We received the following e-mail from a young woman wrestling with long engagements vs. short ones.
I did a search on your website and all I came up with was an article called "Tips for Engagement," which briefly mentioned that short engagements can be good for a number of reasons, but didn't go into what those reasons are.
Here's my story: My boyfriend and I have been dating for over a year. I'm 20 and he's 21. We aren't officially engaged yet because he just finished college and is looking for a job. If we had our way we'd be married right now, but in this economy it may take a long time for my boyfriend to find a good job. We're hoping he can find a job and save up enough money to be prepared for marriage within the next few months, and hopefully we can get married this Spring.
I completely agree with all the articles on your website about not delaying marriage. I also agree with the articles saying that logistics should not get in the way of getting married. Unfortunately, our logistical issues are too great to overlook. If my boyfriend doesn't have a job, he's obviously not going to be a good provider. So as much as we want to get married, we have to wait until he's financially ready.
She then lists six thoughts about short engagements.
1) First of all, we'd be less tempted to go too far physically. We're never completely alone together — we're always at either my parents' house or his parents' house, so there's not much opportunity for us to actually have sex. But we really don't want to put ourselves through the misery of being tempted to have sex when we can't.
2) Personally, I think planning a wedding in a very brief amount of time would be less stressful than prolonging the ordeal. This may sound crazy, but I'm the kind of person who likes to get things done and get them done quickly. I don't want to spend months agonizing over which dress to buy, what color the bridesmaids dresses should be, what font should we use on the invitations, etc, etc, etc.
3) A short engagement would give less opportunity for family/friends to butt in. Now I know this sounds terrible, but I'm not saying I don't want my family or friends to help me plan the wedding or anything like that. I just don't want my mother to pester me because she doesn't like the floral arrangements I picked out, or my future mother-in-law to pressure me to have all the bridesmaids where traditional Chinese attire (my boyfriend's mom is from Hong Kong), or my maid of honor to insist that the cake be chocolate when I want it to be vanilla, or anything like that. If I go out and buy all the stuff and say "What's done is done!" they can't try to make me change my mind.
4) Like I said before, my boyfriend and I wish that we were married now. We're going to have to wait until he gets a job and financial security before getting engaged. Once we're finally able to get engaged, we don't want to still have to wait a long time before we can finally get married.
5) The point of an engagement is basically to plan the wedding and go through premarital counseling. We don't need to use that time to decide if we want to get married or not. We've already come to that decision through our friendship before dating our year plus of dating.
6) We don't want an extravagant wedding anyway. Just the basic stuff — elegant but simple. The more time we have to nit pick about every detail, the more complicated the end result will be.
I'm happy to have had a short engagement, a mere four months. I was in a bit different situation than this couple, though, as I was in my mid-30s, owned a home, and had a good job. That freed us up from having to deal with the legitimate concerns many couples have about finances.
I'm a big fan of short engagements. I think the reasons this woman suggests are solid. If you're financially sound and you've already decided that this is the one, why would you have a long engagement? And if you're in a difficult place financially or logistically, how might you move the wedding date up?
Molweni, Boundless (mole-WAY-nee; “Hello!” To more than two people in Xhosa)!
What’s a Chinese girl from Malaysia doing all the way in the beautiful land of South Africa? Serving God’s people! I took this year off after my undergraduate studies to obey God’s calling to serve in the mission field for 6 months. I am currently interning at a holistic development center in an impoverished township in Stellenbosch (about 1/2 hour from Cape Town). We minister to the community through our feeding project for kids, after-school education, youth Bible study, art, sport, performing arts, sponsorship programs, among many other activities! Besides helping with admin, I teach the adult computer literacy class which provides basic computer skills. It is a privilege to impact lives by helping these adults be better equipped in securing jobs for their future.
I’ve been here three months now and have experienced God in awesome ways! I’m amazed at how (without having to travel around the world) I’ve met so many cultures here in SA just because we share our love for the SAME GOD! Through this mission, I now have friends from America, England, Romania, Swaziland and of course, South Africa!
Personally I have grown so much as a person, even learned proper life skills like cooking and managing my finances! It’s my first time away from home for a long period of time, but Boundless has kept me company for many of my nights. I thoroughly enjoy the candid writings on relationships and career, all grounded in the Word of God. Your articles and biblical references have helped me reflect a lot on myself as I allow God to shape me to become more like Christ. I truly believe God has sent me here to also experience my own “holistic development”! Thank you, Boundless for being a part of it :D!
You may have already heard about this, but I just caught wind of it. According to an MSN article:
Some straying husbands buy their wives flowers. Others grovel and beg for forgiveness. Still others agree to attend counseling sessions.
And then there’s this guy.
William Taylor spent his Wednesday morning standing on a busy street corner during rush hour in Tysons Corner, Va., wearing a sheepish, remorseful look on his face and an enormous sign that read, “I CHEATED. THIS IS MY PUNISHMENT.”
Taylor reportedly will spend this entire week standing on a street corner with this sign. While part of me has a hunch this is just a publicity stunt, it does make me think about how people might act differently if they had to have their indiscretions broadcast to the world.
Taylor, for his part, seems earnest. The "punishment" was his wife's idea. To news crews Taylor said, "I figured I got to do what I got to do to makes things right. So here I am."
It’s a familiar scene: the newlyweds driving off from the wedding reception, preparing to spend a romantic week or two in an exotic location such as Hawaii or Cancun — or maybe just a cabin on the lake.
But what if the whole idea of going on a honeymoon is mistaken? Consider the underlying message this sends. After what is usually a public ceremony with friends and family, the newly minted husband and wife abruptly escape from the very community that helped them consecrate their vows.
I’m not suggesting never going on a honeymoon. Maybe just delay it a bit. Consider a Jewish tradition called sheva brachot, or “The Seven Blessings.” It’s something Christians might want to think about.
In this custom, a newly married couple spends each of the first seven days after the wedding at the home of a different family, usually an older, established marriage from the synagogue. In addition to being plain fun, a movable feast of sorts, this tradition places the marriage in the context of a larger community. Each evening an additional two guests the newlyweds don’t know are invited to celebrate with them, expanding the circle of friends and broadening the context of the marriage.
Sheva brachot is for the community’s benefit as much as the newlyweds’. Cultural critic Michael Medved cites the sentiments behind a Helen Reddy song from the 1970s called “You and Me Against the World” as sending exactly the wrong message. (It’s one of the stupider songs of the era, and that’s saying a lot.) In an interview I conducted with Medved in 1999, he said:
No, it’s you and me joining a community of like-minded people, and we’re important to all of them. When a couple breaks up, it’s not just a tragedy for them and their children. What about the in-laws, what about the grandparents who suddenly have divided loyalties?
If you enter into a marriage knowing your relationship means something to other people, you won’t be so quick to say, “I don’t want this any more” and walk out. There would be an element of embarrassment, an embarrassment of consequences beyond yourself.
There is no set formula for sheva brachot, but in the Jewish tradition there is a meal and then a party. A blessing is said over the couple. Perhaps couples who have been married more than, say, 20 years can provide advice to the newlyweds, or offer to be mentors. But what really matters is that they communicate that the success of the new marriage matters to them.
Medved concludes:
I refuse to believe that the drastically lower divorce rate of 50 years ago can be explained by suggesting that husbands and wives magically got along better than they do today. Human nature wasn’t different, but the social order most certainly was. Our grandparents understood that an entire community shared a stake in the survival of their marriages, and they benefited from support mechanisms that discouraged marital dissolution at the same time they helped couples survive the rough spots that all unions must endure.
Sounds like a great idea. Besides, you’ll have that many more friends to show your honeymoon photos to when you get back.
George Halitzka has written a powerful 2-parter, "Drinking Blood," that we've just published. Here are a few paragraphs:
In the 17th century, shed blood was not unique to voodoo rituals -- in fact, its stench had permeated all of life for millennia. Bloodletting was a common cure-all for various diseases. To treat a sick patient, a physician would simply withdraw the fluid of life from her veins -- sometimes until the patient fainted; sometimes with more dire results.
Wars and executions were almost routine. European battlefields were filled with bloody conflicts, and even without the hazards of war, there was always the executioner to contend with. Blasphemy, theft, slave-stealing and witchcraft were all capital crimes at one time. A thin red line ran through the brief, difficult lives of men.
Animal blood was also commonplace: Meat did not arrive on shrink-wrapped foam trays. A knife-wielding chef prepared dinner by spilling a beast's life on the ground, for in the supreme irony of fallen existence, it was only through a bloody death that one animal could give life to another. The trip to the slaughterhouse always preceded sustenance.
Blood was everywhere, from Biblical times until well into the 20th century. But in our modern, peaceful nation full of sanitized surgery and commercial slaughterhouses, we pale at the sight of blood, forgetting its spilling is still an everyday occurrence. It's become easy to ignore the reality that the chicken breasts in my freezer were recently covered in feathers.
Yet a few blocks from my house on the other side of the railroad tracks, rivers of warm gooey redness still pour from carcasses daily at a "meat processing plant." Pigs and poultry are brought in and rendered unconscious with an electric current or a sharp blow to the head. Then their primary blood vessels are cut as they bleed to death before their flesh is sliced into pieces. Their life spills onto the ground so I can have my pork chops.
In fact, almost any animal being used for food is slaughtered through a loss of blood. It keeps good meat from being damaged, and helps prevent bacteria from growing. But long before bacterial growth was understood, God forbade the ancient Israelites to eat flesh with blood left inside for another reason. "The life of every creature is in its blood," he pronounced.
Please trust me: These two articles are not as gruesome as you might think. I actually found them very moving. I suspect you may as well.
Gittin' In Yo Bitnit -- 00:00
When was the last time you were confronted about your sin? When was the last time you confronted someone else about an area of sin in their life? I'll admit that when someone begins a sentence that even sounds like it could be rebuke-ish I start backing up and say in a frantic voice, "Please don't rebuke me. I can't handle it right now." I know. I know. I'm just as ashamed as you think I should be. I fear open rebuke even though Proverbs tells us that open rebuke is a good thing.
After I act like an infant about being possibly rebuked I do some self-talk, "Rebuke is good. This person who is about to possibly rebuke me (usually my husband Brian) loves me and wants to help me grow." Sometimes I am getting rebuked and it ends well with me being more aware of my need for Christ. Most of the time it's just Brian wanting to talk about what's for dinner.
This week on the roundtable Steve, Candice, Motte, Lisa and I talk about confronting sin. When should you confront someone? How should you do it? And who should you confront? Lisa has a lot to say since her spiritual gift is "gittin' in yo bitnit."
Rush of Fools -- 15:32
Let me preface this segment by saying that this is not your typical CCM artist interview. The guys from Rush of Fools would rather talk about theology than their music. (I'm not trying to imply anything about other CCM artists. I'm just sayin'.) You'll see what I mean in this clip from the interview.
Blessing Your Newly Married Friends -- 38:23
As a newlywed, I was so blessed by this listener's question.
This summer many of my close friends have gotten married or engaged, and I find myself needing to shift from loving my friends as individuals to loving them and their new husbands as a couple. I really want to be an advocate for their marriages and continue to invest in them.
The ways that I used to love on my friends (such as affirming notes, gifts, physical affection, large chunks of time spent talking and helping out with menial tasks) now seem sort of inappropriate and less valued since they now have "real" lovers to attend to those things.
How do I go about pursuing their friendship and blessing them in a way that doesn't infringe upon their spousal relationship?
Like I said, I was truly blessed by her perspective. I've been the single friend wondering where my newly married friends have gone and now I'm the one who seems to have disappeared. Listen to this week's inbox to see how Candice and Lisa answered this question.
Some people lionized Ted Kennedy. Others demonized him. In the 1980s, I saw plenty of the latter. It landed regularly in my mailbox, with fundraising letters whose message boiled down to "Ted Kennedy will eat your children unless you send us money now." On August 26, 2009, the lionizing tone is dominant once again, for obvious reasons.
We're reminded that powerful men remain just men -- vulnerable to the ravages of an aggressive brain tumor. And men make poor angels or devils. I know something of Ted Kennedy's sins. (I know much more of my own.) And I have my own views of his legacy. But I'll leave it to others to hash over that, at least for now. There's something else to talk about.
The Kennedys have often been likened to the American royal family, a comparison that's come up again on TV today. Which reminds me of how British royal funerals used to be handled -- a tale I heard from my pastor in a sermon some years ago.
As best I recall, it went something like this. A man would portray the deceased king (let's call him Edward) approaching the gates of Heaven, where the guardian would ask him who he was and why he should be admitted. The king would respond with a long list of his regal titles and worldly honors, and he'd be denied entrance. He'd keep replying with more titles, and he'd keep getting denied.
Finally, the king would simply reply "I am Edward, a poor miserable sinner who needs to be saved by the blood of Christ." And then the word came back to him: "Enter, my son."
I hope that, in the end, Edward M. Kennedy was able to reply as that king did. And I hope you and I can do so as well.
Sacred Motherhood by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 08/26/2009 at 11:28 AM
In her article "My Newborn Is Like a Narcotic," author Katie Roiphe considers the overwhelming impact of a baby on a mother. She recounts one of the first times she left her infant to do a reading at Barnes and Noble:
On the night of the reading, I left the baby with someone I trust completely and absolutely. I managed to put on a dress and look something like the person who gave readings who I used to be. But when I walked out onto the street, I felt like I was missing a limb. Even though Talese was riveting by any objective standard, my concentration faltered. During the reading I thought about the baby. As people asked questions, I calculated how long the taxi ride home would take. Afterward, there were people who wanted to buy one of my books. The manager of the bookstore held out a pen, and I apologized and told him that I couldn’t sign books, that I had to run home. The manager looked a little bewildered. This was, after all, a book signing at which the authors traditionally sign books.
Roiphe is coming from a secular perspective on motherhood, but she touches on something important—namely that there is something otherworldly (God-given?) about the connection between mother and child. This is something feminists are slow to acknowledge:
One of the minor dishonesties of the feminist movement has been to underestimate the passion of this time, to try for a rational, politically expedient assessment. Historically, feminists have emphasized the difficulty, the drudgery of new motherhood. They have tried to analogize childcare to the work of men; and so for a long time, women have called motherhood a "vocation." The act of caring for a baby is demanding, and arduous, of course, but it is wilder and more narcotic than any kind of work I have ever done.
Motherhood is powerful. It may be more difficult than a job in the workplace, but it is also much, much more than a job. Even those who don't put God in the picture and hold to the ideals of feminism recognize this. I am reminded of the words of Romans 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Motherhood is one of those things that reveals God.
This morning, I was flipping around the radio dial and settled for a few minutes on a ministry program. It was a ministry I trusted. A ministry that, though I haven't been a regular listener, I have been encouraged by from time to time.
As the program wrapped up, the tone turned serious. The ministry was in need of money. They were seriously behind budget. They didn't want to pressure, but they wanted to be honest: the program was in jeopardy. Would I consider praying about supporting them?
The plea, quite honestly, started to go in one ear and out the other. I've heard lots of pleas like that lately and, certainly not to my credit, they are starting to blend together. Then, for some reason, Jane Austen popped in my head.
Now, some of you know I'm a full-on Austenfan. The manors, the kooky relatives, the inevitable marriages ... joyful fun. But it's her wit, how she can just slice through hypocrisy with a sweet-as-sugar sword, that keeps me coming back.
So, here's the section that popped into my head. It's from her book, Persuasion. The herione, Anne Elliot, is all good and noble and Austen-esque. Anne's father and sister, Elizabeth, are everything vain and selfish and doltish. At the beginning of the book, there's a problem: Dad and Sis have way overspent their means (how could they do less, after all, they have a position to uphold) and are looking for some way to get on the straight and narrow:
Elizabeth, to do her justice, had, in the first ardour of female alarm, set seriously to think what could be done, and had finally proposed these two branches of economy: to cut off some unnecessary charities, and to refrain from new furnishing the drawing-room; to which expedients she afterwards added the happy thought of their taking no present down to Anne, as had been the usual yearly custom.
Is that us, I wondered? As we struggle (or, perhaps, just worry) ourselves through a shaken economy, do we "cut off our unnecessary charities" and smile at ourselves, pleased with what good stewards we are?
I listen to radio programs. Do I support them? I read blogs everyday. Not just personal ones, but ones that the writers put serious work, research and biblical thinking into. Do I support them? If they don't have a direct route to support them, do I buy their books or give to their churches? You're reading this. Have you ever thought about contributing to the work of Boundless?
Or, closer to home, am I equipped by a sermon or small group at my church? Do I ever connect that with my wallet? Or do I just think it is the duty of others to provide for me? That God is using them in their ministries and that He will provide for them, without ever considering that He has instructed me to provide for them? To excel in the grace of giving?
I'm on Brier Island, in Nova Scotia, Canada. Brier Island was my childhood home, though I now live and study elsewhere in Nova Scotia, a few hours away. Brier Island is a small island, approximately 7.5 km (4.7 mi) long and 2.5 km (1.6 mi) wide, though the actual inhabited area (known, technically, as the "Village of Westport") is much, much, smaller. The population here is somewhere around 200 or 250 people. There is a single General Store that has been passed down for generations (see picture.) Here, locals and visitors alike can purchase anything from cheese spread to ammunition to frozen pizzas, and everything else in between. There is a small cafe adjacent to the store.
Brier Island was home to Captain Joshua Slocum, who was the first man to circumnavigate the globe alone. Captain Slocum, like myself, spent his boyhood on Brier Island and later moved away. His circumnavigation began in Boston, Mass, the same city where he built the fishing boat that served as his vessel in the circumnavigation, a ship called "Spray." Captain Slocum ended his voyage on Brier Island. However, the lure of the sea proved too alluring, and Mr. Slocum continued to sail about on his tiny, trusty ship. In 1902, Captain Slocum even met President Roosevelt - twice. During the first occassion, Slocum took Roosevelt's young son, Archie, for a short voyage aboard the Spray.
Unfortunately, in 1909, however, Slocum set sea for again, this time South America-bound. He became lost at sea and perished. A small memorial sits at the tip of Brier Island for Mr. Slocum. The memorial is simple, and yet beautiful, and overlooks the passage between Brier Island and Peter's Island, a tiny island that houses the lighthouse where Slocum's maternal-grandfather served as lighthouse keeper.
In a place like Brier Island, cut off from the rural mainland by another island and two ferry rides (see map), community is important. A few weeks ago, for example, we held a potluck dinner/fundraiser for my great-grandmother who is ill with multiple types of cancer. The citizens of the island showed up en masse with casseroles, salads, spare change, and prayer. While being disconnected from the hustle and bustle of the mainland can sometimes be an inconvenience, it also gives God some wiggle-room to show us just how valuable family and friendship can be.
While I’ve been staying in California, I’ve been doing my writing from a local coffee shop. I come in each day, get my coffee, and then break out the laptop and proceed to try and change the world one massive run on sentence at a time.
This morning when I walked up to order the girl at the register said “hey, it’s Nathan” and then she and another employee mentioned how I’m a regular here now. And at that moment, I knew I was officially part of the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf culture.
There’s just something fun about that kind of experience. The older I get, the more I realize that the person who wrote the theme song to Cheers is right – “sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name.”
When I lived in Colorado Springs, I achieved my life long dream of being able to go through a drive through (in this case it was Chick Fil A) and being able to say “Hey it's Nathan. I’ll take the usual.”
Seriously, I’ve always dreamed of doing that. So at least that’s one thing I was able to cross off my list. Next up: having an office someday with floor to ceiling windows that I can wistfully look out of while I talk about having some sort of offshore bank account.
But there’s something else I’ve learned as I’ve gotten older – when it comes to the growth of your identity, sometimes it’s important to go where no one knows your name.
Certainly we all need a foundation of family and friends to lean on and pour into. I very much believe they play a key roll in helping a person find and stay true to their identity.
But in my life I’ve found that some of the situations where I found out the most about myself were the ones where I was placed around people who didn’t know anything about me, my history, or my family. My identity wasn't assumed. I couldn't rely on anything or anyone else. It was up to me to show them who I was.
Circumstances like that can be intimidating, but they can create a lot of personal growth. Have you had any experiences like that?
I posted recently about the Christianity Today cover story, "The Case for Early Marriage."
That article was written by Dr. Mark Regnerus, a professor at the University of Texas. Some of Mark's insights on the age of first marriage have been influenced by his colleague, Dr. Norval Glenn. I posted a blog earlier about Dr. Glenn's findings on later marriage in a research study he wrote called "With this Ring..." At the time of that study, he reported being surprised to discover some downsides to later marriage, but that he believed the issue would benefit from more study. I'm glad to see that he took on that study and has now compiled it in a paper he recently presented called "Later First Marriage and Marital Success."
The paper begins by explaining why such research is important:
In recent years about half of all first marriages of females, and well over half of all first marriages of males, have been at age 25 or older, the estimated median age at first marriage in 2005 being 27.1 for men and 25.3 for women (U. S. Census Bureau, 2006) — a condition that makes normative and typical what used to be considered late marriage. It also makes assessing the outcomes of later marriage, and understanding the reasons for those outcomes, important for practical reasons, as persons decide whether or not to participate in the trend to later marriage, and as third parties, such as parents and counselors, decide on the wisdom of encouraging later marriage. Understanding the reasons for the marital outcomes for persons who marry relatively late is also important for a general understanding of the bases for marital success.
The paper concludes with findings that are key for twentysomethings who wonder if they are ready for marriage:
The findings of this study do indicate that for most persons, little or nothing in the way of marital success is likely to be gained by deliberately delaying marriage beyond the mid twenties. For instance, a 25 year old person who meets an excellent marriage prospect would be ill-advised to pass up that opportunity only because he/she feels not yet at the ideal age for marriage. Furthermore, delaying marriage beyond the mid twenties will lead to the loss during a portion of young adulthood of any emotional and health benefits that a good marriage would bring (Waite and Gallagher, 2000). On the other hand, it is extremely important to stress that the findings of this study should not lead anyone of any age to panic and thus make a bad choice of a spouse.
You heard, perhaps, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) held its convention in Minneapolis last week and passed some pro-gay resolutions, including one giving approval to clergy in monogamous, committed same-sex relationships. (My column on the subject here.)
You probably didn't hear that during the debate on the resolutions, something dramatic happened. A tornado popped up suddenly and hit both the convention hall and the ELCA church next door, which was helping to host the convention. No one was hurt, but the buildings were damaged and the cross atop the church steeple was destroyed.
OK, I know what you're thinking and you know what I'm thinking. And we all know what some of the people on the spot must have been thinking. So let's do our thinking out loud.
Was this a sign from God? We need to be really, really careful here. It's bad theology to assume a one-to-one correspondence between these sorts of things and particular human sins: The rain (as Scripture says) falls on the just and the unjust alike, and so do the hardships of life. Yet (as Scripture also says) there are particular times that God brings direct, physical consequences in response to specific sins. It's not the norm. But it's not unheard of either.
Theologian John Piper explores the question here. He points out that Jesus controls the winds. He also points out (in a passage too few people know) that Jesus refuted the idea that people who suffer are worse sinners than others. “Those 18 on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
Here's Piper's wrap-up:
Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.
I wouldn't use the word "conclusion" -- not because I think Piper's wrong about this tornado, but because I don't know that he's right. That said, there's no doubt we need the turn-from-sin warning Piper lays out. So let's put it this way: God may have chosen an unusually dramatic means to convey it this time. But He certainly conveys it all the time in His Word.
"Shall I tell you a lie? I do despise a liar as I do despise one that is false, or as I despise one that is not true." --The Merry Wives of Windsor – Act 1, Scene 1
I was going to blog on the Time magazine article on lying, but Heather beat me to the punch. I was going to leave it at that, but the comments on her entry have prompted me to weigh in, since I was going to go a slightly different direction with my blog anyway.
The subject of just what is and is not lying is far more complex than merely answering, “Just fine” to a morning greeting even though you’re not just fine. At it’s root, lying comes down to what you intend to communicate.
I have a friend who, every time she makes mistake, corrects herself by saying, “Oops, I lied ...” In fact, she hadn’t lied; she’d merely made a mistake. There was no intention to deceive.
But you can speak words that are 100 percent true and still lie because your intent is to deceive. One commenter to Heather’s blog cited the ten Boom family’s throwing Nazis off the trail by saying they were hiding Jews under the table. Technically true, since the hiding place was under the floor under the table, but her intent was to deceive those who would kill the Jews, since there was obviously no one under the table in the way she knew the Nazis would interpret her comment. I’m not saying she was wrong; I could only hope to be so quick on my feet were I in the same circumstances. But she did not tell the 100 percent truth. She deceived the Nazis, but did she lie?
Another commenter told of the Bible smuggler who threw off the authorities by telling them there were no Bibles in the car because they were in fact under the car. Again, I could only hope to be so clever, but this man’s intention was to deceive. So did he lie?
Anyone who has taken a public oath, such as for military service or public office, swears that he takes the oath “without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” This is no accident of wording. A “mental reservation” is a theological doctrine developed during the Middle Ages to allow people to tell falsehoods, supposedly in good conscience and always for a good purpose.
Basically, to make a mental reservation means you use mental trickery to “tell the truth.” One example would be to resort to an equivocation, mentally using one meaning of word so that you could affirm something knowing full well that your listener would most likely assign a different meaning. (“It depends on what the meaning of is is.” “They’re under the table.”) Another way to do this would be to, say, throw the Nazis off the trail by saying, “I saw no Jews pass by this way” while surreptitiously or mentally pointing to your left even though you did see them heading to your right. In both cases, your intent was to deceive the person you were talking to. So did you lie? Was it wrong?
There are times where the words you speak are completely true but you still deceive because you purposely omitted a certain key fact that would change those words’ interpretation. To my mind, you have “lied” just as much as if you told an outright falsehood, since your listener is still deceived.
In short, the matter of lying really depends on the circumstances and your intent. That’s not moral relativism; it’s a recognition of reality in a fallen world. You can lie on a mortgage application or lie to save a life. One is quite clearly wrong and the other quite clearly justifiable. So is one a lie and the other not? Or is one an unjustifiable lie while the other is justifiable but still a lie?
Both the ten Booms and the Bible smuggler deceived their listeners, but does that really qualify as a "lie"? Sissela Bok has written an excellent book examining the many aspects of lying and other moral choices. And just recently Errol Morris wrote an excellent two-part series about lying and deception for The New York Times.
We live in a complex world. Yes, we too often resort to easy and glib lies to smooth our way through the world. (“Yes, I love your tie.”) But we cannot resort to an easy legalism that says that so long as the words you speak are true in and of themselves, regardless of context or regardless of their effect, then you have not lied. The Pharisees played logic games like that with the Word of God, but they did not fool the One who mattered. I recognize also that we so easily deceive ourselves, thinking we’re justified in just a little white lie, not to save a life, but to just smooth the way a little bit.
I praise God that His grace covers a multitude of sins, both sins of commission and sins of omission. I praise Him also because His wisdom is light years beyond mine, able to discern truth, falsehood and our heart’s intent and to judge justly in all cases.
This message comes to you from the San Francisco Bay Area, California! Despite typical stereotypes of my hometown, God is alive and moving in this place. I am currently a student at San Francisco State University finishing up my Bachelors degree. I have a small part time job at a local museum in Golden Gate Park and look forward to seeing what God will do with my ultimate career goal of being a counselor.
I really appreciate Boundless because they have made it their mission to get the word of God out to the body of Christ in ways that are so relevant to our lives. Going through the ups and downs of my walk with Christ, I have been able to rely on Boundless to explain the Word of God and help me see what God would have me do in certain struggles. Praise God for Boundless and for this Christian fellowship!
I had to laugh when I came across this video the other day:
It brings up all kinds of difficult questions. Am I content dating someone with a flat personality, who doesn't reciprocate my affection? What will it take to dump that person? And to go back to them? And what do I think of the Jonas Brothers?
Oh, and where did my sister-in-law come up with the creativity to put that together?
Two years ago, half of American college graduates had job offers in hand before they finished school, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. Not bad.
Last year, not so good. For the grads of 2008, only one-quarter had job offers in hand as they donned caps and gowns. This year, it's dropped even further. Only one-fifth of 2009 college graduates knew where they would be working at graduation. An article at MSNBC states that the numbers for 2010 graduates will be even worse.
Throw in the fact that the July unemployment rate for Americans age 20 to 24 was 15.3 percent (compared to 9.4 percent overall), and prospects can look pretty dim.
So what's a college grad without a job to do? Sue her alma mater?
For some, the answer is more school. The article states:
"In a survey of college students by The Associated Press and the college TV network mtvU, nearly 1 in 5 said in May that they had changed their plans this year and expected to attend graduate or professional school because they feared that an undergraduate degree wouldn’t be enough to secure a job.
...“Recessions often inspire people to look to law school to ride out the storm, transition into a new field or broaden their education to make themselves a more attractive candidate,” said Jeff Thomas, [Kaplan's] director of pre-law programs."
If that grad school is cash-on-the-barrel, it's possible that additional education may put some candidates into jobs. But if they're taking on debt (especially if they have already accumulated significant college loans), it could be that their "fear" finds them going from the frying pan into the fire.
For those passing on grad school, there is some advice, though not necessarily pleasant to hear:
Get some serious skills.The featured grad in the MSNBC article who was still looking for work had an English major with minors in Spanish and Bible. This caused one commenter to quip, "I think I see the problem."
The days of kids coming out of college with liberal arts degrees that want to make $50,000 to $60,000 or even $40,000 to $45,000” are over, one recruiting exec told MSNBC. So, if you are getting a degree that is not field-specific, acquire skills and/or experience that are field-specific. Of course, if you've already graduated, you may need to ...
Look several rungs down the ladder.“You have to start at the bottom,” the recruiting exec said, “We’re kind of back to the ’50s and the ’60s — start in the mailroom and work your way up.” So, we all need to can the entitlement when looking for employment.
And don't forget some classic advice from our bloggers (actually, they are all from Motte; learn from Motte, readers) ...
My fiancé, Kevin, bristled when I told him about "the most banal and abysmal of non-dates -- going to coffee."
"Hey," he said, "I don't think that's true."
(Well, I suppose he wouldn't, being an assistant manager for the world's largest coffee empire and all.)
But then he made a good point. "I think having coffee with someone is a good way to get to know them better before you take the next step. It's more about the intentions of the person than the actual date."
In response to my post, "Coffee Dates and Relationship Purgatory," many people questioned why I was villainizing coffee dates. And true, I may have been too hasty shooting down what could be a lovely, comfortable first date. I know many a DTR has gone down in a coffee shop. And obviously frequenting Starbucks paid off for me.
When Kevin and I first began co-leading a small group together, meeting for a cup of coffee was a great way to plan the details. Kevin would always say, "Oh, hey, let me get your coffee. I get a discount!" That may have made our relationship a little ambiguous at the start -- I wasn't sure if he was just a nice guy or if he kind of liked me -- but it didn't matter at that point. We were getting to know one another.
Once it became apparent that we enjoyed spending time together (after about a month), Kevin made his move. He invited me to a game night with some of his friends. When that fell through due to the friends being sick, he called me and said, "I'd still like to get together with you tonight. Would you like to have dinner, or see a movie or go out for dessert?" When the "hanging out" activity fell through, he took a risk by making date-like suggestions. Then he dressed up ... and paid.
I believe the reason I reacted to the "coffee date" described in Dr. Simpson's article, is because it represents all that is wrong with the system. Specifically, non-committal and lifeless, gutless interactions between Christian singles.
Coffee and coffee shops are not the villain here. In fact, as some of you pointed out, a coffee shop can be a very non-threatening place to get to know someone. Just don't linger there to play it safe.
Do I only participate in group dates, or do we get to know each other one-on-one?
How do I get to know a girl/guy in a non-threatening way without getting trapped in the "buddy zone"?
What is the minimum number of conversations I need to engage in with a girl before I can safely ask her out?
How many different girls can I ask out without being labeled a "player"?
Why is it that what one person perceives as "intentionally pursuing" a relationship, another individual defines as "stalking"?
For that matter, how soon is too soon when it comes to expressing intentionality? One week? One month? One year?
And while we're at it, how soon is too soon in a relationship to kiss? One week? One month? Not until we're at the altar?
Wow, no wonder single Christians sit around paralyzed, hoping that God will take pity on them by delivering their perfect match to their front door, to the adjacent seat in church, or -- this is the 21st century, after all -- their e-mail in-box, Facebook Wall, etc.
To all of you who've heard more relationship advice than you can possibly digest, much of it right here on Boundless, I have one final piece of counsel:
Don't worry about it.
Seriously, stop it. Now.
Truth is, you simply can't follow all of it all at once. You'll drive yourself crazy.
Now, is it good to get to know a girl before you ask her out? Absolutely. But if you heard somewhere that there is a seven-conversation minimum, you heard wrong. Sometimes that's simply not feasible, and how, exactly, are you supposed to arrange seven "chance" meetings in which a casual discussion ensues -- a conversation in which you minimize the fact that you are a marriage-minded individual looking for a serious relationship (wouldn't want to scare anyone away, mind you), yet one in which you are nonetheless able to discern at least eight (out of 29) key dimensions of compatibility?
You see the problem here? We're making it far too complicated.
Let me see if I can simplify things a bit:
Begin with prayer. Ask God to help you.
Spend time in the right places. Church is usually good. That seedy nightclub right next to the twice-raided meth lab? Usually bad.
Ask people you know to introduce you to people they know. Single people, OK?
Finally, if you actually manage to meet someone you find appealing, interesting and spiritually compatible -- at least as far as you can tell without instituting an FBI-style background check -- then take a chance and see if they would like to get to know you better. Maybe even ask them out on an actual date, not one disguised as a taste-testing tour of local cappuccino establishments.
After that, just be yourself. They're going to discover the "real you" eventually, so don't try to be someone else. If you find yourself developing strong feelings, you don't have to propose marriage on the second date; but neither do you need to "play it cool" for the next six months just to prove that you're not too needy. You'll only confuse things. If you want to get married someday, don't be ashamed to admit it. If you have no intention of getting married for the next decade, then why in the world are you dating in the first place?
Bottom line, there's a lot of good advice out there, and a lot of it is available on Boundless. But once you try to follow it all simultaneously, once you treat it as a set of inflexible rules and restrictions, that's when you'll surely fall prey to relationship paralysis: overwhelming anxiety that you'll make even the slightest misstep in the pursuit of a romantic relationship.
Relationship paralysis is nothing but fear, and fear is one of the greatest barriers to contentment.
So if you're a guy, ask God to help you get past your fears of rejection and disappointment. Get friends to introduce you to potential dates, or simply introduce yourself. If He wants you to meet someone special -- and for most of us, that is indeed the case -- He will help you. If a girl turns you down, try to adopt a positive attitude. If she wasn't the one for you, isn't it better that you found out right away?
And if you're a girl, do your best to be receptive. Believe it or not, most guys aren't naturally confident when it comes to approaching a woman they find appealing. In fact, the very idea that they find you appealing actually makes the process even more nerve-wracking. So try to at least give the guy a chance, even if he's not Hollywood handsome and the first words out of his mouth don't sound like they were written by a screenwriter.
That's it, no more advice. Haven't you heard enough already?
Liar, Liar ... by Heather Koerner on 08/21/2009 at 12:32 PM
Robert Feldman, a University of Massachusetts professor of psychology, has spent most of his career studying liars. He recently talked with Time about some of his research and his new book.
Feldman has found that not only do we lie frequently, but most of us don't even realize how much:
"People lie while they are getting acquainted an average of three times in a 10-minute period. Participants in my studies actually are not aware that they are lying that much until they watch videos of their interactions."
How did people react when confronted with their lies? With apathy, Feldman says:
"...They very rarely display remorse. Lying is not seen as being morally reprehensible in any strong way. We are living in a time and culture in which it's easier to lie than it has been in the past. The message that pervades society is that it's O.K. to lie — you can get away with it."
Feldman describes the problems he sees with our lie-saturated society:
"You can make the assumption that because it often makes social interactions go more smoothly, lying is O.K. But there is a cost to even seemingly benign lies. If people are always telling you that you look terrific and you did a great job on that presentation, there's no way to have an accurate understanding of yourself. Lies put a smudge on an interaction, and if it's easy to lie to people in minor ways, it becomes easier to lie in bigger ways."
What's more, Feldman says, is that sometimes we don't care that we're being lied to.
"When we ask someone, "How are you doing?" and they say, "Fine," we really don't want to know what their aches and pains are. So we take "Fine" at face value."
That interview got me thinking ... Had I told a lie today? And I realized that, yes, I had. It was a stupid, insignificant, just-didn't-want-to-get-into-an-explanation lie, but it was a lie nonetheless. And I could try to justify it by saying that it didn't hurt anyone. But, didn't it hurt me? Did it, to use Feldman's term, put a "smudge" on that interaction with a friend?
The Word is clear about this. Proverbs tells me that the Lord detests lying lips, but He delights in men who are truthful. John tells me that the devil is a liar and then emphasizes that point by calling lies his "native language" and describing him as "the father of lies."
I don't want to speak Satan's language. I want to be one who embraces the Truth.
Feldman says: "We have to be the kind of people who don't tell white lies. We don't have to be cruel and totally blunt, but we have to convey information honestly." I think he's absolutely right.
University of Louisville head coach Rick Pitino had sex with a woman named Karen Sypher in a Louisville restaurant six years ago and later paid her $3,000 to have an abortion.
There are many angles you could take with the Pitino story. You could talk about the poor example he is to impressionable student athletes in need of good role models (and to college students in general); or you could discuss why the University of Louisville chose to keep Pitino rather than exercising their "acts of moral depravity" clause in the contract.
But the angle I'd like to take relates to the abortion. Because it illustrates well the subject of a recent Dr. Mohler article about how the availability of abortion really empowers men, not women. In "The Hidden Reality of Abortion -- Empowering Men" Dr. Mohler writes:
The Culture of Death often presents itself in terms of liberation. Yet, at every turn, this liberation is actually an enslavement. The availability of legalized abortion has led to the deaths of over 40 million unborn children in the United States alone. Beyond this, it has produced a social catastrophe evident in patterns of female poverty and the abandonment of both women and children by irresponsible males. Furthermore, it has severely weakened the moral protections and obligations that bound men to women and children, effectively allowing men to demand abortion as a means of escaping their responsibility to marry and to take responsibility for their children.
And for married men, the natural consequences that help keep us faithful have been negated by 35 years of the Culture of Death. As long as we have legalized abortion and a fistful of money, giving in to our lust-filled desires seems a little less risky. It also helps to have an abortion-minded mistress, which was the case here.
The real difference, however, between men and women when it comes to being "liberated" by abortion is that the woman is the one who has to go through the procedure. She's the one who has to come to terms with ending the life of her child as it's vacuumed right out of her. She's the one who has to deal with the physical and emotional consequences in a way the man will never know.
I'm not saying that abortion is consequence-less for men. But who is more liberated in a scenario like this? Rick Pitino or Karen Sypher?
Back in the day, my improv troupe helped to produce this video for Boundless. Many of my friends commented that they had found themselves in similar situations to the one depicted. I love that in his article "Dating vs. Hanging Out," Dr. Stephen W. Simpson calls the notorious Christian "coffee date" on the carpet.
Here's how it works: You like someone but you're afraid to let him or her know. So instead of asking the person on a date, you go on approximations of dates that allow for plausible deniability of all romantic intentions. You study together. You exercise together. You find lame excuses to call, text, and e-mail. Worst of all, you engage in the most banal and abysmal of non-dates — going to coffee. It has the trappings of a date — a cozy ambiance, comforting beverages, atmospheric music — while allowing everyone involved to disavow the actual occurrence of a date. Fear of rejection alone has resulted in the proliferation of Starbucks like a French-roasted virus.
People suffer through this in the hope that the object of their affection will eventually buckle and reveal his or her true feelings. They wait and watch. They keep making up excuses to hang out, hedging all their bets and waiting for God to give them a sign. If you've been down this road before, you know that it's seldom successful. You remain stuck in the "friend zone," which is relationship purgatory if you have a crush on someone.
Dr. Simpson says figuring out whether you should stop hanging out and start dating is the easy part: "If you find the person attractive, you can't stop thinking about him or her, and you're unsatisfied with the intimacy that friendship provides, then it's time to ask out instead of hang out." What keeps would-be companions from doing this, Dr. Simpson says, is fear that the other person doesn't share their feelings. Essentially, playing it safe.
To combat the problem of "fearful hemming and hawing," the author gives two simple suggestions: Get a life and be authentic. You'll want to read the insights in the article under these two headings. Dr. Simpson is spot on. It's refreshing to see someone encouraging singles to be more willing to take risks ... and ditch the French-roasted virus that is the Christian coffee date.
This is my first podcast since being back from my sabbatical and I have to say that taping the Boundless show is a great way to get back into the swing of things. During the roundtable segment I shared about my awesome honeymoon to Charleston, South Carolina.
The best thing about Charleston is their food. Seriously, these people know how to cook. Most of the restaurants where we dined were part of the slow food movement.
The owners of the B&B where we stayed kept mentioning "slow food." I wasn't really sure what they meant by slow food and rather than just asking I made up a nice little definition in my head that seemed right, which you will hear me reluctantly share on the roundtable.
Today as I'm listening to the podcast I feel bad that I a) had no idea what I was talking about and b) that I could be spreading a possibly false definition to all of our listeners. Here is the real definition (a very vague definition, mind you) that I found on the official Slow Food USA website:
Slow Food is an idea, a way of living and a way of eating. It is a global grassroots movement with thousands of members around the world that link the pleasure of food with a commitment to community and the environment.
I don't feel so bad anymore. It doesn't seem like they know what slow food is either. Lot of poetic sounding language, not a lot of clarity.
I Know What You Did This Summer -- 00:00
Lisa, Steve, Suzanne and I share the highlights of our summer. In case you were itching to know what the Boundless team has been doing the last few months, you're in luck. If not, listen anyway; Lisa is hilarious as usual.
John Waller -- 15:17 John Waller tells Lisa about how his song, "While I'm Waiting," came to be featured in the movie Fireproof. If you've ever waited on the Lord, you will no doubt resonate with this song. I've been listening to the rest of John's album the past few days and I've been struck by the amount of Scripture weaved through his lyrics.
Suzanne's Double Standard -- 31:54
We've read Suzanne's story and some of us are probably tempted to think that meeting a barista who has matching jewelry and matching life goals is a little Meg Ryan-ish. This listener wants to know how Suzanne's seemingly storybook romance can mesh with the Boundless message of intentionality. Suzanne's answer is one you won't want to miss!
Albert Mohler has a new blog post this week about the problem with prosperity preachers. You know, the "health and wealth" guys who say Jesus is just waiting for you to ask Him for more stuff. In "It Promises Far Too Little" he writes,
Prosperity theology is now preached by a wide assortment of televangelists and local figures who assure congregations that God promises to make them healthy and wealthy, if only they will possess and demonstrate adequate faith. A significant number of these preachers have departed from Christian orthodoxy altogether, adopting Trinitarian and Christological heresies. The entire movement presents the Gospel as a message that is primarily about earthly rewards — a theology that turns God into a heavenly banker who is obligated to invest His people with material riches if they possess adequate faith and claim these blessings for their own.
According to Mohler, the evidence simply doesn't support their claims.
Sincere believers in Christ are found among both the impoverished and the wealthy, but the vast multitude of Christian believers throughout the ages have experienced nothing that can be described as material wealth. Their hope was and is established in Christ, who accomplished their salvation from sin and secures their hopes for eternal life through His death and resurrection.
He concludes:
Prosperity theology is a False Gospel. Its message is unbiblical and its promises fail. God never assures his people of material abundance or physical health. Instead, Christians are promised the riches of Christ, the gift of eternal life, and the assurance of glory in the eternal presence of the living God.
This and more in the article gave me a lot to think about. It seems to me that certain prosperity preachers focus only on the "blessings" verses while their detractors fail to mention them. And then I read something that helped me make sense of the tension. In Russell Moore's book, Adopted for Life, he writes,
Our Father tells us that we too are unable to grasp what's waiting for us — and how glorious it really is. It's hard for us to long for an inheritance to come, a harmonious Christ-ruled universe, when we've never seen anything like it (46).
It's not that God doesn't bless us on earth, but that when He does, we undermine His plan by thinking this is as good as it gets. Blessings on earth are merely a shadow of what awaits us in heaven. And it's heaven that we should be longing for, not more of the stuff that "moths and rust decay."
Uplifting TV by Matt Kaufman on 08/20/2009 at 8:08 AM
I've never watched an entire episode of a reality show. That's going to change in the new season of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, the show where a family gets a new home built for them in the span of a week.
The reason the show first caught my interest was simple: They're filming just a few miles from my town this week. But I soon found another reason to care. The family whose home is being replaced are staples of a local ministry called Salt & Light, which helps hundreds of people every day. The ministry's been in local news lately because state budget cuts were forcing them to make major cutbacks. Presumably publicity from the show will help them raise funds, which would be an answer to a lot of people's prayers.
Extreme Makeover is devoting this season to helping "community heroes," which makes it something rare -- not just an uplifting reality show, but an uplifting TV show of any genre. I watch a few good dramas and a few good comedies, but I can't think of any of them that I'd call uplifting. If I could find them, I'd tune in. Seen any lately?
I just got back from another trip to Minnesota. I always have a good time with my family while there. Of course, I rarely get there without some kind of drama, and this time was no exception. My flight from Colorado Springs was canceled due to maintenance issues, and I was put on a later flight with a different airline. I had a connection in Denver, and naturally, my first flight got in late, so I missed my Denver flight, too. I had to stay overnight in Denver, and found myself in a rental car with three fellow passengers whom I didn't know, headed to a sketchy hotel for a few hours' sleep. Welcome to my life.
The next morning I was scheduled to discuss the Christianity Todayearly marriage cover story with my friend David Wheaton on his nationally-syndicated radio show, The Christian Worldview. As it was, I sat in Denver International Airport at the end of the B Concourse and completed the hour-long interview on my cell phone with the paging system going off constantly in the background. Despite the less-than-ideal circumstances, David and I had a good discussion on young marriage, and were able to field a number of callers' questions. Check out the interview and let me know what you think.
I got to Minnesota that afternoon, and later that week, my mom, sisters and I made a two-day trip to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. While there, we visited David and his new wife, Brodie, at their home just outside of Minneapolis. You probably remember David's interview on The Boundless Show last year, and how the guys went after him for being single in his 30s. Well, David got married in June, and I'm not gonna lie ... we're taking some credit for it. I even told him so! Much to my surprise, I discovered that Brodie has been a long-time Boundless reader, and was faithful in praying for a godly spouse while at the same time trusting God in the midst of waiting. In God's sovereignty, that spouse turned out to be her long-time friend, David Wheaton. What a fun story!
So congrats to David and Brodie Wheaton, living proof that God is still in the business of making great matches! In fact, you can check out some of their wedding and honeymoon photos here.
Oh, and as a bonus, David got to meet my mom, who sported one of her Christian T-shirts for his benefit. She was in top form, sharing opinions on drinking, dating, worship music, baptistries and other scintillating topics. Thanks, David and Brodie, for your hospitality to us girls. The cookies were great, by the way!
I'm here in LaSalle, Ontario, Canada right next to the city of Windsor. And it's also right across the river from Detroit, Michigan. My town is named after the explorer René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle.
I regularly listen to the podcast and also follow the blog and webzine. I appreciate the content Boundless delivers and have been blessed by it in many ways!
This owl is also a resident of LaSalle. I captured this photo since I have reason to believe he or she may be an avid Boundless reader. I'm referring to the wisdom not the tired looking eyes :-)
God bless all of you (the team & also all of the people who benefit from what you do!)
Pear Analytics, based in San Antonio, Texas, said that it randomly sampled 2,000 messages from the public stream of Twitter and separated them into six categories.
The categories were: news, spam, self-promotion, pointless babble, conversational and pass-along value.
Pear said "pointless babble" accounted for 811 "tweets" or 40.55 percent of the total number of messages sampled.
Conversational messages -- defined by Pear as tweets that go back and forth between users or try to engage followers in conversation -- accounted for 751 messages or 37.55 percent.
Pear said tweets with "pass-along value" -- messages that are being "re-tweeted" or passed on by users to their followers -- accounted for 174 messages or 8.70 percent.
Self-promotion by companies was next with 117 tweets or 5.85 percent, followed by spam with 75 tweets or 3.75 percent.
It said tweets with news from mainstream media publications accounted for 72 tweets or 3.60 percent.
In an interview earlier this year on the Boundless podcast, Dr. Albert Mohler said that social media provides us with "quantum opportunity to leverage influence." It's why Boundless has a Twitter account. We try to leverage influence with "self-promotion" tweets that have potential "pass-along value."
Boundless tweets new blog posts, articles, and podcast releases, as well as giving updates about new resources like the Girl's Guide to Marrying Well.
So while most tweets may be lame, all of ours consist of meaningful information. Right?
In today's featured article "Life. Support." Brenna Kate Simonds discusses the vital need for face-to-face friendships. After a tragic event in her life, Simonds discovered that, though she had hundreds of Facebook friends, she lacked friends who would invade her space and provide comfort. She writes:
I think everyone struggles with disconnect. It seems to have gotten worse now that you don't have to pick up the phone, write a letter or make a coffee date to connect with someone. The age of message boards, e-mail and Facebook gives me this false sense of security, that I have all these friends and I know what's going on with them and they know what's going on with me — people I rarely or never see for any kind of "face-to-face" interaction.
I've come to realize that's not what Jesus had in mind when He talked about sharing life with other believers.
I talked about the need for friendships between women in my article "Girls Need Girls."
Whether we women are aware of it or not, female friends contribute to our emotional and spiritual lives in a unique and essential way. Even married women need the intimacy and connection that comes from female friendships.
The same goes for men. A supportive network of godly friends can make all the difference when it comes to satisfaction with one's life, personal growth and godly living. Sometimes it feels as if these friendships are elusive, but seeking them out is worth the effort. Simonds writes:
Relationships take risks, they take time, but I need them in order to thrive. Following Jesus' example gives me courage to persevere in pursuing the kinds of relationships that Jesus had.
Those are the kinds of relationships that change the world.
A couple of weeks ago we received the following e-mail:
I was reading Jonathan Dodson's article, "Failed Disciple," and wondered if you could explain what he meant by, "I can tell people my sins because my identity doesn't hang on what they think of me."
Great question! I passed it along to Jonathan, who provided the following explanation:
When our identity is hung up on what people think of us, it becomes difficult to be honest with them. Some of us approach others from below, fearing their rejection or disapproval. In order to keep their approval intact, we refrain from allowing them to see the real, broken us. We may not lie to them (though we probably do), but we certainly don't confess our sin to them. Why? Because we treasure their approval more than we treasure Christ. We are afraid that, if they know the real us, then they will disapprove. We lose face and friendship when we confess our sin.
Living for Applause
Others of us approach others from above, not fearing their rejection but expecting their applause. In order to keep their applause, we refrain from showing any weakness or sin. We want to be perceived as a mature Christian, a strong leader. Therefore, we do not share our sin and brokenness with others. Our identity is bound up with the applause and opinions of others. We tell white lies to keep them thinking we are mature, intelligent, etc. We say we have read a book, seen a movie, or know a person that we have not read, seen or known. We continue to build our identity, not only on the applause of others, but on what we "think" they will clap for. We get further and further from our true identity in Jesus.
Living in Christ
However, if we stake our identity in the acceptance of Jesus, this frees us to be honest about who we are, about our sin and failure. The more I rest in Jesus perfect death and resurrection for me, to make me right, loved, and accepted by the perfect Father, the less I need to appease or impress others. Chasing the approval and applause of others takes a backseat to the vastly superior love and acceptance of God in Christ. As a result, we share our real selves more. We confess sin more. Not haphazardly but earnestly. We call others to fight sin and treasure Christ. Our identity goes deeper into Christ and further away from what others think of us. this is freeing. This is the gospel.
When I'm not living for approval or living for applause, what people think of my sins shouldn't affect my identity. Their opinions ultimately don't change the fact that I'm dearly loved by my Creator, and that He's completed all that's necessary for me to become a child of His.
May I find myself living in Christ, rather than in the fearful state of living for approval or applause.
Greetings from the shores of the Mediterranean! I am a Franco-American reader working for a year in Marseille, France with two different Christian ministries. Some friends of mine in college introduced me to Boundless and I've been reading its articles and following the blog ever since. I've been very grateful over the past years for the good counsel and sound wisdom found here, and have often recommended articles to friends.
The first picture I've attached is taken looking over the city from the basilica of Notre Dame de la Garde, and the second picture is taken from the sea, looking towards the old port of Marseille. There is a lot of Middle Eastern influence in this city, as seen in some of the architecture. Around a quarter of the population here is from an Arabic background. Cool historical note (forgive me, I'm a history geek): some scholars think Paul may have stopped in Marseille if he did take a fourth missionary journey all the way to Spain. There's a great Christian heritage in this city, though sadly neglected of late, and I'm thrilled to be able to work here this year. Blessings on your continued ministry!
It's so encouraging to read so many comments on the missions vs. marriage post. Thanks to all the readers actively participating in this conversation. I heard from two more women this morning who have words of hope for the author of the question.
The first wrote:
When I read your "Missions or Marriage", my first thought was "Hey, there was an obvious answer missing!". There are believers *all over the world*. If a young person feels called to serve in missions, particularly in a specific country, the consideration of a non-white, non-American believer as a spouse ought to be open. ;) Why must it be "marriage to an American or no marriage at all" for American missionaries?
Of course, there is a great deal to think about and be cautious of when thinking about cross cultural marriage, but there are also many benefits to having a spouse who is native to the culture in which you are called to minister. I might add that there is nothing Biblically wrong with marrying a believer who has a different skin color and/or different culture. ;)
I never, never thought about marrying cross-culturally, but I met my husband while serving as a helper to missionary doctors in East Africa. We are not currently serving as missonaries, but I see it as a valid and perhaps too-little considered possibility for young missionaries. If anything, with a more global culture, more tolerance of "mixing races", high-speed and high tech communication available, it's certainly a much more practical and workable situation than it would have been even 10 or 20 years ago.
Just a few thoughts!
The second said,
I want to thank you for your recent column and encourage the person who wrote. I am not a missionary , but I am teaching English in Shanghai, China and have been here for 6 months now. I am 27 years old and like my fellow reader, I deeply desire marriage. Yet, I feel the Lord has called me to Missions and that my current experience abroad is preparing me for that. It is realy hard for me to imagine a lifetime without a spouse and I have been more bold in my prayer life and have made my desire known to close Christian friends here and at home.
I choose to believe that if the Lord has called me Missions, he is preparing me to marry someone with the same burden ... maybe not missions in the traditional sense, but missions nonetheless, at least for a time. I will be here for a least 6 more months — possibly until 2011. It's not easy and sometimes is lonely, but I'm trusting that God will prepare me to be a godly wife for my future husband and is preparing my future husband for me. And as I wait, I will do what I can to be proactive.
Thanks again for the sound advice you provide regarding marriage and family. It means so much to those you touch.
We are strengthened as a body by those of you serving in far away places to bring the good news of the Gospel to people in need. Thank you for your ministry — we'll keep doing all we can here to serve you, even as you serve others.
Sports history was made this past weekend. I'm not sure it's the kind we should be celebrating.
The brutal and booming sport of mixed martial arts, Saturday saw the first-ever pay-per-view headlined by a women's title bout. MMA's two top female fighters went at it in a beauty-and-the beast match-up that was a fight promoter's dream: Gina Carano (really pretty) vs. Cristiane "Cyborg" Santos (really scary). Result: An intense 5 minutes where beast demolished beauty.
It's disturbing stuff on so many levels. It's disturbing because the whole sport is so violent. It's disturbing because of the violence the women are doing to each other and to their own femininity. But what's most disturbing to me, as a man, is that so many men are watching.
On a gut level, a man should be appalled by the sight of a woman being brutalized. These men are enthralled by it. What's their excuse? That it's a "fair fight?" That it's OK if it's not a man beating a woman, but two women beating each other? That it's the ultimate achievement of feminism, where women are free to be whatever they want to be and enlightened men should be delighted to watch?
Get real. You don't have to believe these men are misogynists or sadists. At the very least, though, they're desensitized -- or they're getting there fast.
Maybe some of them arestill horrified by violence against women: Maybe part of what drew them to this particular fight was a protective fear for the beauty Carano facing a mauling by the fearsome Cyborg. But whatever their reason to start watching, the more they watch, the more they'll get used to the violence. And that's really scary.
Monday Ted published my answer to a question from a Boundless reader who won't be able to read it until August 27 because she's "living in a village right now" without access to email. That's the bounce back message I got when I emailed to let her know about today's Q&A "Missions or Marriage?" She wanted some help thinking through her actions toward a man who may be interested in marrying her, but may not be interested in living and working in a place where email is a luxury.
Today's Q&A is an extreme example. But even if you're not working in a hut in the jungle somewhere, you likely have wondered how your future husband's calling and career will affect your own. It's something Christian single women (should) think about before getting married. I know I did.
If you've ever wondered if you'll have to choose between the work you love and the man you love, today's column is for you. (And if you've faced the choice, we'd love to hear how you resolved it.)
Burt Rutan is one of the foremost aerospace engineers on the planet. Four of the aircraft that he's designed are on display in the National Air and Space Museum: SpaceShipOne, the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer, Voyager, and the VariEze.
Rutan is also "green," and has been for decades. His home was featured in Popular Science as the "World's Most Efficient House" back in 1989. His aircraft factory used solar-heated water back in the 1970s. He drove an all-electric car for seven years, until GM recalled it.
I became a cynic; My conclusion -- "if someone is aggressively selling a technical product who's merits are dependent on complex experimental data, he is likely lying." That is true whether the product is an airplane or a Carbon Credit.
Ouch.
Here are some of Rutan's observations:
Man can measure the past, but cannot code a computer model to predict future global temperatures.
Man has not demonstrated a reliable ability to himself change global temperatures.
Warm periods are good, not bad. It would be beneficial to have more warming than present.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
Warm periods have been brief and they are not the 'normal' planet state.
Oil/coal are called 'non-renewable'; but every decade shows an estimated increase in reserves. We will not run out; we will merely slowly switch when costs force a move to cheaper alternatives.
If Man, in the future, achieves a capability to change global temperatures, he will most certainly use that new technology to warm the planet, not to cool it.
And here are some of his recommendations:
Drop CCC (Climate Change Crisis) and Cap & Trade legislation. It is naive, non-scientific, irrelevant, hopeless and oxymoronic. Its alarmists can use it to destroy US global competitiveness through Cap and Trade taxes.
As proposed, most new jobs are for Government regulation/oversight bureaucracies. The process is already ripe with fraud (85% of permits would be free, 15% auctioned).
As proposed, the huge spending would result in no benefit to the planet.
Rutan is an enigma. He's an world-renown scientist who's been green before being green was cool. And he's not falling for what the the global warming alarmists/profiteers are pushing.
Never thoughts I'd have so much in common with an aerospace engineer.
(Now, the obligatory preemptive qualifier: Yes, as Christians, it is our responsibility to steward creation, to be opposed to inordinate pollution, to encourage restraint in what we consume. That's not what this AGW debate is all about, as I've explained in my Global Warming Primer.)
Well, I’m glad this weekend is over. That means we can go, oh, about five years if we’re lucky without having to hear about Woodstock again.
In case you spent the past few days in a cave, you might not have known that every media outlet in the known universe just spent the week commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Woodstock music festival, née An Aquarian Exposition. (It didn’t even take place at Woodstock but on Max Yasgur’s farm in nearby Bethel, N.Y.)
Now I have nothing against the music of Woodstock. The first two albums I ever bought (yeah, the big black vinyl kind) were by Woodstock stalwarts Crosby, Stills & Nash; and The Band. I own the Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock DVD, and a good portion of my iPod holds music from Woodstock acts like CS&N, Hendrix, Janis Joplin, The Who, Credence Clearwater Revival, Neil Young, and Sly and the Family Stone.
No, it was great music. I’m just sick of everyone talking as if those few days in Upstate New York were somehow the dawn of The New Man. It was nothing of the kind. A bunch of people got together and managed not to murder one another despite tremendous provocation—thunderstorms of epic proportion and the resulting sea of mud, no food, inadequate sanitary facilities, and tremendous crowding—and that’s something to celebrate, I guess. It could have been much worse. New York governor Nelson Rockefeller almost called out armed National Guard troops to handle the supposed uprising, and if he hadn’t been talked out of it we might remember Woodstock as we remember Kent State.
But a lot of the "magic" of Woodstock happened by sheer accident and because of the poor planning and incredible incompetence of the festival's organizers. Concert-goers and musicians alike were forced to make do, and people proved tremendously helpful and accommodating. For example, a local mom made hundreds of PB&J's and handed them out at the concert. It was never supposed to be a free love-in. It was very much a capitalist affair, with Wall Street investors bankrolling the concert, but the day before the concert was to begin they found they had only enough money to either finish the stage or erect a fence; the stage was the necessity, and the incomplete fence resulted in hundreds of thousands of people crashing the event. The musicians, altruists to a man, insisted on being paid in cash.
But for all the good music and good vibes that came out of those few days at Yasgur's Farm, a lot of tremendously bad things were popularized. First was the casual use of drugs. Yes, marijuana use had been on the rise for years, and three years earlier Timothy Leary had championed the use of LSD with his famous catchphrase, "Turn on, tune in, drop out."
But the image coming out of Woodstock of all the mellowed-out hippies dropping acid and smoking dope with no apparent ill effect opened the floodgates to making drug use seem cool even outside the counterculture, despite warnings even during the concert. Who can forget this announcement from the stage? "We're told that the brown acid is not specifically too good."
Another harmful effect of Woodstock was to insinuate an openness to New Age thought and Eastern religions into the wider culture. The Beatles had first plowed this row when they traveled to India and briefly bought into the flimflam being peddled by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, but with the exception of George Harrison, they soon saw through the baloney. Indeed, John Lenno'’s song "Sexy Sadie" was a bitter dig at the Maharishi's hypocrisy. Woodstock's "invocation" was given by Swami Satchidananda, and the entire hippie movement was strongly influenced by this mysticism. It was, after all, the Age of Aquarius. Unfortunately, a lot of their children had to pay the price.
Joni Mitchell's ethereal song "Woodstock" furthered the somewhat false image of that event. (She passed on an invitation to the festival, worried that it would interfere with her booking on "The Dick Cavett Show.") Her line, "We've got to get ourselves back to the Garden" made people think Woodstock was the norm, not the exception.
But the experience was never repeated, despite numerous attempts to do so. Four months later at the Altamont Rock Festivala man was stabbed to death mere feet from the stage as Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones sang "Under My Thumb." (Security at Woodstock was provided by hippies who called themselves the "Please" Force, while at Altamont is was provided by ... the Hell's Angels.) Woodstock '94 and '99 were known more for their general mayhem and $10 bottled water than music or lovingkindness. And don't forget that within a year both Joplin and Hendrix were both dead from drug overdoses.
After Woodstock the entire hippie counterculture was co-opted and mainstreamed by Hollywood and Madison Avenue, reaching its apotheosis of absurdity when Sammy Davis Junior, the ultimate Rat Packer, appeared on TV wearing a Nehru Jacket and love beads. It was only a short step from there to "The Brady Bunch."
I was a teenager that summer weekend in 1969 and only vaguely aware of the news coverage at the time. I found hippies slightly distasteful, although I couldn't articulate why. I suspect it's because I saw them as a bunch of immature and fatuous freeloaders, most of whom reeked to high heaven. I liked the music, though, and have ever since. But I'm too much of a realist (some might say cynic) to see that weekend as anything more than an aberration with really cool tunes.
I live in the beautiful Willamette Valley. I am an hour from the coast, the mountains, and the "big city" Portland. I am about two hours from the desert and great ski resorts, where someday I will get over my fear of all things fast and learn to downhill ski. I live near a terminus for the Oregon trail, such rich history including some wonderful men and women of God. It saddens me to know that Oregon is one of the least Christian states in the United States.
I listen to the Boundless podcast on my way to work each Monday, the encouragement helps me face each new week. I read the Webzine and blog as I take breaks from studying for my Master's in Library and Information Science. I have been so blessed by Boundless, when I have needed a singleness content-o-meter pick me up or simply another perspective on an issue I often find it through Boundless.
When 815 or so people were asked if brides should keep their own last names or take on the last name of their new husband, 70 percent opted for something new.
Respondents who said that women should change their names tended to view it as important for establishing a marital and family identity, she says, while those who thought women should keep their own names focused on the importance of a woman establishing a professional or individual identity.
Laura Hamilton, one of the study's authors reportedly said that because the question about name changes wasn't a political hot button, "people just answer the question without really thinking about it. It sort of taps into people's views about all kinds of things."
Interesting, given that Hamilton also noted that the people who said brides should change their names were also often more conservative when it comes to politics and religion.
I remember when I was a young teen hearing about women who kept their names. It didn't make sense to my young mind. I always looked forward to taking on my husband's name (always hopeful there'd be a future husband!)
What about you, when you marry (80 percent of Americans eventually do) do you plan to keep or change your name?
We passed by the "restaurant that Mommy doesn't like" the other day. I know this because every time we pass this particular establishment, my little guy pipes up from the back seat, "Oh, look, look. There's that restaurant Mommy doesn't like."
I force a little half grin. "Yep, buddy, it is."
How did this particular restaurant come to be known as that? Well, it had to do with little guy's brief fascination with owls. As we drove by one day, little guy suddenly takes a deep breath of excitement.
"Oh, mommy," he says, "Look! An owl store! Do they have owls there?"
"No, buddy," say I. "That's a restaurant."
"Wow! An owl restaurant," says little guy. "Can we go, Mom? Can we? Can we?"
Deep breath. "No, buddy," say I, hoping, but knowing this will not, end the conversation.
After a few more exchanges, I finally explain it, "Well, bud, Mommy just doesn't like that restaurant."
"Why don't you like it, Mom?" asks little gal, who has become intrigued with the conversation.
Hmmm ... teachable moment, I think. "Well, hun, you know how you and Mommy have talked about modesty?"
"Nope."
Great. My parenting is obviously sticking. "Well, it has to do with wearing our clothes and presenting ourselves in a way that is honoring to God. Do you understand what I mean?"
Pause. "Uh-huh," she says half-commitedly.
"Well," say I, "you see the people who own that restaurant have the ladies who serve the food wear something that's kind of like a swimsuit. And Mommy doesn't think that is appropriate or modest."
Little gal is appalled. "A swimsuit? To be a waitress? Mommy, that's just silly!"
Yep, it is. But it was also an easy target. It makes the point, but, in our world at least, it is an extreme.
I thought of that today when I was reading a blog about modesty. The gentleman was articulate and convicting. But then, inevitably it seems to me, he came to the extreme example: the halter top that's two sizes too small.
But that's not my problem, I told the computer screen, and I don't think it will be little gal's problem some day, either. We get that we shouldn't be wearing a halter top that's two sizes too small. It's whether we should be wearing the just-a-couple-of-steps-above-the-halter or the form-fitted-but-not-form-fitted-enough-to-bring-the-frowns-of-our-pastor's-wife. It's the in-between, not the extremes, where we have to make our daily decisions.
And while it's easy to poke at the owl restaurants and the tight shirts, it's not so easy to really talk about our hearts. To talk about how we dress reflects what we believe -- that our God is to be honored. To talk about how it's not just about avoiding immodesty, but pursuing modesty. I want little gal to know that, while there will be some hard and fast rules in our house, it's her heart that's most important in the battle to be modest.
I know I need to practice, and model for her, an attitude that says, "Sex is an amazing gift from God, but I will not abuse it for my own pride. Instead of finding power in turning a man's head, I will find the power in turning my heart toward God. Christian brother ... I've got your back."
So I figured I'd make some quick money by buying some computer stuff through a local government auction and selling it on eBay.
Last week I won a government auction for, among other things, 92 wireless access cards. Sweet, I thought. I've seen these things sell for over $10 each online. If I sell the lot of them, I should make at least $100 easy.
Well, my auction ended, and the winning bid: $1.95.
Nice.
Maybe, I thought, I might make a few dollars from the shipping fee, which I randomly set at $8.
Nope. I shipped them out today, and that came to $13.74.
Not to mention that eBay fees came to $3.12.
So, not only did I not make any money on this auction-flipping venture of mine, I actually had to pay $6.91 for the experience.
I've still got a few dozen computer cards at home, which I haven't yet put on eBay. Now I'm wondering if I should take a chance and see if I can make a few bucks off of them ... or if I should cut my losses and simply drop them in the trash recycling bin.
I find myself in the throes of wedding planning. Finding the right decorations. Picking out music. Securing punch bowls and pitchers. Getting married is hard work.
Everyone has told me it's OK that I'm not pouring so much effort into planning the wedding. "You should be putting the effort into planning the marriage!" they say. Good advice.
Here's more good advice I've received:
Make a decision with your intended that you will not allow ANYTHING to ruin your wedding day. My pastor had his wallet (containing $300 cash) stolen on his wedding day some 20 years ago. "It didn't ruin my day," he told me. "It ruined my dad's day. But that was his choice."
Take time during your engagement to spend some special times together, just enjoying one another. Every get together does not need to center around wedding planning. This advice came from a Boundless reader who said that she and her now-husband set aside several days during their engagement to go hiking together, one of their favorite activities.
Delegate. This one I'm learning the hard way. I never knew I had a problem asking people to help me, but I do. The other day my maid of honor (the intercessor) and I were compiling a list of the things needed for my reception. As my list grew, tears began filling my eyes. My friend quickly ripped away the list and said, "I'm taking care of this. You don't need to worry."
God is teaching me a lot about Himself during this season. One thing I'm learning is what an imperfect person I am, and yet people just keep pouring out their love on me. I suppose that is what it means to be part of the family of God. To be given something you don't deserve.
Yesterday, I listened to someone trying to decide between opportunities after finishing college. In describing one opportunity, she said something along the lines of "If I don't stay around to do that, I'm worried it won't get done."
In my mind, that took me back to a time shortly after I had finished college. It was the most frantic period of my life. I was working around 70 hours a week between a formal job and various commitments I had accumulated. I reached a point where I got an infection in my mouth that the doctor said was stress related. I ended up taking a retreat to evaluate all the different commitments I had made. My aunt suggested I listen to a message during my retreat. I don't remember now who the speaker was, but the message was about overcommitted people and what often drives their motivations.
As I listened to the message, I knew I was over-committed, but all along I thought I was just trying to be responsible. In fact, the book StrengthsFinder 2.0 indicates that one of my strengths is responsibility. Here's how that book describes this trait:
Your responsibility theme forces you to take psychological ownership for anything you commit to, and whether large or small, you feel emotionally bound to follow it to completion. Your good name depends on it. If for some reason you cannot deliver, you automatically start to look for ways to make it up to the other person. Apologies are not enough. Excuses and rationalizations are totally unacceptable. You will not quite be able to live with yourself until you have made restitution. This conscientiousness, this near obsession for doing things right, and your impeccable ethics, combine to create your reputation: utterly dependable.
Obviously, responsibility is a valuable trait to have, but it seemed to be pushing me into commitments that were hard to extricate myself from. I wish I had known at the time about how Tom Rath finishes the description of "Responsibility" in the StrengthsFinder 2.0 book:
When people come to you for help -- and they soon will -- you must be selective. Your willingness to volunteer may sometimes lead you to take on more than you should.
But there I was with all these commitments I had made and all I could think about was: if I don't do these things, they won't get done. The more I thought about it though, I realized that what I had perceived as noble responsibility was actually a bundle of pride, fear and a desire for approval that ended up compromising the quality of what I could contribute to those commitments.
A short time later, I resigned from my job and got out of nearly all my commitments (and then took off for graduate school). I still kind of wondered how things I was doing were going to get done without me around.I thought that again when my boss told me it would be almost impossible to replace me. But it wasn't long before someone else was sitting at my desk with their name where mine used to be. And other people stepped up in all the other commitments I had. They didn't do things the way I would have done then, but things got done without me.
And that was exactly the lesson I needed so that I could learn to make (and keep) commitments from a more healthy position.
This picture was taken about three months ago outside of the church my husband and I attend in Columbia, South Carolina. It showcases well the Palmetto, our state tree.
The picture is also meaningful because it was taken just a few moments before my husband and I got married. We've been married three months now and are happily anticipating the birth of our first child in February!
I've been listening to Boundless since just before I got engaged; funny enough, I was pondering e-mailing Boundless about the appropriate timing of getting engaged right around the time that my then-boyfriend proposed! Even though I'm not necessarily in the target audience anymore, I still benefit greatly from the articles and listen to the podcast while I'm at work.
OK, we're going to try to give away some CDs from legendary Third Day frontman Mac Powell this week. But you sort of have to be a Boundless podcast fan to win because it's about helping us come up with topics for our Rountable segment. So no repeats. Simply leave an original idea in the comments section and we'll pick our five favorites to discuss in upcoming podcasts. The five we pick will be the ones who win Glory Revealed II: The Word of God in Worship.
Clear enough? Good.
I want to end this week's intro by plugging the bumper music from Nevertheless ... great stuff. I found myself scrolling back to the in-between parts just to listen again to their music. I guess I should just go pay for the download.
What's God Teaching You?
There really is nothing I enjoy more than hearing someone share what God is doing in their life. It's always encouraging to witness the Holy Spirit moving in the lives of believers. And there's usually a lesson to be learned by the hearer as well. This week it seems God is showing Lisa, Steve and Ted how important being in community is.
Third Day's Mac Powell -- 13:38 Glory Revealed II: The Word of God in Worship features 21 different artists including Mac Powell, Laura Story, Shane & Shane, Sara Evans and Brandon Heath (whom we have on the show). In this week's Culture segment, Lisa interviews Mac and Laura about the how and why Glory Revealed II came about. And you hear our first-ever Boundless podcast in-studio performance of the lead track, "How Great."
So What if She Has a Boyfriend -- 33:50
This happens a lot. It happened to me. It happened to Steve. And it's happening right now to a guy named Josh. The "it" I'm referring to is liking a girl who has a boyfriend. What to do? Lay his cards on the table and risk it all? Or respectfully distance himself from her to see if her "boyfriend" works out? Listen in to find out.
My column today takes up a survey showing that most scientists don't believe in God. The question is why, and I suggest the answer lies not in science, but in attitudes and worldviews — a sense that belief in God isn't intellectually respectable. I also suggest we need to look into the spiritual aspects — the pride (I use the word "conceit") that very intelligent people can take in their own intelligence and their resistance to the idea that intellect is insufficient to explain the universe.
The first response came quickly. An e-mail asked what Boundless hoped to accomplish by printing this. The writer felt my piece fed a stereotype about the arrogance of scientists and intellectuals, and that it would just promote among our readers the same conceit and close-mindedness I'd complained about among many scientists.
I hope not. That's why I refuted the idea that religion and science "are inherently mortal enemies" in the first paragraph, and did so again near the end, though with a distinction. ("Religion isn't the enemy of science, but it is the enemy to scientists who have no sense of their own limits" — those who think science can explain everything.) That's why I talked about the forces besides conceit that could pull a scientist toward naturalism, and marveled that despite all that, many scientists (one in three) still do avow belief in God.
Did I do enough? You be the judge. What did I hope to accomplish? A couple of things.
First, I wanted to help Christians who suffer from intellectual intimidation. (You know: "If all the smart people think we're just products of evolution, who am I to challenge them?") It's important to realize that just because naturalists invoke the name of science, that doesn't mean their attitudes have been produced by pure science; their attitudes are shaped by forces outside science, and may have been absorbed long before they actually were scientists. Christians need to realize we're hearing from fellow sinful, fallible human beings, not from the collective embodiment of raw intelligence.
Second, I wanted to warn against the temptations that all of us (not just scientists) face when we develop a high regard for our own intelligence. I speak from experience. I grew up going to school with a lot of smart kids (professors' kids, many of them). I was a smart kid (sixth-grade spelling champ of Leal Elementary School, thank you very much, and you bet, I felt cocky about it). I know how it can go to your/my head. Hence, the column's conclusion: "The smarter the men the devil's tempting — or the smarter they think they are — the more raw material he has to work with. It's humility that gives him problems."
Our correspondent says he wishes I'd been clearer about that, helping readers understand that it's a danger we all face. I thought readers would take it that way, but maybe he's right. In any case, read the column for yourself. Did you find this a valuable piece? I'd love to hear your feedback.
I've heard that pride was once considered the worst of the deadly sins, but I had my doubts. Egged on by a culture that praises self-belief, I was impressed with all that I could accomplish ("honey, you can be anything!") Then I read this,
Pride is essentially self-worship: If I want it, that's all that matters, regardless of the consequences. Combine this spirit with sexual desire, and you have a recipe for abominable behavior. A humble heart is always going to be a chaste heart. That's why sexual sin is best fought not just by attacking lust, but also the pride that makes lust so hurtful to others.
Suddenly I'm not feeling so cavalier about this deadliest of deadly sins. And that's Gary Thomas's point in "Your Seven Greatest Enemies." He writes,
Without being fully aware of the enemies that seek to destroy us, they are allowed to do their damage under the cover of stealth.
What's more interesting is a sin that sounds like a funny zoo animal -- sloth -- is still potentially deadly. Thomas again,
Sloth is greatly ignored and very dangerous. In essence, sloth is the great spiritual assassin of our time. It kills our bodies; it kills our bank accounts; it kills marriages; it kills parenting and child relationships. It kills businesses, and governments. It kills vocations, and businesses. It kills everything it touches.
Is there any hope for us in our sin-as-virtue saturated culture? Thankfully, yes. Thomas writes,
Recognizing the breadth of sin and how it affects us spawns humility, which in turn assaults our pride.
Since pride is the foundation of the other sins, letting sin-struggles humble us (instead of ignoring them, or downplaying them, or pretending they're not really "serious" sins) is, ironically, one of the best ways to fight future sin.
...Knowing this list, and being humiliated by my feeble attempts to withstand the seven deadly sins' daily assault on my spiritual health, is actually a productive exercise, because it reminds me of my need for God's grace. That, in turn, grows humility, and humility builds up and fortifies every other virtue.
One of my heroes died this week. Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the 88-year-old sister of President John F. Kennedy, passed away on Tuesday, but in her long life she proved that you can bring about big changes without having to create a large government bureaucracy or by enlisting the rich and powerful.
In fact, Shriver went the opposite direction, aiming her social revolution at those who at the time were whispered about, hidden away or shunned, often the object of the cruel jokes of schoolchildren.
In 1962, Shriver started the Special Olympics in the backyard of her Maryland home, a move prompted by her love for her developmentally disabled sister, Rosemary. The beginning was small, just some backyard games. Through Shriver's dedication, the Special Olympics soon turned into a worldwide phenomenon giving tens of thousands of children the chance to learn that they had something to contribute, that they were good at something.
More important, she taught the world that children with Down Syndrome or other developmental disabilities were not to be scorned, pitied or condescended to. Winners got trophies; losers did not. They seemed fine with that. It pushed them to try harder. Compare this to so many coddled children today who play games of soccer where no score is kept and everyone gets a prize, where their school papers are graded with a purple pencil lest a red mark traumatize their tender psyches. There are types of disabilities other than physical or mental, some inflicted by misguided adults.
I have a special love for the Special Olympics. You see, my son, Joshua, is a former Special Olympian with a mean 3-point shot in basketball. (That's his team in the above photo. He's the tall guy, No. 20, in the center.) He was born with global developmental disabilities that include mental deficits as well as some physical problems. (That's why the term mentally retarded is often incomplete.) But, boy, you should have seen him as I whooped it up when one of his shots swooshed through the net. The pride and joy on his face as he ran down the court would melt the hardest heart.
Shriver's pioneering work also helped bring the developmentally disabled out of the shadows, opening the way for these children to be mainstreamed into school classrooms, where they could make friends and socialize like other school kids. Joshua, now about to turn 22, was one of the most popular kids in his high school. He holds a job at Chick-fil-a, something that would have been unthinkable when I was young.
I have another interest beyond my son. My younger sister, Amy, was born with brain damage. (That's her with Joshua at left.) She was born the year Shriver started the Special Olympics and by her teens was part of the first experiment in mainstreaming the developmentally disabled into public school classrooms. And then there's my niece, Rebecca, who has Down Syndrome. She performs in her church's children's choir, where her mom (my sister Mary) is the youth music director.
Eunice Shriver came from a well-connected, politically powerful family but never was elected to public office. Yet I believe she did more to better the world than any other Kennedy. We lost a kind, compassionate and tenacious lady this week. (Yes, you can be compassionate and tough at the same time.) We're all a little poorer for it, but her legacy remains.
Next time you see a Special Olympian, don't feel pity or condescension. Give him or her a high-five. That's all they really need.
I'm sitting here in a coffee shop in Santa Monica, CA, and about half an hour ago I just happened to look up and there in front of me was an actual celebrity.
I had been told this might happen.
The problem is, I can't for the life of me figure out who he was. I was told that might happen too. I know he's been on TV, I just can't remember what it was. I'll let you know if I ever solve the mystery. So far I have it narrowed down to the fact that he was in a comedy, and the fact that the show was eventually cancelled.
Anyways, as I work on this blog I'm listening to a movie soundtrack that has been one of my favorites for years. No matter what mood I'm in, this music always seems to meet me exactly where I am. And the older I get, the more fascinated I am by the role of music in our emotions.
We can hear it but we can't touch it and we can't see it. Sometimes there's an image associated with it, but even without it the right set of chords can suddenly resonate with us in a way no set of words ever could. Why is that?
I think of C.S. Lewis' quote about how strange it is that we as humans comment on the concept of time:
We are so little reconciled to time that we are even astonished at it. "How he's grown!" we exclaim, "How time flies!", as though the universal form of our experience were again and again a novelty. It is as strange as if a fish were repeatedly surprised at the wetness of water. And that would be strange indeed; unless of course the fish were destined, one day, to become a dry animal.
Could it be that music is a similar concept? Perhaps it resonates with us so deeply only because the true language of our hearts is something far more heavenly than beats and words?
Back to Belief by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 08/13/2009 at 8:37 AM
Andrée Seu provides a thoughtful meditation at Worldmag.com. She begins by detailing a temper tantrum she had with God this morning. Her beef: His Word is confusing. He seems impossible to please. His will is ambiguous. I've been there. As Seu considers her alternatives to belief in God, she writes:
Then I am terrified because I see where this is leading. At the end of sulking you still have to make a decision, and the options are bleak. Islam is a nightmare, and Buddhism and Hinduism make no sense. And there is no such thing as not choosing, because despair is also a choice. One imagines that giving up on the faith will be a relief, but one finds there is no relief at all in unbelief; it is the frying pan exchanged for the fire.
The Bible says that God can do all things. But the only thing he cannot do is believe for you.
If God is a Father, he is a very strict one. He lavishes his gifts daily, even the very breath with which I rail against him, as I sit on his lap and swipe at his face. But when it comes to the terms he laid for relationship — “believe in the one he has sent” — he won’t budge at all. And so no matter what I say, Lord, no matter what I do, I always come back round to you.
Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
These words have pulled me through many dark moments. There is sweetness in belief, even during times of frustrations. I couldn't agree more with Seu's conclusion: "And so no matter what I say, Lord, no matter what I do, I always come back round to you."
I live in Nashville, TN, where I am on staff at a great church. Music City lives up to its name and we have a lot of fun supporting all of our friends who are in the industry. It has also given us opportunity to love on the other musicians or friends who are playing with our friends.
After the discussion a few months back about the frustration girls were having about guys not being hospitable or planning activities, I really have to praise the guy friends here in Nashville. We have "Sunday Funday" where we have so far had a slip-n-slide, gone kayaking, had the Back Yard Olympics, and played kickball.
The Lord has really blessed this season of post-college years for all of us and we are having a blast in an incredibly fun city!
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