The new Christianity Today magazine is out and the cover story has already generated a lot of buzz. Dr. Mark Regnerus from the University of Texas wrote a piece for CT called "The Case for Early Marriage."
This isn't a new topic for Boundless readers. Just recently, in fact, Dr. Regnerus joined us on The Boundless Show to address this topic.
What's impressive is that Christianity Today would elevate this topic for discussion with such a well-argued piece. I started highlighting interesting points to excerpt in this blog post and then realized I had highlighted almost the entire article. For that reason, I'll just encourage you to go read the whole piece -- including the related article "Restless, Reformed, and Single" that includes quotes from our very own Lisa Anderson.
And then let us know what you think of Dr. Regnerus's bold message.
Greetings from about 36000 feet up somewhere above north western Australia! I'm up here on a flight to Singapore, reading Boundless blog posts. Of course there is no internet up here so I'm reading Boundless posts I downloaded before I left and won't be sending this until I arrive in Singapore. It is wonderful to be able to be encouraged and challenged by boundless even up here!
I come from Melbourne, Australia where I have been studying international studies and sociology at university. The reason I am on this flight is that I am studying abroad in Singapore for a semester. It has certainly been a journey of faith so far trusting God in the midst of an assortment of trip related dramas. I am really excited about this opportunity. I'm looking forward to experiencing Christian community and living out my faith in a culture different to my own.
Feel you were wrongly arrested? Maybe you can settle the matter cordially over beers! (Well, if you know the President that is). This today in the SFGate:
The black scholar and the white police sergeant who arrested him agreed to disagree and promised to talk again, a gracious conclusion to the first round of an eye-opening dialogue on race that allows President Barack Obama to get back to selling his health care plan to skeptical Americans.
After accepting Obama's invitation to discuss the July 16 incident over a beer Thursday evening at the White House, both Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. Joseph Crowley thanked Obama for the cold ones served on a patio near the Rose Garden. Neither they nor the president offered apologies for their roles in the affair.
I keep thinking of this verse Steve read to the kids last night:
It is not for kings, O Lemuel
not for kings to drink wine,
not for rulers to crave beer,
lest they drink and forget what the law decrees,
and deprive all the oppressed of their rights
(Proverbs 31:4-5).
I used to make a big deal differentiating "dating" and "courting." I've lightened up.
To me, a "date" is simply a pre-arranged social engagement with someone to whom you may be attracted. To me, "dating" is a relationship in which two people regularly participate in this kind of engagement.
That's it.
A husband and wife can go out on a date. Both the worldly and the godly can do "dates" and "dating." You know, I'd even go so far as to say that group dates, which have a larger sense of camaraderie than one-and-one dates, could legitimately be considered "dates."
Yeah, maybe I define things more broadly than most.
Here's the thing. You can do "dates" and "dating" in ways that honor God, and in ways that dishonor Him. Simply put, as I've stated before (and updated slightly), I think dating that honors God is characterized by the following:
Intentionality (moving toward clarity about whether or not to marry)
Purity
Community (accountability to parents and/or mentors, and a degree of transparency about the relationship within the couple's community of believers)
Christian compatibility (serving God better together than apart)
If your dating (or courting, if you prefer that term) includes these characteristics, I think you're doing just fine. If your courting (or dating) is directionless, sexually impure, rejects input from parents or mentors or godly friends, or is not concerned about God's involvement in the relationship, then, to be frank, I think you could do better.
It's the second half of our Artist Roundup series, and you are in for a treat. Because believe it or not, you'll hear me interview...wait...here it comes...you'll be amazed...
It's true. I think he merits an entire show by himself, but Motte disagrees. Lame. So as the next best thing, My Man Bill is sharing the spotlight with Molly Jenson, a new artist from Southern California who is laid-back, fun and writes cool music like her current album, Maybe Tomorrow. Also in on the interview is Mark Joseph. He runs the label that houses Molly's music, but has his fingers all over the entertainment industry. I chat with them about indie music, the over-marketization (is that a word?) of all things Christian, and how to stay in the entertainment biz with your integrity intact. Oh, and we talk about lyrics, including my fave lyric from Sixpence None the Richer.
Then it's on to Bill. There's nothing really for me to say here, because I rhapsodize about him at length on the show itself. But you should know that in addition to his featured music this week (no, Bekah, it's not the entire song in each clip, the Gaither Vocal Band just has long songs), my interview with him is worth a listen. He talks about the legacy of Gospel music, what God has taught him in the past 70+ years, and what he hopes to see in and from our generation. He also assures me that, contrary to popular belief, I'm not a crazy stalker, but in fact his new BFF. Whew.
So for at least this week, give Southern Gospel a chance. And get a good dose of Molly, too. This is musical diversity at its best! But that's what we're about at The Boundless Show. It's all for you. (And maybe just a little bit for me.)
A Case for Praise by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 07/30/2009 at 2:54 PM
I've been somewhat baffled by the responses to my two posts about Zac Sunderland. This young man has clearly done something notable, but everyone seems unwilling to offer praise. Similarly, cynicism came out in response to Matt's post: Tim Tebow, Virgin.
Some of the reasons people have stated for not praising are: We don't know his motives. He may be finding his worth in performance (which ironically is assigning him a motive). As Christians we shouldn't be applauding this sort of feat, only accomplishments with overt spiritual value. We shouldn't be admiring a person, only God. Some people who accomplish great things go on to be failures spiritually, therefore we shouldn't praise them. Accomplishment does not equal value.
I'm going to be honest here. I found these arguments discouraging and even, at times, unbecoming to believers. As Christians we should be quick to praise. We should generously praise the work of others that is good, wholesome and praiseworthy without being so concerned about whether the person is wholly deserving. Our praise does not have to be some kind of blanket sanction of a person's character or life, but we should be willing to give praise where praise is due.
Ed taught me this.
Ed Covall was the worship leader at a Christian camp I attended as a teen. He would encourage us to praise those around us when we saw them doing good. He used to say: "Let your praise come from another man's lips." In other words, praise is good; just don't praise yourself. He took this from Proverbs 27:2 which says: "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your own lips."
It's true that what we consider praiseworthy may be subjective, but many actions and feats demonstrate clear biblical principles. Zac setting out to tackle a difficult task and seeing it through to completion is an example of a good work ethic, which is lauded repeatedly in Scripture. I'd like to encourage believers to be more generous with their praise. Occasionally our praise may be misplaced, but the majority of the time it will provide the godly affirmation mentioned in Hebrews 10:24: "And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds."
Why be stingy with praise when it holds so much power?
What's your take on it? Fun and celebratory, or tacky and irreverent? Personally, I'm torn. Let's be honest, with my love of hip-hop, it's no surprise that I think stuff like this is awesome. In fact, friends from all over the globe have sent me this clip saying, "Lisa, I can totally see you doing this!" I agree. Somewhere in my head I picture myself staging some choreographed craziness for a processional, recessional, or whatever. Though I'd probably pick something even more ghetto, like Flo Rida's "Low." But at the same time, I believe that a wedding is a sacred event -- a worship service -- and the focus really should be on Christ, and not my ability to pop, lock or krump.
If I get married in my current church or by any of its pastors, my answer will be decided for me. At my church, stuff like this is a no-go. My friend got married in October, and actually wanted the song used in the vid above (it's Chris Brown's "Forever," for those who are wondering) as her recessional. The pastor said "no," citing our church's wedding policy. I understand completely. But the rebellious streak in me (which, not surprisingly, must be vigilantly kept in check) said, "This girl got a good man! She's another success story for single girls everywhere! Let her run out of this church with him to wonderfully styled electronica, vamping and a fierce back-beat!"
Maybe that's best saved for the reception. I rewatched Jill's and Kevin's dance as the entire wedding party was invited to recreate it on the Today show. I liked it even better here, outside and in no danger of overshadowing something more important, like, say ... making a lifelong sacred covenant with someone.
Matt recently blogged about the appointment of Dr. Francis Collins to head the National Institutes of Health. There was grumbling among some that an outspoken evangelical Christian such as Dr. Collins should be appointed to this position, since he might let his faith "interfere" with his scientific judgments.
Okay, some went beyond grumbling. PZ Myers, an obnoxiously outspoken hater of all things Christian, called Collins an "idjit" and a clown. And professional atheist Sam Harris recently penned an op-ed in The New York Times questioning the choice of Dr. Collins. (This would be the same Sam Harris who warns about the dangers and illogic of the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam but himself is intrigued by psychic phenomena, reincarnation and Eastern mysticism.)
But I'm wondering why there's virtual silence about another appointment by President Obama, his Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the so-called "science czar." Except for a few sources, you'd never know that John Holdren once considered compulsory abortion and sterilization to control a supposed population bomb that would destroy mankind. (Coincidentally, Candice blogged about a similar topic yesterday.)
Holdren coauthored a 1977 book called Ecoscience with Malthusian "scientists" Paul and Anne Ehrlich. They considered, among other things, putting "sterilants" in a population’s water supply to render all the females infertile. The authors eventually reject this proposal, not on any moral or legal grounds, but because it would ultimately be impractical. Holdren also declared the traditional family of mother, father and children to be "obsolete" and decries our culture's "pro-natalist" beliefs. Holdren denies advocating these things, but his denial doesn’t pass the smell test.
This stuff is far scarier and far more radical than anything Dr. Collins has ever said, but I don’t see the same coverage or any grumbling by the usual suspects worried about someone out of the "scientific mainstream" holding such an important position.
I am a fairly new reader/subscriber to Boundless in comparison to some who have read it years and years. But I am a fan, nonetheless. It is one of the highlights of my daily ritual of "mail" reading. I appreciate this ministry and the thought-provoking articles. The authors and editors really care and write timely messages that "hit home."
I was surprised to see just how wide the circle of Boundless readers is around the world! It is encouraging to know we are really not alone in our 'aloneness' or singleness!
Did influential 19th century British scholar Thomas Malthus really say we'd run out of food? Did he really think we should kill off poor people to make room for the rich? Did he think disease should go untreated?
Unlimited Teen by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 07/29/2009 at 1:19 PM
A few weeks ago, I blogged about Zac Sunderland, the 17-year-old who was the youngest person ever to circumnavigate the world alone. The feat took Zac 13 months.
Several of you commented that you don't have to take a voyage to prove your manhood. This is true. However, it is Zac's fortitude to see a project through start to finish that makes him stand out from among his peers.
Looks like Zac has been keeping some pretty good company since his return. He writes: "A lot of young people were fired up not to be limited by other peoples' low expectations." I like his 1 Timothy 4:12 attitude.
Ask a random group of people that question and you have a pretty good idea what answers you'll get. But what happens if you ask it to a group of religious people?
"I work primarily from home, and these telemarketing jackasses call at all hours of the day," fumes Hillary Fields, who's not actually all that mean to them, but who's awfully tempted to be. She knows that some people only do it because it's the only job they can find. Still, "when these callers have violated the sanctity of our homes in this insistent and unwelcome manner, do they deserve anything resembling courteous treatment in response?"
Seems to me the issue here isn't just what they deserve, but also what kind of people we want to be. Which means we want to be firm as we can, but also as nice as we can -- without encouraging them to keep on talking to us.
Here's what I do: As soon as I'm sure it's a telemarketer (which takes about three seconds), I interrupt and say: "I'm sorry, I'm not interested. Please remove this number from your call list." (Legally, they have to comply -- I think.) I add, "Have a nice day," pause just a second, and hang up.
The tone of voice is important here. I don't want to give them the slightest opening to keep talking, or they're under orders to keep trying. But I also want to sound as pleasant as possible. (I use my Public Radio announcer voice.) I don't want to convey anger or irritation, because calling me isn't their idea, and because they get enough of that every day as it is. I don't want them to get the idea that I'm blaming them for doing what they're told -- unless they're extra-aggressive, which I rarely give them a chance to be.
I figure this way I'm not only getting them off my back, I'm doing them a favor. I'm getting the call over with as quickly as possible so they can move on to their next call. I'm getting my name off their list so they don't waste time trying to make a sale that's not going to happen. And I'm avoiding making their day any more unpleasant than it already is.
That's me. What do you do? Or what do you think you should do?
Women, you've read the Guy's Guide. You've passed it on to your friends and relatives and potential mates. And for that, we thank you. But we didn't forget you. Now it's your turn. A Girl's Guide to Marrying Well is here!
Full of many of the things you asked for (100 suggestions and counting) and some you didn't, The Girl's Guide is 63 digital pages of advice, biblical wisdom, quirky illustrations, encouraging anecdotes and more, all cloaked in a Tiffany blue cover and available now, for free.
If you've ever wondered what you can be doing to prepare for marriage, even before you've met "the one," if you've wanted to help a friend be more intentional about her hopes for marriage, if you've worried that maybe marriage has passed you by, this is a must-read.
Here's a peek at the introduction,
Most women hope to marry, but for many, it's not happening like they thought it would. It seems too far away, or too unlikely, given the men they know and those they're meeting....
It's not enough to just coast along, counting on today's dating culture, and our culture's definition of marriage, to deliver a God-honoring and timely marriage to a good man. If you hope to marry well, you need to do more — and less — than what the culture says.
You need to read this guide! (And guys, if you're still reading this blog post and you haven't read The Guy's Guide, get to it!) Women, just go to our Girl's Guide Web page, enter your e-mail address and follow the instructions for downloading your very own copy. It's easy.
The guide is divided into sections that mirror the Guy's Guide: Intentionality, Purity, Community and Christian Compatibility, but from a feminine perspective. If you're a woman who hopes to marry well (or you know one who does), it may be just what you're looking for. We hope so.
(This print version of the Guide is begin debuted August 3-7 at the AMFM conference in Phoenix. If you would like to place a bulk order, please email us at editor@boundless.org.)
In today's featured article, "Crush Catalyst" Carolyn McCulley puts a fresh spin on the "set-up." Having enjoyed great success in the past several years helping young men meet and get to know the objects of their affections, McCulley says it's time to push the concept to a larger audience:
These days, I don't have many clients left. Nearly all are married, and the remaining few are in serious relationships. So now I must franchise.
I've made it my personal mission to go around encouraging married people to introduce their single friends to each other. (Singles can do this, too -- obviously -- but I've noticed a far greater success rate when the married man has a timely suggestion for the single man!) My motto is: "It's only an introduction, people!"
I'm being serious here. If the church would help singles meet and marry, we wouldn't have big business rushing in to profit off of our desire to meet one another.
Some of you have read the story of how I met my fiancé, Kevin. It's true that we met on our own. However, in the time between when we met and when we began dating, Kevin had a "crush catalyst" of his own. His older sister attended our church, and I would chat with her on occasion. At one point she told Kevin, "You need to marry a girl like THAT." Her encouragement made an impression, because Kevin highly respected her opinion.
McCulley writes:
God can use you to network on behalf of your single friends. The difference often lies in how much prayer you put into the situation and how discerning you are. Do not force two otherwise-incompatible people to meet simply because they are single, of the opposite gender, and they show up in church occasionally. Do consider mutual interests, energies, temperaments, and shared outlooks. You aren't in charge of creating the spark, but you can at least foster a good friendship -- and that means the two being introduced shouldn't have to wonder why you thought they could be friends!
Kevin's sister's encouragement was specific. She saw that I was involved in the same kind of ministry as her brother and noticed the ways in which I might complement him. In the end, her involvement made a big impact. The idea of a matchmaker may be outdated, but singles can always use help on the road to matrimony.
Last August I found myself pining after a good digital camera. I ended up buying a Nikon D40 ... along with a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor lens, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor lens, a Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR lens, three Hoya HMC Haze UV filters, a Hoya 52mm RM-72 Infrared filter, a Hoya 52mm Circular Polarizer Glass filter, a Nikon SB-800 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight, a couple of slave strobes and a couple of lens hoods.
Near the end of October 2008, one of my friends from church provided me with a VIP pass to some random event, and so I had the perfect opportunity to use my new camera. The event took place in a baseball park; most attendees were in the stands, but those of us in the VIP section were on the field, just feet away from the podium. There were maybe three rows of people between me and the podium, so I was able to get some great photos.
I'm interested in becoming a better photographer, and so I'd like to get your feedback on my photography work. Please let me know what you think of the composition, the lighting, the focus and bokeh, and so on. Those of you who are pros, give me your thoughts on how I might have adjusted aperture, shutter speed and ISO to get better results.
In yesterday's Boundless Answers, John Thomas responded to a young man who says he's doing everything right to pursue women in a godly way, but never seems to get second dates. Thomas asked him to consider whether he was putting in enough effort in the pre-dating phase:
Just imagine all that goes into actually hitting a ball that is whizzing toward you at over 90 miles per hour, on a curved trajectory, being thrown by someone who specializes in getting you to miss the ball (and who might just decide to throw it at you)! Eyes, muscles, brain synapses and hours upon hours of training all coming down to an instant of perfect timing.
In the same way, we don't just pick out a godly girl, ask her on a date, tell her we're interested in possibly marrying her because marriage glorifies God, and expect her heart to melt. Now, I'm sure you haven't been quite that cavalier about it, but you get my point.
I've been on the receiving end of this approach. A woman can tell when she's just on a job interview for the role of wife. Of course, single women want men to pursue them. But a woman also wants to know that a man is pursuing her because of her unique qualities -- not just because he's in need of a wife. Thomas continues in this vein:
She's godly? Great. She's humble? Wonderful. I'm glad those are at the top of your list for qualities in a potential wife. They should be. But you're seeking a wife, not buying a fuel-efficient car. You need to let your heart in on the action too.
Remember: You're pursuing a person, not an institution. Yes, being married glorifies God, but it does so because two people love each other in such a way that it points others to the love that Jesus and His Church have for one another.
Thomas' statement about pursuing the person, not the institution, is wise. Andy Stanley in his sermon series iMarriage talks about how focusing on the institution can extend into marriage. He points out that you'll often hear someone in a struggling marriage say: "I'm doing this because I care about the marriage." That sentiment is misplaced. A better perspective is, "I'm doing this because I care about Mary."
It's not about the marriage; it's about the person. And those are the kinds of relationships that point others to Christ.
Last week, after reviewing some recent blood work, my doctor told me I need to take iron supplements. "You're not anemic, but you're low," he said. I was moderately relieved, because this pronouncement meant I no longer must attribute my feelings of sluggishness to dinners of Diet Pepsi and Twizzlers, or late-night sessions playing the game "Waterslide" on my iPhone. ("I'm low on iron! There's a medical reason for my lethargy! I can still eat corn syrup and synthetic chemicals and get only five hours of sleep per night! A pill will solve my problem!")
That said, I was a bit stunned to learn that I can't get my iron from a multivitamin. "That's not enough," my doctor said as he scribbled a prescription. After retrieving the bottle of red capsules from my pharmacy, I popped one into my mouth, and nearly choked. It literally tasted like a rusty nail.
While taking this morning's pill (simultaneously holding my breath and pledging to eat raw animal livers and scrap metal in the future), I was reminded of yesterday's Sunday school lesson. We studied Matthew 7, which begins, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." It goes on to talk about removing a log from your own eye before going after the speck in your neighbor's. After reading the passage, our class began a lively discussion on biblical confrontation: when it's necessary, when it's not, how to do it well, and how to respond to it (also well).
It's obvious that confronting sin in ourselves and others is necessary, as are resulting confession and forgiveness. As Christians, we don't do this enough, and the Church has the wounds to prove it. But what about confronting someone not with blatant sin, but merely some possible points of improvement? Proverbs 27:17 says, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." This refers not to spirit and character demolition, but refinement. Most of us know we have issues, so why do we fool ourselves into thinking we don't? Why not open ourselves up to honest assessment by others, and allow them to point out things that could move us one step closer to relational, emotional and spiritual maturity?
Do you monopolize conversations? Are you stand-offish? Passive-aggressive? Do more people know your medical or mental health history than is necessary? Do you wear skanky-low tops or a brown belt with black shoes? If so, let someone tell you. Ask someone to tell you.
In a spirit of disclosure, here are a few things I've been told recently:
"You occasionally give off an 'intimidating' vibe."
"I feel like you sometimes treat me condescendingly."
"I need you to 'sandwich' your constructive criticism."
"I know you didn't mean it, but it hurt me when..."
"Those boots make you too tall. Guys won't like that."
I have taken every one of these comments to heart, and have seen the wisdom contained within. And believe it or not, I'm still friends with each person who uttered them. Just as an iron deficiency robs me of physical energy, an "iron sharpening iron" deficiency robs me of spiritual energy. And maturity. And perhaps marriability, if we're being honest.
Do you have that nagging feeling that people should be telling you stuff, but aren't? Or worse, do you think you're all that when (trust me) everyone else thinks differently? This is a sure symptom of "iron" deficiency. So get real, and let people get in your business. Get your mentors and friends up in your grill, and start growing. Let's be a community of adults who mature instead of languishing in our lameness.
By the way, if you currently sport a mullet, wear movie-themed T-shirts (men) or Disney-themed T-shirts (women), start every sentence with "I," and/or are emotionally closer to your latest online match than you are to your best friend, you're messed up and need to start this process immediately. There -- I just started the ball rolling...
This is a picture of downtown Baghdad near the International Zone (AKA the "Green Zone"). I serve as the photographer for the general here and we frequently fly over the city to get to the embassy and to visit with other troops around the country.
I enjoy reading your articles every day and listening to the Boundless show during flights. Thanks for the great advice!
Well, I've officially been part of the Boundless blogging team for just over a week, and every day since then I've unsuccessfully stared at my computer screen trying to write my first blog.
Not a good sign for someone aspiring to be a full-time writer.
Perhaps that occupational test I took my junior year of high school was right and I should just be a mime. Seriously. That's not a joke. No offense to those of you who are mimes; I just didn't realize occupational tests got that specific in high school.
Anyway, in my defense, I did come up with of lots of very specific ideas. It was just that I realized the rest of the team beat me to it by weeks, months, or even years in some cases. So congrats to them to being so on top of things.
With that, I'll just let this serve as my introduction to you all. I'm looking forward to being a part of the blog, and I promise I'll do a better job at coming up with some topics. However, if you have any ideas of things you'd like to see me address, feel free to let me know in the comments below.
If you pay even a little attention to sports, you know who Tim Tebow is: University of Florida quarterback, Heisman Trophy winner, led his team to two straight national championships. You may also know that Tebow's very open about his Christian faith: He does missionary work (including prison ministry), and has been known to wear Scripture verses on his face. Which led a reporter at a recent press conference to ask him the sort of question people didn't used to ask. Here's one account of what happened:
You no longer need to wonder if the devoutly spiritual Tim Tebow is a virgin.
Now you know.
Responding to a question from radio reporters at SEC Media Days Thursday about whether he is saving himself for marriage, Tebow laughed initially and then said seriously, "Yes, I am."
When another reporter stumbled through and couldn't finish a follow-up question, the 21-year-old University of Florida quarterback laughed and said, "I think you're stunned right now. You can't even ask a question.... I was ready for that question, but I don't think y'all were."
Kinda makes you wish you were there, doesn't it? (You can, at least, listen to the tape.)
It's debatable whether a press conference was the place for that question. But the reporter who asked it insists that he wasn't trying to play "gotcha." On the contrary, he expected Tebow would answer that way:
Why did I believe this? Because Tebow lives his faith. And I believe that living his faith is not artificial, he's not pretending to be something he's not. Further, I don't believe that saving yourself for marriage is something to hide from. Not in the evangelical Christian faith that Tim Tebow practices in a Southern church and not in the evangelistic Southern church where I was raised.
At my Southern Baptist church, proclaiming that you were saving yourself for marriage was considered an asset, something to be proud of. Mothers bragged about their daughters or their sons public proclamation of chastity until marriage. Saving yourself for marriage wasn't something that people hid. They talked about it openly. In fact, people even wore tangible objects to reflect their purity, bracelets or rings that served as vivid evidence of their chastity pledges.
The reporter goes on to note that Tebow's response is more than just a personal choice: It's the sort of thing that can -- and maybe even (*gasp*) should -- influence other people's choices too.
I guarantee you come Sunday across the South ministers will approach their pulpits and use Tebow's virginity as an example to the flock. After all, if Tebow can resist countless girls throwing themselves at him on a regular basis, is it really valid for you or I or countless others to argue that preserving our virginity was just too difficult? Maybe. But I think it's much tougher. Like many things in life, it all comes down to a choice. And Tebow controls his own choices better than most.
That's the real story here: Tebow's willingness to be an individual in a time when it's easy to get lost in the crowd by making the popular decision. Good for him for standing up for his faith publicly, as he's done countless times before.
The only thing I can think to add is: Let's not make those Southern ministers do all the work. Let's all pitch in to spread this story -- and this message -- around.
Is God enough? In his article "When The Darkness Closes In," Mike Ensley says no. It's a provocative claim but one I imagine all of us feel at times. Ensley writes:
Don't think that I'm saying God is insufficient to fulfill all our needs. Again, like the sun, He is the ultimate source of all that sustains us. But if we do not receive everything we require straight from the Throne, it's because He wants it that way. Even when sin had not yet entered the picture, when God made His first human and was in perfect harmony with him, God decided it was not enough.
God gave Adam a purpose in the garden and a fellow human being to be his companion. Ensley writes: "In short, Adam needed God and he needed purpose, he needed a future and he needed other people."
And so it is human to feel like something is missing, even when God is clearly there, meeting us in the valleys of life. Ensley recalls a time of depression when he had to force out the words of the ubiquitous Matt Redman song: "You give and take away, my heart will choose to say, Lord blessed be your name." And in that moment of choosing to bless God in spite of his pain, Ensley felt the Father's touch most strongly. Perhaps that is because God knows what it feels like to suffer. Consider Jesus' anguish in Gethsemane:
I don't think Jesus ever did anything for show, or just to fulfill a prophecy for prophecy's sake. There is endless contemplative matter in this pure expression of Jesus' genuine agony. He said "Your will be done," but He also needed to say the first part because the feeling was real.
I don't invoke this scene as a comparison to make our pain look small. It's cold and condescending when people do that. But here is God willing to taste the worst of human pain — not so that He could say He understands — He already could have said that — but so we would know it. We would always have the proof, in this desperate and unfathomable cry from the Son to the Father.
And perhaps that is the greatest comfort of all when darkness closes in ... that our God has been there and understands our pain. When the road is marked with suffering and there is pain in the offering, we are following in the steps of our Savior.
China is known for the one-child policy it adopted in order to control population growth, but now the New York Timesreports that China is encouraging babies again in order to balance out their growing elderly population:
Shanghai is urging eligible couples to have two children as worries about the looming liability of an aging population outweighs concerns about over-stretched resources, a city official said on Friday.
The policy marks the first time in decades Chinese officials have actively encouraged procreation.
...The U.S.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies warned in April that by 2050 China would have more than 438 million people over 60 years of age, with more than 100 million aged 80 and above.
The country will have just 1.6 working-age adults to support every person aged 60 and above, compared with 7.7 in 1975.
This news is a reminder of how important population trends are for young adults. Despite conventional wisdom, most of the population growth in the world is coming -- not from people having lots of babies -- but from health advances that allow people to live longer. But when more people are living longer, countries need to have enough new people being born to provide care for their older population (offering face-to-face care and paying taxes to support private and government pension programs).
Today's (and tomorrow's) young adults will have to find solutions for the care of a massive senior population. China's latest action puts them alongside Japan, Singapore, Russia, and other countries that believe a big part of that solution is having more babies.
I'm here in our lovely dungeon basement office in rather unexciting Eastpointe MI (just over the 8 mile border from Detroit).
You can find me checking Boundless everyday here when the phone calls are at a lull.
I want to thank the Boundless team for their dedication, diligence and perseverance in their work. I can't tell you how many times a relational issue/question has been on my mind and I walk into work to find that your daily article is addressing that same issue/question. I think it attests to how you allow the Spirit to work through you.
I pray you guys can continue with your work unhindered.
I've been staying out of the health-care debate on this site. It's not that I have no opinions, but so many other people have chimed in already—and so many are more knowledgeable than I am—that I haven't felt the impulse to jump in.
But there's one big issue we haven't really focused on yet: Will the health-care overhaul effort end up funding abortion? That question is finally getting attention the last few days, thanks to a group of pro-life Democrats in Congress. Here's the upshot, as reported by the Associated Press:
Abortion is not mentioned in the 1,018-page bill that Democratic leaders hope will be approved by the last of three House committees this week. Supporters of the legislation say that means the bill is neutral.
But abortion opponents say the bill's silence is precisely the problem.
Without an explicit prohibition on federal funding for abortion, it could be included in taxpayer-subsidized coverage offered through the health overhaul plan, abortion opponents say.
"We cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan," a group of 20 Democratic representatives said in a June 25 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
When the legislation was unveiled last week, it failed to include language abortion opponents were seeking. Now they are going public.
Democratic leaders are trying hard to duck the question: They've got enough challenges as it is without entangling their plans with abortion politics. They're searching for a way to keep both sides of the issue happy. But there's no realistic way to split the difference here, as AP ably explains. A few more excerpts:
Not only do abortion opponents want to block funding, they also want to make sure that the procedure is not included in the benefits package....
Abortion rights supporters say prohibiting plans in the exchange from covering the procedure amounts to taking away a right that women now have....
[Some lawmakers propose] a compromise that would leave the decision on abortion coverage up to insurers doing business in the exchange, but forbid the carriers from using any dollars from federal subsidies to pay for ending pregnancies....However, it's unclear whether insurance companies could keep federal subsidies separate from other funds they receive from individuals and employers to cover premiums.
Like I said, no way to split the difference. One side will win here and the other will lose, and both sides know it. If abortion isn't clearly excluded by law, it will be included in practice.
Whatever you think of the health-care overhaul on the whole, you've got to worry a lot about this part. For those of us who are convinced that abortion takes a helpless human life, it's a matter of conscience.
In today's featured article, Alex Chediak covers a lot of ground regarding the balance between leadership and submission in men and women. Toward the end of the article, Chediak makes an interesting point about wives:
In a marriage relationship, a strong wife is an asset to her husband. She can give him insightful feedback, expand his horizons to matters he may not have considered, and lovingly rebuke him when he is sinning. What a godly wife aims for at such moments is an attitude that, while affirming his leadership, seeks to sharpen it.
She is not seeking to take advantage of his weaknesses by usurping his leadership. Rather, she wishes to encourage, advise, correct, and rebuke to the end that his leadership might be enhanced, his effectiveness increased, his capacities enlarged. "She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her life" (Prov. 31:12).
I found this interesting, because I have sometimes seen a woman's strength criticized. Perhaps this is because people associate strength in a woman with inappropriate forcefulness:
The domineering woman, on the other hand, is the usurper. Her desire is to rule over her husband or the men around her. Such a woman may get what she wants, only to be grieved by the emasculation of the men in her midst.
A domineering woman will often treat her husband as though she thinks he is a wimp, although she may never admit that publicly or even to herself.
What is the balance between strength and submission? It seems the answer lies in attitude and motives. There is a difference between over-comer and usurper. Read the article; it offers a lot of practical advice for men and women. Here's why it matters:
Young women, do you see him displaying gentle, bold, self-sacrificial, God-centered, others-conscious leadership in his own life and in his sphere of influence? The kind of leadership that will give you a solid framework in which you can not only joyfully submit but flourish in the gifts God has given you?
Young men, is her behavior, attitude, and demeanor indicative of the responsive, affirming, intelligent, life-giving companioning that you seek?
May God bless your single years with fruitful growth in grace, preparing you for the recognition and pursuit of a life-long mate.
Almost three years ago, I blogged about hands-free phone devices:
I understand the value in hands-free communication, but I'm still not tracking with the need to keep them clamped on your ear all the time. As someone is walking around donning the cyborg look, I wonder if they are in the middle of a conversation. Like someone with iPod earbuds in, I think they are trying to tune out -- not wanting to engage with those around them. Am I the only one who thinks that?
At the time, I suspected it was an innovation we were all just going to have to get used to -- another step in the technological march. But I've noticed that such devices have been on the wane and now Wired magazine is encouraging folks to ditch what they call an "ear mullet."
Wired especially takes to task anyone who was using a hands-free device specifically as a status symbol:
The whole notion of electronic gadgets conferring status applies only within the small tribe that is geekdom. If you're out among normals, flaunting your tech doesn't make you look like the King of Coolsville, it makes you look like Count Clueless of Dorkylvania.
I didn't know current British Open Champion Stewart Cink was a Christian. Though according to this blog from WORLD, the ABC announcers gave us clues last weekend during the telecast when they called him a "gentleman" and a "kind man" and a "good guy," which blogger Mickey McLean refers to as TV code for "Christian."
It was that nagging question believers often ask non-believers that haunted Cink for years -- "If you die today, will you go to heaven?" It's the ultimate question really. The kind that makes everything else seem, well, less significant.
For some, the effect doesn't last. For others, it produces a sort of eternal restlessness. That's how it was for Cink.
"I had to get the answer," he said in a 2005 interview posted at the Links Player International site. "I had to know more." (Links, by the way, is a ministry designed to "link" golfers from around the world in Christ.)
His wife, who was already a believer, helped him in finding that answer. And after becoming a Christian in 2000, Cink, who's had his share of ups and downs in his career, developed a whole new perspective on his game.
"I tell you what," he continued in the interview, "there have been times in the game of golf when I've been unhappy with the way I performed. But all I have to do is think about how trivial and insignificant it is to have a 75 one day when I think about what Jesus gave up for me. That puts it into perspective so quickly. If I didn't have that, if I'd never been asked the question, or if my wife had never kept it in front of me, today I may never have been able to put that kind of disappointment away."
Yes, Christ's sacrifice puts all things into perspective. But especially making a few bogeys on the golf course.
In an effort to get my point across with a splash, I'm going to be hyperbolic:
Singing a hymn at church is not worship.
Playing guitar at small group is not worship.
Humming along to a song in your car is not worship.
Raising your hands on Sunday morning is not worship.
What the band does on stage is not worship.
These may be expressions of worship, but the worship itself takes place attheheartlevel. It's my heart's response to relationship with my Creator. It's something I do "in spirit and in truth." No sound waves are involved.
Without something taking place in the heart, the hymn and guitar and song and hands and band are simply noisy gongs or clanging cymbals, signifying nothing.
When our hearts worship the Lord -- that is, when our wills are aligned with His, when we humbly concur with His judgments, when we are grateful for His lovingkindness, when we are overwhelmed with His holiness -- then we might express this worship with our bodies.
We may give money to the local church or serve at a crisis pregnancy center. We may work diligently, even when the boss is not around. We may say no to extramarital sexual activity. We may ask forgiveness, and extend forgiveness.
These are all everyday expressions what's going on in our hearts, all expressions of worship.
Or we may sing a song, we may strum a guitar, we may hum, we may raise our hands, we may rock with the band. But again, those activities are not necessarily worship: They're merely symptoms of the worship that occurs within us toward God.
* * *
So now I'm left wondering: If heart-level worship is behind all the activities of our Christian lives, if our work and our giving and our purity and our singing can be expressions of worship, why can't our attitude -- that mediator between our hearts and our actions -- sometimes look the same from activity to activity?
For example, if my God-honoring hard work is punctuated by moments of light-heartedness with co-workers, why can't an appropriate amount of light-heartedness be present when I'm with co-church attendees? Why do I have to express worship in such a "reverential" way in the church sanctuary, while I'm free to express my heart's worship in a more "conversational" or "relational" way in other areas of my life?
The next time I'm singing in church, I'll resist the urge to furrow my brow in concentration, I'll resist the urge to have a pained "I'm worshiping" look on my face, I'll resist the urge to work so hard to invoke the Spirit who isalways among us.
Instead, I'll simply enjoy the music and resonate with the lyrics, worshiping my Savior in the same everyday way that I worship Him while cooking a meal for friends or doing dishes with my wife.
I am single. I'm not ashamed to say it. Most of the time I'm OK with it. By "OK" I mean I don't break down in tears after attending my fifth wedding in one summer. I don't mourn with a tub of mint chocolate chip and "Sleepless in Seattle" every time I have a quiet Saturday night ... or four. And I barely cringe when my married friends get a twinkle in their eye and utter those dreaded words: "Soooo (they drag this word out endlessly), is there a guy in your life?"
It seems Rachel Starr Thomson finds herself at a similar point in life. In today's featured article, she writes:
Before I attended that first wedding back in May, I was as thoroughly happy being single as I've ever been, but now I must admit that my ship of singleness feels a little less even-keel than it used to. I am not strictly envious, nor strictly lonely, but I am definitely wistful. Also wry (a Jane Austen-like sense of humor is a marvelous advantage during wedding season). And doing a lot of thinking.
My own position is odder than most, I think, because not only am I a single young woman whose friends are all getting married (not really an uncommon position to be in), I'm a single young woman who's never been entirely convinced that God was calling her to get married. Ever.
Thus, the position I find myself in is one of watching my friends face into futures that are taking shape, with comforting lines and seemingly predictable challenges, while my own future still looks like an open horizon at sea. Light and darkness in a sky that goes on forever.
I see Thomson's point. Married life seems more settled than single life. When you get married there is a sketched-out plan: enjoy newlywedness, have children (most likely), establish a home, save for the future, grow old together. In singleness, there can be a sense of waiting ... is "the plan" just around the corner or will it never arrive? And in light of not knowing, what should I do?
In "Single While Active," I addressed the action side of this waiting period; Thomson addresses its inherent worth. Singleness is a time where God speaks (and we are perhaps more available to listen), she says. It is a time where we can focus on building an intimate relationship with Him while also establishing sweet community with those around us. Additionally, singles may have more flexibility to make big plans and more time to invest in championing the family.
In the end, it's very dangerous to compare singleness to married life and say that God is at work more in one than in the other. Thomson emphasizes that what makes married and single the same -- God's desire to glorify Himself through willing lives -- is more important than what makes them different.
I'll settle down on my little ship tonight, swallow away my human confidence, and glory in all the possible futures that lay before me. One thing I know: Married or single, there's wonder and holiness in all our paths.
Thomson has discovered the heart of the matter. Our ships aren't as different as they may seem. After all, they're headed in the same direction. And there's profound comfort in that.
It's not surprising that the recession has many cutting back. But what's interesting is what we're choosing to cut back on in this difficult economy.
According to this Pew study, products and services we considered necessities just a few years ago have been replaced by high-tech products and services. Take, for example, the microwave oven. I mean, who can live without a microwave? Apparently, a lot of us can if it means getting an iPod Touch.
Pew explains that "technology adoption" is changing judgments about wants vs. needs.
Take cell phones. A relative newcomer in the everyday lives of most Americans, the cell phone is among a handful of newer gadgets that have held their own on the necessity scale from 2006 to 2009. Moreover, it may have contributed to a drop in necessity ratings for the older-era appliance it has partially supplanted. The survey finds that people who consider a cell phone a necessity -- some 49% of the public, including a disproportionate share of young adults -- are less inclined than others to feel the same way about a landline phone.
Other products and services faring well in the recession include flat screen tvs and high-speed internet. And it's not just what we're buying, it's how we're buying. Which for some means saying so long to Whole Foods and hello to Super Wal-Mart.
Almost six-in-ten say they are shopping more in discount stores or are passing up name brands in favor of less expensive varieties. Nearly three-in-ten adults say they've cut back spending on alcohol or cigarettes. About one-in-four say they've reduced spending on their cable or satellite television service or canceled the service altogether. About one-in-five say they've gone with a less expensive cell phone plan, or canceled service. One-in-five say they've started mowing their own lawn or doing home repairs rather than pay others for the service. And about one-in-five adults say they are following the example of first lady Michelle Obama and are making plans to plant a vegetable garden to save money on food.
Last week on Boundless, Michael Lawrence wrote about the opportunities that exist when you're unemployed. And there are opportunities when finances are simply tighter as well. Like finding out what you value most and becoming better stewards of your money.
I know you have already received some NYC pictures, but wanted to send mine along as well! This is down the street from where I live and every time I walk down it, I think it is so beautiful and the quintessential New York City picture! :)
I've kept up with Boundless for many years and am always amazed at how far it reaches! It is a constant source for me as I navigate this time in my life, and I hope you all realize what an inspiration you are. It is so refreshing to listen (and read) things so aligned with what I believe and to see/hear discussions of issues that are so relevant to us in this culture and this time. I often find myself listening to the Boundless podcast while out walking around the city, so I figured this picture would say it all!
Last week the Episcopal Church USA accelerated its drive to embrace homosexuality (gay bishops, gay weddings, etc.). It's been coming for a while in this church body, which has had a very public controversy over the issue since they ordained openly gay bishop Eugene Robinson. And not surprisingly, the church has been losing members even more rapidly than the other old liberal "mainline" churches.
As U.S. News & World Report religion writer Dan Gilgoff notes, "the churches most open to homosexuality are shrinking fastest." Gilgoff quotes a defender of the Episcopal trend, one Mark Silk:
In a word, the Episcopalians are moving with all deliberate speed to fully normalize the status of gays and lesbians within their church. More conservative religious bodies will of course regard this as surrendering to the culture, but the truth is that all religious bodies must slow march to the beat of the culture if they expect to remain relevant to the lives of their members — that is, unless they want to relegate themselves to sectarian status. The Episcopalians are more willing to own up to this than most; indeed, they are doing so precisely by citing the changes in civil law respecting same-sex marriage.
What revealing comments. The church must "slow march to the beat of the culture" — and take its moral authority from "changes in civil law respecting same-sex marriage." Thanks for the candor, Mr. Silk. You've just adopted a position diametrically opposed to the proper role of the church — to stand for eternal truth against the world, and to stand strongest precisely when the world most loudly demands the truth be abandoned.
I can hardly think of a better illustration of what this conflict is really about: Not only sexuality, not only marriage — important as those issues are — but whether the church will be the church at all.
I've always been under the impression that you love your job and are fulfilled by it: You work for a prominent ministry organization, get to make a living with writing, and meet interesting people as part of a day's work. Do you think this has made singleness easier for you, in terms of feeling like you have a Kingdom purpose in spite of not having a husband?
It seems that one reason singleness is difficult for many is that their jobs are often monotonous and joyless, and finding a new job is *much* easier said than done. In many cases, these circumstances are easier tolerated bv married individuals who have a spouse and/or kids to provide for. Of course, we all have a purpose under God -- no matter what our careers are, no matter what our marital status is -- but singles working in boring corporate jobs to provide only for themselves tend to have to put forth more effort to see this.
I thought this was a great question and one that was worth exploring. First of all, I would readily admit that finding a "good fit" in my career has delivered a sense of satisfaction during the past nine years. I do get to work at something I enjoy and am good at. Because of this, my job is one place I really fit and therefore gain a sense of identity. And, yes, I believe this had made singleness easier in some ways because I'm the successful-at-her-career girl. This even plays out within my family. My brother married young and became "family guy," but I never felt any undue pressure to marry because I was viewed as successful as a person, partly because of my career.
While my job has been one source of satisfaction in my life, there are many others. At the top of my list: my relationship with Jesus Christ, good friends, fun hobbies (improv comedy and running), supportive family and a loving, vibrant church community. So, I wouldn't credit my positive outlook on life or ability to cope with singleness to career satisfaction alone. I would encourage all singles to seek to be satisfied in life, whether they find that satisfaction in their "kingdom purpose," work, friendships, hobbies or church community. Satisfaction has two benefits. First, it makes every season of life more pleasant. Second, a satisfied person is an attractive person.
If you are dissatisfied with every area of life, seek out sources of godly fulfillment. Often it is in these pursuits that you will cross paths with others of a like mind and purpose. In my opinion, a greater sense of fulfillment doesn't have a downside.
According to a new study by British researchers, using obscene words can actually help reduce pain.
Time reports that psychologists from Keele University performed an experiment where college students were asked to stick their hands into buckets of ice water and endure the pain for several minutes. One group was allowed to repeat a curse word of their choice. The other group had to repeat a control word -- "such as that which might be used to describe a table."
The result?
"... swearing not only allowed students to withstand the discomfort longer, but also reduced their perception of pain intensity. Curse words, the study found, help you cope."
The scientists suggest that perhaps swearing triggers the body's fight-or-flight response and that it results from a "very primitive reflex that evolved in animals" (like a dog's yelp when his tail is stepped on).
Interesting. I get the dog-yelp analogy (though, admittedly, I don't get why they automatically assume the yelps "evolved"). When I stub a toe or knock my hip on a table, I certainly have an immediate urge to let out a yell. But "Oooowwwwwww, that really, really, really hurt" seems to work just fine.
I've birthed two children without anesthetic. Not a superhuman feat, I grant you, but I will put it up there with putting your hand in an ice bucket. And while being forced to repeat descriptive words about a table while laboring would have probably highly annoyed me, I don't recall feeling a primordial need to swear.
But let's just say, for argument's sake, that it did help. That swearing did absolutely and definitively reduce pain. Even then, should believers do it?
The Bible is full of directives and principles about our speech. We're to honor the name of our Lord. James reminds us that a believer should "keep a tight rein on his tongue." And praising God and cursing men with the same tongue? "My brothers, this should not be!" We're told not to let unwholesome talk come out of our mouths.
So, can cussing ever qualify as wholesome talk? Because "cuss" words differ from country to country, does that mean that they are "only words"?
In the Time article, Steven Pinker, a Harvard psychologist, recommends that we not overuse swear words in our speech or writing. "That's not because I'm a prude, but because it blunts [swear words] of their power when you do need them. You should save them for just the right occasions."
America faces a manageable challenge: how to help a relatively small share of the population purchase health insurance. Obamacare is too big a solution chasing too small a problem -- like hunting quail with a howitzer.
So begins an article published today by the National Review Online. In "Health-Care Reform: Why Not Try Ownership?" author Deroy Murdock explains that "only about 8 million Americans are uninsured due to chronic illness or working-poor status," not the 45.7 million figure that's being thrown around by those in favor of socialized health care. He adds, "Why not help these 8 million rather than overturn medicine for all 300 million of us?"
Murdock introduces an alternative to the budget-busting health care bill currently being rammed through Congress:
Rather than endorse such big-government overkill, pro-freedom members of Congress should promote a simple concept: Let every American own and control an individual health-insurance policy that can be transported among jobs, self-employment, graduate school, and life’s other twists and turns....
Health-care reform should give Americans the option of using money tax-free to purchase whatever kinds of health insurance make them happy. If employers offer such plans, lovely. If not, individuals should be encouraged, through tax-free Health Savings Accounts, to buy their own policies and maintain them throughout their careers. This dramatically would reduce the tragedy of "job lock," whereby employees put up with bosses and duties they cannot stand, merely to keep employer-furnished health coverage.
Murdock isn't the only one promoting the value of Health Savings Accounts. Christian financial counselor Dave Ramseyis also a big proponent of them as well. Sure, HSAs won't solve all our health problems, but they could be part of the solution.
If Americans are more easily able to secure health care, outside the morass of government waste and bureaucracy, I'm all for that. And because our taxes wouldn't go up to fund the non-Christian ministry known as socialized health care, we'd be able to continue giving generously to Christian ministries such as our local churches, Compassion International, and Focus on the Family.
You may have heard Dr. Conway Edwards and his wife, Jada, on the Boundless podcast a few months back talking about the ups and downs of dating relationships. Now you can hear them on the daily broadcast share their story with Dr. Bill Maier and Dr. Juliannna Slattery.
I think the most helpful segment of the interview is when Dr. Slattery asks, "How do you date the right way? What does it look like?" Interestingly, Dr. Edwards answers by examining how men and women should relate to one another outside a romantic relationship.
Be sure and listen today to find out where the conversation goes from there. And tune in tomorrow for part two.
I heard on the radio last week that unemployment is higher nationally than it's been in 26 years.
Depressing? Possibly. In the past year I've seen many of my own friends lose their jobs, switch careers, have to move for new employment and even lose houses.
It's hard to stay hopeful and joyful in those circumstances.
In his two-part series "Make the Most of your Unemployment," Michael Lawrence gives advice for how to use your time when you're not on the job. Among his suggestions are volunteering at church, working for free and investing in your family. His articles are packed with practical advice for joblessness that is refreshingly void of daytime TV.
He made a particularly good point about how a Christian's response to unemployment can make an impact on people in the world around him:
Friend, being joyful and hopeful in your unemployment gives you an incredible opportunity to be a walking, talking, pop-up ad for Jesus! People will be sympathetic, but not that interested, in your gloom and anxiety over being unemployed. But hopeful and joyful? That's going to prompt some questions.
So take some of that extra time you have and put it into building relationships with non-Christian friends. Start with your natural interests. Join a running or cycling club. Get involved in your local neighborhood association. Volunteer at the animal shelter. Join a rec league team.
It really doesn't matter what you do. But build relationships and take your absolutely inexplicable hope and joy with you. And then get ready to start explaining where that hope comes from, so that others who don't know Jesus might come to know him and share in your joy too.
Not having a job can create a season of anxiety and despondence. It can also be an opportunity to try new things and tune up other areas of life that may have gone neglected. When you treat unemployment as a spiritual sabbatical, you can reenter the workforce recharged and ready to go. What has been your experience with being unemployed?
For nine months of the year, I live and work in northern Mexico as an ESL teacher (yeah, Ted!) among the Campos Menonitas. These people immigrated from Canada about 85 years ago, and before Canada, they lived in Russia. Hence the unusual combination of this architecture with cactus. Currently they have an estimated population of 40,000 in the state of Chihuahua alone.
I may be the only Boundless reader who lives in a gym. I have a small upstairs apartment furnished by the school -- notice the two upper windows that are spaced close together on the right side. I call it my tree house, since I look down on the school, a nearby church, and various neighbors. As an ESL and Bible teacher, I rotate in 9 different classrooms. My students have ranged in age from 7 to 69, but mostly I work with kids in grades three through ten.
I noticed that many of these "I'm Here" shout outs have come from individuals like me who are relatively alone in distant places. We are the ones who are often inactive on The Line due to Internet issues. But we want you to know that we are out here, and that we appreciate the nurture and understanding that we as single adults receive from your ministry. Many weeks, the best "church" I experience is via email. I usually download the podcasts at a local restaurant that offers high speed wireless, then listen to them at my kitchen table while I grade endless stacks of workbooks and tests.
I know I'm running late with this submission, but I had to wait until I was at "my other home" in North Carolina on summer break before I had a chance to hunt up suitable pictures and get this done. God bless all teachers approaching a new term!
Au Revoir by Ashley Ramsey on 07/17/2009 at 3:09 PM
I'm homeless. For now. I packed the last of my belongings into my Honda and said goodbye to my roommates this morning before coming to work. And in the 10 minutes it took me to get from my old residence to Focus on the Family, I realized that I will never again (barring some weird circumstance) have female roommates. And I'm grieving the finality of that a little.
Don't get me wrong; I'm totally psyched to get married. It's just that the finality of this season is sobering.
In two weeks I'll have a new roommate and embark on a completely new "living situation," one that I hear is far more sanctifying than any I've had before. I'd appreciate your prayers in the coming weeks as Brian and I prepare to make our lives one.
In about 10 minutes I'm going to begin my month-long sabbatical, so I need to sign off. I'll send you a WAY from our honeymoon locale (after we get back since I won't be taking my laptop). In the meantime, send us your WAYs. We love seeing where you're from and hearing your stories.
That's a problematic phrase: "A Right to Free Health Care."
First, the term "free health care" doesn't even make sense. Most Health care professionals need to earn a living, their facilities require money to operate, and their supplies can get expensive. Money comes from somewhere to cover the costs of staff and operations and medications. If that money doesn't come from you directly, it comes from you indirectly through your insurance policy or through your taxes. What's not covered by your personal taxes comes from taxes you pay on food or utilities or other stuff, or from taxes paid by your employer.
So there you go: There's no such thing as "free" health care. You don't get something for nothing unless, as my dad told me when I was a kid, someone somewhere some time gets nothing for something.
Second, there is no "right" granted either in our Constitution or in the laws of nature or nature's God to free health care. As Mike explained so well in the 119th comment on "I <3 Government Health Care":
The reason why health care is not a right is because it is a service, provided by human beings.
To assert the right to a service is to assert the right to force another human being to provide it to you. In other words, to force someone else to be your slave.
There can be no such thing as the right to enslave. Such a concept invalidates the very concept of rights in the first place. You can't assert the right to take away someone else's free will.
You have a right to life. You have a right to liberty. You have a right to pursue happiness. You have a right to self-defense. You don't have a right to demand that someone else take care of your health problems. Sorry.
Health care is good. To receive it is a blessing, and to give it reflects our Lord's loving character. But, sad to say, you don't have a right to it. And it sure don't come free.
Reporter Lane DeGregory took it to the streets recently, hanging out among the panhandlers of Tampa to see just how they go about their, well, work. Others have gotten headlines (and the occasional movie) out of unusual cases, but DeGregory's piece is more typical and down-to-earth.
It's full of colorful stories--panhandlers faking disabilities (wheelchairs and walkers are standard props) and military records (criminal records are more common) and otherwise looking for ways to con their marks. ("Stand on one foot sometimes so drivers will think you're not drunk; [act like] your eyes are bloodshot because you've been crying.") "Panhandling isn't just a job. It's an art," said one artiste, who tailors his signs to his audience. For older drivers: "Homeless Vet." For people who look like they party: "Why lie? I need beer," followed by the punch line: "God bless!"
Ah yes, the ubiquitous "God bless;" variants on that keep popping up. (One man who lives behind a church shows up on Sunday with a sign reading "Got God? Need daily bread.") Christians are considered especially easy marks. It's easy to see why. We take seriously all the Bible's talk of helping the poor.
As we should. But in these cases, we need to think about whether we're really helping. I've known a couple people who offered simple jobs to men with "Will Work for Food" signs: No one ever took them up on the offer. I've known others who offered to take panhandlers to restaurants; a few said yes, but most turned down that offer too. They just wanted the cash.
Can we help people like that? Maybe not. Still, there's a challenge for Christians here: We don't want to get conned, but we also don't want to grow callous. Both are dangers I struggle with. Generally (with occasional exceptions), I don't give to strangers: I give to charities I know and trust. But I have to make sure I don't harden my heart to panhandlers, even if I won't hand them my wallet. It's all too tempting to hold them in contempt, to focus on their sins instead of my own. I have to remind myself that they're still God's children, and to pray for them.
Forty years ago today I sat in the back of my family's 1967 VW Minibus parked alongside the Intracoastal Waterway a few miles north of the Kennedy Space Center. My dad had awakened us at zero-dark-thirty to make the hour trek from our home to Titusville, and we'd gotten here well before dawn to join hundreds of other cars parked at this makeshift viewing station.
It was hot and sticky, even at this early hour -- normal for Florida in July. I was tired and really would rather have been somewhere else. My parents listened to a news broadcast on a static-y transistor radio, as did just about every other family around us.
I was only half paying attention. Hey, I was a bratty 13-year-old who was too cool to do things with his family. Suddenly, a ripple of excitement went through the throng. Then ... an incredibly loud roar from somewhere beyond the trees. Every head swiveled toward the sound. In a few seconds we could see the Saturn V rocket with a bright-orange flame propelling it skyward, arcing out over the early-morning Atlantic. A few seconds later a gentle whooshing of air passed over us -- the powerful rocket's shockwave.
We watched, mesmerized. This was Apollo 11, the first attempt to land a man on the moon. Here, all these years later, it's hard to imagine the excitement that ran through our country -- ran through the entire world -- at the thought of conquering the moon.
A few evenings later, my family gathered around the black-and-white TV in my parents' bedroom, watching grainy images of a lunar module sitting on the moon. Nothing had happened for hours. We listened in on conversations between the astronauts waiting to step out onto the moon's surface and mission control back on earth, a conversation full of technojargon, lots of "uhs and ahs," always accompanied by the distinctive beep when the speaker unkeyed his radio.
Then a bulky human form stepped out and clumsily made his way down the module's ladder. It was hard to tell what was going on because the image was very poor, lots of sharp blacks and whites with little contrast. One final hop at the bottom, and then came the famous words: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
Huh!? What did he say? It makes no sense! We now know that Neil Armstrong managed to flub what was probably the most rehearsed line in history. But let's give him a break. Neil was one brave guy, as were all the astronauts. They rode what was basically a very large bomb into outer space and traveled thousands of miles from the tiny planet that sustains human life. Yes, scientists and engineers had worked out all the probabilities and determined it was relatively safe to be an astronaut, but nothingwasguaranteed. Armstrong and his fellow astronauts, Command Module Pilot Michael Collins and Lunar Module Pilot Buzz Aldrin, were there because President John Kennedy had challenged us as a nation to do great things during a September 1962 speech at Rice University.
Why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? ... We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do those other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
(I still chuckle at Kennedy's pronunciation of de-CADE and "The Simpsons" dead-on parody of it in Mayor Quimby.) Yes, there was some politics behind that speech. We were engaged in a space race with the Soviet Union, with bragging rights at stake. (We as a nation were mightily embarrassed when the Soviets beat us into space with Sputnik.) But there was also the sense of challenge behind Kennedy's speech. We as a nation were meant for greater things.
How different things are now. We seemingly have become a nation of whiners. Our "challenge" is to benefit ourselves, not do great things. Yes, I exaggerate, but not by a lot. Can you imagine a president today challenging us to do something as hard as building a space program almost from scratch and landing a man on the moon -- all within seven years? No, politics today seems nothing but me, me, me, gimme, gimme, gimme.
I'm reminded by this anniversary that it's good to do things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. How about you?
Camp -- 00:00
For this week's roundtable a few camp counselors (including former Boundless blogger Denise Morris) sit down with Lisa to talk about their summer experiences.
Sitting in the studio listening to their camp stories, I thought about my youth leaders who took their summer vacation to spend a week with a bunch of middle schoolers when they probably could have been lying on the beach with their families. I'm really thankful for the choice they made. Those weeks and the adults who chose to spend them with me have truly shaped the person I am today.
Marrying Young -- 21:06 Mark Regnerus, author of Forbidden Fruit, joins Lisa via phone to talk about marrying young. His Washington Post article inspired our roundtable for episode 68, so we were thrilled to snag him for a culture segment.
Thinking About Sex -- 46:30
She's single and never really dated or given too much thought to sex. But lately she's been pondering her wedding night. All right, let's just say it -- she's been fantasizing about her wedding night. But she's not thinking about any certain person, so are her thoughts considered lustful?
OK, ladies, for all of you who didn't have the guts to ask the question this listener did, pay attention because Candice is rolling up her sleeves for this one. You might want to have your Bible handy because she goes straight to Scripture.
Here's a big thanks to Leeland for the awesome tunes this week!
Have you ever heard of Zac Sunderland? You will now. That's because this morning Zac became the youngest person in history to sail around the world alone. The LA Times reports:
Zac Sunderland, who left Marina del Rey 13 months ago with a bold ambition to become the youngest person to sail around the world alone, returned to complete that quest today at 10:30 a.m.
Sunderland, 17, who was greeted offshore and escorted in by an armada of well-wishers aboard dozens of sailboats and fancy yachts, cleared the breakwater beneath a clearing sky and stepped ashore at Fisherman's Village in bright sunshine.
There, hundreds had gathered to meet a teenager from Thousand Oaks who, many are saying, "left as a boy and came back a man."
A year and a half ago, he had a dream to sail around the world. It would have been easy to dismiss such a far fetched fantasy, but Zac took his own money, earned like most kids from summer jobs, and bought a 36 foot sailboat. He named his boat Intrepid. His parents had hoped he would find something that would create a fire in him, a passion that would direct him away from all the negative and harmful influences that are so prevalent in our society, but even they were stunned by the scope of his dreams and desires.
It's no coincidence that Zac, who was 16 when he began his voyage, was able to accomplish such a feat. He had logged more than 15,000 hours (that nearly two years worth of hours) sailing before he undertook this challenge. His dedication to a long term goal stands in stark contrast to that of many of his peers, who twitter and text in an instant gratification world.
In their article "Becoming Men: Feats of our Forefathers," Alex and Brett Harris note how a propensity to take on big challenge at a young age has historically been indicative of impact later in adulthood:
It is no coincidence that the same Samuel Adams who organized the Boston Tea Party at age 51 wrote his master's thesis in defense of the people's liberties at age 21.
It is no coincidence that David Farragut, who became the U.S. Navy's first Admiral at age 65, was given command of his first ship at age 12.
It is no coincidence that Alexander Hamilton, who became our nation's first Secretary of the Treasury at age 34, was a clerk in a counting house at age 13.
We can learn a lot from our forefathers. They lived in a time very different from our own, but their example couldn't be more relevant. In a world that is looking to our generation for direction and leadership and finding a bunch of kidults, the commitment to do hard things as young adults is a much-needed revolution.
The U.S. government runs most things really well, among them the U.S. Postal Service, the Veterans Administration, AMTRAK, the national education system, and Chrysler.
And so it's natural that We The People should invite these bureaucrats and politicians to take over management of our health care. This is the plan proposed by our House of Representatives (click on the image for a larger, more legible version):
The added expense and added bureaucracy and added restrictions are expected to be minor, and will only affect The Rich (including employers, entrepreneurs and businesses; excluding bureaucrats and politicians). Specifically, it will add a mere "31 new federal programs, agencies, commissions, and mandates." Thankfully, to my knowledge, the plan does not include tortreform.
As expected, nay-sayers are already polluting the waters, doing their best to scuttle this marvel of modern nanny-state governance. One such representative complained:
This chart depicts the health care nightmare that House [politicians] have planned for families and small businesses. This isn't reform; it's a recipe for disaster that will lead to higher health care costs, lower quality, rationed care, and bureaucrats making medical decisions instead of doctors and patients. Families shouldn't have to answer to shadowy Washington bureaucrats when they're seeking health care treatments for themselves and their loved ones.
If this isn't bad enough, this new maze of government bureaucracy will be funded by a new small business tax that will cost more American jobs. During a time of economic recession, the last thing Congress should be doing is punishing small businesses that create a majority of the jobs in this country.
Hm. Not sure what to make of this one. On one hand, it'd be awful nice for someone else to take my money and take care of me. An enigmatic collection of government agencies surely is able to care for me with more efficiency and love than I am.
On the other hand, I'm concerned that they might require so much tax money from me (either directly or through taxes and fees on my employer and businesses whose products and services I buy) that I wouldn't be able to keep my satellite TV.
Running Together by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 07/15/2009 at 10:50 AM
I spent that evening the way I did most Sunday nights — doing laundry, changing the sheets, mopping the kitchen floor.
The evening I met my now-fiancé was truly mundane. But how God brought us together was far from ordinary. In "A Year to Love," I recount the last year of my life and how God introduced me to my soon-to-be husband, Kevin.
Though 30 was not the age I anticipated meeting the man I would marry (I expected that day to come much sooner), I have no regrets about my past decade as a single woman. Just as I have watched God faithfully lead me in many areas of my life during those years, this year I have seen Him do the same in my romantic life.
I used to wonder why I couldn't seem to meet someone great (when many of my friends could and did), and my mind couldn't even comprehend how God would bring a godly man into my life. More than once I tried to force it; I tried to settle for a relationship that just wasn't quite there, or I became attached to a person who didn't demonstrate the spiritual quality I knew God desired for my future spouse.
But my relationship with Kevin, though a fantastic story, had a very natural quality. I simply couldn't get away from him:
In his sermon series on Song of Solomon, Tommy Nelson talks about courtship and marriage in terms of a race. Nelson says that as Christian singles "run the race" God has set before them, they should be looking to see who is to their right and left as they run. Who is keeping pace, running nearby, heading the same direction?
I had been running that race alone throughout my 20s. Sometimes I would look over and catch a glimpse of someone, but inevitably they would veer off another direction or pass me by. Even a few godly relationships just did not click. In those moments, I would cry out to the Lord and try to understand His love and His purpose for me.
From the day I met Kevin, he kept popping up next to me — church, children's ministry, improv.
I would never want to use my own story to oversimplify the journey from singleness to marriage. However, if I could, I would give back some of the worries I experienced before meeting Kevin. Ultimately, I did not have to do much (other than be myself) to attract the right guy's attention. I'm not saying our relationship has been without challenges or that we don't have to put forth effort to make it work (we do). I am saying that my relationship with Kevin didn't require forcing. Our lives naturally fit together, our community approved of our relationship and we both have absolute peace.
I used to say that God had so faithfully led me in other areas of my life that I expected Him to do the same if and when a godly guy entered the scene. That has been the case. Whether I'm single or married does not change God's character. Regardless of my circumstances, He is worthy and He is good.
The only insight I have come up with is that God knows and He loves. There is no formula to how He brought Kevin and me together. I do know that we were each faithfully serving the Lord where He had placed us. We were running the race. And God chose to intervene in some significant ways so that we would run it together.
Run faithfully today. You never know who may be running nearby.
Say you're at the mall with some friends, just hanging out in the food court.
I don't care.
Or perhaps you just put the kids to bed and are about to sit down for the first quiet moment you've had all day.
That's nice. But I don't care.
Maybe you're in line at the Starbucks, and you're trying to make the critical decision between Tall, Grande and Venti.
Guess what? I absolutely don't care.
I don't care if you've just crafted the wittiest, funniest, craziest or most compelling 140-characters-or-less sentiment of your entire life. If it's a description of the dream you had last night, or the fact that you're currently working on your tan, or that your favorite team just ended a seven-game losing streak, then I just don't care.
Don't tweet me about it. Not now. Not ever.
On the other hand, if your wife just got pregnant after four-and-a-half years of trying, then I might like to know. Likewise if you just stumbled upon a $9.99 sale on high-quality cotton dress shirts. Or if you just finished the most inspiring article you've ever read in your life, then I wouldn't mind if you forwarded the link.
Are you getting the picture here? If you want to share meaningful information, such as where I can find discount replacement parts for my dishwasher, then Twitter away. But if the only thing you have to say is how many strips of bacon you ate for breakfast, then I hope you won't mind if I ignore your tweets, or simply stop following you altogether.
You see, I have a busy life -- just like you -- and I'm guessing that we both have more important things to do than read (or write) highly condensed complaints about how wet, dry, hot or cold it's been these last few days, weeks, millennia.
Did you want to know that I just looked up the correct spelling of "millennia" -- just to be sure? Would you like to read a tweet about it?
I didn't think so.
It certainly could be that Twitter is simply not for me. Perhaps I have somehow failed to appreciate the power of this social media phenomenon. I do see the potential, I really do. But for all the talk about "changing the rules of engagement" and "harnessing the power of real-time global communication," most of what I see is a bunch of grown ups acting like kids. For them, no thought, no action, no decision is too trivial to tweet to anyone and everyone who will pay attention.
As for me, I simply don't care.
But maybe that's just me.
(*disclaimer: The views of the author are not necessarily a reflection on the Twitter feed as generated by the Boundless team: https://twitter.com/BoundlessTeam)
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