Lent, Day 23: Ugh?

Does it make me a bad person that I just can't get worked up about the word "inerrancy"? Most people in the church I grew up in probably have never heard the word. That's ok. Some people have a problem with the connotation of the word -- that it's overly-precise or connotes a sort of scientific view of Scripture that's not in view when we're talking about truthfulness. That's ok with me too.  Some people don't like it because it refers, as a technical term, to manuscripts we don't possess (namely the autographs or original copies). I totally get the hesitation. If someone isn't rejecting the larger understanding of the truthfulness of Scripture or using a non-inerrantist position to excuse disobedience to God's word, I honestly can't make myself care that they discard the term itself. Is that wrong?

Someone is probably going to knock on my door in a minute and take away my Young, Restless, and Reformed card.

Lent, Day 22: I MISSED A DAY OH NOES!

Oh well. Writing another paper this week, so my brain is again falling apart.

Lent, Day 20: IT SNOWED YESTERDAY YOU GUYS

WASN'T THAT RIDICULOUS?

(At this point, you're probably saying to yourself, "Now she's just posting so she can say she's posted something." And you'd be right.)

So also yesterday, in addition to the SNOW WHAT NO WAY THAT WAS STUPID, I came across the funniest re-telling of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight EVER (seriously, I was wiping tears and doing that thing where you go back and read bits of it aloud... to yourself... alone... in your living roo-- wait, that's just me, then?), and briefly considered linking to it but it was so crammed with bad language (the whole site was, too; this wasn't just a one-off and although I have a relatively high tolerance for language in humorous settings it was about 1000% too much) that I decided against it. But if you're ever in the mood for a Google adventure, you will know it by its trail of F-bombs and its ABSOLUTELY DEAD-ON assessment of Sir Gawain and basically the entire King Arthur mythos. It's like Kanye and Mitch Hedberg chillin' in their dorm room, getting blazed and ranting about their Brit Lit syllabus.

Yeah, that's about enough.

Lent, Day 19: UGH UGH SNOW UGH

Seriously, it snowed last night. Probably an inch of wet, heavy snow. Friday is the first day of April.

This week I'll finish the serious posts I started last week, and then I've got another paper due next weekend, so here's hoping I'll get that posted in pieces the following week. And then my sweet mama will be here to visit for the week! Hooray!

I'm so annoyed with the weather that that's all I've got.

Lent, Day 18: Downton Abbey!

I am a sucker for the English Country House setting in books, movies, and TV. Murder mysteries, upstairs-downstairs type stuff, overwrought dramas -- you name it, I'll watch it if it's set pre-1940 at a country estate. So when I found out that Julian Fellowes, who wrote the screenplay for my absolute favorite movie (as well as for the heart-stoppingly beautiful The Young Victoria), had developed and written a Masterpiece Classics miniseries about a pre-WWI aristocratic English family with three eligible daughters and an entailed estate, I was sold. It's called Downton Abbey, and all you need to know is that Maggie Smith is in it, and at her gloriously condescending, sharp-witted best. The costumes, score, and scenery are nothing to scoff at either, and the supporting cast populated with faces you'll recognize if you're a fan of Brit flicks of almost any kind. Highly, highly recommended.

Lent, Day 17? Maybe? Anyway: FOOTBALL

I am RIGHT NOW watching the first Aussie Rules football game of the season. WOOOOOO!

Basketball will always be first in my heart when it comes to sports, but Aussie Rules is SO MUCH FUN I can't even begin to describe it. I'm a total convert. Familiarize yourself with footy here, check out the official site here, learn all about my team here, and watch games here.

Lent, Day WHATEVER IT IS NOW: Oh, Honestly.

Why do I always think I'll have LOADS of time and brain power to work on the blog while I'm on vacation? You'd think that after twenty-whatever years of writing rubbish in my spare time, I'd have learned that vacation = no desire to think any thoughts beyond, "Ooh! I wonder if I can watch reruns of America's Next Top Model online somewhere while I drink my third cup of tea?" (Answer: obviously.)

Anyway, I will get back to that Very Serious Topic I started the other day or week, soon. Sometime before Lent is over. In the meantime, please visit Angus and nag him to post some more (football season is starting, Angus, and your reading public DEMANDS a really dishy footy/gossip post), or get out some tissues and read this touching post about Dave Brubeck, or go vote in the Fug Madness Sweet Sixteen, or something. Maybe tomorrow I'll have... oh, you know what, never mind. I'll be back tomorrow with some other nonsense.

Lent, Day 15: Back From The Road Trip

Today in the car on my way back from seeing the fam in Indianapolis, I heard "The Cave" by Mumford & Sons, and then got home to find this in my blog reader. Appropriate.

Lent, Day 14: Doctrinal Discernment, Part 1

So. In the field of psychology, there's this phenomenon called "cognitive dissonance." In simple terms, cognitive dissonance is when someone holds two contradictory ideas simultaneously without recognizing the contradiction. It's a mental block, of sorts, that keeps us from noticing or properly evaluating logical incongruities in our own belief systems.

Now, every human post-Fall has been subject to cognitive dissonance, but I think it's a particular problem in postmodern society. Throw in a slipshod or nonexistent education in the field of logic, and the vigorously pluralistic message preached from every media outlet in the West, and you've got a steaming hot, high-octane cup of Doctrinal Issues, Man, just waiting to give you the jitters.

And boy, are we ever jittery about it.

For those of you who don't know about this brouhaha with Rob Bell in the last month, first, welcome to the internet, and second, let me give you a quick rundown. Since Bell appeared on the scene several years ago with his wildly popular Nooma videos, he's come across as a basically likeable, incredibly compelling brother with some distressingly squishy positions on a few doctrines, and the typical Evangelical response to him has been equal parts brow-furrowing and eye-rolling, with the occasional rebuke thrown in.

But a few weeks ago, he released a promo video for his new book. And that's when the proverbial excrement hit the air-conditioning, to borrow Kurt Vonnegut's phrase. As is typical for Bell, he asked a very provocative series of questions that led a lot of people to believe that he had embraced Universalism. The release of the book a couple weeks later basically served to confirm that suspicion.  (If you want more detail about that business, the Google search bar is right up there at the top of the page; knock yourself out.)

But between the release of the video and now, no real consensus has emerged on how to refer to and think of him and other Universalists. Do we embrace a sort of agnosticism about their salvation? Do we think of them as unsaved, and seek to evangelize accordingly? Do we affirm their salvation and correct their doctrinal errors from inside the family, so to speak?

In other words, is it possible that a person can hold a heterodox position on this sort of issue and still be saved? Can a person's doctrine be as orthodox as St. Paul's, with one massive, glaring exception?

Can cognitive dissonance save us?

Lent, Day 13: In Which I Narrowly Slide In Before The Deadline

Whew, this blogging every day thing is a trip, man. Just one day of, you know, doing stuff outside of my house with people and the whole thing almost collapses!

Rather than confuse you with some hastily-written nonsense about that thing I told you I was going to write about and still totally am I swear, I will just send you to this comic. You can thank me later. (Caution: occasional salty language ahead.) (Also, I just tried to spell "cautioin" and "occasioinal" but those are not words.)

Lent, Day 12: It Is Well With My Soul

This is an appropriate follow-up to yesterday's post, actually.  If you don't know the story behind this beautiful hymn, grab a tissue and read about it. I'm totally serious about grabbing a tissue. Don't say I didn't warn you.

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

It is well with my soul,
It is well with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control:
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul!

Horatio Spafford

Lent, Day 11: The Black Dog

This past week I was incredibly productive. I wrote a paper, got my tax stuff organized, worked on (and finished!) grades, cleaned my house, hung out with friends, took care of the last of Mt. Recycling that was in the closet, and did all the normal stuff of the week -- teaching, community group, cooking, errands. I feel rested and energized and am looking forward to a whole week of vacation in which to do things and see people and finish projects.

But a few weeks ago, my mood was very different. I could feel myself getting better as the days grew longer, but I was still struggling with what's probably the number one symptom of my seasonal depression: a knotty anxiety about getting anything accomplished. Even simple tasks like grading student essays look Herculean, and anything larger or more stressful I find absolutely paralyzing. I can even objectively recognize the simplicity of a task, and the necessity of doing it, but then my brain just shuts down when it comes to taking the first step. Churchill's "black dog" was still sitting ominously in the corner.

And when all this is going on, I am a very, very bad friend. I can handle getting together with friends to chat about trivialities; I can talk theology all day long because I enjoy it. I can certainly recognize my own sin (usually in an unhealthy way), but dealing with it productively in community becomes, again, an almost-insurmountable task.  But when friends are suffering and struggling -- and there's been plenty of that this winter -- I retreat in fear.

Whether I'm avoiding grading papers or paralyzed with anxiety about speaking into a friend's pain, the next thing that happens is a wave of guilt and condemnation. You should be able to do this. You're being irresponsible. You're a terrible person, and you're going to end up jobless, homeless, friendless and alone if you don't stop it. Do something! And the Black Dog rears his ugly head and says, You can't. It's too hard. Why bother?

And then, of course, the cycle starts again, because fear and shame are not good motivators.

But this last week has reminded me again of God's grace in the midst of this struggle. I don't know if my mood issues will ever go away or even improve. I don't know if there will ever be a January and February where dread and guilt aren't undercurrents. But I do know that in the Gospel I have hope -- the kind of hope that doesn't disappoint.

The same power that raised Jesus Christ from the dead is at work in me, and promises that, as surely as the spring returns every year, the final renewal approaches that will never again cycle back into the bleak darkness of sin and death and despair. A day is coming when there will be no need of a sun to shine because the Lamb will radiate His own glory in the midst of the New Jerusalem.

So, friends, thanks for bearing with me through the difficult months of winter.

Lent, Day 10: Toward Doctrinal Discernment

I can't believe I'm doing this.  I can't believe I'm going to talk about Rob Bell, just like every other freakin' person in the evangelical world right now.  Seriously. And on a BLOG, too! Oh, the humanity! But here I go, wading into the ridiculous fray of potential quadrupling of Google hits, and trolls, and really sweet-tempered "evangelical universalists" persistently nice-ing people to death in the comments section, and whatever other nonsense has been going on in the blogosphere the last couple of weeks.

But really, I'm only going to talk about Rob Bell in a kind of broad, referential way, as a starting point for what I think is another really important discussion for modern evangelical life. (That's a hint to trolls and argumentative universalists to take a hike, and to cage-stage Calvinists that there's not gonna be any ammo for you here. Hasta luego, Blog Crazies.)

The question is this: is there a point when we stop referring to someone as a brother or sister in Christ? When? Under what circumstances? Once we've reached that point, how universal or extensive, then, do we make that declaration -- to whom else do we apply it? What's the next step in addressing that person? That group? That movement?

So, for the next few days, Lord willing, I'm going to talk about what I think is a good strategy for thinking about and addressing people whose theological positions on certain issues are problematic or borderline unorthodox, without either being a total jerk or turning what ought to be serious doctrinal discussions into sloppy hug-fests where everyone feels good but nobody knows what the devil anyone actually believes about anything or if that even matters.

Stay tuned!

Lent, Day 9: Saint Patrick!

Happy Saint Patrick's day, everyone!

Saint Patrick, if you don't know, was a real man, a Christian missionary who planted by some estimates in excess of seven hundred churches in the early fifth century. He grew up in Britain, but was captured by raiders as a teenager and taken as a slave to what is now Ireland, where he tended his master's flocks for six years, until the Lord directed him to a ship that took him back to his homeland. Years later, after being trained as a priest and missionary and participating in the triumph of orthodoxy over the Pelagian heresy, he felt compelled to return to the pagan Irish with the Gospel.

Of course, many legends later developed about Patrick, who probably did not use a shamrock to explain the Trinity, and who certainly did not drive out all the snakes from Ireland! March 17 is the traditionally-accepted date of his death and thus his Feast Day.

Raise a glass today to this brother, an old-school church planter, and pray that God will raise up many more Patricks to take the Gospel to places where it has yet to take hold.

Lent, Day 8: General and Special Revelation, Part 4

(Check out Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.)

The first category of special revelation is God's specific acts in history on behalf of and toward certain people, which reveal much more about his character and will than general revelation. These acts are broadly visible – even to those who are not the select recipients of the actions – objective, and historical. For example, God makes a covenant with Abram, binding himself by an oath to give Abram a land, a people, an inheritance, revealing himself as faithful and powerful. God acts miraculously to rescue Joseph from the schemes of his jealous brothers (Genesis 37:1ff), thereby saving his chosen people from a terrible famine, revealing his sovereignty and his purposes of election. He preserves his people through their enslavement in Egypt and punishes their captors, revealing his faithfulness, power, and wrath as he leads them out from slavery in the book of Exodus.

The second category of special revelation is that of internal or subjectively-experienced communication. These acts are visible or accessible only to the recipients, and encompass dreams and visions. These acts vary widely in intent. Certain visions and dreams communicate some hidden reality about the unseen spiritual realm, as in Jacob's vision of angels ascending and descending between earth and heaven. Sometimes they are prophetic in nature, communicating future events as they will unfold. Portions of the book of Revelation fit this sub-category, and most of the prophetic books of the Old Testament contain at least one account of a prophetic vision or dream. At times they are God's chosen means of giving specific instruction or direction, as when God speaks to Joseph in a dream to tell him to flee to Egypt with the child Jesus. Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones, reveals God as one who breathes life into that which was dead – an essential component of his nature as a God who saves!

The third category of special revelation is direct divine speech, which we may subdivide into two further categories: that of audible communication of the voice of God, and that of the Scriptures, which are God's word in written form. We see the first example of this in the early chapters of Genesis, both before and after the Fall: God walks and talks with Adam in the garden before sin enters the world, and later confronts him and his wife Eve with their rebellion. God speaks audibly to many others as well: the boy Samuel, Saul on the road to Damascus, Peter on the rooftop. God also, incredibly, makes his exact words known to all who would care to “take up and read,” as Augustine was urged, through the Scriptures which he has preserved for his people!

The final category of special revelation we might call the final revelation or the telos of God's revelation: Jesus Christ himself, God in the flesh. The author of Hebrews says that God has spoken to us in these final days “through his Son.” John the Evangelist tells us that “the Word,” Jesus Christ, “became flesh and dwelt among us.” That is to say, God's ultimate communication of himself, through whom all things were created, came to earth “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). Jesus himself said that whoever has seen him has seen the Father – in other words, Jesus is the final and ultimate “revealer” of God the Father!

In the final accounting, those who misinterpreted God's revelation of himself, those whom God has not caused to understand general revelation rightly and who have not received the saving knowledge of God through special revelation, will beg for a “de-revelation” – a concealment of God's judgment and wrath! In his vision of the coming judgment, the Apostle John sees the reprobate fleeing, “calling to the mountains and rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb...'” (Revelation 6:16). But we, whom God in his mysterious purposes of grace has chosen, can, with all God's people, cry out for that day when we will look at last upon our saving King with unveiled faces: even so, come, Lord Jesus!

Lent, Day 7: General and Special Revelation, Part 3

(Yesterday we looked at two further modes of general revelation. Today, we move to discussing special revelation, its definition and varieties.)

And yet, from the reprobate, the prophet Isaiah says, God hides himself. (45:15) In what way can Scripture say that God hides himself from those he guides so meticulously? To Israel, God says, “I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness, I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, 'Seek me in vain.'” (v. 19) In other words, some elements of God's purpose and character are revealed only to his particular people, while those elements remain hidden to the unbelieving and the reprobate.

In fact, God's partial concealment of himself is not the only “problem” with general revelation as a category. Two others intrude on our ability to rightly understand God through his revelation to all people. First, on an objective level: from natural disasters, pestilence, and disease to human evil to poisonous plants and thorny ground, we experience the testimony of creation and God's providential care commingled with systemic and persistent trouble post-fall. Creation, the Scriptures tell us, “groans and suffers in pain” awaiting the day of consummation (Romans 8:22). In addition, our subjective ability to perceive it and respond rightly has been destroyed by sin. We have “eyes to see, but see not [...] ears to hear, but hear not” (Ezekiel 12:2). These so-called “noetic” effects of the Fall blind us to the universal messages of God's creation and providence, as well as our consciences and innate sense of the divine. Atheists and idolaters stand before stunning vistas, relish quotidian joys, and do good to their fellow-men, yet give no glory to the God to which these testimonies point.

Obviously, more is needed; general revelation alone cannot save. And that much-needed unique revelation of God's purpose and character is usually called “special revelation” – the acts of God whereby he reveals himself to certain people at certain times and places, with the intent of communicating all that is required for salvation. The category of special revelation is quite broad in its scope, and can be divided into four categories: external or historical events, internal or subjectively-experienced communication, divine speech, and the Incarnation of Christ.

Special revelation also has an eschatological quality. While we see specific and frequent examples of special revelation in the Old Testament, the prophets of old envision a coming day when the character of that revelation will change and grow – when God's revelation of himself will become even more “special,” so to speak, even more potent and intimate. And although God has fully revealed himself through Christ Jesus in those “latter days” of which the prophets spoke, we still await the consummation when we will no longer see “through a glass darkly” but rather “face to face.”

Tomorrow we'll wrap up this series with a more detailed look at the modes of special revelation.

Lent, Day 6: General and Special Revelation, Part 2

(Yesterday I introduced the idea of General and Special Revelation, and talked about the first kind of general revelation, that of God's testimony to us in the things we can experience with our senses. Today we turn to inward modes of general revelation -- the conscience and sense of the divine.)

Just a few verses later, in Romans 2:12-16, Paul introduces us to the second method of general revelation. “For when Gentiles […] do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves,” Paul says. “They show that the word of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness.” In other words, the human conscience, with its innate sense of right and wrong, reveals something about God. What, exactly, does it reveal? A moral code, of course, but also a coming day of judgment: “that day when […] God judges the secrets of men.” Unfortunately, although the consciences of men urge them to adhere to a moral code, they give faulty feedback: “Their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.”

Moreover, in addition to an innate sense of right and wrong, man has an innate sense of the divine. From the remotest antiquity to the modern age man has, to paraphrase Flannery O'Connor, a God-haunted history, replete with deities of every imaginable type, from Lucretius's intangible pantheon to the bloodthirsty demon-gods of animism. Paul, standing before the Athenian altar to an unknown god, examines this knowledge of the divine. “I perceive,” he says, “that you are very religious.” (Acts 17:22) Throughout the Old Testament, indeed, no atheistic nation exists; each has its own gods, its own cult and rituals, its own rules for approaching its gods.

The third method or mode of general revelation is God's providence, or the ways in which he cares for and guides the lives of all people. Jesus himself tells the crowds, in teaching them to do good to both friends and enemies, that the Father “causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:45) In an impromptu sermon in Lystra, Paul and Barnabas explain God's providence: “He did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons.” (Acts 14:16-17).

And God's providence is not merely the vaguely benevolent oversight envisioned by the deist. In the same breath, Paul adds that God's providential care extends to “satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” (v. 17) The source, therefore, of ordinary joys and daily bread, even for the unbeliever, is the “living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.” (v. 15) The ordering of world events and leaders also falls under the category of providential care. God casts down nations and kings, political and religious leaders (Psalm 56:7, Ezra 6:12, Lamentations 2:6). “The shields of earth” are in his control and he is exalted over them (Psalm 47:9). He raises up kings (1 Kings 11) and spiritual leaders (1 Samuel 2:35). He establishes the bounds of human authority and makes kings and politicians his servants (Romans 13:4).


Tomorrow we'll take a look at the category of special revelation.

Lent, Day 5: General and Special Revelation, Part 1

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets,

but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son...

Hebrews 1:1-2

“You would not have called to me if I had not been calling to you,” said the Lion.

– C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair

Revelation is any act of God in revealing himself to people, thereby communicating himself to them. This implies, of course, that something of God would be hidden did he not reveal it. Scripture is clear, though, that all humanity knows something of God, that inherent in human experience is the realization that God exists and works in the world. This kind of revelation we call “general revelation:” when these acts of revelation apply to or are witnessed by all people. Special revelation, on the other hand, occurs when God reveals specific information about his character and will, communicating those details necessary for salvation. Both are part of God's character as creator: one who speaks the world into being and then communicates with his creation.

Broadly, we can divide general revelation into three categories: empirical, innate, and providential. Probably the type of revelation most commonly understood to be “general revelation” is that of God's revelation of himself in his creation – his revelation, that is, by empirical or observable evidence. David pictures creation as a herald of God's glory and handiwork in Psalm 19; the heavens “declare,” the expanse of sky “proclaims,” day “pours out speech,” night “reveals knowledge.” And not only to God's people do these elements of creation unceasingly communicate information about their creator! No, David insists: “There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” (v. 3-4)

Romans 1:18ff, in which Paul defends God's justice in judging sinners by demonstrating their rejection of God, and the consequences of this rejection, gives us a little more insight into further content of this revelation. “For what can be known about God is plain to them,” Paul argues, “because God has shown it to them […] in the things that have been made.” (Romans 1:19-20) What has God shown them through his creation? Paul explains: “His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature.” To whom does this making-visible of God's “invisible attributes” apply? To all men, “since the creation of the world,” even those who will ultimately misuse and misinterpret this revelation and turn to idolatry and immorality – even, in short, the reprobate.

Tomorrow: God reveals himself through the human conscience and his providential care of mankind.

Lent, Day 4: I hate writing papers.

Sigh. I need to get good at this paper-writing stuff again. My writing has turned so sloppy and ridiculous in the last couple of years that writing this paper I feel like the fat kid in the gym after New Year's resolutions kick in, wandering around in a fog, getting onto the weight machines wrong and falling off the treadmill.

I'm just going to remind myself that I don't need an A, and that the grader is looking for completeness and support rather than, you know, life-changingly beautiful prose.

Lent, Day 3: I have completely forgotten how to write academic papers.

No seriously. Totally forgotten.

Should I post it here when I'm done? (It's a paper defending my understanding of general and special revelation, and lemme tell you, it's not NEAR as exciting as it sounds...) Maybe I will, in like five parts. 

That's all I got. Brain dead.

Lent, Day 2: In which the top of my head shoots off.

OK, I have to get this off my chest. Sorry it's such a long, rambling bit of nonsense. If it's too long and rambling and nonsensical, I won't be offended if you skip it. ;)

Fellas: you are misinterpreting data, to your own frustration and the frustration of many, many single women around you. In 2011, a woman who has a career and a college degree (maybe even an advanced degree) and a mortgage, who pays her bills on time and takes her own car to the mechanic and hasn't lived with her parents in ten years is not necessarily, by definition a raging feminist who thinks she needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Nope. She is NORMAL. Got that?

Tip: that's the summary. If you're sufficiently convinced, feel free to stop right here. Need more persuasion that you oughta change your mind? Read on, my friend.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, women in the business world were rare. The average age of a first marriage was still in the early-mid twenties for both men and women. And the message from Western culture was loud and clear: Sisters, get into work. You can still decide to have children later, after you've gone up the ranks in your job, after you've accomplished something "real."

Add to this the shame that generation of feminists heaped on men: you're irresponsible, power-hungry, insensitive; you're someone to be resented and competed with, boxed in, restricted, pushed aside, stepped on. Those power-suit-wearing, marriage-spurning, child-hating career girls -- even then, the stereotype was developing!

But, guys? That was thirty years ago. Somehow, it seems, too many Christian men are still being taught to see career, mortgage, and financial stability in a woman and interpret that as "feminist, not wife material, run far far away"!

I grew up being taught not to waste time or money sitting on my hands, and that it was ungodly to waste my gifts and opportunities. You know who taught me that? Not just my mother, though she certainly did. No, it was the women who had, thirty years ago, bought the lie that they could subjugate their God-given desires, that those desires were wrong, that "wife" and "mother" were not the most honorable titles they could seek, but that they were rather titles to be avoided. These women, who learned through bitter experience, taught me to cherish my God-given desire for marriage and motherhood, but also to seize whatever opportunities the Lord put before me. They passed on their experience and wisdom, and started to break down that paradigm.

In my bitter moments, I want to sock every Christian single guy who whines about modern women being overly independent, and tell them that, if they didn't propose to a girl in college, it's their own fault there are all these career women running around. But in my better moments, I just want to be helpful.  So let me help you.

Most of us, brothers, are working, paying our bills, getting promotions, working on our degrees, and all those other things, not because we  don't  want to get married and have children.  It's because we had the opportunity to use our gifts in a job, or use our finances more wisely by buying instead of renting, or develop our skills with an advanced degree, or whatever... and haven't had the opportunity to get married and start a family. Most of us would happily re-arrange any or all of those things for the right man, if given the chance.

If I have one word of caution, it's this: guys, you tiptoe toward slandering your sisters when you silently accuse them of selfishness, unhealthy independence, and unbiblical attitudes toward femininity just because they have careers and mortgages -- love, after all, believes the best about people. You are misinterpreting the data, and coming to wrong conclusions. Don't be put off by a woman who makes a decent living at a job she's good at, a woman with an advanced degree, a woman who owns a home. Don't assume the worst about her.

Thirty years ago, a power suit and a mortgage might reasonably have meant this was a woman who didn't want marriage and family. It doesn't have to mean that anymore. Got it?

Lent, Day 1

Sojourn's Ash Wednesday service is one of my favorite church gatherings of the year, even though I always get asked, "What's that black stuff on your forehead?" about fifty times during the day.

I love the solemnity, the emphasis on repentance and renewal, and the anticipation that accompany Lent in general and Ash Wednesday in particular. I always think it'll be a restful, contemplative day full of opportunities to meditate quietly on the cross, start my Lenten fast (whatever it is from year to year) -- basically that it'll be a perfect little monastic day with real life waiting until later to intrude.

Didn't happen. Not close. It was a day full of conflict (and, praise God, real Gospel reconciliation), anxiety, busyness, and all sorts of unexpected hiccups. And that was God's grace to me too.

Welcome back to blogging. Maybe over Lent we'll get into why I didn't blog for several months? We'll see.