(Originally Posted August 1, 2008)
Since I won't be writing much while I'm on Spring break this week, I'll be posting some of my previous articles, slightly edited in this case. I'll be back at it on Monday, March 29th.
In the church, there seems to be an idea that "discernment" means "praying and waiting for God's specific, personal direction on every decision in my life." But is that the view of Scripture? Yeahno. Such an understanding of discernment leads to several errors:
1. A separation between Christians who "know God's will," i.e. the super-Christians that God speaks to, and the "ordinary" Christians who seem not to hear from God about stuff like the color of their wallpaper.
2. Using "discernment" to excuse unwise behavior and even sin. I don't know how many times I've heard people say, "Well, I've prayed about it for months and the Lord has told me it was OK," even if "it" was buying a $300,000 house when you're $60,000 in debt, or living with your fiance, or not disciplining your kids. Those are not areas about which we ought even to pray. The best advice I can give people who encounter this "God told me" business from people is to remember that it's not a trump card. We have a responsibility to one another in the body of Christ, and letting someone off the hook just because they played the "God told me" card is hardly showing love to our brothers.
3. Total paralysis in decision-making, stemming from not using your brain and instead waiting for some sign or feeling to show you that God has given you direction. I strongly believe that for the Christian, the ordinary way of making decisions goes like this: Learn, study, and love God's word. Use the mind that God is sanctifying to make wise decisions. Rinse and repeat. But too many people seem to think that's just not "spiritual" enough. A Christian's life IS spiritual -- it's life IN the Spirit! And it can look very ordinary, but an ordinary life lived faithfully still results in "Well done, good and faithful servant." That's not to say that I don't think God sometimes uses other methods to reveal his will to us -- I certainly do believe that he does! But the ordinary way seems to be knowing God's word and living wisely in accordance with that.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Greatest Hits: What CAN I Do, Then?
(Originally Posted September 18, 2007)
Since I won't be writing much while I'm on Spring break this week, I'll be posting some of my previous favorite articles, slightly edited in this case. I'll be back at it on Monday, March 29th.
Much as we claim to hate them, there's something kind of appealing about the simplicity of rules, isn't there? Do Not Feed The Lions. 45 MPH. Keep Off The Grass. Simple. There are people whose careers have been dedicated to figuring out rules for other peoples lives: advice columnists abound. There's even a book called The Rules. Heck, there's an entire genre -- the "self-help" genre -- that's dedicated to giving people rules for everything.
So here's the quandary: as believers, our lives are no longer defined by our adherence to the law. God's word makes it perfectly clear that we cannot live up to the standards God has set. That's the bad news. But the good news is that the Eternal God came into time and space in flesh and obeyed God's law, to the letter, in our stead. We are free from the penalty of the law and from its curse.
But... I like rules. I would love it if someone would just tell me exactly how I'm supposed to behave.
So, rather than striving for Christlikeness, for actions defined and bounded by grace and characterized by love, I make myself a little rulebook. Don't look at x. Don't say x. Don't think about x. Don't do x. This much of x is all right, but this much is too much. No flirting. No R-rated movies. No romance novels. No ice cream.
With all that running through my mind, is it any wonder that I stopped today and wondered, "Well, what CAN I do, then?"
You might be surprised --or, if you're alive, you might NOT be surprised -- at how difficult it is to figure out how to act when all you have to go on are injunctions and prohibitions. It's like a professor who gives a writing assignment, and when you ask for help he tells you, "It shouldn't be written in Swahili and it can't be about the 17th century Spanish monarchy." Not helpful.
In my daily interactions, I've discovered that the Law of Christ is harder than rules. Far from being an easier way to live, Christian freedom is much more complicated and mentally taxing than legalism. It requires that I search God's word. It requires prayer. It requires discernment, and accountability, and community. It results in mistakes, sometimes mistakes I don't even realize until later. But it also produces humility, maturity, wisdom, deep friendships, equanimity, contentment, and joy. It causes me to trust the Lord, because there's not always crystal-clear dictation in Scripture for the minutiae of life (by which I mean, there's no 3 Corinthians 8:14 that says, "And to my single sisters I say, not I but the Lord, that thou shalt behave thusly toward handsome young men..." Although, wouldn't that be kinda awesome? Anyway).
"This side of heaven," as my dad says, I'll never have it all figured out. I'll continue to fail in how I strive to be like Christ. But I praise God that he is already at work, never sleeping, always faithful, until I am conformed to the image of his Son.
Since I won't be writing much while I'm on Spring break this week, I'll be posting some of my previous favorite articles, slightly edited in this case. I'll be back at it on Monday, March 29th.
Much as we claim to hate them, there's something kind of appealing about the simplicity of rules, isn't there? Do Not Feed The Lions. 45 MPH. Keep Off The Grass. Simple. There are people whose careers have been dedicated to figuring out rules for other peoples lives: advice columnists abound. There's even a book called The Rules. Heck, there's an entire genre -- the "self-help" genre -- that's dedicated to giving people rules for everything.
So here's the quandary: as believers, our lives are no longer defined by our adherence to the law. God's word makes it perfectly clear that we cannot live up to the standards God has set. That's the bad news. But the good news is that the Eternal God came into time and space in flesh and obeyed God's law, to the letter, in our stead. We are free from the penalty of the law and from its curse.
But... I like rules. I would love it if someone would just tell me exactly how I'm supposed to behave.
So, rather than striving for Christlikeness, for actions defined and bounded by grace and characterized by love, I make myself a little rulebook. Don't look at x. Don't say x. Don't think about x. Don't do x. This much of x is all right, but this much is too much. No flirting. No R-rated movies. No romance novels. No ice cream.
With all that running through my mind, is it any wonder that I stopped today and wondered, "Well, what CAN I do, then?"
You might be surprised --or, if you're alive, you might NOT be surprised -- at how difficult it is to figure out how to act when all you have to go on are injunctions and prohibitions. It's like a professor who gives a writing assignment, and when you ask for help he tells you, "It shouldn't be written in Swahili and it can't be about the 17th century Spanish monarchy." Not helpful.
In my daily interactions, I've discovered that the Law of Christ is harder than rules. Far from being an easier way to live, Christian freedom is much more complicated and mentally taxing than legalism. It requires that I search God's word. It requires prayer. It requires discernment, and accountability, and community. It results in mistakes, sometimes mistakes I don't even realize until later. But it also produces humility, maturity, wisdom, deep friendships, equanimity, contentment, and joy. It causes me to trust the Lord, because there's not always crystal-clear dictation in Scripture for the minutiae of life (by which I mean, there's no 3 Corinthians 8:14 that says, "And to my single sisters I say, not I but the Lord, that thou shalt behave thusly toward handsome young men..." Although, wouldn't that be kinda awesome? Anyway).
"This side of heaven," as my dad says, I'll never have it all figured out. I'll continue to fail in how I strive to be like Christ. But I praise God that he is already at work, never sleeping, always faithful, until I am conformed to the image of his Son.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Greatest Hits: Abstinence or Chastity?
(Originally Posted February 21, 2009)
Since I won't be writing much while I'm on Spring break this week, I'll be posting some of my favorite previous articles, slightly edited, in this case. I'll be back at it on Monday, March 29th.
I'll be the first to admit that the abstinence movement (the stalwart True Love Waits and various smaller efforts) has been a joke and a general failure. A Slate.com article from a while back (one of many on the subject) called such programs a success on a sociological level, in that they motivated participants to delay sexual intercourse by around eighteen months, on average. Wow! Eighteen whole months! What a triumph...
"Joke" might sound like a bit of a strong word. It is. But in the words of Inigo Montoya, "Lemme splain. No, there is too much. Lemme sum up."
Abstaining is something teetotalers do, something Sylvester Graham touted. However fancy the packaging, the word "abstinence" still feels punitive. It's the absence of something, forgoing something, NOT having something.
But a proper view of human sexuality is not supposed to feel like eating celery sticks at the Food and Wine Classic. Sexuality is woven into the created order. It's got a whole book of the Bible dedicated to it. It's supposed to be honored and protected. It's meant to be celebrated by the community of faith. It's part of our identity as image-bearers of God.
Do you see why it's completely insufficient to say merely that true love (whatever that means) "waits"?
Waits for what? Waits how? Waits why?
I think we need to completely remove the idea of "abstinence" from our discourse -- particularly the discourse we aim at young people -- and put in its place the idea of chastity. Chastity is both broader and narrower in its focus than "abstinence." To abstain is to do without something -- in this case, sexual intimacy. To be chaste is to view sexuality and sexual intimacy as something godly, valuable, and noble, to be experienced freely and joyfully in the right context, and to be directed toward that context. It's not a "don't." While abstinence is necessarily temporary, chastity is to be practiced throughout the Christian life.
I signed a True Love Waits pledge as a young teen, and I even wore a promise ring for a while until I misplaced the darn thing (sorry, Dad!). But I did so alongside dozens of friends who went on to forget those foundationless and hastily-written promises, which sounded so meaningful at age fourteen but somehow wore thin over time.
The truth is, we have failed to give young people a compelling reason to direct their sexuality toward marriage. At the same time, we've encouraged them to put off marriage, making even the most compelling reasons ring hollow as their "wait" gets longer and longer. We've hinted -- or said outright -- that sex is dirty and sinful. We've told them "No, No, No, No," and that's the end of it. We've told them they have to conquer the beast of temptation alone. We've spoken in hushed and shocked tones of "fallen women" and porn addicts and all manner of other sexual sinners, driving the struggling and fainting heart into isolation.
We've failed to tell them of the provision of Christ for our every need, and for the precious gift of the Holy Spirit who comforts us in our distress and guides us into all truth. We've failed to offer grace to those who've stumbled. We've turned our entire discourse on sexuality into a list of The Bad Sins, The Really Bad Sins, and The "If You Struggle With These You Are Beyond All Hope" Sins. Worst of all, we've failed to put before them the beautiful plan of the God of the universe for human relationships -- His good, wholesome, hope-filled, joyous plan -- and the blazing, incomprehensible glory of Christ. Apart from Christ, no discussion of "abstinence" makes sense. In Jesus, though, we see human perfection and human sinlessness. And as God works to sum up all things in Christ, He also works to make us more like Jesus in every aspect.
Since I won't be writing much while I'm on Spring break this week, I'll be posting some of my favorite previous articles, slightly edited, in this case. I'll be back at it on Monday, March 29th.
I'll be the first to admit that the abstinence movement (the stalwart True Love Waits and various smaller efforts) has been a joke and a general failure. A Slate.com article from a while back (one of many on the subject) called such programs a success on a sociological level, in that they motivated participants to delay sexual intercourse by around eighteen months, on average. Wow! Eighteen whole months! What a triumph...
"Joke" might sound like a bit of a strong word. It is. But in the words of Inigo Montoya, "Lemme splain. No, there is too much. Lemme sum up."
Abstaining is something teetotalers do, something Sylvester Graham touted. However fancy the packaging, the word "abstinence" still feels punitive. It's the absence of something, forgoing something, NOT having something.
But a proper view of human sexuality is not supposed to feel like eating celery sticks at the Food and Wine Classic. Sexuality is woven into the created order. It's got a whole book of the Bible dedicated to it. It's supposed to be honored and protected. It's meant to be celebrated by the community of faith. It's part of our identity as image-bearers of God.
Do you see why it's completely insufficient to say merely that true love (whatever that means) "waits"?
Waits for what? Waits how? Waits why?
I think we need to completely remove the idea of "abstinence" from our discourse -- particularly the discourse we aim at young people -- and put in its place the idea of chastity. Chastity is both broader and narrower in its focus than "abstinence." To abstain is to do without something -- in this case, sexual intimacy. To be chaste is to view sexuality and sexual intimacy as something godly, valuable, and noble, to be experienced freely and joyfully in the right context, and to be directed toward that context. It's not a "don't." While abstinence is necessarily temporary, chastity is to be practiced throughout the Christian life.
I signed a True Love Waits pledge as a young teen, and I even wore a promise ring for a while until I misplaced the darn thing (sorry, Dad!). But I did so alongside dozens of friends who went on to forget those foundationless and hastily-written promises, which sounded so meaningful at age fourteen but somehow wore thin over time.
The truth is, we have failed to give young people a compelling reason to direct their sexuality toward marriage. At the same time, we've encouraged them to put off marriage, making even the most compelling reasons ring hollow as their "wait" gets longer and longer. We've hinted -- or said outright -- that sex is dirty and sinful. We've told them "No, No, No, No," and that's the end of it. We've told them they have to conquer the beast of temptation alone. We've spoken in hushed and shocked tones of "fallen women" and porn addicts and all manner of other sexual sinners, driving the struggling and fainting heart into isolation.
We've failed to tell them of the provision of Christ for our every need, and for the precious gift of the Holy Spirit who comforts us in our distress and guides us into all truth. We've failed to offer grace to those who've stumbled. We've turned our entire discourse on sexuality into a list of The Bad Sins, The Really Bad Sins, and The "If You Struggle With These You Are Beyond All Hope" Sins. Worst of all, we've failed to put before them the beautiful plan of the God of the universe for human relationships -- His good, wholesome, hope-filled, joyous plan -- and the blazing, incomprehensible glory of Christ. Apart from Christ, no discussion of "abstinence" makes sense. In Jesus, though, we see human perfection and human sinlessness. And as God works to sum up all things in Christ, He also works to make us more like Jesus in every aspect.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Greatest Hits: Does God Change his Mind?
(Originally posted July 31, 2009)
Since I won't be writing much while I'm on Spring break this week, I'll be posting some of my previous articles. I'll be back at it on Monday, March 29th.
An email from my favorite theologically minded friend started this post. Recently, Craig Blomberg, a well-known New Testament scholar whose work on the historical accuracy and reliability of the Gospels has been of great help to many a student, pastor, and layman, wrote an article explaining why he is a "Calminian" -- a jokey riff on the "Why I Am/ Am Not a Calvinist" books of recent years. Blomberg is basically trying to put himself clearly outside the Reformed mindset once and for all. I've read a few expressions of disappointment, and an article agreeing with his position, which is basically what I'm going to attempt to respond to today.
First of all, let me point out that Craig Blomberg is way smarter than I am. I don't pretend that I can tangle with him intellectually. Despite that, I still think he's wrong. Second, let me point out that Craig Blomberg is also a brother in Christ, in spite of what I think are his mistakes on this front. I'm not denigrating his faith or his commitment to the body of Christ, nor am I trying to write off his contribution to the Christian community. One of his books sits on my shelf, and it's staying there! *does not throw baby out with bathwater*
At one point in his article, Blomberg refers to the story of Joseph's brothers coming to him in Egypt for help during the great famine. Joseph's famous line, "You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good," Blomberg insists, is not a declaration of God's sovereignty, but a mere statement of fact. He says: "Two separate agents, two separate wills, at cross purposes with each other, neither described as logically or chronologically prior to the other. Neither is said to cause the other; they occur simultaneously." What's really happening, he says, is that both wills operate at the same time, without one being over the other.
Well, hold up. Joseph says to his brothers, "You sold me into slavery out of a wicked intention, but God's power trumped your evil desires!" In fact, God's purposes to preserve his people included the brothers' evil plans and actions. God is so powerful that he can even use human evil -- the condition of our fallen nature! -- to accomplish his purposes. That's comprehensive sovereignty! Blomberg's a great guy, but he just does NOT want to be in the "God is totally sovereign" camp AT ALL. (Plus, calling himself a "Calminian" is cute, but the fact is that there isn't a responsible Arminian on the planet who wouldn't totally acknowledge God's sovereignty in human history. So he's really a Cal-Open Theist-ian. Which isn't quite as cute.)
Moving on to broader arguments about God's sovereignty, I often encounter people who point to the word "relent" in the Scriptures and say, "See? That means that God goes back on his word! If he really is completely sovereign over everything, how can he appear to be influenced by the prayers of his people?" I used to use this argument myself! Well, yes, "relent" means that he will not do what he said he would do, out of a gracious desire to preserve and defend his people. But a couple things:
1) This DOES NOT MEAN that God changes his mind or that he's fickle or doesn't know what he's ultimately going to do. The problem with the argument here is that, while they're trying to just draw a line around the Reformed understanding of God's sovereignty, they END UP basing their whole view on the idea that God actually changes his mind. Listen up: this is where guys like Greg Boyd and Clark Pinnock got started, and where they end up is saying that God takes risks, that he doesn't even KNOW the outcome of certain events, and that in some cases WE have more sovereignty over circumstances than the creator of the universe. That's a pretty stupid place to end up and still call yourself a Christian. It's just like how the Mormons use the theories of 19th century German liberal philosophers (especially the evolutionary view of history -- that all history moves from the simple to the complex and that doctrines aren't revealed but evolve over time) to convince people that the Book of Mormon is true. That argument might convince people, but you're cutting off the branch you're sitting on!
2) Check out this article. There's some uncool argumentation happening here, and this isn't the only place I've heard this line of reasoning, not by a long shot. You ever hear of "weasel words"? They're little words or phrases that a speaker or writer slips in, sometimes without even knowing it himself, that unfairly denigrate the other position -- it's like straw man + ad hominem all at once. The one that popped out to me was "real relationship." Yates and others imply that, unless God limits his own foreknowledge or sovereignty in some way, it's impossible for him to enter into "real relationship" with his creation. This is nonsense. We don't get to make up the rules for how God interacts with us based on our experiences with each other. The scriptures are full of the truths of God bringing the dead back to life both literally and figuratively. But does that one-sided interaction, that ultimate demonstration of total sovereignty, mean that God has some kind of counterfeit relationship with those he raises to life? Did Jesus have a more or less "real relationship" with Lazarus when he raised him, single-handed, from death?
3) There's also some plain old ridiculousness that gets shoveled around. To quote Yates, who is taking up a common anti-sovereignty argument: "The statements that Yahweh will harden the Pharaoh’s heart at the beginning of this process (cf. Exod 4:21; 7:3) are an expression that Yahweh’s purposes will ultimately prevail in this struggle but not that he dictates or determines the Pharaoh’s responses." Uh... what? What part of "I will harden his heart" is the tough part to interpret? "I will" meaning it's gonna happen... right? And "harden his heart" meaning that's what he's gonna do... Yup. You have to do some pretty sexy contortionism to get around the plain meaning of that sucker.
4) The kicker is the "only a really sovereign God could accomplish his purposes in a universe where he has limited his sovereignty," also known as the "it's true because it ain't" argument. A God who can accomplish his purposes in such a give-and-take, unresolved universe that anti-sovereignty folks try to set up, is truly sovereign? Huh? So only a God who is truly sovereign and omniscient could operate in a universe where some things are outside his sovereignty and beyond his omniscience? Yeah, that makes sense. What's the purpose of prayer if the God we're praying to has chosen this event to be one of the hands-off parts of world history? How are we to know the difference? Or does he wait until we pray and then decide to re-institute the sovereignty he's chosen to put on hold?
Unlike Blomberg and lots of other people who use these kinds of arguments, I'm happy to live knowing that my choices are BOTH really choices that I really make with my time-bound will and mind AND are mysteriously part of God's plan. It's called paradox, and we have to embrace it, largely because our finite brains can't fathom the depths of God's will. Let's not try to eliminate paradox by making God more like us. That's a pretty dumb Bible study method. Dig?
Since I won't be writing much while I'm on Spring break this week, I'll be posting some of my previous articles. I'll be back at it on Monday, March 29th.
An email from my favorite theologically minded friend started this post. Recently, Craig Blomberg, a well-known New Testament scholar whose work on the historical accuracy and reliability of the Gospels has been of great help to many a student, pastor, and layman, wrote an article explaining why he is a "Calminian" -- a jokey riff on the "Why I Am/ Am Not a Calvinist" books of recent years. Blomberg is basically trying to put himself clearly outside the Reformed mindset once and for all. I've read a few expressions of disappointment, and an article agreeing with his position, which is basically what I'm going to attempt to respond to today.
First of all, let me point out that Craig Blomberg is way smarter than I am. I don't pretend that I can tangle with him intellectually. Despite that, I still think he's wrong. Second, let me point out that Craig Blomberg is also a brother in Christ, in spite of what I think are his mistakes on this front. I'm not denigrating his faith or his commitment to the body of Christ, nor am I trying to write off his contribution to the Christian community. One of his books sits on my shelf, and it's staying there! *does not throw baby out with bathwater*
At one point in his article, Blomberg refers to the story of Joseph's brothers coming to him in Egypt for help during the great famine. Joseph's famous line, "You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good," Blomberg insists, is not a declaration of God's sovereignty, but a mere statement of fact. He says: "Two separate agents, two separate wills, at cross purposes with each other, neither described as logically or chronologically prior to the other. Neither is said to cause the other; they occur simultaneously." What's really happening, he says, is that both wills operate at the same time, without one being over the other.
Well, hold up. Joseph says to his brothers, "You sold me into slavery out of a wicked intention, but God's power trumped your evil desires!" In fact, God's purposes to preserve his people included the brothers' evil plans and actions. God is so powerful that he can even use human evil -- the condition of our fallen nature! -- to accomplish his purposes. That's comprehensive sovereignty! Blomberg's a great guy, but he just does NOT want to be in the "God is totally sovereign" camp AT ALL. (Plus, calling himself a "Calminian" is cute, but the fact is that there isn't a responsible Arminian on the planet who wouldn't totally acknowledge God's sovereignty in human history. So he's really a Cal-Open Theist-ian. Which isn't quite as cute.)
Moving on to broader arguments about God's sovereignty, I often encounter people who point to the word "relent" in the Scriptures and say, "See? That means that God goes back on his word! If he really is completely sovereign over everything, how can he appear to be influenced by the prayers of his people?" I used to use this argument myself! Well, yes, "relent" means that he will not do what he said he would do, out of a gracious desire to preserve and defend his people. But a couple things:
1) This DOES NOT MEAN that God changes his mind or that he's fickle or doesn't know what he's ultimately going to do. The problem with the argument here is that, while they're trying to just draw a line around the Reformed understanding of God's sovereignty, they END UP basing their whole view on the idea that God actually changes his mind. Listen up: this is where guys like Greg Boyd and Clark Pinnock got started, and where they end up is saying that God takes risks, that he doesn't even KNOW the outcome of certain events, and that in some cases WE have more sovereignty over circumstances than the creator of the universe. That's a pretty stupid place to end up and still call yourself a Christian. It's just like how the Mormons use the theories of 19th century German liberal philosophers (especially the evolutionary view of history -- that all history moves from the simple to the complex and that doctrines aren't revealed but evolve over time) to convince people that the Book of Mormon is true. That argument might convince people, but you're cutting off the branch you're sitting on!
2) Check out this article. There's some uncool argumentation happening here, and this isn't the only place I've heard this line of reasoning, not by a long shot. You ever hear of "weasel words"? They're little words or phrases that a speaker or writer slips in, sometimes without even knowing it himself, that unfairly denigrate the other position -- it's like straw man + ad hominem all at once. The one that popped out to me was "real relationship." Yates and others imply that, unless God limits his own foreknowledge or sovereignty in some way, it's impossible for him to enter into "real relationship" with his creation. This is nonsense. We don't get to make up the rules for how God interacts with us based on our experiences with each other. The scriptures are full of the truths of God bringing the dead back to life both literally and figuratively. But does that one-sided interaction, that ultimate demonstration of total sovereignty, mean that God has some kind of counterfeit relationship with those he raises to life? Did Jesus have a more or less "real relationship" with Lazarus when he raised him, single-handed, from death?
3) There's also some plain old ridiculousness that gets shoveled around. To quote Yates, who is taking up a common anti-sovereignty argument: "The statements that Yahweh will harden the Pharaoh’s heart at the beginning of this process (cf. Exod 4:21; 7:3) are an expression that Yahweh’s purposes will ultimately prevail in this struggle but not that he dictates or determines the Pharaoh’s responses." Uh... what? What part of "I will harden his heart" is the tough part to interpret? "I will" meaning it's gonna happen... right? And "harden his heart" meaning that's what he's gonna do... Yup. You have to do some pretty sexy contortionism to get around the plain meaning of that sucker.
4) The kicker is the "only a really sovereign God could accomplish his purposes in a universe where he has limited his sovereignty," also known as the "it's true because it ain't" argument. A God who can accomplish his purposes in such a give-and-take, unresolved universe that anti-sovereignty folks try to set up, is truly sovereign? Huh? So only a God who is truly sovereign and omniscient could operate in a universe where some things are outside his sovereignty and beyond his omniscience? Yeah, that makes sense. What's the purpose of prayer if the God we're praying to has chosen this event to be one of the hands-off parts of world history? How are we to know the difference? Or does he wait until we pray and then decide to re-institute the sovereignty he's chosen to put on hold?
Unlike Blomberg and lots of other people who use these kinds of arguments, I'm happy to live knowing that my choices are BOTH really choices that I really make with my time-bound will and mind AND are mysteriously part of God's plan. It's called paradox, and we have to embrace it, largely because our finite brains can't fathom the depths of God's will. Let's not try to eliminate paradox by making God more like us. That's a pretty dumb Bible study method. Dig?
Monday, March 22, 2010
Greatest Hits: How NOT to Give Advice to Single People
(Originally Posted October 27, 2008)
Since I won't be writing much while I'm on Spring break this week, I'll be posting some of my previous articles. I'll be back at it on Monday, March 29th.
So the other day, I met a really nice couple. The husband was friendly and asked me a lot of questions about my life. We chatted about travel, and I told them about my trip to Europe with my family.
"Husband and kids?" he asked.
"No, parents and brother. I'm single," I replied.
And then... such a speech. Here's what he advised me to do.
1. Make a specific list of everything you're looking for in a husband. This advice was accompanied by a lot of questions. Have you thought about what kind of things you're looking for? Really? Specifically? In detail? What about things you don't want? Really? Specifically? In detail?
2. Realize that that man exists. Pray specifically for him. He is the only man for you.
3. Recruit other people to pray for that specific man (who, remember, is the only man for you). Don't forget about the parable of the unjust judge. Pester God until he brings your husband along.
4. Remain under your father's authority.
5. If that doesn't work, join eHarmony.
I definitely wished I could have made the whole conversation just STOP, for the love of heaven and all its angels, STOP!! It basically sums up all the bad advice I've gotten about singleness -- not just the advice itself, but the context in which it was offered.
So here (as revenge) is MY advice to married people who feel tempted to say any of the above things:
1. Don't give advice to single people you just met. Relationship advice should be given in the context of -- surprise!! -- relationships. Most people would never give marital advice to a couple they just met, but the rules somehow go out the window when talking to single folks.
2. Think about your attitude before you offer advice. As Christians, we have to recognize that the problem of humans is sin, and the solution is the Gospel. Singleness is NOT a problem to be solved. Do I want to get married? DUH. But please don't see my life as something you can "fix" with some pithy tips.
3. Keep in mind that every person's situation is different. Again, folks get this ordinarily. But with singles, it seems like people are so much more tempted to say, "Well, such-and-such worked for _____, so it'll definitely work for you." It's not that your advice is necessarily wrong, but... for example, I have ZERO problem with online dating services. And the courtship model makes sense for younger singles who live near or with their parents. And I wish more of my married friends would be bold enough to set me up with some dudes. But not all of those things is right for every person. For crying out loud, one of my dearest friends emailed a guy from halfway around the world because he read her blog and jokingly called her a feminist and she didn't like it and then they started talking and fell in love and now they're married and she's pregnant with their first child. Good GRIEF. PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. Ok. Rant over.
4. Please, please, please, don't perpetuate the idea that there's one ideal man out there for every single woman, and she'll never be happy until she finds him. The Prince Charming Myth has disillusioned and embittered countless young women, clinging to their "lists" while overlooking godly men all around them. Yes, in the grand scheme of God's sovereign plan, he knows and chose who I'll marry. But in my time-bound perspective, there are any number of godly, ministry-minded men with whom I could have a good, happy, sanctifying, Gospel-centered marriage.
OK, single peeps, any other advice for our married friends? ;)
Since I won't be writing much while I'm on Spring break this week, I'll be posting some of my previous articles. I'll be back at it on Monday, March 29th.
So the other day, I met a really nice couple. The husband was friendly and asked me a lot of questions about my life. We chatted about travel, and I told them about my trip to Europe with my family.
"Husband and kids?" he asked.
"No, parents and brother. I'm single," I replied.
And then... such a speech. Here's what he advised me to do.
1. Make a specific list of everything you're looking for in a husband. This advice was accompanied by a lot of questions. Have you thought about what kind of things you're looking for? Really? Specifically? In detail? What about things you don't want? Really? Specifically? In detail?
2. Realize that that man exists. Pray specifically for him. He is the only man for you.
3. Recruit other people to pray for that specific man (who, remember, is the only man for you). Don't forget about the parable of the unjust judge. Pester God until he brings your husband along.
4. Remain under your father's authority.
5. If that doesn't work, join eHarmony.
I definitely wished I could have made the whole conversation just STOP, for the love of heaven and all its angels, STOP!! It basically sums up all the bad advice I've gotten about singleness -- not just the advice itself, but the context in which it was offered.
So here (as revenge) is MY advice to married people who feel tempted to say any of the above things:
1. Don't give advice to single people you just met. Relationship advice should be given in the context of -- surprise!! -- relationships. Most people would never give marital advice to a couple they just met, but the rules somehow go out the window when talking to single folks.
2. Think about your attitude before you offer advice. As Christians, we have to recognize that the problem of humans is sin, and the solution is the Gospel. Singleness is NOT a problem to be solved. Do I want to get married? DUH. But please don't see my life as something you can "fix" with some pithy tips.
3. Keep in mind that every person's situation is different. Again, folks get this ordinarily. But with singles, it seems like people are so much more tempted to say, "Well, such-and-such worked for _____, so it'll definitely work for you." It's not that your advice is necessarily wrong, but... for example, I have ZERO problem with online dating services. And the courtship model makes sense for younger singles who live near or with their parents. And I wish more of my married friends would be bold enough to set me up with some dudes. But not all of those things is right for every person. For crying out loud, one of my dearest friends emailed a guy from halfway around the world because he read her blog and jokingly called her a feminist and she didn't like it and then they started talking and fell in love and now they're married and she's pregnant with their first child. Good GRIEF. PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. Ok. Rant over.
4. Please, please, please, don't perpetuate the idea that there's one ideal man out there for every single woman, and she'll never be happy until she finds him. The Prince Charming Myth has disillusioned and embittered countless young women, clinging to their "lists" while overlooking godly men all around them. Yes, in the grand scheme of God's sovereign plan, he knows and chose who I'll marry. But in my time-bound perspective, there are any number of godly, ministry-minded men with whom I could have a good, happy, sanctifying, Gospel-centered marriage.
OK, single peeps, any other advice for our married friends? ;)
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday Songs
O Sacred Head, Now Wounded
O sacred head, now wounded,
With grief and shame weighed down,
Now scornfully surrounded
With thorns Thine only crown:
O sacred head: what glory,
What bliss till now was thine!
Yet though despised and gory,
I joy to call thee mine.
What thou, my Lord, hast suffered
Was all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression,
But thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior!
Tis I deserve thy place;
Look on me with thy favor,
Vouchsafe me to thy grace.
What language shall I borrow
To thank thee, dearest friend,
For this thy dying sorrow,
Thy pity without end?
O make me thine forever;
And should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never
Outlive my love to thee.
O sacred head, now wounded,
With grief and shame weighed down,
Now scornfully surrounded
With thorns Thine only crown:
O sacred head: what glory,
What bliss till now was thine!
Yet though despised and gory,
I joy to call thee mine.
What thou, my Lord, hast suffered
Was all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression,
But thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior!
Tis I deserve thy place;
Look on me with thy favor,
Vouchsafe me to thy grace.
What language shall I borrow
To thank thee, dearest friend,
For this thy dying sorrow,
Thy pity without end?
O make me thine forever;
And should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never
Outlive my love to thee.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Yay! Baby!
Emma Roselynn Christine Roberts
Born 6:33 pm MDT
Saturday, March 20th, 2010
Sterling, CO
20" long
7lbs 8oz
Born 6:33 pm MDT
Saturday, March 20th, 2010
Sterling, CO
20" long
7lbs 8oz
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Classroom Quotes From The Last Few Days
David: "He took a nap."
Me: "If by 'took a nap' you mean 'went crazy and killed himself,' then yes."
David: "That's exactly what I meant."
Hannah: "They tried to make me go to 'your mom' joke rehab, but I said, 'No, your mom, no.'"
Aaron: "Miss Roberts, does your dad have kids?"
Baylee: "That's not an angel, that's a llama."
Hannah Beth: "I found a fish with a transparent head."
Me: "... And that's going in the quotes."
Me: "If by 'took a nap' you mean 'went crazy and killed himself,' then yes."
David: "That's exactly what I meant."
Hannah: "They tried to make me go to 'your mom' joke rehab, but I said, 'No, your mom, no.'"
Aaron: "Miss Roberts, does your dad have kids?"
Baylee: "That's not an angel, that's a llama."
Hannah Beth: "I found a fish with a transparent head."
Me: "... And that's going in the quotes."
From "The Valley of Vision"
Jehovah God,
Thou Creator, Upholder, Proprietor of all things,
I cannot escape from thy presence or control,
nor do I desire to do so.
My privilege is to be under the agency
of omnipotence, righteousness, wisdom, patience, mercy, grace.
Thou art love with more than parental affection;
I admire thy heart, adore thy wisdom,
stand in awe of thy power, abase myself before thy purity.
It is the discovery of thy goodness alone that can banish my fear,
allure me into thy presence,
help me to bewail and confess my sins.
When I review my past guilt
and am conscious of my present unworthiness,
I tremble to come to thee,
I whose foundation is in the dust,
I who have condemned thy goodness,
defied thy power,
trampled upon thy love,
rendered myself unworthy of eternal death.
But my recovery cannot spring from any cause in me;
I can destroy but cannot save myself.
Yet thou hast laid help on One that is mighty,
for there is mercy with thee,
and exceeding riches in thy kindness through Jesus.
May I always feel my need of him.
Let thy restored joy be my strength;
May it keep me from lusting after the world,
bear up heart and mind in loss of comforts,
enliven me in the valley of death,
work in me the image of the heavenly,
and give me to enjoy the first fruits of spirituality,
such as the angels and departed saints know.
Thou Creator, Upholder, Proprietor of all things,
I cannot escape from thy presence or control,
nor do I desire to do so.
My privilege is to be under the agency
of omnipotence, righteousness, wisdom, patience, mercy, grace.
Thou art love with more than parental affection;
I admire thy heart, adore thy wisdom,
stand in awe of thy power, abase myself before thy purity.
It is the discovery of thy goodness alone that can banish my fear,
allure me into thy presence,
help me to bewail and confess my sins.
When I review my past guilt
and am conscious of my present unworthiness,
I tremble to come to thee,
I whose foundation is in the dust,
I who have condemned thy goodness,
defied thy power,
trampled upon thy love,
rendered myself unworthy of eternal death.
But my recovery cannot spring from any cause in me;
I can destroy but cannot save myself.
Yet thou hast laid help on One that is mighty,
for there is mercy with thee,
and exceeding riches in thy kindness through Jesus.
May I always feel my need of him.
Let thy restored joy be my strength;
May it keep me from lusting after the world,
bear up heart and mind in loss of comforts,
enliven me in the valley of death,
work in me the image of the heavenly,
and give me to enjoy the first fruits of spirituality,
such as the angels and departed saints know.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Blergh.
I got my census form in the mail today. In the first column, they ask that you enter a phone number, so that they can call you if they "do not understand one of your responses."
I'm strongly tempted, under "Race," to write "HUMAN" -- only because there's not enough room to write, "I categorically reject the concept of race as a genetically-derived, immutable, meaningful designation of human beings. All humans belong to a single race. Cultural and ethnic differences may be useful to learn about as we seek to understand one another. It is, however, utterly useless -- and, in fact, often wicked -- to attempt to construe meaningful data about the character of humans from the color of their skin, the texture of their hair, the shape of their eyes, or any other merely physical characteristic."
Do you think I'd get a phone call about that?
I'm strongly tempted, under "Race," to write "HUMAN" -- only because there's not enough room to write, "I categorically reject the concept of race as a genetically-derived, immutable, meaningful designation of human beings. All humans belong to a single race. Cultural and ethnic differences may be useful to learn about as we seek to understand one another. It is, however, utterly useless -- and, in fact, often wicked -- to attempt to construe meaningful data about the character of humans from the color of their skin, the texture of their hair, the shape of their eyes, or any other merely physical characteristic."
Do you think I'd get a phone call about that?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Hey, Techie Peeps,
Is there any way to find out WHO follows me on Google reader? I know how many people there are (when you unsubscribe it tells you how many) but I'm dying to know who. There must be some way. Or is this the final frontier of anonymity in our social-networking Brave New World?
Words Matter, part 2
(Previous warning about "shouty and capsy" remains in effect.)
Dear Blog Reader,
Seriously, quit thinking that every blogger is out to get you. If you find yourself getting offended by pretty much everything you read on blogs, you need to do two things: 1) GET OFF THE INTERNET. and 2) FIND A HOBBY. Nobody is sitting around coming up with new and creative ways to hurt your poor widdle feelings. There comes a point where you need to ask yourself, "What is the common denominator in all of the posts that make me angry/offend me deeply/cause me to question people's salvation?" I have the answer to that question. IT'S YOU.
Maybe you're totally convinced that the KJV-only position is right, or that women should wear long dresses and headcoverings, or that daughters should ALWAYS stay home until they get married, even if that means no college and no job, ever. WHAT ARE YOU DOING READING MY BLOG? Or blogs of OTHER people who you KNOW do not agree with you on those subjects? You HAVE TO REALIZE that you're going to be in the minority, right? And that comments sections on blogs are probably NOT the best place to convince people to burn their NIVs and their PANTS?
Look, I don't frequent (for instance) the blogs of people who think that it's fine/good/desirable for women to be pastors/elders in the local church. That's not because of some kind of confirmation bias, but just because I know that I'll get annoyed with their bad exegesis or disregard for Scripture and be tempted to let it all out in the comments sections. I don't read Pyromaniacs anymore because those dudes are seriously NOT OK with people who believe in the continuation of all the gifts of the Spirit. I mean NOT OK AT ALL. So rather than going over there and painting a bullseye on my charismatic self, I just leave them to it, knowing that the Lord will one day correct THEIR theology just like he's definitely going to correct mine.
I mean, really, it gets to the point that I want to ask you, DO YOU HATE YOURSELF? If not, WHY do you subject yourself to this all the time, and then get hurt and prickly and obnoxious about it? MARTYR COMPLEXES ARE NOT CUTE. CAN YOU DIG IT?
Love,
Laura
Dear Blog Reader,
Seriously, quit thinking that every blogger is out to get you. If you find yourself getting offended by pretty much everything you read on blogs, you need to do two things: 1) GET OFF THE INTERNET. and 2) FIND A HOBBY. Nobody is sitting around coming up with new and creative ways to hurt your poor widdle feelings. There comes a point where you need to ask yourself, "What is the common denominator in all of the posts that make me angry/offend me deeply/cause me to question people's salvation?" I have the answer to that question. IT'S YOU.
Maybe you're totally convinced that the KJV-only position is right, or that women should wear long dresses and headcoverings, or that daughters should ALWAYS stay home until they get married, even if that means no college and no job, ever. WHAT ARE YOU DOING READING MY BLOG? Or blogs of OTHER people who you KNOW do not agree with you on those subjects? You HAVE TO REALIZE that you're going to be in the minority, right? And that comments sections on blogs are probably NOT the best place to convince people to burn their NIVs and their PANTS?
Look, I don't frequent (for instance) the blogs of people who think that it's fine/good/desirable for women to be pastors/elders in the local church. That's not because of some kind of confirmation bias, but just because I know that I'll get annoyed with their bad exegesis or disregard for Scripture and be tempted to let it all out in the comments sections. I don't read Pyromaniacs anymore because those dudes are seriously NOT OK with people who believe in the continuation of all the gifts of the Spirit. I mean NOT OK AT ALL. So rather than going over there and painting a bullseye on my charismatic self, I just leave them to it, knowing that the Lord will one day correct THEIR theology just like he's definitely going to correct mine.
I mean, really, it gets to the point that I want to ask you, DO YOU HATE YOURSELF? If not, WHY do you subject yourself to this all the time, and then get hurt and prickly and obnoxious about it? MARTYR COMPLEXES ARE NOT CUTE. CAN YOU DIG IT?
Love,
Laura
Monday, March 15, 2010
"He does not deal with us as our sins deserve..."
“We are all prodigal sons, and not disinherited; we have received our portion, and misspent it, not been denied it. We are God’s tenants here, and yet here, he, our landlord, pays us rents; not yearly, nor quarterly, but hourly and quarterly; every minute he renews his mercy.”
John Donne, quoted in Thomas C. Oden, Classical Pastoral Care (Grand Rapids, 1987), III:285.
HT: Ray Ortlund
John Donne, quoted in Thomas C. Oden, Classical Pastoral Care (Grand Rapids, 1987), III:285.
HT: Ray Ortlund
I'm Praising God For...
...this wonderful post by Ray Ortlund that reminded me that for Christians, death is only a temporary separation.
...a job that's more than a job, it's a calling from God.
...the body of Christ, and especially the members of that body who meet in my house every Thursday night to learn more about our great Savior.
...God's word. (Side note: why do I so often take this for granted? The infinite God of the universe communicates with us in a way that we can understand! Amazing.)
...Jesus.
...a job that's more than a job, it's a calling from God.
...the body of Christ, and especially the members of that body who meet in my house every Thursday night to learn more about our great Savior.
...God's word. (Side note: why do I so often take this for granted? The infinite God of the universe communicates with us in a way that we can understand! Amazing.)
...Jesus.
Words Matter
(Caveat: I am going to be a little shouty and capsy on this subject. Bear with me.)
Dear fellow Christian bloggers,
If someone comments on your blog and says, "I felt really hurt by what you said about ___," THINK ABOUT IT before you reply with, "You just don't understand my deep theology/humor/word choice" or "You're being so sensitive, just man up, already" or "WHAT? HERESY!"
YOU do not get to decide what hurts OTHER people's feelings. YOU do not determine THEIR perception. Maybe they're totally unjustified in their criticism. FINE. But don't just assume, for the love of God, that they just need to pull up their big girl panties and get down with whatever higher spiritual knowledge you're privy too, mmkay? Newsflash: YOU ARE WRONG SOMETIMES. In fact, on a spiritual level, apart from Christ, you are 100% wrong! Not mostly wrong or partly wrong but COMPLETELY WRONG. If a brother or sister in Christ is hurt by some thoughtless remark you made, even if you think they SHOULDN'T be, JUST FREAKING APOLOGIZE -- for the misunderstanding, if nothing else. You know they have this fancy button on most blogging platforms, it's called the "EDIT" button. You can use it to -- get this -- GO BACK and change the content of your posts. I know. Crazy.
Whatever your opinions, they are not so important that you can excuse bad manners toward brothers and sisters, in the name of being RIGHT. NO, THEY AREN'T.
Love,
Laura
Dear fellow Christian bloggers,
If someone comments on your blog and says, "I felt really hurt by what you said about ___," THINK ABOUT IT before you reply with, "You just don't understand my deep theology/humor/word choice" or "You're being so sensitive, just man up, already" or "WHAT? HERESY!"
YOU do not get to decide what hurts OTHER people's feelings. YOU do not determine THEIR perception. Maybe they're totally unjustified in their criticism. FINE. But don't just assume, for the love of God, that they just need to pull up their big girl panties and get down with whatever higher spiritual knowledge you're privy too, mmkay? Newsflash: YOU ARE WRONG SOMETIMES. In fact, on a spiritual level, apart from Christ, you are 100% wrong! Not mostly wrong or partly wrong but COMPLETELY WRONG. If a brother or sister in Christ is hurt by some thoughtless remark you made, even if you think they SHOULDN'T be, JUST FREAKING APOLOGIZE -- for the misunderstanding, if nothing else. You know they have this fancy button on most blogging platforms, it's called the "EDIT" button. You can use it to -- get this -- GO BACK and change the content of your posts. I know. Crazy.
Whatever your opinions, they are not so important that you can excuse bad manners toward brothers and sisters, in the name of being RIGHT. NO, THEY AREN'T.
Love,
Laura
Sunday, March 14, 2010
In Which The Lord Takes Me To the Woodshed
An acquaintance of mine just got engaged this weekend. I was quickly skimming her engagement story, and starting to get pretty sad, and was just about to come write a real emo post about how I need to quit reading engagement stories because they make me feel discontented with what God has given me, blah blah blah. But just for the heck of it I went to Tim Challies' blog, and what should appear but this post which links to this prayer which is all about desiring just one thing -- to see the beauty of our God. Ouch. OK, Lord, I read you loud and clear.
"I will shout on that Day what I sometimes only half-heartedly whisper in this day, 'My God has done all things well!'"
"I will shout on that Day what I sometimes only half-heartedly whisper in this day, 'My God has done all things well!'"
Sunday Songs
Hark! The Sound of Holy Voices
Christopher Wordsworth, 1862
Hark! the sound of holy voices, chanting at the crystal sea,
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Lord, to thee:
Multitude, which none can number, like the stars in glory stan
Clothed in white apparel, holding palms of victory in their hand.
They have come from tribulation, and have washed their robes in blood,
Washed them in the blood of Jesus; tried they were and firm they stood,
Mocked, imprisoned, stoned, tormented, sawn asunder, slain with sword,
They have conquered death and Satan by the might of Christ the Lord.
Marching with the cross their banner, they have triumphed, following
Thee, the Captain of salvation, thee their Saviour and their King;
Gladly, Lord, with thee they suffered; gladly, Lord, with thee they died;
And by death to life immortal they were born and glorified.
God of God, the One-begotten, Light of light, Emmanuel,
In whose body joined together all the saints forever dwell;
Pour upon us of thy fullness that we may forevermore
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost adore.
Christopher Wordsworth, 1862
Hark! the sound of holy voices, chanting at the crystal sea,
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Lord, to thee:
Multitude, which none can number, like the stars in glory stan
Clothed in white apparel, holding palms of victory in their hand.
They have come from tribulation, and have washed their robes in blood,
Washed them in the blood of Jesus; tried they were and firm they stood,
Mocked, imprisoned, stoned, tormented, sawn asunder, slain with sword,
They have conquered death and Satan by the might of Christ the Lord.
Marching with the cross their banner, they have triumphed, following
Thee, the Captain of salvation, thee their Saviour and their King;
Gladly, Lord, with thee they suffered; gladly, Lord, with thee they died;
And by death to life immortal they were born and glorified.
God of God, the One-begotten, Light of light, Emmanuel,
In whose body joined together all the saints forever dwell;
Pour upon us of thy fullness that we may forevermore
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost adore.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Booooo...
So you know a Calvinist's favorite flower -- the tulip. What's an Arminian's favorite flower?
The daisy! "He loves me, he loves me not..."
Huuuurrrrrgh...
The daisy! "He loves me, he loves me not..."
Huuuurrrrrgh...
Friday, March 12, 2010
Thunderstorms Are Awesome
We had a great one today up on the hill at school -- thunder, lightning, driving rain, a bunch of teeny-tiny hail, wind, and everything! It was fantastic. And just a tiny fraction of God's immeasurable vastness and power.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
This Blog Post is Rated R
Links #1 and #2 contain a handful of uses of America's favorite four-letter word, so if your conscience is tender about language I'd advise skipping probably all the links.
Link #1: "The new backlash against casual sex." Could also be titled, "In which the super-hip female writer defends hookup culture, because isn't that what feminism is all about?" Yeah, all those suffragettes marched for all those years so their great-granddaughters could... Vote? Not face discrimination? Testify in court? Be guaranteed full inheritance rights? Nope, apparently it was so they could wear Playboy logos and learn to pole-dance. Sure. Also mentioned: Ariel Levy's insightful (but ultimately disappointing) Female Chauvinist Pigs.
Link #2: Tina Fey, smart and insightful as usual on the "Spice Girls feminism" modern women have bought into. Regarding strip clubs, she quips, "That industry needs to die, by all of us being a little bit better than that."
Link #3: A student writer for the Daily Princetonian writes an op-ed wondering why college girls who get wasted and then have sex with equally wasted college boys get to cry rape the next morning. For the love of your sanity, don't read the comments.
I'm just going to point out the obvious, which is that even smart, articulate women like Tina Fey and Ariel Levy who speak out in one way or another against our culture's crazy ideas about sexuality -- even they, ultimately, have no solution for the problem, because they cannot offer Christ. I have to remind myself that any so-called "solution" for society's ills will be, in the final accounting, toothless and impotent unless it points humanity in general and individual human beings in particular to Jesus.
Link #1: "The new backlash against casual sex." Could also be titled, "In which the super-hip female writer defends hookup culture, because isn't that what feminism is all about?" Yeah, all those suffragettes marched for all those years so their great-granddaughters could... Vote? Not face discrimination? Testify in court? Be guaranteed full inheritance rights? Nope, apparently it was so they could wear Playboy logos and learn to pole-dance. Sure. Also mentioned: Ariel Levy's insightful (but ultimately disappointing) Female Chauvinist Pigs.
Link #2: Tina Fey, smart and insightful as usual on the "Spice Girls feminism" modern women have bought into. Regarding strip clubs, she quips, "That industry needs to die, by all of us being a little bit better than that."
Link #3: A student writer for the Daily Princetonian writes an op-ed wondering why college girls who get wasted and then have sex with equally wasted college boys get to cry rape the next morning. For the love of your sanity, don't read the comments.
I'm just going to point out the obvious, which is that even smart, articulate women like Tina Fey and Ariel Levy who speak out in one way or another against our culture's crazy ideas about sexuality -- even they, ultimately, have no solution for the problem, because they cannot offer Christ. I have to remind myself that any so-called "solution" for society's ills will be, in the final accounting, toothless and impotent unless it points humanity in general and individual human beings in particular to Jesus.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Calling All Nerds
Popped by Shapely Prose today and found an article about plagiarism. Much moaning and lamentation ensued in the comments about kids these days, and then the brilliant Henchminion linked to one of those "free essay" sites, whereon she has planted intentionally heinous essays. Heinous essays that have been purchased, downloaded and, evidently, turned in. Here's one she wrote about the Magna Carta that's full of priceless non sequiturs and anachronisms. My favorite part? Dig:
That Latin sentence, in case your dead language skills aren't really up to par, actually means, "Your student did not write this essay."
Also, oh my goodness, please read the "bibliography." Amazing.
A third provision concerns taxation. In the original Latin, it is summed up by the famous words "Discipulus tuus hunc tractatum non scripsit." This sentence means "There is to be no taxation without representation."
That Latin sentence, in case your dead language skills aren't really up to par, actually means, "Your student did not write this essay."
Also, oh my goodness, please read the "bibliography." Amazing.
Lovelessness
Terry's blog, Breathing Grace, has encouraged me so many times I can't even tell y'all. In the midst of a discussion on women's roles and responsibilities, she said something that CUT ME UP.
"If I homeschool using Charlotte Mason, wear a dress I sewed myself that grazes the floor, cook a gourmet meal every night and melt in your mouth biscuits every morning and have not love, it profits me nothing."
Ouch.
I'm not a wife or mother, I don't buy the whole "there's no such thing as women's pants" thing, I for sure don't cook a gourmet meal every night, and if I baked biscuits every morning I would weigh 800 pounds. But what about all the other externals by which I choose to measure my godliness?
"If I do my morning devotions in the Greek New Testament, have bookshelves full of Puritan writings, can quote big chunks of the Bible from memory, and have not love, it profits me nothing."
"If I grow my own food, eat only natural, locally-raised meat, make my own cleaning supplies, and bake all my bread from scratch, and have not love, it profits me nothing."
"If I write insightfully on profound topics, teach classics and languages with theological overtones, read obscure and difficult books, and have not love, it profits me nothing."
Also, this is my 300th post. That's a lot of words.
"If I homeschool using Charlotte Mason, wear a dress I sewed myself that grazes the floor, cook a gourmet meal every night and melt in your mouth biscuits every morning and have not love, it profits me nothing."
Ouch.
I'm not a wife or mother, I don't buy the whole "there's no such thing as women's pants" thing, I for sure don't cook a gourmet meal every night, and if I baked biscuits every morning I would weigh 800 pounds. But what about all the other externals by which I choose to measure my godliness?
"If I do my morning devotions in the Greek New Testament, have bookshelves full of Puritan writings, can quote big chunks of the Bible from memory, and have not love, it profits me nothing."
"If I grow my own food, eat only natural, locally-raised meat, make my own cleaning supplies, and bake all my bread from scratch, and have not love, it profits me nothing."
"If I write insightfully on profound topics, teach classics and languages with theological overtones, read obscure and difficult books, and have not love, it profits me nothing."
Also, this is my 300th post. That's a lot of words.
Monday, March 8, 2010
How Does She Do It?
I do a lot of my writing on the weekends and schedule the posts to publish automatically during the week. And I'm trying to be more intentional about just writing reflectively without having to draw big important conclusions. I get really anxious about making my writing perfect, and especially about impressing people with my insight, and that's stupid. Whether or not y'all think I'm smart doesn't have any impact on my identity in Christ. That realization has been a long time coming.
Rewording Stuff*
One of my old roommates and I had many conversations about this: When you're single and in your late twenties, you don't want to have to wait some indeterminate amount of time until you get married to have decent plates or towels that match or a non-twin size bed, or whatever.
It's not necessarily that we want to project the image of being that utterly independent, home-owning, job-loving career woman who doesn't need anyone, but I think that's the vibe people often get when women choose not to wait until they're married to quit living like college students.
Keep throwing money away on rent, eat off mismatched plates, settle for hand-me-downs, work crap part-time jobs, and wait for the right man to come along? Or buy a house and your own dishes, find a good career, and give everyone the impression that you're a Lone Ranger and don't want a man at all?
*Based on thoughts and comments AGES ago on the lovely Fiona's blog.
It's not necessarily that we want to project the image of being that utterly independent, home-owning, job-loving career woman who doesn't need anyone, but I think that's the vibe people often get when women choose not to wait until they're married to quit living like college students.
Keep throwing money away on rent, eat off mismatched plates, settle for hand-me-downs, work crap part-time jobs, and wait for the right man to come along? Or buy a house and your own dishes, find a good career, and give everyone the impression that you're a Lone Ranger and don't want a man at all?
*Based on thoughts and comments AGES ago on the lovely Fiona's blog.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Sunday Songs
How Sweet And Awful Is the Place
Isaac Watts, 1707
How sweet and awful is the place
With Christ within the doors,
While everlasting love displays
The choicest of her stores.
While all our hearts and all our songs
Join to admire the feast,
Each of us cry, with thankful tongues,
"Lord, why was I a guest?
"Why was I made to hear thy voice,
And enter while there's room,
When thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?"
'Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew us in;
Else we had still refused to come
And perished in our sin.
Pity the nations, O our God,
Constrain the Earth to come!
Send thy victorious word abroad,
And bring the strangers home!
We long to see thy churches full
That all the chosen race
May,with one voice and heart and soul,
Sing thy redeeming grace.
Isaac Watts, 1707
How sweet and awful is the place
With Christ within the doors,
While everlasting love displays
The choicest of her stores.
While all our hearts and all our songs
Join to admire the feast,
Each of us cry, with thankful tongues,
"Lord, why was I a guest?
"Why was I made to hear thy voice,
And enter while there's room,
When thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?"
'Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew us in;
Else we had still refused to come
And perished in our sin.
Pity the nations, O our God,
Constrain the Earth to come!
Send thy victorious word abroad,
And bring the strangers home!
We long to see thy churches full
That all the chosen race
May,with one voice and heart and soul,
Sing thy redeeming grace.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
I Love Kentucky, and My Upcoming 300th Post
First of all, I love Kentucky. It was such a gorgeous day that I went for a drive, originally planning to stop in Prospect and hang out at the coffee shop there for a while, but I eventually made it as far as Bedford, where I turned and took the gorgeous and scenic US 421 back toward Campbellsburg, and then took I-71 back home. I only wish I'd had a camera to capture the "Taxidermy While You Wait" sign, the many ancient black tobacco barns, and the tiny, tree-lined Town Branch creek that ran alongside the road.
Secondly, I'm hoping to reveal a couple more changes to Ye Olde Blogge in honor of my upcoming 300th post, but the topic of said post is as yet undecided. Any thoughts?
Secondly, I'm hoping to reveal a couple more changes to Ye Olde Blogge in honor of my upcoming 300th post, but the topic of said post is as yet undecided. Any thoughts?
Greek
We (as in my church, Sojourn) are starting an overview of the New Testament this week. I'm pretty pumped about it. We just finished an overview of the Old Testament in fourteen months, and it was a new thing for us, since the last major preaching series was more than two years in the Gospel of Matthew alone.
I think modern Reformed churches tend almost to idolize expository, verse-by-verse preaching. I'm a big fan of verse-by-verse preaching and I'd even go so far as to say that it's necessary for the health of a congregation. But I think pastors do their congregations a disservice if that's the only thing they do. People need not just a deep understanding of "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" but also an awareness of the breadth and scope of God's working in "all Scripture."
I'm excited that we'll be gaining some broader perspective on the whole New Testament like we did with the Old Testament!
Anyway, should I bring my Greek New Testament to church with me on Sundays or not? I swear it's not because I'm trying to look cool -- I just really, really love Greek, and as I try to improve my skill I find that reading my GNT for study and devotions is the biggest help.
I think modern Reformed churches tend almost to idolize expository, verse-by-verse preaching. I'm a big fan of verse-by-verse preaching and I'd even go so far as to say that it's necessary for the health of a congregation. But I think pastors do their congregations a disservice if that's the only thing they do. People need not just a deep understanding of "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" but also an awareness of the breadth and scope of God's working in "all Scripture."
I'm excited that we'll be gaining some broader perspective on the whole New Testament like we did with the Old Testament!
Anyway, should I bring my Greek New Testament to church with me on Sundays or not? I swear it's not because I'm trying to look cool -- I just really, really love Greek, and as I try to improve my skill I find that reading my GNT for study and devotions is the biggest help.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Laura's Helpful Tips on Getting More People to Read Your Blog
Since beginning blogging, I've discovered that, on "Christian" blogs, certain topics garner more attention than others. Want to drum up some readers but don't much care about the level of discourse? Tackle one of these guaranteed-to-rankle topics, preferably employing as little wit and as much generalization as possible. Blatant (and groundless) personal bias is optional, but helpful.
The whole hymns vs. modern worship music thing can really get folks fired up, especially if you make it out to be a boxing match in which there can be only one winner and one sore loser. It's helpful if you start by carpet-bombing the comments sections of a few blogs written by the doily-wearing patriarchy crowd. Well, the women in that crowd, anyway. You can employ this same "my position is biblical and yours is LAME and BORING" tactic when addressing whether women should wear dresses only and/or headcoverings as well.
Calvinism. Shoo, nothing gets some people's knickers in a knot faster than telling them that, if not for God's sovereign election, they would still be dead in their sins. Brace yourself for some iMonk references and a whole bunch of people telling each other to JUST READ THEIR BIBLES OH MY GOSH.
Anything, absolutely anything, about how wives can help their husbands in the area of faithfulness by, you know, not gradually morphing into shrieking, slovenly, condescending banshees. Write about this one and you'll be moderating the first "What?? You're blaming women for their husbands' infidelity!?!?!1!eleven!!" comment nanoseconds after you hit the publish button.
Mark Driscoll. Just when I think people MUST have figured out that no, Mark Driscoll is most likely not the antichrist, somebody drags up the cussing thing again. From like ten years ago. For which he has publicly repented.
The existence of the charismatic gifts in the church today. Only works if your blog attracts Presbyterians or John MacArthur super-fans -- if you're arguing in favor of charismatic gifts -- because those guys will straight up kneecap you if you defend glossolalia. No lie. Pentecostals are a slightly less formidable enemy in general, if you're taking the cessationist position, but beware of the various "bindings" and "hedgings" they'll try to dish out.
Since I'm sure you're taking notes, one more thing. To maintain just the right level of ire, it helps to have a draconian -- but inconsistently-enforced -- comments moderation policy, and if you can manage to convey a tone of thinly-veiled disgust in the comments sections, so much the better.
Now go have fun out there, kids!
The whole hymns vs. modern worship music thing can really get folks fired up, especially if you make it out to be a boxing match in which there can be only one winner and one sore loser. It's helpful if you start by carpet-bombing the comments sections of a few blogs written by the doily-wearing patriarchy crowd. Well, the women in that crowd, anyway. You can employ this same "my position is biblical and yours is LAME and BORING" tactic when addressing whether women should wear dresses only and/or headcoverings as well.
Calvinism. Shoo, nothing gets some people's knickers in a knot faster than telling them that, if not for God's sovereign election, they would still be dead in their sins. Brace yourself for some iMonk references and a whole bunch of people telling each other to JUST READ THEIR BIBLES OH MY GOSH.
Anything, absolutely anything, about how wives can help their husbands in the area of faithfulness by, you know, not gradually morphing into shrieking, slovenly, condescending banshees. Write about this one and you'll be moderating the first "What?? You're blaming women for their husbands' infidelity!?!?!1!eleven!!" comment nanoseconds after you hit the publish button.
Mark Driscoll. Just when I think people MUST have figured out that no, Mark Driscoll is most likely not the antichrist, somebody drags up the cussing thing again. From like ten years ago. For which he has publicly repented.
The existence of the charismatic gifts in the church today. Only works if your blog attracts Presbyterians or John MacArthur super-fans -- if you're arguing in favor of charismatic gifts -- because those guys will straight up kneecap you if you defend glossolalia. No lie. Pentecostals are a slightly less formidable enemy in general, if you're taking the cessationist position, but beware of the various "bindings" and "hedgings" they'll try to dish out.
Since I'm sure you're taking notes, one more thing. To maintain just the right level of ire, it helps to have a draconian -- but inconsistently-enforced -- comments moderation policy, and if you can manage to convey a tone of thinly-veiled disgust in the comments sections, so much the better.
Now go have fun out there, kids!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
You Might Have Noticed...
... that my archives just grew by about 1000%.
I imported all the material (with a few exceptions -- the food stuff and a few irrelevancies and housekeeping details) from It's A Blog over here to A Wilderness Life. It's A Blog's days are numbered... it's the end of an era, y'all. I blogged there for almost four years!
If you're new (or newish), have a dig around the old material if you like. It'll be easier to search once I get my tags all set up.
I imported all the material (with a few exceptions -- the food stuff and a few irrelevancies and housekeeping details) from It's A Blog over here to A Wilderness Life. It's A Blog's days are numbered... it's the end of an era, y'all. I blogged there for almost four years!
If you're new (or newish), have a dig around the old material if you like. It'll be easier to search once I get my tags all set up.
Without Facebook
OK, seriously, we have gotten into hugely lame territory with this one, I get it. But I had a bit of an epiphany about this and I wanted to share, because I'm part of a generation that's obsessed with that kind of feel-good, self-aggrandizing, narcissistic stuff, and this sentence has taken a weird turn, and SHUT UP YOU DON'T KNOW MY LIFE.
Anyhoodles. Last night I was reading a review of Joanna Newsom's latest album. Incidentally, I cannot make up my mind whether I think Joanna Newsom is crazy, or a genius, or just so totally insufferable and pretentious and into herself that she gets her kicks inflicting her atonal wackitude on all us unsuspecting plebes, or what. Reading the review made me think of my friend Shiloh, who was nice enough to let me stay with her for five whole weeks when I was in Australia two years (!!) ago, because she had "The Bear and the Unsuspecting Plebe" or whatever Joanna Newsom's last album was called.
If I hadn't given up Facebook for Lent, I would have posted the link to the article on her wall, and said I was thinking about her. Instead, oh my gosh you guys, you know what I did? I prayed for her instead. I know, super holy, right? Yeah, totally not about that at all.
Here's the thing about social media and blogs and all that stuff. What a distraction. I mean, don't get me wrong: instantaneous communication is really cool. I think it's kind of incredible that my friend Miranda told me that our friend Kate had given birth to baby Alex within hours of the event (on my birthday!), when that same communication would have taken weeks just a couple generations ago. But because I can click over to google chat right now and talk to people on three continents the second they pop into my head, I often forget that God often gives us those moments of suddenly thinking of someone so we can learn to be faithful to pray. I'm hoping that prayer -- not sending links or "liking" or commenting on wall posts or whatever -- will be my first impulse by the end of Lent.
Anyhoodles. Last night I was reading a review of Joanna Newsom's latest album. Incidentally, I cannot make up my mind whether I think Joanna Newsom is crazy, or a genius, or just so totally insufferable and pretentious and into herself that she gets her kicks inflicting her atonal wackitude on all us unsuspecting plebes, or what. Reading the review made me think of my friend Shiloh, who was nice enough to let me stay with her for five whole weeks when I was in Australia two years (!!) ago, because she had "The Bear and the Unsuspecting Plebe" or whatever Joanna Newsom's last album was called.
If I hadn't given up Facebook for Lent, I would have posted the link to the article on her wall, and said I was thinking about her. Instead, oh my gosh you guys, you know what I did? I prayed for her instead. I know, super holy, right? Yeah, totally not about that at all.
Here's the thing about social media and blogs and all that stuff. What a distraction. I mean, don't get me wrong: instantaneous communication is really cool. I think it's kind of incredible that my friend Miranda told me that our friend Kate had given birth to baby Alex within hours of the event (on my birthday!), when that same communication would have taken weeks just a couple generations ago. But because I can click over to google chat right now and talk to people on three continents the second they pop into my head, I often forget that God often gives us those moments of suddenly thinking of someone so we can learn to be faithful to pray. I'm hoping that prayer -- not sending links or "liking" or commenting on wall posts or whatever -- will be my first impulse by the end of Lent.
Monday, March 1, 2010
De-lurk, I beg of you!
I know I have at least a dozen RSS subscribers up in here, and some people following me on Blogger too... so if you would be so kind, can y'all de-lurk in the comments and just say hi? I'd love to see what kind of stuff you're writing too. I mean, if you want to do the full-on intro and tell everybody where you're from, that's cool, but just "hi" would be great!
I would also deeply appreciate linkage, if any of y'all reading have blogs or sites (or just on Facebook or whatever). Don't feel pressured or anything, but every little link helps!
Thanks, friends!
:)
I would also deeply appreciate linkage, if any of y'all reading have blogs or sites (or just on Facebook or whatever). Don't feel pressured or anything, but every little link helps!
Thanks, friends!
:)
A Tiiiiny Rant
Scenario: Somewhere in blog-land, someone says, with genuine curiosity, "Y'know, I just don't get ___. Can someone explain it to me?" The first half-dozen replies are either, "Me either!" or "Here's my opinion, but to each his own."
AND THEN.
Some ravening pseudo-intellectual turns from monitoring all the OTHER regions of blog-land to sniff, "You know what I just hate? Elitism. I just cannot abide people who think that no one else's opinions, experiences, or thoughts matter. It's just this (food-snob/Calvinist/seminary-educated/white/yuppie/middle-class/Western/xenophobic) hegemony that I cannot stand, where people think that their views come down from heaven written by the finger of God. Ugh. Judgmentalism!" And then they go back to trolling at all the other foodie/natural-birth/theology/whatever blogs on which they misuse vocabulary from their Word-of-the-Day calendars.
I saw this today on a fun foodie message board I frequent, in which someone said they didn't get the concept of drinking a certain kind of beverage with dinner. Everything is going along fine until some snark starts dropping passive-aggressive crap like "that doesn't make you the Ultimate Critic" and "running screaming to the judgment booth".
What kind of idiots are we if we can't respond to a legitimate question without resorting to rhetoric like this? And what kind of idiots are we if we take the bait?
AND THEN.
Some ravening pseudo-intellectual turns from monitoring all the OTHER regions of blog-land to sniff, "You know what I just hate? Elitism. I just cannot abide people who think that no one else's opinions, experiences, or thoughts matter. It's just this (food-snob/Calvinist/seminary-educated/white/yuppie/middle-class/Western/xenophobic) hegemony that I cannot stand, where people think that their views come down from heaven written by the finger of God. Ugh. Judgmentalism!" And then they go back to trolling at all the other foodie/natural-birth/theology/whatever blogs on which they misuse vocabulary from their Word-of-the-Day calendars.
I saw this today on a fun foodie message board I frequent, in which someone said they didn't get the concept of drinking a certain kind of beverage with dinner. Everything is going along fine until some snark starts dropping passive-aggressive crap like "that doesn't make you the Ultimate Critic" and "running screaming to the judgment booth".
What kind of idiots are we if we can't respond to a legitimate question without resorting to rhetoric like this? And what kind of idiots are we if we take the bait?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
