this up. And you know what? You're absolutely right.
I can't believe I missed an important holiday yesterday: National Punctuation Day. I missed the joy of celebrating the semicolon, congratulating the colon, exclaiming against the exclamation mark, and emphasizing the proper use of the em dash.
I know, it sounds like a crashing bore to a lot of people. But I've spent a large part of my 20-plus years in journalism as a copy editor. The copy editor is a nitpicker, a language curmudgeon. His motto: Go ahead and call me anal-retentive — just make sure you hyphenate it.
He's the guy who agonizes over punctuation, the guy who knows the difference between immanent and imminent and brazier and brassiere. (And those aren't arbitrary examples: twice in the past month I’ve seen those words mixed up in print, resulting in hilarious unintended meanings.) He's the guy who knows that a viscous criminal is no threat, but a vicious one is. He's the unsung hero who makes other writers look good — and usually kills without mercy hoary clichés such as "unsung hero."
So what's the big deal? Well, a misplaced comma in a contract cost a Canadian company $2.13 million. The Strategic Arms Limitations Talks between the Soviet Union and the United States were held up for weeks over a comma — basically, whether a definition of a certain weapons systems was restrictive or nonrestrictive. (To our shame, the Russian-speaking negotiators understood the distinction in English better than the Americans did.)
It's especially perilous to write about the importance of punctuation and mess up in the process, as one hapless PR person recently did. And an incorrectly punctuated love letter could get you in serious trouble.
A few of my peeves, pet or otherwise:
The mistaken belief that quotation marks add emphasis to a word: No, quotation marks are used to indicate quoted material, to introduce an unfamiliar term, or to indicate ironic usage.
Right: Mayor Jones was seen in town with his beautiful wife.
Wrong: Mayor Jones was seen in town with his "beautiful" wife.
An overuse of em dashes: The em dash is a useful piece of punctuation, but it is not interchangeable with commas or parentheses. In fact, I see way too many writers who seem to have set their em-dash function on random — not that they notice.
The improper use of semicolons: Like the em dash, the semicolon is a useful tool when used correctly. Unfortunately, it's often used incorrectly or not used where it should be. The proper use of the semicolon indicates a subtlety of thought and an elegance of expression. In fact, during the Son of Sam murder spree in the late '70s, some speculated that the murderer must be a writer because of his proper use of semicolons in the taunting notes he sent to police. Newspaper columnist Jimmy Breslin famously said, "He's the only murderer I know who can wield a semicolon as well as he can a revolver."
Some have mocked the semicolon. Kurt Vonnegut once told a university audience that "all [semicolons] do is show that you've been to college." And New York mayor Fiorello LaGuardia's favorite put-down for overeducated bureaucrats was "semicolon boy." Mock if you must, but the semicolon is really more like an obscure implement in your toolbox; you might not use it often, but it’s the perfect tool when you need it.
I could go on, but we're allowed only a certain number of words per post. If you enjoy the nitty-gritty of grammar and punctuation or want to know what all the fuss is about, I highly recommend Lynne Truss' wonderful book Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. (Her book will explain why I didn't set off the title with commas.)
If you want to improve your grammar and punctuation, there's always the indispensable The Elements of Style or its droll and useful follow-up, The Elephants of Style by fellow copy editor Bill Walsh. Hat tip also to Bill for the title to this post. (I profiled Bill for Writer's Digest several years ago.) Two other books I find useful are Fowler’s Modern English Usage and Modern American Usage. (Both books are out of print but can be found on eBay and other sites.)
Last night we watched the movie for the second time. And though we tried to engage with the story, a number of production "artifacts" were a bit distracting.
On numerous occasions, I noticed errors of "continuity" -- within the same scene, for example, when a camera angle changed, actors had magically changed position. That can be kind of jarring, but I did my best not to let that keep me from enjoying the film.
And there were problems with the audio. Dialog would cut off abruptly, though the ambient sound of a hallway or chamber would remain. The very quality of audio was less than I've come to expect from modern movies. Maybe they were using microphones developed in the 1930s.
The music wasn't what I'd consider "distracting," but don't look for the soundtrack in a Wal-mart near you. Mediocre, to be blunt.
The quality of the actual picture on the screen, though pretty good considering the equipment used to film the movie, left something to be desired. I noticed some "noise" throughout the film, but again, I tried not to let that derail my engagement with the story.
And the movie ended too abruptly. Just as the action climaxed, before any loose ends could be satisfactorily resolved, the closing credits began scrolling up the screen. What's with that? Hm. Perhaps the director just figured that'd be the best way to make the audience wrestle with what they'd just witnessed.
The story was what kept our attention. The theme was a lofty one, one that everyone can relate to. We also loved seeing character development -- the leading lady whose heart was softened by the leading man's pursuit of admirable ideals, the senator who wrestled with his conscience, which finally got the best of him.
Senator? Oh, right. The film we watched last night was "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," Frank Capra's classic featuring Jimmy Stewart, Claude Rains (who played Captain Renault in Casablanca), and Jean Arthur.
You know what? Despite the film's "poor production values," I found my heart elevated by the story. I adjusted my expectations based on the limitations placed on the film crew because of the available expertise and technology, and was able to engage the story to my benefit.
Maybe a few more of us could hold such a reasonable and humble attitude toward "Fireproof." Just as I was encouraged by Capra's "Mr. Smith," they will find themselves appreciating "Fireproof" who take into account the innate limitations imposed on those who brought us "Fireproof."
Just yesterday I was asking Steve, "do you understand this financial crisis?"
It wasn't a very long conversation as I was in the middle of a typically busy day of caring for the kids, who tend to interrupt our every attempt at in-depth conversation, and Steve was equally busy working to be sure we have the money at the end of the month to pay all our bills. You know, just basic adult responsibility stuff.
News coming out of Wall Street and Congress all seems too complicated to really comprehend. Good thing the experts are in charge to clean up this mess! But then this morning, I saw this very helpful summation of what happened. From Tony Woodlief's Sand in the Gears blog:
For those of you who lack the advanced financial expertise necessary to decipher news surrounding the current mess, I’ve interviewed an expert to help us make sense of the headlines.
Q: How did we get into this mess?
A: Two entities created and overseen by Congress, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, flooded the mortgage market with cheap, taxpayer-backed money. Plus millions of Americans accepted the crazy idea that it’s okay to finance more house than you can really afford, using 95/5 and even 99/1 mortgages. It was a toxic mix of incompetence and greed.
Q: Doesn’t Wall Street have some culpability here?
A: Didn’t you hear that part about incompetence and greed? Besides, “Wall Street” is an abstraction. It’s kind of like The Force in Star Wars, or . . .
Q: Congressional oversight?
A: Exactly.
Q: What’s the government’s plan to fix this mess?
A: They’re going to buy all the troubled assets, and then create lots of rules that give them more authority to oversee financial institutions.
Q: You mean oversight like the kind that encouraged Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to back millions of housing equivalents of the Bridge to Nowhere?
A: You got it.
Q: How does the average American get in on this “buying of troubled assets” deal?
A: It’s simple: you either need to be the overpaid CEO of a firm that stupidly overleveraged itself in marginal mortgages and their derivatives, or one of those home speculators who bought three houses in Florida hoping to flip them, and is now claiming to have been misled, abused, etc.
Q: What about those of us who only bought a house we could afford, and have been working diligently to make payments?
A: Well, you’ll have to work a little harder to bail out the rest of us.
Q: It sounds like we’re rewarding the guilty and punishing the innocent.
A: Welcome to Washington.
We shouldn't be surprised. Even the founders knew such corruption was not only possible, but likely. As far back as 1897, we had this warning:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage. -- Alexander Tyler (A Scottish professor)
And even before that, Thomas Paine said:
If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute. -- Rights of Man, 1791
A few months ago, the subtitle of an MSN article caught my attention: "Today's talented, ambitious women are staying single in droves. Are they too busy, too picky or — horrors — too awesome?"
My friend, a more-than-usually accomplished single woman, had sent me the article, which considers whether women can be "too successful for a mate." One issue discussed in the article is earning power: It's the dirty little secret of the battle for gender equality. It's not that men still don't believe women are equally capable, they just have a hard time visualizing their role in a relationship when the woman outranks them on all the measures they use to gauge their own success. It's a little sad for the men, really. It also makes it very difficult for these power chicks to find a partner.
That makes sense. After all, God has designed males and females with distinct roles. And traditionally, men have been the protectors and providers. But with the average marrying age hovering in the late 20s, women now have some gap years where they must figure out how to pay the bills. And if they happen to succeed in their chosen professions, they may be perceived by men as "power chicks."
Conversely a woman may feel pressure to choose a partner who is even more successful than herself — an expectation that may eliminate potentially great matches. The author — a successful career woman herself — explains how she overcame this urge: I abandoned the expectation of many "must-have" items in my years of dating before I met my husband. It's not that I couldn't find a man who possessed the right qualities, but it turned out they were irrelevant to a happy relationship. Was it crucial that my husband have a master's degree? No. Would it be a deal-breaker if he didn't love mountain biking as much as I do? No.
In the end, common values and goals, generosity, intelligence, respect, a warped sense of humor and a mutual attraction floated to the top of the list. Nearly everything else on that list was negotiable, including income and educational attainment.
I touched on this in "My Single Identity Baggage." I can be a little prideful when I look at my bags, and consider them too seriously when looking for a match. In the end, my spouse and I will probably have similarities, but he may not hold all the bags I think he should (and he may not be as impressed with some of my bags as I think he should).
In other words, don't let your level of success (or someone else's) dominate your approach to relationships. Success comes from the Lord, and the world's definition of it is vastly different from God's. So no, I don't believe you can be too successful for a mate. However, you may miss a potentially successful relationship if you overvalue achievement.
I attended a special screening of the movie Fireproof a couple of months ago and one thing stands out: Kirk Cameron made me tear-up ... twice! [Spoiler Warning] They were scenes of true repentance expertly acted by Cameron. That's right, expertly acted by Kirk Cameron, people!
As for the merits of the movie overall, Plugged In Online's review nails it, particularly this portion: You might notice that some of the lines in Fireproof feel a little wooden. And you might notice that the script indulges more dialogue (most of it spiritual) than you're used to hearing in movies about firemen. But the honest truth is that you don't really care by the time the credits roll, because you're too busy feeling your own feelings and thinking your own thoughts about your own relationships. This is the kind of movie that succeeds, sometimes despite itself, because it does a superlative job of digging into serious issues that so deeply affect so many of us every day.
It's true. That's why we're recommending it to our friends and even offering babysitting to some so they'll go and see it.
Men with traditional gender role attitudes earn more money than just about everybody else. Or, at least, that's what a study reported yesterday says.
The study tracked over 12,000 people for 25 years and found that men with a "traditional gender role orientation" make a lot more money than: men with an "egalitarian gender role orientation" ($11,930 more, to be precise), egalitarian working women ($13,352 more) and traditional working women ($14,404 more).
In an MSNBC article, one of the study's authors, Beth Livingston, said that she was shocked by the results: "We actually thought maybe men with traditional attitudes work in more complex jobs that pay more or select higher-paying occupations," she said. "Regardless of the jobs people chose, or how long they worked at them, there was still a significant effect of gender role attitudes on income."
Now, there's a lot to unpack in this study. But I was most intrigued by the two possible explanations that the authors offered for their results. They posited that traditional men might make higher salaries because:
- They negotiate much harder for better salaries
- Employers discriminate against women and egalitarian men.
Interesting. From my own family's experience, there may be truth in the first suggestion. I wouldn't be surprised if my husband was quite tenacious about salary negotiations (although I don't think Ted thinks I'm some cupcake either). He's responsible to provide. He knows it. He does it.
Are egalitarian men and all women discriminated against? Well, the MSNBC article seems to accept that premise, calling egalitarian men "victims" and calling everybody but traditional men "disadvantaged groups."
But I think there are two possibilities (that probably work together) that the authors didn't consider.
Let's call the first the "Wolves at Your Door" idea. What if (political correctness police, arrest me now) it's not just that traditional men negotiate for higher salaries, but that they actually earn them? What if the responsibility to solely provide for a family causes you to work harder and smarter? Don't get me wrong. My husband is an amazing man. Very smart. Works hard. Yeah, I'll say it, he's awesome. But I wouldn't be surprised if the knowledge that he has three of us at home depending on him didn't give him a serious little kick in the pants every now and then.
Let's call the second the "We're a Team" idea. As my husband and I discussed this study, we came to this conclusion: My husband's higher salary reflects not only his work, but mine as well. By caring for our home and family, I relieve my husband of stress and also give him time. He can concentrate fully on work during the work day (and, sometimes, not during the work day) because I've got the other bases covered -- and he knows it. There is no divided loyalty in our household. We know which job provides the bread. And both of us, he and I, make sure that bread is buttered.
And then there's that pesky, but persistent, idea that most women with children simply do not want to work full-time outside the home.
What do you think? Agree with the study's authors? Agree with me? Or have your own ideas?
Candice's post about gay marriage raised a lot of good points, and it's especially powerful since it's based on the thoughts of someone who would not normally be considered an opponent of same-sex marriage. It brought to mind an excellent article I read several years ago that gives another reason to oppose homosexual marriage: It ultimately harms women.
Sounds like a stretch, but Sam Schulman, writing in the November 2003 issue of Commentary magazine, lays out a convincing case in an article titled "Gay Marriage—and Marriage."
Here's Schulman: Marriage can only concern my connection to a woman (and not to a man) because ... marriage is an institution that is built around female sexuality and female procreativity. (The very word "marriage" comes from the Latin word for mother, mater.) It exists for the gathering-in of a woman's sexuality under the protective net of the human or divine order, or both. This was so in the past and it is so even now, in our supposedly liberated times, when a woman who is in a sexual relationship without being married is, and is perceived to be, in a different state of being (not just a different legal state) from a woman who is married. …
Note, by the way, that it is not the word marriage that comes from the Latin mater, but rather matrimony. A semantic quibble, yes, but one that some have used to try to debunk Schulman’s entire argument.
He goes on to say, A woman can control who is the father of her children only insofar as there is a civil and private order that protects her from rape; marriage is the bulwark of that order. ... For a woman, the fundamental advantage of marriage is thus not to regulate her husband but to empower herself—to regulate who has access to her person, and to marshal the resources of her husband and of the wider community to help her raise her children. …
Schulman adds, Because marriage is an arrangement built around female sexuality, because the institution has to do with women far more than it has to do with men, women will be the victims of its destruction. Those analysts who have focused on how children will suffer from the legalization of gay marriage are undoubtedly correct—but this will not be the first time that social developments perceived as advances for one group or another have harmed children. After all, the two most important (if effortless) achievements of the women's movement of the late 1960's were the right to abort and the right—in some social classes, the commandment—to join the professional workforce, both manifestly harmful to the interests of children.
And Schulman’s clincher: With the success of the gay-liberation movement, it is women themselves, all women, who will be hurt. The reason is that gay marriage takes something that belongs essentially to women, is crucial to their very freedom, and empties it of meaning.
In other words, marriage is not primarily about the welfare of children, although that is an important purpose of the institution. Marriage is also not necessarily about feelings of love, although feelings of love often accompany marriage. And it is not about equal rights to tax breaks, hospital visitation and all the other things we're told are an essential element to marriage. It is, in short, about the protection of women. Because this point is sometimes abused is no argument against the point itself.
In the end, Schulman argues, society has no interest in whether homosexual couplings succeed or fail, since they have no bearing on the health of society. Therefore, society should not instill its blessing (religious or secular) on such partnerships.
But society has a tremendous interest in whether heterosexual marriages succeed, and therefore society is justified in giving benefits to and protecting the institution and forbidding anything that would render it moot.
I think I may be a text-aholic.
Last week I discovered that in three days I had sent and received more than 200 text messages. That's too many! If you think that's bad (and maybe you don't because you're a text-aholic, too), consider the texting habits of the average American teen. According to Nielsen, Americans 13 to 17 years old send and receive an average of 1,742 text messages a month.
According to an article in the New York Times, this rise in text messaging is leading to serious accidents: Though there are no official casualty statistics, there is much anecdotal evidence that the number of fatal accidents stemming from texting while driving, crossing the street or engaging in other activities is on the rise.
In the latest backlash against text-messaging, the California Public Utilities Commission announced an emergency measure on Thursday temporarily banning the use of all mobile devices by anyone at the controls of a moving train.
The ban was adopted after federal investigators announced that they were looking at the role that a train engineer's text-messaging might have played here last week in the country's most deadly commuter rail accident in four decades.
Sending and receiving text messages seems so harmless (many teens claim they can do it blindfolded), but the fact is that it's distracting. It's also growing in popularity: In June, 75 billion text messages were sent in the United States, compared with 7.2 billion in June 2005, according to CTIA — the Wireless Association, the leading industry trade group.
And millions (at least) of those text messages are created while someone is behind the wheel. A nationwide insurance survey of 1,503 drivers found that nearly 40 percent of those respondents from 16 to 30 years old said they text while driving. That's you, Boundless readers. I've done it, but I'm going to stop. It's not worth hurting someone. "The act of texting automatically removes 10 I.Q. points," said Paul Saffo, a technology trend forecaster in Silicon Valley. "The truth of the matter is there are hobbies that are incompatible. You don't want to do mushroom-hunting and bird-watching at the same time, and it is the same with texting and other activities. We have all seen people walk into parking meters or walk into traffic and seem startled by oncoming cars."
 One of my favorite scenes in the movie Contact is when Jodie Foster's character Ellie Arroway travels through the cosmos and witnesses a "celestial event." She has no words to describe the overwhelming beauty. Through joyous laughter and tears she can only whisper, "I had no idea. I had no idea. I had no idea."
You're probably thinking, What's up with the nerdy movie reference? Well, I always remember the "I had no idea" utterances when I run across images of the cosmos such as these. And I think it's a perfect picture of someone being undone by the glory of God, whether they know it or not.
Through technological advances, it seems that God is allowing this generation to see his glory in ways that previous ones could only have imagined. And I'm excited to see if there's more glimpses he'll allow. Though we don't really need them. After all, King David didn't need the Hubble telescope to know that "the heavens declare the glory of God."
The reverse is true too. Such awe-inspiring images, in-and-of themselves, do not have the power to change hearts. Think of renowned astronomer Carl Sagan who wrote the novel Contact.
Sadly, I can't help but wonder if Dr. Sagan, undone at meeting his maker on December 20, 1996, uttered the phrase "I had no idea. I had no idea. I had no idea."
HT: Justin Taylor
David Blankenhorn is a self-described liberal Democrat who writes in defense of marriage and fatherhood. Monday he explains his opposition to same-sex marriage in the Los Angeles Times.
In "Protecting marriage to protect children" he writes that we've come to the place culturally where we think marriage is: ... simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.
After a year of studying the history and anthropology of marriage, he found what marriage really is to be something quite different: In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.
He continues: Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
This isn't some wacky ideological statement. Prior to becoming politically incorrect to say so experts agreed -- and scientific research supported -- the notion that children raised by their biological parents fared best. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."
All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.
Even the United Nations affirmed this finding: ... children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?
What about the same-sex couple wanting to adopt? Blankenhorn writes, Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!
What's at stake, in the same-sex marriage debate being waged in the courts and through state ballot initiatives, is the well-being of children. Blankenhorn asks pointedly, Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child is best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.
Of course you'd expect The Line to say marriage is for making babies and same-sex marriage is a bad idea all around (we have firm biblical ground to stand on). But when a liberal like Blankenhorn can see clearly enough analyze what's really at stake, and arrive at the same conclusion for purely scientific and sociological reasons, shouldn't we all stop long enough to at least consider the evidence? The stakes indeed are high. He concludes: ... changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.
Dennis Prager spoke at Focus on the Family last Friday. One of the points he made was that the emphasis of God's work on the second day of creation was in separating. He explained that in the Hebrew, the word for "separate" is the same as the word for "holy." That's why holiness has historically had a context of being set apart and distinct.
Just before going to hear Prager speak, I read a new article in Christianity Today by Marcy Hintz called Choosing Celibacy. That article made an interesting point about how Christian singles can be separate or set apart. Too often, the books and articles I read about Christian singleness seem to seek some kind of hybrid between the single culture we know today and the concepts Paul wrote about two thousand years ago to the church in Corinth.
Unfortunately, those hybrids often seem to err more on the side of accommodating the single culture we know than they do on wrestling with the implications of the fully dedicated celibate life that Paul describes in the book of Corinthians. As a result, we now have a Christian subculture of Paul (and Pauline) the Playboys who wrap their singleness in Paul's statement "it's better not to marry," but then fail to live out the kind of "dedicated devotion" that would distinguish them from their secular peers.
Hintz appears to be seeking a more distinctive life as a Christian single. She writes: Why not call for a vowed, vocational commitment to the church? What would change in our culture of singleness if the church were to reclaim a tradition that reinvokes the memory that we live in the time between the gospel's first announcement and its final fulfillment—a time in which marriage is celebrated, but celibacy is held out as a radical sign of fidelity to Christ and his body?
...
Though some churches may flinch from ordaining a celibate vow, we might still use the word celibacy to rightly honor and rightly name the countercultural life to which singles are called. In doing so, we encourage more than just abstinence from sex. We bless the single vocation. We recall the church's history and remember our true family. We christen singles as called-out ones, with familial gifts that amplify the church and her outward-looking mission.
The valuable point Hintz stirs up is that the Protestant community does not provide a formal path for the kind of dedicated and set apart single living that Paul describes. That's of great disadvantage for men and women who truly feel called to celibacy. It's also a reminder that celibacy is quite different from just being single. When Paul said "I wish you were as I am," he meant much more than just his marital status. He meant a life entirely distinct and set apart from the culture of his day for God's service.
Hintz hints, however, at the difficulty she has faced in promoting celibacy as way for Christian singles to be set apart: Midway through the discussion series, I met one of my best single friends for lunch. After effusing for a half-hour on the overall energy of the class, I turned to her and asked, "How do you think about your singleness?"
My friend is not passive. She's an artist, she's a leader, and her eyes wear the look of someone who sees into the world with meaning. But on this occasion, her eyes looked down. When she raised them, they were skimmed with tears. "I want to be married," she said, and then looked down again.
I appreciate that Hintz included this anecdote because it's a reminder that many men and women who are single do not feel called to celibacy and would very much like to be married. For Christians who know they should be set apart but believe they are called to marriage, the more helpful context is the one Hintz touches on later in the article when she writes, "While chastity binds married couples to a shared intimacy and singles to refrain from sex, both callings are self-sacrificing as well as self-giving, and both rise from an engagement of love and of faith."
"Chastity" is a calling for both the Christian single who will eventually marry and the one who vows to forgo the blessings of Christian marriage for undivided devotion to God in celibacy. This distinction is key because it's a reminder that while all Christian singles are called to be distinctly set apart from the world, only a few are called to sacrifice marriage permanently as a demonstration of that holy distinction.
What were you doing ten years ago? I asked myself this question yesterday, and realized that ten years ago, I was in-between jobs, living with my parents and working as a temp for a hotel management company. Side note: This was one of the many temp jobs I held where the execs would look me in the eye and speak to me slowly and deliberately as though the chance of me comprehending their words was incredibly slim. Hello, demeaning. "Yes, sir, I'm pretty sure I know how to work the copy machine, and miraculously, I have a working knowledge of the English language to boot!" Of course then there were those who erred on the opposite side of common sense, like the bank president who gave me the key to the bank vault my first day on the job.
Ten years ago a little webzine called Boundless made its way into the world. I did not read it. I'm not sure I even knew about it (probably because I was living with my parents and working as a temp for a hotel management company). I was generally clueless about life -- especially mine.
Thank goodness things have changed. I now live on my own, even though my mom calls often with unsolicited advice and anecdotes (she left me a lengthy voicemail the other day rhapsodizing about a new bra she purchased). I have a job, and only a few of my coworkers talk down to me, to which I simply reply, "I don't like you." I'm a bit more aware of my life and where it's headed. And I read Boundless. Ten years has worked wonders. Life is good.
Boundless Begins -- 00:00
We kick off this week's show with a special anniversary greeting from Someone Important. In fact, we have a few well-wishers throughout the episode, so heads up. Immediately following, Steve and Candice take us back to the early days of Boundless, including their fight for Boundless' name in a historic boardroom showdown. Thank goodness Candice wore her red power-jacket, or today you could be getting relationship and career advice from "The Ladybug Club" or "Single Saints" or some other totally non-cool entity. But ten years have brought a lot of growth and success, and in this segment we have fun telling the story of how we got here.
Professor Theophilus -- 19:02
Yes, he really exists. In this unique interview, Candice sits down with J. Budziszewski, aka Professor Theophilus, to reminisce about the early days of Boundless, when J-Bud offered straight-shot advice to readers. He tells us which questions surprised him most, and what encourages and discourages him about young adults today. Check the archives for some of his best advice and articles.
I Have a Dream -- 36:21
Why did Steve and Candice decide to start Boundless? Stick with Steve as he identifies with Lisa from The Simpsons in wrestling with a dream and taking on the daunting task of making it happen.
Thanks for the Memories -- 40:42
You have spoken! In this special edition of the Boundless Inbox, we play some of your greetings and testimonials in celebration of Boundless' 10th Anniversary. We got a little weepy listening to some of them. Keep the messages coming, and don't forget to submit your questions and concerns, too.
I don't know about you, but I personally have learned a ton from Boundless. I can honestly say that I am a different person for having read the articles, participated in the blog discussions, and "lived" in and through the podcasts. What's your story? How are you different from who you were ten years ago, and has Boundless helped shape your thoughts and actions in any way?
When I was in graduate school, my professor gave a lecture about how vulnerable to totalitarian control people are when they believe in magic. Superstitious people are more likely to trust in corrupt governments that promise them protection, even at the price of their own freedom. It was a provocative idea then, even if it did seem a bit far fetched.
But it all came back to me today with clarity reading about how similarly gullible the irreligious (read: atheists) are. In "Look Who's Irrational Now," Mollie Ziegler Hemingway writes in the Wall Street Journal that "Atheists are more likely to believe in Bigfoot." But that's not all. They're also more open to dreams as prophecy, Atlantis, haunted houses and the Loch Ness Monster. More open than whom? Than "people who attend a house of worship more than once a week."
It seems believers in the God of the Bible are more grounded in what's real. According to Hemingway, "The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened, beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us."
Drawing on the findings of Baylor University's study, "What Americans Really Believe," she notes that "traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology." The study also found that "members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians."
If ever there were a time in history when we need to be discerning and not easily sucked into irrational thinking, it's now. And it's the committed Christians who are in the best position to think clearly.
Hemingway ends her column with this from G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown: It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense, and can't see things as they are.
My blog about bad words and euphemisms garnered some interesting responses, and it got me to thinking about how we can become overly sensitive to perceived bad words or insulting words -- to the point of silliness.
You might not have known that some Web sites have built-in filters that automatically change potentially offensive words into preferred euphemisms. The results can be hilarious. The title of this blog is what would happen to a news story about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln were it to go through a poorly written filter. The three-letter word that crudely refers to the gluteus maximus is automatically changed to the supposedly less offensive butt. (And how many young boys in Sunday school have not snickered behind their hands while reading the King James Version of the Bible with all its references to said three-letter word?)
The larger point: why is the three-letter word impolite in public but the four-letter synonym not? In a certain context, they both mean the same thing.
This is not just a theoretical mistake, either. One Web site set its filters to automatically change the word gay, which it deems a distasteful euphemism, into the more clinical homosexual. This was the result in a story about U.S. Olympic sprinter Tyson Gay.
It doesn't take automatic filters, by the way. Cluelessness works pretty well, too. In the early '90s the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum was putting together an exhibit on the Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in World War II. Veterans groups were upset because the exhibit was turning into a politically correct rant against all the supposed sins of the U.S. while ignoring the fact that Japan started the war and committed many atrocities. A historically ignorant headline writer, perhaps needing to stretch a line, wrote "Veterans Groups Upset Over Enola Homosexual Exhibit."
Such cluelessness seems to be in copious supply in politics. There's the classic case (or would that be clbuttic case?) of the aide to Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams being forced to resign for using the word niggardly with regard to the city budget. Never mind that he was right. It was ignorance -- and cowardice from those who knew better -- that forced the man from his job.
And just recently a Dallas County bureaucrat took offense at a colleague's use of the scientific metaphor black hole to describe a county agency where paperwork went in and never came out.
Yes, there are bad words that should not be used. There are euphemisms for many of these words, and sometimes people don't realize they’re euphemizing. And then there are some words that aren't really bad, but overly sensitive or plain ignorant people think they are. Such fussbudgetry degrades our public discourse. It communicates an image of Christians as nothing but legalistic prudes who go out of their way to find offense and smothers the gospel of grace.
* Postscript: In my previous post some people asked if there's a good alternative to express pain, dismay or anger. Where I used to live in Africa the locals had an expression, ai-yo, that is sort of a combination of oh no and I can’t believe I just did that. I unconsciously absorbed the word while living there, and 30 years later I still find myself using it, often to quizzical stares from those who hear me. Letters on a computer screen cannot communicate the musical lilt to the pronunciation of the word, but I wonder if that gentle, lyrical self-rebuke helps calm the user. After all, so many of our curses are hard and percussive, which maybe adds to our anger. Just a thought.
Yes, I remember it well.
I think back 10 years ago, to the early days of Boundless, when it was only an idea, a concept, a way to reach a somewhat neglected audience. Focus has long published magazines for teens, but back then there was nothing specifically designed to reach a college-age audience, an audience that faces frequent relocation, uncertainty about the future and an almost constant stream of challenges to their worldview and faith.
And what better way to reach this audience than an online magazine -- a Webzine, if you will?
But what to call it? Almost from the beginning, it seemed like the right name was vital. I remember listening to Steve and Candice Watters -- mostly Candice -- brainstorming ideas. I had known her less than a year at that point, and think we'd both agree that we didn't always agree. In fact, I think it's safe to say that we debated quite a bit. More like a lot. OK, almost all the time. But we've both mellowed a bit since then, and I think her early passion had a lot to do with Boundless' success.
Now back to the name. I remember Candice asking for suggestions, because she wanted just the right title. Since I had no particular stake in this new venture, I don't recall spending a whole lot of time thinking about it, but I do remember coming up with something. To be honest, I thought it was really pretty good. It was multi-faceted, not too cliché, but not too esoteric, either. I mentioned it to Candice, and I seem to remember that she liked it. Not as much as me, mind you, but she was considering it.
Of course, soon after that I heard the name Boundless. I wasn't ready to admit that it was better than my idea, at least not immediately, but I recognized right away that it was pretty good. A publication without binding, without boundaries ... yeah, that just might appeal to a college audience.
Since that time, I've watched Boundless shift and change and grow. I watched Candice shift and change and grow. (I also saw her fall asleep at her desk once, but she'll surely disagree and say she was just "resting her eyes.") I watched as Candice and Steve started a family and Matt took over as editor. I watched the succession of editors -- from Matt to Blake then back to Matt then back to Candice and finally to Ted. I also watched as the Boundless audience shifted and changed and grew. Older, mostly, as countless Boundless readers have graduated and married and started families of their own; but there are plenty of new, younger readers discovering the Webzine all the time.
Perhaps my favorite Boundless memory is the appearance of an ambitious piece of fiction called "I Will Be Free." I had worked with the author for months, acquiring and editing the short story for a different magazine, but in the end it really wasn't a great fit for that publication. That's when Candice stepped in. She offered to run the story in Boundless. It was the Webzine's first foray into fiction, and while it didn't exactly start a trend, I still smile whenever I read it. (Talk about how times have changed -- it's interesting to see how much the Boundless design has changed since the story appeared.)
Oh, and as for my original suggestion for naming this new Webzine? I can't even remember it now.
Boundless it is.
A couple of days ago Josh Harris published correspondence between himself and a couple pursuing membership in his church who were "taken aback" by a sermon titled "Don't Waste Your Vote." In short, the couple didn't like the emphasis on abortion and lack thereof on other issues like the environment.
Here's a portion of Josh's response: We believe our role as pastors is to speak clearly to those areas that God's word clearly addresses. When it comes to other areas where there is freedom in Scripture to hold different views, we don't want to pretend that our viewpoint ... holds some sort of special authority. So for example, I think the issue of the environment is very important. But I can't say that God's word speaks to a specific policy or political platform. But I can say that God's word condemns the taking of innocent human life. And because of that, I think I have the responsibility to speak to it very clearly.
My concern for my own heart in this issue (and my concern for you and others) is that we would grow weary of the issue of abortion and stop thinking biblically about it. But if we were looking back on other issues in our nation's history—the issue of slavery for example—I think we could more clearly see that regardless of other important issues of the day, that one issue should rise above others in its priority. I wonder if we would fault the Christian abolitionists of the past for being "one issue" voters on that topic. Or Christians who stood for civil rights in the 1960s. John Piper has stated this view much better than me in an article entitled "One Issue Politics."
The link is to a John Piper article explaining how a single-issue can determine who not to vote for. No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.
... You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him—except that child-killing is more serious than those.
I thought I'd throw in one more single-issue voting perspective for good measure from long-time Boundless contributor Roberto Rivera y Carlo. Unfortunately, being free to pick and choose is how the media and some other Christians have interpreted the idea. In a recent interview in BeliefNet, Tony Campolo — probably the best-known evangelical "progressive" — complained about how evangelicalism had been "hijacked" by the president's party. Campolo said that "Christians need to be considering other issues beside abortion" and, offered, as examples of "other issues," the most recent round of tax cuts and cuts in the "No Child Left Behind" program.
Of course, Christians need to consider issues besides abortion. And I also have misgivings about the tax cuts. Still, none of this justifies voting for a "pro-choice" candidate. Being alive, even if you're hungry and have a nuke pointed at your head, is infinitely preferable to being killed in utero. Even if you don't believe in the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, you have to at least allow for the possibility that the hungry person with a nuke pointed at his head might eventually better his situation. The same can't be said about the aborted child.
So there you have it. Three perspectives on why the issue of abortion should be paramount when deciding who to vote for. Josh Harris believes it's because God's word is clear on abortion in a way that it isn't on other policy issues. John Piper thinks that endorsing "the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office." And Roberto Rivera believes it's because a "hungry person with a nuke pointed at his head" is in better shape than a dead person.
What do you believe?
 Today Candice reflects on 10 years of Boundless. She writes:
It's impossible to know at the start of a venture — whether a new Web site, a new job, a new life post-graduation, a new relationship — what twists and turns a decade will bring. Even bad news can turn out to be good.
As Candice's article proves, Boundless has turned out to be good for many readers—including me. Yesterday, I wrote up my own reflections on my Boundless journey: I had been a Boundless reader for two years before I submitted my first article. I was a children's magazine editor, but I considered so many of those early writers brilliant—J.P. Moreland, Jenny Schroedel, J. Budziszewski (What's with the J names?)—and felt entirely out of my league. During that time, Matt Kaufman and Candice Watters served as editors.
The fall of 2004, I made a personally painful discovery: this would be the first Christmas since I moved away from home, that there would not be a "Lord of the Rings" movie coming out. I had come to depend on that wonderful tradition as something to look forward to each year. I wondered if other twenty-somethings were grieving as I was. So I wrote the article "Surviving Christmas Without the Lord of the Rings" and e-mailed it to Candice.
I didn't hear back and figured my piece hadn't made the cut. Then, two weeks before Christmas, I received an e-mail from Candice saying that my article had been lost in the shuffle, but that she wanted to publish it the next week! I was thrilled. Candice wrote: "I loved it! Your family reminds me a lot of mine."
After that I began submitting an occasional article as the inspiration came. Then, in late 2006, Ted Slater asked if I would write a monthly article for Boundless. From my very first introduction to Boundless to my present involvement with it, I have been utterly impressed with the quality, sincerity, and relevancy, with which it operates.
Boundless is a lifeline for many single young adults who are dealing with the challenges of their twenties and thirties—loneliness, career decisions, church involvement, relationships and marriage. I can say from personal experience that Boundless offers sound biblical guidance for a generation prone to drift. And I feel privileged to be a part of it.
Candice writes: What does God have in store for your next 10 years? As our past decade has reminded us, every year matters. How you live each moment matters. The more intentional you are with your money, relationships, community, time and talents, the more confident you can be that you're on a good path. And if you're living faithfully, you can trust God for the rest.
Boundless has been faithful. Let's celebrate what God has done!
I think I need to take a deep breath.
First, my Congress and President give $300 billion dollars to refinance loans for struggling homeowners. It sounds benevolent. But I 'm still having bad dreams of my entire hard-earned tax check going straight in the pockets of those clueless "first time" condo flippers on TV and those acquaintances who "stretched" for a mortgage they knew (or should have known) they couldn't afford.
Why is it that politicians who have worked tirelessly to lower lending standards in the name of "promoting home ownership" now seem shocked that lending standards are so low? Could it be that our quasi-obsession with American home ownership may have contributed to our current situation?
Then, the government rescues (or was that a takeover?) the mortgage industry. Then, one well-known financial firm collapses. Then another is bought out. Now, an insurance giant is teetering ... but, oops, hold on, there go my tax dollars again.
My 401(k) seems to be shriveling up like a sun-dried tomato and I was actually relieved -- yes, relieved -- the other day when I only had to pay $3.49 a gallon for gas.
Blame is flying. Candidates are finger pointing. A Newsweek article tells me that it's worse than I think. And every time I see a financial reporter look all important and talk about "highly leveraged institutions," I want to throw my ice cream sandwich at the TV and yell, "Highly Leveraged?! Just say it -- it's debt!"
Yep. I need a deep breath ... and maybe a little perspective. I think there has to be someplace to land right now that's between Chicken Little and the ostrich.
For me, it helps to remember a few things:
- Though the Dow has fallen more than 500 points, we haven't even cracked the top 20 of Dow Jones Index single-day percentage losses. It's certainly not pleasant, but for all the talk of "records" and "plunges," we're not in history-making territory. At least, not yet.
- Discipline can be beneficial. Americans are feeling the painful results of national financial indulgence. Hopefully, that will lead to wisdom -- as long as we don't act like a collective credit-card junkie who frantically transfers balances in a desperate attempt to ignore the problem.
- Dow Jones is not my provider. God is.
- Challenging times bring us back to the basics. For those who are feeling the financial pinch, or squeeze, or even suffocation, there are steps to take and real, practical financial wisdom in God's Word.
Like Lisa A., I'm a fan of state fairs.
After marrying my husband, though, I realized that my state fair experience had been rather limited. You see I was the "city girl" (yes, that is possible in Oklahoma). I thought state fairs were funnel cakes, rides, games and the occasional ice capade show. My husband was much more, shall we say, "rural." I had heard there were livestock barns at the fair. He showed me where they were actually located. He also introduced me to a whole new world of "showing" animals, FFA jackets and art/craft/food competitions.
I now feel state fair complete. But though I have learned which shoes are appropriate to wear to the fair (hint: wear nothing that you can't hose the poo off of), there are still some things that are a shock to the system. Like ... the smell.
I used to romanticize about barnyard animals -- probably from all that Charlotte's Web I used to read. Horses were graceful and strong. Cows were useful and comic. Pigs were (apart from the Orwellian ones) smart and sassy. I still love the animals. But there's nothing like a good eye-to-eye view of animals to wipe some of the romance away.
I can still remember distinctly the pig I saw on my foray through the barns last year. I call her "the pig" because she will forever be marked in my memory that way. She was colossal. She had rolls and rolls of rich, blubbery lard. She snorted with contentedness over her overflowing flesh. She could have swallowed Wilbur in one bite. Whether a hardened pig farmer or a city slicker like me, you just had to stop and stand in awe whenever you passed her.
I thought of that pig yesterday while reading Candice's article. Let me be clear. It had nothing to do with Candice (who's very lovely). No, it had to do with the topic of the article: modesty.
Candice attempts to answer one man's question about how to approach modesty from an adult perspective (as opposed to many resources which address the problems associated with the teenage sect). She talks about the differences between men and women, about how we're each accountable for our actions and about (a concept I hadn't thought of) good stewardship of our bodies.
Where did the pig come in? Well, I remembered Prov. 11:22. These days, girls, there are a lot of beautiful clothes out there and a lot of different potions/procedures/possibilities to make ourselves outwardly beautiful. Like Candice, I don't think there are "prohibition[s] in the Bible against beauty and physical loveliness." But there is a line. There's a line where indiscretion becomes a gold ring in a pig's snout.
I've now seen that pig. And though many of us stopped in awe of her, trust me, even a gold ring wouldn't have made her beautiful.
When I was in second grade I got my mouth washed out with soap. I no longer remember what I said; I remember only the horrible taste of Ivory soap as the teacher rammed the bar into my mouth and then made me wash down the sudsy residue with water. I also remember being bewildered and humiliated, because I honestly didn't know that what I'd said was considered bad.
In fifth grade I got busted again. I do remember what I said then -- sorry, can't repeat it here -- but I swear I didn't know it was considered a bad word. After all, everyone else used it. I just had the incredible bad luck of using it on a teacher. And I have to admit that when I was in the Marines, I occasionally -- okay, more than occasionally -- used language that would make a gangsta rapper blush.
I've often wondered about how we as a culture react to bad words. First, we must make a distinction between profanity, properly defined, and plain old vulgarisms or obscenities. The former is, literally, profaning God's name, using it in vain. The latter are scatological or crude sexual terms that society deems out of bounds. Unfortunately, we tend to use the word profanity for all "bad" language, even when it technically isn't profane. In fact, I've written before about confusion concerning what it means to profane God's name.
All this comes to mind because of the popularity of the updated and revised Battlestar Galactica and the "dirty" word it has introduced to our culture: frak. (I didn't realize, by the way, that the word was not coined for the new, darker, edgier Galactica; it was actually first used in the cheesy '70s version of the series -- you know, the one where everyone is supposedly from a very distant planet in the very distant past but they all wear bad disco haircuts and the evil cylons sport more chrome than a Buick Roadmaster. Who knew?)
We all know what frak sounds like, but it's not really "the word, the big one, the queen-mother of dirty words," as young Ralphie described it. We all know what they mean when they say it, but they're not actually saying it. So does it count as a "dirty word"?
This brings to mind the comedian Lenny Bruce, who was arrested numerous times in the early '60s on obscenity charges. (The late George Carlin cited Bruce as his inspiration for the act that made him famous: The Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on Television.) During one nightclub show, knowing that the police were ready to bust him, Bruce told a vulgar story full of euphemisms for excretory and sexual acts without actually using the words. The audience roared with laughter, and the police stood by helplessly. Bruce famously remarked, "This is the dirtiest show I've ever done, and they can't touch me!"
And how many of you knew that when you use words like Gee, Jeez, Yeesh, or the like that you're actually using a euphemism for Jesus' name? Does that mean you're being profane? (Our print magazines will not use these or similar words, by the way.) Dr. Dobson is famous for his use of Gadzooks, which is really a euphemism for "God's hooks," a British expression that in older days was a profane oath on the spikes used to nail Jesus to the cross. So is Dr. Dobson being profane?
In the end, I think, it comes down to intent. Do you know that what you're saying is bad? Do you intend to say it? In second grade, I was purely innocent, even though I probably technically said a bad word. In fifth grade, I was sort of innocent, but I was also mouthing off at the teacher, so my heart was not in the right place. But Lenny Bruce was guilty, even though he technically did not say any obscene words.
So where does that leave Battlestar Galactica and frak? It's an interesting question. I rarely if ever notice the f-word in a movie unless I'm assaulted by a fusillade of the vulgarism; after years in the Marines I'm inured to it. But I blanch when I hear Galactica's version on TV. Why? I think the nudge-nudge, wink-wink nature of it is part of the problem. It's a sly way of getting people to hear swearing even though they're technically not swearing. It's like Lenny Bruce, reveling in something while getting away with it. It's the intent, not the word.
Thoughts?
 When I wrote "Not Your Buddy" in 2006, I received dozens of e-mails from Boundless readers. Women related. Men protested. The most common comment I received was that, while I had focused on men making women their gal pals, sometimes women are the guilty ones. Consider this excerpt from one e-mail:
While I agree on the basic principles of the article, that we should be careful not to lead others on/be vague about our intentions, I do have to disagree on the implied thought that it's almost exclusively the men in the church who are doing this. As a single man in my mid-30's, I and a couple of my friends are fresh off of experiences in the last year where the women we were pursuing were glad to let us pursue them, buy them dinners and take them out many times, say flattering things to us such as "you're such a blessing to me" and keep us in the friends category all along.
Point well taken. In fact, a year after "Not Your Buddy" was published, I addressed the female version of "buddying up" in "Severing the Emotional Tie" on the Line. Basically, women who are getting their emotional kicks out of hanging on to the men they reject, need to be honoring to these guys and move along already.
The anecdote that generated the most anger among readers was my now-infamous conversation with my friend Brad. I know, you think Brad is a jerk. The thing is, he was being honest. His approach with his female friends may have been misguided and immature, but it was not malicious. As recently as last week, I had a guy hand me the "I-assumed-you-were-OK-with-it" line. Sure Brad's attitude wasn't right, but—due in part to the differences between men and women—I don't think he was fully cognizant of the damage he was doing. One reader asked how to disconnect from a buddy relationship. I recently read your article about intimate male-female relationships. I find myself in the midst of one. He and I have a great deal of things in common (social circles, ministry and ministry school). The prospect of simply cutting him off is both frightening and exhausting. In your experience is there a way to dial back? To re-engineer the relationship to allow for new boundaries but save the friendship?
Yes and no. The fact is that the friendship must change. You cannot continue to offer that person the benefits of a dating relationship. One reader recently wrote to me and described how after reading "Not Your Buddy," she left an intimate friendship and moved to another town! Talk about drastic. At her new church, she met her now-husband.
In my opinion, dialing back a buddy relationship by degree makes it too easy to revert back to the unhealthy dynamic. Sometimes you may have to continue seeing that person—if you share the same group of friends, for example—but you can choose to maintain an acquaintance-style relationship.
When I read "Not Your Buddy" today, I believe even more heartily in its principles than I did three years ago. I am excited that I am saving "best friend" status for my future husband. There's a time for buddies, you know? It's called marriage.
I wonder how those of you who disagree with my censoring decisions on the Boundless Line will feel about the "most blatant, under-reported, and significant act of censorship in modern American history" -- Blocking the television mini-series The Path to 9/11 from ever being shown again.
I lauded the documentary just after it originally aired in 2006. And I knew then that Bill Clinton pressured television execs to edit out portions that put him in a bad light. But I had no idea the Clinton machine could have such lasting effects.
John Ziegler, promoting his film "Blocking The Path to 9/11," provides a little more detail for us in a RealClearPolitics.com article. Since then, the film which was originally intended to run each year around 9/11, has not been broadcast again and the DVD has never been released. While it has been reported that this decision was made over concerns about disrupting Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, Robert Iger, the head of Disney (the parent company of ABC) declared at this year's shareholder meeting that it was "simply a business decision" to not put out the DVD. He made this odd declaration despite the fact that DVD distribution would have limited costs associated with it and not doing so insured a $40 million loss on the project.
We now know (thanks to the book, "Clinton in Exile") that it was Bill Clinton himself, among others, who called Iger and demanded that movie be edited or pulled. With the specter of a then nearly certain Hillary Clinton presidency staring them in the face (and with Iger and many others in the film's management hierarchy already financial contributors to the Clintons), Disney caved and committed perhaps the most blatant, under-reported, and significant act of censorship in modern American history.
Ziegler believes that the communal pledge we made as a nation to never forget the lessons of 9/11 have been compromised for the sake of Bill's presidential legacy and Hillary's political aspirations. If this act of censorship proves monumental, I'd have to agree.
By now you've probably heard the kerfuffle about comic Russell Brand making fun of the Jonas Brothers for their purity rings when he hosted the MTV Video Music Awards. People didn't like it, including singer Jordin Sparks. According to the New York Times: At one point, Jordin Sparks, a former winner of American Idol, admonished Brand, snapping: "I just wanna say, it's not bad to wear a promise ring because not every guy and girl wants to be a slut, OK?" The comic was then forced to apologize, before adding: "It's just, a bit of sex occasionally never hurt anybody."
Then, of all people, Paris Hilton chimed in with eloquence only she could deliver: "I don't pick on them," Hilton told Usmagazine.com after Brand's remarks. "That's something cool for a kid to keep, so don't pick on them for that."
"I think that they're all really good kids and that they're definitely our next generation of kids and they're all really good so I think that's awesome," Hilton added.
With that glowing endorsement, who could question the brothers' accessory choices? And that's just the thing. As I've watched this story unfold, the media has made the ring a joke—a strange, little purity fad. In fact, the US article (not that US is the most quality periodical) includes Britney Spears and a Victoria's Secret model among its "celebrity virgins."
Don't get me wrong. I admire the Jonas Brothers for their stand for purity. However, I'm disappointed to see the issue treated with such flippancy. Instead of talking about why Nick Jonas wears the ring, they quote him saying: "I got mine made at Disney World; it's pretty awesome." Any intelligent discussion criticizes abstinence. This MSN article all but calls Sparks' statement irresponsible: Kemper, a vice president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, agreed that attacking anyone for their beliefs is wrong. But, she said, "In the same way, though, I think we have to be really careful not to say, 'If you don't wear a purity ring, you're a slut.' We can't make that either-or, either you have morals or you don't. I think we have to be careful to respect everybody's decisions."
How can you respect someone's decisions if you don't know the reasons behind them? The way media is downplaying these teens' decision to save sex for marriage is irresponsible, in my opinion. There are plenty of reasons abstinence is a wise choice for teens and the unmarried. Unfortunately, that discussion doesn't seem to be taking place.
You think I'm going to talk about getting married here, dontcha? Nope. Well, maybe a little. This week's show has a common theme: commitment. Why do we hate to commit to pretty much anything? It's a disease that doesn't appear to be covered by any HMOs.
Lisa Anderson pet peeve #749: people who don't reply to Evites until the day of the event (or not at all). Infuriating! Because I am either hosting or attending around a million bridal showers, birthday parties, "Let's celebrate your miraculously remaining gainfully employed for more than a week" parties, and of course the obligatory "We're single, so let's have a game night to force socialization among our peers" parties, I know my way around an Evite. I'm not bragging; that's just a fact. And I am so over people keeping their options open. That does not make you appear popular, folks. It does not make you appear interesting, involved, or in-demand. It makes you appear fickle and lame. And Lisa Anderson does not like fickle and lame.
So this show is a breath of fresh air for me, because it features a number of smackdowns. I am the queen of the smackdown. I count the proper delivery of an instructive smackdown among my spiritual gifts. Some people are meant to be encouragers, and others are meant to rebuke the encouragers for being too soft and sissy. That's my job. Listen to this week's show, and you'll get your quota. Get ready for a smackdown on church membership, tithing, choosing a mate, entering into worship, making excuses for your past, and weight management. There's something to offend everyone, trust me. We start out with a reflection on Patriot Day (smackdown issued to terrorists here), and go from there.
Members Only? -- 10:07
Suzanne Hadley and crew are back for Round 2 of our church discussion. This week, we tackle consumerism and transience in churches. Why is membership rarely encouraged anymore? Why are you more likely to hear a sermon on STDs than on tithing? Why can't Bible-believing churches within cities work together to reach their neighborhoods for Christ? What can we as young adults do to change these trends?
Leeland on Love -- 30:14
Leeland is cool. Not only does this band have good music, but its members are super fun, sold out to Jesus, and have awesome hair. Most shows would be content to conduct a fawning, puff-piece interview about Leeland's latest release, The Opposite Way. Not The Boundless Show. Sure, we get the scoop on the record, and even feature some songs, but I pin the guys on marrying as mere kids (hello, you met in Jr. High?), keeping worship real, and using music and influence to reach out to others, including those in the industry.
Identity Theft -- 42:58
Poor Patrick. He has baggage, and he unpacks it for all the world to see in this week's The Hungry Years. But in the process, he muses over what it looks like to drop labels and dysfunction, past and present, and instead identify with Christ. Good stuff.
Am I Fat? -- 48:46
She sent us her photo and asked if she's fat. Oh my goodness. That deserves a Lisa Anderson "Holla!" I am impressed. So we decide to answer her question. Candice and I go into the studio and put pride (ours, too!) on the line as we frankly address the issue of weight as it relates to general health, identity, self-worth, attraction and marriageability. Yikes.
There's a lot here, people. Make sure you're in a decent frame of mind when you take it all in. As always, let us know what you think, and a hearty "thanks" to those of you who have. Don't forget to tell your friends about the show so we can eventually dominate the podcast world. And finally, in a burst of Romper Room nostalgia, I'm going to shout out to some new friends of The Boundless Show: Ian, Jen, Jennifer, Meghan, Jeremy, Heather, Danielle, Joshua, Angelina, Isaac. The list goes on. Contact us and maybe I'll see you in my "mirror," too!
 Historians have pointed to markers of the past century that they believe were significant enough to shape generations -- markers such as World War I and II, the great depression, the race to the moon, the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations, Vietnam, the Challenger explosion and the fall of the Berlin Wall
In a world with hundreds of television channels, millions of Websites and endless opportunities for segmentation, it's more difficult for events to break through as fundamental life changers. 9/11 has been one of the few markers to emerge as a life changer at a broad level. Years from now, historians will be describing how your life was shaped by 9/11 in the same way they talked about how people were shaped by the depression, the world wars, the sixties and other markers.
But just how significant was September 11, 2001 in shaping your life? Would you say it has directly or indirectly shaped your view of the world, your values, your sense of security, your views of good and evil? What do you think you would see differently if nothing newsworthy had happened on September 11, 2001?
Okay, we all know a guy needs skills -- you know, like nunchuku skills, bow-hunting skills and computer-hacking skills. Apparently, though, the editors of Popular Mechanics seem to think that's not enough. This month they provide a list of 100 skills they say every man needs. (Let's set aside the sexism argument for the moment.) It's an interesting list, and I was doing quite well until the technology section. (When they say, "Ditch your hard drive," do they mean on purpose?)
But I have no idea what a stick welder is or does. I'm not even sure why it's considered an automotive skill. I can't use a sewing machine, and I can't home-brew beer. I can grow food -- if you count the green slime on that otherwise unidentifiable blob at the back of the fridge. And I can not only change a single-pole light switch, but I can change a three-way switch and rewire your kitchen at the same time. (I wrote the book on home wiring for the Time-Life home-repair series.)
I can certainly shoot straight. (Anyone who makes it through Marine Corps marksmanship training will be a good shot.) And I can escape a rip current, having had to do it more than once while growing up as a long-haired surfer dude in Florida. Overall, I came in at 89 percent.
But there are some key skills left off the list.
How to let a child believe you're going to buy that pony she desperately wants without actually promising you'll buy it. A gentle pat to the head accompanied by "We'll see" usually does the trick.
How to win at Monopoly. Buy everything you land on, go deeply into debt, then hope you get lucky. Oh wait, that's general American consumerism.
How to do a wicked doughnut in a car. Get a '67 Chevy Impala, put 10 guys in the trunk, cut the wheel sharply as you floor the gas pedal. Call ambulance(s).
How to watch football on TV. Yell loudly at players that they're supposed to catch the ball or tackle the guy. Gesture broadly and exclaim great oaths when they don't seem to hear you.
How to explain American football to a European wife. Yeah, I know -- trick question.
How to enjoy watching cricket on TV. Beat head repeatedly against brick wall. You will enjoy doing anything after that.
How to play chess. Start to move piece while watching opponent's face. If his eyebrows go up, slowly put piece back where it was. If his eyebrows remain stable, keep moving piece until eyebrows go up again, then stop move. Occasionally shout "checkmate!" while watching opponents eyebrows. If they become deeply furrowed, say, "Oh wait, never mind." If they go up in surprise, look at board again and say, "Really?"
How to respond when wife asks if this outfit makes her look fat. "Just shoot me now."
How to avoid sneezing at inopportune times. Press down hard on the bridge of your nose. (This one actually works.)
I love Google analytics. It lets me know what search terms are bringing people to my blog. Surprisingly, the strongest post continues to be one I wrote in September 2006 about the ills of movie theater popcorn. I present it to you now—in surround sound (not really):
Who needs horror movies. eDiets.com article "Fright Night: Attack of the Giant Movie Snacks!" [article no longer available online] is enough to give you nightmares. I had heard rumors of the horrific calorie content of movie theater popcorn, but I had tried to ignore them. Ignorance is bliss. But this article brought home again the unhealthy nature of movie snacks.
That large tub of popcorn has been growing for years. Now they even offer a free refill if 20 cups of popcorn isn't enough. (I have to admit, when the first "Lord of the Rings" movie came out, my family and I shared that large tub and got the refill.) Evidently, the urge to cram our bodies with several days' worth of calories and fat is primarily psychological. Susan Burke, eDiets' chief nutritionist, explains this movie of the week — inspired by a true story — as a force of habit. According to Susan, people associate popcorn and candy with movies and may feel deprived without it, even if they just came from dinner. "Movie popcorn is full of hydrogenated fat and salt and can add more than a thousand calories to your daily intake," explains Susan, who recommends you ask yourself, "Do you buy popcorn because you're hungry or because it's the movies?"
Because it's the movies, of course! But take a look at these frightening stats:
- Small Buttered (7 cups), 630 calories, 50g fat (Unbuttered: 400 cal, 27g fat)
- Medium Buttered (16 cups), 1,220 calories, 97g fat (Unbuttered: 900 cal, 60g fat)
- Large Buttered (20 cups), 1,640 calories, 126g fat (Unbuttered: 1,160 cal, 77g fat)
If you're a movie popcorn junkie, don't lose heart. When I'm dying for a snack, I usually get the "Ultimate Movie Meal" (a steal at $4.75.) It's a reduced amount of popcorn (probably 2 cups), a kiddie drink and a fun-sized candy. It's still a splurge, but the caloric damage is considerably less.
Our new Focus on the Family Institute students arrived on Tuesday. It's a busy time -- our staff gets them oriented, prepares them for class, and helps them navigate the halls of Focus. It's also a time filled with lots of small talk: "Where are you from? What school do you attend? What's your major?" It can be a bit overwhelming with so many new people -- for both students and staff.
We're taking them on a retreat up in the mountains this weekend, though. We'll do some small-group activities and hear some of their personal stories. We'll play games and go on hikes and share meals. At the end of the weekend all of us will feel like we know one another a bit better.
And throughout the next three and a half months, these students will form some strong relationships. They'll be a part of a community experience that will be authentic and beautiful. They'll learn more about what they believe and why they believe it. They'll work at practicum sites that will prepare them for future careers. But most of all, they will learn more about God and His character. They will get to practice loving Him and loving their neighbor.
Deciding to come spend time at the Institute was one of the best things I've ever done. And it's a blessing to be a part of what these students experience each new semester. You should think about coming this spring; we accept students through age 26, so it's not too late for many of you!
Seriously, think it through. Spend time in beautiful Colorado with a community of believers who will challenge and strengthen your faith. You won't regret it.
I wrote about grace last week for TrueU. I'm not very good at being merciful. Justice is more my forte: I have not mastered the whole grace thing yet. I am all about justice (i.e. giving people what they deserve, especially when I think that what people deserve is for me to judge them). In college, I was bored to death with Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics until I came to the end of book four which said, "Now, however, let us discuss justice." Yes, let's! I happily agreed.
Although most of us are quite aware that we've been shown grace, we are sometimes unwilling to extend it to others. This comes up most often when we think we're right. I'm sure you've noticed it in some of the conversations here on this blog. All of us feel we have the correct biblical interpretation of something, and no one will convince us otherwise. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes we're downright rude.
But grace goes beyond speaking kindly to one another. It's also about understanding God's character. He is full of grace and mercy, He has not treated us as our sins deserve, He is slow to anger and quick to forgive. So our goal should be to become more like Him, to do this whole grace thing a little bit better each day.
This is obviously easier said than done, but grace can work into our lives in so many ways. As I point out in my article, it's a gift and a way to submit to God's transformational work in our lives: It is a gift that we've been given, and it is a gift we should extend to others. It is a tool for dealing with our own hearts and for interacting with those around us. In my case, it often involves transforming my personality, a willingness to let God's spirit come in and chip away at my sense of what I think people deserve.
We've been given numerous examples of God's grace throughout the Scripture. Now it's our job to extend it to our neighbors -- even when they're so obviously wrong. ;-)
We learned last year that seekers who attend mega-churches aren't really growing in their walk. And according to this report from USAToday.com, a lot of seekers are leaving altogether. After decades of soaring growth, the phenomenon of Protestant megachurches — behemoths of belief where 2,000 to 20,000 or more people attend weekend worship — may be stalled.
Here's one theory why, "The megachurch story is not really about growth, it's about shifting allegiances. People want to feel good about who they already are," says Philip Goff, director of the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University in Indianapolis. "If church is too challenging or not entertaining, they'll move on."
It seems that what Goff is saying is that seeker-churches attract members of other churches seeking cheap grace. And once found, cheap grace will eventually lead these seekers to wonder why they started going to church in the first place. Follow?
At least mega-church pastor Bill Hybels gets it, sort of. In response, founder and senior pastor Bill Hybels has changed his sermons to more directly challenge worshipers at every level. Willow has launched a slate of dozens of Wednesday mini-classes focusing on spiritual growth, coached and mentored by the church.
Willow is still "seeker-obsessed," says Hybels. "But today's seekers are different" than years ago.
Today, he says, "I don't think anyone is wandering around looking for a mild dose of God.... They want to know: 'What would a life centered on Christ look like in my life? What would that feel like? How do I go about it?' "
I disagree with that last part. I think the very reason some mega-churches got so mega in the first place was because a lot of people are looking for a mild dose of God. It's just that the people who are seeking a mild dose of God usually end up withering away.
"Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched. And since they had no root, they withered away." -- Matthew 13:5-6
I wish I could talk politics with you guys. It's a passion. But as Ted wrote last week, we really can't get into the "nitty gritty" (meant to be read with a Nacho Libre accent) without mentioning candidates. So I thought I bring up another passion of mine, college football.
(If you girls reading this are like my wife, feel free to abandon this post here.)
We're almost three weeks into the best game on the planet. And I've enjoyed every moment so far: expert analysis, forums, rankings, expectations, all culminating into a crescendo of gridiron glory every Saturday.
There's a great article today on Boundless from Stephen Altrogge that helps explain our love of sports. It's about how we enjoy excellence because it's a reflection of God's character.
When we excel at sports, we are in a very small way reflecting the excellence of God's character. This is part of the reason why we experience so much joy in playing sports. Doing things excellently is a reflection of God, who does all things with excellence. The same is true of watching sports. When we see an athlete perform exceptionally well, we're seeing a small portion of God's character.
I certainly agree. But my appreciation for sports is as much about determination and effort as it is excellence. There's excellence all over the field that'll go unappreciated if a team's heart isn't in it.
Stephen uses a great Eric Liddell quote from Chariots of Fire to illustrate his point. But I'll go with Rock Balboa from Rocky when he said, "It's not about how hard you hit. It's how hard you get hit and keep moving forward."
That's darn right!
This month Boundless turns 10 years old (more on that later) and we'll be celebrating with a special episode of The Boundless Show next week with surprise guests and special greetings, including yours.
So please help us mark this momentous occasion by calling our toll-free number 866-687-8686 and leaving a warm Happy Anniversary greeting.
Be sure to include your first name, city and state like, "Hi, I'm Motte from Colorado Springs, Colorado and I love Boundless!"
Here's a sample of acceptable comments:
1) The short "Happy Anniversary! Boundless Rocks!" with corresponding enthusiasm
2) The sincere "I just ..." as in "I just wanted to say thanks for all you guys do ..."
3) The rehearsed, 90-second testimonial of how Boundless has changed your life
As always, praise is welcome.
I've had a passion for chicken wings for years, an obsession that's driven me to spend years pursuing the perfect recipe.
Gradually, though, over the past few months I've found myself less enthralled by this once-pleasurable meal. What had been a key ingredient of a cozy night in front of the TV has descended into an ordeal of bone and fatty skin. The sauces that had sent me soaring now merely give me a stomach ache. The process of preparing them had been therapeutic; now it's a chore.
I've come to concur with those who denounced my craving. It is a chasing after the wind, this quest "to make the useless appendages of a 'yard fowl' taste good."
So, I repent, and humbly ask the forgiveness of Boundless Line readers for touting as "good" something that's ultimately nothing more than bone and fat and skin and a bit of meat, something that requires a slather of mouth-numbing spice to bring it to a point of edibility.
Have you seen the book Guyland by Michael Kimmel? I just picked up a copy and started reading it. Kimmel is a professor of sociology at State University of New York, Stony Brook. He's far afield from typical Boundless writers -- in fact Gloria Steinem is one of his book endorsers -- but it appears he has written a valuable book.
The cover flap to the book makes this proposition: "Only by understanding this world [Guyland] and this life stage can we enable young men to chart their own paths, to stay true to themselves, and to travel safely through Guyland, emerging as responsible and fully formed men of integrity and honor."
So how does Kimmel define Guyland? Here's an excerpt: Guyland is the world in which young men live. It is both a stage of life, a liminal undefined time span between adolescence and adulthood that can stretch for a decade or more, and a place, or, rather, a bunch of places where guys gather to be guys with each other, unhassled by the demands of parents, girlfriends, jobs, kids, and the other nuisances of adult life. In this topsy-turvy, Peter-Pan mindset, young men shirk the responsibilities of adulthood and remain fixated on the trappings of boyhood, while the boys they still are struggle heroically to prove that they are real men despite all evidence to the contrary.
Kimmel believes that readers of his book (which are most likely to be people who aren't in Guyland) should "appreciate and support individual guys while engaging critically with the social world they inhabit." He goes on to say: In fact, I believe that only by understanding this world can we truly be empathic to the guys in our lives. We need to enter this world, see the perilous field in which boys become men in our society because we desperately need to start a conversation about that world. We do boys a great disservice by turning away, excusing the excesses of Guyland as just "boys being boys" -- because we fail to see just how powerful its influence really is. Only when we begin to engage in these conversations, with open eyes and open hearts -- as parents to children, as friends, as guys themselves -- can we both reduce the risks and enable guys to navigate it more successfully.
Thoughts?
We received an e-mail this past week asking what Scripture says about women in leadership roles. Here's an excerpt:
I plan to ask my pastor about this as well, but in the meantime I've been around the blogosphere and have gained nothing but confusion.
Some people are arguing that women should not be in any leadership position because they are subject to all men. Is there any scriptural proof for that? A woman ruling a nation is an abomination, I'm told, and evidence of God's judgment. This reason is based on the creation order, as women were made to be under men.
I'm just really confused about that because every scriptural proof people provide are scriptures regarding the Church and home. But many are saying this creation order extends into the civic world as well.
I'm just really confused and I've been praying for clarity. Please pray with me but I would love it if you dedicated a blog post to this matter of ontological superiority.
I only had a few minutes to type out a personal response before the end of the workday. This is an edited version of what I sent her:
Excellent question. I'm about to head home, but have a bit of time to respond quickly to your e-mail.
The Lord created the world with different social spheres, different systems of relationship. Sometimes they overlap, but for the most part they are distinct. These social systems include family, church, community, state, labor, and the union between God and man. Within some of these spheres (e.g., family, church) Scripture indicates that a woman should not be in certain kinds of leadership roles. But there doesn't seem to be any specific biblical support for the contention that a woman must not be a leader in other spheres.
Of course, if a woman is forfeiting her responsibilities under one sphere (family, for example) in order to take on responsibilities in another sphere (state, for example), things become problematic. Kids change everything. When husband and wife become father and mother, that change naturally results in certain restrictions to their involvement in spheres outside the family.
In a recent blog, Al Mohler addressed this dynamic:
"The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility. I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture. Then again, that presupposes that women -- and men -- have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family."
Voddie Baucham, whom we've interviewed for one of our Boundless Mentor Series articles, came out more forcefully recently, arguing that it's right that a mother stay at home with her children rather than accept a time-consuming leadership role outside the home.
Again, when children come along, the dynamics within the sphere of family, and between that sphere and others, changes dramatically. For both men and women.
The Truth Project provides a helpful foundation for understanding these social systems, and how we might fulfill our roles within each one. Del Tackett, director of The Truth Project, explores an aspect of this concept on his blog.
Ultimately, of course, whether to take on leadership roles in spheres outside the family and the church is up to each woman and, if she's married, her husband as well. Not every family fits into the same mold, nor should they be forced to do so. While Scripture provides guidance in this area, it's probably best to be slow to judge those families that walk out their responsibilities differently than we might deem proper.
A closing note: While this topic has become relevant because of things in the news, the ensuing conversation will remain more hypothetical than specific. No political comments will be published.
Labor Day has come and gone. The extra day was not enough, especially since I began the long parade of bridal showers I'll be attending in the next couple of months (nine, to be exact).
I'm excited for all of my soon-to-be-married girlfriends, but what is up with women carrying the general shower load? I ask the team this question as we open this week's show. Bridal showers, baby showers, housewarmings, graduations. Yo. Then, in the case of weddings, when the actual day comes, men rent a tux and comb their hair. Women buy a dress they'll never wear again, add new shoes and accessories, get their hair professionally styled into an unnatural updo that exists solely on bobby pins and Aqua Net, pay for a professional manicure and pedicure -- and all of this is in addition to travel, a bachelorette party, and another gift. At least most of us stop eating about a month before the wedding so as to fit into the dress that we ordered two sizes too small in a burst of optimism. There are funds saved in that measure, I guess.
After my lament, which is met with minimal empathy from those at the table, we launch into our other weekend activities. Colorado Springs hosted the Balloon Classic, and Focus on the Family sponsored two balloons, including Arky, the largest balloon at the event. Ted wraps up by telling us about his wife's new camera -- the one that merited a blog post on The Line. We respond appropriately with blank stares.
Traditionalish or Not? -- 8:51
This week we have church, dim sum style. A panel of five singles joins us, all of whom attend very different churches. Why did they choose their respective churches, and what are the pros and cons of each? Are they tempted to church-hop? How have they plugged in, and what does it mean to be a single in today's churches, whatever the size or flavor?
The Muffins, Man -- 42:53
Suzanne Hadley stole a muffin. There's no easy or kind way to say it. But she learned about sin and grace in the process, and shares how lessons from childhood prove applicable even as we get older.
It’s Not a Slumber Party -- 46:30
Girl #1 to Girl #2: "The bf is visiting, so how 'bout if he just stays at our apartment? We won't 'do' anything. It would save some time, some cash, and some hassle." Girl #2 is not happy, and writes to The Boundless Show. Candice offers some practical advice on how to address boundaries in relationships while preserving respect among friends and roommates. No pillow fights necessary.
You'll hear me on the front end of the show talk about our new voicemail box for The Boundless Show. Check it out! Call 1-866-687-8686 and leave a question or comment. We will distribute a compilation of these messages to the entire Boundless team so we can hear your soothing voices as we go to sleep each night. Or, we may feature you on the show. I know. It could happen.
Have a great week, everyone, and Happy September. I'm off to buy another shower gift.
Back in April, I wrote a blog post in which I pondered whether the tyrannical dictator of Zimbabwe should be forgiven even now, while he continues to rape his country and disregard the will of its people by stealing the most recent election.
That blog post was inspired by remarks from a citizen of Zimbabwe who left a couple of comments on an earlier blog post I had written.
She contacted us this morning, accusing me of "racial prejudice" for not having released a third comment she submitted, and asked me to "print the response I wrote which you chose to ignore." Out of fairness to her perspective, and for the sake of discussion, I'm publishing her comment here, in its entirety. Ted no matter how much out of context you may twist my words my words I will always mantain that your articles invoke hate and discord and thats that. After reading Dirk's contribution and I quote:
"I am a 59 year old expatriate Zimbabwean pastor. I served as a professional soldier in the Rhodesian special forces during the bush war, and experienced first-hand the horrors of the terrorists' liberation tactics against their own people as well as the Rhodesian civilians and armed forces of all races. There is nothing admirable about that struggle for 'freedom', nothing noble."
You Ted have no idea what Rhodesia was like before Independance, The white population who constituted of 1% of the population controlled the wealth of the economy and pushed africans away from the rich soil as they came in to settle, they were pass laws, africans were not allowed in most parts of town and were forced to live in hostels,all this history is not from Zanu pf, its oral history narrated to us by our parents and for someone to then say that the changed nothing it invokes pain in me. After Independence although black Zimbabweans gained political freedom they did not gain economic liberation, the wealth was still in the hands of white Africans who constituted of about 1,5% of the population. They owned large farms, drove the flashy cars and isolated themselves from the blacks, created their own exclusive sporting clubs, private schools and if numbers of black children increased they would go and form another school and the cycle would go on. I remember my dad taking my brother and I to the country club because he was a farmer and there was a disco for the teenagers my brother and I were the only blacks and felt unwanted, we then stepped up to the dee jay and asked him to play some R ‘n’ B and he did reluctantly ...then all the white kids walked out leaving my brother and I. This was a painful moment for me and this must have 1997, Here I was being made to feel like an outcast in the country of my heritage and birth. I was to experience this again recently at the time that I joined the company that I work for. It’s a white owned business and daily I was ill treated, maligned and denied opportunities for upgrading, I was slighted for a position that was to be given to a white, computer illiterate inexperienced school leaver. I became a reactionary racist until God dealt with my heart...and I forgave and released my antagonists little did I know that God wanted me to feel like how white folk in Zim felt with the whole political situation but the truth still remains that’s its not what it appears to be on CNN, White people still dine at the expensive places and yes white people in Zim do not use public transport, on rare occasions if you see a white person hiking it’s a tourist, they still drive nice cars and are running their business and they have not been asked to all leave Zimbabwe. However the manner in which their farms were taken was brutal and not done in an orderly way even though land resdistribution was long overdue and I pray for all those who lost their farms and yet I have seen some blacks who got those farms who are happy and doing well in farming so we will never understand how God works. In the Shona culture we honour the mid wife and adopt her as an aunt to the new born because her hands are the first hands that welcome and receive the new born , my mid wife was white , she worked with my mum at the hospital and spiritually the people that have led me to Christ or played a mothering role in my walk of faith have been mainly white and that’s what led me to then realize that I am called to the ministry of reconciliation and cannot afford to be partial to people’s colour , tribe or dialect.
So Despite what the situation appears to be, the prophetic intercessor does not base his praying on either good or bad conditions, but rather on the covenant of God...
What fascinates me though is that although Zimbabwe is going through a rough patch , it is not the poorest and is not the only country under sanctions but Zimbabwe is always at the centre of attention because of two reasons. The first one being that God wants the world whole world watching this tiny nation which is in the valley of dry bones come to life again, The second reason we all know is that because Zimbabwe is wealthy nation with a lot of potential The West does indeed have interests in exploiting its wealth and that is FACT!!! Being on the ground and being an observer in whats been happening and the exxageration that I see on BBC and all these Western countries I sometimes get affected. This is a naturally peaceful nation, the stats so far indicate that ever since March 27 when the election took place 101 have died ..in Kenya is didn’t take 4 days for the death tolls to go up to a 1000...whats an interesting contrast.
I liked and was encouraged by your humble and christlike approach Evie, May God bless you
Last week Pew Research Center released a study showing that podcast listenership is growing, though slowly. Currently, 19% of all Internet users say they have downloaded a podcast so they could listen to it or view it later. This most recent percentage is up from 12% of Internet users who reported downloading podcasts in our August 2006 survey and 7% in our February-April 2006 survey.
Still, podcasting has yet to become a fixture in the everyday lives of Internet users, as very few Internet users download podcasts on a typical day. Even of those who say they download podcasts, just 17% do so on a typical day.
It's no surprise that young adults are leading the way in use of this new media. As of May 2008, 27% of young adults ages 18-29 have downloaded a podcast, up 17% from 2006. They also represent the largest demographic of MP3 player owners. 61% of 18-29 year-olds have an iPod or MP3 player.
It's why we launched The Boundless Show, which is one of 43,000 podcasts in existence today. The biggest genres are technology, comedy, religion and spirituality, and business. In case you're wondering, we're in the religion and spirituality genre. Although with host Lisa Anderson's quirky anecdotes, I believe we'd do just as well in comedy.
If you're a fan, let us hear from you. In not, tell us why. You can do so here or on our new toll-free phone number.
Call us now at 866-687-8686 to ask a question or leave a comment. Who knows? -- we might use it in our show.
Racism is a real problem. The thing is, the mindset of even those most opposed to it may be interfering from their being able to bring about real solutions.
In today's featured article, "Race Relations: Rethinking Christian Identity," Boundless author Thabiti Anyabwile explains: Multiculturalism, diversity and tolerance are the reigning solutions to problems associated with race. That is, most everywhere people assume that racial identity rooted in biology is an objective reality and conclude that the way to manage tensions, difference and strife is to develop greater appreciation for those differences. Ironically, this strategy has produced debate and strife of its own as people argue and quibble about the ideas of diversity and tolerance themselves.
What if our premise -- that race is even relevant -- is the obstacle keeping us from true reconciliation, from making peace with those who look different from us?
In his article, Thabiti argues just this: that while ethnicity is a real thing, because we are all members of the race of Adam, there is truly no racial difference between any of us. Indeed, focusing on working through "race" issues may be keeping us from addressing the lingering problems that can be resolved.
"Race Relations: Rethinking Christian Identity" is the first of a multi-part series on race. It's helped reframe my understanding of this issue. Let me know if it helps you as well.
Last night a friend and I were chatting about the homeless problem in Seattle, where he lives.
"I don't get it," he said. "In my opinion, the church should have its doors open 24 hours a day for the homeless. I mean, that's what they're there for...to help the poor."
Then today, I read about a church—in Seattle, no less—that is doing just that. Unfortunately, it hasn't been easy. Mercer Island United Methodist Church in suburban Seattle learned a difficult lesson: Serving the poor can mean offending your neighbor.
When the church decided to host Tent City—a traveling encampment of homeless people—on church property on a temporary basis, many in the affluent suburb were outraged.
Pastor Leslie Ann Knight recalls how a resident approached one of her church members, pointing aggressively. "Your church should be bombed."
Knight had not anticipated the severity of the backlash. "I was astonished by the sheer volume of complaints," she said.
Before Tent City opened, some Mercer Island residents even filed a lawsuit to prevent the encampment. The judge denied the request, and the camp opened on August 13. It serves some 100 occupants and receives supplies from multiple churches on the island.
The CT article speculates that the choice to host the camp may have cost churches some evangelistic opportunities with their affluent neighbors—which raises the question once again, "Who is my neighbor?" "Our neighbors are those who need us," [Knight] said. "Jesus' teaching about loving your neighbor comes in the context of someone who was beaten and left at the side of the road."
The camp will stay open until November. It seems even for churches, helping the homeless is easier said than done.
Discipleship Journal (DJ) has an interview with speaker and author Michelle McKinney Hammond in their September/October issue. Two of the questions and answers caught my attention.
Here's the first: DJ: Describe a challenge you've faced as a single.
Michelle: Being responsible for every aspect of my life can be overwhelming. This is where I really appreciate the prospect of having a partner. Though that presents its own challenges, I understand why Solomon said that two are better than one. I've had to learn to ask for help, delegate, and be realistic about what I can commit to.
Being over-committed is something I can relate to as a married father of two, but not as a single. It could be because the majority of my single years were spent as a non-Christian who lived only for myself. So I don't know what it's like for Christian singles who expend themselves fully for God's Kingdom to the point of feeling over-committed.
What about you? Can you relate to Michelle on this?
Here's the other Q&A that I found interesting: DJ: How can married people encourage singles they know?
Michelle: Singles need to see married couples relating in ways that glorify God. Many married people are negative not only about their marriages, but also about marriage in general. This assaults singles' faith. Couples should be honest and keep it real about their struggles and the things they've learned, but they also need to share the rewards of the journey toward becoming one.
Good stuff. But the first step here is getting married couples and singles to interact. Which makes me wonder how many of you have relationships with married couples. Are the married couples in your church intentional about getting involved in your life? And have you been responsive to their invitations? If so, do they model marriage the way Michelle suggests?
Here's a comment we hear sometimes at Boundless: "That's good advice, but what if I'm hearing it too late. What do I do now?"
And, sometimes, those comments have to do with what we have written about financial stewardship. In fact, we received one such e-mail a few weeks ago. The gist: She's a college student who feels that God is honoring her commitment to get through school with no debt. She is planning to get engaged to a man who will end up with approximately $50,000 in school debt. They both feel called to ministry and are ministry majors. She's concerned: "I've been realizing how enslaving this debt is going to be for maybe the next 10 years, and longer if we actually jump right into the careers that we feel God has called us to. We're both determined to live simply and get rid of the debt as soon as we can, but that much money will take a long time to pay off no matter how much we pinch. Any advice? How can a person get rid of school debt? I have been praying a lot lately that God would provide in unforeseen ways for him like he has for me. How much do we just trust that God will provide for us according to the calling he has given us and how much do we go out and try to find solutions now before the debt actually piles up to $50,000?"
Now, this young woman didn't take on the debt, but she will (if she marries him) have to deal with the consequences.
It's for these type of situations that I wrote, "Digging Out" -- today's Boundless article. In it, I try to explore how we can tackle debt in a uniquely Christian way and how that might look different from a "get out of debt plan" that the world might offer. It includes some solid steps to take. But it also includes answering some hard questions: Is sin the cause of my debt problem? Do I need to repent? Are the financial priorities in God's Word also my priorities?
As for this young woman, "any advice?" Well, I would advise her and her intended to sit down with a pastor or mentor couple and tackle those same questions. Ask God for wisdom. Ask Him to turn your hearts toward His priorities.
In addition, they should discuss how they will handle debt in their future marriage. Will they take on debt? And if so, for what? What do they think God's financial priorities and principles are? How will they apply them in their marriage?
She asks if they should be doing something now. My answer would be a resounding "Yes!". No need to wait to live simply. They can both work right now on getting income up and expenses down (this may seem impossible, but even when I considered myself a "broke" college student, I ate take-out, bought new clothes, had a car and had plenty of technology). He can try to pay off debt and she can save for an emergency/pay-down-debt fund for when they get married. He can determine not to take on any more debt. (I don't recommend student loan debt. Others do. Regardless, he seems to be dangerously over-committed compared to the salary he plans to make). They can plan a very, very simple wedding.
Getting into debt is all too easy, as many of us know. Getting out of debt is hard, as we also know. But God's Word is exactly right: debt is enslaving. It determines what you do and when and how you do it. It's best never to get into debt. But if you're already in, and you're already in deep, I pray that this article will give you a place to start.
OK, so my friends and I have been known to complain about a shortage of single men from time to time, but it's actually true in Australia.
In "No Mates, Mate!" Today discusses the "man drought" afflicting Australia. (I know we have some Australian friends reading, so be sure to comment!)
The article is based on demographer Bernard Salt's book Man Drought, which came out this week. "There is simply less product for 30-something women, in particular, to choose from," he said.
"In the old days, we believed Mr. or Mrs. Right would show up someday, but as we remain single for much longer, and are far more mobile, the chances are more remote," Salt told Reuters.
Aside from cringing at men being referred to as "product," I can relate. We've talked about the "eligible bachelor paradox" before. But this is an actual numbers game in Australia. According to statistics bureau data, there were 96,900 more females than males in Australia as of June 2005. The imbalance is worse on the coast. "Single men are concentrated in rural and remote communities, whereas single women prefer the city and lifestyle towns," Salt explained. "A generation ago, women were more likely to remain in rural communities." This widespread movement of women away from rural areas into major cities has caused a major shift and a "gender imbalance."
A Queensland outback mayor made international headlines this month when he called for female "ugly ducklings" to move to the remote mine town of Mt. Isa if they were desperate to meet a man.
Wow. Those are some drastic measures. But this "gender imbalance" translates to Australia's single population rising from 20 to 25 percent in just one decade. Salt's advice to singles is simple: move. Salt's solution: move to a place like Nar Nar Goon town in Victoria state, where its population of 600 has 12 single men in their 30s and one single woman.
"It's a man dam there. A reservoir of men," he said. "You find this right across Australia, little reservoirs of untapped men."
That statement makes me giggle, but perhaps Salt is onto something with altering your plans to make matrimony a greater possibility. This article could have been a downer, but Salt's no-nonsense advice lifted my spirits. (Plus, how often do you get to read about a "Sheila shortage"?)
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