 |
We appreciate the passionate discussion that followed this post, for your heart-felt comments. The conversation, though, has become more polarizing than we feel comfortable with, and so we need to close down the comments. Thank you for understanding, and for wrestling with what Heather has written.
* * *
Over at the Octomom post, the comments took a decided turn around this concept found in 1 Corinthians 7:
"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife."
What I cherish about all of Scripture, and this one in particular, is the worth it gives to women. Other religions or cultures may see women as property, but not our God. He calls us heirs. When we marry, we are not the property of our husband, but we are one with our husband. We give ourselves to our husbands just as they give to us. It's just beautiful.
But this section of Scripture can also concern some. You can read the comments for yourself, but the post's discussion led one frustrated young woman to e-mail us and ask:
"I want to weep. We really are going to say to women who have been raped by their husbands that it was their fault [because their bodies are their husbands' and they sinned by not fulfilling their husbands' sexual needs]?"
So, the answer to this young reader is, quite simply and quite emphatically, no. Marital rape cannot in any way be justified.
The believing husband is commanded to love his wife just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. He is commanded to love his wife as his own body because "no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church."
What does love look like? 1 Corinthians 13 tells us--patient, kind, not self-seeking and always protecting. The very act of forcing a wife to have sex violates all of these commands: it takes instead of gives; it hates and hurts his own body; and it is the height of self-seeking, impatient harm.
Bob Lepine puts it this way in The Christian Husband:
"A husband who loves his wife as Christ loved the church will be selfless, not selfish...A selfless husband is always considering his wife's needs .. If he's in the mood for romance, he considers the kind of day she has had and does not insist that she be intimate with him. Rather than dwelling on his own needs, he considers her needs too."
What about if the wife is withholding sexual relations from her husband? Is that sin? Yes, it is. As Paul tells us, I should fulfill my marital duty to my husband. I should be concerned for his well-being. I should not be self-seeking. But can my sin "cause" his sin?
Emerson Eggerichs writes in Love and Respect:
"First, you must get to the place where you can say, 'My response to my spouse is my responsibility.' In my own marriage, Sarah doesn't cause me to be the way I am; she reveals the way I am."
Reminds me of Mark 7:20-23.The closest example I can think of is my children. If they are disobedient, or disrespectful, or steal or get drunk, are they sinning? Absolutely. Does that mean that if I beat them unconscious that I can say, "Yes, I sinned and my sin might have even been worse, but they need to look at their own sin." God forbid that I would have the arrogance! To assign blame for my sin to those I am commanded to protect and lead spiritually? The root of this sin is my selfishness and rage, not their sin.
We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But when we start to apply causation to sin, we aren't just on a slippery slope, we're plunging over a cliff. The circle of sin is unending. Just as I could point to my children's behavior as the spark to my sin, they could then point to my grumpiness at breakfast, to which I could point to them keeping me up at night, to which ... ad nauseum. As 1 Corinthians notes, love does not keep a record of wrongs.
We are commanded to give ourselves up for one another, for the benefit of one another. The command is not license to demand for ourselves.
Sexual intercourse is a beautiful and important part of a marital relationship. When it's approached selfishly, it's absolute acid to the relationship. When, however, it's approached with a giving, 1 Corinthians 13 attitude, it's a wonderful, enjoyable bonding of two souls.
That's our standard. That's our hope. Dear reader, I hope I answered your question.
Well, I'm busy. This could be because Dr. Dobson announced his resignationas chairman of the board of Focus on the Family today. The fact that I'm on Focus' media team means that actions such as this signal short-term craziness for me. From the time the announcement was made in our monthly employee chapel service this morning, I've been on the phone nonstop, setting up interviews, sending out our news release and -- in poorly-chosen high heels, mind you -- walking photogs around the campus for strategic shots. But it's good. All in a day's work.
I didn't have time for lunch, so I foolishly downed a Monster Energydrink and some Now & Laters instead, and am feeling a bit jittery. I just emerged from our news conference where Dr. Dobson and Focus President/CEO Jim Daly spoke to local news outlets about the decision. Both Dr. Dobson and Jim assured folks that Focus will remain committed to its founding principles while at the same time striving to effectively meet the needs of families worldwide.
It's fun to be part of something big like this. I'm in the middle of a little bit of history. Never did I imagine, sitting in my college journalism classes years and years ago, that one day I'd be on the phone with CNN, FoxNews, NPR and others talking about why it's important to help families thrive. And why the Bible models the best way in which to do this. It makes me think of the task before us. The world isn't getting any less hostile to Christians, and the culture isn't cleaning up its act. But God is still God, and because He's in charge, founders of ministries can relinquish some operational control and everything's still ok. Yay!
And now on to the show. Each segment this week has a unique take on different relationships and their issues:
Straight Talk for Single Women -- 00:00
Candice and I are in the hot seat(s) as Dr. Juli Slattery, Focus' family psychologist, asks us to get real about women and singleness. Shouldn't we be content where we are? Are we supposed to be this "active" in desiring marriage? How do we encourage women as women, regardless of their marital status? Dr. Slattery's skepticism takes Candice to task. And I speak up as the single girl.
Friends and Adversaries -- 26:46
Glenn Stanton is straight. John Corvino is gay. Glenn is a Christian. John is an atheist. These men are friends, and regularly debate the subject of same-sex marriage on college campuses around the nation. When they're not debating, they talk about life, faith, family and everything in between. Listen in as Glenn shares what it's like to cultivate a friendship when both parties disagree on many things, but are determined to continue the conversation despite it all.
Living With Your BFF -- 51:00
Should best friends be roommates, or is that a recipe for unspeakable drama? If you're already in one another's lives, should you also be in each other's laundry? Suzanne Hadley sits down with me this week to relive our own roomie-filled pasts, and together we uncover the heartwarming and hair-pulling aspects of living with someone who knows you (too) well.
Time for me to go home. It's been a long and tiring day. I need to kick off the heels and eat something with nutrients before gearing up for a busy weekend. I'm back here tomorrow to handle media for our national marriage simulcast. In order to impress Candice, at some point I'll rush the stage, grab a mic and throw out my phone number. Sure, most attendees will be married, but they have single friends...
Focus on the Family founder Dr. James C. Dobson, Ph.D., announced that he is stepping down as board chairman, effective immediately. From the Focus press office,
The board of directors issued this statement: "One of Dr. Dobson's objectives during the last decade has been to help identify the next generation of leadership for the ministry, and to see it established securely before he stepped away from administrative oversight. That purpose has now been fulfilled, and we applaud Dr. Dobson for this concern for the future of the ministry."
Dr. Dobson's other responsibilities at the ministry will not change significantly. He will continue the "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast, and handle other duties as in the past. He will also continue to write the newsletter, sent to 1.6 million people per month. He and Mrs. Dobson are anxious to devote themselves to the joys of grandparenting.
"One of the common errors of founder-presidents," Dr. Dobson said, "is to hold to the reins of leadership too long, thereby preventing the next generation from being prepared for executive authority. I have wanted not to make that mistake with Focus on the Family, which is why I stepped back, first from the presidential duties six years ago, and now, from board chairmanship. Though letting go is difficult after three decades of intensive labor, it is the wise thing to do."
Focus on the Family board member Dr. Albert Mohler, addressing 1,000 Focus employees and visitors on the Focus campus, said we're now riding a tsunami that began 32 years earlier with just Dr. Dobson and his wife Shirley. I feel it very personally. My job, God's provision for my family this moment, is inextricably linked to Dr. Dobson's faithfulness to God, talents, and hard work.
And those of you reading this blog, blessed by the ministry of Boundless, are riding the same tsunami. Lord willing, you will be the beneficiaries of the next generation of leadership Dr. Dobson has taken great care to identify for Focus on the Family.
Motte's post about eating less spurred a little food-related web-browsing for me. I learned that the majority of Americans are just as lazy as I am. Not too many of us actually cook meals and even fewer use a recipe to do it. Nanci Hellmich from USA TODAY reports that:
Only four out of 10 meal preparers use a recipe at least once a week to make some kind of dish, according to the NPD Group, a market research firm, which surveyed 3,000 adults as part of its Kitchen Audit survey. That means 60% won’t use a recipe this week, says NPD’s Harry Balzer.
I broke my lazy streak last week and made two dishes that called for a recipe: baked oatmeal and balsamic vinaigrette quinoa. Both recipes were from the internet. My Macbook was open on the kitchen table. I was haphazardly sprinkling brown sugar into my keys while Pandora played Travis Cottrell in the background. It was magical. For a moment I thought, What would my grandmother think? The only thing she ever listened to in the kitchen was bacon crackling and I'm not sure she would even trust a recipe from the internet.
Americans are beginning to consume their recipes the same way they're consuming their news, the internet. Nanci goes on to say:
Over the course of a year, 90% of people will make a dish using a recipe. The most common sources: Cookbooks owned for more than two years and family and friends. However, that’s changing as more people turn to the internet for guidance in cooking, Balzer says.
Cook books are expensive. I don't even own one. I love to look at the latest Paul Dean hardback when I go to Barnes and Noble but I couldn't justify buying a whole book of recipes when I'll probably only use two or three of them. I can print out or bookmark the recipes I like online and never pay a dime.
Another reason cook books are hard to use is because they don't have recipe variations. If I want to bake cookies but I'm short a non-essential ingredient, I just browse allrecipes.com until I find a recipe that fits what I already have. Seriously, I did this with the baked oatmeal last week. And I didn't have to run to the grocery store to finish my dish.
I've been finding my recipes online for years, but it wasn't until last week that I found entire blogs devoted to delicious, creative recipes. They're appropriately called "food blogs" and they are rocking my frozen-dinner world.
One of my favorites is actually the mom blog, Pioneer Woman. Pioneer Woman lives on a ranch in Oklahoma with her Husband, Marlboro Man where she home schools her children. She's a great cook and quite a photographer. She puts a "cowboy" flare to some pretty common recipes like chicken spaghetti (my favorite casserole).
Since I'm far away from my Maw Maw's Southern cookin', I'm turning to food blogs and I'm loving it. They don't beat a handwritten recipe passed down two generations, but they do just fine. Where do you get your recipes? Cook books? Websites? Family and friends?
 Dear (former) friends. I am writing to inform you that I have joined a network marketing company. I realize that this decision may cause you to terminate our friendship. I apologize for the inconvenience.
That was the e-mail I felt like writing when I decided to begin selling beauty products. My trepidation about confessing my new venture was not unwarranted. After all, one of my friends said, "It just seems like a small thing; and when I think of you, I don't think of small things."
Though I started the business as a sister-bonding endeavor, I felt awkward. As much as I loved the products I was representing, I had my own negative stereotypes of network marketing and was sure my friends did, too. And yet, I felt a peace and even a nudge to go ahead and try it.
Two-and-a-half months have passed since I started, and telling people has become easier. Mostly because everyone I've sold to has raved about the products and experienced great results. But also because through the business, God has revealed something to me about the way His Kingdom works. I wrote about it in "Lipgloss and Jesus:"
As I began to understand the tenets of the company I was serving, a surprising thing happened. I made this realization: Evangelism is essentially network marketing.
Consider the similarities:
- You have a "product" you believe in.
- You are seeking to share the results of your "product" in a way that entices others to try it.
- You are seeking to duplicate yourself in other "believers" in order to get the word out more effectively.
As I considered the factors that made this particular company successful (with 100 percent growth per year for the past five years), I realized that they relied heavily on the principles of evangelism outlined in Scripture. In fact, I could not ignore the parallels.
I have been shocked by the depth of what the Lord has taught me through something as seemingly superficial as selling beauty products. Another friend of mine, upon hearing about my discoveries confirmed how it directly related to her plight of fundraising for the mission field.
Becoming a beauty product peddler actually revived my passion for evangelism. And so I think my friend was mistaken. What I am doing is not a "small thing." What about you? What ordinary ventures has God used to teach you His truth?
One of my favorite episodes of the King of Queens was when Doug discovered that Carrie maintains an inordinately expensive wardrobe of designer clothes. Laughter and hijinks ensued. But according to this study, women hiding clothing purchases from their husbands is a real problem in the US.
[M]ore couples in the US are hiding purchases from their partners: This year about 23% reported doing so, vs. 18% in 2008. For the second year in a row, clothing is by far the most likely purchase that women will hide from their partners, according to the survey.
Becoming financially "one" in marriage is challenging, particularly during economic downturns when budgets are tight. That's when disagreement over purchases, big and small, can spark regretful arguments. Starbucks causes the most spats in my marriage. It's amazing how much sin a cup of coffee can stir up (suspicion and envy come to mind).
One thing you can do is agree on a monthly allowance for each spouse to make guilt-free purchases. The trick, however, is agreeing on the amount of the allowance.
I dropped by McDonalds a few nights ago on the way home from work to pick up some burgers for the fam, "four hams and two quarters" the drive thru attendant confirmed. And our Mickey D's dinner was going swimmingly until my wife saw the calorie and fat gram info (549 and 28 respectively) on the side of the burger box. I said, "Don't worry about it. A quarter pounder every few months won't hurt you." She said, "I can't. I just can't." ... and then left her burger half uneaten. (Which was cool because I was still hungry.)
Ok, here's the point of that long lede: my wife's caloric consciousness may actually prevent her from getting fat. Who knew, right? According to a two-year study from the National Institutes of Health, eating fewer calories equals weight loss.
Here, the lead researcher breaks down these complex findings.
They came up with "a very simple message that cuts through all the hype: To lose weight, it comes down to how much you put in your mouth — it's not a question of eating a particular type of diet," says Frank Sacks, a lead researcher and professor of cardiovascular disease prevention at Harvard.
"It comes down to how much you put in your mouth." Hm. At what point does this story become more about wasting taxpayer dollars than it does about health and wellness?
The girl's comment stunned me. She admitted that she "didn't read the article," and yet she had an opinion about it. A strong opinion against it.
Great.
And then yesterday two commenters on the Boundless Line acknowledged that neither of them had read the article about which they had opinions.
After confessing that she doesn't usually read the articles, one of them acknowledged that "it would've been good for me to have read it before I commented."
Yeah.
The other wasn't so eager to own up to her rash opinions. In fact, she accused me of not providing an adequate Cliffs Notes version of the article being discussed, going on to demand that I apologize for her ignorance of it.
Whew.
Here's the thing. In both of these cases, the clear purpose of each blog post was to discuss an article published over on Boundless Webzine. This should have been obvious. In both cases, for example, the title of my blog post was the same as the title of the Boundless article. In both cases, I included a hyperlinked thumbnail image of the article. In both cases, I included a link directly to the article being discussed.
There really was no excuse for remaining uninformed about the article that was the very focus of each blog post.
Which leaves me wondering: Why are we so often so eager to share our opinions with others that we bypass the necessary step of sufficiently informing ourselves about the very subject at hand?
For all my concerns about Octomom, I'm reminded by a Philadelphia Inquirer story that there's yet another downside: her headline-grabbing stunt seems to be turning a critical eye on large families who get that way (large) the old-fashioned way (one or two babies at a time).
In "Octuplet Case Increases Scrutiny on Large Families," Lini Kadaba reminds us how rare big families have become:
Big broods -- definitions vary, but the fifth child seems to be the tipping point -- have always existed, of course. These days, however, they are uncommon -- so rare that the U.S. Census no longer tracks families with six or more children. In 2007, about 2.1 million American families had four or more children under 18 years old -- 2.7 percent of all families, according to the most recent census data.
But rare isn't wrong. And lots of experts, including sociologists and demographers, believe the shrinking family is bad news for many reasons (economic, moral, cultural). Sadly, many other people think it's the big families who are bad news. According to Lorin Arnold, an interim dean of the College of Communications at Rowan University who studies large families, "We have this cultural belief that two or three kids is the right number. Anyone who is outside that norm feels the need to justify their family size."
The Philadelphia Inquirer article continues,
Society looks most critically on those furthest from what's typical, said Arnold, herself a mother of six. If a family is Catholic, "that's a good excuse for why you would have so many children," she said.
"Parents of many children often struggle with resources, but so do those with only one child, she said. For instance, those parents can feel compelled to arrange numerous extracurriculars or time with friends so the only child is well-adjusted socially."
They think that "every time you add a child to the family, there's a reduction in those resources," she said. Other academics, however, argue that finances might be limited but emotional connections are not and that time spent as a group or with siblings offers benefits.
As the Duggar family shows, the benefits are many. And big families used to be the norm. The Inquirer notes,
At the turn of the century, kids provided extra hands to work farms; large numbers also assured that at least some would survive to adulthood. Industrialization and advances in health care have contributed to the shrinking of the American family, whose size has dropped 26 percent since 1965. These days families average just under two children. Those with five, six, eight, 12 or more, stand out as unusual, even bizarre.
But are they?
"I think it's one of the last acceptable prejudices," said Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a family counselor and father of nine who founded the organization This World: The Values Network. "We always seem to gauge the sophistication of a family, and even of a culture, by the degree to which it controls its fertility."
There's nothing intrinsically bad or good about more or fewer babies. Bad parents -- and good ones -- exist in all categories. As do bad and good examples. My hope is that for all the headlines, believers will have the wisdom to discern the difference.
There's one scene that I've always distinctly remembered from the film Anne of Green Gables.
It's in the local schoolhouse. A group of older students, including Anne, are staying after school to take a special class to prepare them for the entrance exam to Queens College. Anne is seated while her "bosom friend" Diana begins to walk out of the schoolroom door.
Anne: Aren't you gonna be in the Queens class?
Diana (dejected and eyes down): Mother says I should concentrate on learning to run a household instead of pouring over books so much.
Anne (looking stricken and shocked): Oh, Diana. I feel as though you've tasted the bitterness of death.
Diana drops her head and walks slowly out of the schoolroom to dramatic, mournful music.
I can still remember the indignation I felt towards Diana's mother when I first saw the film. How dare she? Didn't she think that a young woman's mind is important? And how much do you really need to learn to run a household anyway?
The bitterness of death, indeed, I heartily agreed.
My indignation has, however, cooled in recent years. Not because I think that women shouldn't develop their minds. I do, very adamantly. Rather, I have more respect for running a household and the skills that it requires.
In today's Boundless article, "Study to Show Yourself a SAHM," I write about my attitude:
In her article, "Homemaking Internship," Carolyn Mahaney nailed my arrogant attitude:
Young women tend to assume that homemaking doesn't require any advanced skills or preparation. It's similar to what a sixth grader might think about a test covering first-grade material: What's there to study?
That was me: the sixth grader, thinking that being a stay-at-home mom (SAHM) would be first-grade work. But that morning, sniffling amidst the burp clothes, was my wake-up call. This was no first-grade work.
I suddenly realized, too, that I had spent six years in college preparing for a career in which I spent five years. But I had spent no time preparing myself for the career that I was about to embark on for the next decade.
Watching Anne of Green Gables, I felt a little contempt for Diana's mother. Maybe I still do. But I've also realized that the "books only" approach I took in my own life was foolish. If I knew I wanted to place family and home as a priority, why didn't my preparation for life reflect that?
There's been much discussion on this blog about the choice of whether to become a stay-at-home mom or not. This article is not about that. It's about taking an honest look at life goals and being intentional about preparing yourself for them.
So, give the article a read. In it, I list five things that I wish I would have done (or wish I would have done more of) to prepare to be a stay-at-home mom. Maybe you know that you want to be a stay-at-home mom someday and would like some idea of how to prepare for it. Maybe you're thinking about it, but feel a little of the same "sixth grader" attitude I did toward running a household. Maybe you haven't decided, but you remember that statistic that I always share with young women. Or, maybe you're a SAHM and have your own wisdom to share. Wherever you are, see if you think the suggestions are helpful and let me know what you think.
Today is the beginning of the Lent season. I didn't grow up observing Lent. When I first heard someone use the phrase "observe Lent," I thought they meant they were studying something that came out of their dryer or that they found in their belly button (talk about navel gazing).
As I've been exposed to a larger variety of Christian traditions, I've grown more interested in this observance. For those who don't know much about Lent, here's a description from Wikipedia:
Lent, in some Christian denominations, is the forty-day-long liturgical season of fasting and prayer before Easter. The forty days represent the time Jesus spent in the desert, where according to the Bible he endured temptation by Satan.
The purpose of Lent is the preparation of the believer—through prayer, penitence, almsgiving and self-denial—for the annual commemoration during Holy Week of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, which recalls the events linked to the Passion of Christ and culminates in Easter, the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The Wikipedia entry goes on to explain what that preparation looks like:
The three traditional practices to be taken up with renewed vigour during Lent are prayer (justice towards God), fasting (justice towards self), and almsgiving (justice towards neighbour). Today, some people give up a vice of theirs, add something that will bring them closer to God, and often give the time or money spent doing that to charitable purposes or organizations.
Earlier this week, uber-blogger Anne Jackson wrote on the Christianity Today blog that she was giving up online social networking for Lent. "During Lent, I am going to close my blog down" she said. "I am not going to Twitter, or update my Facebook profile. I'll still email people, and chat with my friends, but for those few weeks my social networking is getting put on hold."
Since beginning to explore this tradition, I've been able to give something up for at least one season of Lent. Other years, I gave up on my fast early and then tried to process what that failure meant in the spiritual scheme of things. I knew it wouldn't threaten my eternal salvation to give up on my self-imposed fast of dessert, but without knowing more about the nature of Lent, I didn't understand the significance. This insight from the Wikipedia post gives me a little more perspective and some fresh motivation to try to observe Lent this year:
Lent is a season of grief that necessarily ends with a great celebration of Easter. It is known in Eastern Orthodox circles as the season of "Bright Sadness." It is a season of sorrowful reflection which is punctuated by breaks in the fast on Sundays.
The Lenten semi-fast may have originated for practical reasons: during the era of subsistence agriculture in the West as food stored away in the previous autumn was running out or had to be used before it went bad in store, and little or no new food-crop was expected soon (compare the period in Spring which British gardeners call the "hungry gap").
The economic challenges pressing many of us this year may give us "hungry gaps" of our own as practical reasons to observe Lent. The promise of Easter and the power of resurrection at the end of this season are an annual reminder for us all that God is truly enough for us in all circumstances.
The day before we recorded our "Oscar-worthy" podcast, the Boundless team -- proving that we're a little uncultured -- decided to go see some of the nominees so we would have something to discuss. The problem was, there were only three still playing in theaters -- Slumdog Millionaire, The Wrestler, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Lisa called Slumdog, Steve volunteered for Benjamin, and I was left with The Wrestler. Yuck, I thought.
Thankfully (see Plugged In review), it didn't play out that way. In the end, only Lisa and I ended up going (not together). And we both saw Slumdog Millionaire. Which was awesome. But not because the Academy deemed it so. More because it exceeded my low barrier of what I consider a good movie ... when it's non-offensive and mildly entertaining, in that order.
I've grown to give movies a lot of grace if they can just meet those two criteria. (Having a good message is a bonus.) So when someone asks me about a movie I've just seen, I respond with either "waste of time," "pleasantly surprised," or "awesome." Sometimes I'll add an "Aside from ..." with "waste of time" and "pleasantly surprised." For example, "Aside from a couple of s-words and inappropriate uses of Jesus' name, I was pleasantly surprised."
I think part of being sensitively (not necessarily easily) entertained has to do with growing in Christ. The moment not grieving the Spirit matters more than entertainment value is when you know you've cultivated a heart for media discernment.
I knew I had arrived when I gave high marks to a movie like Fireproof. It met my low barrier movie enjoyment threshold, and then some ... non-offensive and mildly entertaining with a great message.
There's a magnet on my in-laws refrigerator. It says "Sports don't build character. They reveal it."
I've been thinking about that saying this week after seeing story after story that seem to prove its truth. There are the good stories, like the high school basketball manager with autism or the high school basketball team who reached out to a grieving opponent. And there are the bad stories, like the drugs, the drugs and, well, the drugs.
But I really thought of that magnet while reading an article from last summer by Christine Brennan, a sports columnist and author. In "Progeny of Title IX Prove as Tough as Males", Brennan explains why she believes that Title IX has brought female athletes to the same level of toughness and strength as males:
One of the strangest traditions left in sports is our propensity to call female athletes "ladies," as if they are demure, tea-sipping, pinkie-extending wallflowers from a bygone era...
The LPGA isn't the WPGA, although it probably should be. Tennis drops in a "ladies" semifinal or final now and again, despite the fact that there's nothing dainty about a 120-mph serve. And figure skating still insists on calling its female athletes "ladies," even though, 14 years ago, the sport gave us Tonya Harding.
Brennan continues:
Because of Title IX, we have created generations of female athletes who are as strong and fearless as their brothers, if not more so...
Brennan gives multiples examples of female toughness: a WNBA brawl, female Indy-car racers who scrape paint on the track and soccer stars who shatter bones in World Cup competitions. And wraps up her article stating:
Go ahead and call them ladies if you want, but you'll be dating yourself. Title IX is doing its job, teaching our daughters how to compete. We might as well get used to it, punches and all.
Let's forget for a moment that Tonya Harding and brawling athletes should not be role models for either our young women or our young men. But, if sports reveal character, what do the current events in ladies sports tell us about what we're teaching our young women? Are we teaching them that men and women are the same? That there is no difference? That not only can be they be as strong, tough and fierce as men, but also they should be disappointed if they aren't?
Though my soccer and volleyball days have now morphed into more hiking and Pilates, I still love sports. And I encourage my daughter to be healthy through bike riding, dance, and basketball. But my husband and I both agree that there will be some sports she will not play. We will not teach her that she can only be proud if she's rubbing shoulders with the boys. We will teach her that there is absolutely nothing contemptible about a gentle and quiet spirit. We will not "get used to it, punches and all."
Maybe Brennan is right. Maybe there are no "ladies" sports anymore. I'm just not convinced that is a good thing.
 I'm straight. Sure, I've gone with some friends to gay bars and have been on a "date" with another guy that ended with an awkward kiss goodnight, but the truth is that I've never had sexual feelings for another man. I'm an ever-straight.
And so when I interact with guys whose affections are toward other guys, I can get uncomfortable. What can I say? How can I even relate?
Well, you know what, I absolutely can relate. Though I've never had a homosexual thought in my life, like those who feel the draw of same-sex attraction (SSA), I have experienced my heart drawn toward things that Scripture says are unacceptable.
And recognizing that, says author Mike Ensley in today's featured Boundless article, "When They're Gay," is the right place to start in our relationships with those whose lifestyles might seem so foreign to us: Instead of explaining your gay friend's experience to them,
... lay yours out in the open. Let them see how God is transforming your heart and mind to be more like His. Have the courage to share the struggle you face in submitting to Christ in the midst of your naturally tempted self -- your orientation, if you will.
Hm. Maybe my life isn't as "ever-straight" as I'd like others to think it is.
Mike covers a lot of ground in his article. He talks, for example, about the "peace" that some gay-identified men and women experience when they finally come to embrace their SSA:
... there's a natural relief a person experiences when any internal conflict has been settled.... Split devotions lead to instability. Resolve -- whether it's to do wrong or right -- brings relief. That relief can easily be mistaken for holy peace -- especially by someone who desperately wants it to be just that.
This heartbreaking article reminds me of one that Mike wrote late last year, "Ray Boltz's Hunger for Community." After exploring the issues that contributed to Ray's succumbing to the pressures of SSA, Mike challenged us to see how we may be facilitating the alienation that so many gay-identified men and women feel.
His conclusion in that article remains relevant in this article.... No, let me start that again. His conclusion in that article remains relevant in all of life: Let's pray for repentance -- for ourselves first.
I pray for repentance: First for myself, the worst sinner I know.
I've made a habit of not watching the Oscar telecast. The touching moments of genuine surprise or gratitude are almost invariably overshadowed by the more-usual fatuous statements by self-important actors who think their celebrity status automatically confers upon them infinite wisdom.
Watching the news this morning and seeing the infectious joy of the crew of Slumdog Millionaire (a movie you must see if you haven't already), with director Danny Boyle channeling Tigger, made me half-regret skipping the show last night.
But then there was Sean Penn, who won Best Actor honors for his role as slain homosexual activist Harvey Milk. (Never mind that Mickey Rourke clearly deserved the honor for his role of a has-been wrestler in The Wrestler. Unfortunately for him, his movie was not PC enough.) Hearing Penn's acceptance speech just confirmed my earlier judgment.
Penn gave a whole new meaning to fatuousness and added hypocrisy to boot. He couldn't resist getting in a dig at those who supported the recent Proposition 8 in California, which banned same-sex marriages. Penn said:
I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame, and the shame in their grand-children's eyes, if they continue that way of support.
Shame!? Would this be the same Sean Penn who gave a veritable tongue-bath to dictator Raúl Castro of Cuba, who assumed control of that unfortunate nation from his equally murderous brother, Fidel, in 2006? Penn's alleged "journalism" for The Nation magazine is almost too embarrassing to read. (Penn was traveling with historian Douglas Brinkley and nobody's-fool journalist Christopher Hitchens, but Raúl granted an interview only to Penn—which speaks volumes about all concerned.)
Penn is always ready to acknowledge the alleged perfidy of the United States and constantly makes excuses for the abuses of Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, but this line takes the cake: "The hour was getting late, but I didn't want to leave without asking Castro about allegations of human rights violations and alleged narco-trafficking facilitated by the Cuban government."
Allegations!?
Here's what Reporters Without Borders has to say about Cuba under both Fidel and Raúl:
Despite hinting at the possibility of a limited opening and adopting a few measures to relax economic control, the Council of State's new president has not loosened the state's tight grip on news and information. The transition period and Raúl Castro's first few months in sole charge saw continuing harassment of independent journalists including police brutality, summonses and searches by State Security (the political police) and detention for short periods. Nineteen of the journalists arrested during the March 2003 "Black Spring" continue to serve jail terms ranging from 14 to 27 years in appalling prison conditions. With a total of 23 journalists detained, Cuba is the world's second biggest prison for the media, after China.
Here's Human Rights Watch:
"Even if Castro no longer calls the shots, the repressive machinery he constructed over almost half a century remains fully intact," said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. "Until that changes, it's unlikely there will be any real progress on human rights in Cuba."
For almost five decades,Cuba has restricted nearly all avenues of political dissent. Cuban citizens have been systematically deprived of their fundamental rights to free expression, privacy, association, assembly, movement, and due process of law. Tactics for enforcing political conformity have included police warnings, surveillance, short-term detentions, house arrests, travel restrictions, criminal prosecutions, and politically motivated dismissals from employment.
Oh, this would also be the same "people's paradise" that until recently jailed homosexuals, which to my mind is a tad worse than denying them marriage rights.
Penn's cluelessness and hypocrisy are of a piece with other Hollywood types who never hesitate to criticize the U.S. but fall all over themselves to suck up to dictators. (Oliver Stone, Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Benicio Del Toro, Steven Soderbergh and Michael Moore, please report to the principal's office.)
Penn apparently thinks people motivated by moral or religious reasoning in voting for Proposition 8 should be ashamed of themselves, but, based on his own words, murderous thugs and dictators always have a plausible reason for their actions.
I think he has it the wrong way round.
As a children's magazine editor, I love a great kid story. And today I read one. According to WorldNetDaily:
Despite facing threats of disqualification, a 12-year-old girl took first place in a speech contest when she eloquently argued for the rights of unborn children – after an offended judge quit.
"What if I told you that right now, someone was choosing if you were going to live or die?" the seventh-grader begins in a video recording of her speech on YouTube. "What if I told you that this choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you'd done in the past or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you, you could do nothing about it?"
The girl, a student at a Toronto school identified only as "Lia," continued:
"Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation. Someone is choosing without even knowing them whether they are going to live or die.
"That someone is their mother. And that choice is abortion."
Though Lia's teacher strongly encouraged her student to choose a different topic or she would not be allowed to continue on in the speech competition, the 12-year-old persisted. "She forfeited her chance to compete in order to speak on something she was passionate about," Lia's mother says.
But Lia's speech was so good that her teacher allowed her to advance as the winner. She gave her speech in front of the entire school. The next day she was suddenly disqualified because of the content of her speech. However, the decision was reversed and Lia was declared the winner.
Now Lia plans to take her message of life to a regional speech competition, and more than 130,000 visitors have viewed her presentation online.
"Why do we think that just because a fetus can't talk or do what we do, it isn't a human being yet?" She asks in the video. "Some babies are born after only five months. Is this baby not human?
"We would never say that. Yet abortions are performed on 5-month-old fetuses all the time. Or do we only call them humans if they're wanted?"
She continues, "No, fetuses are definitely humans – knit together in their mother's womb by their wonderful Creator who knows them all by name."
Out of the mouth of babes. Good job, Lia.
HT: Tim Challies
In my Q&A column last week, I insisted that guys "just know" when a girl is interested and therefore, there's no need for women to give any sort of permission for the man to initiate. However, in view of the several reader comments that arrived challenging my assertions, I do think a tempering of my thesis is in order.
I still believe it's the man's responsibility to initiate and assume all the risk of asking a girl out, knowing that she might say no. I also believe that while women should be friendly and kind, they don't have the responsibility of giving guys a green light.
What I realized I need to adjust is my understanding of how men think. Apparently they don't just know. It was an email from Michael P. that finally convinced me. He wrote,
I am 25 years old, and looking back I can think of very few situations where I "just knew." ... I am sure that many single girls are or have been attracted to me. Yet I can think of only a few situations where I "knew." Quite frankly I have far more frequently figured it out from third parties or long after the fact.
I agree, that this is no excuse for myself or any other guy, and further more I think all your advice in the matter on how a girl should handle things is correct. I just wish you would stop asserting that "a guy will just know." It simply is not true, and I fear it serves to undercut the seriousness with which young people might receive your otherwise excellent advice.
So I wrote him back and asked, "What would you suggest is the solution? If guys don't always know, should the girls give them a signal? Or are you just asking me to take back that assumption and concede that guys don't always know?"
He graciously replied,
I guess I really am just asking you to take back your assumption. I think it grates at guys because they want to be mature and pass on the flirts but are frustrated that they then have to ask out a girl without being sure of what response they will get. Facing the risk of being rejected takes a huge step of faith. Perhaps when you say we "just know," it sort of comes off as you are throwing it in our face. You encourage guys to be "real men" and take a chance, and then turn around and tell the ladies that it's not really all that big of a risk because we somehow naturally already know that she will say yes.
And so, to Michael, and all the other men who wrote to challenge my assertion about men, thank you. I'm sorry for diminishing the nature of the risk you have to take when you act biblically in relating to women. Though this doesn't change my advice about what women should do, it's worth noting that in the dance of courtship, men are indeed taking a huge risk when, even in the face of possible rejection and with no hint of success, they ask women out.
To the men who overcome their anxiety and fear of possible failure to do so, it is no small act of courage. Thank you.
Ever wonder why your stay-at-home mom (SAHM) friend seems less available than she used to be? You've got a full-time job, and manage to get all your errands done. Not only does she not get all her errands done, but she rarely has time to spend with you.
Is the SAHM's kid "an excuse to relax and enjoy"? Is there some sort of passive-aggressive competition between women with kids and those without? Is the SAHM friend lying about how busy she is, to gain your sympathy?
One single woman wondered about her SAHM friend's unavailability, and made the mistake (if she was looking for a gentle reply) of sending her question to Washington Post columnist Carolyn Hax.
You think some advice columnists can be brutal, check out how Hax begins:
I keep wavering between giving you a straight answer and giving my forehead some keyboard. To claim you want to understand, while in the same breath implying that the only logical conclusions are that your mom-friends are either lying or competing with you, is disingenuous indeed.
Hax goes on to explain some of the things that keep SAHMs occupied.
Have you found some of your SAHM friends "too busy" for you? How have you found ways to accommodate their schedules, so that you're able to spend time with them? And do you think our columnists should take on a more jousting tone in their responses?
I am in the process of getting my life together. Well, at least the tangibles. As many of you know, I'm having my fence replaced. The old fence was torn down on Wednesday, and the new fence should go up today. This project is occurring in conjunction with other tasks, all designed to reduce the entropy in my life. I don't know much about science, but one thing I remember from high school chemistry is the fact that everything moves toward a state of disorder (entropy). I regularly schedule Reduction of Entropy (ROE) Days to get back on track. I took Wednesday off, and while the friendly fence guys were hard at work, I proceeded to pay bills, gather tax records, test my home alarm system (after renewing the contract), schedule a tree removal, and purchase some groceries.
I'm also in my fourth week of systematically going through my house and getting rid of stuff. I love getting rid of stuff! Unfortunately, I've let stuff accumulate (for, oh, three years or so), and have been in the habit of throwing it into my guest room closet. This was until both doors of the closet busted off their track due to the strain. For real. So now for a month I've been sifting through party supplies, books, CDs, tradeshow schwag, papers and other clutter, filling up bags of trash and boxes for Goodwill.
 How do you keep your life decluttered? Are you a filer or a piler? And what "collections" do you have that you just can't part with, but know you should? I know someone who collects barbed wire. Another friend has 1,500 Beanie Babies. Still another has kept every greeting card she ever received. If you want to get a handle on your worldly goods, check out the book Too Much Stuff by Kathryn Porter. I met the author when her book first came out, and found her advice immensely helpful, even though I'm a natural clean freak and general minimalist (grace on the closet, please).
Oscar Opinions -- 00:00
The Boundless team has seen virtually none of this year's Oscar-nominated films, but that doesn't stop us from talking about them. I'm a bit disappointed that Beverly Hills Chihuahua isn't nominated. The larger discussion turns to films in general, what makes one Oscar-worthy, and whether public adulation makes for something "must-see."
Global Warning -- 18:55
Jay Richards of the Acton Institute joins me to talk about stewardship, including stewardship of the environment, our talents, other humans, civil institutions and finances. Jay gives practical advice on making gains in all of these areas for the good of humanity and the glory of God.
Start Your Family -- 38:12
Samuel wrote to us wondering if a woman's career and thoughts on family should be a factor in choosing a wife. Should this be considered even before dating, or, once dating, should one focus on getting married and then address family if/when it happens? Steve's fresh off of authoring Start Your Family with Candice, and is in the studio with me to give his plug for true "family planning."
When you hear from me next week, I will have gotten rid of another 50 things. You read it here first. What about you?
So I asked our e-newsletter subscribers yesterday what they found more disturbing, the image accompanying yesterday's article or the one accompanying today's article:
  
Responses have been mixed, with a few more being unnerved by spidergirl than by the blankly-staring humanesque doll. Here's what Annali had to say:
The doll face by far is creepier than the spider! Although I would never want to have a spider on my face, I know that it is a creature God made that is just trying to live. Don't get me wrong, I would scream hysterically and smack the spider off my face with lightning speed, but just as quickly, I'd think of Charlotte's web and suddenly the spider isn't so terrible.
The doll on the other hand is downright creepy. The blank, inhuman expression is chilling. If a little girl were holding the doll, if the doll had hair and was dressed cutely, the creepiness would be gone. The doll alone, staring blankly, with no sign of hair, clothes or a person loving it as their own is nothing cute, it is certifiably creepy.
Dawn concurred:
The doll is creepier. Its creepy because of the way the eyes will follow you wherever you go, it almost seems alive. And let's face it, evil like in the horror movies. Come to think of it, I never really liked dolls or clowns when I was younger and was so glad I had a son so I never had to get any.
Josh added:
The creepy doll is a little more disturbing; the other looks like the regular goth scene, of a girl who may need Christ in her life.
Most of our readers, on the other hand, found the arachnid more to their distaste:
- Nasty. I hate spiders. That one is definitely the most disturbing. However, the article is very good.
- I'm petrified of spiders, so that image was definitely more disturbing. The doll didn't really bother me at all.
- Def. found the spider crawling across the woman's face more disturbing.
- I find the spider on the face more creepy. Yes, dolls are creepy too, but the other image is more disturbing to me.
- The creepy spider ... yikes!!!!
- Spider face!
- I'm definitely more repulsed by the spider. I'm just not into the goth thing. The doll's face is ceratinly creepy, but maybe in a little more dated "Chuckie" sort of way -- lol.
- Hands down the spider! Spiders are so much creepier. Crawly things. Although that doll is fairly scary too. But spiders are definitely capable of making me scream -- loudly. Ugh, I can't stand that picture.
We've also been discussing this over on Facebook. It's not too late to make your voice heard. As the guy creating all the article artwork for the past couple of months, I am open to your input. Give it.
The Obama administration is funding a $5 million campaign holding up the value of marriage. An article in USA Today offers some details:
Research suggests a bevy of benefits for those who marry, including better health, greater wealth and more happiness for the couple, and improved well-being for children.
Some say the government has no business using tax dollars to promote marriage. But others say the campaign is just like those conducted by other federal agencies to encourage the use of seat belts and discourage drug use, smoking and drunken driving.
With ads on social networking sites Facebook and MySpace, videos on YouTube, spots on radio talk shows, ads in magazines and public transportation and a new website (TwoOfUs.org), creators say the aim is to start a national conversation about marriage.
To determine how to shape the media campaign, The National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, commissioned a research company called TRU to get insights on the 18-to-30 age group. In their online surveys, they found:
•14% express strong sentiments against marriage.
•22% aren't ready but say they eventually plan to wed.
•23% have a practical view of marital unions and often live together first.
•19% are enmeshed in the magic of love.
•22% have a strong belief in the institution of marriage.
Numerous quotes in the USA Today article and the comments after the article appear to come from that 14% who have strong sentiments against marriage as well as the 23% who often live together first. They say the government shouldn't spend tax dollars to encourage marriage. "This is 2009," writes one commenter, "and marriage is a bad idea. Why are so many people clinging to a provincial idea that simply doesn't make sense?"
The reality, however, is that many people who think marriage is a bad idea still end up having children at some point -- especially considering that half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Those children are statistically more likely to face financial and wellbeing disadvantages. Additionally, some of those children have needs that taxpayers end up absorbing. Those social costs dwarf the $5 million that has been given to this marriage campaign. What's wrong with the Obama administration spending a little money to encourage couples to commit to the kind of relationship that has proven to best for children?
On Monday, a friend and I were talking about the birds and the bees. Obviously, both being mothers of two kids, we weren't in need of a whole lot of knowledge. Rather, we were talking about our girls and wondering aloud how to have an ongoing purity discussion with them and at what age certain information is appropriate. "You know what I want to do?" I mused. "I want to emphasize sexual purity, but also give her some real strategies to make it happen." My friend nodded her head. "Yeah, like what to do in certain situations and what situations just to stay clear of all together." I thought about that conversation today when reading about Bristol Palin. Bristol first came under media scrutiny for her out of wedlock pregnancy. She is in the headlines again for an interview she gave with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News in which Bristol declared that abstinence was "not realistic at all." (You can read the context of her comment here). Some are disappointed with Palin's comment. Others see it as further justification that abstinence cannot be expected. But, as Dr. Albert Mohler writes today, Christians need to be less concerned about whether abstinence is realistic and more concerned about making abstinence realistic in our lives: The real issue for Christian teenagers and their parents is not to debate whether sexual abstinence before marriage is realistic or not. The larger and more important issue is that sexual abstinence until marriage is the biblical expectation and command. Once this is realized, the responsibility for everyone concerned is to ensure that expectations and structures are in place so that abstinence is realistic.
The debate over whether abstinence is realistic or not misses the more important issue -- abstinence must be made realistic.
But what strategies are effective? What should a single person do to be intentional about their purity? One resource I've enjoyed is Randy Alcorn's The Purity Principle. In a chapter titled "Guidelines for Singles," Alcorn acknowledges that while Scripture warns against man-made rules, the Word does call us to live wisely, "exercising God-honoring common sense." He then goes on to share a list of guidelines he used with his own family. But, more than the guidelines, I especially appreciate the beautiful and accurate picture Alcorn gives of why obedience to God's sexual standards is not just required, but glorious: "Sex wasn't invented by Hollywood, Madonna, or some pervert in an Internet chat room. Sex was created by an infinitely holy God, wreathed in blinding light and glory, surrounded by radiant, holy angels. The goodness of sex stands or falls with the goodness of its Creator....Sex is the means by which children are conceived and marital intimacy is expressed. Both are very important to God. When sexual union takes place in its proper context, in a spirit of giving, the Creator smiles." But we must also remember... "Sex is incredibly powerful; it's able to do immense good ... or immense harm...The most magnificent gifts of God, taken outside their God-intended boundaries, become utterly ruinous. So it is with sex. Its potential for great good has a flip side -- potential for great evil.As long as fire is contained in the fireplace, it keeps you warm. But if the fire is "set free," the house burns down. I've walked through the smoldering ruins of people's lives devastated by immorality...I cannot forget such scenes imprinted on my soul. In contrast, to embrace purity is to lay claim to a magnificent gift. Purity is incomparably beautiful...like the frangrance of a rose after a summer shower."
The trend watchers at Iconoculture made a great point earlier this week -- we can get the economy chugging again by going back to the hyper consumerism so many of us lived by only months ago, but that wouldn't be good for the long run.
Writing on the Iconoculture blog, Hans Eisenbeis talks about a conversation he heard between two men outside the Minneapolis public library about the "upside of unemployment":
"I'm spending more time with my family, and we're just hanging out — doing old-fashioned stuff like playing board games and cards." His unmarried friend was incredulous. "Well, you don't need a ruined economy to do that!"
But it seemed to me the bachelor was missing the point, and the family man was reading my mind: "Losing my job made me rewrite my whole budget, which made me realize that working hard in order to spend hard meant a lot of sacrifices. For what? Less time, more junk, deeper debt." The bachelor thought a moment, and then said, "Dude, it's people like you who are making the recession longer and harder for everyone."
That's true. The economies of countries throughout the world have been fueled by lots of spending and debt. The goal of various stimulus packages has been to get people spending again. Eisenbeis continues:
The bachelor might have been correct from a macroeconomic point of view — economists call it the paradox of thrift: The less consumers spend, the longer the recovery. But who could blame the family man for looking out for number one? Consumers of every income level are realizing that getting tougher on the budget has a lot of upside. They get their finances in order, build on a more solid economic foundation for the future and, yes, recommit to core beliefs without the distractions of debt-driven consumerism. Will that delay recovery? Yes. But when recovery comes, we'll not likely see another Great Recession in our lifetimes.
Candice and I have been enjoying Andy Stanley's sermon series called "Balanced" (you can find it online in the cover flow menu at http://www.northpoint.org/messages). It's ideal for anyone looking for a Biblically wise approach for building on the "more solid economic foundation" Eisenbeis described.
As a follow up to my post yesterday about uninsured young adults, it seems that that last part about 20-somethings taking better care of themselves was merely anecdotal and not representative of the entire demographic. According to a report released yesterday by the CDC, the "young invincibles" partake in all kinds of risky behaviors.
From CNN's article detailing the CDC report:
The perception is that 20-somethings are youthful and robust, in the peak of their health.
But a report released Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that young adults have their fair share of health woes.
A third of 18- to 29-year-olds, a demographic the insurance industry calls "young invincibles," are cigarette smokers. A quarter are obese, as the rates among young adults have tripled in the past three decades. Nearly two-thirds of young adults reported not having regular leisure-time physical activity.
Though there's one type of "leisure-time physical activity" young adults seem to have regularly, unmarried sex. And here are the consequences,
According to the CDC's 2008 statistics on the nation's health, 45 percent of young women between the ages of 20 and 24 in the United States were infected with human papillomavirus, which can cause cervical cancer, in 2003-04.
This is problematic for people who don't regularly get medical care, said Shu, who is also a pediatrician with the Children's Medical Group in Atlanta, Georgia.
"The prevalence of HPV -- that's just one sexually transmitted infection," she said. "There's so many others that are very common in young women. A lot of women don't get tested, because many of them don't cause symptoms. There are hidden illnesses that they don't realize, because they don't feel sick."
Here are more risky behaviors reported by the CDC:
- Almost 40 percent of adults 18 to 20 years of age, about one-third of 21- to 25-year-olds and a quarter of 26- to 29-year-olds reported using an illicit drug in the past year.
- One-fifth of young adults reported having five or more drinks in a day on at least 12 days in the past year.
- Young adults also have one of the highest rates of injury-related emergency department visits of all age groups.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the lascivious, illicit drug taking, alcoholic, overweight smoking crowd aren't Boundless readers ... per se. But it's interesting stuff none-the-less.
What do you think? Do 20-somethings have relatively healthy or relatively unhealthy lifestyles?
I'm listening to Salvador's best album, "Que Tan Lejos Está el Cielo," resonating with songs "Alegría," "Con Poder," "La Palabra," "Estaré Con El" and even the traditional-sounding "Un Día a la Vez."
The salsa grooves drive me wild -- love the piano hooks, the alternately glistening and grinding B3, the choral breaks, the bumpy bass, the ripping brass, the plucky acoustic guitars, the syncopated percussion. Love it!
The thing is, I'm not just enjoying the music, but engaging with the lyrics as well, since I am fluent in Spanish. I studied the language in high school, practiced it some in Houston, was immersed in it during my nine-month stay in central Mexico, went on to earn an undergrad degree in Spanish, volunteered a couple of months in Colombia, and enjoyed friendships with Latinos during grad school.
I have great memories asking my employees in that Houston Burger King how to say the names of condiments in Spanish, being silly with Pablo in the little village outside Xicótepec de Juarez, talking about girls with Melqui in Bogotá, worshiping the Lord in a church in Mexico City (Centro de Fe, Alabanza y Esperanza) with a guy I met on a stroll, translating for a patient who only spoke Totonac (I was working with another translator who spoke both Spanish and Totonac), preaching to a gathered crowd in Papantla, dancing with gringo friends to mariachi accompaniment near the Zócalo, praying with Manuel in La Unión -- rich living made possible because I had learned a second language.
This morning during devotions, Tim asked Daniél if he would close us in prayer. In Spanish. A few of us in the room could pray along with Daniél, but most couldn't. I can't put my finger on it, but it seems that praying in a second language seems to cover ground that praying in English just can't.
If you speak another language, I'd love to hear how it's enriched your life. If you don't yet speak another language, please don't be discouraged. It may take a bit of work, but you can do it. And I'm confident it'll prove a blessing to you, as well as to that person whom you'll meet down the road who doesn't yet speak English.
 Yesterday I was saddened to hear that Dr. Joseph Aldrich (known as "Dr. Joe") the third president of my alma mater Multnomah University, went to be with the Lord after a 15 year battle with Parkinson's disease.
When I came to Multnomah (then called Multnomah Bible College) as a freshman, Dr. Joe was serving his final year as president. He taught my Spiritual Life class that year, and I had the privilege of witnessing a godly leader with an authentic passion for God and people. Some people, even if you only know them for a short time, leave a lasting impression on you. Dr. Joe was one of those people. The comments from students in response to his death is evidence of that.
Even after he ceased being president, he continued to keep office hours to meet with students. I interviewed him several times for my college newspaper and he was always extraordinarily humble and warm. Something about his demeanor screamed: I am nothing special; God is.
And yet he was special. An article on the Multnomah Web site hails some of his accomplishments:
While Dr. Joe's leadership is a significant chapter in Multnomah's history, he also played a part in the formation of many other ministry endeavors. Multnomah Press grew into a prominent Christian publisher during his tenure and has since become Waterbrook Multnomah Publishing Group, a division of Random House Publishing.
The author of many works, his book Lifestyle Evangelism, though controversial when first published, became a classic. Through the book, Dr. Joe was able to have a lasting impact on the students who read it for his classes and thousands of others around the nation who began to think about evangelism as something they could do with joy.
Bringing pastors and leaders together from all over the world was never more evident than his significant role in bringing Billy Graham to Portland in 1992, Graham's final Crusade in the Pacific Northwest. Not satisfied to simply partner with Graham administratively, he canceled classes during the crusade days so that all students, faculty, and staff could assist in person.
 That kind of regard for evangelism affected the students who attended Multnomah. This past Sunday I was teaching sixth graders about friendship evangelism. One of the other teachers commented on my passion for evangelism. I was surprised. Evangelism isn't high on my spiritual gifts list. But maybe the drive others see in me is due to Dr. Joe's belief that evangelism was for everyone. It's an everyday responsibility of believers. That was one of his greatest legacies.
I saw Dr. Joe for the last time about five years ago. I was visiting Portland, and he was sitting in a Starbucks. I went over to say hello and he remembered me. "What are you doing now?" he asked. I told him that I was working as a children's magazine editor in Colorado. "Why that's wonderful!" he said with his signature warmth.
Righteous men bear good fruit. Dr. Joe is evidence of that.
I've had an arthritic condition called Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) since I was 22 years old. I didn't have health insurance until age 26. I simply lived with the pain for the four years in-between. It's what a lot of 20-somethings do without health insurance.
According to the latest figures from the Commonwealth Fund reported by the New York Times, young adults are the nation's largest group of uninsured. They're called "'young invincibles' — people in their 20s who shun insurance either because their age makes them feel invulnerable or because expensive policies are out of reach." What they do instead is,
... borrow leftover prescription drugs from friends, attempt to self-diagnose ailments online, stretch their diabetes and asthma medicines for as long as possible and set their own broken bones. When emergencies strike, they rarely can afford the bills that follow.
Here's one testimony from a New York "invincible":
In dozens of interviews around the city, these so-called young invincibles described the challenge of living in a high-priced city on low-paying jobs, where staying healthy is one part scavenger hunt and one part balancing act, with high stakes and no safety net.
"For a lot of people, it's a choice between being able to survive in New York and getting health insurance," said Hogan Gorman, an actress who was hit by a car five years ago and chronicled her misadventures in "Hot Cripple," a one-woman show that was a hit at last summer's Fringe Festival. "There was no way that I could pay my rent, buy insurance and eat."
Maybe the "Hot Cripple" wasn't familiar with the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires hospitals to treat everyone who comes into the ER regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay.
Seriously, I'm not sure the situation is as dire as the article makes out. When I developed Iritis (a condition related to AS), I went to the local Federally-funded health center and was treated for about $40. If I didn't have a job, it probably would have been free. These "[h]ealth centers are in most cities and many rural areas" and do not require health insurance.
I guess if there's one silver lining it's that young adults with no insurance are taking better care of themselves.
[Levon] Aaron was one of several young adults who said living without insurance meant trying to take better care of themselves.
"I've stopped eating fast food," said Santiago Betancour, who is 19 and lives in Rosedale, Queens. "I’m eating rice, vegetables and fruits. And when I get sick, I exercise to sweat it off."
That's what I'm talking about, Levon.
Job board sites like Monster and Career Builder have great commercials. They're so good I get sort of a left behind feeling because my resume's not "out there." They want you to think that your dream job is just a click away. Is it?
Today, The Wall Street Journal asks the experts to weigh in on whether or not those sites will help you land a job or advance your career. Here's the gist:
- Monster, Career Builder, and Hot Jobs "are nice for very young, entry-level job hunters," but more experienced professionals do better with "industry-specific" sites.
- Experts favor Jobing.com because it provides local listings, and Craigslist.com and Execunet.com because they "cut right to the noise and get to the actual job."
- Most of the sites "have pretty good security" except for Craigslist.
But I think their last question and answer is the most helpful.
Q: What advice do have for job hunters searching employment boards?
A: Don't put too much time into them, advises Mr. Cohen [career counselor and executive coach in New York]. He recommends investing heavily in networking in person and online.
Beth left a comment yesterday that got under my skin:
Boundless does advocate getting married young, having many babies, and women not working.
While I'm kind of troubled by Beth's misunderstanding about what we truly advocate (e.g., intentionality, purity, community, Christian discipline, etc.), it's the phrase "women not working" that for some reason really gets me.
Of course, what she means is "women not working outside the home." But by cutting that phrase short, she seems to be reinforcing the notion that women who choose not to delegate their responsibilities as a mother to others are somehow not working as hard as those who spend most of their waking hours at the office.
Maybe I'm just being a grammar nazi. After all, we know how to finish phrases like "he drinks" or "here I am to worship." Of course we mean that "he drinks alcohol" and "here I am to worship the Lord."
I do see a subtle difference, though. Beth's wording omits a prepositional phrase ("outside the home"), while these two phrases omit the noun, the direct object ("alcohol" and "the Lord"). Not sure if that's significant.
Hm. I recognize that I have this thing about omitting important phrases. I've confessed before that I don't feel comfortable exalting what I do ("here I am to worship") while diminishing the object of my worship ("the Lord"). Similarly, perhaps, I don't feel comfortable assuming that "working women" by default refers not to stay-at-home mothers, but to those who earn a living outside the home. It just seems to minimize the hard work required of women whose primary occupation is caring for their children.
Maybe we could be a bit more sensitive toward those women who choose to work for their families rather than for The Man. Maybe we could try finding ways to affirm their sacrifice. Including them among "working women" by recognizing both those who "work in the home" and those who "work outside the home" may be a simple way to start.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Anyone who's spent any amount of time watching American Idol will be struck by one thing: a lot of people see getting on the show as their ticket to changing their entire lives. Never mind that most who try out have little to no talent. Even those blessed with a natural gift seem to want the shortcut to fame and success. Why go through the hard job of learning to improve your talent, working your way through the system, trying and sometimes failing when you can just get on a TV show and, presto, you're catapulted to the top? Listen to how many times you’ll hear some variation on, "This will change my life" or "I really need this" during the show's auditions.Witness the emotional and often profane meltdowns when people see their supposed one ticket to success denied them. Turn your eyes away as contestants debase themselves by outright begging.
Compare this to what happened a few weeks ago during U.S. Airway's very brief Flight 1549 from New York's LaGuardia airport to the Hudson River by way of a flock of geese. (Yes, it seems a great leap of logic from American Idol to here, but bear with me.) A lot of people have described the actions of the plane's captain, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, as "heroic" and the plane's safe landing as a "miracle."I beg to differ. That is not to take away anything from the pilot or crew of that flight. They performed magnificently. But what transpired with Flight 1549 was the result of years of hard work and careful training. There was nothing heroic, truly defined, in what Captain Sullenberger did.
Patrick Smith,a professional airline pilot, says it well:
Nothing [Sullenberger and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles] did was easy, but on the whole they did what they had to do, what they were trained to do, and what, we should hope, most other crews would have done in that same situation. I reckon Sullenberger and Skiles would readily admit as much. Not out of false modesty but out of due respect for their colleagues everywhere. It was not heroics that saved the day; it was, to use a word I normally dislike, professionalism.
Sullenberger was a 1973 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and had, over many years, worked his way up to the left seat of a major commercial airliner. He had thousands of hours in the cockpit of one type of aircraft or another. It was that experience—years and years of hard work—that contributed to the happy outcome for Flight 1549. The years of experience and hard work of the all the crew members, including flight attendants Donna Dent, Doreen Welsh, and Sheila Dail, paid off that day.
Back to American Idol. Sure, the outcome of any TV show is not life-and-death, but you wouldn't know that by the way the show's participants act. What bothers me is the attitude of the typical Idolcontestant. Compare it to the cool professionalism of that U.S. Airways crew. Who needs years of hard work and experience to be successful? Just wow the judges and a few thousand adoring fans for a relatively brief period of time. What else could explain a Sanjaya Malakar? A David Archuleta? (Let the brickbats fly!) The numerous winners and runners-up who fade into obscurity once out of the artificial environment of Idol?
We're in danger of becoming a nation of Idol contestants, wanting a quick ride to the good life without the hard work and patience to actually earn it. (Set aside for the moment that many of us define the "good life" quite differently anyway.) What else could explain the election of a callow, inexperienced president who ran as a messiah but has been proved in the past few weeks to have feet of clay—which any sentient being should have been able to predict. What explains our culture's increasing reliance on lotteries and gambling to fund essential functions of government? The mountains of debt racked up by many Americans too impatient to actually save for the things they want?
I know there are a lot of other Chesley Sullenbergers out there. They're the ones we should emulate and praise, not for heroics or miracles, but for doing hard work, day in and day out, and doing it well—often for little reward. Let's see American Idol for what it is: ephemeral fizz that within weeks dissipates into the essential nothingness that it is.
I recently asked our pastor if he thinks it's ok to not sing certain songs during worship. He said that if you're not singing simply because you don't like the style, then you could be in sin. Because musical preferences shouldn't dictate your participation in corporate worship.
In other words, if it's not lyrically heretical, sing it. But what if it's lyrically individualistic? Like Tim Hughe's "Here I am to Worship"? You know the chorus:
Here I am to worship,
Here I am to bow down,
Here I am to say that You're my God
You're altogether lovely
Altogether worthy,
Altogether wonderful to me
And,
I'll never know how much it cost
To see my sin upon that cross
I'll never know how much it cost
To see my sin upon that cross
I'll never know how much it cost
To see my sin upon that cross
I'll never know how much it cost
Even with everyone in the church singing, it's still a bunch of "I's" singing it, not "we's." But though it's not my style, I belted it out, convicted by what my pastor said. (Besides, it is somewhat reformed theologically with that line "Opened my eyes, let me see." Which is redeeming.)
I wonder what Tony Woodlief of WorldMag.com does. He wrote an article last Friday with similar frustrations about bringing contemporary praise music into worship.
Recently I told my wife we ought to call a lot of them "me's," not "hymns." I suppose I'm getting more curmudgeonly, such that I cringe upon hearing a congregation warble what sounds dandy when crooned by an individual over the airwaves, but seems corny and too "me-and-Jesus" for corporate worship. My Savior does indeed love, and live, and He is always there for me, but now that I am here with all my brothers and sisters, couldn't we see our way clear to sing a song that has a little more reverence or community or [...] theology? Perhaps what I'm really seeking is less individuality in an American Church that has been overrun with it.
Me? Unless the music is doctrinally off, I'll continue to submit to our worship leaders and give deference to my brothers and sisters in Christ by seeking to cultivate a spirit that places community over my own preferences. Even if the songs have a ton more "I's" and "me's" than "we's."
I like the title of a new post by The Art of Manliness yesterday--"Every Man Needs a Mentor." The word "every" reminds me that having a mentor isn't just a nice bonus--it's essential. "There are some lessons and bits of wisdom that only a man can impart to another man," the post explains, "Men and women are different. We view and interact with the world differently. So it makes sense for men to seek out other men for guidance on how to navigate life."
Paul Stanley, co-author of the mentoring book Connecting talks about how misleading many self-improvement books can be. "These books often imply that if you follow their insights you can achieve the success they experienced," he said. "But those books often fail to mention that the essential element in their success was the mentoring relationships that brought those insights to life. Their advice without mentoring relationships is incomplete."
If the idea of mentoring is still new to you or you're still unsure how to get started, check out the interview Boundless did with Paul Stanley earlier.
I returned last night from my annual trip to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville. This year, two of my team members came with me, and in addition to staging photo shoots to chronicle our trip (see my FB page), drinking expensive coffee drinks (hail to a latte called the Jittery Monkey), and occasionally doing the work actually assigned them (good job, ladies) they spent their time trying to set me up with any guy who looked remotely unattached. Turns out some of the guys were actually attached (awkward), but the girls remained undaunted.
On our flight to Nashville, I wore a Boundless T-shirt. A flight attendant asked me what "Boundless" is, and I gave him the scoop. He looked at me and my coworkers and countered with "You look more like the cast of 'Girls Gone Wild.'" We're still not sure where that came from. I recovered when we landed in Nashville and there was a Bill Gaither sign above baggage claim that proclaimed "Welcome Home." Yay! The rest of the week was a flurry of meetings, presentations, events and handshakes with friends old and new.
One of the highlights of the trip was meeting Katie and Liza, two listeners to the show. Katie was at NRB with her company, so we met and chatted for about an hour. What a fun girl! She gave me some good show suggestions, but, while helpful, they were slightly overshadowed by the box of homemade white chocolate peanut clusters she presented me. Liza wasn't at the convention, but lives in Nashville, so drove all the way to the hotel to say "hello." I learned about her plans to go to seminary, and she gave me the inside scoop on the Christian music industry. Good times. If I'm ever in your area, or if you're in Colorado Springs, make sure we arrange to meet!
Valentine's Day Smackdown -- 00:00
Has a year passed since our last Valentine's Day show? Hard to believe. The VDay gift from my sister arrived yesterday, but I'm holding out until tomorrow to open it. In the meantime, the team (including new team member Ashley Harris!) joins me to discuss what's in and what's out when it comes to making plans for the holiday.
The Sonflowerz -- 16:21
This week's music is provided by The Sonflowerz, a fun sister duo whose new album All Over the World is making an impact in Christian music. I get to know them in this week's culture segment, and ask what it's like to be be cute, talented, interesting and have good things to say through music. Girls, take me with you on your next trip to England!
Gift Registry Do-gooders -- 35:17
They're getting married, and they'd prefer that in lieu of gifts, people just donate to a designated charity. Is this appropriate, and if so, how can they best communicate their wish? Candice and I disagree on this one. I suggested we settle it in a fist fight or gift-wrap-off, but instead we just share our opinions in a semi-civilized way.
By the way, I also had my photo taken with Jesus while at NRB. He was working a booth on the convention floor, and was extremely friendly and chatty. He said he loves Focus on the Family, and he wants me to visit him in Florida when I get a chance. I said I would try.
Given recent conflict over the merits of the massive so-called stimulus bill -- especially provisions to include contraception -- it's more important than ever to make the case for babies. Even in an economic downturn. Of course, so is making the case for parents taking responsibility for those babies once they're born. Frank Pastore's commentary in Crosswalk gets it wrong. He writes:
But something is wrong, very wrong, when we’re growing so many citizens who don’t even try to pay their own way, who willfully choose to take limited resources away from deserving others, and who live in such a way that they just assume it’s someone else’s responsibility to take care of them.
Babies aren't the problem. Government programs that displace fathers and encourage promiscuity and irresponsibility are.
I'm drawn to weirdness. Not in the way my wife is (which is more of an attraction to weird people, or, more accurately, a particular weird person), but in a more late-night-talk-radio kind of way.
Some day all will cease to be fuzzy. Some day the Lord will pull back the curtain and let us enjoy clarity. In the meantime, mysteries abound.
So here are the enigmas I find pummeling me this morning:
Chemtrails: Are "they" spraying stuff from the backs of some aircraft in an effort to inoculate us or to experiment on us or to reduce global warming? Don't know.
UFOs: Are they extraterrestrials, or demons, or secret experimental aircraft, or weather balloons, or hoaxes, or drops of condensation sliding off the window of the Space Shuttle thus giving the illusion of a darting flying saucer? Or maybe all of the above? Hm.
Economic attack: More than half a TRILLION dollars was taken out of U.S. money market accounts over the course of an hour or two on Sept. 15, 2008. If the activity hadn't been halted when it was, some $5.5 TRILLION could have been withdrawn, collapsing the entire U.S. economy. Who did this, and why does nobody in our government seem to care? Puzzling.
The two arks. Where did the Ark of the Covenant end up? And where did Noah's ark end up? Hm. Perhaps the Ark is buried outside of Jerusalem, or in Ethiopia, or in Spain, or on Egypt's Elephantine Island. Perhaps the ark was used by Noah and his family for firewood, or to build homes, or maybe it is in Turkey somewhere. Will someone someday upload photos of each to their archeology blog?
The U.S. Census: It's an actual head-count conducted every 10 years, and administered by the Commerce Department. Certain politicians want to change that. They want it run directly out of the White House, under the President, which strikes me as a blatantly partisan power-grab. They also want to adjust the results based on a mathematical formula they come up with, rather than rely on what our Constitution (Article 1, section 2) describes as an "actual Enumeration." What's going on here? Will "they" succeed?
EMP attack: Would we survive an electromagnetic pulse attack? Would our electrical grid and communication infrastructure be rendered unusable? Would my Mac's hard drive be erased, and all the songs on my iPod Touch be gone? Would the databases for Boundless and the Boundless Line vaporize?
Conficker: What is it waiting for? A massive cyberattack? Or simply to send out spams? And who made it? Some foreign government? An anti-virus company?
Surely I can't be the only one drawn to such bewilderments.
Everyone experiences suffering. As I type this, individuals in Colorado Springs and Toronto and London and Makati and Auckland are hurting.
And folks throughout Australia -- with its bushfires and flooding -- are suffering in heartbreaking ways.
This morning I received the following e-mail from Cate:
Hi there,
My family (Mum, Dad, myself and my three little sisters) lived in the small town in Victoria. There were warnings that bushfires were 5 kilometres away and we were getting ready to evacuate. We had grabbed the family photos, important documents, blankets for the night in the evacution centre and some extra clothes but just as we were about to leave the fire came surging over the hill north of our property. We all scrambled for the car and sped off along the south road from our property. My two youngest sisters were crying and screaming about the pets my dad forced them to leave behind. Mum and I were trying to calm them down and praying God would spare our house. But just as we turned around the next corner we saw fire coming up on the south of our property. We were being closed in on both sides. We all began to panic but Dad said nothing and turned the car around and started heading towards the dam, there wasn't enough time to take any other route out.
We got to the dam, by this time we were coughing really badly and sky was black with smoke. Dad made us all get in the water, he grabbed the blankets and wet them and we all started to swim out to the raft ancored in the middle of the dam. We could see the fire coming and started to feel the heat. My parents and I dragged my sisters through the water because they were too distraught to swim properly. Finally we climbed on the raft, we lay there with the wet blankets on top of us. The plan was that when the fire came we would all slide off the raft into the water with the blankets over our heads and tread water until it passed around the dam. My dad kept looking out the side of blanket to see how close it was. He could see headlights in the distance through the smoke and realised that our neighbours were also driving to our dam.
He said he had to go and help despite our pleas. He said he'd be back in a few minutes and jumped off the raft swam to the edge and got into the truck and started out towards the lights. That is the last we ever saw of him. We don't know what happened ... we know they didn't make it. Him and our neighbouring family of 5 were caught in the fire 1/2 a km from the dam.
The fire came and we slid off the raft into the water, the smoke and heat were incredible and but the wet blankets were amazing in keeping the air breathable and the heat manageable. While we tread water we all cried, we all knew Dad hadn't made it, there was no way. In all honesty I didn't feel like treading water, this was a nightmare and I could have easily just let myself slip away. I know that sounds selfish because I was there with my mum and sisters but that's the way it was.
The fire passed. We survived and climbed back onto the raft, we didn't know what to do next we couldn't go back to shore because the ground was too hot. So we just sat in silence, holding each other. After a while my youngest sister started to ask questions 'Do you think the dog is alright? Do you think our house is ok?' all my mum said was 'Sweethearts, it is well with our souls and that's all that matters' I'm sure she was saying that to herself as much as she was saying it to us. We were rescued half an hour later by the Fire Service and taken to a shelter. That night at the shelter is a story in itself. The death toll stands at 181 and still climbing.
We are now staying at my Aunt's house 3 hours away. The amount of support is incredible but nothing replaces the horrific memories and my sisters have nightmares every night. We are left wondering what is next. What is the point of rebuilding if my Dad is gone and can't farm and support us? Where do we go? Most of our friends are dead, half our church is dead, what life do we have left? Do we sell? and if so will we make enough money to pay out our mortgage, who wants to buy black burnt piece of land?
Everyday is a battle to see God's faithfulness and righteousness above the loss we have experienced. I'm not quite there yet, I'm angry, confused and bitter. We all miss Dad, he was quiet but strong man who loved the Lord. He put his family first and lead us with incredible wisdom, he saved or lives that night and died trying to save more. There should be some comfort in that but I haven't found it yet, I wish he was selfish and had of just stayed with us. If he were here to lead us now things would feel that much more secure but he's not and I feel abandonned, everything secure and familiar is gone. I am immensely thankful for my family but even that feel different right now.
I am reminded of the Gaither song Because He Lives.
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow,
Because He lives, all fear is gone;
Because I know He holds the future,
And life is worth the living,
Just because He lives
- Cate
Cate's father was a very brave man, a man who brought honor to Christ by sacrificially serving his family and giving his life in an effort to save others. I've never met Cate's father, but am provoked by the way he modeled a godly life, a life putting others' well-being over his own. I've never met Cate or her family, and yet I'm moved to tears by the agony they are experiencing right now.
I've prayed for Cate and her family, for their comfort, for their provision. Please consider doing the same.
* * *
We do lift up your concerns to the Lord in prayer. If there is anything we can do for you, please do not hesitate to contact us right now. When you complete the form on that page, the information you provide is hand-delivered to my co-workers and me. When we receive your prayer request, we push away from our computers, close our eyes from things that distract us, and we talk with the Lord about what is on your heart.
Please also feel free to e-mail us at editor@boundless.org or leave a comment below. It's our privilege to share your burdens.
Tomorrow Lisa will write her usual, amazing podcast summary. You know the one. It will make you laugh; it will make you cry; it will make you update your iTunes subscription. You can wait to laugh and cry till tomorrow, but update your iTunes today because the podcast has been released. And it's a good one! The Valentine's Day roundtable is great prep for everybody-- single or in a relationship.
[Spoiler Alert] My feelings about Valentine's Day have changed a little since we recorded the podcast. I don't know what to attribute it to ... overhearing the guys at work order flowers for their sweethearts, Suzanne's blog post on Tuesday, the card aisle at Target, or the heart-shaped chocolate-covered pretzels that I've eaten my body weight in this week. Whatever it is, I'm warming up to the holiday. (My feelings about the red Mardi Gras beads at Barnes and Noble, however, have not changed.)
I'll leave the rest to Lisa. Enjoy the podcast!
Several college students nearing graduation responded to my post "Layoffs and Survivor's Guilt" expressing concerns about getting a job. And it's definitely more difficult to do during a recession. But as I've written previously, young adults are probably most able to absorb the tough job market. An option many have chosen is simply riding out the recession by pursuing more education.
According to this article, graduate school applications at U.S. universities are experiencing a surge.
Historically, graduate school applications spike during economic downturns, and already, many U.S. universities have seen significant increases.
Applications to the University of Texas' Masters in Business Administration program have soared by 24% for the spring semester, George Washington University graduate programs experienced a 7% hike and the University of California, Berkeley, saw an overall 6% rise in applications to its graduate academic programs, in which engineering and computer sciences dominate with an 11-point increase, according to Corinne Kosmitzki, director of graduate admissions at U.C. Berkeley.
Graduate school's expensive; so who's paying? Not the parents, most likely.
"I'm kind of thinking my future husband will pay it off," Miriam jokes. "Just kidding," she says after a short pause. "I'm paying for the loan."
She may be kidding, but that's exactly what happens to many couples. It's why some financial planners encourage students to pursue graduate work for the right reasons.
More and more young adults in the 22-26 demographic are taking on a financial burden in order to make themselves more marketable in an unstable economy. After paying for their children's undergraduate education, struggling to put food on the table post-layoffs or saving for a near-approaching rainy day, mom and dad are all tapped out, notes Catherine Williams, vice president of financial literacy for Money Management International, a non-profit, Houston-based credit-counseling organization.
Williams says many students she speaks with realize that taking out loans during an economic crisis "is crazy;" however, they choose to take on more debt in order to acquire degrees that would bring them sustainable income. However, Jeremy Vohwinkle, About.com's financial planning specialist warns, "Students need to be sure they are pursuing the degree for the right reasons with a high likelihood of maximizing the return on that money spent. Getting a degree for the sake of getting it because it's hard to find a job could do more harm than good."
I agree. $30,000 of school debt can cause a lot harm if unwisely considered. So please carefully consider it before you turn your nose up at that food service industry job.
Ok, so I made that up. Today is really Darwin Day, a day commemorating the birth of Charles Darwin on February 12, 1809. But don't worry, it's not a public holiday ... yet.
In case you haven't noticed, evolution is becoming quite popular. Even confessing Christians are jumping on the bandwagon. It's not surprising really. Just look at the controversial Clergy Letter Project which began in 2004. As of today, almost 12,000 confessing Christian clergy in the U.S. have signed the "Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science." It begins,
While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
What a contrast to today's Boundless article from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, "Lousy Creationist Arguments." Instead of separating religious truth from scientific -- as Bible illiteralists -- Dr. Sarfati unapologetically offers his framework for all considerations ... Scripture.
The authority of the Bible is the main emphasis of Creation Ministries International. We don't try to "prove" the Bible with science; rather, we accept the Bible's propositions as true without proof, i.e. as axioms or presuppositions.
All philosophical systems, not just Christianity, start with axioms. There are good reasons for accepting the axioms of Scripture as true, because it can be shown that they lead to a consistent view of physical and moral reality, which other axioms can't provide.
Genesis contains a number of Hebrew grammatical features that show it was intended to teach a straightforward history of the world from its creation. Genesis, backed up by the rest of Scripture, unambiguously teaches that:
- The heavens, Earth and everything in them were created in six consecutive normal days, the same as those of our working week (Exodus 20:8-11).
- Earth is about 6,000 years old, since Jesus said mankind was there from the "beginning of creation," not billions of years later (Mark 10:6).
- Adam sinned and brought physical death to mankind (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22).
- Since man was the federal head of creation, the whole creation was cursed (Romans 8:20-22), which included death to animals, with the end of the original vegetarian diet for both humans and animals (Genesis 1:29-30).
- God judged the world by a globe-covering Flood, which Jesus and Peter compared with the coming Judgment (Luke 17:26-27; 2 Peter 3:3-7). This destroyed all land vertebrate animals and people not on the ocean-liner-sized Ark.
- God then judged the people by confusing their language at Babel — after they had refused to spread out and repopulate the Earth after the Flood.
It's important to realize that all "facts" of science do not speak for themselves, but are interpreted within a framework.
Evolutionists start with the axiom of naturalism or materialism, i.e. God (if He even exists) performed no miraculous acts of creation.
Biblical creationists interpret the same facts and observations, but within the framework outlined above.
So before you break out your ape suit and throw a primordial soup dinner party, consider which framework you choose to interpret facts and observations, Scripture or the one used by The Clergy Letter signees.
If there's one reason I'm thankful that the campaigning season is over, it's so that I don't have to hear the "individual story" (or the "personification" of an issue or whatever you wanna call it) anymore.
You know, when an interviewer asks, "So, Senator, why are you in favor of a homeschooling tax break?"
"Well, let me tell you," Senator Smith says, "because of people like Ted Slater of Colorado Springs, a hard working man, trying to educate his kids at home, blah, blah."
Or, "So, Senator, why do you favor providing subsidies for stay-at-home Christian bloggers?"
"Well, let me tell you," Senator Jones says, "it's because of people like Heather Koerner of Tulsa, Oklahoma, who is slaving away right now on her PC, but hears everyone talking about how great Macs are. We should not be a nation of have-Macs and have-not-Macs, so I think that Heather, blah, blah, blah."
Makes we want to throw a shoe at the TV.
It's not that individual stories aren't instructive. They can, and sometimes do, have something to teach us. It's just that individual stories aren't necessarily prescriptive. National PC policy should not be made just because I want to try a Mac.
That's what made me a little hesitant about passing on this article: "Madonna syndrome: I should have ditched feminism for love, children and baking" in the Times.
In it, author Zoe Lewis, talks about how she was imbued by her feminist mother with "the great values of choice, equality and sexual liberation" but that how "now, nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold."
Here's the thing. One feminist denouncing feminism doesn't necessarily make feminism wrong, in the same way that someone denouncing the Christian faith doesn't make Christianity wrong. What makes feminism right or wrong is how it lines up with Scripture. As Christians, we start with the Truth, God's Word. We learn what it tells us about being male and female, about being husbands and wives and about being mothers and fathers. We strive to make sure that the Word, not the world, shapes our priorities.
But, still, stories like this can be instructive to us. They can show us how even a woman who doesn't share our faith, still shares our Creator and still feels the pull of His design.
She writes:
"I was led to believe that women could 'have it all' and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dreams - to be a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no."
"...Somewhere inside lurks a woman I cannot control and she is in the kitchen with a baby on her hip and dough in her hand, staring me down. She is saying: 'This is happiness, this is what it's all about' It's an instinct that makes me a woman, an instinct that I can't ignore even if I wanted to."
"...I argue that women's libbers of the Sixties and Seventies put careerism at the forefront, trampling the traditional role of women underneath their Doc Martens. I wish a more balanced view of womanhood had been available to me. I wish that being a housewife or a mother wasn't such a toxic idea to middle-class liberals of yesteryear."
"...In the future I hope that there can be a better understanding of women by women. The past 25 years have been confusing and I feel that I've been caught in the crossfire. As women we should accept each other rather than just appreciating 'success'. I have always felt a huge pressure to be successful to show men that I am their equal. What a waste of time. Wife and mother should be given parity with the careerist role in the minds of feminists."
"... I wish I'd had the advice that I am giving to my 21-year-old sister: if you find a great guy, don't be afraid to settle down and have kids because there isn't anything to miss out on that you can't do later (apart from having kids)."
The letter started simple enough:
I am a young man currently in Bible college and I have a "lady-friend" whom I have known for about a year now that I like and am seriously considering dating. Spiritually, I have found her to be mature and our beliefs are essentially identical.
Then it took a twist:
However, I feel somewhat shallow/guilty because I have been struggling to decide whether or not to date her because of her health. She has had this medical condition....
In reply, Boundless Answers columnist John Thomas wrote the article "Dating Someone with a Medical Condition." His conclusion: "If God leads you to marriage with your friend, you can unequivocally trust Him to provide all you need for both of you to thrive."
We've received a few e-mails in response to John's article. This one, from a young woman who herself struggles with a disability:
As a single young woman with a chronic medical condition, I was naturally intrigued by the title of this article. However, as I read it, I felt a little incensed, both by the question and the response to it. However, I do not wish to judge the young man who sent in this question -- as fallen creatures, we are all prone to superficiality. I would also not wish to discourage anyone from asking questions like this (no matter how shallow they may appear), as I appreciate personally how important it is to have a website like this, where such questions are answered anonymously and with careful consideration of God's Word.
While I do not dispute the advice that was given per se, I do feel that there were some extremely important factors that were not considered. First of all, where was the consideration of the young woman's feelings in all of this?
I appreciate that it is difficult for a "healthy/normal" person to understand what it is like to live with a chronic illness -- I had very little concept of the difficulties before I developed health problems. However, I do believe that the young man concerned should have been advised to consider this issue very carefully. Even though the young woman considered here has probably adjusted very well to her condition, this does not mean that she doesn't worry about it herself. She is probably a little nervous of what the future may hold -- even though she is single, she has probably thought about the effect of pregnancy on her diabetes (and vice versa), and worried about developing complications in later life. She may even be concerned about passing on the condition to any children she may have.
Eclipsing all of this, however, is the overriding feeling that having such a condition renders a young woman "damaged" or "abnormal." The effect of chronic illness on a person's lifestyle can be very insidious (many of my colleagues and acquaintances do not know the true extent of my health problems), but any restrictions on lifestyle (no matter how small) can have a deep impact on a person's self-esteem -- especially if one is young and supposed to be "in the prime of life." Having to inject insulin in a public place, having a coughing fit in the cinema, or feeling so exhausted that you're always the first one to leave a party reinforces the idea that you are "different" and not "normal."
If this woman knew this man's misgivings about dating her, I have no doubt in my mind that she would be extremely upset at this -- she has probably had moments where she has felt that life is unfair and her condition has placed one too many restrictions on her life, and now she may feel that it is costing her the opportunity for a loving relationship and all that may follow that -- marriage, children etc.
Furthermore, I do not understand how the perceived logic in "avoiding what could be a problem down the road for her and ... our children." Do you seriously believe that if a "healthy" couple married that they (or their children) may not have health problems in the future? Either partner may develop a medical condition, or become injured in an accident etc etc. I'm sure we all know individuals who were perfectly healthy when they got married but developed medical problems later in life.
Conversely, there are many people who were living with medical conditions when they married, but have had a normal family life and healthy children. Any couple may also carry recessive (i.e., imperfect) genes, which result in any children being at risk of having a genetic illness.
In short, none of us can predict our (or anyone else's) future health -- only the Lord God knows what lies ahead. Even though I am a doctor and have a good understanding of my condition, and make any necessary adjustments for it (working hours and specialty choice etc), I do not believe that the presence of my medical condition should automatically preclude me from marrying and having children -- there are very few absolute restrictions. Above all, it is important (as mentioned in the article) to consider all the risks, and of course to seek God's guidance in prayer.
Apologies if this sounds like a rather wordy rant -- that was not my intention. I just felt compelled to give the other side of the story (maybe it hit a raw nerve?), and I hope that this will be of some use to you.
This young woman's e-mail did give me insights I didn't have before reading it. How about you? Are you open to dating someone with a "medical condition"? And if you have one yourself, what are your thoughts about all this?
According to USA Today, Facebook's "25 Random Things About Me" is the hottest new fad. If you have a Facebook account, you've no doubt been tagged in this note a bazillion times. If you're not on Facebook ... please join us in the 21st century ... and, let me fill you in:
Like a mutating chain letter, though more artful and less threatening, 25 Things arrives as a Facebook note from a friend. That friend posts 25 facts about himself and "tags" 25 people and asks them to do the same thing.
The phenomenon continues to snowball. Facebook can't quantify activity specific to 25 Things as it does applications such as Flixster. But spokeswoman Brandee Barker says that over the past week the number of daily "notes" has more than doubled and the number of daily tags of a Facebook member in a note has grown by five times.
This Sunday I'm teaching the sixth grade class at my church. One of my points is how our favorite topic of conversation tends to be ourselves. That's why Paul has to remind us: "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others."
That's what makes "25 Random Things" such an appealing craze. But there's another reason I think this note is so popular. People want to be known.
"I would say that anecdotally I've never seen a note spread as quickly as this has on Facebook," Barker says. "What is really unique about this is it's a really meaningful piece of content. Some of the these notes are touching and frankly very insightful."
We all long to feel significant. And this Facebook note could essentially be called "25 Things That Make Me Unique and Valuable." So go ahead and read some of your friends' lists, and if you must, create one of your own. If you are on Facebook, Boundless wants to be your friend and hear your 25.
HT: Denise Morris
With unemployment at 7.6%, and nonfarm payrolls falling sharply, it's likely you or someone you know has been "affected" (company lingo for "laid off"). But as a recent Times article notes, survivors of layoffs are affected too (even if it seems a bit casual to consider compared to the plight of the riffed).
Here are some ways survivors can be affected:
The terms psychologists toss around to describe these feelings include survivor's guilt (why him and not me?), survivor's envy (thinking you might be better off gone too) and emotional contagion (the tendency to pick up your laid-off colleagues' feelings of gloom and desperation). These feelings are with us in every recession, but as layoffs spread to more industries, people in all walks of life are increasingly experiencing them.
I've experienced a combination of these feelings as coworkers and friends have lost their jobs. There's a lot of "why him and not me?" and "feelings of gloom" for them as they try to pick up the pieces. However, both of these responses can be healthy.
The first gives me a renewed thankfulness for my job. The realization that my job just happens to be (for now) within Focus on the Family's strategic vision for the future is sobering. Meaning, it could just have easily been me that got laid off (not that it's like that with all layoffs).
The second has me empathizing with those that have been laid off. So when I meet them, I ask how they're doing, if I can help, and how I can pray for them. Which, according to Time, is what the "survivors" should do.
People who lose their jobs often feel ostracized, which is partly a function of how the still-employed, going through internal turmoil of their own, treat them. "Most people say nothing, most people are afraid of you," says Damian Birkel, a career counselor and founder of the nonprofit Professionals in Transition, which provides services to the unemployed. "For someone to come in and offer any type of support during what is the most awkward and embarrassing time you're going to have — that is a courageous act."
How have you been affected by the recession?
A couple years ago, I was killing time browsing the sale rack at Davis Kidd where I found a clearance copy of Greg Behrendt's He's Just Not That Into You. I don't remember if I had a "He" that just wasn't that into me at the time or if the bargain-loving part of my heart couldn't resist the sale.
Either way, I timidly took my find to the counter where a Rip Van Winkle-esk clerk rang me up. He didn't seem to notice my purchase (which I was sure indicated I was desperate and undesirable). I guess he was still a little groggy from his 20-year nap on the mountain. Or maybe he was used to women buying Behrendt's little pink book.
I cracked the cover of the pink hardback book in the privacy of my room later that evening. Reading the words, "he's just not that into you" was oddly freeing.
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a warm, fuzzy freeing. It was like an intervention freeing. Kara Schwab, Boundless author, described it this way, "in-your-face ... as if the authors broke into your apartment and sat you down on your couch to say, 'Girrrrl, you gotta get it together.'"
And indeed, I needed to get it together. I know I said I didn't remember if I had a "he" that wasn't that into me, but as I write this, it's all coming back. He had not been into me for a decade. Yeah, that's right, a decade. I had a crush on "He" since grade school. We were the best of friends in high school and had gone on a couple of weird and undefined dates in college. I waited for "He's" phone calls for weeks at a time. I knew that deep down he had feelings for me and one day he would DTR and we would live happily ever after.
Ladies and Gentlemen, that never happened.
While I'm glad for the wake-up call I received from Behrendt, I wish it had come from a wiser, truer source. I wish someone who loved me and cared about my life had gently told me that I needed to hang up my pipe dream and move on.
The only truth I recall finding in the 175 pages of He's Just Not that Into You was the title. The content of the book was full of hook-ups and f-bombs. And from what I've read over at Plugged In, the movie's not much different. So if you choose to see it, go with discernment. Give Kara's article a read before you head for the theater.
Last week, Ashley mentioned the special forum event we're sponsoring.
It's going on right now (from 4-6 p.m., EST, or 1-3 p.m. Pacific Time), over here. Please feel free to join us!
It's not a budget bill. The last budget bill came to $3.1 trillion.
It's not a bailout bill. The last bailout bill came to $700 billion.
It's a so-called stimulus bill, a simple hemorrhage of money -- some $1.2 trillion, most of which would be spent during 2011 and beyond -- that bureaucrats pray will prime the pump of our economy.
No trickle-down effect here; rather a deluge of cash from our grandchildren's anticipated tax confiscations contributions, going for such critically urgent "absolutely necessary" things as:
- $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
- A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
- $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
- $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
- $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
- $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
- $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
- $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
- $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
- $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
- $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
- $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
- $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
- $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
- $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
- $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
- $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
- $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
- $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
- $500 million for state and local fire stations.
- $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
- $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
- $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
- $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
- $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
- $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
- $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
- $850 million for Amtrak.
- $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
- $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
- $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
- $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.
You can browse the entire porkulus bill here.
The world's economies are hurting. People in China, Iceland, India, Brazil and elsewhere are experiencing financial difficulty. This tells me that there's nothing necessarily defective in the United States' mixed free enterprise system that's facilitated our economic difficulties. Consequently, the opposite system -- a stronger central government, making more decisions about how citizens' money is to be spent -- is not the answer to our nation's financial problems.
The U.S. was experiencing recession in the 1920s, an economic situation that ballooned into a Great Depression after the U.S. government offered a big government solution. FDR's secretary of the Treasury confessed that his costly stimulus plan was a failure: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."
President Obama said the other day that if this costly non-bipartisan bill is not passed, "Our nation will sink into a crisis that at some point we may be unable to reverse." I suspect the opposite is true: that this bill -- likely the "largest single piece of legislation ever" -- may sink our nation into a financial crisis not unlike that of the Great Depression.
Regardless how this all plays out, may our hope be found in Christ, and enjoyed in authentic Christian community, and not in politicians of any stripe. May our treasure be found in an eternal kingdom, and not in this perishable one.
So we've entered what is probably the most awkward week for a budding relationship. It's always unnerving when you hit that "I-think-we-may-like-each-other" moment in the days leading up to Valentine's Day. I mean, you don't want the instant pressure of the "love holiday" entering an already delicate equation. I've noticed most guys will kind of get real quiet a little before February 14 and then pick things back up the following week.
Once a guy was asking me on a first coffee date the week before V-Day. Even though February 14 was open for both of us, we agreed to meet on the 15th. It just seemed...well, less weird.
Here's another observation I have about Valentine's Day: Women who aren't dating like to plan man-free parties. I've already been invited to three. I don't want to read too much into it, but these parties — with catchy names like Ro-tic (romantic without the "man") and S.A.D. (singles awareness day) — seem to be a rebellion against romance.
I remember one year some friends of mine were planning this type of party — the "we-don't-need-boyfriends" kind. At the last minute, my friend said, "We're changing it. I've been convicted that this kind of attitude is wrong, so we're just getting together for some worship. Anyone can come." I still admire that girl.
Valentine's Day is a fine holiday, in my opinion. Sure, it's commercialized (and it ruins those New Years resolution diets), but so is Christmas. I think it's nice that couples have a special day to celebrate their love and commitment if they so choose. And I think singles should be good sports and not see the holiday as some type of excuse to mourn or be bitter.
How will you spend Valentine's Day? Offer to babysit so a couple can go out Saturday. Get some friends together for a meal. Send someone a Valentine. Deliver a pink cake to your grandma. And if you're brave, meet someone for coffee — if things work out it will make a good story. Just do the unexpected. Love is a wonderful thing, people. And that should be celebrated year round.
P.S. Join us today for the Search for a Godly Spouse Forum at 4-6 p.m. (EST)
Prayer changes things. Life is tough -- pray hard. The family that prays together, stays together. You've heard the cliches. You also know that it's easier to talk about prayer than it is to actually pray. Our prayer bumper stickers, magnets and screen savers prove that point.
This week I prayed. Like, really prayed. It was the first time in a while that I prayed in a "God, I have to talk to you right now and it may take a while so please pull up a chair and put your phone on vibrate" kind of way. Tuesday night I sat down to work on my weekly Bible study homework. Thus began what quickly became a full-blown tear-fest as I worked through my lesson material and meditated on a few chapters of Scripture. I then began to pray. And pray. And cry. And pray. I did what I can only imagine people do when they "pour out their hearts to the Lord." I looked for my heart on the floor and behind my chair, because I was pretty sure it had spilled out of me at some point. But long story short, God met me. I have to say this (even though it's another cliche), because it really happened. And because I've been a Christian for over 30 years, yet I still apparently doubt that God can and will do this if I only ask. The next morning I woke up with a peace that I cannot describe. Perhaps we can call this a "peace that passes understanding" (hello, reminder to review AGAIN God's promises). All I know is that I unloaded some major issues on the Lord, and He scooped them up.
Fast forward to last night. My Husband Prayer Group met at my house. Yes, I'm in a Husband Prayer Group. We pray for husbands. We also pray for other things, but we call it the HPG because we are taking Candice's advice to PRAY BOLDLY for a mate. Our track record is pretty good, as two of our original five are now married. And two are charismatic, which has nothing to do with finding husbands, but they're not afraid to say "Yes, Jesus!" and "Amen!" as we pray, and I love that. If any potential husbands are within earshot, maybe they'll wander over.
Anyway, the fact is, this could've been a bad week. But it wasn't, because I invited God into it through prayer. I told my high school girls group the other night that I'm ashamed I've been a Christian for so long, yet I still fret about things that are quite obviously out of my control. I try to manipulate circumstances and people instead of placing them before the Lord. This is lame, and I have to confess it. My time with God this week reminded me that He really does provide "abundantly more than we could ever ask or imagine." Even more than I can imagine! I have quite an imagination, so that's a big deal.
The Boundless Show's Birthday -- 00:00
This week's Roundtable cracks me up. We look back on a year of podcasts and recount our favorite moments, topics, guests and comments, and then ask what's been most fun and meaningful for you. No, I still haven't purchased a gun. But my fence is getting replaced!
Stepparenting Isn't for Cowards -- 19:32
I have a few friends who just entered the world of the stepfamily. As soon as I did this interview with Ron Deal, I emailed them and said, "You cannot miss this interview when it hits the show." So friends, you know who you are...now is the time. Ron Deal of Successful Stepfamiliesgives insights on being an adult stepchild, marrying into a stepfamily, merging families and everything in between.
With This Cell Phone, I Thee Wed -- 44:40
Marriage is around the corner, so should the cell phone plans be merged in anticipation? This is one facet of the larger "How do we go from 'mine' to 'ours'"? question that all potential marriages face. Candice and I break down the minutes in this friends-and-family plan.
In other prayer news, my mom will be visiting me for the month of March. She announced the other day that she is "praying about learning to work my stove" when she gets here. I have a Viking gas stove, and she's afraid of it. Maybe she and I can pray together when she arrives and (tears optional) give the stove to the Lord. Then I'll bring her on the show so she can testify.
So I was listening to the John Tesh Radio Show yesterday ... and he was talking about double-dipping chip experiments done by a Clemson University (my alma mater) professor and a group of students. Important stuff.
What? You've never heard of double-dipping? Here's an exchange from Seinfeld's George Costanza with someone at a wake that'll help you out:
Timmy: What are you doing?
George: What?
Timmy: Did, did you just double dip that chip?
George: Excuse me?
Timmy: You double dipped a chip!
George: Double dipped? What, what, what are you talking about?
Timmy: You dipped a chip. You took a bite. And you dipped again.
George: So?
Timmy: That's like putting your whole mouth right in the dip. From now on, when you take a chip, just take one dip and end it.
Timmy was right. According to Clemson's research, double-dipping your chip leaves about 10,000 bacteria in the dip.
From the John Tesh website,
In an experiment that involved food technicians double-dipping, and even triple-dipping a bag of potato chips, scientists found the results disturbingly dirty. All it takes is one single bite to transfer more than 10-thousand bacteria from the mouth back into a bowl of dip.
So if you're feeling a little under the weather, it's probably because of double-dipping offenses that occurred at the Super Bowl party you attended.
On Monday, February 9 the Daily Broadcast will be airing a topic that I think will be particularly interesting to the Boundless audience: The Search for a Godly Spouse. Pastor Alistair Begg will be joining Dr. Dobson and John Fuller to talk about important characteristics to look for in a future spouse. The second part of their discussion will be aired on Tuesday, February 10 followed by a special opportunity to dialog with the Boundless team about relationships.
Please join us in the Search for a Godly Spouse Forum at 4-6pm (EST) for this unique opportunity. You can register for the forum today so you'll be all set to go.
Have a good weekend friends and I'll look forward to seeing you in forum on Tuesday!
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