 |
I'm thinking about marriage these days—more than I ever have. I'll be getting married this fall. So I read with interest Candice's article "Thinking About Marriage." Unlike Candice, I did not pore over bridal magazines as a young woman or dream much about what my someday-wedding might look like. I did, however, think about the kind of man who someday might be my partner—how we would live and serve God together. Having the privilege of watching a healthy marriage play out through the example of my parents who have been married 35 years, I formed a positive perspective on marriage. I was blessed to grow up in a family where many of the benefits of family life were realized. I had a father who showed in every action that nothing delighted him more than his wife and children. I had a mom who listened, tenderly brushed away tears when necessary and spent late nights speaking words of wisdom and truth to me. I had siblings who made me laugh and cry and mostly be extremely grateful for their friendship, which was unfailing. I know what is possible.
For years a myth has circulated among Christian singles that you shouldn't think about marriage too much or it might become an idol. Candice counters, pointing out that a healthy desire for marriage actually fuels chastity and purpose among singles: If you lack a vision for marriage, you're setting yourself up for lax sexual standards, relationships without momentum, and heartache. If you don't have a deliberate goal in mind — either single service or Christian marriage between two chaste believers — it's pretty easy to fall prey to sexual temptation. And many are falling. According to pollster George Barna, "Among 21-year-olds, fewer than 1 out of 5 are married, and more than 4 out of 5 have had sexual intercourse — most of them with more than one partner." The hope of marriage is an antidote to promiscuity. If you believe in Christian marriage and are purposefully working toward it, it's a lot easier to set physical boundaries and character expectations in dating. Not only do those boundaries help you obey God's command to save sex for marriage, they increase the likelihood that the men you're spending time with will be good candidates for marriage.
I believe that my looking forward to marriage kept me from seeking out the immediate gratification of impure relationships. I was aware of the value of the thing for which I was waiting and didn't want to do anything to threaten that. Thinking about marriage is a good thing. What kind of spouse do you desire to be? What will be the purpose of your marriage? Considering these things may actually enhance the way you're living for God and developing your character now as a single. After all, it comes back to faithfulness in all things, regardless of your marital state.
Many of you reading this blog are coming of age where decisions about caring for a debilitated parent or grandparent have become a reality. In the face of such trials, Mollie Ziegler Hemingway writing for Christianity Today challenges us to be unwavering as we seek to honor our parents:
The generations handling care for dying parents are facing something their ancestors never did. They're part of smaller and less-stable extended families. They're less likely to live near their parents—sometimes they are thousands of miles away. And the amount of time spent caring for elderly family members can extend from a few tough years to many difficult decades. Even the strongest families will be stretched to the limit when attempting to fulfill the commandment to honor one's parents. So what do you do?
You take care of your parents.
Hemingway advises us to "think scripturally" when caring for the aged:
- If your parents are Christians, help them plan their funeral so that it's the clearest possible testimony to Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, and return. What's more important: that the people gathered learn about that time your dad took you camping and told a good joke, or about the forgiveness of sins?
- Make sure your parents have simple prayers for comfort during painful and difficult deaths. One pastor reported that a parishioner facing lung cancer prayed, over and over, "Lord, have mercy; Christ, have mercy; Lord, have mercy." Another person learned Psalm 23 so well that it became part of her vocabulary; she could go to it even when it was difficult to concentrate on other things.
- Keep in mind the value of the individual. Christians believe that our worth begins in the womb, and doesn't end until we are cradled to our Father's bosom. When so many people determine worth based on what you can do or contribute, it becomes easy to disregard the elderly as useless. But it is our Father in heaven who determines who is worthy. One's identity isn't changed by illness.
My wife was just 28 years old when her mother was diagnosed with Early-onset Alzheimer's disease. In 2005, we moved to Colorado Springs from Washington D.C. to help care for her. As Ella has lost every sense of herself and others, this last truth from Hemingway, that one's identity isn't changed by illness, has been an effectual and sustaining truth as we seek to honor her.
Because even though she doesn't know who she is, her identity is safe with God.
In 1995, freshman Congressman Mark Sanford made a name for himself as a fiscal disciplinarian by sleeping in his office to save taxpayer money instead of setting up residence in Washington, D.C. His penny-pinching quirks included reports of having staffers use both sides of index cards and sharing sodas with colleagues.
Then there's Mark Sanford the undisciplined husband who had an affair with Argentine Maria Belen Chapur and sought out other sexual encounters with a "handful" of young women.
Of course the South Carolina Governor presents it differently to the press. He didn't "seek out" sexual encounters; they just sort of happened. According to this Associated Press article, they're referred to as "casual encounters" from trips with his buddies.
He said that during the encounters with other women he "let his guard down" with some physical contact but "didn't cross the sex line." He wouldn't go into detail.
Sanford said the casual encounters happened outside the U.S. while he was married but before he met Chapur, on trips to "blow off steam" with male friends.
The whole "let his guard down" thing is just an attempt to salvage anything left of his dignity, to imply that sexual affairs were never his intentions. It seems, however, he never had his guard up. Take for example the way his "love story" began with Chapur:
He said he saw her two other times, including their first meeting in 2001 at an open-air dance spot in Uruguay.
"There was some kind of connection from the very beginning," he told The Associated Press, though he said neither that meeting nor a 2004 coffee date in New York during the Republican National Convention were romantic.
Hmm. Going to an open-air dance spot and arranging coffee dates aren't exactly what I'd consider hedge-building. The likely truth is that Governor Sanford enjoys being sexually aroused by young women and puts himself in position for such encounters. One such encounter led to an adulterous relationship that may ruin his career.
Mark Sanford the politician is known for his passion to protect taxpayer money. He went to extremes to act it out in his career, often sacrificing his own personal comfort. Mark Sanford the husband should have shown the same passion for protecting his marriage.
When couples get married, does it matter what vows they repeat? In a column for the Wall Street Journal last week, David Lapp, of the Institue for American Values, talked about the plans he and his fiancée had for customizing their wedding vows.
I told him [their pastor] that we planned to write our own vows. He dismissed my idea and directed us to the Book of Common Prayer (published in 1549) for the vows he thought we should exchange. The vows there are more formal, and hardly original: "to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part." My sensibilities were offended. "Don't you know this is our wedding?"
Lapp follows this story with what I found to be an intriguing thought:
...let's imagine for a moment that, instead of reciting the oath that his 43 predecessors have taken, President Barack Obama had insisted at his inauguration on personalizing it, perhaps replacing "I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States" with the more flexible "I will try as hard as possible to do the job of president of the United States." That sounds a little more natural and honest, he might have argued: How does he know if he'll always be able to live up to his word? Besides, he might have stated, "The traditional oath is what every other president has said. I want mine to be original."
We, the people, would have been outraged -- and rightly so. The very specific words our Constitution requires the president to recite demonstrate the gravity of the obligations he assumes. They can't be reduced to the whims of one person.
He goes on to say:
Like the presidential oath, the traditional marriage vows -- whether Catholic, Jewish or Protestant -- typically ask a marrying couple to make specific pledges: as the Catholic marriage ceremony puts it, "I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health." And for how long? "I will love and honor you all the days of my life." The words of religious marriage vows are direct and uncompromisingly clear.
Lapp also includes a story I hadn't read before that has been rolling around in my head ever since:
In 1943, German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a letter to a young bride and groom, reminding them that "it is not your love that sustains the marriage, but from now on, the marriage that sustains your love."
Will your marital vows be direct and clear enough to help you sustain love?
About a month ago I was reading a short article on, of all things, the "Riskiest Search Terms on the the Internet." Evidently, certain Internet search terms have a very high likelihood of landing you on a web site containing malware.
For example, "screensavers" is the number one riskiest Internet search term with a 59.1% chance of landing you on a web site containing malware. Number Two? "Free Games" (24.7% chance of malware). But it was Number Three that caught my attention: "Work From Home" (15.6% chance of malware). There are so many people wanting to work from home that it's the number three target of cybercriminals.
I thought of that today when I was reading "Five Myths on Fathers and Families" by W. Bradford Wilcox. In his article, Wilcox warns about five common myths the American media often put forward around Father's Day, despite the fact that they simply are not true.
The second myth Wilcox describes is the myth that "Women Want Everything 50-50." Wilcox writes: "Most married mothers nowadays do want their husbands to do their fair share of housework and childcare. But they do not define fairness in terms of a 50-50 balancing act where fathers and mothers do the same thing at home and work. Instead, contemporary mothers take into account their husbands’ work outside the home when they assess the fairness of the division of labor inside the home.
Moreover, most women who are married with children are happy to have their husbands take the lead when it comes to providing and do not wish to work full-time. For instance, a 2007 Pew Research Center study found that only 20 percent of mothers with children under 18 wanted to work full-time, compared with 72 percent of fathers with children under 18. My own research has shown that married mothers are happiest in their marriages when their husbands take the lead when it comes to breadwinning — largely because his success as a provider gives her more opportunities to focus on the children, or balance childcare with part-time work (the most popular work arrangement for married mothers). So, on this Father’s Day, dads who are fortunate enough to hold down a good job and make a major contribution to their families’ financial welfare should take some comfort from the fact that they are likely to be boosting not only their families’ bottom line but also their wives’ happiness."
There's no way to tell for sure who is doing all those "work at home" Internet searches. But my guess is that we would find -- just as the Pew Research Center and Wilcox did -- a large number of moms who want to be spending more time with their children.
It's something to consider. Will you be in that majority of moms that do not want to be working full-time outside the home? Is there anything you can do now to give you more options then?
HT: Challies and Dr. Mohler
Mohnish Pabrai, a New York money manager, thinks it's very important to have heroes. "It just so happens," Pabrai said in a recent interview with Marketplace, "that my hero is alive when I'm alive. And my hero is actually willing to accept a bribe to sit down for a meal. So we paid the bribe and we got the meal."
Who did Pabrai have a meal with? Warren Buffett. How much did Pabrai pay for that meal? $650,100 (although he did only pay two-thirds of that ... another friend paid the other third).
In the interview, Pabrai talked about the lunch and what advice Buffett had to share. Pabrai determined that they had about 54 different threads to the conversation (the lunch lasted three hours), but a few stuck out -- including Buffett's advice to Pabrai's daughters: "For example, Warren told my daughters that the single most important decision they would make in their lives was who they decided to marry. And I think that's something that sticks with them. They actually think about that."
In fact, Pabrai talked about how one of his daughters, who attended the lunch with him, threw Buffett off-guard with a question about his marriage: "...she suddenly brought up, she said, "Yes, was it hard when your wife left you?" So his first wife, Susan Buffett, in the 70s left Omaha and moved to San Francisco. I think the question caught Warren off-guard, I could see his eyes well up. But I think it took him just a few moments, then he was in control. Then I think he spent the next 40 minutes on Susan."
Interestingly, to me at least, the Marketplace reporter didn't seem very concerned about Buffett's marriage talk, despite the fact that it was such an obviously important topic in the lunch and to Buffett. Instead, she followed up with questions about philanthropy and his temper.
But, I just wondered if anybody else listening to the interview caught the phrase that I did ... that Buffett thinks that who you decide to marry is the "single most important decision" a person makes in his or her life.
For me, I'd disagree with Buffett. The single most important decision that each of us makes doesn't have to do with our spouse. But I would agree that who we choose for a spouse is important. What's essential, I think, is to pray, to know exactly what are the "non-negotiables," to remember what's not essential, and to embrace the responsibility of the decision without letting it paralyze you.
(FYI: Pabrai was the winner of the 2007 charity auction to have lunch with Buffett. Last year's winner won with a bid of $2.1 million. Bidding is now underway on eBay for this year's lunch. Last bid I saw was for $82,100. Pre-qualified bidders only. Hmmm ... I'm not going to bid for this, but who would I bid to have lunch with? Deep thoughts.)
I must've been 10 or so. I'd just come back from summer camp, enthused about the greatest sport of all time: tetherball.
So my dad bought a long pole, got an iron cap for it, found some rope, picked up a tetherball in town somewhere, rummaged up an old tire, mixed some concrete ... and made it possible for me to play tetherball any time I wanted.
Maybe a year later my dad must've noticed a high-tech inquisitiveness about me. So he got some plywood and made a workbench in the basement, bought a small soldering iron from Radio Shack and showed me how to use it, and then ordered me a Heathkit shortwave radio. I remember the long hours I'd carefully affix diodes and transistors and capacitors and resistors and wires and rubber feet and knobs to the circuit board and chassis. I remember the smell of the solder, the care I put into making sure I didn't melt any electronics, and the stations I brought in once it was all assembled.
Over the years, my dad showed me how to plant corn using fish guts as fertilizer, how to rinse garden carrots off in the lake before eating them, how to tack into the wind in our little sunfish, how to cross-country ski, how to weld copper pipes and elbows, how to shoot a .22 and an arrow, how to clean a northern pike, how to use a slide rule, how to mix epoxy, how to paint a wall, how to use his stethoscope, how to look through an endoscope at the inside of someone's stomach.
Now I've got kids of my own. Now I understand the attentiveness, sacrifice, inconvenience and expense of good parenting.
Thanks, Dad. May I be as good a father to my daughters as you've been to me.
I'll never forget the panic attack I had leaving the hospital after my first child was born. As I was strapping her in the car seat, I remember thinking, Wow, she's really mine. I mean, I'm responsible for her now. I actually have to take her home.
Which I did ... never going above 25 miles per hour ... with the hazards on ... waving at the people tailgating to go around.
While I know it's a bit cliche, it did happen. And it does illustrate (if only a little) the immediate effect of fatherhood on men.
First Things' blogger Andrew Peach goes a lot further in his article on the change that takes place when men become fathers. He concludes that children "literally and perhaps even intentionally" kill the father's "ego-centered lives."
Most fathers-to-be suppose that their old ego-centered lives will continue more or less unabated after the child arrives. With the exception of a few more obstacles and demands on their time, their involvement with their children is envisioned as being something manageable and marginal. Nothing like a complete transformation—an abrupt end to their former life—really enters men’s minds.
But then the onslaught begins, and a man begins to realize that these people, his wife and children, are literally and perhaps even intentionally killing his old self. All around him everything is changing, without any signs of ever reverting back to the way they used to be. Into the indefinite future, nearly every hour of his days threatens to be filled with activities that, as a single-person or even a childless husband, he never would have chosen. Due to the continual interruptions of sleep, he is always mildly fatigued; due to long-term financial concerns, he is cautious in spending, forsaking old consumer habits and personal indulgences; he finds his wife equally exhausted and preoccupied with the children; connections with former friends start to slip away; traveling with his children is like traveling third class in Bulgaria, to quote H.L. Mencken; and the changes go on and on. In short, he discovers, in a terrifying realization, what Dostoevsky proclaimed long ago: “[A]ctive love is a harsh and fearful reality compared with love in dreams.” Fatherhood is just not what he bargained for.
Yet, through the exhaustion, financial stress, screaming, and general chaos, there enters in at times, mysteriously and unexpectedly, deep contentment and gratitude. It is not the pleasure or amusement of high school or college but rather the honor and nobility of sacrifice and commitment, like that felt by a soldier. What happens to his children now happens to him; his life, though awhirl with the trivial concerns of children, is more serious than it ever was before. Everything he does, from bringing home a paycheck to painting a bedroom, has a new end and, hence, a greater significance. The joys and sorrows of his children are now his joys and sorrows; the stakes of his life have risen. And if he is faithful to his calling, he might come to find that, against nearly all prior expectations, he never wants to return to the way things used to be.
In this life, few things illustrate the biblical principle of finding yourself by losing yourself quite like fatherhood. It's a great reminder as we seek to honor our father's this weekend.
HT: Between Two Worlds
I have a big announcement. But you'll have to listen to this week's Boundless Show to find out what it is.
I will tell you that you will hear me discuss my relationship with Kevin and our age difference (I am older). At first, it was a deal breaker for both of us. But once we came around (in God's timing and through His obvious orchestration), we discovered some of the unique—and sometimes delightful—aspects of a May-December relationship.
On the podcast, Ted and his wife Ashleigh also discuss their age difference. In their case, Ted is the elder of the two. How does the more-than-a-decade difference play out in their marriage? On many counts, they say, it doesn't matter.
I walked away from our discussion with this: In the search for a godly mate, keep an open mind. Don't focus on incidentals, such as age, social status or career success. Instead, concentrate on the person. Is he or she godly? Are the two of you compatible? Do you see evidence that God is confirming the relationship?
Enjoy the discussion (and the announcement)! Then share your thoughts here.
Over at the Gender Blog, I found a very insightful and helpful editorial by Dr. Denny Burk (located in the latest edition of The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).
In it, Dr. Burk outlines what he believes are the main points of contention between a biblical and secular worldview on gender and sex. First, Dr. Burk addresses the three main secular views:
- Gender is something that you learn, not something that you are. "In other words, the idea of male and female comprises a set of stereotypes that we absorb from our culture. Male and female does not designate a universal, innate distinction among humans. Thus gender is merely a social construct."
- Sex is for pleasure, not for God. "We might call this the Sheryl-Crow-philosophy-on-sexuality. If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad. This perspective affirms any and all attempts to get sexual pleasure so long as such attempts do not harm others. If it feels good and you're not hurting anyone, then how could it possibly be wrong?"
- Marriage is cultural, not universal. "In other words, marriage is something that came from human culture, not from God. It has a human origin, not a divine one. With God out of the picture, humans are free to make marriage into whatever they want."
Dr. Burk contrasts those secular beliefs with three biblical truths:
- Gender is something you are before you learn anything. "In other words, the distinctions between male and female find their origin in God's good creation, not in what we learn from culture. That is not to say that people do not absorb ideas about gender from the culture, some of which are quite unhelpful. But that fact should not be used to suppress the truth that in the beginning God differentiated humankind as male and female as a part of His original creation-work."
- Sex is for God before there is any lasting pleasure. "When people treat pleasure as the goal of sex, not only do they inevitably end up in immorality but they also end up with less pleasure. God is not a cosmic killjoy when it comes to sex. He intends for His creatures to enjoy this great gift for His sake, and that can only happen when God's people realize that the body is not for immorality but for the Lord (1 Cor 6:13)."
- Marriage is universal, not cultural. "From the Garden of Eden forward, God intended marriage to be an enacted parable of another marriage: Christ's marriage to His church (Eph 5:31-32). Thus, marriage is not defined by the culture, but by the gospel itself."
Good stuff. Reading Burk's article helped me to articulate some of the underlying assumptions in the debates over sexuality and gender in our society. But, my favorite part of the article was when Burk recommended that Christians emphasize a two-pronged approach to gender and sex in our culture -- both a countercultural message from the church and countercultural living among individuals and families in the church. By doing both, we both proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and show its power in our lives.
Ever wonder if you can get married too young? I don't mean when you're 16, or 12, or anything weird like that. I'm talking about youthful, early 20s marriages. In today's Q&A for women, I answer a question from a 19-year-old woman who agrees with what Boundless says about not delaying marriage. She's just wondering if delay is OK or even necessary in her case. She writes,
I agree that we should not delay marriage. But I also think it is unhealthy to get married too young. Given the structure of our society, how young is too young? How soon can one be practically expected to get married?
Wanna know what I said? Here's a snippet:
... statistically, marriages entered into by teenagers are more prone to end in divorce. It's not inevitable, but more likely. And anything you can do to make your marriage more divorce-proof is a good thing (especially in our divorce crazy culture). However, while research has demonstrated value in waiting until after the teen years to get married, that same research hasn't shown that the likelihood of marrying well will continue to improve with every year you wait. In fact the opposite is true.
... In the end, delay — even by 19-year-olds — can put wear and tear on your heart the same way it can when you're much older. And young marriage isn't the bane so many try to make it out to be.
You can read the whole thing, including my aside to older never-marrieds who are tempted to think my reasoning is bad news for them, here.
I remember the first time I started rooting for professional golfer Phil Mickelson. It was the 1999 U.S. Open. Mickelson was in serious contention to win his first-ever major championship, but insisted on wearing a pager throughout. You see, his wife was expecting their first child (expecting any moment, in fact) and was to page him if she went into labor. Mickelson made it known that if the pager went off, he was off as well.
There's a man, I thought, who knows his priorities. I was hooked (or sliced).
Today, I rooted for Phil and his wife again. Mickelson announced that his wife Amy has been diagnosed with breast cancer and that he will be taking an "indefinite leave" from the PGA Tour.
Jack Nicklaus commented, “No one, especially Amy, deserves to have to face the battle that accompanies cancer. But we know that Amy has this amazing inner strength and spirit, and with Phil’s unwavering love and support, they will fight and overcome this.”
With his unwavering love and support. They will fight. Wow.
In his book, The Christian Husband, Bob Lepine tells a story about Robertson McQuilken. McQuilken served for years as the president of Columbia Bible College and Seminary until his wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. Lepine quotes him: "I approached the college board of trustees with the need to begin the search for my succcessor. I told them that when the day came that Muriel needed me full-time, she would have me ... So began years of struggle with the question of what should be sacrificed: ministry or caring for Muriel ... When the time came, the decision was firm. It took no great calculation. It was a matter of integrity. That was no grim duty to which I was stoically resigned, however. It was only fair. She had, after all, cared for me for almost four decades with marvelous devotion; now it was my turn."
Lepine writes how McQuilken is "a reminder that it is often harder to live for your wife than it would be to die for her...In the end, sacrificial love involves a willingness on the part of a husband not only to prefer his wife as more important than himself (see Phil. 2:3), but a readiness to lay down everything he holds dear to care for her. It is a decision on the part of a husband that nothing will supersede his marriage covenant. It's the kind of love that never gives up."
It's an amazing and mysterious truth that he who loves his wife loves himself. But a truth, it is. I just want to honor those husbands who lay down their lives, those who are willing to and those who aspire to be that kind of husband.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is one of my favorite family scholars. A few years ago, she wrote an excellent article for Boundless about cohabitation called "Why not take her for a test drive?" Around that time, Candice and I met her when she spoke at a Chuck Colson conference held here in Colorado Springs.
Dr. Morse taught economics for 15 years at George Mason University and Yale University before moving to California where she has spent several years combining motherhood with writing and lecturing. She is the author of the books Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work and Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love In A Hook-up World.
I caught up with Dr. Morse on the phone the other day and I was encouraged to hear about the work she's now doing on college campuses through an organization she created called The Ruth Institute. Following on the model of the Federalist Society, Dr. Morse is working to help students bring great marriage speakers to their campuses.
She has also planned an event August 6th through the 9th targeting student leaders who would like to be marriage champions on their campuses. The conference, taking place at the University of San Diego, is called "It Takes a Family to Raise a Village." The deadline to apply for this special event is next Monday May 4th.
Sure would be great to see some Boundless readers get a chance to participate.
In Monday's Q&A I quoted myself in an effort to quickly compare our human ideas about marriage to God's ideas. Today I received an email that reminded me that sometimes concision can lead to confusion. By pulling two paragraphs from my book in an effort to make a point, I lost the context those paragraphs normally occupy and caused some frustration. David said he's upset because I implied that marriage isn't romantic, that sex isn't a primary purpose of marriage, that marriage is more crucible than anything else, and that I believe (in his words) that "God only doles out spouses to the few who know the combination of the lock on His goodness." He ends his email saying, The article has a lot of "It's not what it's cracked up to be," with a weak "Look forward to it" at the end. If marriage is more disappointing than fulfilling, aren't I better off single?
David, I'm so sorry that what I wrote left you feeling that way. That was not my intention! On the contrary, I believe marriage is tremendously fulfilling, that married sex as God designed it is wonderfully enjoyable (and worth waiting for), and that when you marry well, you indeed get companionship, occasional romance, and a fairly good hedge against being lonely. But that's not primarily why God gave us marriage. His primary purpose was to bring glory to Himself. Marriage as designed (by Him) is a picture of Christ's relationship with His bride, the church. Though it fully involves a man and a woman, it's ultimately not about them.
Again, I think much of this confusion comes from the limitations of short pull quotes. That and the nature of answering one question, only to raise more. Monday's column was in answer to a question about how to channel your sex drive when you're single. If I had been answering David's question, which is a different question altogether, I would have used different pull quotes. I may just do that.
Want to choose a good marriage partner? Check out their childhood photos. According to LiveScience, psychologists have discovered that how much people smile in old photographs can predict their later success in marriage. Bottom line results: People who frown in photos are five times more likely to get a divorce than people who smile.
In one test, the researchers looked at people's college yearbook photos, and rated their smile intensity from 1 to 10. None of the people who fell within the top 10 percent of smile strength had divorced, while within the bottom 10 percent of smilers, almost one in four had had a marriage that ended, the researchers say. (Scoring was based on the stretch in two muscles: one that pulls up on the mouth, and one that creates wrinkles around the eyes.)
Researchers stress that they can't determine the correlation. One kind of obvious theory: smilers have a more positive disposition. Another thought is that those who smile when asked to have more obedient personalities that make marriage easier. Or maybe smilers attract more friends, which provides them with a better support system for marriage.
We know a joyful heart is good medicine, so perhaps the predictive smile is simply an outward manifestation of that kind of joy that infuses life into a marriage.
The findings are also notable because they found a connection between photos taken when people were young and marriage outcomes that sometimes occurred much later.
"It feeds into this idea that what's occurring earlier in our lives in terms of our present situation and our mental state can predict things that occur decades later. Showing the continuity in who we are is really important."
On the surface, this study is just good fun, but it points out how today's choices and behaviors lay a foundation for the future. Say cheese!
In Relationships: Recession-Proof Business?Carolyn McCulley weighs in on a recent article in the Economistthat reports online dating sites are on the upswing in a slow economy. From the article:
Not many industries are doing well in the recession. But along with discount retailers and pawnbrokers, online-dating sites such as eHarmony.com and OkCupid.com have seen business look up. There are several theories to explain why. It may be that people have more time to devote to their private lives as the economy slows; that uncertain times increase the desire for companionship; or that living alone is expensive, whereas couples can split many of their costs.
It does seem a lagging economy may cause people to examine what really matters in life, including meaningful companionship. But this reality has a more sinister expression. McCulley notes that an online site that arranges extra-marital affairs is also experiencing an increased business. According to the site's manager, people suffering financial problems "want to do something that makes them feel better about themselves, and $49 is a tiny expenditure for a life-altering affair.”
McCulley writes:
In both cases, the church has a ministry opportunity before it. Instead of seeking to profit from people's loneliness, the church can present both the good news of the gospel and the teaching to support relationships and marriages. As I've written before, the church should be involved in helping singles meet and marry because marriage is a God-ordained institution and, in the face of cultural opposition today, it is an institution that needs supporters. There is a HUGE cost for adultery and it's one that ripples well beyond the individuals involved.
Meaningful relationships are a valuable commodity regardless of the economic situation. But as McCulley points out, where there is a greater felt need there is greater opportunity.
Lots of us know Tim Challies for his outstanding and influential book reviews. He joined us last Friday on The Boundless Show to talk about just that: books. But what about his life beyond blogging and reading? In his real life, Tim's a dad. He and his wife Aileen have three kids ages 9, 6, and 3.
In an interview today on StartYourFamily.com, Tim and Aileen talk about the ways kids have changed their marriage, their relationship with God, their free time and the poverty that finally inspired them to start having babies.
He says,
There may have been part of us that was anxious to spend the early years of our marriage working, building up some bank accounts, and otherwise enjoying each other. But we soon realized that we were so poor that we would have no money to do any great vacations or buy a house in the near future. So instead we decided to front-load our relationship in the hope that when we’re older we’d have time to do a few of those things together. We think we made the right decision.
You can read the full interview here.
Reading today's article "Bye, Bye Pebble Baby," by Brenna Kate Simonds, brought back memories of my own miscarriage. At the time, nine years ago, there wasn't much in the way of resources or organizations to help women grieve the death of their baby. And given the depth of grief and the heaviness of loss, I'm thankful that's no longer the case.
I'm currently reading Jenny Schroedel's forthcoming book, Naming the Child: Reflections on Miscarriage, Stillbirth, and Infant Death, a tender book by an author who is careful with her words. She knows how fragile her subject is. Not everyone does. That's one of the hardest things about infant death: people who want to help but just don't know what to say.
I wrote about what that felt like to hear from concerned but clumsy friends:
It wasn't long before the phone started ringing with people wanting to see if I was ok. One call in particular stands out. The mother of six asked bluntly, "Were you excited about this pregnancy?" "Well, no, I didn't want to be pregnant again," I mustered. "But, of course, I wanted the baby." I quickly ended the conversation, startled by her intrusion into my private world. There would be other painful, unhelpful comments from friends, but one thing was certain: This baby had entered my heart, and as unwelcome as the news of his coming was, the news of his departure was excruciating.
For anyone reading Simonds' article who's experienced the pain of infant death, or is trying to figure out how to help a friend who has, there is help to be found.
It will come as no surprise to regular readers of The Line that I'm a big fan of Gary Thomas's article, "Marry Sooner Rather Than Later."
 And I can imagine there will be lots of readers who want to take issue with Gary's bolder statements. Like this:
Though the average age for a man to get married in this country is now approaching 28, and the average age for a woman is approaching 27, the fact is, you've been created by God with a body that is ready for sexual activity a decade before that. ... A cavalier attitude toward this disconnect can result in premarital sexual sin that dishonors God and threatens your integrity, as well as your future sexual satisfaction in marriage.
This:
Few people today would question the motivation of a young couple who proclaimed, "We want to get married because we are head over heels in love," even though what they are experiencing is an emotional release of pheromones that neurologists tell us will not and cannot last longer than 18 to 48 months.1 Sexual need and desire, however, will be a constant for at least the next three decades, if not more. Why should I base a lifelong decision on a relatively temporary emotional disposition, and disregard a God-designed motivation that may never fade?
And this:
We Christians — believing in God as creator — should be the last ones to discount the delight and pleasure of sexuality, or the need to respect God's design for this relationship to take place within a lifelong commitment. In fact, we honor God when we submit to the call to marriage. Marriage is God's creation, not man's, and we should surrender to it as part of our worship. In the wise words of Al Mohler, there is a certain point where delay can become disobedience.
But pastors should love this article. Why? Because married couples are a lot more likely to go to church than singles are. In today's Wall Street Journal, respected researcher and professor Brad Wilcox writes:
Religious attendance among those 21 to 45 years old is at its lowest level in decades, according to Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow. Only 25% of young adults now attend services regularly, compared with about one-third in the early 1970s.
The most powerful force driving religious participation down is the nation's recent retreat from marriage, Mr. Wuthnow notes. Nothing brings women and especially men into the pews like marriage and parenthood, as they seek out the religious, moral and social support provided by a congregation upon starting a family of their own. But because growing numbers of young adults are now postponing or avoiding marriage and childbearing, they are also much less likely to end up in church on any given Sunday. Mr. Wuthnow estimates that America's houses of worship would have about six million more regularly attending young adults if today's young men and women started families at the rate they did three decades ago.
Not only is marriage good for your libido, but also for your soul. And since it's the men who do the asking (or should), these two articles are especially important reading for single young men.
What if you want to marry, and live like you're planning to marry, but never get married? What if, after all that focus on future marriage, God calls you to remain unmarried? Won't you have wasted precious years and increased the possibility of feeling hopeless?
 Not according to Voddie Baucham. In his view, rooted solidly in Scripture, marriage prep is never a waste. In What He Must Be, and speaking as a father, he writes,
If we prepare our children to be husbands and wives, and God calls and equips them to be single, we have lost nothing.
Why? Because "the Bible gives us one standard for spiritually mature manhood. We are not given one standard for pastors and another for laymen. Moreover, one could argue by implication that we do not have one standard for single men and another for married men." And that standard for biblical manhood, as detailed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, is "the ability to lead one's own family ." He says,
We prepare our sons to be godly men in view of their responsibility as husbands and fathers, and whether or not they eventually fill those roles, we have given them the greatest tools available for serving in any capacity, even that of elder/pastor in the church.
Certainly the same could be said about Proverbs 31. Though that chapter was originally written as advice from a mother to her son about what to look for in a wife, for centuries it's been a model for biblical womanhood, regardless of marital status. (See, for example, Carolyn McCulley's, Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye?)
And if we don't prepare for marriage?
... if we do not prepare our children to be husbands and wives, and they (like the overwhelming majority of people) end up married someday, we have lost a great deal.
Preparing for marriage, Baucham shows, is no less than following the model of Christ.
Clearly, our Lord is a bridegroom. Jesus is our ultimate model for biblical manhood, and as such he shows us what it looks like for a man to spend his life preparing for a marriage [see Revelation 19:7-8; cf. 21:9].
Monday I answered a reader's question about submission in the day-to-day decisions of married life. After I wrote my answer, I learned that the author of the question is married to an unbeliever. This adds a dimension that I didn't cover in the column. I'd like to do that here.
Ephesians 5, the verse I spotlighted in "Practical Submission," shows us how Christian husbands and wives are to relate to one another. But thankfully, the Bible is not silent on the situation where a believing wife is married to an unbeliever. 1 Peter 3:1-2 says,
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
Yes, submission is a hard word. Especially when you're married to a man who doesn't try to be an Ephesians 5 kind of husband. And it's made harder by a culture that redefines and twists it, then mocks it to no end. But it's in a biblical understanding of submission that lies the hope for an unsaved spouse. What joy to serve a God who inspired Peter to address women in that situation directly. And not only with instructions for following a husband's lead, but also with hope that their obedience to God has the power to lead their mate to eternal life.
(I'm in no way suggesting a wife should stay with or submit to a man who is acting criminally toward her. Such a man has already abdicated his role and responsibility as her husband. He has forfeited his claim on her as wife.)
I'm working on a review of Voddie Baucham's new book, What He Must Be...if he wants to marry my daughter. (You'll see that soon over on Boundless.) But I couldn't wait that long to talk about page 36. This is where Baucham really gets into the heart of marriage and intentional protracted singleness. He kicks the chapter off with a quote from Martin Luther about the benefits of marrying young,
Some thoughtful people have turned their own experiences into a fine and noble proverb and have said, "Early to rise and early to take a wife a man will not regret throughout his life." Why? Well, this mode of life makes for people who keep a healthy body, a good conscience, possessions, honor and friends.
 Baucham would know. He grew up surrounded by divorce, remarriage, more divorce, illegitimacy, and more. Speaking about the offspring (38) of his male first cousins, he writes, "This number is quite illusive since no two people in our family have the same count for the number of children [they've] fathered out of wedlock." Thankfully for his own children, he has managed not only to stay married, but to make his marriage a model for multigenerational faithfulness. Marriage is, he says, a high calling. Perhaps the highest.
I have never met more young men and women with a desire to serve the Lord than I have in recent years. However, most of them are willing to do anything God asks as long as it does not involve growing up, settling down, and pouring themselves into the ministry of marriage. I use the term ministry purposefully. I believe marriage is a ministry. Unfortunately, it is one to which few acknowledge a call these days. It seems that some believe that marriage is somehow beneath other callings. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is perhaps no higher calling.
"What about pastors and missionaries," you say? "Aren't those higher callings?" Baucham answers directly,
I do not believe it is necessary to rank marriage and ministry any more than I would rank eating and drinking. Both are essential. My point is simply this: it is wrong to argue that marriage is somehow less important than ministry. Marriage is ministry.
There is more, much more, in this book about singleness, and more importantly, about how to marry well. But that will come later. For now, I found it worthwhile to quote a respected Christian leader who is doing his part to esteem marriage and remind us that God's design for marriage is far loftier than we often remember. I'm hopeful that books like What He Must Be will be a help to all the Christian singles who are still hoping to get married.
For all my concerns about Octomom, I'm reminded by a Philadelphia Inquirer story that there's yet another downside: her headline-grabbing stunt seems to be turning a critical eye on large families who get that way (large) the old-fashioned way (one or two babies at a time).
In "Octuplet Case Increases Scrutiny on Large Families," Lini Kadaba reminds us how rare big families have become:
Big broods -- definitions vary, but the fifth child seems to be the tipping point -- have always existed, of course. These days, however, they are uncommon -- so rare that the U.S. Census no longer tracks families with six or more children. In 2007, about 2.1 million American families had four or more children under 18 years old -- 2.7 percent of all families, according to the most recent census data.
But rare isn't wrong. And lots of experts, including sociologists and demographers, believe the shrinking family is bad news for many reasons (economic, moral, cultural). Sadly, many other people think it's the big families who are bad news. According to Lorin Arnold, an interim dean of the College of Communications at Rowan University who studies large families, "We have this cultural belief that two or three kids is the right number. Anyone who is outside that norm feels the need to justify their family size."
The Philadelphia Inquirer article continues,
Society looks most critically on those furthest from what's typical, said Arnold, herself a mother of six. If a family is Catholic, "that's a good excuse for why you would have so many children," she said.
"Parents of many children often struggle with resources, but so do those with only one child, she said. For instance, those parents can feel compelled to arrange numerous extracurriculars or time with friends so the only child is well-adjusted socially."
They think that "every time you add a child to the family, there's a reduction in those resources," she said. Other academics, however, argue that finances might be limited but emotional connections are not and that time spent as a group or with siblings offers benefits.
As the Duggar family shows, the benefits are many. And big families used to be the norm. The Inquirer notes,
At the turn of the century, kids provided extra hands to work farms; large numbers also assured that at least some would survive to adulthood. Industrialization and advances in health care have contributed to the shrinking of the American family, whose size has dropped 26 percent since 1965. These days families average just under two children. Those with five, six, eight, 12 or more, stand out as unusual, even bizarre.
But are they?
"I think it's one of the last acceptable prejudices," said Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a family counselor and father of nine who founded the organization This World: The Values Network. "We always seem to gauge the sophistication of a family, and even of a culture, by the degree to which it controls its fertility."
There's nothing intrinsically bad or good about more or fewer babies. Bad parents -- and good ones -- exist in all categories. As do bad and good examples. My hope is that for all the headlines, believers will have the wisdom to discern the difference.
Beth left a comment yesterday that got under my skin:
Boundless does advocate getting married young, having many babies, and women not working.
While I'm kind of troubled by Beth's misunderstanding about what we truly advocate (e.g., intentionality, purity, community, Christian discipline, etc.), it's the phrase "women not working" that for some reason really gets me.
Of course, what she means is "women not working outside the home." But by cutting that phrase short, she seems to be reinforcing the notion that women who choose not to delegate their responsibilities as a mother to others are somehow not working as hard as those who spend most of their waking hours at the office.
Maybe I'm just being a grammar nazi. After all, we know how to finish phrases like "he drinks" or "here I am to worship." Of course we mean that "he drinks alcohol" and "here I am to worship the Lord."
I do see a subtle difference, though. Beth's wording omits a prepositional phrase ("outside the home"), while these two phrases omit the noun, the direct object ("alcohol" and "the Lord"). Not sure if that's significant.
Hm. I recognize that I have this thing about omitting important phrases. I've confessed before that I don't feel comfortable exalting what I do ("here I am to worship") while diminishing the object of my worship ("the Lord"). Similarly, perhaps, I don't feel comfortable assuming that "working women" by default refers not to stay-at-home mothers, but to those who earn a living outside the home. It just seems to minimize the hard work required of women whose primary occupation is caring for their children.
Maybe we could be a bit more sensitive toward those women who choose to work for their families rather than for The Man. Maybe we could try finding ways to affirm their sacrifice. Including them among "working women" by recognizing both those who "work in the home" and those who "work outside the home" may be a simple way to start.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Given recent conflict over the merits of the massive so-called stimulus bill -- especially provisions to include contraception -- it's more important than ever to make the case for babies. Even in an economic downturn. Of course, so is making the case for parents taking responsibility for those babies once they're born. Frank Pastore's commentary in Crosswalk gets it wrong. He writes:
But something is wrong, very wrong, when we’re growing so many citizens who don’t even try to pay their own way, who willfully choose to take limited resources away from deserving others, and who live in such a way that they just assume it’s someone else’s responsibility to take care of them.
Babies aren't the problem. Government programs that displace fathers and encourage promiscuity and irresponsibility are.
If there's one reason I'm thankful that the campaigning season is over, it's so that I don't have to hear the "individual story" (or the "personification" of an issue or whatever you wanna call it) anymore.
You know, when an interviewer asks, "So, Senator, why are you in favor of a homeschooling tax break?"
"Well, let me tell you," Senator Smith says, "because of people like Ted Slater of Colorado Springs, a hard working man, trying to educate his kids at home, blah, blah."
Or, "So, Senator, why do you favor providing subsidies for stay-at-home Christian bloggers?"
"Well, let me tell you," Senator Jones says, "it's because of people like Heather Koerner of Tulsa, Oklahoma, who is slaving away right now on her PC, but hears everyone talking about how great Macs are. We should not be a nation of have-Macs and have-not-Macs, so I think that Heather, blah, blah, blah."
Makes we want to throw a shoe at the TV.
It's not that individual stories aren't instructive. They can, and sometimes do, have something to teach us. It's just that individual stories aren't necessarily prescriptive. National PC policy should not be made just because I want to try a Mac.
That's what made me a little hesitant about passing on this article: "Madonna syndrome: I should have ditched feminism for love, children and baking" in the Times.
In it, author Zoe Lewis, talks about how she was imbued by her feminist mother with "the great values of choice, equality and sexual liberation" but that how "now, nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold."
Here's the thing. One feminist denouncing feminism doesn't necessarily make feminism wrong, in the same way that someone denouncing the Christian faith doesn't make Christianity wrong. What makes feminism right or wrong is how it lines up with Scripture. As Christians, we start with the Truth, God's Word. We learn what it tells us about being male and female, about being husbands and wives and about being mothers and fathers. We strive to make sure that the Word, not the world, shapes our priorities.
But, still, stories like this can be instructive to us. They can show us how even a woman who doesn't share our faith, still shares our Creator and still feels the pull of His design.
She writes:
"I was led to believe that women could 'have it all' and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dreams - to be a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no."
"...Somewhere inside lurks a woman I cannot control and she is in the kitchen with a baby on her hip and dough in her hand, staring me down. She is saying: 'This is happiness, this is what it's all about' It's an instinct that makes me a woman, an instinct that I can't ignore even if I wanted to."
"...I argue that women's libbers of the Sixties and Seventies put careerism at the forefront, trampling the traditional role of women underneath their Doc Martens. I wish a more balanced view of womanhood had been available to me. I wish that being a housewife or a mother wasn't such a toxic idea to middle-class liberals of yesteryear."
"...In the future I hope that there can be a better understanding of women by women. The past 25 years have been confusing and I feel that I've been caught in the crossfire. As women we should accept each other rather than just appreciating 'success'. I have always felt a huge pressure to be successful to show men that I am their equal. What a waste of time. Wife and mother should be given parity with the careerist role in the minds of feminists."
"... I wish I'd had the advice that I am giving to my 21-year-old sister: if you find a great guy, don't be afraid to settle down and have kids because there isn't anything to miss out on that you can't do later (apart from having kids)."
As I wrote on our Facebook profile, I'm conflicted
Children are a blessing. We affirm families that embrace this blessing by having many children. And though kids generally do better with two parents than one, even single-parent households are worthy of our esteem.
So here comes the story of a single woman, who has six kids, who through in vitro fertilization gives birth to eight more.
I'm bewildered that any woman would intentionally bring so many fatherless children into the world. Maybe there's more to the story, but at face value her motivations seem more about her than about the kids.
On the other hand, I find myself asking why I should even care. This is her business, and I am not in a place to judge her motivations. Indeed, I think it could be a virtue to withhold judgment against people like this mother.
Certainly our government should not be involved. Once they get their foot in the door, regulating who can have kids, and how many they can have, it's not hard to imagine us going the way of Communist China in limiting offspring to one per couple.
And then there's the issue of "snowflake kids" -- the living human embryos brought about by IVF who are either saved for later or destroyed.
I don't want to see any of us condemn this woman for what she's done. I do, however, want to hear your thoughts about the issues that this situation brings up.
Someone I love and am very close to just went through a divorce. Even though there were strong Biblical grounds for the divorce, it was painful all around. I've seen God do some redemptive work in this family, but I continue to pray for the kids involved because I realize they still have a lot of processing ahead of them.
In the past, I've written about the picture that is emerging as the generation most affected by divorce grows up and tells their stories. Their experiences continue to remind us that the promise of a "good divorce" is something of a myth. A recent story in the online publication New University captures in a raw way some of what a parent's divorce can do to a child:
My parents got divorced shortly after Sept.11. It happened, like the coup de grace of a one-two punch. So every time I think back to that October afternoon when they sat my brother and me down in the guest bedroom, I involuntarily think of burning and collapsing buildings. I don’t think I need to explain the symbolism any further. I was in seventh grade, my middle brother in fifth and my youngest in pre-school.
It didn’t really come as a surprise to me. In fact, I was expecting – and dreading – it. In the preceding months, I heard them fight more and more through closed doors and from upstairs to the point that I thought it was normal. That’s when the dreading began.
Thanks to everyone who prayed for our friends Motte and Beth -- and their four adopted children -- on their journey home to Colorado from Ethiopia. They have arrived in the States and are en route to Denver now. Cause for much praise!
Please do keep praying for their endurance. The flight was rough with little sleep and much (non-stop) crying. I hear the kids were cranky, too.
Seriously, for anyone close to a foreign adoption, you know the flight home can be the hardest part. Or one of them.
Please keep supporting them in prayer. Thank you.
Last week on the podcast we talked about the issue of "fetus fatigue." This is the trend of young evangelicals taking a step back from the issue of pro-life, either because we feel there's nothing more we can really do or we're hesitant to associate with an unpopular, uncool, unsavory issue. I was convicted. There are definitely issues I feel more comfortable discussing than abortion. I had a wonderful professor in college who had a lot of passion for this issue. I never doubted that his fervor was holy. His heart burned for protecting the preborn. And, more than that, he was willing to put his conviction into action. Today I was discussing with a friend what that fervor should look like for us. How do we, as young adults, need to be involved in protecting life? Whatever your level of enthusiasm for the issue of pro-life, if you believe that preborn children are as valuable to God as yourself and that they have the God-given right to live, this conviction should compel you to do something. Focus on the Family has Option Ultrasound, which provides ultrasound machines to pregnancy resource centers. The provision of an ultrasound to women at-risk for abortion doubles the potential number of babies saved versus counseling alone. That I can get behind. Justin Taylor reports on another opportunity: Option Line is a national calling center (plus IM and email) fielding calls from women actively considering abortion, taking the time to understand the pressure or fear they face, and directly and immediately connecting them to the Pregnancy Help Clinic best able to serve them locally.
The cost of one hour of this helpline? $50. That I can get behind. Today, on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion on demand, I find myself wanting to do something—rather, wanting to understand what God would have me do. As I admitted to Motte on the podcast, there really is no excuse for fetus fatigue. Either life is at God's heart or it is not. Once that decision is made, I am responsible to act accordingly. I'm thankful that God does not experience fatigue in His passion for the oppressed. And as His child (who has experienced the joy of being alive), I should follow suit.
Every week or so we hear from a reader who has gotten married, but still finds a lot to enjoy about Boundless. The question they tend to ask a lot, however, is "Where's the Boundless-like resource targeting young married couples?" Well, that's one of our big projects for this year.
But we need your help. If you're among the 10% or so of our readers who are young married couples, would you post a comment letting us know how you think we could best serve, (encourage, inspire, support) you?
I found last week's article "Looking For My Birthmother" to be a fascinating look into the issues adoptees experience, from dealing with incomplete medical records to wrestling with the grueling decision of whether to find their biological parents.
After 12 years of prayer, Boundless author Kimberly Eddy decided to begin the search.
I'd be interested in hearing from those of you who've been adopted: Does Kimberly's experience mirror your own? And from those who haven't been adopted: How does her article give you insights into what adoptees go through? And from those who have either adopted, or are wanting to adopt: Has Kimberly's story helped you better understand some of the tensions an adoptee feels?
"It must be God's will for you to be single." "Be content where you are." "It's better to be single and wish you were married, than married and wish you were single." If you're over a certain age and still single, you've probably heard one or more of these sentiments, or a variation thereof. I know I did. But I say it's never too late to hope for marriage! And now Wang Guiying is proving my point. She's a 107-year-old Chinese woman (that's one hundred and seven!) who's decided the time is now right to get married. I can't say that I blame her for staying single so long. In her culture, her singleness spared her the traumas of wife-beating, feet binding, scolding, and low social standing, according to one Reuters report. In any event, she's looking for a groom who's at least 100. She wants to be sure they have something to talk about.
I appreciate the conversation going on in response "The Faithful, the Marriable" based on the article "10 Ways to Be Marriable." Several who made comments stressed that perhaps the term "marriable" is misleading, because even if a person embodies all 10 characteristics, he or she may not currently be married or have any guarantee of getting hitched in the future. I agree. Although, I don't think it ever hurts to work on character. But that got me thinking about the opposite. Is it possible to be "unmarriable" or at least marriage-resistant? I think so. Consider in reverse the list provided in the article, and ask yourself if you would have any interest in a person who displayed these characteristics: discontentment, laziness, cruelty, inconsistency, negativism, inability to commit, spiritual apathy, pride, doubt, indecision. I understand that a list like the one included in the article is not some magic formula for marriage. However, I stand by the article's title. These are indeed — at least in the opinion of several couples who are close enough to the "pairing up" season to remember — 10 ways to be marriable. Not the only 10 ways, of course. But 10 ways nonetheless. Developing these 10 character qualities will not make you less marriable. Now what about the issues of attraction and confidence? I'm glad Mike Theemling brought this up. General rules of attraction do dictate that men prefer females who are easy on the(ir) eyes and women gravitate toward confident fellas. I purposefully did not hide this fact in my article. Almost every guy's story included something about the physical appearance of his now-wife: her smile, her hair, even beauty of which she was unaware. Many of the women's stories about their now-husbands demonstrated that confidence was involved. For example, Josh's comfort level stepping into ministry at Lindy's church or Andrew's boldness in approaching Sarah at the ice cream social. Attraction is always a factor. Confidence is always a consideration. But something I took from reading all of the stories was that each of the people involved was a delight to others in some way, whether through a humble spirit, a strong faith or a genuine kindness. I hope what you take away from the article is that any work you allow God to do on your character can only remove barriers between you and others — including, but not limited to, your future spouse.
Some see them as a pragmatic way to protect yourself in case your marriage falls apart. Others see them as an expression of doubt -- in both the person and the institution -- something that may actually facilitate divorce.
Boundless Answers columnist John Thomas received a question about it a couple of months ago, and responded to it in his column.
It's pretty easy to figure out what he thinks about these things. In his first paragraph, he writes, "Pre-nups are, in my opinion, a tragic sign of the devaluing of the institution from covenant to contract."
What do you think? Are there possible benefits for some people? Are there dangers that John didn't even bring up?
HT: Mike Theemling and Christina (in green).
I was catching up on my blog reading yesterday when I came across an article that gave me pause: "Adult Women Play House with Fake Babies."
According to the article:
"Many people like to stop and play with newborn babies, but now some adult women are playing house with fake babies. Some women are even going as far as taking day trips with the fake babies to the park, out to eat and even hosting birthday parties for them."
The dolls -- referred to as "Reborns" -- are incredibly lifelike (so much so that one of the dolls fools a passer by in this ABC clip) and can cost from a hundred dollars up to a few thousand dollars.
Now there are a lot of potential topics to unpack here, but I want to restrict my comments to one statement that particularly caught my attention. It was from Reborn owner, Lachelle Moore, who has grown children and grandchildren: "What's so wonderful about Reborns is that, um, they're forever babies," Moore said. "There's no college tuition, no dirty diapers ... just the good part of motherhood."
"The good part of motherhood." That theme was echoed by another "Reborner" who giggled about how she feels like she has a real baby because she changes the baby and dresses it up to look cute, but who said that she could never adopt a real baby because of the expense.
Now, I can relate to these women to some degree. Though they are not actually mothers to these dolls, these women understand that there is joy in motherhood. And there are certainly parts of motherhood that are more fun than the others. In some of my early mommy days, it was a major accomplishment if I managed to get a cute outfit on my daughter and keep it clean for a consecutive sixty minutes. Going to the park was (and is) a welcome break for my kids and myself from the demands of a household.
But I think I would have to disagree that those are "the good part of motherhood" and that my new responsibilities, sacrifices and the demands on me are necessarily the "bad." I probably thought that way before I had kids -- that there were "good" things about parenting and "bad" things about parenting and that you simply prayed and hoped that the first would outweigh the second in the end. Now, I'm learning more and more that those things I dreaded--the financial sacrifice, the mess, the bother, the "loss of me"--are, in truth, some of the best parts about being a parent.
Boundless contributor Gary Thomas says it this way in his book, Sacred Parenting:
"Without sacrificing ourselves, we can't really appreciate Christ's sacrifice -- which means that children, with all the demands that they place on us, usher us into a deeper understanding of and even an astonishment at what God has done on our behalf....
Every mother has walked this road. To offer life to another, she literally shares her body for nine months, and then even risks her life and health to bring this child safely into the world. Once the child is born, other sacrifices present themselves. Both men and women can rise to the demands and have their souls shaped accordingly. If we embrace these great and small tests with our spiritual eyes opened, we may even come to cherish the sacrifice required of us, so rewarding do we find the spiritual blessings that follow."
So, just a word of encouragement. The fun parts of motherhood are, yes, amazingly joyous. But there's no need to fear the hard tasks of parenthood or arrange your life so that you try to avoid them. Yes, they're difficult. Yes, they will stretch you and grow you and tire you until some days all you can do is call upon the name of the Lord. But they are not the bad parts of motherhood. So very far from it.
HT: Tim Challies
In hard economic times, people give things up: eating out, lattes and...divorce. According to this article on MSN fewer people are splitting up in a slow economy.
The recession and economic turmoil is creating a new class of casualties: married couples who can't afford to get divorced. In these tough times, many people are finding it's cheaper to stay together, even when they can't stand each other.
"The reason that the economy has such an enormous impact on divorce is that most people in the middle-income brackets are getting by on whatever income they have. They're just getting by," said Bonnie Booden, a family-law and divorce attorney in Phoenix.
A major factor in the divorce downturn, Booden said, is that divorcing couples have to establish two households with current funds -- sometimes a prohibitive factor in hard economic times.
I find it sad that the author refers to those who can't afford divorce as casualties. I'm not naïve to his meaning, but excluding abusive situations, casualty -- "a person or thing injured, lost, or destroyed" according to Websters -- seems like the wrong word. This perspective views a difficult marriage as a threat to personal happiness. Well, yeah. But that's why vows include "for better, for worse."
My friend who posted a link to this article on his Facebook page noted how it's troubling that the author would speak of marriage in such a disposable and unflattering way. I agree. God commands lifelong covenant marriage for a reason. The true casualties are the men, women and children affected by the pain of divorce.
There's a scene in Rocky III (a classic btw) that comes to mind when people ask me if I'm ready to bring four children home from Ethiopia.
Interviewer: What's your prediction for the fight?
Clubber Lang: My prediction?
Interviewer: Yes, your prediction.
[Clubber looks into camera]
Clubber Lang: Pain!
That's my prediction too, "Pain!" But I'm not worried about it. There's a certain freedom that comes when you know you're in over your head. I figure that anything that heightens your awareness of your own inadequacy is a good thing. And as time draws near for our departure, that awareness brings me to my knees where I cry out to the Lord for his strength.
I know I'll fail. I know I'll prove an unworthy father, particularly when I'm exhausted and on edge. But I also know I'll love them. I already do. And I believe Scripture's promise that love covers a multitude of sins.
So no, I'm not ready. I knew going in that I'd never be truly ready. But God will fill in the gaps of my unreadiness. That's good enough.
Sometimes during a Christmas party conversation, when people find out you work for Focus on the Family or Boundless, you feel a little judged. Other times, the questions begin. Saturday night, it was the latter.
"So, I overheard you mention your 'work blog'," a party attender said to me. "But, I thought you didn't work."
After eight years of staying at home, I no longer react to the "you don't work" comment. I know what they mean. It's fine. So I explained about the freelance writing. She wanted to know what I wrote about. Mainly Christian finances and some about stay-at-home mommyhood, I told her. That's when she got the intense look. Here it comes.
She explained her situation. She had been working for seven years while her husband completed a bachelor and professional degree. They had two small children. She was frustrated.
"I'm tired of having someone else raise my kids," she told me. "Don't get me wrong, Miss Gina is doing a great job. But I want to raise them myself."
Her husband now had his professional job, but also had a boatload of student loans from professional school. He agreed that she could now stay at home if she wanted. But, she wanted to know, was she selfish to stay at home and not contribute to paying off the loans?
Candice tackles a similar question in today's Boundless article. In "Boyfriend Doesn't Want Kids," a reader wonders about her desire to stay at home with future kids: "[I'm} thinking that maybe I'm selfish to want this so badly ... It's painful to try and let go of, and I'm not sure that I should."
Candice answered: While it's possible to want children for the wrong reason, strength of desire for babies is no evidence of that. Scripture is full of examples of women who longed to be mothers. My favorite example is Hannah. And God's answer to her desperate prayers (so impassioned were they, the high priest thought she was drunk!) was not to turn her away for being self-serving, but to open her womb and make her fruitful.
I agree with Candice. It is always possible to have wrong motives. We can have desires to do things Scripture condemns. We can even have wrong motives for things that Scripture commends -- such as giving, sharing the Good News, marrying or fellowshipping with other believers. The answer isn't to stop giving, sharing, marrying or fellowshipping. Rather, to give our hearts to the Lord and ask Him to purify our motives -- to make His will, our will.
In the same way, if I am concerned about my desire to stay at home and raise children, I think it's wise to test that desire against Scripture and give my motives to God. Titus 2 tells me that young women are to learn how to love our husbands and children, be self-controlled and pure, be busy at home, be kind and subject to our husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
So, do I want to be busy at home as an expression of active servant love to my husband and children? I'm in line with Scripture. Free time, "me" time and "I" time? Not so much, maybe.
So, Saturday night lady and I had a discussion. We talked about how it sounded like her priorities were in line with Scripture, how she and her husband had a plan to responsibly handle their debt and how she would, in fact, be contributing to her household by staying at home. I reassured her that I did not think she was selfish to want to raise her kiddos.
Everyone knows the words to "The 12 Days of Christmas," although I must admit they mystify me in places. Who would really want 10 lords a'leaping for Christmas? Who needs a bunch of guys prancing about the house, creating a ruckus and knocking over all the lamps? The two turtle doves, not to mention that partridge, would surely lead to a big mess, especially once the cats found out about them. And 12 drummers drumming? Yikes! Call the cops!
So here's an idea: Let's update the list to make it relevant today. Let's give gifts that strengthen our marriages and family.
On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a spice jar: That way, we can season our words with grace, encouragement and love. Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Ephesians 4:29)
On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a calculator: This is a special calculator, with the cancel key prominently placed in the center of the pad, conveniently twice the size of all the other keys so it is easy to cancel accounts instead of keeping score. [Love] is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. (1 Corinthians 13:5)
On the third day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a zipper: It's usually wiser to keep your lip zipped than to compound a problem. Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry. (James 1:19)
On the fourth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a duffel bag: This model has two handles, one on each side so the load is lighter for both of us. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Galatians 6:2)
On the fifth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a pocket watch: This timepiece is carried in a breast pocket, close to the heart, so we can remember to give each other time to grow. It was he who gave . . . to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-13)
On the sixth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a shovel: This is a Smokey Bear shovel so we can put out sparks before they become raging fires. “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. (Ephesians 4:26-27)
On the seventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a fountain: True love is constantly refreshed and daily springs anew. May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. (Proverbs 5:18)
On the eighth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a ballerina doll: Nothing epitomizes grace and strength like a ballerina, and a good wife even more so. A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. (Proverbs 31:10)
On the ninth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a candle and sealing wax: Do not neglect to keep the fires burning or to seal your love for each other. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. (Song of Songs 8:6)
On the 10th day of Christmas, my true love gave to me some super glue: Tearing apart two things joined by super glue results in damage to both. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matthew 19:6)
On the 11th day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a Monopoly game: You can own houses on every street, but you're still poor without a good wife. Houses and wealth are inherited from parents, but a prudent wife is from the Lord. (Proverbs 19:14)
On the 12th day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a turtle dove: Well, maybe they were on to something when they wrote the original version. How beautiful you are, my darling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes are doves. (Song of Songs 1:15)
Beth and I had only been married about five months when we found out she had a chronic disease that could make it difficult to get pregnant. That worried us. Because we knew we wanted at least three kids. And because we knew that we wanted to live on one salary so Beth could stay home.
At the time it seemed impossible to live on one salary in a city like D.C., especially because I had very little to offer any prospective, higher paying employer except an English degree and a couple of years of Capitol Hill experience.
So we went to see our pastor, Mark Dever, for some advice.
First, he told us he's counseling numerous infertile couples who put off having kids, thinking it would just happen a little further down the road. Which is why he counseled us to "never put off life." And when we raised our concern about living on one salary, he simply asked, "Who is your provider?"
His meaning was clear. He was asking us whether we believed that provision was dependent on my earning potential, or on God? And though it's true that God uses means to supply our need, that we have to be faithful with the pursuit of employment and with whatever our hands find to do, it is also true that God is who Abraham said He is, Jehovah Jireh, which means "the Lord will see to it."
When we got home after our meeting with Mark, we threw away Beth's birth control pills. She was pregnant three weeks later.
So count me among the foolish, unwise stewards mentioned in the comments section of Suzanne's blog "Faith of Lilies." Because I do believe God will provide for my family of eight (and more if he so blesses).
God is provider. I think, mainly, it's our definition of what provision is that gets us in trouble.
A blog I wrote a few days ago in which I expressed no opinion whatsoever has turned into a lively discussion of birth control. And that's fine.
I asked Dawn Vargo, Bioethics Analyst with Focus on the Family, and David Davis, manager of our Medical Review department, to help me better understand this issue. Here's what they came up with:
* * *
Focus on the Family recognizes that life begins at fertilization (the union of egg and sperm) and would oppose any method of birth control that acts after fertilization to end a life by preventing its implantation in the uterus. That said, there is a range of opinion in the Christian community on the issue of birth control.
Based on a review of the available literature, our advisory Physicians Resource Council concluded that birth control pills which contain only the hormone progestin do not reliably prevent ovulation (the release of the egg from the ovary). With this method, the pregnancies which do occur have a greater chance of being ectopic — that is, outside the uterus. This may be evidence that this contraceptive acts in some cases to disrupt the normal implantation of an early pregnancy and not merely to prevent fertilization. Thus, the use the progestin-only pill is problematic for those of us who believe that human life begins at fertilization.
Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) are pills containing a combination of estrogen and progestin. There are different opinions about the mechanism of COCs. They seem to work primarily by suppressing ovulation, but they also cause the mucus at the opening of the uterus to be thickened, and therefore less likely to be penetrated by sperm. If COCs work only through these mechanisms they are functioning as true contraceptives because they prevent the sperm and egg from uniting. There is some controversy as to whether they also bring about changes (primarily in the uterus) that could increase the likelihood of losing a fertilized egg if ovulation and fertilization should occur.
Pro-life physicians who have carefully and conscientiously studied this issue have come to different conclusions about the abortifacient potential of COCs. We respect the integrity and pro-life convictions of those who hold differing opinions on this issue.
Because of the difference in opinions, we would encourage married couples to examine the facts carefully. There are several sources of information online that can be of help as you explore this topic further:
- This article reviews the data suggesting an abortifacient mechanism for COCs.
- This article posted at the web site of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) presents arguments as to why COCs should be considered abortifacient
- In this article, also posted at the AAPLOG site, the authors present a scientific case for why they believe the existing medical literature does not support the idea that COCs act by an abortifacient mechanism.
- This article examines both sides of the disagreement over COCs.
* * *
Whether to use oral contraceptives is only one aspect of this discussion. Other contraceptive options include spermicides, barriers and natural family planning.
Even more important is the question of why you would want to either prohibit or postpone enjoying the arrival of a newborn child. In some cases, doing so may be medically or emotionally or situationally necessary, of course. In other instances, saying no to having your own children may be a symptom that you don't fully grasp that children are a blessing indeed, and that the Lord is pleased to help you as you raise them.
There's one sure way to get rid of a nagging problem. Change its definition and, voila, away it goes.
For example, our nation's families have faced a growing crisis of children being born out of wedlock, being raised by a single parent—usually the mom—and of fathers not hanging around to raise the multiple children they have sired with multiple women. The results are not hard to see: entrenched poverty, rampant crime and drug abuse, and fatherless boys with no positive male role models growing into predators, perpetuating the cycle.
As with so many unfortunate demographic trends in our society, this first manifested itself in the African-American community and then gradually spread to the rest of the culture, something the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned about as early as 1965.
That's why when I read this story in The New York Times, I thought there might be reason to hope that we as a nation had finally come to our senses. According to the story, the number of two-parent families in the black community is on the rise, reversing a decades-long trend. And indeed there is some good news embedded in the report. But this bit of info first made my heart sink, then made me shake my head in rueful laughter: The Census Bureau attributed an indeterminate amount of the increase to revised definitions adopted in 2007, which identify as parents any man and woman living together, whether or not they are married or the child's biological parents.
See, there's an easy way out: just redefine parent and you've solved a big part of the problem. Why, no, officer, I wasn't speeding. I was maximizing my efficiency by cutting the time it takes to get from point A to point B! Are you anti-efficiency?
No, your honor, I wasn't dealing drugs. I’m an entrepreneur helping my clients experience varying alternate realities. Are you anti-entrepreneur?
Yes, I realize that some of these families are capable of providing loving, stable homes for children. But many of them perpetuate the worst problems of broken families, sometimes including physical and sexual abuse. It also communicates a lax standard that marriage doesn't matter to a healthy society.
The wise Sen. Moynihan warned about this unfortunate tendency to redefine problems. He called it "defining deviancy down." Change the standard or change the definition and you can make any problem "disappear." Unfortunately, the consequences of those problems are immune to our word games.
It's a legitimate question I've heard frequently during our foreign adoption process, "Why aren't you adopting children from the U.S.?" Here's one from a commenter from my recent blog about our adoption: Why do people go all the way to countries on the other side of the world to adopt children when there are thousands of children here that need just as much saving? I'm not against foreign adoptions -- I guess I just never understood it.
In some ways, domestic adoptions are more challenging than foreign adoptions, both with adoption process (including the rights of the biological parents) and the process of assimilating them into one's family -- particularly families with young children. I know firsthand some of the issues because we pursued a domestic adoption before choosing another direction.
So I greatly admire the conviction, perseverance, and sacrifice of families that go that route. And we have many in our church that have expressed God's love in that way.
The reasons we chose foreign over domestic were fairly practical. Mainly, we felt that the ages of our biological children and, quite frankly, our child rearing philosophy weren't conducive for a domestic adoption (meaning, we were wary of inviting more government oversight into our home).
And for us, urgency and severity of need were factors as well.
All of the 125,000 children in the U.S. foster care system available for adoption need forever families. They need to be saved too, but in a different way than the estimated 40 million orphans internationally. First, there's just more of them. And for many, adoption could be the difference between life or death, freedom or slavery.
For example, in Ethiopia alone, over 300,000 children will die this year from preventable causes such as malaria.
The truth is, there are many reasons people either choose to adopt domestically or internationally. I just wanted to share a bit of our decision making process. Which I hope isn't seen as an endorsement of foreign over domestic. It shouldn't be. It's simply our story.
Maybe someone who has adopted domestically will provide their testimony to this board.
When I was still expecting our newest son, I took our daughter to the salon for a haircut. While waiting for her to be done, I struck up a conversation with the woman whose appointment followed ours. She noticed my very pregnant belly and asked when I was due. I was happy to discuss our joy over anticipating another baby and she was happy to hear it, offering her congratulations. But when she found out it would be our fourth child, she changed her tune.
"Then you're done," she said -- as if stating a fact rather than asking a question. She was incredulous when I said I didn't know if we'd have more or not. "They're such a blessing," I responded, feeling the need to counter the current mindset that seems to say two children are acceptable, three tolerable, but four or more is straying into a dangerous fringe.
Today's Boundless excerpt of Carolyn McCulley's new book, Radical Womanhood, offers a glimpse into the history of where this thinking came from. Motherhood has taken a severe blow in terms of respect. But children have actually taken a greater blow ... And neither is a contemporary phenomenon. Culturally the roots of the "mommy wars" go back almost two hundred years.
But spiritually, the war goes back to the very first mother, Eve. Her assignment, along with her husband Adam, was to be "fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28). So when the Lord God cursed the serpent that deceived her, He showed how the battle would be fought against this command to be fruitful and multiply. "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel" (Gen. 3:15 NIV).
Ever since, Satan has labored to destroy the offspring of those who are made in the image of God. The real mommy wars are not against flesh and blood — other mothers and their parenting methods — but against the one who seeks to destroy the next generation of those who would rise up to praise God. We can debate all kinds of parenting philosophies, methods, and practices, but the real conflict is not with the proponents of opposite ideas. Most assuredly, there is a war and the price is high. Mothers (and fathers) are called to be strong warriors in this battle. But Ephesians 6:12 tells us that our true opponents are not flesh and blood, but the spiritual forces of evil in this present darkness.
And so I'm reminded by this passage, as well as the rest of the excerpt, that the calling to be fruitful and multiply is both blessing -- something I try to point out when I have the opportunity -- and battle. Not a battle against the people who would doubt the value of big families, but against our spiritual enemy who would have them think so.
Sitting in the dentist's waiting area yesterday, I picked up a copy of a recent Newsweek. The cover title caught my attention: "What Michelle Obama Means to Us."
Considering my "election fatigue" (I started boycotting news shows in late October because I just couldn't stand the chattering and bickering of the talking heads anymore), I was a little surprised that I actually wanted to read the article. Plus, I wanted to know who "us" was. So I dived on in.
Turns out "us" was Allison Samuels, the article's author, and her "sista friends" who were having brunch together on a recent Sunday after church and discussing the Obama election and the "history of the moment." Their talk turned to Michelle Obama and the opportunity and power she has to change, according to Samuels, "the way African-Americans see ourselves, our lives and our possibilities."
As the author began talking about how Mrs. Obama would be able to shatter stereotypes of black women by being her "authentic self," I was prepping myself for a full-on puff piece. But then the brunching ladies took on a topic dear to my heart: marriage. "That easy warmth between the Obamas as a couple was another thing that my girlfriends and I fixated on at our brunch. Nearly 50 percent of all African-American women are single. And, 'The Cosby Show' aside, there are still woefully few public examples of solid, stable black marriages."
Samuel quotes one of her brunch friends, a single mom of a 12-year-old son: "I want my son to see first-hand what two people can do when they work together and respect each other. His father and I divorced when he was 2--so he never had the chance to see the way a relationship works. Many of his friends have single moms too, so the Obamas are going to teach us that love and happiness is not just for others but us too. It's easy to forget when you look at TV or movies."
The talk then drifted to Michelle Obama's decision to forgo her career, at least temporarily, and embrace the job of "First Mom": "Michelle's declaration that she plans to be the "Mom in Chief" has already ignited a minor flare-up in the ongoing white mommy wars between stay-at-home mothers and working women ... Still, most African-American women I know are thrilled she's in a position to make that choice."
Dr. Albert Mohler writes of the controversy in his blog, "Is Michelle Obama 'Letting Down the Team'?" "Feminist observers have offered several readings of the situation. Some have argued that this 'moderation' of Michelle Obama is just part of a public relations strategy. Others have asserted that this just proves that Mrs. Obama is being coerced by oppressive expectations. At least some have taken her at her word -- that this is a choice she has made for the sake of her children and her husband."
But Mohler is encouraged: "She has almost instantly served as a witness to the importance of motherhood and the honor of rearing children. In so doing, she served the nation -- as well as her children -- well."
I'm encouraged too. I don't doubt there will be areas of public policy where I will strongly disagree with the Obama administration -- perhaps even with Mrs. Obama herself. But I so appreciate her choice to place her children and family as a priority. I hope that, as Allison Samuels pointed out, the Obama marriage will be an inspiration to others. Let's pray that God protects their marriage and gives wisdom to our new "Mom in Chief."
Boundless author Randy Thomas grew up pretty much without a father. He remembers a few things about his biological dad, like the time his father dropped by to get in an argument with his mother's boyfriend, or the time he was chewed out by his father for becoming a Christian and leaving the gay lifestyle.
Through the years, he ached for the youthful joy of being chased around the room by his daddy. That day never came, and won't, as Randy has completely lost contact with his dad.
Upon reflection, though, Randy sees that Someone has been chasing after him. Through the times in the playground and the times in the gay bars. And that Someone has caught Randy up in His fatherly embrace.
Randy's is a rough story. A narrative that reveals a God who loves through the difficult times, who reveals His grace at just the right times, who is there to catch us whether we're running or falling.
I know this is awfully late in blog time, but I finally had a minute to post an update about our new baby. On November 13 at 2:48 PM, we welcomed Theodore Rex Watters into the world. It was my easiest delivery yet even though he was the largest baby I've had (7 lbs 5 oz and 20 inches).
We got the name from a book about Theodore Roosevelt, one of our favorite presidents. We found affirmation for the name when we read that "Theodore" means "gift from God." We see him as an unexpected gift since this pregnancy occurred after three doctors told us we wouldn't be able to have any more children.
It was challenging to finish this pregnancy in the midst of a struggling economy and uncertain times, but in meeting this little guy, I'm reminded of the great hope that comes with new life. Like each of our children, we know he will stretch our horizons and force us to engage more meaningfully with our future. We also found that this pregnancy gave us fresh perspective and motivation for writing our book Start Your Family: Inspiration for Having Babies that Moody is releasing in January.
Thanks to all the Boundless readers and podcast listeners who prayed for us during this pregnancy. I'm not sure yet what my Boundless involvement will look like in the days ahead, but I look forward to staying plugged in where I can.
Okay, gotta run, my free minute is up.
We received the following e-mail from a man who had downloaded and read through our free Guy's Guide to Marrying Well: So according to this "guide" which quotes Mark 10 verses 11-12 anyone who has been divorced is not an "eligible" person to marry? What planet do you idiots live on? I have to marry someone who has never been married? Are you kidding me? I'm 43. I don't have "never been married" as a choice. Thanks for the worthless advice.
The Mark 10:11-12 reference is found on p. 51 of the guide, where we provide some guidelines for eligible spouses, among them this: "Is the person a believer who fears God (Proverbs 31:30) and who is biblically eligible for marriage (Mark 10:11-12)?"
My reply to this man, which draws from the Focus on the Family article "Should I Get a Divorce?": Is your concern with Jesus' words, or with our referencing Jesus' words? Or perhaps you're assuming an interpretation that we're not giving?
FWIW, we believe that Scripture allows for divorce in three instances:
1) When one's mate is guilty of sexual immorality and is unwilling to repent and live faithfully with the marriage partner.
2) When one spouse is not a Christian, and that spouse willfully and permanently deserts the Christian spouse.
3) When an individual's divorce occurred prior to salvation.
These, we believe, are biblically permissible reasons for divorce. If someone has been divorced for one of these reasons, then, we believe they are not sinning by marrying another person.
I pray you find this clarification helpful, and that you find a wonderful woman with whom to share your life.
God hates divorce. It tears people up, and misrepresents the relationship it reflects, that of Christ and His Church. But it is permissible (though not required) in certain instances.
If you're considering divorce, let me urge you to talk with your pastor or a Christian counselor whom you respect. Many who are biblically permitted to divorce, but who don't, end up with rich and satisfying and grace-filled marriages. If you're considering marrying someone who's been divorced, let me urge you to wrestle with that person's submission to the biblical principles identified above.
Five years ago, my colleague Mitch Temple and I took a flight to Atlanta and then drove up to Rome, Georgia where we dodged herds of deer on the campus of Berry College trying to find a place called the WinShape Retreat Center that Chick-fil-A had built out of an old dairy barn.
"Bubba" Cathy, Senior Vice President of Chick-fil-A, welcomed us alongside men and women representing dozens of marriage and family organizations. Cathy and the other organizers of the event wondered aloud what would happen if a broad range of groups -- including churches, non-profits, businesses and government groups -- worked together to restore the strength of marriages and family in America.
To be honest, I was a little skeptical. I've been in one too many settings where someone dreamed about the possibilities of "working together." For all the potential of broad coalitions, there are just too many challenges involved in trying to forge cooperative efforts. As a result, many dreams of linking arms for greater purposes slowly die.
But, I'm pleasantly surprised to see what's been growing out of the effort that started in the north woods of Georgia. I just spent a few minutes watching videos at Marriage & Family Foundation about a new national ad campaign focused on bringing back marriage in America.
For all the election talk about which policies and programs America needs in order to get back on her feet, these videos will remind you that one of the most promising investments we can make right now is in helping Americans form and strengthen families. Few efforts have proven to so dramatically shape the health, wealth and wellbeing of a population.
It's my hope that this generation of Boundless readers will have the distinction of being a part of this historic marriage movement -- by going into your own marriages with a high level of vision and preparation but also by finding ways to invest in the (current and future) marriages in your community.
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