 |
My Australian friends: If New Zealand lobbed some rockets into Sydney, killing innocent women and children, would you be justified in asking them to stop? And if they continued to send rockets your way a dozen more times, would you be justified to use sufficient force to make them stop?
My Canadian friends: If the United States shot dozens, no hundreds, of rockets into Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and though you politely asked us to please stop killing your citizens we continued bombing you, would you be justified to use sufficient force to make us stop?
Yes, of course.
Then why are so many people upset at Israel for trying to get their neighbors to stop sending rockets -- thousands this year alone -- into their country?
And why all the concerns about Israel using "disproportional force"? Indeed, we should be grateful that Israel is not using proportional force; we should be grateful that they are not randomly firing 3,000 rockets into "Palestinian" kindergartens and playgrounds over the course of the next six months.
So another new year is upon us, and pundits and prognosticators near and far are making their predictions for what's to come in 2009. And they'll almost certainly be wrong.
A mere six months ago, wise men were telling us to expect oil to hit $200 a barrel, and drivers could expect to pay $8 a gallon or more for gasoline. (Yes, I know our overseas friends probably laugh at our panic at having to pay that much.) Yet just yesterday oil dropped to $37 a barrel, and I topped off my car for $1.39 a gallon. Not even adjusting for inflation, that's less than a gallon of gas cost in 1979.
And what about those sure-thing predictions that the 2008 presidential contest would come down to Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton? Or that the Dow would top 15,000? Wrong, wrong, and wrong—waaay wrong on that last one.
Many such predictions fail because of our human tendency to think in static terms. We think things will remain basically the same. But even as we try to reason through some possible causes and effects, we fail to account for all the factors in the equation, even if they're available to us. (Credit-market meltdown, anyone?) More unpredictable are the random X factors that change the equation completely. (Cue speech about chaos theory by Jeff Goldblum character in Jurassic Park.)
All this to say that at this turn of a new year I recommend you check out two books that I've recently enjoyed, Follies of Science and Yesterday’s Tomorrows. They're chock full of past imaginings of how the future world would look. For example, by 1980 we were all supposed to be flying around in personal, nuclear-powered helicopters. I guess I failed to sign up for mine.
My favorite is the bold imaginings of our future cities that look remarkably like old cities with only a few imagined "improvements" such as movable walkways or flying buses. (Nuclear-powered, natch!) None imagined the Interstate highway system or the growth of suburbs, which have largely emptied the imagined megacities of tomorrow.
Houses would be built of lead, concrete, asbestos (!), foam, or plastic. The kitchens of tomorrow featured pop-up ranges, retracting cabinets, and all sorts of other gadgetry (not to mention female models all looking remarkably like June Cleaver). Not one featured today’s nearly ubiquitous microwave oven.
In the 1950s one car manufacturer bragged about how much you'd love its new plastic seats, failing to anticipate the combined effects of (a) plastic vinyl, (b) wearing shorts, and (c) heat and humidity. (Which allows me also to plug one of my favorite white-trash, hillbilly-funk, road-kill rock bands, Southern Culture on the Skids, and their best album, Plastic Seat Sweat.)
And pity the poor creators of the original Star Trek series. They set their story 400 years in the future but wrote it only a few years before the microchip integrated circuit became widely available, meaning all their "futuristic" equipment looks unbelievably clunky and stupid today, full of dials and knobs and blinking lights that look downright laughable compared to today's average cell phone or iPod.
So, I'll read the predictions for next year. Some might be close; most will be wrong. And I'll put my trust in the one prediction that I know is true because it was made by one who proved His reliability through His life, death, and resurrection.
Happy New Year to all.
"If I'm serious about keeping my New Year's resolutions in 2009, should I add another one? Should the to-do list include, 'Start going to church'?" asks John Tierney in yesterday's New York Times.
Although Tierney admits it's "an awkward question for the heathen to contemplate," he's asking it because of a recent report, reviewing eight decades of research, which concludes that religious belief and piety promote self-control.
But why, researchers (and Tierney) wondered, did religious people show more self-control?
Perhaps it was self-selecting. After all, Tierney writes, it takes a lot of self-control to sit through a church service or Sunday School. Maybe it's just those who have self-control who choose religion. But, no, "even after taking that self-selection bias into account, Dr. McCullough [a University of Miami psychologist] said there is still reason to believe that religion has a strong influence."
Okay, then, maybe it's just the "spirituality" aspect of religion? After all, if we just connect with the spirit, or the "force", or the oneness of humanity, wouldn't that help develop our self-control? No again. Strongly religious people score high in conscientiousness and self-control. Those who believe they are "directed by a spiritual force greater than human beings" or "felt a spiritual connection to other people" did not score high in those areas.
Well, maybe it's the spiritual disciplines learned at church. Maybe just participating in prayer, learning and worship will help. Nope, Tierney writes: "But that probably wouldn’t work either, Dr. McCullough told me, because personality studies have identified a difference between true believers and others who attend services for extrinsic reasons, like wanting to impress people or make social connections. The intrinsically religious people have higher self-control, but the extrinsically religious do not."
So what does Dr. McCullough advise a self-described "heathen" like Tierney to do? Well, Dr. McCullough believes that, "Religious people ... are self-controlled not simply because they fear God's wrath, but because they've absorbed the ideals of their religion into their own system of values, and have thereby given their personal goals an aura of sacredness. He suggested that nonbelievers try a secular version of that strategy."
Just substitute some personal "sacred values" for all those religious people's "religious values." Then throw in a dash of private mediation (you know, to sub for all that prayer and worship) and then identify yourself with an organization with "strong ideals" (what makes them strong, McCullough doesn't say). And, poof, maybe that'll work.
Problem is, it won't. Ironically, our self-control is not of ourselves. It is not because we've "absorbed" ideals. It is not because our personal goals have an "aura." Self-control, as the Word states, is fruit of the Holy Spirit's work in our lives.
And there's simply no secular strategy that's going to match that.
 Today's Boundless article, "Ignorant Christians" by Gary Thomas, takes off like a guided missile:
Ignorance is one charge I'd like to see the church vigorously refute by example. We need a generation of first-rate thinkers, but we also need a generation in which every Christian sees himself or herself as a scholar.
Not, mind you, as an academic, but as one who takes seriously Paul's charge to "watch your life and doctrine carefully; persevere in them because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers" (1 Tim. 3:16).
Thomas goes on to claim that, for a Christian, ignorance is sin (not bliss, as we've been told) and challenge readers to embrace their calling to submit their minds to spiritual transformation through the discipline of study. Thomas writes: Christianity exalts the role of the mind as a necessary part of right living, but our faith is unique in stressing how our behavior and our minds influence and act upon each other. When our thinking goes, our behavior doesn't lag far behind. And when our behavior slips, our minds begin to slip as well.
To illustrate this point, he quotes Romans 12:1-2: Offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God — which is your spiritual worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is — his good, pleasing, and perfect will.
This connection between thinking and behavior is one that is worth considering. If our minds need to be renewed in order for transformation to take place, then flawed thinking must be our natural default. That's nothing new, really, but I think (see, there I go!) that being aware that we begin at a point of wrong thinking may provide the motivation to consume truth. In fact, Thomas takes it a step further: Is it possible to be a faithful disciple and not be a diligent student? No. How we study will differ according to our gifts, personality, and temperament. Whether we study should not. Contemplative prayer, social activism, fellowship, and enthusiastic worship all have their place; but if Paul says transformation includes the renewal of our minds, I don't believe it is possible for us to be serious disciples of Christ if we do not also become serious students of His truth.
In conclusion, Thomas offers this challenge: The biblical instruction is clear: We need to take charge of our minds. On their own, our minds can be instruments of anxiety, doubt, worry, fear and romantic fallacies. Paul urges us to exert ourselves more strongly in the arena of our minds than in any other area of the spiritual life: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things." (Phil. 4:8)
The campaign slogan of the United Negro College Fund has become familiar: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." It's unfortunate when Christians waste theirs.
As I continue to think and pray about my goals for 2009, I'm buoyed by a story about Boy Scout Shawn Goldsmith who did the unheard of: he earned all 121 merit badges in time for his 18th birthday (the deadline). Tuesday's Boston.com reports: It's an accomplishment the local arm of the organization calls "an almost unheard-of feat." Oceanside resident Shawn Goldsmith earned his final badge -- for bugling ... He far surpassed the 21 badges required to achieve the elite rank of Eagle Scout.
He said he took about five years to earn his first 62 badges and then nearly doubled that number in a matter of months. He did it with the encouragement of his grandmother, who died shortly before he reached his goal.
Speaking of buoys, here's another young man who is showing the rest of us what it looks like to do hard things. What hard things are you planning to do in the new year?
A few years back I was over at a friend's apartment, and she was confessing that she thought God did not love her. She was even fearful that she might find herself some day like Judas, outright conspiring against God.
I didn't know what to say. She was involved in her church, helped lead worship in a small group, and was studying at a Christian graduate university. Surely she was loved by God; surely she was saved.
But I didn't know how to help her.
Now I do.
I knew that she loved the Lord. This was evident in the songs she wrote and in her private devotional life. And that was the key to helping my friend understand that, yes, the Lord loved her. C.H. Spurgeon lays out the argument: Once I knew a good woman who was the subject of many doubts and when I got to the bottom of her doubt it was this: she knew she loved Christ but she was afraid He did not love her. Oh, I said that is a doubt that will never trouble me, never by any possibility because I am sure of this: that the heart is so corrupt naturally that love to God never did get there without God putting it there. You may rest quite certain that if you love God it is a fruit and not a root. It is the fruit of God's love to you and it did not get there by the force of any goodness in you. You may therefore conclude with absolute certainty that God loves you if you love God.
Got that? We who are saved were at one time incapable of loving God. Why would we? We were "haters of God." Indeed, we were "dead" to Him, following the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience, by nature children of wrath.
We had nothing but antipathy toward God, and His justified wrath was positioned toward us.
Ah, but God, "being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ."
And now we who are saved are alive in Christ, and though often feebly, we love Him.
And if we've found ourselves loving Him, we can be assured that He loves us. Indeed, He first loved us, even in our unlovely state. His love is the root that produces within us the fruit of love. If there's fruit, then God's root of love toward us exists.
That's what I would tell my friend if I had the chance.
The contest between President Bush and Karl Rove that began in January 2006 didn't end there. "To my surprise," Rove writes, "the president demanded a rematch in 2007." And 2008. According to Rove, "a glutton for punishment, Mr. Bush insisted on another rematch."
What's the outcome of all this reading? For starters, victory for Karl Rove. He won the competition all three times. But not by much. In 2006 it was Rove 110, Bush 95. In '07, Rove 76, Bush 51. And last year's total, as of December 26, Rove 64, Bush 40. That's a lot of extra-curricular reading for the leader of the free world. And contrary to what most reporters would have you believe, those weren't comic books on his nightstand.
For starters, "Each year, the president ... read the Bible from cover to cover, along with a daily devotional." What else did he read in those three years?
Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin; biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, Babe Ruth, King Leopold, William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, LBJ and Genghis Khan; "A History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900," by Andrew Roberts; James L. Swanson's "Manhunt;" and Nathaniel Philbrick's "Mayflower." For fiction, he read eight Travis McGee novels by John D. MacDonald, Michael Crichton's "Next," Vince Flynn's "Executive Power," Stephen Hunter's "Point of Impact," and Albert Camus's "The Stranger."
Rove reports that "Nearly half of his 2006 reading was history and biography, with another eight volumes on current events (mostly the Mideast) and six on sports."
That's a hefty list for anyone, let alone someone shouldering the responsibility of the presidency. But he's no lightweight. Rove says, There is a myth perpetuated by Bush critics that he would rather burn a book than read one. Like so many caricatures of the past eight years, this one is not only wrong, but also the opposite of the truth and evidence that bitterness can devour a small-minded critic. Mr. Bush loves books, learns from them, and is intellectually engaged by them.
Whatever your thoughts about our president (I happen to admire, respect and revere him), his love of books is something we should all aspire to. When he leaves the White House for the last time on January 20, I will miss him greatly. But maybe now he'll have the time and leisure to really read a few books. He's earned it.
A Chicago couple got married recently and shared their first Christmas together as husband and wife. Few weddings of ordinary couples get news coverage beyond the wedding announcements feature that some papers still have, but this couple made the news because they not only planned to save sex for after their wedding, but also planned to save their first kiss.
In a follow-up to this story, the Chicago Tribune wrote: When the Tribune reported last month that Chicago couple Melody LaLuz and Claudaniel Fabien were about to wed without ever having kissed, much less slept together, hundreds of readers responded passionately.
Some were incredulous: "Huuuuge mistake. ... To go in with that as an unknown is too big of a risk factor."
Reading this last line reminded me just how upside down conventional wisdom is about physical intimacy and marriage. For the past four decades Americans have developed an unhealthy fear of marrying someone without giving them a sexual audition. In that same time, Americans have lost just about all the healthy fear they once had about what premarital sex might do to undermine their future marriage. As a result, we have a culture of people who go around sampling the sexual potential of future partners with little concern for the wear and tear they are putting on those people (or themselves).
I realize there are some unfortunate examples of couples who discovered serious sexual problems after they got married. But how many more examples are out there of couples who have compromised their sexual satisfaction in marriage by trying to eliminate all sexual surprises before marriage? As Michael Lawrence (an occassional Boundless contributor) says, "I've never met a couple in all my marriage work who say they wish they had been more physical before they got married."
In today's Boundless Answers, John Thomas answers a question from a guy who's worried his girlfriend's sexual past will mean problems down the road. Here's the crux of the questioner's concerns: The issues that affect me the most are just sadness of us possibly not being completely as close as we could be, insecurity of being compared to these other guys, and just having trouble dealing with the thought of this girl I love having been so close and intimate with another (or others).
In his answer, John gives hope for restoration and offers practical advice on how to humbly approach his girlfriend when working through the issue. It begins with the example of Jesus Christ. Jesus showed us perfect response to people's personal sin. He exhibited the perfect balance of righteousness and compassion; justice and mercy. He called it the way He saw it without compromise, then He brought healing and hope and restoration.
I want to encourage you with two thoughts as you prepare for your conversation with her. First, you must have as your ultimate goal the glory of God. What I mean is that you can't see this as ultimately being about you, and you can't see this as ultimately being about her. This is about God. All of life is from Him, through Him and for Him. So as you think about this, you think as Christ would think. How could you do that, you ask?
That is thought number two. As a believer, you have been given the "mind of Christ." The very Spirit of Christ dwells in you. You have access to all of the discernment and wisdom of God. Additionally, you have the power of God to help you love, forgive, restore and celebrate the gift of grace: Christ taking your sin and her sin upon Himself, and paying our death sentence.
John rightly focuses on the need for grace in this circumstance. If this young man approaches his girlfriend with the "mind of Christ," then there is hope for love, forgiveness, and restoration. But that doesn't mean that her past sexual sins (and possibly his if he's ever viewed pornography) won't have consequences in the marriage bed.
The questioner's fear of comparison and loss of intimacy is legitimate. And I don't say that to discourage. I say that so the person reading this will have the proper perspective going in. Sober expectations can be a blessing here.
Being other-centered will also help. If you're willing to lay down your sexual expectations for the sake of your spouse, there's very little room for sadness and insecurity.
'Tis the season for New Year's resolutions and at least one money management related item makes my list each year. That's why I was interested to read this article on MSN about six financial milestones you should hit before age 30.
Some were expected: own a home (or have a plan to own a home), know your personal priorities and set your budget accordingly and reduce credit card debt. Always a good reminder. Sarah Young Fisher, [president of financial-planning firm Kuntz Lesher Capital in Lancaster, Pa.] says a 30-year-old needs to be "living on your paycheck" Sarah Young Fisher, 53, president of financial-planning firm Kuntz Lesher Capital in Lancaster, Pa. getting by without taking on credit card debt — and saving at least 10 percent of total salary for the future. "If not," she says, "you're not going be able to retire."
Several of the milestones were not as obvious. For example: Have skills. (Anyone else thinking Napoleon Dynamite? "Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills. You know, like nunchuku skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills...") The article points out that developing a set of marketable yet unique skills sets you up for career success. Even for those who do not consider themselves entrepreneurs, most workers should expect multiple changes in employers and job titles throughout their careers. "By time you're 30, you should develop a set of marketable skills," says Gregg Fisher, 35, founder of Gerstein Fisher, a New York financial-planning firm. "Try to bring something new to the table."
The model of working for the same company for 30 years and retiring with a gold watch is now two generations out of date, says Fisher, who founded his firm — which serves mostly clients under age 45 — at age 21.
Today's workers must differentiate themselves in order to survive and thrive, Fisher says. "Everyone's really self-employed. If you work for a company, you just have one client," he says. "If they fire you, you're out of business."
Good advice. Another point that stood out to me was: Know smart people. It is important to have strong advisers in your life, Young Fisher says. Knowing a good tax preparer, financial adviser, attorney and insurance agent can save you untold amounts of money and stress. "When you do need someone, get someone good," she says.
That's advice straight from Proverbs: "Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed." Intelligence is an asset in an advisor, but so is wisdom. And the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. So I would add that godly advisers are as important as smart people.
Finally, the article suggests giving money away because it makes you feel good and "puts it in perspective," whatever "it" is. Again, that's just a good biblical principle, which, by the way, is about much more than feeling good. It is about perspective, though — eternal perspective. Giving more is one resolution that just may make my list this year.
For all the scorn heaped on our 43d President, little attention was given to the time he made for books during his term in office. Really good, solid, thick books. Last week Karl Rove talked about his ongoing contest with President Bush. A contest of reading. He explains, It all started on New Year's Eve in 2005. President Bush asked what my New Year's resolutions were. I told him that as a regular reader who'd gotten out of the habit, I had set a goal for myself -- to read a book a week in 2006. Three days later, we were in the Oval Office when he fixed me in his sights and said, "I'm on my second. Where are you?" Mr. Bush had turned my resolution into a contest of reading.
I think it's a great idea. So I challenged Steve to a similar quest: see who can read the most books in 2009. A bit of competition can go a long way. Especially when it means I have a reason to do something -- like reading -- that I love.
I love books. I'm always on the lookout for good reads for our 8 and 6 year olds. When I bring home a stack from the library and find them, hours later, still pouring over the bag full of stories, I feel like a victor. Mission accomplished. I'm no less giddy when I find something I can't put down.
That's where I need your help. What are your favorite books? What are you hoping to read in the coming year? Who are your favorite authors? I know I've asked questions like this on the Line in the past, but I can't resist another New Year's opportunity to start my reading list afresh.
I'm sitting next to my mom's Christmas tree in her home in Minnesota. Our family just got back from the Christmas service in the Pioneer Church, her church's original structure. Built in 1898 and used until 1920, it then alternated between standing vacant and serving as a grain bin for local farmers before it was recently restored and moved back to a corner of the church's property. The original pump organ was found, fixed and installed, as were the pulpit and hanging pulpit lantern. Now each Christmas, decendents of one of the original church families decorate the small building as it would have looked 100 years ago, complete with lanterns, candles, pine boughs, wheat sheaves and berry wreaths.
For tonight's service, the pastor dressed in period garb to deliver the Christmas message, and one of the junior high girls donned a traditional Norwegian costume belonging to my mother. It was a quiet and meaningful time of memories, carols, poetry and prayer.
Contrast this to my trip here. After plowing through a week of work, parties, shopping and general insanity, I stumbled through two airports in hopes of getting here before Christmas. A blizzard and a plane crash/fire (I was on the runway when that Continental flight crashed in Denver) almost detained me. This general 21st century mayhem was summarized when a man and his three-year-old daughter located their seats next to me on my final flight. After getting settled in, I quickly learned they were on their way to Grandma's. "What do you want to do first when you get there?", he prompted her, obviously thankful that I was showing interest, and no doubt hoping I'd help keep her entertained once en route. Clutching her doll and blanket, she looked up at us and said soberly, "Well, first I'll have to check my email."
I'm checking my own email a bit more than I planned to during my vacation. But tonight's service in the Pioneer Church reminded me to slow down. I think I'll do that the rest of this week, and I think I'll do that in 2009. I'll need help determining what that looks like for me. It will have to include some specifics. Any ideas, or does anyone else plan to do the same?
Christmas Favorites -- 00:00
One of the made-up games for which I'm known is "What's Your Favorite?" You basically say "What's your favorite...?" and select a category. Then everyone in the room has to say his or her favorite in that category. Pretty self-explanatory. I also add other elements and rules, but won't get into those here. Suffice it to say I drive my friends and family nuts with my no-holds-barred approach to this game. This week I ask the Boundless team for some of their Christmas favorites. Listen in and give us yours when you get a chance.
Peace on Earth -- 19:29
I just bought this new project from Casting Crowns. Love it. In honor of this, we're reairing my interview with Mark Hall. And because it's Christmas.
Driving Immanuel -- 34:04
John Thomas chauffeured Jesus? Not exactly, but he offers us a glimpse into the meaning of "Immanuel" as seen through everyday life. Sometimes God shows up in the most amazingly ordinary ways.
What If I’m Not “All That”? -- 41:29
Her friend is prettier, perkier and more outgoing. She's also (surprise, surprise) the center of attention, especially with guys. And of course, she's "not interested in any of them." So Ms. Wallflower is competing with a girl who's winning at a game she doesn't even care to play. Grrr. How does one solve this dilemma without slapping, biting and scratching? By asking Candice. And we do.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
My little home theater (which doubles as a guest bedroom) is nearly done. A friend lent me his older projector. Another friend gave me a screen that he no longer needed. The audio system is something I bought a few years ago that I moved downstairs because it was taking up space in the family room. I had a spare DVD player.
All I needed was some cables. And if you know anything about audiovisual stuff, decent cables aren't cheap.
So after work I intended to stop by Best Buy to pick some up. As I was driving, though, I recalled that a Circuit City near where I live is closing, and is liquidating their stock.
Having a anticipatory sense that this might be the Lord's leading, I drove to the Circuit City and looked around. I was stunned to find all cables 70 percent off. This is what I picked up:
My first reaction was that this was providence; the Lord was providing me a gift in the way I might give my daughters something trivial like princess stickers.
And then I thought about what others are losing in order that I might be blessed: The employees (who were extraordinarily unhelpful and inattentive) were losing their jobs, and the company was losing its profit.
Then I wondered about similar kinds of blessings. If I get a parking space near the door or the last piece of pie at the buffet, someone else doesn't. If I find a $20 bill fluttering on the ground, someone has lost their $20 bill. If I find a good deal on a HUD house, someone has likely been evicted from their home. If I marry a wonderful woman, some other guy doesn't get to.
Surely the Lord has His hands on the events of my life, even the seemingly meaningless ones. Why in His providence do I sometimes benefit at someone else's loss?
And more importantly, what should my attitude be when I am blessed in this particular kind of way? Maybe a sober thankfulness? Maybe, in light of my undeserved good fortune, open-handed generosity? Maybe with humility, knowing that the Lord in His providence may some day want to bless someone else through my loss?
Surely with the conviction that my loving Father's ways are not capricious, but simply beyond mine.
Congratulations composer girl! With your comment of "Ted (#57): Good." you are our 50,000th commenter! And you've won a free Boundless T-Shirt! Look for an e-mail from me soon.
Thanks for playing everybody. That was fun. We should give away Tees more often ... especially since we still have bunches in inventory. *sigh*
Today, we'll celebrate a small milestone on the Boundless blog *drum roll please* the 50,000th comment. And as a way of saying thanks to you, our commenters, we're giving away a Boundless T-Shirt to the person who submits comment number 50,000 (we're around 49,900 right now).
Here's what you need to know:
- You can comment on any blog post, no matter how old
- You can submit as many comments as you like, just make it relevant to the original post
- Be sure and include your real email address so we can contact you for your mailing address and shirt size
Merry Christmas to all of our readers and commenters. Thanks for contributing to the conversation and helping make this blog a thriving online community.
Sometimes during a Christmas party conversation, when people find out you work for Focus on the Family or Boundless, you feel a little judged. Other times, the questions begin. Saturday night, it was the latter.
"So, I overheard you mention your 'work blog'," a party attender said to me. "But, I thought you didn't work."
After eight years of staying at home, I no longer react to the "you don't work" comment. I know what they mean. It's fine. So I explained about the freelance writing. She wanted to know what I wrote about. Mainly Christian finances and some about stay-at-home mommyhood, I told her. That's when she got the intense look. Here it comes.
She explained her situation. She had been working for seven years while her husband completed a bachelor and professional degree. They had two small children. She was frustrated.
"I'm tired of having someone else raise my kids," she told me. "Don't get me wrong, Miss Gina is doing a great job. But I want to raise them myself."
Her husband now had his professional job, but also had a boatload of student loans from professional school. He agreed that she could now stay at home if she wanted. But, she wanted to know, was she selfish to stay at home and not contribute to paying off the loans?
Candice tackles a similar question in today's Boundless article. In "Boyfriend Doesn't Want Kids," a reader wonders about her desire to stay at home with future kids: "[I'm} thinking that maybe I'm selfish to want this so badly ... It's painful to try and let go of, and I'm not sure that I should."
Candice answered: While it's possible to want children for the wrong reason, strength of desire for babies is no evidence of that. Scripture is full of examples of women who longed to be mothers. My favorite example is Hannah. And God's answer to her desperate prayers (so impassioned were they, the high priest thought she was drunk!) was not to turn her away for being self-serving, but to open her womb and make her fruitful.
I agree with Candice. It is always possible to have wrong motives. We can have desires to do things Scripture condemns. We can even have wrong motives for things that Scripture commends -- such as giving, sharing the Good News, marrying or fellowshipping with other believers. The answer isn't to stop giving, sharing, marrying or fellowshipping. Rather, to give our hearts to the Lord and ask Him to purify our motives -- to make His will, our will.
In the same way, if I am concerned about my desire to stay at home and raise children, I think it's wise to test that desire against Scripture and give my motives to God. Titus 2 tells me that young women are to learn how to love our husbands and children, be self-controlled and pure, be busy at home, be kind and subject to our husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
So, do I want to be busy at home as an expression of active servant love to my husband and children? I'm in line with Scripture. Free time, "me" time and "I" time? Not so much, maybe.
So, Saturday night lady and I had a discussion. We talked about how it sounded like her priorities were in line with Scripture, how she and her husband had a plan to responsibly handle their debt and how she would, in fact, be contributing to her household by staying at home. I reassured her that I did not think she was selfish to want to raise her kiddos.
The Bush administration has given health care professionals an early Christmas present by issuing a new regulation providing "right of conscience" protections to workers who refuse to "perform abortions and other procedures because of religious or moral objections."
The report from The Washington Times: The new "provider conscience regulations" are designed to strengthen existing federal laws that prohibit institutions from discriminating against individuals who refuse to participate in abortions or provide a referral for one. The administration's rule, issued Thursday, is intended to ensure that federal funds don't flow to providers who violate those laws.
"Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience," Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt said. "This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience."
And from The Washington Times Op-Ed on why it's needed: Americans blanch at abortion coercion in China, where population control agents force mothers to end the lives of their unborn babies who exceed the mandated limit of one child per couple. Yet few Americans realize that abortion-related mandates are also threatening to U.S. health care professionals who follow medical standards such as the Hippocratic Oath.
Conscientious physicians and other health care professionals are being pressured, under threat of job loss, to violate medical ethics standards by performing abortions and referring patients to abortion clinics to do the deed.
Failure to comply with the new rules could mean termination of HHS funds and possibly require the return of funds already received. Of course, the current administration's rule will be in jeopardy when the new administration is sworn in in January as Obama has already voiced his opposition to the new regulations.
Still, for now, I'd like to wish a Merry Christmas to all the health care providers who refuse to perform or participate in abortions or provide a referral for one.
Everyone knows the words to "The 12 Days of Christmas," although I must admit they mystify me in places. Who would really want 10 lords a'leaping for Christmas? Who needs a bunch of guys prancing about the house, creating a ruckus and knocking over all the lamps? The two turtle doves, not to mention that partridge, would surely lead to a big mess, especially once the cats found out about them. And 12 drummers drumming? Yikes! Call the cops!
So here's an idea: Let's update the list to make it relevant today. Let's give gifts that strengthen our marriages and family.
On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a spice jar: That way, we can season our words with grace, encouragement and love. Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Ephesians 4:29)
On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a calculator: This is a special calculator, with the cancel key prominently placed in the center of the pad, conveniently twice the size of all the other keys so it is easy to cancel accounts instead of keeping score. [Love] is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. (1 Corinthians 13:5)
On the third day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a zipper: It's usually wiser to keep your lip zipped than to compound a problem. Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry. (James 1:19)
On the fourth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a duffel bag: This model has two handles, one on each side so the load is lighter for both of us. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Galatians 6:2)
On the fifth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a pocket watch: This timepiece is carried in a breast pocket, close to the heart, so we can remember to give each other time to grow. It was he who gave . . . to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-13)
On the sixth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a shovel: This is a Smokey Bear shovel so we can put out sparks before they become raging fires. “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. (Ephesians 4:26-27)
On the seventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a fountain: True love is constantly refreshed and daily springs anew. May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. (Proverbs 5:18)
On the eighth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a ballerina doll: Nothing epitomizes grace and strength like a ballerina, and a good wife even more so. A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. (Proverbs 31:10)
On the ninth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a candle and sealing wax: Do not neglect to keep the fires burning or to seal your love for each other. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. (Song of Songs 8:6)
On the 10th day of Christmas, my true love gave to me some super glue: Tearing apart two things joined by super glue results in damage to both. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matthew 19:6)
On the 11th day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a Monopoly game: You can own houses on every street, but you're still poor without a good wife. Houses and wealth are inherited from parents, but a prudent wife is from the Lord. (Proverbs 19:14)
On the 12th day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a turtle dove: Well, maybe they were on to something when they wrote the original version. How beautiful you are, my darling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes are doves. (Song of Songs 1:15)
 I really resonated with Elisabeth Adams' Boundless article this week, "His Love Stories." Perhaps it was because my own sister also found her love and got married this year. (Quite literally; my sister and her husband weren't even dating this time last year.)
After sharing the wonderful stories of how God brought together some of her married friends, Elisabeth writes:
It was only because of the mercies of God that, after years of wrestling, I finally relinquished control of my love life to Him. Contrary to my expectations, it had nothing to do with ceasing to care about marriage. Instead I learned to become a living sacrifice: regularly, trustfully pouring out all my longings before Him.
And I am certain He hears. After all, God is "the best maker of all marriages," and I'm convinced that He loves to do it! He brought Eve to Adam. He prompted Eliezer's prayer for guidance, and then answered it by matching Rebekah with Isaac. He arranged for Ruth to "accidentally" bump into Boaz, inspired Naomi when she counseled Ruth to consider this man who seemed so beyond her grasp, and fueled Boaz's determination to finish the matter that very day.
This is a picture of God's heart. This is what He wants to do for all His children. This is what He wants to do for me.
 I'm sure it was no coincidence that Ted chose to publish my article next to Elisabeth's. It has a similar theme: trusting in God's goodness.
Something I pondered as I was writing "Vessel of Honor" was this idea that ever since the Garden of Eden, Satan has been trying to convince us that God is withholding something from us — that He doesn't truly have our best interest at heart. This causes us to grasp at what we want, because we don't trust God to meet our needs. This shortsightedness can cause us to base our contentment on present circumstances because we fail to understand the big picture — that ultimately obedience will be rewarded both in this life and the next (Psalm 73:13-17). Shifting our perspective to an eternal one makes a world of difference.
I think singles must feel more acutely than most that we are "aliens and strangers" in this world (1 Peter 2:11). The thing is, all people long for something more because this earth is not our true home.
And so the gap between single and married is not so wide after all. All of us wait eagerly for our ultimate union with our heavenly Bridegroom. And as we live faithfully — single and married — our very lives proclaim Christ to the world.
I recommend reading Elisabeth's and my articles together. Remember your high calling, child of God. The world needs sons and daughters of God who live like they truly believe.
 So, while spending some time on Facebook yesterday, just before I sent out the weekly Boundless e-newsletter, I invited your shout-out requests.
Amy Flores, Justin Good, Daphne E. Landers, Diana Kyle, Jennie Cammarn, Karolyn Webb Bowman, Adam Dufty and Jamie Robertson quickly responded. And so I mentioned them in the e-newsletter.
Now Will Neil comes along, torqued that he missed the curtain call.
It's not out of concern for being labeled "USA-centric," or being thought of as having either "continental prejudice" or "hemispherical prejudice." And it's not out of pity for the more indolent/torpid among us. No, it's out of the simple benevolence of my heart that I do the following:
Will Neil, here is your shout-out.
Tomorrow I am scheduled to fly to northern Minnesota, where I'll spend Christmas with my family in a small farm town of 122 people. I fly into Fargo, ND (again, yes, this is a real place), but my sister called last night to inform me that they are expecting a blizzard. This means that the chance of me getting stuck in Denver due to a canceled flight is ridiculously high. I spent a day and a half in the Denver airport at Christmas eight years years ago, and to this day even the smell of the place brings back (bad) memories. So we'll see what happens. Prayers are appreciated.
As I anticipate my trip, I'm sitting at my desk thinking of Christmases past. This is aided by the fact that I'm listening to the best Christmas album of all time: Evie's Christmas Memories. Personally, I have many Christmas memories: caroling in our neighborhood in California, candlelight services, being the cuckoo in my grade school Christmas program, eating sketchy Scandinavian food, surprising my parents with a trip home after taking my first job in another state...all good times. Memories are important. Traditions are important. I'm especially attached to them now that my dad is gone, our family is scattered, and life is more complicated than it was when my biggest Christmas decision was what color glitter to put on my homemade popsicle stick ornament for Mom. What memories and traditions are important to you, and what are you doing to preserve them?
Santa Claus is Coming to Town -- 00:00
Santa Claus, the Patron Saint of Single Women? It's true. You heard it here first. Santa and Mrs. Claus visited The Boundless Show this week and regaled us with stories of life at the North Pole, elf etiquette, Christmas favorites and most importantly, what's going on in the hearts and heads of kids today. They give us a much-needed pep talk on what it takes to love hurting people...no matter their age.
Plugged In to Christmas -- 21:31
Bob Waliszewski is in the studio to talk about Christmas-related topics like vampires and video games. He gives a Christmas movie roundup, then shares his top gift ideas. Clean up the trash from your and your nieces' and nephews' Christmas lists with these helpful guidelines.
The Gospel According to Joe -- 34:54
Joe English was the drummer for Paul McCartney and Wings. Then he became a Christian and sang in John Thomas' church. He brought a message that was stark, in-your-face, and expressive of the overhaul that had taken place in his life. He was a changed man, and his example changed John as well. Sometimes raw and real is where it's at. My mom would be proud.
Robbing the Cradle -- 40:02
Single men are scarce in her circle. Is it ok to consider younger (and younger, and younger) guys? Candice addresses the age issue, and talks about the pluses and minuses of marrying someone with a few years (or more) on either side. What's irrelevant, and what's a red flag? Pull your rocking chair closer, turn up your hearing aid, and learn.
Ok, I need to dash off to our Christmas chapel service here at Focus. Mandisa is singing! Maybe we'll get her on the show in the near future. I met her in Nashville last year, and she's super-cool. By the way, this week's music is provided by our good friends Nathan Clark George and Casting Crowns. I'm loving the Christmas music! I'll let you know if I make it to Minnesota. It's currently below zero. Gaah! Oh well. Visiting family and reliving memories and traditions is well worth the effort, right?
Beth and I had only been married about five months when we found out she had a chronic disease that could make it difficult to get pregnant. That worried us. Because we knew we wanted at least three kids. And because we knew that we wanted to live on one salary so Beth could stay home.
At the time it seemed impossible to live on one salary in a city like D.C., especially because I had very little to offer any prospective, higher paying employer except an English degree and a couple of years of Capitol Hill experience.
So we went to see our pastor, Mark Dever, for some advice.
First, he told us he's counseling numerous infertile couples who put off having kids, thinking it would just happen a little further down the road. Which is why he counseled us to "never put off life." And when we raised our concern about living on one salary, he simply asked, "Who is your provider?"
His meaning was clear. He was asking us whether we believed that provision was dependent on my earning potential, or on God? And though it's true that God uses means to supply our need, that we have to be faithful with the pursuit of employment and with whatever our hands find to do, it is also true that God is who Abraham said He is, Jehovah Jireh, which means "the Lord will see to it."
When we got home after our meeting with Mark, we threw away Beth's birth control pills. She was pregnant three weeks later.
So count me among the foolish, unwise stewards mentioned in the comments section of Suzanne's blog "Faith of Lilies." Because I do believe God will provide for my family of eight (and more if he so blesses).
God is provider. I think, mainly, it's our definition of what provision is that gets us in trouble.
Tony Woodlief writes in today's Wall Street Journal about the merits of believing in Santa Claus, or more precisely, his kids' belief in the jolly old elf. Concerned that his 8-year-old son is figuring out the improbability of delivering gifts to every child in the whole world in a single night, he writes, Perhaps a more responsible parent would confess, but I hesitate. For this I blame G.K. Chesterton, whose treatise "Orthodoxy" had its 100th anniversary this year. One of its themes is the violence that rationalistic modernism has worked on the valuable idea of a "mystical condition," which is to say the mystery inherent in a supernaturally created world. Writing of his path to faith in God, Chesterton says: "I had always believed that the world involved magic: now I thought that perhaps it involved a magician."
Woodlief further appeals to the likes of George MacDonald and C.S. Lewis in defense of his defense of Santa, saying, As a parent, I believe (with the older apologists) that it's essential to preserve a small, inviolate space in the heart of a child, a space where he is free to believe impossibilities. The fantasy writer George MacDonald -- author of "The Light Princess" and "The Golden Key" -- whom Lewis esteemed as one of his greatest inspirations, suggested that it is only by gazing through magic-tinted eyes that one can see God: "With his divine alchemy," McDonald wrote, "he turns not only water into wine, but common things into radiant mysteries." The obfuscating spirit of the "commonplace," meanwhile, is "ever covering the deep and clouding the high."
Nowhere else is that obfuscation more evident than in the scientific community. Having watched most of Expelled last night, I was deeply troubled by what's revealed in the debate between scientists who hold an unquestioning devotion to Darwin's theory and those who are willing to consider evidence to the contrary.
If Ben Stein's documentary is right, the rejection of all things non-material does violence to much more than Chesterton's "idea of a 'mystical condition.'" The violence is pervasive and brutally physical. Witness the willful extermination of 6 million Jews in the name of racial purity; atrocities made possible in part by a whole bunch of people devoted to Darwin's view of the world. His was a world without anything beyond our five senses.
And if that's all there is, then we have no free will, no purpose, and nothing at all beyond this life (so says Darwinist Will Provine in the film). It's a glum -- and ultimately violent -- existence.
You may be thinking the links between Santa, Darwin and Jesus a bit flimsy or hokey, but trust me, they're there (or better yet, read the article and rent the film and see them for yourself). At root is a willingness to believe in a reality that we can't smell or see or hear or taste or touch.
Woodlief says, Magic-talk gets under the skin of many, like renowned scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins. This is doubly so when it is what the Christ-figure Aslan, in C.S. Lewis's "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," calls "the deeper magic," an allusion to divinity. Mr. Dawkins is reportedly writing a book examining the pernicious tendency of fantasy tales to promote "anti-scientific" thinking among children. He suspects that such stories lay the groundwork for religious faith, the inculcation of which, he claims, is a worse form of child abuse than sexual molestation.
For his part, Woodlief will remain loyal to the fantastical: Puritans and atheists alike may disapprove, but our home is filled with fairy tales and fiction books, in hopes that the magic sprinkled across their pages will linger in the hearts of our children. In this we side with Chesterton, who wrote: "I left the fairy tales lying on the floor of the nursery, and I have not found any books so sensible since."
I'm with him.
A blog I wrote a few days ago in which I expressed no opinion whatsoever has turned into a lively discussion of birth control. And that's fine.
I asked Dawn Vargo, Bioethics Analyst with Focus on the Family, and David Davis, manager of our Medical Review department, to help me better understand this issue. Here's what they came up with:
* * *
Focus on the Family recognizes that life begins at fertilization (the union of egg and sperm) and would oppose any method of birth control that acts after fertilization to end a life by preventing its implantation in the uterus. That said, there is a range of opinion in the Christian community on the issue of birth control.
Based on a review of the available literature, our advisory Physicians Resource Council concluded that birth control pills which contain only the hormone progestin do not reliably prevent ovulation (the release of the egg from the ovary). With this method, the pregnancies which do occur have a greater chance of being ectopic — that is, outside the uterus. This may be evidence that this contraceptive acts in some cases to disrupt the normal implantation of an early pregnancy and not merely to prevent fertilization. Thus, the use the progestin-only pill is problematic for those of us who believe that human life begins at fertilization.
Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) are pills containing a combination of estrogen and progestin. There are different opinions about the mechanism of COCs. They seem to work primarily by suppressing ovulation, but they also cause the mucus at the opening of the uterus to be thickened, and therefore less likely to be penetrated by sperm. If COCs work only through these mechanisms they are functioning as true contraceptives because they prevent the sperm and egg from uniting. There is some controversy as to whether they also bring about changes (primarily in the uterus) that could increase the likelihood of losing a fertilized egg if ovulation and fertilization should occur.
Pro-life physicians who have carefully and conscientiously studied this issue have come to different conclusions about the abortifacient potential of COCs. We respect the integrity and pro-life convictions of those who hold differing opinions on this issue.
Because of the difference in opinions, we would encourage married couples to examine the facts carefully. There are several sources of information online that can be of help as you explore this topic further:
- This article reviews the data suggesting an abortifacient mechanism for COCs.
- This article posted at the web site of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) presents arguments as to why COCs should be considered abortifacient
- In this article, also posted at the AAPLOG site, the authors present a scientific case for why they believe the existing medical literature does not support the idea that COCs act by an abortifacient mechanism.
- This article examines both sides of the disagreement over COCs.
* * *
Whether to use oral contraceptives is only one aspect of this discussion. Other contraceptive options include spermicides, barriers and natural family planning.
Even more important is the question of why you would want to either prohibit or postpone enjoying the arrival of a newborn child. In some cases, doing so may be medically or emotionally or situationally necessary, of course. In other instances, saying no to having your own children may be a symptom that you don't fully grasp that children are a blessing indeed, and that the Lord is pleased to help you as you raise them.
It's humiliating enough to play a wrong note during a church service. But what about when the entire worship band messes up?
Should you go on and hope nobody notices, or do you humbly repent and start again? And does the Holy Spirit flee from such train-wrecks? Or does he allow us to redeem them for our humbling, for the sake of facilitating Christian community, and for His glory?
I have to admit that I'm a disciple of Bob Kauflin, Director of Worship Development for Sovereign Grace Ministries. And I admit that when he injects himself into a musical train-wreck, the result is ... well, just check it out yourself, either by visiting his blog or viewing the video below.
There's one sure way to get rid of a nagging problem. Change its definition and, voila, away it goes.
For example, our nation's families have faced a growing crisis of children being born out of wedlock, being raised by a single parent—usually the mom—and of fathers not hanging around to raise the multiple children they have sired with multiple women. The results are not hard to see: entrenched poverty, rampant crime and drug abuse, and fatherless boys with no positive male role models growing into predators, perpetuating the cycle.
As with so many unfortunate demographic trends in our society, this first manifested itself in the African-American community and then gradually spread to the rest of the culture, something the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned about as early as 1965.
That's why when I read this story in The New York Times, I thought there might be reason to hope that we as a nation had finally come to our senses. According to the story, the number of two-parent families in the black community is on the rise, reversing a decades-long trend. And indeed there is some good news embedded in the report. But this bit of info first made my heart sink, then made me shake my head in rueful laughter: The Census Bureau attributed an indeterminate amount of the increase to revised definitions adopted in 2007, which identify as parents any man and woman living together, whether or not they are married or the child's biological parents.
See, there's an easy way out: just redefine parent and you've solved a big part of the problem. Why, no, officer, I wasn't speeding. I was maximizing my efficiency by cutting the time it takes to get from point A to point B! Are you anti-efficiency?
No, your honor, I wasn't dealing drugs. I’m an entrepreneur helping my clients experience varying alternate realities. Are you anti-entrepreneur?
Yes, I realize that some of these families are capable of providing loving, stable homes for children. But many of them perpetuate the worst problems of broken families, sometimes including physical and sexual abuse. It also communicates a lax standard that marriage doesn't matter to a healthy society.
The wise Sen. Moynihan warned about this unfortunate tendency to redefine problems. He called it "defining deviancy down." Change the standard or change the definition and you can make any problem "disappear." Unfortunately, the consequences of those problems are immune to our word games.
This particular Detroit automobile manufacturer is in real trouble. They've produced some great vehicles, powered by cutting edge six cylinder engines: My favorite is their convertible model. But for some reason, expenses have been exceeding income, and it looks like it might go out of business.
Another Detroit-based car maker is also in trouble. For decades they've been turning out a variety of attractive vehicles. Their cars are remarkably safe and comfortable, they include advanced brake systems and transmissions, and they've been able to kick out hundreds of thousands of them per year. But it too seems destined for collapse, for some reason known only to their CEO and CFO.
A third Detroit car maker is experiencing serious problems. They've gone for the high-end customer, and gone for producing a wide variety of models, some with as many as eight cylinders. But stockholder muttering and a hostile takeover attempt seem to be destining this car company for failure.
Late-breaking news: All three car manufacturers have gone under.
The first car company above was Columbia Motors, which produced autos from 1917 to 1924. The second car company above was the Hudson Motor Car Company, which produced Hudsons from 1909 to 1957. The third auto company above was Hupmobile, which made cars from 1909 to 1940.
Indeed, hundreds of American car manufacturers have come and gone, among them Studebaker, Midland Motor Company, American Automobile and Power Company, Pierce-Arrow and Packard.
In some cases, these companies were acquired by other car manufacturers, who restructured them into something profitable. And in some cases, they just closed their doors and that was that.
In either case, American workers survived. Though it was no doubt sad to see each company fail, and to see decent people lose their jobs, life went on and other car manufacturers filled the gap. It wasn't the end of the car-making in America, and it wasn't the end of the workers' wage-earning, when these companies imploded.
Should these poorly run companies have received a bail-out by American taxpayers? Should successfully-run car companies have come to the financial rescue of these failing companies? Or was it right that we let the free market system allow success to succeed and failure to fail?
"How to End a Relationship Like a Man" is the feature today from the folks over at The Art of Manliness. And it might be just the thing a guy needs as he contemplates ending a relationship just before Christmas -- especially if he's considering terminating it like the guy does in the opening illustration: "Matt's relationship status has been changed to 'single'  ." The first time I saw this on Facebook I nearly choked on my bagel. Not only was Matt experiencing the black pit we call "breaking up," but he had to face the uncomfortable reality that his new status was being shared in real-time with 437 of his friends, co-workers, and associates.
I felt terrible for him, even thought about giving him a consolatory call ... until I found out from a mutual friend that his status change was actually his cowardly method for breaking up with his girlfriend. No phone call, no meeting, just a quick status change to let his partner know that things just weren't working out.
The amazing part of this story is that most of you reading it probably aren't all that shocked. It's not the first time you've heard of this dastardly deed or something similar. Somewhere along the line it became acceptable to hide behind the curtain of technology when faced with the unpleasantness of ending a relationship.
So what should men do differently? The Art of Manliness folks offer four guidelines (excerpted here): 1) Talk Early and Often ... The time of the actual breakup should not be the first time your partner is made aware that you have issues with how things are going. ...
2) Always End it in Person ... If you can't handle the prospect of ending a relationship in person, you shouldn't start one in the first place. ...
3) Be Clear ... One of the most telling signs that a break-up was not handled in the proper manner is when your partner walks away still unsure of exactly where the relationship stands or why things played out the way they did.
4) Be Considerate ... If possible, point out some of the positive things that came out of the relationship. Unless it was awful from beginning to end, there are most likely some good attributes of your partner that can be mentioned. In the end, try to be as much of a gentleman when ending the relationship as you were when you started it. ...
5) No Hanging Chads ... While phrases like, "Maybe down the road," or "Just not right now," may seem like a kinder, gentler way of breaking up, they are actually quite cruel if they are not an accurate representation of your feelings. ...
Christmas is not a great time to end a relationship, but for relationships that have run their course, it's best for men to end them like a gentleman.
What's outside your window?
Maybe you're like me. A peek outside reveals the manicured lawns and minivans of suburban life. Or maybe you see something different, like city sidewalks full of bustle, or acres of crops and pasture.
A recent Boundless article challenged me to look for something else outside my window: the needy.
The article retold Leo Tolstoy's tale of Martin, the Russian cobbler who waited one day for a promised visit from Jesus. Throughout the day, as Martin watched and waited, he saw several needy people, invited them into his home, and fed and clothed them. At the end of the day, Jesus revealed that He did, indeed, visit Martin, but it was through the needy that Martin served.
After reading the story, I was bothered and couldn't exactly figure out why. In my most recent Boundless article, I wrote: I turned off the computer and sat for a second.
You see, God, that's a good story. Really, it is. I get it. But when I look out of my window, I just see neighbors. Not starving neighbors. Not neighbors in need of a coat. Just well-fed, well-clothed neighbors...
I had this nagging feeling that the Lord expected something of me, but I wasn't sure what it was.
After having what I called a "twenty-four hour whine to God": That next morning, as I dried my hair, I blurted it out frustration. Lord, I want to do it. I really do. If there was a young, starving mom walking just outside my window, I'd want you to show me and I'd want to help. I don't know why, but I feel like you expect me to do something. But, God, there's no one.
There, I'd said it. The words felt like they were still hanging there in the air.
There's no one.
Of course, the story didn't end there. There was someone, the Lord revealed. Someone who was, just about, right outside my window. And there were lessons for me to learn. Things like being open to on-the-spot obedient giving, developing relationships with those in need and asking the Lord where He wants me to give.
So, today you might try taking a look outside your window and asking the Lord for wisdom. He just might show you someone in need where you never expected to find him.
My brother and sister-in-law are expecting their third child — a girl — in February. Matt is a worship pastor at a small church in a small town, and he and Anna own and drive only one car — a Corolla. So, with no money for a new vehicle and baby number three on the way, they have been demonstrating a lot of faith in the area of God's provision.
 Though my family members and I have joked about the possibility of strapping one car seat to the top of the car, the lack of a vehicle to accommodate the whole family was a true concern. And in my less spiritual moments, I have wondered about the wisdom of my brother's growing his family without having in hand what I believe to be some of the basic necessities to accommodate it. O you of little faith.
Funny that the reference that contains that little gem is talking specifically about God's provision. It's found in Luke 12:25-28:
Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest? Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith!
I am reminded that my brother and sister-in-law is like those lilies. They rely on God to clothe them. They have eyes open to expect and appreciate the splendor in which God attires them, because they trust in the Lord.
Last night I received a text message from my brother: "Someone gave us a Suburban!" While they are thrilled by the gift, they don't really seem surprised. And I hear the Lord gently reminding me: You shouldn't be either.
It's a legitimate question I've heard frequently during our foreign adoption process, "Why aren't you adopting children from the U.S.?" Here's one from a commenter from my recent blog about our adoption: Why do people go all the way to countries on the other side of the world to adopt children when there are thousands of children here that need just as much saving? I'm not against foreign adoptions -- I guess I just never understood it.
In some ways, domestic adoptions are more challenging than foreign adoptions, both with adoption process (including the rights of the biological parents) and the process of assimilating them into one's family -- particularly families with young children. I know firsthand some of the issues because we pursued a domestic adoption before choosing another direction.
So I greatly admire the conviction, perseverance, and sacrifice of families that go that route. And we have many in our church that have expressed God's love in that way.
The reasons we chose foreign over domestic were fairly practical. Mainly, we felt that the ages of our biological children and, quite frankly, our child rearing philosophy weren't conducive for a domestic adoption (meaning, we were wary of inviting more government oversight into our home).
And for us, urgency and severity of need were factors as well.
All of the 125,000 children in the U.S. foster care system available for adoption need forever families. They need to be saved too, but in a different way than the estimated 40 million orphans internationally. First, there's just more of them. And for many, adoption could be the difference between life or death, freedom or slavery.
For example, in Ethiopia alone, over 300,000 children will die this year from preventable causes such as malaria.
The truth is, there are many reasons people either choose to adopt domestically or internationally. I just wanted to share a bit of our decision making process. Which I hope isn't seen as an endorsement of foreign over domestic. It shouldn't be. It's simply our story.
Maybe someone who has adopted domestically will provide their testimony to this board.
As President-Elect Obama announces his cabinet, conservatives have been surprised and liberals have been disappointed that Obama's national defense picks (especially the retention of President Bush's Secretary of Defense) leaned more to the hawkish side after many of the dove-like messages of his campaign. Writing last week in the Socialist Worker, Lance Selfa said: Obama's hawkishness and deference to the foreign policy establishment -- notwithstanding whatever changes of atmosphere from Bush he plans to implement -- was no secret. Liberals who are just now waking up to that fact allowed wishful thinking to cloud their judgment.
It's encouraging to see sobriety and continuity in the area of national defense considering the reminder of terrorist extremism in India last month.
I'm not sure who inspired the lyrics on the rock band Extreme's new album "Saudades De Rock," but we can hope that their song "Flower Man" doesn't end up characterizing our next Commander in Chief -- even if that disappoints a lot of "doves." Peace in appeasing
Like it's always in season
Never needed to weather the storm
Betting on your better angels
Ignoring human nature in truth
Red tooth and in claw
Lion and lamb lay
In your land of make pretend
Forgetting every soldier and son
Lest you care
To measure all the blood
And the treasure
Must be something worth
Fighting for. No?
Is it worth fighting for?
Flower man
Singing lets all
Give peace a chance
Flower man
Keep your head
Buried in the sand
Flower man
You're my enemy's
Best friend
Flower man
Liberty
My wife and I found out early this morning that a judge in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia approved our adoption of a sibling set of four children ages 8, 6, and 9 months (twins). And I'm telling you this so that you can celebrate with us, but also to say that we probably would not have had the courage to do it without the faithful example of the Thompsons and the Schwabs.
Here's what you need to know about these two families:
The Schwabs and Thompsons are families in our church that have four biological children and four adopted children. There's really nothing extraordinary about their circumstances that uniquely qualifies them to adopt so many while already having so many. They're not rich and I don't believe they received a special call from the Lord. I suspect that, mainly, they were just willing.
And they make it look easy. Of course, I know it's not easy. It's hard work. But they prove to everyone around them, every day, that having many children is a blessing from the Lord; they prove that adoption is close to God's heart; and they prove that God is Provider.
So it's Christians like these that make it easier for Christians like me to believe that something as radical as adopting four kids at once is not only possible, but wonderful.
And that (along with many other reasons) is why we officially have four new Browns in our family today.
Steve's post reminds me of some of the miserable Christmas moments I've experienced during holidays past when my eyes were on the wrong thing. (I talked about it in last week's Boundless Show.) I've heard a lot of families talk about how they are scaling back this year by donating money to their loved ones' favorite charities, drawing names instead of giving something to everyone and creating handmade gifts. In a similar spirit, the ladies over at Girl Talk just republished their "5 Keys to Christmas Joy." What if I told you that you won a contest and someone was going to do all your holiday cooking, cleaning, decorating, shopping and wrapping? What if I promised you would get the present of your dreams (like that car with the bow on top in the commercial)? Or what if I predicted that family rifts would be mended, or that this year's Christmas memories would be the best ever?
The fact is, all these things (if they actually happened) might bring us a measure of temporary happiness. But they wouldn't sustain us through a year's worth of hardship and trouble. We know this. Yet every year, we place a losing bet on the world to supply a truly joyful holiday season.
The girls offer the following five keys to Christmas joy:
- Contemplate the incarnation.
- Consistently practice the spiritual disciplines.
Christmas time is busy and there is always lots to do. It can be a temptation to let a few things slide. You know the thoughts: "Things will settle down after the holidays. I'll get back to it then." Often times, the spiritual disciplines can be the first to go.
- Serve and give to others.
- Serve out of your communion with Christ.
You know what it is like. We can be busy doing all the shopping, wrapping, decorating and baking that make for a happy Christmas, but we can be anxious, overwhelmed and irritated in the process. We're still focused on worldliness instead of godliness.
- Turn every gift into an opportunity to glorify and adore God.
If, when we receive a gift, we stop and allow our minds to "run back up the sunbeam to the sun," if we adore the One from whom all gifts come, we will find our joy multiplied a hundred fold.
Good advice for a meaningful Advent season.
In an old routine, Jerry Seinfeld talked about how advertisers use sexy models to sell things -- even tool boxes. Seinfeld said that a guy who sees a model draped over a tool box in Popular Mechanics might stop and think, "Wait a second, you're saying I buy one of these toolboxes and I'll attract a woman like that? Get outta here! ... Well, maybe I'll buy the toolbox just in case."
It's easy to feel that way about Christmas. We hear every year that the greatest joys of Christmas come from giving to others, investing time with friends and family and rediscovering the wonder of God entering our world as a baby -- but we still tend to act like the best things about Christmas are the things that cost money.
Michael Craven put it well in a recent commentary: The thrust of this consumerist message is that the holiday is best enjoyed or most fully realized through the acquisition of "things." Advertisements bombard you with images of bountiful Christmas scenes where beautiful packages surround the tree, filling the room and happiness is produced upon the receipt of this or that consumer product. Credit card issuers alone (those most interested in seeing you spend what you don't have) spend more than $150 million on holiday advertising and promotions. Evidence that these messages work is found in the fact that according to Christian financial adviser, Dave Ramsey "Over 50% of Christmas shoppers will spend well over what they planned to and will go further into debt."
Craven goes on to show how elusive it can be to find joy in stuff: Americans have been conditioned to expect that happiness and satisfaction naturally flow from prosperity and the acquisition of things. That is the whole point of consumer advertising: to make you discontent with what you have by offering the expectation of an improved life through the purchase of the latest product—an expectation that very quickly eludes us after we have purchased said product.
Of course, consciously we know this is ridiculous, however, subconsciously we frequently find ourselves seduced by the lords of consumerism into believing this silliest of propositions.
Even in one of the financially tightest Christmas season in decades, we are being cajoled from every direction to make this season meaningful by using more plastic. We know better, but will we give in ... just in case?
When it comes to what others choose to do, I often have no opinion. I may be concerned about their motivations, about the reasons behind a particular decision, but in the end their decision is exactly that: theirs. And I think no less of them for it.
Case in point: How many children they choose to have.
A couple of the pastors at my church have seven children. And a couple of pastors have only one child. Are some of the pastors less in touch with the biblical principle of "filling the earth" with children? Are they less aware of the biblical truth that children are a blessing? Are those pastors with but one child sinning by withholding blessing from the earth?
You know, I don't know. And it's not my place to say.
Maybe the women who only had one child had rough pregnancies, or had miscarriages, or suffered extreme postpartum depression and just could not take on another child. Or maybe the couple has infertility issues. Or maybe they're planning to adopt, and felt it would be best to stop having biological children at this point. Or perhaps circumstances called for a small family: Maybe they just sensed that the Lord was directing them to limit their family to three members, the three-family-member lifestyle freeing them up to better engage in a particular ministry.
There are so many variables that factor in to a family's decision in this regard. Since I don't have all those facts, it's best that I withhold opinion.
That said, I do think it's important that we all consider why we choose to have or choose not to have children.
Am I limiting the number of kids I have out of fear that I might not be able to handle another one? But such fear is not of God; He is able to encourage the fearful. Conversely, do I think that having a child will bring someone into the world who will finally and fully love me? The truth is that that child, in his sin, will at times reject me; the truth is that the Lord's love is sufficient.
Or am I limiting the number of kids I have because I'm concerned they'll be burdensome? Such an attitude may betray a belief that children are more of a curse than a blessing; God's Word clearly says that kids are a blessing. Conversely, am I wanting to have more kids to prove to the world that I, and not they, am more obedient to God's Word? The truth is that my worth is found in Christ, not in the number of offspring I produce.
Am I limiting the number of kids I have because they'll inhibit my liberated lifestyle? That may betray a selfish heart, a heart that wants to do things its way and in its time. Among other things, the arrival of children helps soften that heart, turning it outward so it can better serve others.
Real concerns. Tough questions.
So when the Duggar family has 18 kids, I think no less of them. When the parents of Boundless author Rachel Starr Thomson have 12 kids, I think no less of them. When the Patriarch Jacob had more than a dozen kids, I think no less of him.
And when friends stop at just one child, I think no less of them.
When we don't have the full story, when we aren't fully aware of someone's motivations, in the face of such everyday ambiguity sometimes it's a virtue to have the firm conviction of "no opinion."
I first read about Ray's "coming out" as a homosexual back in mid-September, and was stunned and heartbroken. After talking it over with folks on our Love Won Out team, I asked Boundless author Mike Ensley if he'd be able to write a kind of "open letter" to Ray.
 What began in my mind as a challenge to Ray has very appropriately become a challenge for me, and for the Church. Yes, homosexual behavior is shameful. But the relationship-squelching expectations we have for those in leadership, expectations that demand a slick facade of perfection, which in turn drives those who experience same-sex attraction to look for community elsewhere — that is no less shameful. Indeed, the Christian response to those who struggle with same-sex attraction (SSA) is heart-breaking.
Heart. Breaking.
I'm puzzled that the Lord has provoked me, an "ever-straight," to want to develop empathy for those with SSA. Sure, I had some close friends in undergrad who identified as gay; I went with them to the gay bars and crashed at their places on several occasions. Perhaps it's because I recognize a desire in me that others love me through my own struggles against sin that I want to grow in my love for those who feel the tormenting temptations of SSA.
I have a long way to go. We have a long way to go, Christian. It's my prayer that you join me in having some compassion for those who deal with SSA. You may come to see that their temptations to sin aren't all that different from yours. And perhaps together, in Christian community, we may accompany each other all the way to our Father's healing arms.
Whew. Yeah, this is a hot-button issue for me.
I'd love it if you spend some time with Mike's article, "Ray Boltz's Hunger for Community." It's the product of a lot of thinking, prayer, living and editing. It's not only Mike's heart for you, but mine as well.
I took today off, and used the time to accomplish a few things. On the list was attending my neighborhood's Christmas cookie exchange. My neighborhood situation is unique, as I live in a historic part of downtown, and am the somewhat poor relation (small stucco rancher with as yet unfixed fence) in a radius of wealth (huge, restored-to-period old homes with beautifully intact stone walls). Each year, the cookie exchange provides an opportunity for me to endure religious persecution, because each and every one of my neighbors hates the fact that I work at Focus on the Family. The neighbors who don't yet know me think I'm fantastic -- until they discover my place of employment. Such was the case today. Several women whom I had not yet met were, I'm convinced, on track to become my BFFs (or at least fakey-fake acquaintances), but when I said the name of "that place," each recoiled in horror and then proceeded to say something rude or combative in response. Today's winner:
Scary rich lady with massive diamond on finger and cookie in hand: "So what do you do?"
Lisa: "I do media relations for Focus on the Family."
Scary rich lady with massive diamond on finger and cookie in hand: "Oh. Well, I'm the opposite of you. What I mean is, in contrast to you, I'm very open and accepting in my religious and political beliefs."
I actually ended up having a good conversation with this woman, but it took two cups of cider, a gingersnap and a haystack to get me through it. Sheesh.
Then I went home, and not a half-hour later, I heard a knock on my door. I did what I normally do -- I hid in my dining room. I didn't want to open the door, and because my front door has windows, I can't walk up to it and see who's there without being seen. So I hid in my dining room until the footsteps went away. I peeked through the slats of my blinds (let's try not to judge me here, people), and saw two retreating female figures. I opened the door, and a tract fluttered to the floor. I knew immediately it was a Watch Tower publication, distributed by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The title struck me: Comfort for the Depressed. If you read my post last week, you know I've been kinda depressed. Think about it: Had I not been 1) grounded in my relationship with Christ and 2) hiding in my dining room, I maybe would've opened my door, listened to these ladies, and been influenced in a time of need by two people who, while well-meaning, don't have what I need at all. But there they were, pounding the pavement on a winter day to start conversations and share their gospel. It convicted me.
And it convinced me. It convinced me that reminding myself daily of God's Truth is exactly what I need. I grabbed my Bible, sat down and reviewed some of God's promises. I prayed. And I asked God to first keep me mindful of those who are without hope this Christmas season, and then share the Hope that I have. I went to my fridge, where my Really Woolly advent calendar (hey, remember, we're not judging) is posted. Each door this month, when opened, reveals one of the names of God. The fact that it's accompanied by a cartoon-drawn lamb only adds, trust me. And so I reviewed the doors I've opened so far:
"He's Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End!"
"He's our Savior!"
"He's even our Creator!"
"He's our Shepherd, too!"
"He's the Bread of Life!"
"Wonderful! He's our Counselor!"
"He's our Prince of Peace!"
"He's a Lamb, too! The Lamb of God!"
"He's the King of Kings!"
"He's the Light of the World!"
"He's the One and Only Son of God!"
That's as far as I've gotten. But reading those eleven statements encouraged me. Kinda like truth should. Especially when it involves our Savior. I can't wait to see what the rest of the month brings; in the meantime, here's a short roundup of this week's show:
It Takes a Community -- 00:00
We're still in the Guy's Guide, so this week we tackle the importance of community in moving a guy toward a healthy marriage. Ladies generally do community well. Guys need a little more help. Sorry, guys. I'm just sayin'.
Radical (Red Patent Leather Stilettos) Womanhood -- 20:11
Carolyn McCulley's book Radical Womanhood turns feminism on its diamond-studded ear and shows how true biblical femininity is more affirming and empowering than any of the lies we've bought over the past 30 years. Carolyn gives us the scoop firsthand.
Yarn Warrior -- 43:58
Two things you need to know about Patrick Dunn: 1) He's blonde. 2) He has issues with craft fairs. The blonde part is a bonus from me. The craft fair bit is his illustration of what he claims is a necessary compromise with women. Hm. I'm not buying it. If guys get out of jewelry parties, baby showers and potluck prep, why can't they get out of craft fairs? Maybe he explains this at the end, which I missed due to dozing off when he starts talking about football...
And the Gifts Go On -- 49:26
Her mom's love language is gift-giving. She thinks its excessive, and is uncomfortable with the pile of presents under the tree. What should she do? Simply say "thanks"? Start a bonfire, invite her mom, and throw all of the gifts ceremoniously into it? Or is there a middle ground? Candice and I unwrap (hehe) this dilemma in time for Christmas.
Have a great week, everyone. Be bold!
Anthony Bradley of WorldMagBlog has a gift for discerning the root behind some of the more troubling characteristics exemplified by men today. I've referenced his writings only once but he's written several blogs in support of men who are castigated endlessly by our culture, even church culture.
This one is about the problems that can come from men who have no outlet for their hurt; no place to "be really honest about how angry they feel for reasons they cannot explain."
From Bradley's "Do Men Hurt": With some frustration, a recent Christian college graduate inquired as to why the church was not a safe place for men to be open about their pain. Women have "support groups" and men have "accountability groups," he pointed out. Women hurt, but men are nothing more than disgusting sinners who need behavior modification and group penance. I didn't know exactly how to respond but I have been curious about this fact for some time now.
Many churches do not provide safe space for men to confess being in need of healing (Luke 4, Isaiah 61) due to the hands many men have been dealt, sins committed against them in the past or present, their own addictions, confusions, passivity, anger, and so on. As a result, we have churches full of unhealed and wounded men who often medicate their pain in secret or take it out on their wives, children, friends, and co-workers. The dysfunctional cycle of self-medication creates even more generational sin and pain. Many wives foolishly think that they can heal their husbands instead of the Triune God.
I am so thankful for the brothers who invested in me when I became a Christian. I was a broken man; confused, passive, and angry as Bradley describes. But they loved me with a chastening love, unafraid to speak the truth about my sin; sin that I was blind to. And they taught me how to live a Christian life, in the same way Paul exhorted the Thessalonians "like a father with his children."
Scripture says that I am being sanctified right now. So my need for men speaking truth in my life won't end this side of heaven. But God used these early mentors to begin the healing process, which helped set the course of my life and, consequently, the lives of my wife and children.
What about you? Have you been "supported" in this way? Or are you still confused, passive or angry for reasons you can't explain? If you are, humble yourself and seek the kind of transparent counsel from Christian men in your life that'll help heal the hurt.
Because men hurt too.
In an effort to confiscate even more money from farm workers reduce global warming control climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency is apparently gearing up to penalize farmers impose a tax on cows.
In what reads like a parody from The Onion, the Finger Lakes Times reports that the annual proposed tax of "approximately $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per beef cow, and $20 per hog" would affect over 90 percent of commercial farms.
I think that the government's arrogance in thinking that they can affect global temperatures by milking farmers for more money, with unintended (perhaps) consequences on the prices of food ... is a good thing.
None of us pay enough in taxes; that I've got over $20 in my wallet right now attests to the fact that I have more disposable cash than I ought. Doesn't matter that the government won't spend any of their new greenbacks on programs that'll green the environment; it's enough that they penalize farmer and consumer just to get their point across that cow flatulence (and, more-so, their burps) is damnable, and that God did a sloppy job designing them.
And I affirm that Gaia Mother Earth our planet must be worshiped served cared for, as it's clear that it's been doing poorly for the past few millennia without our help. Sing with me: "We've got the whole world in our hands...."
See, I don't even know how to talk about this issue. On one hand, this proposed tax represents the most senseless level of bureaucratic feel-good thinking I've come across in a while. And it's just laughable. On the other hand, it's just so ridiculously PC and Green that I wouldn't be surprised if the EPA started up these fines.
On top of already high fuel and feed costs, I don't know how those like Farmer Tom can continue coaxing life from the earth under the burden of this new Gaia-friendly, human-unfriendly tax.
When I was still expecting our newest son, I took our daughter to the salon for a haircut. While waiting for her to be done, I struck up a conversation with the woman whose appointment followed ours. She noticed my very pregnant belly and asked when I was due. I was happy to discuss our joy over anticipating another baby and she was happy to hear it, offering her congratulations. But when she found out it would be our fourth child, she changed her tune.
"Then you're done," she said -- as if stating a fact rather than asking a question. She was incredulous when I said I didn't know if we'd have more or not. "They're such a blessing," I responded, feeling the need to counter the current mindset that seems to say two children are acceptable, three tolerable, but four or more is straying into a dangerous fringe.
Today's Boundless excerpt of Carolyn McCulley's new book, Radical Womanhood, offers a glimpse into the history of where this thinking came from. Motherhood has taken a severe blow in terms of respect. But children have actually taken a greater blow ... And neither is a contemporary phenomenon. Culturally the roots of the "mommy wars" go back almost two hundred years.
But spiritually, the war goes back to the very first mother, Eve. Her assignment, along with her husband Adam, was to be "fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28). So when the Lord God cursed the serpent that deceived her, He showed how the battle would be fought against this command to be fruitful and multiply. "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel" (Gen. 3:15 NIV).
Ever since, Satan has labored to destroy the offspring of those who are made in the image of God. The real mommy wars are not against flesh and blood — other mothers and their parenting methods — but against the one who seeks to destroy the next generation of those who would rise up to praise God. We can debate all kinds of parenting philosophies, methods, and practices, but the real conflict is not with the proponents of opposite ideas. Most assuredly, there is a war and the price is high. Mothers (and fathers) are called to be strong warriors in this battle. But Ephesians 6:12 tells us that our true opponents are not flesh and blood, but the spiritual forces of evil in this present darkness.
And so I'm reminded by this passage, as well as the rest of the excerpt, that the calling to be fruitful and multiply is both blessing -- something I try to point out when I have the opportunity -- and battle. Not a battle against the people who would doubt the value of big families, but against our spiritual enemy who would have them think so.
This morning when I checked my e-mail a headline caught my attention: "Why Oprah is mad at herself."
Do tell.
Driven by a base craving for celebrity gossip, I landed upon this article, which revealed that the January issue of O, The Oprah Magazine will feature a current image of the talk show legend next to an image of her svelte past self. In the past two years, she's gone from 160 pounds to 200 pounds. Evidently, 40 pounds makes a world of difference. "I'm mad at myself," Winfrey says in the accompanying article, released on Tuesday. "I'm embarrassed. I can't believe that after all these years, I'm still talking about my weight."
No big surprises here, right? Oprah's battle with her weight is epic — I've been hearing about it since I was a kid. You may be wondering why I'm even choosing to comment. Well, I feel there's something significant here.
Let's start with the obvious. Oprah is a powerful woman. The Hollywood Reporter last week named Winfrey the most powerful woman in the entertainment industry. She has been credited by some for helping Democrat Barack Obama win the November U.S. presidential election after she endorsed him and campaigned with him.
This woman has influenced governments and shaped the spirituality of a nation, and yet this seemingly small thing — her weight — continues to plague her. It's puzzling. Not that a woman would struggle with her weight, but that this woman would — and that the battle would inspire such self-loathing. I mean, this is the woman who builds schools for orphans and gives away cars.
I think what this simple article illustrates is that no one — no matter how powerful or good — is immune to the addictions of the flesh that feed guilt and shame. We all "get mad at ourselves" when we tread over those same stumbling stones. Thankfully, there is a way out. First repentance for the hardness of heart that caused the problem in the first place. Then acceptance of forgiveness and the chance to start afresh.
Self-loathing comes from the enemy, because ultimately it puts the focus on us instead of God and His redeeming power. We have a Savior who removes guilt and shame and frees us to leave mistakes behind and walk in victory. There may still be certain weaknesses that trail us for a lifetime. But through Christ Jesus, we can overcome to the glory of God the Father (1 John 4:4). Then our lives become about how He redeems us in spite of ourselves, not about how we've slipped up ... again.
So if you find yourself in that same pit today, repent, embrace God's forgiveness and move on. That is your destiny and birthright.
I remember a few times when I came across money that didn't belong to me, not including those dimes in the phone book change slot or the penny in the parking lot.
When I had a paper route, I found someone's wallet in a melting snow pile near the local mall. I tracked the guy down to a nearby VA hospital and gave it to him. He was pretty happy, and gave me a small reward, as I expected he would.
I remember getting $10 extra in change once. Without thinking, I told the cashier about her mistake. No reward, beyond knowing that her drawer would reconcile at the end of her shift.
And I remember finding $20 fluttering along the side of the road while out walking with my then-girlfriend Ashleigh a few years ago. I took that as a sign that God approved of our little jaunt, and so we spent it at the movie theater. I'm glad I wasted someone else's $20.
I've heard a couple of stories lately where regular people like me find bundles of money, and then do the right thing and return the money to the rightful owner.
A teenager in Washington found $10,000 on the floor of a grocery store bathroom, and immediately turned it over to the store manager, who returned it to the owner.
And then there's the woman who found $97,000 in a restaurant bathroom, was tempted to keep it, but did the right thing and turned the money over to its owner.
Besides sparking a disturbing interest in checking out bathrooms, and the questions about why someone would carry around that much cash, I find myself wondering what I would do in a similar situation.
I think the best approach for me would be to not think about it much, and just allow my body to carry out what it knows is the right thing: return the money. I'm afraid that if I spent time thinking it over, I'd come up with all sorts of clever ways to justify keeping what doesn't belong to me.
The Salvation Army is doing their job to ensure that members of the church are equally yoked. If you decide to marry outside the ministry, you're gone.
Talk about limiting your dating pool.
There's a situation right now in Oshkosh, WI where a Salvation Army officer, who's worked for the organization 14 years, faces dismissal if he marries his fiancee who's outside the ministry.
From Fox News: "I prayed and told the Lord, I can't stand being single. Can you please give me a woman on the outside and inside," said Harsh. He said it was love at first sight. "One word describes her. Wow."
Harsh said the organization's rules regarding marriage are outdated, unfair and must be changed, but he doesn't want his personal situation to harm the Salvation Army. ...
"[The rules] are not scriptural. They are man-made," Harsh said. "God could care less about the uniform or a position. I am doing this so future officers don't have to go through what I went through."
What makes this situation particularly, well, harsh is that Harsh's first wife was a Salvation Army officer. But she died suddenly of a heart attack back in June. And since Harsh "can't stand being single," he went online and found Cia, his fiancee.
There is some merit to the Salvation Army's antiquated marriage policy. Founders William and Catherine Booth believed that two officers could serve better than one officer who's spouse wasn't committed to the ministry.
The situation is supposed to be resolved next week. And though it'll seem unjust if he's dismissed, it's obvious he was aware of the policy ... and, apparently, he was OK with it until it affected him personally.
Funny how that happens.
I've got my opinions about music. Of course, they're well-informed. Through the decades of my life I've listened to a variety of artists, a variety of genres, a variety of production approaches ... and have earned the right to my good opinions. The weight of my 1,000+ CD collection is a testament to the weight of my opinion.
And the music you listen to just stinks.
Hm. Or maybe that odor is coming from me. Maybe the high opinion I have of my opinions betrays my musical snobbery. To put that in biblical terms, perhaps the expression of my musical opinion is a sign of ungodly pride.
As I read through Bob Kauflin's list of "ten reasons why musical forbearance might be good for our souls," I am convicted.
Do I get offended when someone critiques my favorite song, group or style of music? Well, yes, I do. Well, that may be a sign of idolatry.
Do I trash a song after hearing just the first 20 seconds, or after hearing it only once? Hm, yeah, I do. Then maybe I'm not giving the song a fair shake.
Am I better than you "masses of people" because I enjoy some obscure music, like Silers Bald, Enfield, Melissa Tawlks, Chris Eaton, Arvo Part, the Robert Shaw Festival Singers? Conversely, am I a better person because I enjoy massively popular music, like Stephen Curtis Chapman, Third Day, Casting Crowns, Chris Tomlin? Nope, I'm not.
Hm. Maybe it'd be good for me -- and good for our relationship -- to listen to the music you like, that I don't currently care for. Maybe I can come to better appreciate the Lord's creativity by further expanding the collection of stuff I listen to, even "unsophisticated" stuff.
Bob's closing paragraph sums it up for me: Let me be clear. No song is above evaluation and there are truly bad songs. We just might serve others and ourselves more effectively if we expressed our musical opinions with a little more grace.
Hm. With a little more grace. Yeah.
So, what was that song you wanted me to listen to?
I'm right in the middle of about half a dozen projects. I can speak from experience that the middle is not so glorious. Generally, I start projects with great gusto. Then the pressure to finish sets in. Sometimes I simply lose motivation and the task sits on the back burner indefinitely. In her article, "The God of the Middle" Stephanie Voiland explores the sometimes-frustration of being stuck in the middle:
In the middle, you don't have the freshness—the hope and adrenaline—that comes with new beginnings. And you don't have the sense of completion or the relief of closure that accompanies the end. In the middle, it's often a matter of trudging ahead, one foot in front of the other—too far from the start to turn back, and too far from the finish line to even know how much further you have to go, let alone to see the light at the end.
While this middle malaise may be experienced in a job, living situation, ministry, education or almost anything, Voiland discusses how it middle-itus impacts her singleness:
I imagine the ending of my single status would be easier than this middle segment too. Not because marriage is easier somehow, but because of the perspective that comes when a chapter is closing. And maybe even more than that, because of the relief in knowing that there is, after all, an ending point to this season. Sometimes I think that's what gnaws at me most about this stage: that it might not be a stage, after all—that this is going to be it, indefinitely, till death do I part. Because, of all the good and gracious things God has promised me, marriage isn't one of those guarantees.
In one of my all-time favorite Boundless articles "A Season of Celibacy," author Jenny Schroedel tells her own story of weathering the "middle." She ended up regretting the anxiety that had plagued her single years:
I wish I’d had the wisdom to define myself as temporarily celibate — not available to men until further notice from God. Soon after my boyfriend and I broke up, I headed to Hawaii to work with a missionary organization. A few weeks later, I met a man with a laundry bag slung over his shoulder. He and I struck up a conversation that lasted through sunset, through dusk and late into the night. During that first encounter we each recognized our future spouse in the other person.
Jenny's story may not be typical, but she makes an important point: The ending point of singleness may come unexpectedly and without fanfare. Why not live in utter faithfulness in the meantime? Can that in any way be a bad thing?
Though marriage is not a guarantee for singles who desire it, Voiland points out that singleness is not a permanent state:
Even if I never register at Macy's or wear a flowy white dress or "upgrade" to Mrs.—my single status will have an ending point. Regardless of how things end up from an earthly perspective, I will be a bride someday. After all this time stuck in the middle of awkward, limited human relationships, each one of us—married or not—will experience true, unconditional love. After all this time of waiting, the time will finally come when we will be the bride of Christ.
Don't underestimate the middle. You may look back one day and see that it was one of the most important seasons of your life.
Brent, who comments here at The Line under the name Brent1776, read today's featured article, "Bible Meets Green," and was provoked to send us an e-mail, which he's given me permission to publish here:
* * *
I agree with the main conclusions of this article, however there are some things that I find problematic.
The environmental movement, Green movement or whatever you want to label it, is not rooted in a Christian philosophy. I think you will find it rooted instead in a pagan concept called gaia. The similarities of stewardship and environmentalism are surface deep. The two world views are contradictory. Understanding this should guide our approach to dealing with green issues.
Language and words are extremely important because they transmit our Ideas and Thoughts. Christians must be extremely careful not to adopt the language of contradictory agendas. Taking on their language is the first step to embracing their ideas. It gives the impression of legitimacy. A perfect illustration of this is the insidious and oxymoronic phrase, "gay marriage." The debate is about redefining marriage to include LGBT. Another is "pro-choice." The whole point of these deceptive phrases is to reframe the issues to make them seem benign.
Because the environmental agenda at its core is at odds with Christianity we must not accept their language or give legitimacy to their groups. We should frame our biblically inspired practices using the term Stewardship, not Green, even if our practices mirror some of theirs.
From the article:
Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu orients the reader to this volume in his foreword by emphasizing the communal reality of the world: We need to be aware of the inter-communal nature of existence, and that's why those who are impoverished and whose lives are devastated by natural disasters, he says, should rate high on a Christian's list of priorities.
Communal reality. What exactly is that? Basically its Collectivism. The Collectivists have a rich and ongoing history of persecuting Christians and non believers alike.
The reason Christians should care for the needy is because God commands us to, not because of some false notion of "communal reality."
Again, from the article:
He then brings these "moral obligations" into connection with climate change and environmental issues:
We, who should have been responsible stewards preserving our vulnerable, fragile planet home, have been wantonly wasteful through our reckless consumerism, devouring irreplaceable natural resources. We need to be accountable to God's family. Once we start living in a way that is people-friendly to all of God's family, we will also be environment-friendly.
Indeed, the introductory essays challenge readers to be concerned about life on this earth rather than abandoning our duties on this planet. And what Christian can deny that general principle when God commands us throughout the Old and New Testaments to care for the poor and love our neighbor as ourselves (e.g., Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39)?
"[V]ulnerable, fragile planet home"? Is God's creation really fragile? Some of the most destructive forces in creation are natural. If creation were vulnerable and fragile wouldn't it, in light of the decay from The Fall, tear itself apart? It seems more likely that creation is still robust (despite The Fall) and self-healing. One only has to look at how creation is reclaiming the vast area around the Chernobyl power plant for evidence.
"[L]iving in a way that is people-friendly" -- what does that mean? Who will define what is "friendly"? Is it a biblical definition?
It seems to me these dubious and fantastically vague statements are a red flag.
One person endorsing the book declared, "The Green Bible will change the way you think, and the way you live."
That, I fear, is the goal. While The Green Bible Project may not have intended to deceive Christians, it's the end result. Using a canon within a canon strategy, a heresy (environmentalism) is held up as justified by the Bible. What better way for the deceiver to peel Christians off from the body of Christ than to use the Bible to draw people into a movement that contradicts Christianity.
Regards,
Brent
* * *
I share some of Brent's concerns, concerns I brought up in a personal e-mail I sent to the author shortly after reading his piece:
Whew. I did a quick Google search on Mark Tauber, the man who headed up the creation of this Bible. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "He doesn't attend church, but says, 'I'm a person of faith, or I want to be.'" Great.
That quote from Tutu is just so warped, in my opinion. He writes: "We, who should have been responsible stewards preserving our vulnerable, fragile planet home, have been wantonly wasteful through our reckless consumerism, devouring irreplaceable natural resources."
No, the earth is not "fragile." God has designed it to be robust, and He has His hand on it; humans may steward it, but we have no deific powers over it. True to his worldview, Tutu betrays his Marxist bent by characterizing the use of resources as "reckless consumerism." And he characterizes the planet's natural resources as "irreplaceable." Is he talking about such "irreplaceable" things as trees and water and food?
Yes, this green book, by exalting the environment, diminishes the full gospel of Christ.
What do you think? Might a book like this detract from the gospel, and from the mission the Lord has ordained for His people? Might its drawbacks outweigh any potential good that could result from this book? I think so.
I've never been one to buy into the gloom and doom prophecies among many believers that persecution is imminent for American Christians. But the reaction by the mainstream media and Hollywood elite over the passage of Proposition 8 in California has been so profoundly antagonistic toward Christians, I'm beginning to wonder if there's something to those dire predictions.
First, Newsweek has launched a full-on attack against religious conservatives with their cover story, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage." It's something Southern Baptist Seminary President Dr. Albert Mohler calls an "atrocity of an article" and responds with a comprehensive rebuttal, which proves to be a complete dismantling of the writers "case."
Then there's the satirical video coming out of Hollywood titled "Prop 8: The Musical" starring Jack Black that's rapidly going viral around the web.
Here's a pretty good description of it from The Christian Post: Opponents of the California same-sex marriage ban have released a Web video satire entitled "Prop 8: The Musical" that mocks Christians as hatemongers and Jesus as a Bible critic. ...
The video opens with a colorfully dressed bunch, which includes a hippie Rudolph and a tattooed Cho, singing and celebrating a "new Obama day" and "happy days for the gays" against a beach backdrop.
Then enters a black-clad Reilly and another actress with a scheme to "spread some hate and put it in the Constitution." They crash the beach party and unscroll a bill reading: "Prop. 8."
A group dressed in black Sunday clothes, apparently portraying Christians, joins Reilly in chorus to plead with the audience to listen to their warning that the other group will "teach kids about sodomy."
The colorful group calls the warning a "lie," to which the Prop. 8-supporting Christians respond: "But it works." The two groups continue to argue, with the first group claiming their "love is not a sin," while the Christian group remarks that "the Bible says it so."
Jesus, played by Black, intervenes in the debate by saying, "The Bible says a lot of things, you know?" The Christian group asks whether the Bible considers gays "an abomination."
But Jesus dismisses the Bible reference, saying that "Leviticus also says shellfish is an abomination" and that the "Bible says a lot of interesting things like you can stone your wife or sell your daughter into slavery."
When the Christians say they "ignore those verses," Jesus scolds them for picking and choosing. Jesus reminds them that the nation was built on the separation of church and state before his good-bye parting, "See ya later sinners!"
During my time on Capitol Hill, I had a Christian mentor who would say that if persecution ever comes to America, it will begin over political issues surrounding homosexuality. And when I say persecution, I mean being locked up, beaten or even killed for proclaiming Scriptural truths in the public square. Not just being openly ridiculed or mocked among the secular masses ... though that may be precisely how persecution begins.
Which is why I'm a little unnerved by what I'm seeing from the mainstream media and Hollywood elites.
Over the past few months I've introduced some cool features to the Webzine side of Boundless.
One that I'm really excited about is the ability to pull up all (or most) of an author's articles by clicking on their name in an article's byline.
Here, check it out. Click over to today's article, and then hover over the author's name in the byline. Note how it turns from black to underlined red? When you click on it, you're taken to a page listing all of that author's articles.
Pretty sweet, hm? In the words of Peter Pan, "Oh, the cleverness of me."
Hm. Maybe I shouldn't be quoting Peter Pan. (Though doing so helps feed speculation that a former Boundless author has agreed to write for Boundless again....)
On a previous post, a topic came up which I thought merited some discussion. The topic: Should Christians give their time and money to Christian organizations only -- or should they just give wherever they deem appropriate?
This big question is made up of a lot of little ones. Who does the Bible call us to give to -- and for what purpose? Is our giving for the exclusive purpose of relieving suffering? If so, isn't any group that relieves suffering worthy of our time and donations? Or is there another purpose to our giving? Is it enough to fill someone's belly without telling them about the bread of life?
Randy Alcorn, of Eternal Perspectives Ministry, tackles this question in #11 of his list of "Nineteen Questions to Ask Before You Give to Any Organization": 11. If this is a secular or semi-Christian organization rather than a distinctively Christian one, what are the compelling reasons for giving to it?
Secular organizations such as the United Way support many good things, along with some bad, including Planned Parenthood and its abortion agenda. But even when they do good there is a basic philosophical difference. They focus on the short term needs of people, without a view to their eternal welfare. Most of the organization's leaders and workers do not believe in Christ as God's Son, or in redemption, justification by faith, eternal life, or heaven and hell. When a woman is dying in their arms, they cannot offer her the living water she needs more than anything else.
If the only way to help people was to give to a nonchristian organization, of course I'd give to it. But it isn't. Let's do the good works in the name of Christ, for his glory.
Take two famine relief organizations working in the same area. One distributes food through local Christian churches. The other distributes food through government channels or hires locals, some of whom will be Muslims or animists. Why wouldn't I give through the one who works through the national churches? Won't God be better glorified by this, and his church more edified?
Dr. Albert Mohler addressed it when asked how Christians could respond to Hurricane Katrina and other tragedies (I've highlighted three from his list of six principles): - Give through organizations that are fully accountable to the Christian church. I prefer to give through denominational agencies that are directly accountable to their churches. I do contribute occasionally to Christian organizations that are not part of established denominations, but have an excellent track-record for faithfulness and effectiveness. [See the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability for further information on financial integrity.]
- Give where your heart is directed through prayer and informed awareness. There are countless needs and endless possibilities for worthy giving. Where does God direct your heart as you pray? What needs come most readily to your awareness?
- Give where the Great Commission impact is a priority. Jesus blessed those who give a cup of cold water "in the name of a disciple." [Matthew 10:42]. I give where I can be most assured that others will receive this gift and aid in the name of Christ and for the cause of the Gospel.
I agree with Mr. Alcorn and Dr. Mohler. My family gives our time and money to the local church first, then to a few other gospel-centered ministries. That doesn't mean that I pass by the local food bank collecting outside the grocery store, but that we reserve the majority of our resources for those who work in Christ's name.
What about you? Do you give? If you are a Christian, do you believe that the church and Christian ministries should be our priority?
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