The first time I heard about it was this weekend. I was doing a little research for summer vacation plans and saw it: "Sign your child up for summer camp now! If you lose your job, we'll provide a scholarship to cover the cost!"
Then, this morning I saw a quick clip about it on the news: "Go ahead and buy that new car! If you lose your job, they'll cover your payments!"
So, I've been introduced to the new way to boost sales in a slacking economy: Job Loss Protection.
Seems, it may have started with Hyundai, who first offered customers the right to return their cars to the dealership -- no questions, no repercussions -- if the customers lost their income. They then upped the ante, offering customers who lose their jobs "payment relief" for 3 months (nice for transportation while looking for another job) and then the "return with no strings" if things don't work out.
Seems consumers may be biting, because Hyundai was one of the only automakers to report a sales increase in January.
"We were looking at what would get people off the fence," said Jeff Cook, president and chief operating officer of a company offering this protection on condos. "It's thinking outside the box."
It certainly is outside the box and kudos to these marketing guys for reading the pulse of consumers so well. But I couldn't help but wonder if a little healthy fear and a little healthy pause (even, maybe, a large healthy pause) before making large purchases like autos and homes is still a good thing.
Maybe a little more fence sitting is exactly what more of us need.
Because, after all, the Bible makes two things perfectly clear about debt. First, the borrower is a slave. Second, you will pay back what you borrow. Lessons to us? First, I want to be extraordinarily careful before willingly placing myself into a situation the Bible describes as bondage. Second, I'm going to make mighty sure that even when the potholes of life come, I can still pay the debt back.
That might take a lot of forms. For my husband and I, we work intentionally to be debt free. We only take out debt on appreciating assets (sadly, Hyundais don't qualify) and, even then, only with a generous margin of safety for emergency situations, crazy real estate markets and acts of God. We keep an "emergency fund" of three to six months of income.
We routinely run "financial fire drills" asking ourselves: What happens if he loses his job or I get really sick or our real estate market tanks? Are we covered? How long can we make it? Do we have some wiggle room? Or, would we be in trouble the first month because our car payment was due and we didn't have the money to cover it?
These "Job Loss Protection" programs are inventive. And they may get some to jump off the fence. But my advice? Just keep sitting for a while. Do your own fire drill. If you are just a couple of months of unemployment away from financial ruin, maybe it's time to put the car ads down and kick the saving up.
When I was a boy, my allergies were so bad I carried around a handkerchief everywhere I went. It earned me the nickname "Rag." (A name my brother still calls me occasionally.) Somewhere along the way I gave up the habit of carrying a hankie. My allergies didn't improve, mind you. I just made do with allergy medicine and tissues. This method, however, proved insufficient for proper allergy attack preparedness. Inevitably, I would be caught without the means for dealing with a severe runny nose and multiple sneezes (a series of three to seven) in public places.
So a few years ago, when my wife asked me to give her birthday gift ideas, I suggested a set of handkerchiefs. I got my wish.
That's the long backstory of why I really appreciated this article from The Art of Manliness. In "Every Man Should Carry a Handkerchief," they answer the questions of 'why' and 'how' as well as address the relatively modern concern for the 'ick factor.'
Handkerchiefs are, well, pretty handy. While women carry a purse stocked with things like tissue packs (and enough supplies to survive on a desert island for several days), most men do not. And yet our noses run just as often as our female counterparts. When you carry a hankie, you don’t have to go scrounging around for a tissue to deal with your dripping shnoz or wipe your nose on your sleeve. And you can mop your brow with it when you’re sitting on the front porch drinking mint juleps. This is what I mainly use handkerchiefs for. I started the habit when I lived in Mexico and walked the hot, dusty streets of Tijuana. It’s nice to have something to wipe the sweat and dirt off your face.
For me, it's having something to sneeze into at work or in church or anywhere where there's other people. And I'm really sneezy. But even if you aren't an allergy sufferer, The Art of Manliness guys give an even better reason for carrying a handkerchief.
But the best reason to carry a handkerchief has nothing to do with you. It’s the chance to lend it to others that commends this practice the most. Be sure to put one in your pocket when you go see a tear-jerker movie with your girlfriend or accompany your wife to a funeral. When women are feeling vulnerable, they’ll really appreciate your offer of a soft hankie. It’s a gallant and chivalrous gesture; there’s just something comforting about it.
Take it from me, there's nothing like a clean, soft, well pressed and folded hankie.
I found this video over at Justin Taylor's Between Two Worlds. It's of Christian theologian J.I. Packer telling new believers how to begin a Christian life.
I loved his encouragement for new Christians to "get into the Bible." The older you are when the Lord calls, you'll find yourself literally "between two worlds," the one you are entering and the one you are leaving behind. And it's not always an easy transition. Your thinking, habits, relationships, etc., are changing. Some changes the Lord affects as He speaks to your spirit through his Word and through prayer. Other changes come through the benefit of Christian fellowship.
What's interesting is that the encouragement Packer gives -- reading through the Bible each year, keeping up a sense of being in God's presence through daily prayer, joining a church "team" to encourage each other to "play better" -- are all things which should describe seasoned Christians. Does it describe you?
Lots of us know Tim Challies for his outstanding and influential book reviews. He joined us last Friday on The Boundless Show to talk about just that: books. But what about his life beyond blogging and reading? In his real life, Tim's a dad. He and his wife Aileen have three kids ages 9, 6, and 3.
In an interview today on StartYourFamily.com, Tim and Aileen talk about the ways kids have changed their marriage, their relationship with God, their free time and the poverty that finally inspired them to start having babies.
He says,
There may have been part of us that was anxious to spend the early years of our marriage working, building up some bank accounts, and otherwise enjoying each other. But we soon realized that we were so poor that we would have no money to do any great vacations or buy a house in the near future. So instead we decided to front-load our relationship in the hope that when we’re older we’d have time to do a few of those things together. We think we made the right decision.
Focus on the Family is closed today due to snow, so I'm livin' the dream -- typing away in my PJs with coffee at my elbow and white fluffy flakes falling softly outside (last night they weren't falling softly...more like sideways). Yesterday afternoon I saw three guys ski down my street. It reminded me of how much fun snow can be.
But this morning I called my family near Fargo, North Dakota, and was reminded that sometimes snow is not fun. As you probably know, Fargo and surrounding areas are experiencing unprecedented flooding. Record autumn rainfall plus record winter snowfall plus a sudden March thaw plus the convergence of three rivers -- the Red, Cheyenne and Wild Rice -- has created a problem that is mirroring what happened there in 1997, only worse.
Much of Fargo and its twin city, Moorhead, is being evacuated. My sister's father-in-law was evacuated from his assisted living residence and is now with my sister and her husband. Another sister is safe at her place, but will attempt to fly here tomorrow morning, and we don't know if she'll get out (or in, for that matter, with the snow accumulation in Denver). Only a field separates my mom's house from the Red River, and water is surging across the already saturated dirt toward her back door. The Red is expected to crest at a record 43' on Saturday, and residents are currently building sandbag walls of over 40' to protect property.
Yesterday they evacuated Fargo's largest hospital of patients who are too weak or immobile to move at a moment's notice. Patients were airlifted to hospitals around the midwest, some in critical condition with doctors at their sides. The interstate is closed, as are several other major highways leading into the Fargo-Moorhead area, leaving many people stranded. A family friend had a medical emergency the other night, and members of his church had to transport him via boat across several fields in order to reach a patch of highway that could get him to the nearest emergency room.
My pastor mentioned in a recent sermon that because of the Fall, even nature conspires to kill us. I didn't like that when I heard it. After all, I'm the girl who loves thunderstorms and 5-foot snow drifts. But it's true. Once Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden, nature was unleashed. We need houses and cars to protect us not merely from getting wet or having windblown hair, but from perishing. Everything we do is an act of self-preservation. He went on to explain that everything in our world is tainted by sin: our environment, our social structures, our minds, our motives and our hearts. Only by God's grace does sin not completely destroy us.
Sometimes we get a bit too comfy here on Earth. We become used to the coffee-and-PJs scenario without recognizing the impending flood. Fortunately, my mom is here to remind me that Christ's return is imminent. She's ready for it, and speaks of it often. She doesn't care much about her house. I asked her what's in her basement, and she doesn't really know. She doesn't care. Everything she cares about is with Jesus. It's a good reminder as I nurse my anger toward my plummeting retirement funds, rising utility bills, stuffy (again) nose and less-than-satisfactory circumstances and opportunities. I'm a little too concerned about me, quite frankly.
Mary Ann, a woman in my mom's town, made the news the other day. Her house was flooding, and volunteers were working around the clock to save it. The reporter asked her if her home will survive. "Absolutely," she said. "And so will we. It's just stuff."
A lot of my life is "just stuff," and I occasionally need a jarring reality check (a la natural disaster) to remember how to use my time to best worship God, love others and, as my pastor says, "push back the effects of the Fall." A tall order, but it's time to get out of my PJs and start.
Employee Ethics -- 00:00 Workplace integrity is the talk of today's Roundtable segment. Whether it's Facebooking, shopping or checking scores on company time, or coming in late/leaving early, where do you draw the line? The team argues over the new trend in "results-oriented" workplaces and where that fits with an old-fashioned thing called responsibility.
Christian Classics with Challies -- 24:11 Popular blogger Tim Challies joins me to discuss his short list of Christian classics. And no, we're not talking Your Best Life Now. We're talking old-school texts that influenced some of today's best Christian thinkers and theologians. We also throw in a couple current reads to satisfy you contemporary types.
Claim Jumper -- 41:36 She thinks a guy in her church likes her, but her friend likes him, too, and wants to stake a claim. Um? Is Mr. "I Don't Know If He's That Into Me" off-limits due to the friendship rule, or does her friend need to get a grip?
President Obama just wrapped up the first ever online town hall meeting in which he answered questions on topics ranging from the financial crisis to decriminalizing marijuana. It's part of the new administration's strategy to create "a broader avenue of information" to get his message out.
"In the new world of online media, formal press conferences are just one element or program to get the message out — to those, usually older, who watch such things on TV. The online version he is doing is an alternative way to get out the same message, in this case on the budget, targeted toward a different audience, usually younger," said Morley Winograd, a onetime adviser to former vice president Al Gore who now runs the Institute for Communication Technology Management at the University of Southern California....
In a way, it's part campaign-style politics and part American Idol, said political strategist Simon Rosenberg.
"Barack Obama is going to reinvent the presidency the way he reinvented electoral politics," said Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network and a veteran of presidential campaigns. "He is allowing everyday people to participate in a way that would've been impossible in the old media world."
But the president is also leveraging the "old media world" as well. He's just off hosting his second televised news conference -- more than any other president this early -- and has made recent appearances on Leno and 60 Minutes. (You would think we're 100 days out from the next presidential election instead of 60 days into his first year.)
So why all the media focus now?
Politics aside, this president simply plays well in America's living room because he's articulate, confident, and cool (except for the I-look-like-special-olympics-bowling gaffe). And America needs the assurance of the president during these uncertain financial times.
Politics considered, he gets the benefit of keeping his poll numbers up in the face of doubt about his economic "stimulus" plan and handling of the executive bonuses "scandal."
But it could prove a fleeting win win. Ultimately, it's his policies, not his media savvy, that will determine (proportionately) our financial course. And the direction of his poll numbers.
I know Suzanne has already blogged abouttoday’s article, but I’m going to add my $.02. (I hope it's not overkill.)
I recently deactivated my Facebook account. It was freeing. Freeing because I didn’t have to respond to the 20 something wall posts that had accumulated on my page. Freeing because I’m no longer tempted to sneak a peek at my page during work time. But it also freed me to pursue real relationships. Maybe you have energy to maintain all your Facebook friendships and have an active social life, but I don’t.
Unlike Tim and Suzanne, my relationship with Facebook wasn’t so much a detriment to my relationship with God as it was to my relationships with other people. You know, real people not their profiles.
I moved to Colorado Springsin January and it’s been a bit of an adjustment. For someone who grew up in a small agricultural community the transition to a large mega-church metropolis is a little overwhelming. When I went to the grocery store at home, I seriously knew every person on every aisle. Our community was just that small. I think there are more grocery stores in the Springs than there are people in my hometown. And since I can’t buy a loaf of bread to meet my familiarity needs these days, I run to Facebook.
Over the past couple months I have slowly identified my Facebook motives: loneliness and laziness. When I’m checking out people’s pages and writing on their walls I have a false sense of connectedness. (I’m not trying to discredit all electronic communication. I think emails and sometimes Facebook messages are genuine ways of connecting.)
But for me, it had created a false feeling of community. I needed to shut my Macbook and call a friend for coffee.
Tim Sweetman admits, “As the day progressed, I found myself talking to people more through technology than face-to-face.” Like Tim, I had more essay length emails with long-distance friends than I had conversations with face-to-face friends. That’s changing. And it’s draining at times since most of my face-to-face friends are relatively new and new friendships require work. But the reward of real relationships is worth the work.
What about you? Does Facebook enhance your friendships or weaken them?
Uh oh. Two convicting articles in a row. First, one on media discernment, and then today, Tim Sweetman's excellent article about Stalkerbook...er, Facebook. Here's the part that really got to me:
It's not my intention to write a 1,200-word article encouraging others to give up Facebook, social networking, or the Internet. I plan to continue updating my status with random trivialities such as "Tim is attempting to write ... Tim just ate bread with mold ... Tim is heading to the basketball game" and the like. I'm still going to post notes, write on walls, and chat with friends.
But if all of this continues at the expense of getting to know God better, I want to throw it all out. All of it. Drastic, yes, but I've got to be willing to do whatever it takes.
I'll admit it. I'm a little addicted to Facebook. I love to see what my friends are saying (i.e. saying about me). It's a reflection of sorts; a way to measure my place among people. Each day I receive feedback on myself. It's addictive.
I'm reminded of the verse about reflection in James 1:22-25:
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.
While Facebook may not be the healthiest addiction, social networking is not the true issue. The real question is: What am I looking into? How am I measuring success or gaining identity? Is it by the number of comments on a photo or is it by greater desire for God in my life?
I see two issues at play in the realm of social networking and technology. One is lack of self-control. I should be writing a paper, but I'm online; I should be reading God's Word, but I'm online. The other is a little harder to perceive. It's a notion that holds the words of mere humans as much more interesting to follow than God's Word; the lives of mere humans as much more fun to get to know than God Himself.
How would my life be different if I pursued God's Word with the same intensity and interest as I check my Facebook page? Tim considers:
Scripture is not only profitable for me, but it's absolutely essential in order to be competent and to live my life well. Within those sacred pages I find everything that God has deemed necessary to tell me. There is so much depth and wisdom within those pages. Yet I somehow buy into the lie that the Bible is just boring and not worth my time. How would my life look if I poured myself into the pages of my Bible instead of pouring myself into the pages of Facebook? Radically different, I think.
So perhaps Facebook points us to something greater. I desire to look at something to feel significant, gain perspective on myself and find community. I believe if that thing were God's Word "we would all soon see a blessed change" (to quote Rachel Lynde). Face it: it's something worth thinking about.
Comedian Steve Harvey is on a book tour. I know this because in the three times I've had the TV on in the last forty-eight hours, I've seen him twice and learned once again that Lost is not for the drop-in viewer.
Harvey's new book, Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man: What Men Really Think About Love, Relationships, Intimacy and Commitment, seems to be creating quite the buzz and is #2 over at Amazon.com.
Monster disclaimer: I have not read the book. But I was intrigued by the interviews I watched. In them, Steve offered some advice that I think is sound (have some standards set before you start dating) and some that was not (he advises the "90 Day Rule"--to wait 90 days before having sex, but also says that he doesn't know anybody who can wait until marriage to have sex).
But what really grabbed my attention was the anecdote Harvey told about himself, his daughter and her grandfather. Evidently, all three were gathered at a family function, along with "the new guy"--his daughter's current boyfriend. As Harvey put it, the new guy had been around the house about five times by then so Harvey figured he had "made the cut."
At some point, boyfriend, Harvey and granddad were in the kitchen together and granddad turned to boyfriend and asked, "So, what's your plan for my granddaughter?"
Boyfriend hemmed and hawed a little bit. "Oh, you know, I don't really have a plan right now," boyfriend replied. "No, no, no," granddad replied, "what is your plan for my granddaughter?"
At this point, Harvey related how he was getting really interested and had everybody sit at the kitchen table. Because, Harvey said, granddad and I know one thing because we're men too: There is a plan. He may not want us to know it. He may not want her to know it. But there is a plan.
Eventually, Harvey said, boyfriend admitted that he didn't have any long-term intentions for the daughter. "We're just kickin' it," boyfriend told the two men.
"Great," Harvey said, "now let's invite my daughter in here as well because I think she would like to know that she's just bein' kicked with."
"They broke up the next day," Harvey said.
In the short discussion that followed, it seemed that Harvey was trying to make the point that a woman should be willing to ask the tough questions. But, even though grandad had actually asked the tough question, it didn't seem like Harvey embraced the idea that he (and dads and granddads in general) should have a place in asking those tough questions too. It made me think of Candice's book, Get Married: What Women Can Do To Help It Happen, and what she wrote about inviting your parents (and/or mentors) to be a part of your dating process: (another article about that here)
"Parents used to be very active in their daughters' preparation for marriage, their opportunities for worthy suitors, their protection from rascals ... That's rarely the case anymore.
...[Single women] have been abandoned, left to fend for themselves when it comes to getting married. For better or worse, they're all they have. No longer do young men dating young women recognize any authority or protection in the equation. It's just the guy and his date. No questions asked.
...While some parents are showing renewed interest in their daughters' struggles to marry well, most women still face the challenge of going it alone. If you're one of the few with a dad who is trying to follow a biblical model, you're blessed. Thank him and allow him to live out the responsibility God has called him to. If you don't have that support, you can ask for it."
My dad was not an integral part of my dating process. Honestly, it didn't even occur to me that my dad could be an asset in helping me to select dates (and, possibly, refuse some), hold suitors accountable and provide me with guidance.
Looking back, I realize that both parents and mentors would have made valuable contributions to me as a young woman. And, truth be told, there are certain questions only a dad can ask. And a certain way that only dads and older men can ask them. "What are your intentions for my daughter?" is just a different question than "Don't you think we should define our relationship?"
I think there's room for both of those questions. And it would be so nice for us to know from the beginning who was just planning on "kickin' it" so we could do a little kicking to the curb ourselves.
Last night I watched Bolt. After scrolling through the movie choices at my local grocery store, it seemed like Bolt would be the cleanest and most enjoyable. Plus, I like kids movies.
I wish I could say my media choices were always so innocent. While I try my best to stay away from anything trashy, I get into trouble when I go to see a popular chick flick without checking out the Plugged In Online review. Or even sometimes when I let my radio dial stay on a certain station with sketchy lyrics for days.
Today's featured Boundless article conveys a message that is not entirely comfortable to the modern Christian. While I try to avoid overtly "un-Christian" movies, music and TV shows, I relish my freedom in Christ and right to choose. In "What You Watch," author Bob Waliszewski starts with some familiar ground:
A lot has been made of the concept "garbage in equals garbage out." Occasionally we hear warnings about desensitization. Sometimes even the culture worries about media influence (cigarette advertising, for instance). Although these concerns are valid, I think it's more than that. I believe that during repeated exposure to problematic media, a follower of Christ could find his or her fervor for God dwindling.
I have an e-mail from a young adult who explained how this happened in his life, dampening his spiritual excitement and stunting his spiritual growth. His lack of passion wasn't due to dabbling in drugs. It wasn't because of sexual compromises. It wasn't rebellion. But for him, it was his poor entertainment decisions. Sadly, this is the story for many Christians.
The cumulative spiritual effect of poor media choices is something to consider. Here's a weird example. A few years ago, I watched the first three seasons of Gilmore Girls on DVD. (The content in seasons one through three is generally clean, but read the review!) In the series, the mother, Lorelai, 32, and her daughter, Rory, 16, eat sweets and junk food incessantly (and somehow remain perfectly thin). During the months when I was consuming the show, I found myself snacking more and more. The junk food culture of the Gilmore's world began invading my real life.
Think of this in terms of moral values. Watching one movie with questionable content may or may not be damaging to your spiritual life. However, a constant media diet of characters and scenarios that conflict with God's way cannot help but invade your thinking. What about being culturally relevant? Waliszewski writes:
Sadly, I believe we have many among us who use the excuse of becoming culturally relevant to justify their unhealthy media consumption. These are Christians who claim that their knowledge about movies, TV shows, albums, and so on, helps them to witness. But does the exposure to pollution really enhance witnessing abilities?
In my experience, no. I've watched a few movies I shouldn't have, and they've never provided a single opportunity to share Christ's love with someone. In fact, I believe those who do not know Christ sometimes feel comforted by the innocence of a Christ-follower. It is a position on life that stands out. What do you think? How have your media decisions shaped you?
Church Matters blogger Jonathan Leeman wrote a series of blogs on a "little book" called Worldliness, edited by C.J. Mahaney. They're all pretty short posts but the content he highlights about how the world influences believers ruined me anew. Like this portion for example:
So often we're ignorant of the signs, the symptoms of worldliness. People can be attending church, singing the songs, apparently listening to the sermons...
But inside, that person is drifting. He sits in church but is not excited to be there. She sings songs without affection. He listens to preaching without conviction. She hears but does not apply.
A love for the world begins in the soul. It's subtle, not always immediately obvious to others, and often undetected by the people who are slowly succumbing to its lies.
It begins with a dull conscience and a listless soul. Sin does not grieve him like it once did. Passion for the Savior begins to cool. Affections dim. Excitement lessens for participating in the local church. Eagerness to evangelize starts to wane. Growth in godliness slows to a crawl. (page 20).
Does this make you think about how you spend your week? Do your daily pursuits affect your Sunday worship? Do the shows you watch, the music you listen to, and the things that occupy your time (e.g. friends, conversations, etc.) serve to draw your attention toward the world or toward Christ?
It's interesting to think about. It's important to think about. It's frightening to think about. At least, it is for me.
Are you trying to make a decision right now -- about a job, a move, a purchase, a relationship? In that decision, are you worried about what you'll have to give up when you choose one thing over another? It can feel painful, but making a good decision means being willing to cut off the next best options and leave them behind. In fact, according to a recent blog post by our friend Scott Stanley, that's what deciding is all about:
The word “decide” comes from a French word dating to the 1300s that literally means “to cut” or “to cut off.” Deciding is about coming to a point where something is cut off from something else. A part is chosen—hopefully the best part—and the illusion of hanging on to the whole, to everything, is given up.
It's this perspective of deciding that makes the idea of commitment counter cultural in Dr. Stanley's research:
The cultural messages we are inundated with encourage us to hang onto everything—to cut off no options, to have it all. Having a lot of options in life is great, but maybe not so great if one never decides what matters most.
Where could this insight apply in the decisions you need to make?
Reading today's article "Bye, Bye Pebble Baby," by Brenna Kate Simonds, brought back memories of my own miscarriage. At the time, nine years ago, there wasn't much in the way of resources or organizations to help women grieve the death of their baby. And given the depth of grief and the heaviness of loss, I'm thankful that's no longer the case.
I'm currently reading Jenny Schroedel's forthcoming book, Naming the Child: Reflections on Miscarriage, Stillbirth, and Infant Death, a tender book by an author who is careful with her words. She knows how fragile her subject is. Not everyone does. That's one of the hardest things about infant death: people who want to help but just don't know what to say.
I wrote about what that felt like to hear from concerned but clumsy friends:
It wasn't long before the phone started ringing with people wanting to see if I was ok. One call in particular stands out. The mother of six asked bluntly, "Were you excited about this pregnancy?" "Well, no, I didn't want to be pregnant again," I mustered. "But, of course, I wanted the baby." I quickly ended the conversation, startled by her intrusion into my private world. There would be other painful, unhelpful comments from friends, but one thing was certain: This baby had entered my heart, and as unwelcome as the news of his coming was, the news of his departure was excruciating.
For anyone reading Simonds' article who's experienced the pain of infant death, or is trying to figure out how to help a friend who has, there is help to be found.
With so many job boards on the Internet, it's easy to believe that the best way to score an interview is flood the marketplace with your resume, with or without a cover letter. But I've never gotten anywhere with that scorched earth approach. I've found that prospective employers respond better if you're interest is a bit more sincere. And there's no better way to prove your sincerity than with a well written and informed cover letter.
Here are some tips I found on a job search blog that may give you the edge in scoring that elusive interview:
Pack your P.S. with punch. Most people immediately jump to the P.S. portion of a letter and read it again after finishing the rest. With a P.S., you can close your letter on a particularly positive and powerful note. To do so, be sure the P.S. contains information valuable to the employer. You might mention how a skill or experience of yours relates to one of the employer’s current goals. You might also congratulate the reader on an achievement or media coverage.
Write to someone in particular. Avoid sending a letter “To whom it may concern.” If you don’t know the name of the person who will receive your letter, try searching Google or LinkedIn to uncover the name of the appropriate hiring manager or a contact in the human resources department.
“Drop names” to make an impact. One of the most compelling ways to begin the letter is to mention the name of a person who referred you. If don’t know someone connected to the employer, consider referencing an interview you might have seen or read about that featured quotes from someone employed at the organization.
Refer to your resume, but don’t repeat it word-for-word. Your letter should expand on the results, skills and success stories that are in your resume. Be sure to add more details about these points or blend two or three accomplishments from your resume into one powerful story in your letter.
These are great. When I'm hiring for a position, I rarely, if ever, consider someone who just sent a resume with no cover. (And you'd be amazed at how many I get.) Cover letters are your opportunity to show recruiters that your interest goes beyond your need for a job. Companies hire based on their needs, not yours.
Last week, I was intrigued by a headline in my local paper: "New Take on Bible Stories: NBC's Kings a modern David-and-Goliath tale."
So I started reading the description of this new NBC drama. Evidently, there's a King Silas, the monarch of a fictional kingdom called Gilboa, who takes his orders from a higher power. There's a protagonist, David Shepherd (wonder if his middle name is "the"), who performs a heroic act of saving someone by facing down a tank called ... you guessed it ... Goliath.
"Hmmm," I'm thinking, "a modern day David and Goliath? I wonder how that got by the TV execs?" It didn't take me too long to find out.
"So we drew from a lot of different sources, and we just let the story take us wherever it was going to take us," says creator-executive producer Michael Green. Translation: We like using the familiarity of the Biblical account to draw people in, but have absolutely no intention of honoring it.
Chris Egan, who plays "David Shepherd", seems to realize where a lot of their source material is coming from, but tries to maintain a kind of tolerant-speak: "I think the story is fantastic, of a king with a young guy who he thinks could be a protégé (his son is viewed as weak), could be an enemy, could be a rival, who knows? But he takes a chance with him. And, of course, it's ordained by somebody else. It's got nothing to do with what Silas does in the end. It's far greater forces at work like fate, kismet, Sanskrit, karma, whatever you want, whatever language, whatever religion or whatever you can refer to."
David and Goliath? Fate, Sanskrit and karma? I threw the paper across the breakfast table in disgust.
Then, a few nights ago, I caught a section of the History Channel's new special, Battles BC--David: Giant Slayer. The battle scenes in these specials tend to be a little gory for my taste, but I left it on thinking it might prove interesting. Interesting, it was.
It only took about three minutes for my ears to perk up. The narrator described how David and his six hundred men fled from Saul to the Philistines. Then, (the narrator's voice lowered and darkened) David had to prove his loyalty to the Philistines by raiding Israel villages.
"Wait," I told my working-on-the-computer hubbie, "that's not right!"
Hubbie gave me a "hmmm", but I was busy listening again. Then, the narrator continued, the Philistines made David the king of Israel because they knew they could trust him. So David continued on his next mission-- (dark and lowered voice again) the annihilation of Saul's blood line.
"This is such malarky!" I cried as I ran to look up 1 Samuel. "See? See?" I jabbed at Hubbie, who was by now kindly listening to my David rant. "They say he raided Israel, but he didn't. And they say he tried to annihilate Saul's blood line, but he refused to touch Saul and even gave Mephibosheth Saul's lands!"
I was a tad red in the face by now. "Well, hon," Hubbie asked. "Did you really expect them to tell it correctly?"
And it hit me. I did. I did expect them to tell it correctly. Or to at least acknowledge that "though the Bible says such and such, we simply don't believe it and have come up with our own power narrative." I did expect NBC to at least have some semblance of respect for a Biblical account if they were going to name their main character after a man after God's own heart.
But they didn't. And I realized once again that I won't find God's truth out in the world. Only in His Word.
There's a special place in hell for those who write spam. A more special place for those who commandeer others' computers to send out that spam.
And a peculiarly special place in hell for those who earn a living by hiring others to submit phony comments on behalf of their clients.
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.
Over the past week The Line has been targeted by one of these comment spam services, perhaps the one managed by Jon Waraas. People from around the world -- British Virgin Islands, Russia, Switzerland, Germany, Moldova, Ukraine, India -- are hired to write phony comments with embedded links pointing to their clients' Web sites. This boosts their search engine rankings, and consequently traffic to their sites goes up. We've had to filter out hundreds of such comments in the past few days, over 50 since late last night alone. It's tiring to moderate these comments and ban these spammers' IP addresses, but the alternative is to have The Line overrun by comment ads for pharmaceuticals, pornography, travel agencies, jewelry, and other miscellaneous products and services.
I know it's a difficult job market right now, but pursuing employment as a full-time comment spammer is be beneath anyone. As is enacting a business model built on unwelcome and duplicitous deception. Yeah?
My wife's webzine has received some of these same comment spams. Have you too been the unfortunate recipient of such disingenuous comments?
Finally, a word to the comment spammers: Don't waste your time submitting them to The Line. They'll never see the light of day; and if you're super-clever and get one through, your links are rendered fruitless by our use of the "rel=nofollow" tag. And a warning to you and your clients: I'm pretty good tracking you down using your IP address and URLs (those to which you link and those to which your forum links redirect) and WHOIS and Google; and pretty good at reporting you to InterNIC and to your domain registrar.
I got tagged in that "20 Albums" note on Facebook this week. This is, like the "25 Random Things" note, another opportunity for FB-ers to shamelessly trumpet our preferences and accompanying personal anecdotes to anyone who will read them. I think about 4.3 billion people worldwide have completed the "25 Random Things" list, not counting babies and some cattle. I truly believe that if government, insurance companies, banks and the American consumer put as much effort into our financial woes as we have in our respective "random" lists, we'd turn the economy around. But instead of balancing our checkbooks or paying off credit cards, we post Facebook notes and hope that friends (and let's be honest, strangers) will peruse them, even if as a stalling tactic to avoid cleaning the toilet, doing calculus or being subjected to an experimental medical procedure.
And so I sat down the other evening and agonizingly selected 20 music albums that, according to the note's instructions, "shaped my world." This descriptor may be a bit much. I mean, I've had food items "shape my world," but Elvis or U2 or Amy Grant can't quite compare to an amaretto cream puff cake with chocolate glaze, can they?
That said, I did my best, and listed artists like Keith Green, Eva Cassidy and Keane. The Gaithers made the list twice. Even Sesame Street (I love Grover!) appears. I posted my list, and the comments started popping up. (People are reading my list! They're writing down my albums and rushing to iTunes to purchase them! They're imagining how spunky I was in junior high! They think I'm awesome!) No, not really, but when someone says, "I like #12," I know this is what he means.
Actually, I re-read my list this morning, and wish I had some cooler bands on there. No one said they have a new respect for me due to my love of Sandi Patti. I have friends who have super-cool music taste. They know bands before the bands even form. They know the bands that play in bars, clubs and alleys for less than ten people. They amaze people with their music awesomeness. I'm not really one of these people. But if you read my list, you'll see a little piece of me. And I'm reading friends' lists and seeing a piece of them. And then I'm praying for them because their lists include bands like Poison, Ace of Base and Rage of Angels.
March Madness -- 00:00 Four guys sit at the table with me this week to talk about basketball........sorry, I just dozed off for a minute.........ok, I'm back. Actually, I learned a few things in this week's roundtable, like which teams are on top, that brackets aren't only for shelves, and that sports can actually be a fun and bonding time for folks, especially guys. As long as they don't get too crazy, like those sketchy single women who watch The Bachelor with a box of Milk Duds.
When Love's In View -- 22:06 He couldn't think of five godly, eligible guys in his church to recommend to a single female friend. Before he knew it, he was in charge of the singles ministry there. Dr. Conway Edwards and his wife, Jada, served at Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas before leaving to plant a church. While there, they saw a lot of the ups and downs of singleness, especially regarding relationships, and wrote a book called When Love's In View to help their single friends navigate the terrain. They join me with some great counsel for singles and the people who love them.
Messy Margins -- 51:32 She can't keep up. How does she make time for important friendships and activities, but still stay on top of schoolwork and chores? Suzanne's with me to help our listener cut through the clutter and build some margin into her life.
Oooh, I haven't checked my FB page in almost 4 minutes. Gotta go see if I have any more comments!
In today's featured Boundless article "I, Legalist," Kimberly Eddy discusses coming to terms with her own legalism. She didn't seem like a candidate for legalism. In fact, early in her relationship with Christ, grace was a welcome discovery:
The day I realized that God loved me was a day that I was finally able to get free from a lifestyle that had me ensnared through the power of Christ. God's love didn't enable me in my sin; His love enabled me to break free from my sin.
Love, not striving, is the compelling factor behind a redeemed life. This motivation is what makes Christianity stand out:
Christian growth is not about us following rules, doing all of the right things, and avoiding the wrong. That's one of the main things that separates Christianity from other world religions. It's about a relationship with the living God through His Son. The Bible refers to Christian growth as fruit, and our character should reflect the fruit of the Spirit growing and developing in our lives.
Fruit isn't something that any branch can develop by sheer willpower. That's what I was trying to do for several years. Instead, fruit is a natural byproduct of a healthy plant; a natural byproduct in my life and yours, as we develop our relationship with Christ every day, over the long term. Genuine righteousness is different from self-righteousness, because Christ is at the center of it.
The point of the Christian life is to be a healthy plant -- to be green and thriving and safe from bug infestation. Lacking a green thumb, I know from experience you can take an unhealthy plant and nurse it back to health so that no one would ever know what it had been through. The goal is to live in Christ to an extent that His influence in our life changes everything. Eddy writes:
Throughout the Bible we see that the thread that binds it all together is God's plan of redemption, from His promise of a Redeemer in Genesis 3, to the return of the victorious Christ in Revelation. In the Old Testament, God set apart Israel to bring the Savior into the world, and He needed them to be wholly set apart for Him. In the New Testament, God calls us to be adopted into His family by grace through faith in Christ alone for our salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9).
The problem with the Pharisees was with their hearts more than their actions. They were doing many "good" things. However, the Pharisees were not obeying the Lord's commands out of love for Him, but to try to earn His love and the respect of others with their good works.
They didn't have the right heart attitudes. They didn't have a relationship with the Lord. They didn't have His love flowing through them to the lost and hurting souls around them. Instead they stood far off from those who needed the Lord the most, proud of their holiness by comparison.
Many times I have asked God to help me see people the way He does and keep my own sin and the sins of others in proper perspective. Apart from Christ every heart is sinful. Ditching a legalistic attitude demands a change of heart, not just a change of lifestyle. And focusing on aligning one's heart with Christ instead of simply striving for the correct actions produces the result God's looking for:
I've found that this freedom comes from being secure in God's love, and that operating out of love for Him in my life encourages me to do more for Him than if I were only doing things out of fear or self-righteousness. The liberty to serve by grace through faith has resulted in even more fruit, because of a right foundation.
No matter who you are or what you've done, God is a redeemer who offers you a life of freedom, forgiveness and love. And if you tend to be stingy with the grace you offer others, you may be denying yourself the full measure of God's grace and joy in your own life. Connect to the vine and let God take care of the rest.
According to a recent study, college women may drink to excess to impress men, but the men aren't impressed.
The participants, aged 18-25, filled out online surveys during the 2007 fall semester. The women answered questions relating to how many drinks they thought a typical college guy would like his female friends to drink as well as the maximum number of drinks he would prefer. The men then answered questions related to their preferences.
The results? The majority of women (71 percent) overestimated the men's actual preferences by an average of 1 1/2 drinks.
"There is a great, and risky, disconnect here between the sexes," lead author Joseph LaBrie said in a statement. "While not all women may be drinking simply to get a guy's attention, this may help explain why more women are drinking at dangerous levels."
Reading this article made me, quite frankly, just sad. The author is right -- probably not all of these young women are drinking simply to get a guy's attention. Maybe some of them, for some reason, enjoy knocking back five or more drinks. But my guess is that it's not very many.
I'm sure that not all women who dress provocatively do it for a guy's attention. But I really wonder if their idea of "these clothes make me feel pretty" isn't based at least somewhat on the power to turn a man's head.
And there may be those Sex in the City "Samantha" types who just want to have unattached, unencumbered sex. But I've comforted one too many college roommates who gave themselves to a man only to be dumped once again, to really believe that to be the norm.
For me, this study was just a reminder. A reminder that I am the Lord's but I am also living in a world saturated with "Girls Gone Wild" messages of how to attract a man. I need to intentionally face those messages and filter them through the Word of God. The world may tell me to sex it up. But my God tells me that He cherishes modesty. The world may encourage me to table dance for the party, but my God tells me that He cherishes a gentle and quiet spirit. The world may tell me that drunkenness is attractive. My God tells me that it's not.
One of the desires of my heart is for a man who loves the Lord to also love me. I need to understand that following the world's advice will not make that happen. And, in the end, I really don't want the world's advice. I don't want to be an object who loses her worth at the first sign of a root or a wrinkle. My God tells me that I am a fellow heir who is to be loved and respected. Girls, I'll take that every day of the week.
As you may know, I'm a sucker for toptenlists. And I've run across three recently that got my attention. Enjoy.
Top Ten Ideas Changing the World Right Now 1. Jobs Are the New Assets 2. Recycling the Suburbs 3. The New Calvinism 4. Reinstating The Interstate 5. Amortality 6. Africa: Open for Business 7. The Rent-a-Country 8. Biobanks 9. Survival Stores 10. Ecological Intelligence
Top Ten Recession Winners 1. Home gardening 2. Hollywood 3. Escapist literature 4. Condom makers 5. Resume editing 6. Public universities 7. Chocolate 8. McDonald’s 9. Career development websites 10. At-home coffee brews
Ah, at-home coffee brews. I can relate. In an effort to tighten our household budget, I've limited my Starbucks runs to 1.5 times a week. And not that I'm looking, but I've done number 5 too. Because you never know.
Top Ten Movie Stars 2009 1. Denzel Washington 2. Clint Eastwood 3. John Wayne 4. Will Smith 5. Harrison Ford 6. Julia Roberts 7. Tom Hanks 8. Johnny Depp 9. Angelina Jolie 10. Morgan Freeman
The list is interesting but the poll breakdown by gender, age, political affiliation, and region is what's really cool.
According to Adobe-sponsored Beet.TV, there's a dramatic shift coming in the way we consume media because more and more young adults are watching videos on their personal computers instead of their televisions.
Online video is replacing television for consumers 25 years and younger as part of a dramatic demographic shift. Watching video on a personal computer is becoming the principal way young adults consume video.
On Tuesday, I spoke with Adobe business development chief Bill Rusitzky. For many young adults 25 and under, there is a greatly diminished interest in watching television as video consumption is shifting dramatically to the PC, he told me. He says that as this population grows, there will be a big change in media consumption patterns over the next ten years.
I can see the appeal. Having our programming whenever and wherever we want it is nice. But it's difficult cozying up to a PC, especially with another person. Trying to position a laptop on your knees so that neither of you pulls a neck muscle isn't easy. When the shows over, you feel like you've been on a two-plus hour plane ride. Maybe the trick is standing up and stretching half-way through a show.
I've enjoyed a show or two online. But it's usually one of my second tier shows like Heroes. I'll stick with programming my antiquated DVR for watching LOST on the big screen while resting comfortably on my couch. For me, the "wherever" doesn't matter nearly as much as the "whenever."
President Ronald Reagan was known to ask, "What are the nine most terrifying words in the English language?" followed by the reply, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Today, Americans are told that the Reagan era of government skepticism is over and that we can once again expect great help from the government. In fact, we hear that our current economic crisis has made people open to a much more active federal government -- with many recommending that America adopt the socialism of Europe.
In an article for The American magazine, however, Charles Murray argues compellingly that while there is much to like about Europe, their model for government "drains too much of the life from life." He writes:
If we ask what are the institutions through which human beings achieve deep satisfactions in life, the answer is that there are just four: family, community, vocation, and faith. Two clarifications: “Community” can embrace people who are scattered geographically. “Vocation” can include avocations or causes.
... Seen in this light, the goal of social policy is to ensure that those institutions are robust and vital. And that’s what’s wrong with the European model. It doesn’t do that. It enfeebles every single one of them.
Murray goes on to explain that "almost anything that government does in social policy can be characterized as taking some of the trouble out of things." He writes:
Sometimes, taking the trouble out of things is a good idea. Having an effective police force takes some of the trouble out of walking home safely at night, and I’m glad it does.
The problem is this: Every time the government takes some of the trouble out of performing the functions of family, community, vocation, and faith, it also strips those institutions of some of their vitality—it drains some of the life from them. It’s inevitable.
The example Murray gives from Sweden is stark:
Drive through rural Sweden, as I did a few years ago. In every town was a beautiful Lutheran church, freshly painted, on meticulously tended grounds, all subsidized by the Swedish government. And the churches are empty. Including on Sundays. Scandinavia and Western Europe pride themselves on their “child-friendly” policies, providing generous child allowances, free day-care centers, and long maternity leaves. Those same countries have fertility rates far below replacement and plunging marriage rates. Those same countries are ones in which jobs are most carefully protected by government regulation and mandated benefits are most lavish. And they, with only a few exceptions, are countries where work is most often seen as a necessary evil, least often seen as a vocation, and where the proportions of people who say they love their jobs are the lowest.
He adds:
I stand in awe of Europe’s past. Which makes Europe’s present all the more dispiriting. And should make its present something that concentrates our minds wonderfully, for every element of the Europe Syndrome is infiltrating American life as well.
Murray's article is helpful reading for anyone who cares about the future health of the institutions of family, community vocation and faith.
My New Year's Resolution for the two years prior to 2009 was to give up Splenda. In 2007, I tried to do it cold-turkey. Failed. In 2008, I planned to do it slowly over a three month period. Failed again. In 2009, I didn't even kid myself. But here I am a quarter into the year and feeling the pressure to break my artificial sweetener addiction.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Splenda, here is a brief description from Splenda's official site:
Sucralose, or SPLENDA® Brand Sweetener, is made from a patented multi-step process that begins with sugar (sucrose). Three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule are replaced with three chlorine atoms. Although the process for making sucralose begins with sugar, sucralose is not sugar and is not broken down for energy. This is why it has no calories.
Isn't the most basic purpose of food to provide energy? Food is meant to give us energy for life, not to be where we find life's sweetness. Splenda is empty of any real nutrient; it only adds flavor. So even though Splenda assures me that there are no harmful effects, I'm wary of something meant to give energy that only gives empty taste.
I know that a fake substance can't possibly taste better than the real thing, but it does to me. I don't like real sugar in my coffee. There was a time when I used Splenda to save the calories of the sugar that I put in my cereal and my coffee. Today, I would gladly take back the 100 or so calories. But I like it so much.
Sunday was my fist attempt of 2009 to cleanse my diet of Splenda. I ordered a Grande Americano before church as is my sabbath ritual, but instead of adding three Splenda, I added four raw sugars. I couldn't even finish it. Yuck.
(I put a Splenda in my afternoon coffee without evening thinking about it.)
Monday was attempt two. Instead of adding sugar, I just drank it with cream and called it a cup. Not the same, but not bad.
Today is day three and I didn't drink coffee this morning, so sweetener has not been an issue today. (Yes, I'm dragging.)
If I'm going to make it to day four, I need to have better reasons than the vague assumption that artificial sweetener is bad for my health. What's going to happen when I'm sixty and I've had a three packet-a-day Splenda habit for forty years? I've been doing some research and my findings have been ... confusing.
Sucralose has been tested at extremely high doses in long-term studies without any adverse health consequences. These doses are far in excess of the amount normally consumed in the daily diet. Moreover, sucralose does not accumulate in the body. It is highly water soluble and passes through the body without being broken down for energy.
"Sugar may have its health drawbacks, but at least we know we're not in for any major surprises -- and we just can't say that about Splenda yet -- so to imply that it's got the same profile as sugar is misleading and that is important today, as well as in the long run," she says.
Samantha Heller, MS, RD, agrees. "Saying Splenda is made from sugar is like taking the round wheels off a car and putting on square wheels. Is it still a car? Yes. But can it still perform like a car? No -- and what's more we don't know what's going to happen when people try to 'drive it' cross country," says Heller.
A new Duke University study finds that the artificial sweetener Splenda contributes to obesity, destroys beneficial intestinal bacteria and may interfere with absorption of prescription drugs
"The report makes it clear that the artificial sweetener Splenda and its key component sucralose pose a threat to the people who consume the product. Hundreds of consumers have complained to us about side effects from using Splenda and this study ... confirms that the chemicals in the little yellow package should carry a big red warning label," said Turner.
Of course this isn't the extent of what I found, but it sums up the research pretty well from what I can tell. Splenda claims their product is a consequence-free alternative to calorie laden sugars. Others are saying time will tell if Splenda is our calorie cure and still others are saying the results are in and sucralose should be taken off the shelves.
Do you use natural or alternative sweeteners? Do you know anything about Splenda that I didn't find on the Web this week? If you do, I'd love to hear it. It might keep this dog from going back to its vomit artificial sweetener.
That was one of my favorite details Jason Boyett shared in today's featured article "So Humble." With frankness he talks about his own struggle to gain humility:
At that point in my life, almost everything I was doing was out of "vain conceit" and "selfish ambition," especially when it came to my spiritual life. Background: I grew up a church kid — I was there every Sunday and every Wednesday — and was as active in the youth group as a person could be. Furthermore, thanks to genetics or upbringing or the peculiar blessings of God, I was a talented teenager. Reasonably athletic. Good singing voice. Played the guitar. Artistic. Funny. Well-spoken. A natural performer. Also, I had a beautiful blond mullet.
He goes on to talk about how as a leader in his youth group he spent his time and energy trying to attract and keep attention, and "make sure everyone knew that I was talented and funny and cool and, well, really tight with Jesus."
I can relate. I want people to think well of me. And often I can't ward off the self-satisfied impression that I have a lot going for me. Humility is hard. Especially in a world that promotes self-glorification (think Facebook). As the author explains, adopting the attitude of Christ stated in Philippians 2:3-4 can seem impossible. Jason proposes three strategies:
Show genuine gratitude when praised.
Remember humility is an action.
Put others first.
Which of these suggestions do you find most difficult? For me, it is putting others first and considering their needs equal to my own. I like what Jason writes on this topic:
Philippians 2:3 says, "... consider others better than yourselves." The Message paraphrases this as "Put yourself aside and help others get ahead." The mindset here is a simple but profoundly countercultural one. At the center of it is the idea that you are more important than me. The results of this way of thinking — increased politeness, better understanding, patience and mercy and slowness to anger — are clearly reflective of Christ's love, and the kinds of virtues that improve any human relationship.
I don't have a beautiful blond mullet, but that doesn't mean I don't struggle with pride. Humility is about realizing where your talents come from and offering them back to God for His service. Jason offers some really solid advice for dealing with pride—including some cheeky footnotes you won't want to miss!
What I Missed by Motte Brown on 03/17/2009 at 1:54 PM
Thomas' blog got me thinking about what I missed on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade while I was in Ethiopia.
I missed President Obama's January 22nd statement with meaningless language about reducing abortions. Meaningless because the next day he signed an executive order rescinding the Mexico City Policy barring tax-payer funds to international abortion providers ... followed by signing a spending bill that decreases federal money for abstinence programs and increases money to Planned Parenthood ... followed by his promise to reverse Bush's last minute conscience clause order ... followed by his HHS appointment of pro-late-term abortion Governor Kathleen Sebelius ... followed by reversal of Bush's policy prohibiting tax payer funded stem cell research.
I missed this article from National Review Online highlighting the political successes in State legislatures (parental notification, informed consent, and waiting periods) which have reduced the number of abortions. So much for Christians claiming that policy doesn't matter when it comes to protecting life.
I missed this interview with RusselI Moore who's not holding his breath for the hope that younger generations will rise up in opposition to abortion.
Trevin Wax: Statistics show that younger generations tend to be more pro-life than their parents. You have stated that this commitment to pro-life principles is more theoretical than realistic because abortion rights is now deeply embedded in our cultural ethos. Are you saying that younger generations are less committed to the pro-life cause than they think?
Russell Moore: I do not take great comfort in opinion polls stating that younger generations are more pro-life than their parents. I believe that this is largely because the abortion issue is off the table in many ways politically.
Few people realistically expect that abortion will be made illegal. So pronouncing one to be pro-life these days is more akin to a person speculating what side of the Spanish Civil War he would take rather than a person articulating a deeply-held view on a matter of current import.
Which is exactly why so many "pro-life" Evangelicals can vote for a pro-abortion presidential candidate. Apparently all you have to do is give lip service about "reducing abortions" to satisfy their "less committed" consciences.
It was only four months ago that America went to the polls to elect a new president, and it's been less than two months since our new leader took office, but it already appears that at least some of the evangelicals who supported a regime change in Washington are having second thoughts.
According to the Associated Press, several Christian leaders who supported his candidacy are not exactly enamored with the president's actions during his first weeks in office:
Conservative evangelical and Catholic leaders who went out on a political limb by aligning themselves with the Obama administration are expressing feelings ranging from disappointment to optimism in their reaction to the president's decisions so far on culture war issues.
Although most of President Barack Obama's moves on abortion and stem cell research have been expected, some right-leaning Christian leaders who took a risk sitting down at the table with a Democratic president feel that several major decisions fall short of the common ground Obama had promised on divisive social issues.
Obama's reversal this week of Bush-era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is the latest example.
"Thus far, I have been disappointed to see little give. There's been a lot of take," said the Rev. Frank Page, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention who serves on a month-old advisory board to Obama's White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. "I've seen little give in the area of relating to the evangelical community as far as life issues."
While the president has essentially kept true to his word in terms of making abortion more available and expanding taxpayer-funding for embryonic stem cell research, his supporters in the Christian community continue to temper their disappointment with a call for patience:
Obama "is not doing anything he hasn't said he was going to do during the campaign," said the Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical megachurch pastor from Orlando, Fla., and another advisory board member. "So I am not enthusiastic, but I'm not disappointed, because we knew what to expect. I'm encouraged he is not totally flipping to the other side. We've got to be patient here."
In other words, though the president wooed Christians during the campaign with the stated goal of reducing the abortion rate, his political actions thus far seemed designed to accomplish the opposite. If this trend continues, how long will his support among evangelicals last?
My mom is 80 years old today. As most of you know, she arrived last week from Minnesota for a six-week visit. Her intent was to escape the remainder of winter there, which generally includes sub-zero temps, four-foot-high snow drifts and ten-pound winter weight gains. She came to work with me today, as it's our monthly chapel service, and she is a rabid Focus on the Family groupie. We picked up three dozen donuts for my department to celebrate her big day, and she held court at a conference table as my coworkers came to grab a donut and meet her. Of course they've heard many of my stories, so needed to see the subject of them "in the flesh."
My mom keeps saying that she doesn't know where the time has gone. "How did I get to be 80 all of a sudden?" she asked this morning. On our way to work, she mused, "I remember hearing Pop-Pop say that when I was born (she's the firstborn), he ran down the street yelling, 'I have a daughter! I have a daughter!'"
My mom has lived a lot of life since that day in 1929. Originally from Connecticut, she trained as an Olympic swimmer, graduated from seminary, married my dad, raised six kids (doing the best job with the youngest, obviously), moved to the Philippines as a missionary, moved back to the States as a pastor's wife, joined corporate America as a telecom exec in Northern California, retired to Minnesota, lost the love of her life after 50 years of marriage, and now reads like a madwoman (I think she read all of Joel Rosenberg's books in three weeks), follows current events, studies the End Times, and prays boldly (desperately?) for her daughter to find a husband. (And then tells the daughter to "be friendly" in social settings where men are present. This has so far proved unhelpful. Maybe "be interesting" or "be quiet" would yield better results.)
She's excited about her 80-year milestone, but has asked the Lord to take her Home before she turns 85, because "by the time you're 85, you just look old and start losing it." Um, ok. How about if we just see what God has for you, Mom? God has used my mom to encourage and bless many people throughout her life, including me. Much of who I am today is because of her. I don't think God's done with her quite yet. But when He's ready for her to join the crowd in Heaven, I know she'll be ready, too.
Dobson Passes the Baton -- 00:00 Speaking of God using people, Dr. Dobson has resigned as chairman of Focus on the Family, the ministry he founded 32 years ago in a small office with a part-time secretary. We talk about his legacy and what the future looks like for the largest Christian organization in the world dedicated to helping families thrive.
Mr. Independent -- 22:09 Keith Mohr founded Indieheaven.com, an online store and resource/community for independent Christian music artists. He joins the show for a peek into the world of indie music, and shares candidly what it's like to pursue a calling, not knowing exactly where it will lead.
Eat Your Carats -- 41:26 She knows the ring is coming, but is afraid it won't be what she hopes for. Should she encourage her bf to give her a band until he can gift her with the stone of her dreams? Candice and I dish a balanced perspective on this touchy subject, and shed some light on navigating the world of a "girl's best friend."
My mom just picked up her third donut, so I need to get her out of here. I asked where she'd like to go for a special birthday lunch. Her answer: McDonald's. Lisa's family = all class, all the time. Happy 80th, Mom!
When it comes to relationships, career development, where you live and other big decisions, do you feel like you're making good decisions? Is there a chance that instead, you're just sliding into situations and getting stuck with decisions that you never really intentionally made? Dr. Scott Stanley, a researcher at the University of Denver, has been raising some great questions about this issue. We love Dr. Stanley and have featured him on Boundless a couple of times.
I was glad to see that Dr. Stanley has now launched a blog to focus specifically on the difference between making active decisions and drifting into not-so-good decisions. Here's how he describes his new blog:
Sliding vs. Deciding is a concept based in the research that I and colleagues have conducted on relationships. It contrasts how things often happen with how things could be. The core idea is that people often are sliding through important transitions in relationships--or moments in life--rather than deciding. Commitments that enrich our lives, that we are most likely to follow through on, are based in decisions. While we don't have to make decisions about everything, we do best when we make decisions about the most important things in life.
The first post gives you a sense of Dr. Stanley's dry humor--something we've always loved about him:
A big part of being a decider when it comes to important things in life is sticking to what you have decided. That’s part of what commitment is all about. Unless you’ve only been alive for, say, 15 minutes or so, you know it’s not always easy to stick to what you decided you wanted to do. I recently came across a recent report that summarizes some amazing research on willpower and the ability to resist temptation. ...
The author, Eric Wargo, first mentions pretty cool studies that were done long ago where they tested children to see how many would choose to wait a little while to get two marshmallows instead of getting one marshmallow RIGHT NOW! Kind of like a lot of life, right? You could ask yourself, “am I a one or two marshmallow kind of person?” Quite an existential question, isn’t it? For some reason, I’m hearing a variation of this question with Clint Eastwood’s voice from the movie “Dirty Harry.” Sort of goes like this: “You must be asking yourself if you really have a shot at two marshmallows or just one. Do you feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?” Perhaps I have some marshmallow trauma to work through.
The one or two marshmallows idea is tied to the issue of forgoing short-term gratifications that might undermine long-term gratification. It's something I've encountered when doing things like eating a bag of chips while impatiently waiting for a gourmet meal to be ready (but you know how hard it is to eat just one), or when I've spent money on little five and ten dollar items that wiped out funds I intended to save for a big-ticket item, or even some of the recreational dating I did in my early twenties to keep from being lonely on a Saturday night that in turn made me--and some of the girls I went out with--feeling more lonely when we were ready to find a good spouse.
As a result I found myself at various times sliding into problems like extra weight, a bad bank balance, and even a broken wedding engagement that were far afield from the good decisions I intended to make. On the other hand, the things I've enjoyed most in life--my relationship with Candice and our kids, my work, book writing, quiet time with God and more--have all grown out of forgoing short-term gratification and actively deciding to hold out for something better instead of sliding alongside the whims of my sin nature.
So are you a one or two marshmallow kind of person and how's that affecting your ability to make and keep good decisions?
It will come as no surprise to regular readers of The Line that I'm a big fan of Gary Thomas's article, "Marry Sooner Rather Than Later."
And I can imagine there will be lots of readers who want to take issue with Gary's bolder statements. Like this:
Though the average age for a man to get married in this country is now approaching 28, and the average age for a woman is approaching 27, the fact is, you've been created by God with a body that is ready for sexual activity a decade before that. ... A cavalier attitude toward this disconnect can result in premarital sexual sin that dishonors God and threatens your integrity, as well as your future sexual satisfaction in marriage.
This:
Few people today would question the motivation of a young couple who proclaimed, "We want to get married because we are head over heels in love," even though what they are experiencing is an emotional release of pheromones that neurologists tell us will not and cannot last longer than 18 to 48 months.1 Sexual need and desire, however, will be a constant for at least the next three decades, if not more. Why should I base a lifelong decision on a relatively temporary emotional disposition, and disregard a God-designed motivation that may never fade?
And this:
We Christians — believing in God as creator — should be the last ones to discount the delight and pleasure of sexuality, or the need to respect God's design for this relationship to take place within a lifelong commitment. In fact, we honor God when we submit to the call to marriage. Marriage is God's creation, not man's, and we should surrender to it as part of our worship. In the wise words of Al Mohler, there is a certain point where delay can become disobedience.
But pastors should love this article. Why? Because married couples are a lot more likely to go to church than singles are. In today's Wall Street Journal, respected researcher and professor Brad Wilcox writes:
Religious attendance among those 21 to 45 years old is at its lowest level in decades, according to Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow. Only 25% of young adults now attend services regularly, compared with about one-third in the early 1970s.
The most powerful force driving religious participation down is the nation's recent retreat from marriage, Mr. Wuthnow notes. Nothing brings women and especially men into the pews like marriage and parenthood, as they seek out the religious, moral and social support provided by a congregation upon starting a family of their own. But because growing numbers of young adults are now postponing or avoiding marriage and childbearing, they are also much less likely to end up in church on any given Sunday. Mr. Wuthnow estimates that America's houses of worship would have about six million more regularly attending young adults if today's young men and women started families at the rate they did three decades ago.
Not only is marriage good for your libido, but also for your soul. And since it's the men who do the asking (or should), these two articles are especially important reading for single young men.
There was a good reality television moment on American Idol the other night when Simon told Kris Allen -- season 8's married heartthrob -- that he "brought his wife out" too early. I don't mean that what Simon said was good, just that the unscripted moment it generated (from Kris' wife) was good.
Here's a recap in case you missed it.
Before each performance, AI shows a video of contestants going through their daily lives, pre-Idol. Kris' video was about his five month-old marriage and included multiple shots of the newlyweds in their apartment. After Kris performs, Simon let's him know that he should have kept his wife hidden a little longer. Meaning, he'd get more votes from swooning teenage girls if he didn't make a point of being married. Then, not missing a beat, the AI camera crew cut to Kris' wife (who was in the audience), catching her noticeably annoyed.
Maybe she felt she was being dismissed or disrespected (which she was) or maybe it was because she knows that her husband's looks and talent will get the adoration of many young ladies. Whatever it was, it was sincere.
But is Simon on to something? Can a married guy (or girl for that matter) be the next American Idol? Well, if the marital status of past finalists (top two) is any indication, it seems unlikely.
I can't recall all of the previous finalists, but I'm pretty sure none of them were married. And it's not as though there's been a lack of talented married contestants to choose from. Think of season five's 4th place finisher Chris Daughtry. His debut album has sold more -- a lot more -- than 10 previous Idol winners or runners-up. Did Daughtry's marital status prove prohibitive to his advancing to the finals?
Now I'm not going to make this another culture-against-marriage post. Though I could go there. I just don't want a bunch of tweens skewing the results of, um, my second favorite reality television show.
Nudity in Art by Ted Slater on 03/12/2009 at 1:11 PM
Comments on several blog posts tell me that this is a hot topic: When and how is it appropriate to include nudity and portrayals of sexual intercourse in various forms of art, specifically film?
In regards to viewing nudity, it's clear that there's a spectrum of appropriateness. On one hand, it may be appropriate for a man to view his wife's or baby's unclothed body; at certain times a male physician may be within his right to view a woman's unclothed body. On the other hand, it's never appropriate for a man to view a woman other than his wife with lustful desire in his heart, whether she is clothed or unclothed.
Perhaps the rightness or wrongness of viewing nude forms has to do with vocation: a husband's vocation to please his wife, for example, or a physician's vocation to care for his patients.
And perhaps the rightness or wrongness of viewing nude forms also has to do with the heart: viewing a woman lustfully is clearly wrong.
Perhaps Scripture can provide some clarity, some insights into this issue.
Job made a covenant with his eyes not to "gaze at a virgin." Habakkuk associates "gazing" at someone's unclothed body as shameful. There's something about "gazing" at someone you're not married to that Scripture considers wrong.
To directly challenge a comment on another blog post: Scripture does indicate that a woman's breasts are sexual for men, and not merely for men in "civilized cultures." Consider Proverbs 5:19 and Song of Solomon 7:6-12 and Ezekiel 23:3,21, for example. To further illustrate, let me ask our female readers a couple of questions: If a man not your husband touched your shoulder, that'd probably be all right, right? But if he touched you elsewhere, it would not be all right. If he looks you in the eye, that's probably all right, right? But if he gazes elsewhere, would you not feel uncomfortable? Of course, because you would feel sexually violated.
God modeled this by clothing Adam and Eve. God did this because He deemed such a gift to be good; not giving such a gift would not be good; therefore it would be bad not to give such a gift; because this gift's purpose was to cover their unclothed bodies, it follows that it was bad for Adam and Eve to go around with unclothed bodies.
God again covers nakedness in Ezekiel 16:8. Jesus affirms clothing the unclothed in Matthew 25.
I need to make it clear that the human body is not shameful. It is glorious. But in most cases, uncovering it before others is condemned. Just as, perhaps, interacting inappropriately with the sacred Ark of the Covenant was condemned.
Scripture is clear that it is wrong to "lie sexually" with someone to whom you're not married (Leviticus 18:20). The marriage bed is to remain undefiled (Hebrews 13:4). Actors who portray sexual intercourse with someone to whom they're not married are rejecting both of these principles. By paying money to view these actors, we are facilitating and affirming their ungodly behavior.
I see plenty of instances in Scripture where viewing unclothed bodies is wrong. Does Scripture ever portray unclothed bodies as right? Hm. Well, maybe. Isaiah "walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign ... against Egypt and Cush." The Lord Himself directly commanded Isaiah to do so in order to indicate the shame these peoples would experience.
Should passers-by have averted their gaze, like the men of Coventry who refused to look at the Lady Godiva as she rode horseback through their town, naked and humbled, sacrificing her honor for their sake? Yeah, probably.
It's also likely that Jesus was without clothing as he was hanging on the cross. His garments weredividedamongthose who carried out the crucifixion. This nakedness may have contributed to the shame He experienced on the cross.
As with Isaiah, Jesus' humiliation was a display of God's holy judgment against sin. Like Lady Godiva, He sacrificed His honor for our sake. It had no entertainment value.
(Note, of course, that the nakedness of neither Isaiah nor Jesus was in any way sexual, but was heartbreakingly shameful and humiliating.)
So is it good for storytellers to use unclothed bodies in their art? Does the vocation of "artist" grant someone the same authority that husbands or physicians may have to view an unclothed woman? Does their vocation permit them to instruct unmarried couples to engage in sexual behavior? Even if so, when is it good for the rest of us to view the nakedness and sexual activity they present to us?
Boundless got an e-mail from Tim. Tim is a college student who decided to invest some money in the stock market and, within a few days, saw an over 10 percent return on his investment. Now, he's wondering about day trading:
"Do you think wagering money for short periods of time on the stock market is biblical? Would you even consider day trading a real job or is it a scheme people use to hopefully get rich without exerting effort? How would I not let greed get the best of me and put God first even in the stock market?"
Those are several good questions. Let me answer by asking and answering a few key points.
First, is investing biblical at all? Randy Alcorn, in Money, Possessions and Eternity, writes:
"Scripture doesn't directly teach that we should invest, but it does provide illustrations of investing, including real estate ventures (Proverbs 31:16). Jesus speaks illustratively of investing in such a way as to gain financial returns (Matthew 25:14-29; Luke 19:12-26). This suggests that He approves of wise investments, and it certainly indicates He doesn't forbid investing. His injunctions to invest in eternity, by laying up treasures in heaven rather than on earth, puts in perspective our earthly investments but does not preclude them."
Alcorn points out that "investing doesn't simply bring profits to the investor (sometimes it doesn't even do that). It also profits the business in which we have invested." In other words, our investment money actually performs a good in our economy -- it provides capital for businesses to start, improve or expand.
Second, if investing is allowed, is all investing allowed? The answer, pretty obviously, is no.
We should carefully consider what industries we may be funding with our investment dollars.
We should only invest money we can afford to lose (no borrowed money).
We should consider carefully the reasons for our investing. (Investing to multiply your assets to provide for your family or to give? Or because of greed, envy and impatience?)
Third, if some investing, but not all, is allowed -- where does day trading fit into that? For me, there are three questions that pop into my mind.
Is day trading gambling? I thought it was really interesting that Tim used the word "wagering" to describe day trading. Of course, all investments involve risk. And one could easily argue that there are whole industry segments based on "guessing" or "betting" the future (fuel hedges, gas trading, commodities, etc.). But, in our personal finances, isn't there a difference between investing because of sound business fundamentals and investing because you think the psychology of the market will jump your stock 5 points in 24 hours? Randy Alcorn writes about the difference between investing and gambling:
"There's a difference between reasonable risks and gambling. Gambling is a shortcut to God's created pattern of working to earn money. In gambling, wealth isn't distributed on the basis of work, service, or personal need, only by chance."
Is my work productive or parasitic? In many fields of work, there seems to be a sliding scale from productiveness to parasitic. For example, my local bank may loan money to build small businesses. Productive (possibly). There is also a strip mall store in my town that provides payday loans, mostly to the poor, at outrageous interest rates. That's parasitic. An honest landlord concerned about providing service for his leasors. Productive. A slumlord. Parasitic. A stay-at-home mom working hard for her family. Productive. A stay-at-home mom whose only interests are working out, shopping and using the nanny for twelve hours a day. Parasitic. You get the idea. Where does day trading fit into that? Does it provide a good, like investing has the potential to, or does it simply feed off the work of others?
Is day trading based around the quick buck? We're warned several times in Scripture that "he who works his land will have abundant food...but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished" and "he who gathers money little by little makes it grow." I do not day trade, so I have no experience in this area. But it does seem from observation that few activities are as centered around the quick buck as this one.
I'm reminded of the 1987 movie Wall Street. As his son faces jail for stock fraud, the character Carl Fox (played by Martin Sheen) tells him "Stop going for the easy buck and start producing something with your life. Create, instead of living off the buying and selling of others."
In the Boundless article, "Working out a Theology of Work", John Piper is quoted as saying, "the essence of our work as humans must be that it is done in conscious reliance on God's power, and in conscious quest of God's pattern of excellence, and in deliberate aim to reflect God's glory." So, can you do that, Tim? Can you day trade in quest of God's pattern of excellence and in deliberate aim to reflect His glory? I think there are enough biblical principles in question to at least give you pause. Serious pause.
I have a lot of respect for Pastor David Wilkerson. I'm inspired by his moving to New York in the late 1950s to minister to gang members and drug addicts, a story recounted in The Cross and the Switchblade. I also admire his current activities, serving as a pastor of Times Square Church in NYC.
So when I came across his "urgent message" a couple of days ago, in which he warned that "an earth-shattering calamity is about to happen," I didn't immediately dismiss it as the incendiary words of a madman.
In part, he explained:
For ten years I have been warning about a thousand fires coming to New York City. It will engulf the whole megaplex, including areas of New Jersey and Connecticut. Major cities all across America will experience riots and blazing fires -- such as we saw in Watts, Los Angeles, years ago.
There will be riots and fires in cities worldwide. There will be looting -- including Times Square, New York City. What we are experiencing now is not a recession, not even a depression. We are under God’s wrath.
He doesn't ask for money, but provides practical counsel on how to prepare:
Gather a 30-day supply of non-perishable food, toiletries and other essentials.
Fix your eyes on the Lord, trusting in His loving care over His people.
Regardless whether we're about to face calamity or not, both these words of advice seem fairly reasonable. For example, the U.S. government recommends that we keep several days' worth of food and water on hand, in case of emergencies. And it's always the right time to place your faith in the Lord.
This isn't the first catastrophic vision Wilkerson has had. In 1973, for example, he published The Vision, in which he predicted worldwide economic confusion, an increase in floods and hurricanes, a fall in moral conduct, an acceptance of homosexuality, a new drug popular with teens that will break down resistance and will encourage sexual activity, the ordination of gay and lesbian ministers, a spiritual awakening behind the Iron Curtain and Bamboo Curtain ... and a nuclear bomb detonating in New York City.
I honestly don't know what to think of Wilkerson's vision. He doesn't claim to be a "prophet," but rather simply a Christian to whom the Lord has communicated certain things. This is not an unbiblical perspective; while God primarily speaks to us through Scripture, He has communicated to humans outside of Scripture as well.
And people have gone from prosperity to need in a very short period of time; Katrina showed us that. Or consider Zimbabwe: It used to be the "Breadbasket of Africa," churning out more food than they could eat; now they are starving and impoverished. America, long-blessed by God, is not immune from the suffering that most of the world is currently experiencing.
As for me, I'm not going to panic. That's pointless, and faith-less. I may keep my pantry full, and have a few bottles of water on hand. That seems prudent, regardless of whether the "crisis" is a power outage, a truckers' strike, or a regional disaster. And I will certainly aspire to become more sober in my efforts to place my trust in the Lord.
It looked like a cool movie, the kind of dark action flick to which I find myself drawn. So, as a matter of course, I looked up the review on Plugged In Online.
The plot seems intriguing, the characters seem multi-dimensional, the film itself (director, actors, cinematography, etc.) is no doubt of high artistic quality.
But it's clear that (and I add the following qualifier as a nod to the moral ambiguity of our time) -- for me -- the bad outweighs the good. The injurious effects likely are greater than the movie's virtue-enlarging effects. And so I'll pass.
Most obviously, I don't see how the rampant over-the-top sexual content could possibly be any good for me:
"... the two engage in a graphic sex scene, complete with nudity (her breasts and both of their backsides), much movement and a climax."
"Another physical tryst, where the two strip and writhe around on a couch, ends when Nite Owl finds himself to be impotent without first doing superhero-type work."
"Nite Owl also has a dream in which he and Silk Spectre, both nude, meet in the middle of a barren landscape and "strip" their nudity, revealing superhero outfits underneath."
"Dr. Manhattan, pre-transformation, has sex with his girlfriend; she later leaves him after he develops an interest—and passionately kisses—Silk Spectre (who's 16 at the time)."
"Dr. Manhattan spends most of the film in the big, blue buff, and audiences see him every which way: back, side and front. He sends nude duplicates of himself to pleasure girlfriend Silk Spectre—resulting in a bizarre foursome."
"Silk Spectre's mom, Sally ..., is sexually assaulted by The Comedian. We're asked to watch as he attacks her."
"Silk Spectre's outfits are slinky and provocative. Rorschach's mother was apparently a prostitute. Another prostitute flashes her breasts at a passing superhero. Audiences catch glimpses of pornographic magazines and movies. A naked man is seen frolicking during a party."
Like I said, I'm not sure being exposed to such God-dishonoring sights and sounds would make me a better man, no matter how deeply the themes of this film are explored.
The violence, likewise, seems beyond redemption:
When people get shot, we see skin separate like a burst balloon. When people have their arms broken, we see the bones stab through the flesh. Arms are cut off with buzz saws. Dogs fight over the leg bone of a murdered little girl—foot and shoe still attached. Dr. Manhattan has his body stripped into oblivion, layer by layer ... twice. The Comedian shoots and kills a pregnant woman (he fathered the child) after the woman slices his face with a broken bottle. Rorschach, as a child, rips off someone's ear with his teeth.... Clearly, Watchmen shares far more with Saw than Spider-Man.
The review's conclusion helped me make up my mind about whether or not to spend 10 bucks to watch this movie:
Watchmen, the movie, retains that cruel sense of despair. At times, its adherence to the source material feels almost slavish. Yet it's a bit pastiche, too, layering in extra—gratuitous—sex, blood and gore just for raw, big screen shock value.
As a book, Watchmen is messy. As a movie, Watchmen is a mess. In fact, I'll go so far as to call it dispirited, depressing schlock—both as a work of art and as a mode of message. Fanboys may be enthralled, but I'd imagine the uninitiated will walk away appalled, confused and even strangely bored. At the advance screening I attended, where folks generally stay glued to their seats, I saw a number of people leave the theater. Some never came back. This isn't a movie as much as an assault.
But this is a tale of two reviews, right?
Out of curiosity, I checked out the review over at Christianity Today Movies, where they gave it 3.5 out of 4 stars (for some reason they are sure to explain away).
To be fair, the reviewer says in the first paragraph that this is not a "family-friendly superhero movie." Perhaps in a nod to my commentary on another movie review of theirs, they point out that this movie indeed "relishes in its R rating."
Nevertheless, for Christianity Today, the film is redeemed by its story and the well-executed telling of that story. Yes, they say, Watchmen is "a comprehensive film still relevant to today's general audiences." The reviewer uses words such as "brilliant," "smart," "beautiful," "ambitious," "visionary," "imaginative" and "impressive visuals" to describe this film. His conclusion: "It's a surprisingly good adaptation of unique sci-fi material that is challenging and haunting."
CT's review says that this movie is "certainly watchable"; Plugged In Online's review concludes that this movie is really watchable by "no one."
These two film reviews represent two different approaches by Christian artists. One seems to place an emphasis on how a movie might affect us, how it might provoke us toward godliness in every lofty sense of that word. The other seems to place an emphasis on the artistic quality of a movie, how the story and characters might help us explore meaningful themes. The first type of review primarily helps us discern whether or not to pay money to take in a couple of hours of entertainment; the second primarily aims to help us work through issues brought up by a movie we've already chosen to see.
I think there's value to both kinds of reviews. As someone who's studied communication in grad school, as someone who's been involved in the arts for decades, I can appreciate the study of difficult and dirty material. Wrestling in the mud can help us better appreciate God and His creation.
But in the end, I am more concerned about the cost required for this kind of knowledge. Am I willing to endure scenes of actors portraying explicit sex? Am I willing to allow a camera operator to command my eyes to immerse myself in every gruesome detail of death and gore? Am I willing to go into the dreary depths of hell, emerging polluted and stained and smelling putrid, with a possibility of better appreciating heaven?
Cognitive dissonance is something I deal with, from time to time strongly. I can see how it could build to the point where I'd have to make a radical decision: change my mind or change my faith. Boundless author Suzanne Hadley keys in on this tension in today's featured articleover on Boundless Webzine:
Whether the result of intellectual struggles, disillusionment with fellow believers or tension created from a less-than-Christian lifestyle, spiritual dissonance is uncomfortable.
She goes on:
Eventually a person may alter his beliefs to match his lifestyle in order to relieve the pressure. Such an action may deliver an initial sense of relief because the person's beliefs and actions finally match. But giving up faith and choosing one's own way always leads to destruction.
The thing is, I don't think this internal conflict is necessarily a bad thing. Just as our sense of pain motivates us to address some malady, dissonance can drive us toward deeper relationship with our Savior Redeemer:
Dissonance exists to be resolved and turned to beauty. And God's purpose is to resolve it in such a way that the music created is a testimony to His power and grace.
Suzanne concludes:
Dissonance does not have to signal the end of faith in Christ. Harmony is one of the things God offers us through Christ. In the hands of an almighty, skilled Conductor, sour notes can be the beginning of a heavenly opus.
May the Lord be honored by this muddling Slater Opus. And may you find encouragement, at least occasionally, from its tones.
Conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has been all over the news lately. Apparently by design.
The Obama White House is painting Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the Republican party in an obvious attempt to shame Republicans into distancing themselves from the right-wing "entertainer." (And if it proves a distraction from the Dow sinking 25% since Obama took office, even better.) What's not so obvious is why they've chosen to pick this fight right now. I mean, you would think they have more important issues to talk about in his first 100 days.
But Obama's a savvy politician. He's not only looking for a distraction, he's looking ahead to 2010.
About 16 years ago, when another flamboyant Democrat was in his first year, Rush Limbaugh was coming to prominence with his razor sharp criticisms and musical parodies. And leading up to the 1994 mid-term elections, Limbaugh is credited with fueling the Angry White Males (AMW) who overwhelmingly voted (62%) for a Republican house member.
So it seems Obama fears history will repeat itself in the 2010 mid-terms lest he defang Limbaugh now.
The thing is, the 1994 mid-terms were more about President Clinton's overreaching agenda (remember "HillaryCare"?) and visionary Congressman Newt Gingrich (R-GA) than Rush Limbaugh. Meaning, Rush didn't create the AWMs, he simply gave them a voice -- a politically discerning and entertaining voice.
Will history repeat itself in the 2010 mid-terms?
Making Rush the issue seems to be having its desired effect for now. Republicans are debating the issue, even dividing over it. But the only way it will work in 2010 is if there remains vacuum in Republican leadership like there was in 2008 (and 2006 for that matter).
Firefly Dating by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 03/09/2009 at 11:55 AM
Imagine if you could know that the cute guy you see every week at the grocery store has the potential to be your perfect match? What if you didn't have to wonder if that pretty girl in your class shares your love of sushi and old movies? A new technology may help compatible singles "find" each other, according to WSJ:
Students at the University of Maine recently announced a prototype for a wearable matchmaking device called the "Friend Finder." The gadget, programmed with information about the wearer's interests and tastes, features a series of LED lights that flash whenever another user with compatible interests is within 30 feet — allowing humans to mimic the romantic signaling of fireflies.
While the technology may sound progressive, author Dara Horn points out that its not really anything new. She should know. In 1966, her parents met and married through one of the first computer dating services: Operation Match. Her dad and mom each received a computer print-out containing six names of compatible singles. Horn's father took out all six women. This service may bear a resemblance to modern-day online matchmaking services, but Horn points out that our perceptions have changed:
What truly makes Operation Match seem quaint today was the absolute faith with which the computer's results were received. The wildly popular service processed more than a million questionnaires from students nationwide within three years, and its success reveals less about computer programming than about social norms. Baby-boomer college students, only a couple of generations removed from the arranged marriages of the past, had every expectation of marrying in their early 20s — and perfect faith that modern science could do no wrong. As my mother put it: "This was the ultimate science, the highest technology. The list of matches even came as a computer printout! Who could dispute it?"
Today's young adults searching for love are more wary of technology and its ability to procure a "soul mate." Online dating services and social networking sites can become non-threatening ways to check out the opposite sex — from a distance.
For a risk-averse generation accustomed to screening everything, the greatest challenge is simply gathering the courage to pick up the phone and call a stranger, no matter how "compatible" that stranger supposedly is. The idea of wearing lights that flash "I'm available" would hardly appeal if we were brave enough to break the ice ourselves. In an age of personal computers, we have become more impersonal: We have the technology, but we no longer have the guts.
Horn doesn't propose how to get back the guts — only that we need to. I agree. After all, the flash of a smile and resulting conversation is way more personal — and fun — than the flash of a wristband. In the end, technology can only do so much. Courage and intentionality are required to make something happen. As a woman, I appreciate when a guy takes a risk. "Friend Finder" or no.
One of my favorite movies is The Karate Kid. Who can't identify in some way with Daniel Larusso, uprooted from all that is familiar by his single mom and plopped down in a new environment where he is the outsider, the new kid who becomes automatic bully bait for the tough guys at school?
A lot of people think the main lesson of the story is that perseverance and hard work pay off in the end. And while that's certainly true in this story—Daniel does win the big karate championship in the end—that's not the main point.
The key moment in the movie is when the inscrutable Miyagi tells Daniel to wax his car. Daniel has made a deal that if Miyagi will teach him karate, he must do what Miyagi wants, no questions asked.
Miyagi: First, wash all car. Then wax. Wax on … Daniel: Hey, why do I have to? … Miyagi: Ah, ah! Remember deal! No questions! Daniel: Yeah, but … Miyagi: Hai! [makes circular gestures with each hand] Miyagi: Wax on, right hand. Wax off, left hand. Wax on, wax off.
Daniel thought he was being taken advantage of, but as we learn later, Miyagi was teaching him karate. Daniel was learning an important skill while strengthening the muscles needed to practice that skill, all while doing something that seemed completely unrelated to what Daniel wanted. He was also learning something very important, something the wise Miyagi knew he wouldn't learn any other way: trust and self-discipline.
I think God takes us through similar wax-on, wax-off moments. I know I've had many in the nearly 30 years since I first trusted Him. God will put me through an experience or have me do something that seems completely unrelated to what I think I need to be doing to serve Him. (And usually it's something I just don't want to do, just as the last thing Daniel wanted to do was wash and wax a car.) In the end, the skill I learned in going through a hard time came in handy later. More often, the skill was simply learning to trust God and wait on His grace and provision.
How about you? Struggling with finances or job loss? Wax on. Wax off. Fighting loneliness? Worried you'll never find a husband or wife? Wax on. Wax off. As long as you're doing what God wants of you at the moment, consider it your chance to wash and wax the car.
Yes, it's easier said than done. But it needs to be done if you're to learn and grow. We do it, not for a cheap karate trophy, but for an everlasting crown.
Raise your hand if you watched the season finale of The Bachelor. I did, but I blame it entirely on my coworkers. They got me sucked in, albeit only in mid-season. If you watch reality TV, you know that, like daytime soaps, you only need to watch an episode every 15 years to keep up. Though one summer in junior high, I got so addicted to The Young and the Restless that I called the show's plot hotline whenever I missed a show. Let's just say the Lord has done a work in my heart since then (Bachelor regression aside).
I watched the Bachelor finale at my friend Julie's house. We sat with coffee, chips and Milk Duds and prepared to offer up three hours of our lives on the altar of Complete Lameness, knowing that we'd never get that time back. We sat on the couch and watched Melissa and Molly reunite with Jason, then meet Ty, then meet the rest of Jason's family. We offered insightful and witty commentary for all of this. But then, as all of America and most third world countries now know, Jason dissed Molly and proposed to Melissa, and then on national TV, on a set that looked prepped more for a seance than a DTR, Jason dumped Melissa and (gasp!) went back to Molly.
Julie and I were on the floor at this point (the Milk Duds were long gone). We noticed that we had clasped hands, and had our free hands clapped firmly over our mouths. Julie's husband was texting his friend a running report of our craziness and how he was concerned for our emotional and mental health. When we thought we couldn't take it anymore, Melissa stormed off the stage, got into the waiting limo, and said (unless I was high on caffeine and sugar, which is entirely possible), some pretty interesting things.
I remember her saying that Jason "did not fight for their relationship." He proposed, but then said the "chemistry changed," and he started thinking of Molly and what could have been. And so he started pulling away, according to Melissa. She mentioned the sadness of being dumped yet again by a guy she felt she trusted. One whom she thought was being honest in saying he wanted to pursue a relationship with her...for life. And she finished by saying something which I thought was very insightful and sad. She said she wished he hadn't proposed. "Getting engaged is a once-in-a-lifetime thing, and he took that away from me," she said. Obviously it's not over 'til it's over and the commitment is sealed, but still, I thought that was a true and heartwrenching statement from a girl who up to that point was known primarily as an ex-professional cheerleader with a tan and a toothy grin.
The lessons here are worth mentioning:
1) Don't ever go on The Bachelor 2) Don't accept a proposal from someone who made out with someone else less than 4 hours prior 3) Don't use lines like "I don't know how this happened," "I can't control my head or my heart" and "It's not you, it's me" when breaking up with someone 4) Don't propose unless you mean it, and know that if an engagement has to be broken, it should be for something bigger than "a change in chemistry" 5) Avoid points 1-4 by following guidelines for Biblical dating as outlined by Boundless
My mom, who knows far too much about The Bachelor (though mercifully just from Jason's appearances on morning talk shows), summed it up best: "These people are crazy! What is their problem?!" The problem is that there's a lot of whack relationship stuff going on out there. But despite it all, people still want to be loved, and they still want a lifelong commitment that attests to that. People go on reality TV shows because of it. We should remember that, and do our best to esteem marriage and getting to marriage. To that end:
Straight Talk To Single Women, Part 2 -- 00:00 Here's the second half of the conversation between Dr. Juli Slattery, Candice and myself about being a single woman who hopes (and prays) for marriage. In this half we talk about the very real call of marriage, whether or not serving God "puts marriage on hold," and grieving the losses associated with singleness.
Texting and Twittering With Dr. Mohler -- 24:48 We snagged Dr. Mohler while he was here for the Focus board meetings, and put him on a mic to talk about Christians and new media. What do evangelicals do well, and how can we improve our use of new technologies? And in the midst of it all, how do we know when to drop the Crackberries in an effort to preserve real relationships?
Can I Afford To Marry? -- 47:06 Our economy stinks. We know that. But does it stink enough to say "no" to marriage until the markets improve? Steve and I address a listener who is not sure he can afford to marry right now. His concerns are valid, so we do our best to offer principled and practical advice on the balance of love and money.
Have a great week, everyone. I'm off to Anne Graham Lotz' Pursuing More of Jesus conference this weekend. Maybe that will provide something more edifying for me to write about next week. Maybe. :)
I think my allergies are flaring up. Or my sinuses. Or maybe I have a cold. I'm really not sure. Being able to tell the difference must be the true benchmark for adulthood. I'm not there yet.
I'll tell you my symptoms and maybe the adults out there can diagnose me:
Headache similar to caffeine withdrawal
Scratchy throat
Runny nose
Distorted taste (My americano was not amazing this morning. I wanted to blame it on the barista, but I knew it was me.)
Please tell me I have allergies. Lie to me if you must. I don't want to miss out on fun weekend activities like hanging out with my fiance's twin sister who's visiting, Truth Project with my small group, a wedding on Saturday, and church on Sunday.
Speaking of church on Sunday, Stuff Christians Like has a hauntingly true rant about "allergies":
I don't have to give in to people that are sick and refusing to stay home. The kid gloves can come off when it's cold season and folks in your row are blowing their nose like it's an instrument they're adding to the worship experience. So how do you deal with people that come to church with a cold? I have a few ideas:
1. Wave to them during the meet and greet. During the announcements, identify anyone in your immediate area that is trying to nurse a secret cold. Look for cough drops being unwrapped and crumpled up Kleenex. Then, when the pastor says, "Turn to someone and tell them you're glad they're here" get ready to wave. The first few will be awkward, denying someone whose germ ridden hand is stuck out to you is never an easy thing, but by the third wave you'll have it down. It's also a nice way to greet the maximum number of people but that's another post for another day.
2. Don't buy the "it's just allergies" excuse. The best thing to say if you have a cold and you don't want people to know that you plan to stay home from work on Monday but insisted on coming to church on Sunday is to tell them "it’s just allergies." Sure it is. It's the dead of winter, there's not a plant species alive right now. We haven't had pollen for months, but you've got allergies. Right, you're allergic to the germs that cause the common cold. So am I. That's why I'm waving at you.
3. Bring them Kleenex. That's kind. I mean the rest of this list is jerky, but me suggesting that you bring someone else Kleenex is compassionate, right? Maybe, but this next part won't be. When you see someone trying to wipe their nose on their sleeve, hold up your box of Kleenex as if to say, "Hey sleevy, need a Kleenex?" When they shake their head yes, and this next part is critical, don't hand the tissues to them. Kick them over to their general direction with your foot. It will take a little while for you to turn into a pew Pele, but it makes no sense to wave at someone during the meet and greet and then essentially shake hands with them when you give them a Kleenex. Trust me on this one, use the foot Luke.
Ultimately, I need to print this list out and give a copy to everyone around me at church. I came to service sick a few weeks ago. But in my defense, I initiated the wave during the meet and greet, saying, "Can't shake today, I'm sick. Can't shake today, I'm sick." People seemed to appreciate that. Or they hated me. It was hard to tell through all that cold medicine I was on for my “allergies."
Yeah, I plan on being in church on Sunday, allergies and all (hopefully on time). In all seriousness, I’ll be at work on Monday (unless my allergies really do me in on Sunday night). It's been super windy here in Colorado Springs this week. Do you think the wind could have blown in some pollen?
Writing on the World magazine blog, Tony Woodlief makes an unconventional suggestion:
It’s a foolish idea, but I’m wondering if we can work up the courage to give recklessly this year. Wouldn’t it be something if our response to hard economic times was not to give less but to give more? What would the world think of us if all of us turned off the financial advice shows, imperiled ourselves just a little, and gave so much that every crook and lowlife and spendthrift in town darkened our churches’ doors?
Woodlief knows this idea seems foolish because of what our natural tendencies are when it comes to giving. He writes:
It’s frightening, even in good economic times, to give in the face of seemingly endless need. Many of us have been in a position to write a check or hand over a bundle of cash or food to someone who we have no confidence will be anything other than needy next week, too. And now that we’ve given to them, won’t they be more likely to come back for more? How much will they end up taking from us?
This is what I so often thought as I watched my dad try to minister to needy people. He got burned again and again trying to give people cash. He seemed to be a little more effective when he set up a food bank in our church and looked for ways to minister to underlying substance abuse problems where those played a role. But he still got burned--people still took advantage of our church. And his efforts turned our place of worship into something of an emergency room church compared to the country club church I grew up in. All those former addicts, ex-cons and people with missing teeth often made me uncomfortable, but I guess God isn't always interested in our comfort.
I hope God can stir a more reckless approach to giving in me.
I've witnessed several young couples in the beginning stages of a relationship become frustrated over the other's worship-style preference. One of them likes a more traditional service; the other prefers something more contemporary. It seems a silly consideration when framed like that. Surely compromise is the appropriate response. I mean, we don't want the path to marital bliss to be disrupted by mere preference, do we?
But what if the differences go beyond preference? What if the way we worship says more about our doctrine than our tastes?
In a letter published in New Horizons, an elder writes a young man, "James," in college about his courtship to a young woman who finds their worship service dull. But instead of giving advice about the prudence of compromise in such matters, he focuses on the doctrine of irresistible grace. And "if you're wondering how this relates to worship," he writes,
... think about the motivation for many so-called improvements in worship—changes designed to make it more engaging, lively, or moving. The argument invariably is that such changes will make worship more effective, as if our efforts in ministering God's word will make the grace of the gospel irresistible. (The same logic seems to inform churches with lots of programs. Programs will seemingly be more influential than a narrow focus on ministering God's word.)
Now I'm not writing this to promote the merits of the elder's argument, only the weight he is giving the issue as he mentors this young man. He encourages James to carefully consider questions of worship and whether he wants to hear them the rest of his life if he marries the "person who is asking them now."
I believe too many of us gloss over the motivations behind our preferences, particularly in a dating context when emotions are at their highest. But since worship is one of the most intimate acts in which married people engage, I would give it its due.
We received some comments recently that pointed out that Christian ministry Vision Forum offers books by author G.A. Henty. The following paragraph appears on one of them, and speaks of Africans:
They are just like children.... They are always either laughing or quarreling. They are good natured and passionate, indolent, but will work hard for a time; clever up to a certain point, densely stupid beyond. The intelligence of an average negro is about equal to that of a European child of ten years old. A few, a very few, go beyond this, but these are exceptions, just as Shakespeare was an exception to the ordinary intellect of an Englishman. They are fluent talkers, but their ideas are borrowed. They are absolutely without originality, absolutely without inventive power. Living among white men, their imitative faculties enable them to attain a considerable amount of civilization. Left alone to their own devices they retrograde into a state little above their native savagery.
The words were said by a character named Mr. Goodenough (hence the ellipsis in the first line of the quote above), who is described earlier as a "traveler and naturalist." The occasion of Mr. Goodenough's insulting sentences is upon their arrival in Sierra Leone. It is clear throughout the novel that Mr. Goodenough thinks very poorly of those from Sierra Leone. I agree that this character's descriptions of those from this African country is inexcusably racist.
Did the author, G.A. Henty, share his character's racism? I don't know. Perhaps he was simply narrating what some in the 1800s thought. Or perhaps he was being ironic.
(I do find it interesting that Henty was a British journalist, serving as a war correspondent in, among many other places, the area in Africa where the Ashanti War was taking place. He probably knew men like Mr. Goodenough.)
And do the book distributors necessarily share this character's racism? Are they guilty of racism for having offered the book for sale? Are those associated with the bookstores also guilty of racism? If you are associated with a distributor of a book written by an author whose got a character who's said some racist things ... are you therefore suspect?
The book was published in 1884, less than a decade after Mark Twain published his book Tom Sawyer. You know where I'm going, don't you? One of the characters in Tom Sawyersaid, "I never see a n----- that wouldn't lie." (Spelling out that fifth word, by the way, shocks our modern sensibilities; the thing is, you'll read it dozens and dozens and dozens of times in Huckleberry Finn and Pudd'nhead Wilson and other works by Twain.)
So, did the author, Samuel Clemens (AKA Mark Twain), share his character's racism? No, I think he was simply narrating what some in the 1800s thought. And he was being ironic.
I guess what I'm saying is that someone who suspects Twain of being a racist because one of his characters was a racist ... is just silly. And to conclude, without doing further research, that Henty was a racist because one of his characters was a racist ... is also just silly. To go further and say that the distributors of these books are therefore racist, and that people associated with these distributors are also therefore suspect ... is just beyond silly.
Any of the people or organizations mentioned above may be racist. I don't know. I do know that that conclusion can't be arrived at by cursorily looking at quotes from characters in works of fiction.
So I've blogged twice now about Voddie Baucham's new book and promised a full length review over at Boundless, soon. Then it dawned on me that maybe some of you haven't heard of him before. I jumped right in because What He Must Be is the second of his books I've read. In case you've never heard of Voddie and wonder why we're giving him so much space and respect, I thought I'd take a minute to introduce you.
Here he is with his wife Bridgette.
And here's who he is:
It is impossible to understand Voddie’s approach to the Bible without first understanding the path he has walked. Raised in a non-Christian, single-parent home, Voddie did not hear the gospel until he was in college. As a student-athlete at Rice University, Baucham responded to God’s call on his life and entered the gospel ministry. His journey to faith was an unusual and intellectual one.
He understands what it means to be a skeptic, and knows what it’s like to try to figure out the Christian life without relying on the traditions of men. As a result, he speaks to ‘outsiders’ in ways few Bible teachers can.
He is a husband, father, pastor, author, professor, conference speaker and church planter. He currently serves as Pastor of Preaching at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, TX. Voddie makes the Bible clear and demonstrates the relevance of God’s word to everyday life. However, he does so without compromising the centrality of Christ and the gospel. Those who hear him preach find themselves both challenged and encouraged.
Voddie and his wife, Bridget have been married since 1989. They have five children, Jasmine, Trey, Elijah, Asher and Judah. They are committed home educators.
You can find out more about him and his other books at voddiebaucham.org.
What if you want to marry, and live like you're planning to marry, but never get married? What if, after all that focus on future marriage, God calls you to remain unmarried? Won't you have wasted precious years and increased the possibility of feeling hopeless?
Not according to Voddie Baucham. In his view, rooted solidly in Scripture, marriage prep is never a waste. In What He Must Be, and speaking as a father, he writes,
If we prepare our children to be husbands and wives, and God calls and equips them to be single, we have lost nothing.
Why? Because "the Bible gives us one standard for spiritually mature manhood. We are not given one standard for pastors and another for laymen. Moreover, one could argue by implication that we do not have one standard for single men and another for married men." And that standard for biblical manhood, as detailed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, is "the ability to lead one's own family ." He says,
We prepare our sons to be godly men in view of their responsibility as husbands and fathers, and whether or not they eventually fill those roles, we have given them the greatest tools available for serving in any capacity, even that of elder/pastor in the church.
Certainly the same could be said about Proverbs 31. Though that chapter was originally written as advice from a mother to her son about what to look for in a wife, for centuries it's been a model for biblical womanhood, regardless of marital status. (See, for example, Carolyn McCulley's, Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye?)
And if we don't prepare for marriage?
... if we do not prepare our children to be husbands and wives, and they (like the overwhelming majority of people) end up married someday, we have lost a great deal.
Preparing for marriage, Baucham shows, is no less than following the model of Christ.
Clearly, our Lord is a bridegroom. Jesus is our ultimate model for biblical manhood, and as such he shows us what it looks like for a man to spend his life preparing for a marriage [see Revelation 19:7-8; cf. 21:9].
I'm pretty sure one of the ways God has chosen to refine me is to litter my life with tardy friends, roommates and most recently a tardy fiance. (That's right, it finally happened!) And I'm also fairly certain the most refining hour of my week is the Sunday morning worship hour.
Does anyone else hate being late to church? Does slipping into the pew during the third verse of the second song suck the joy right out of the sabbath for anyone else like it does for me? 'Cause let me tell you, if I'm late to church, I have to spend the rest of the service silently repenting of my sinful attitude.
I am rarely, if ever, late because I'm behind. It's them. They make me late. If it weren't for them making me late, I would be able to worship the Lord with gladness and enter His courts with praise. At least that's what I thought before I read this quote from 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.
I'm not talking about marriage; I'm talking about getting to church on time, but I think the same way Eggerich's wife Sarah reveals the way he is, tardy loved ones reveal the way I am. So while I still deeply desire to assemble on time, I'm learning to use my attitude about being late as the litmus test for where my joy is really found, in the Lord or in my well-oiled routine. I hope it's the former.
Monday I answered a reader's question about submission in the day-to-day decisions of married life. After I wrote my answer, I learned that the author of the question is married to an unbeliever. This adds a dimension that I didn't cover in the column. I'd like to do that here.
Ephesians 5, the verse I spotlighted in "Practical Submission," shows us how Christian husbands and wives are to relate to one another. But thankfully, the Bible is not silent on the situation where a believing wife is married to an unbeliever. 1 Peter 3:1-2 says,
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
Yes, submission is a hard word. Especially when you're married to a man who doesn't try to be an Ephesians 5 kind of husband. And it's made harder by a culture that redefines and twists it, then mocks it to no end. But it's in a biblical understanding of submission that lies the hope for an unsaved spouse. What joy to serve a God who inspired Peter to address women in that situation directly. And not only with instructions for following a husband's lead, but also with hope that their obedience to God has the power to lead their mate to eternal life.
(I'm in no way suggesting a wife should stay with or submit to a man who is acting criminally toward her. Such a man has already abdicated his role and responsibility as her husband. He has forfeited his claim on her as wife.)
Update: You guys rock. We just broke the iTunes top 100 podcasts in the "Christianity" category and we received 7 new reviews. Thanks for helping get the word out.
* * *
Do you love the Boundless podcast? Do you? Then others will too. And you owe it to them to share your joy.
If you are one of the tens of listeners (just kidding ... sort of) to the Boundless podcast, here are a few things you can do to help us promote the show.
1) Subscribe through iTunes. Even if it's not your preferred media choice, new subscribers help our ranking. Which increases our visibility. Which may lead to new listeners. 2) After you've subscribed, take a minute to leave a review and a five star rating. Because we deserve it. 3) Link to our RSS feed from your blog. Just go here and follow the instructions. 4) Update your Facebook and Twitter pages as you're listening to the podcast (everytime) and include this link -- www.boundless.typepad.com/podcast. For example, "Motte Brown is listening to the Boundless podcast. It's the best podcast ever. (place link here)." Or something like that. 5) Get 10 friends to follow steps 1, 2, 3 and 4. Or just getting them to listen to show would be great too.
And feel free to submit your own promotional ideas in the comments section. If we've missed something, let us know.
A Zogby survey released yesterday says the tough economy is leading people to trim their budgets. Zogby found young adults leading the trimming -- especially in entertainment and education plans:
Younger adults are most likely to say they have cut back - 76% of those age 18-29 are spending less on entertainment, compared to 55% of those age 65 and older who say the same.
Nearly one in 10 (9%) have chosen to not pursue their educational plans or have changed their plans due to the cost - 13% of those younger than age 30 said the economy has put the pinch on their education plans in the past year.
How are you doing in those two categories these days?
At first I ask, How do I change this? Then, as resignation sets in, I wonder, How do I survive singleness? In particularly painful moments, I want to know more: Why should I be contented? Why should I stay the course? Does God see me? Does He even care?
I think most singles can relate to Elisabeth's feelings. I recently wrote an article on a similar topic. In it, I considered this question: "Am I valuable to God in my singleness?" The answer yes. Undeniably. I am chosen by God, eternally loved and redeemed for His purposes.
But feelings are another matter. Elisabeth talks about how her mother and grandmother got early starts on motherhood, while Elisabeth's story will be different. Those are the kinds of realities that can distract and discourage us from living in the moment God has for us today. They can make us wonder if our singleness is a waste. The author reminds us that a useful life — a life that glorifies God — is founded in truth. These truths include:
I am primarily defined as God's child (with all the blessings and responsibilities that entails), and not as a single woman.
The area of romance is not outside the realm of discipleship: God will use it to test me and refine me and bring me joy, just as He does with every other facet of my life.
Painful singleness can be godly singleness. God does not condemn me when I am upset. Those feelings have to go somewhere, and His ear and heart are the safest place.
Though I'm experiencing a different kind of pain than married people, we are all in the fellowship of suffering.
I can model true love while I'm single. Every day I continue to walk with Jesus, He gives me opportunity to exchange the "I-wants" stored up in my heart for the happiness of others. Because He loves me so outrageously, I can make a sacrifice, say "My pleasure," and find it is the exact truth.
Waiting won't stop when I enter a relationship. At each stage of friendship, courtship, and marriage, the future is still God's business. Mine is to habitually counter my imagination with the truth: Who this person really belongs to, what our true relationship is — today — and what true love will do for him as a result.
That is only part of the list Elisabeth provides. Truth is so important at any life stage. And, as the author points out, when we're walking in truth — whether single or married — none of our days is a waste ... not one single day.
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