In a poetic mood.

Whatever that means.

Sometimes the mood strikes me to write a poem. And sometimes I do, and it's awful, and sometimes I do, and it's "fair to middlin'" as my father would say, and sometimes it's just what I wanted. Sometimes I hit all those perfect authorial high notes -- lean, vivid, evocative, just the right combination of wit and punch.

I guess I have to realize that all my writing is like that -- that hitting "publish" on this blog is going to mean that I put a lot of things out there that I'm not satisfied with, that I go back and read months later and cringe at. I'm no "First-Draft" Lewis, and I never will be (alas?). And I realize that part of the discipline of being a writer is just continuing to hit "publish" week after week even when I don't have anything profound at the front of my mind. Because sometimes when I write a poem, it starts out as a sloppy ramble and ends up quite nicely summing up a thought filed away back in my brain. I reckon writing here won't be any different.

Lent, Day 29? Or something? Maybe?

Thoughts on blogging through Lent, in no particular order:

It was SUCH a mistake to put numbers in the titles of these Lent posts. Yikes.

I don't know why I ever thought I could be a journalist. I can barely manage to hit "publish" my own dang blog every day (by which I mean "most days"), much less deal with an external writing deadline, with content that matters AND has to be coherent and factual, day in and day out. Thinking about it kind of makes my blood pressure go up.

This spring has been a tough one. Usually by this point in the year, I'm feeling basically free of the winter funk, and I'm busy, rested, and motivated. This year? Let's just say that the winter funk is persisting.

Not-unrelatedly, a friend and I are reading Russ Moore's new book Tempted and Tried: Temptation and the Triumph of Christ.

I'm working on writing up each chapter as I read it. So far the verdict is possibly least-surprisingly-awesome book I've ever read. By which I mean, Dr. Moore's stuff is almost entirely fantastic -- convicting, encouraging, focused on Jesus -- and this, being no exception, did not catch me off guard with its amazingness. I highly recommend it, not only for the practical theology content, but for the strength of Dr. Moore's authorial voice. Reading this book is just like being in class with him. He's funny, relatable, a bit provocative, really, really Southern (in that genteel, coastal South way, not a redneck or hillbilly way), and whip-smart. Oh, and he loves Johnny Cash.

A Thought Or Two On Singleness And Sanctification, Part Three

In my last post I mentioned that we really struggle to give single people a big vision for God's work of sanctification in their lives.  I was going to go on to say that it's essential that we do more to help single people really ground their identity in Christ rather than success at work, or being liked, or whatever, but then it occurred to me that that's a desperate need for everyone in the church. 

I've talked to many married folks, especially women, about "the moment" when they realized that this person they were married to was never meant to give them their identity.  For some people, that's the end of their marriage.  For others, it's the beginning of a long and difficult journey of finding their identity in Christ and resting there.

I've also had plenty of conversations with single folks (um... including myself) about the identity crisis of not having a spouse, of feeling valueless and adrift without this supposed anchor of marriage.  It's daily implied to us that marriage is not simply a good and worthy state, but one that defines us as, and makes us, mature.  (Think I'm overstating my case?  Name one unmarried ministry leader at your church.  Or consider what percentage of your congregation is single vs. what percentage of the leadership.  Now, I know... correlation and causation.  But it's something to think about.)

Who am I because of my job?  Who am I because of my marital status?  Who am I because of who I'm attracted to?  Who am I because of my income?  Who am I because of where I live?  Who am I because of my politics, or my eschatology, or my taste in music, or the food I eat or the education I have or the clothes I buy?  All those things, to the Christian, must take second place to the question, "Who am I in Christ?"

And if we spent the rest of our lives trying to work that out... Well, that would be ok.

A Thought Or Two On Singleness And Sanctification, Part 2

So, I wrote the last post to sort of point out the problem of our unbalanced understanding of singleness and sanctification.  In this one, I'd like to think through what a solid, biblical view of singleness and sanctification looks like.

I think, first of all, that it's not just about "patience."  We get told this a lot -- that we're so blessed to be learning patience, learning to "wait on the Lord" as we're single.

I think it IS a lot about... just life.  Married folks and parents especially get all kinds of advice about how to turn everyday stuff into an opportunity for sanctification.  Messy husband?  It's a chance to love him sacrificially by just picking up the stupid sock and not nagging him about it.  Hate folding laundry?  It's a chance to pray for your family, one stained onesie at a time.  Frustrated by the neverending cycle of strife between your kids?  Just think of how God feels when we continually rebel against him!

Too often, we only address the external, apparent frustrations of the single person (loneliness, desire for marriage) without just dealing with their everyday circumstances, so we end up giving them the same prescription for sanctification.  Be patient.  Rely on God.  Both great, but just not enough, and definitely not specific enough.  I definitely need sanctification in those areas, but not only those areas.

In my life, for example, my biggest sources of sanctification are my students and hosting community group.  I'm constantly confronted with my own pride, laziness, and selfishness at work.  At home, I constantly fail to live up to my God-given task of home-keeping, making my little domain a place of peace and welcome for whoever God sends.

But not only do we fail to give specific, life-focused counsel to single people, we also fail to give them a big picture.  Ultimately, God's purpose for me and God's purpose for my married friends is identical: that we would be more like Jesus.  And we do married people and single people a great disservice by overemphasizing their dissimilarities and under-emphasizing their similarities.  My best friend, who's married, needs to remember the Gospel just like I do.  She needs to be made more like Jesus just like I do.  She needs to respond to God's grace by striving to live a life of excellence, purity, generosity, wisdom, perseverance, and self-control, just like I do.  She needs to joyfully submit to those whom God has made her leaders, just like I do.

The external circumstances whereby she is reminded of the Gospel might be different, or they might not.  The trials that refine and strengthen her faith might be different than mine, or they might not.  But the final outcome is that God, who has promised to complete the work he begins in his people, will make her, and me, and every other believer, more like Jesus.

A Thought Or Two On Singleness And Sanctification

My sweet, encouraging sister-in-law and I had a really good conversation last week, in which she said something I don't think I've ever heard a married person say, at least not quite in that way.  She actually told me that singleness was sanctifying me, not just in one area, that of patience, but in my whole life as a Christian.  Single folks don't really hear that a lot.  Sojourn does a better job at addressing this than many churches, but I imagine it's tough to work in a lot of exhortations to singles, especially single women, when you're a married guy like all our elders are.  So this isn't a post where I call people out and tell them to get on the ball or anything.  It's just thoughts.  Thoughts: I has them.


As is typical for me, I'm finding it helpful lately to see the whole concept of how we talk about sanctification as single people on a continuum, with error at each end, and a range of orthodoxy in the middle.

So: at one end, you've got the idea that singleness is a less-than-ideal circumstance for sanctification, and that marriage is not just normal but normative.  Few people actually teach this (although... I can tell you from experience, they're out there).  But a lot more people sort of accidentally teach it, or at least imply it.  The error here is reading the Scriptures and seeing marriage described as sort of socially and culturally normal, as well as good, and that probably most people described in any detail in the Scriptures are married, and drawing from that something that's normative.  It's a common interpretive problem, confusing descriptive and prescriptive aspects of Scripture.  Plus, marriage "has a verse on it" as we say in the South, the lovely and oft-read-at-weddings passage about the mystery of marriage referring to Christ and the Church.  We seem to think that means that singleness is just one tiny step down from marriage, because singleness doesn't have a verse about Christ and the Church attached to it.

Here's where you get marriage just hammered on from the pulpit, and talked up, and praised, and presented as the furnace of sanctification, without any notion that we're failing to give people a vision of what godly celibacy (which, in case we've forgotten, is our eternal future state) looks like.  Instead we're telling people to direct all their energies toward something that's temporary, and discouraging single people from pursuing sanctification because we're implying that it all will just happen automatically and effortlessly once they get married and start having kids (insert collective snort of disgust from all my married readers).

(Incidentally, and just as a little side rant: why are we ok with denigrating the lives and experiences of single people by constantly saying that marriage/child-rearing is "harder" than singleness?  I'm positive that it's harder in some areas, and it's definitely a different kind of hard, but, married folks, please.  Stop telling us that we've got it easy.  /rant.)

At the other end of the spectrum is a view that's totally foreign to us Protestants, that celibate service is spiritual and, in fact, that married folks (basically, in most cases) disqualify themselves from vocational ministry.  We can't get our brains around this.  So because we can't get our brains around it, we mostly don't provide a path for celibate service, and we retreat all the way to the other end of the spectrum.

Some Actual Thoughts For A Change

Currently on my bedside table are the following: alarm clock, lamp, water glass, and two books.  One book is Bridget Jones's Diary and the other is John Owen's The Mortification of Sin.  I fully expect to wake up some morning to find that the two have spontaneously combusted in the night.

I started reading The Mortification of Sin well over a year ago, before it got shuffled around somehow and pushed to the bottom of a pile and sadly neglected.  (Side note: I started reading it while sitting at an airport bar waiting for a flight.  Picture me with a beer in one hand and a Puritan Paperback in the other.  Classic experience.)  I picked it up again recently and have been amazed and blessed by Owen's strongly-worded caution to those who bear the name of Christ not to deal lightly with our besetting sins.

Chapters 10 ("Seeing Sin For What It Is") and 11 ("A Tender Conscience and a Watchful Heart") are particularly rich and full of godly counsel.  Here, a segment from chapter 11 that merits being quoted at length:

Look on Him whom you have pierced, and let it trouble you.  Say to your soul, 'What have I done?  What love, what mercy, what blood, what grace have I despised and trampled on?  Is this how I pay back the Father for His love?  Is this how I thank the Son for His blood?  Is this how I respond to the Holy Spirit for His grace?  Have I defiled the heart that Christ died to wash, and the Holy Spirit has chosen to dwell in?  [...] Do I count fellowship with Him of so little value that, for this vile [sin's] sake, I have hardly left him any room in my heart?'

As is typical with those dear old Puritans, the counsel Owen urges on his readers is emotionally stirring, grounded in the Gospel, and intensely practical.  Incidentally, I find this to be a great weakness in a lot of modern devotional writing, which tends toward one or two of those three characteristics.  Consider this snippet:

Do you find corruption beginning to entangle your thoughts?  Rise up with all your strength against it, as if it had already started to overcome you!  Consider what an unclean thought desires: it desires to have you immerse yourself in folly and filth!  Ask envy what it aims at: murder and destruction are its natural conclusion!  Set yourself against it as if it had already surrounded you in wickedness!

Or this remarkable reflection on the transcendence of God:

Labour to limit your pride with these considerations: What do you know about God?  How little a portion of His majesty!  How immense He is in His nature!  Can you look without terror into the abyss of eternity?  Can you bear the rays of His glorious Being?  I consider these meditations of great value in our walking with God, so far as they are consistent with our filial boldness in seeking Him at the throne of grace through our Lord Jesus Christ. [...] To Moses was revealed the most glorious attributes that He can reveal in the covenant of grace, but even these are but the 'back parts' of God!

It's definitely kicking my butt.  And I'm just now over halfway through.  Eep!

Pride is a Trap. No Really.

A blog-acquaintance of mine just put up some musings about homeschooling and asked about a particular curriculum she's thinking of using for her kiddos. It got me thinking.  Schooling is one of those topics that can turn mild-mannered Christian parents into red-faced UFC contenders in the time it takes to say "unschooling."  It's ridiculous, and I see why it makes people so neurotic -- even once you've decided on public or private or home, you still have to choose between classical! Montessori! Charlotte Mason! Waldorf!  And then curriculum!  Do you go for the tried-and-true Abeka even though it's KJV-only?  Or Sonlight?  Or Veritas?  Or one of those online accreditation things?  Or WHAT?  And then methodology -- five days a week, 8-3, nine months a year?  Or something else?  Dedicated school room or kitchen table?  Or picnic table?  Or the table in your RV?  No wonder so many threads about homeschooling end with people getting all capsy and BUT YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!  WROOOOONNNNGG!

That reaction?  Is all about pride.

So I was amping up to do a thundering post about pridefulness in schooling choices, when it hit me: I am just that bad about my "stuff."  People who watch Glenn Beck.  People who send their kids to school with a can of spaghetti-o's for lunch three days a week.  People who use the N-word.  People who tell rude jokes about Obama.  People who roll their eyes at women who want a natural birth... All those people just get my blood pressure going.

And that reaction is ALSO all about pride.

AUGH.

Criticism

Some days I wish I lived in the pre-internet age.  Or was Amish.  Or something.  Days like today, when I see a beautiful quote from a respected, wise, older brother in Christ, and then I see someone else, someone who claims the name of Christ, making snap judgments and hateful accusations about that man's character and doctrine.

Friends, we have to learn -- I have to learn -- to temper our words when we're on the internet.  We must.  The commands of God not to entertain accusations against an elder without corroboration do not cease to apply online.  I'm convinced that a great many Christians are experiencing personal stagnation in their growth in Christlikeness because they constantly allow bitterness, anger, self-righteousness, lovelessness, and pride to gain a hold on them in the comments sections of Christian blogs.  How often do we see characteristics and actions  that belong to the realm of death in people who call themselves by the name of Christ?  Gossip.  Slander.  Malice. 

How foolish!  How our enemy must laugh with twisted delight when we use God's language for the Devil's purposes.

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. 

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!'"

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.

Evangelism and the Single Girl

I stink at evangelism. Really. I can't remember the last time I shared the Gospel, or even had a spiritual conversation, with an unbeliever who wasn't a) related to me and under age ten or b) my student. No, I can, it was probably with one of my neighbors in the apartment complex I lived in two and a half years ago. The only reason I knew my downstairs neighbor, Jasmine, is because she liked to listen to hip-hop while studying at 1 a.m., and the only reason I knew my across-the-hall neighbor is because he was completely insane, not unlike several of the other people who lived there. I don't think I ever told you about the time that one of the downstairs residents kidnapped (catnapped?) my next-door neighbor's cat and refused to return it.

Anyway, I digress.

I live by myself in my condo, which I totally love about 75% of the time, particularly when I don't feel like cleaning. The other 25% of the time, I feel either like a cloistered nun (who, uh, is on Facebook) or a weird recluse. Good thing I don't have any cats. I've met a few of my neighbors, and they're nice people, but I haven't felt comfortable going door-to-door and introducing myself or trying to form relationships with them. And herein lies my problem.

I totally believe that God has put me in this place for this time. It's not an accident that I live here, or that I have the neighbors I have. But what's a single girl to do? This is a pretty good-size metropolitan area I live in, and while it's quite a safe neighborhood, you just never know. I honestly don't feel right about going out by myself to knock on doors -- apart from the safety issues, what do you do with the propriety issues that arise, like finding yourself on the front steps of a house full of college-age boys? But how else besides meeting my neighbors am I supposed to even be in contact with adult non-Christians?

It's a very angsty issue for me, really. I want to be wise and safe, but I must be obedient.

I don't have any concluding thoughts, because I haven't concluded my thinking on this subject. If anyone has any suggestions, insights, or practical considerations, I'm all ears. Or whatever the online equivalent of ears is.

Does God Change His Mind?

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. But despite that, I still think he's wrong. Second, let me point out that Craig Blomber is also a brother in Christ, despite 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! But anyway, here goes.

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. I get what he's saying. 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. This is a copout. Blomberg's a great guy, and his work on the historical reliability of the Gospels is priceless, 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 methods of 19th century German liberal philosophers to convince people that the Book of Mormon is ok -- the 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, "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 somethings 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?

Bloggy bloggy blog blog

Well, a few things have been checked off my list of Things Which Must Be Done In The Next Two Months:

Start new job... check.
Survive first week of new job... check.
Move into James and Terra's spare room... check.
Make an offer on a condo... check.

The rest of my list looks increasingly manageable but still pretty hectic:

Continue new job
Read absolutely stacks of books for new job
Accept counter-offer on condo
Do innumerable closing-related condo tasks
Move AGAIN
Have nervous breakdown
Find time to go to Indianapolis and retrieve dining set and hutch of my Grandma's that now belongs to me and has home in condo

After that... well, I'm sure life in the asylum will be very peaceful. I wonder if they'll let me out every afternoon to teach my 8th graders?

Yes, But the Real Question is, Can She Survive The First Day?

7:30 - Doors open
8:00 - Recitation
8:20 - Planning time
9:00 - Bible
9:30 - History
10:00 - Recess
10:15 - Literature (third grade)
11:00 - Literature (fourth grade)
11:45 - Mid-Day Prayer
12:00 - Lunch
12:45 - Omnibus (eighth grade literature, theology, history)
1:45 - Latin I
2:30 - P.E. (Monday and Friday), Chorus (Tuesday and Thursday) or Study Hall (Wednesday)
3:00 - End of Day

Things I love and things I love not so much.

Things I love not so much right now:

People thinking their wedding is the perfect excuse to be the selfish brats they've always dreamt of being but were afraid to try. I'm going to write a book about this someday, I swear, and one of the chapters is going to be called, "Your Wedding Day: Celebration, not Extortion."

Allergies. How can my nose be stuffy AND runny at the same time? Hmm?

Having to move at the end of the month. Do you think that if I just pretend it's not really happening, my stuff will all just miraculously box itself up and find its way to the condo I'm hoping to buy? Hey! That'd make the house-hunting process a lot quicker! I'd just have to call around to the folks who own the places I'm looking at and ask if a whole truckload of stuff just materialized in their living room!

Things I love right now (so as to end the post on a more cheerful note):

The Dick Van Dyke Show. I actually love this all the time -- it's a truly one-of-a-kind show. A sitcom that portrays the American family as it might have been, if only: a smart, clever, successful husband with a loving, supportive wife, an unfailingly hilarious premise (comedy writer whose life is often funner than his job), and some of the best supporting characters ever to softshoe, sing, and hurl oneliners in the background make it my absolute favorite. The first two seasons are available at hulu.com for free streaming. Best Episodes: the "Walnuts" one, Richard "Rosebud" Petrie, the haunted cabin episode, and anything with a flashback to Rob and Laura's Army/USO days.

Having a job (see also: Classical education).

Michael Phelps. I know, I know... not very original. But have YOU ever found yourself spellbound by a swimming competition before? That's what I thought.

Tomatoes. For reeeeeeal. This week I've had an organic Brandywine and an organic Cherokee Purple from my friends Justin and Stacey's garden (both of which were delectable, but let's be honest. It's Justin's garden.), as well as a beautiful and exceptionally delicious tomato of some faintly heirloomish variety that I sliced, salted, and ate alongside a few tiny nubs of fresh mozzarella. For supper.

Discernment

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" -- see John Eldredge's book, Walking with God for a classic example. But is that the view of Scripture? I think not. 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 but not sleeping with your fiance, or being slack in 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.

My Love-Hate-Love Relationship

Yeah, it's complicated. Sometimes, I feel the strongest love and devotion, and other times nothing but pure hatred -- oh, the arguments! The stereotypes and cliches! The ignorance, the stupidity! But just when I think I'm over it, just when I think I couldn't possibly love again, I go running back.

Today, I think I'd be willing to propose. To Boundless, that is.

A few days ago on the Boundless Line I got into a rather heated debate with one of the writers about environmental issues -- see, he's one of those vitriolic global warming skeptics. And he somehow thinks that by insulting his opponents, he'll solidify his own position -- really, it just makes him look like a jerk.

But then, this morning, all was made right again in the sick, twisted little universe of my relationship with Boundless. Because I read this:

Dear Boundless Answers:

I had an interesting conversation with two older women of my church. I asked them if they thought that I was ready for marriage yet and they both said "no." They challenged me, asking me if I thought that I was being the "best that I could be" in every area of my life.

[...]

Should a woman totally overcome her insecurities before she gets married (to avoid bringing in that "excess baggage")?

And now, the response, from Candice Watters -- hang in there and read the whole thing. It's so great that it deserves being reproduced in its entirety here:

I don't know you beyond your e-mail, so I'm reluctant to challenge feedback from women in your church who presumably do. But I also know that if what they'd said was based on Scripture, I'd be more likely to agree with them.

What they said sounds cliché. Their assertion that you should be the "best that you can be" in every area of life before you get married scans like a positive thinking infomercial. It's based on the belief that we are not only perfectible, but also that we can perfect ourselves. It's certainly not rooted in what the Bible says about sin (that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God") and our need for a Savior.

Do you need to learn to love yourself before you can ever give your love to another person? Not according to Scripture. Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself." This is something you can do immediately. No learning curve required. We're selfish by nature; that's why Jesus made self-love the measure for how we treat others. He knew we would get the shorthand of what He was saying.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, "What is the chief end of man?" and answers, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." The purpose of our lives is not to self-actualize, but to bring glory to God. How we feel about our looks, or weight, or job, or social life, or any other measure of success on any given day is, in the scope of eternity, irrelevant. Does God want us to be full of joy? Yes. Is that joy dependent on your self-image? Thankfully, no. His joy and peace are among the fruit of the Holy Spirit. They come by giving thanks in all circumstances, praying without ceasing, and cultivating the Holy Spirit's activity in your life. None of this hangs on what kind of "self-image day" we're having. Though I know in my life that the more I practice these spiritual disciplines, the more irrelevant my externals become.

What about their appeal to Adam and Eve as "worked on by God and therefore complete before they met?" It implies that somehow the first couple came "baggage-free" (a pop-psychology favorite). But you need to read only a few verses down to see what failure these "complete" humans were capable of after God was done making them. Beyond the reality that God put Adam to sleep until the surgery was over, and kept Eve that way until she was fully formed in flesh, I don't see any evidence that the two were perfectly ready for marriage, or any other serious undertaking, the way your friends implied. Adam and Eve were, as we are, fully human, with the freedom to obey or not.

I suspect when the two women you spoke with married, they still had growing and maturing to do. I did. And I do believe they meant well.

But what would be more helpful than telling you to stop thinking about marriage till you're perfect is to give specific areas of growth to be working on while you're praying for marriage and being intentional about helping it happen. Offering passages of Scripture for study (Titus 2, and Proverbs 31 for starters), examples of where you fall short on what the Bible requires, and relational support for helping you grow is the kind of mentoring you need. But it shouldn't stop there.

Titus 2:3-5 says:

"Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."

This passage suggests that the younger women in need of spiritual nurture and practical training are already married. The passing on of wisdom from the one generation to the next is to take place in the context of marriages already formed. If, as is the case in our culture, the younger women are having trouble finding and marrying godly husbands, then helping them do that should be the first order of business on the older women's to-do lists.

When are you ready for marriage? When you're no longer a child; when you're ready to take on the adult responsibilities that marriage brings. That doesn't mean you can use that as justification for avoiding responsibility ("I'm just not ready"). Unless they're specially gifted for celibate service, Christian men and women should be gearing up for marriage in their early 20s. It's not only their best time for meeting mates, but also their most fertile time for forming families. If you don't feel ready or willing to take on adult responsibility, the solution isn't more passage of time, but likely, accountability from the older believers in your church.

Which brings us back to your dilemma. To get the most help from the women in your Bible study, I think you might need to re-tool your question. Instead of asking, "Do you think I'm ready for marriage?" you might say, "I believe, based on what I read in Scripture, that believers are called either to celibate service or marriage (Matthew 19:11-12). I know from my desires and drives that I'm not specially gifted for celibate service, so what I'm wondering is, based on your understanding of Scripture, what are the things I need to be working on to prepare for the responsibilities that come with marriage and motherhood?"

Then, based on what they answer, you might follow up with, "Would you be willing to pray with me about those areas and pray for me that God would make me more like Him and bring me a godly husband?"

It's not enough to seek out older believers. The goal is mentors who rightly divide the Word. It will be to your benefit and His glory.

OH, gosh, you guys. The advice this girl's older friends gave her used to drive me BONKERS. I knew far, far too many jacked-up people -- Christians who were FAR from baggage-free -- who'd made it down the aisle to believe that God only wills marriage for people who've learned to love themselves or become complete in themselves or whatever (puke).

If you have single friends, I beg you, don't give them this advice. Don't tell them they have to take time out of their search for a spouse in order to become more Godly. And don't let it slide if they say, "Well, I'm just going to take this time to work on myself, because I need to be content in myself before I try to look for a wife/husband." Challenge them. Remind them that God's in the business of using imperfect people in his grand story of saving a people for himself -- he even blesses imperfect people! He gives them the incomparable gift of salvation, together with every other spiritual blessing in Christ Jesus.

Furthermore, he uses our daily lives, our circumstances, and our relationships to sanctify us. Every part of our lives falls under God's sovereignty, and as Christians, every moment of our life is spiritual -- not just the times when we're reading our Bibles or sitting in church or talking about Jesus or whatever, but the times when we're stuck in traffic or reading blogs or talking about sweet vs. unsweet tea. In other words, we don't have to take a silent retreat or avoid complicated relationships to discover God's will for us as individuals or in community -- our Father guides us in our REAL LIVES to make godly, appropriate choices, and he transforms us into the image of His Son through our REAL LIVES.

Congratulations and In Memory

Well, boys and girls, it was a good news/bad news day.

The good news came when my phone buzzed and told me that I had a voicemail from my sister-in-law. My brother's voice actually came over the line, and he sounded so excited and said, "Call us back, call us back... we have some news..." I knew, of course, that they must be calling to let me know that they had found out the sex of the baby. I called and he told me after no small amount of stalling and teasing, that they are expecting a little girl!!

The bad news came a few hours later when my mom called to tell me that Ms. Dowlin, my 6th grade English teacher, died this morning of complications from kidney failure.

It's a sad moment for me. Ms. Dowlin was a quirky woman: she had her moody moments, she was never married as long as I knew her, she was absolutely addicted to coloring her hair, which naturally would have been pure white even 14 years ago (!!!) when I was in sixth grade, and she was a genius at the piano and regularly played the organ at her church. But when mom told me a couple of days ago that she wasn't expected to live much longer, I got to thinking, as one does in those moments, about what I would miss about her. Here's what I settled on: Ms. Dowlin was the first teacher who "got" me.

Now, this is not to say that I didn't have other wonderful teachers before then -- I was blessed with a whole series of loving, devoted teachers, some of whom kept up with me throughout high school. My kindergarten teacher even came to my high school graduation party! And even now, a couple of my elementary school teachers attend my dad's church, and are just the sweetest women, whose contribution to my education I cherish.

But Ms. Dowlin was different. She saw a slightly spacey, none-too-popular girl who read voraciously to the point that she neglected her other work, and she understood me. She took extra time to talk with my folks about how best to address my "issues;" she worked hard to help me succeed. She laughed that I was the only student she'd ever had to forbid bringing a book to class. She challenged me to write well, to be creative, to work hard at things I was passionate about and get through the rest. She encouraged me, even in her gruff way, to keep reading as widely and deeply as I could, asking me questions about the books I was interested in and suggesting others I might enjoy.

So today's post is in honor of little Katie Roberts, to be born sometime this summer, and in loving memory of Ms. Trudy Dowlin, my sixth grade English teacher.

Discipline

There's been a bit of a dust-up over on Boundless Line lately, regarding a pretty great summary of Mark Dever's view of church discipline. The usual comments ensued -- you can't kick people out of church for sinning! We wouldn't have a church! Doesn't the Bible say, Judge not, lest you be judged? Who are you to say what is a bad enough sin to kick people out? Since when is "membership" a biblical concept anyway? Etc. etc.

It seems to me, in my experience with these kinds of discussions, that people's misunderstandings about church discipline fall into a few categories:

1. They don't understand the nature of the Church.

2. They don't understand the nature of church membership.

3. They don't understand the seriousness of sin.

4. They don't understand the nature of church discipline.

Let's start with the first one. People who get their knickers in a twist about church discipline often seem to view "church" as an activity for people who call themselves Christians -- something they do on Sundays and Wednesday nights, a group they're a part of by choice, but nonetheless and organization that doesn't necessarily have the right to make any claims on their lives -- maybe slightly more that their book club or union or Facebook group, but not much more. They come to Sunday services to get blessed or "be fed" spiritually.

But what is the Church, really? Two things: 1) the Church is true followers of Christ everywhere, at all times throughout history, and 2) the Church is the local gathering of Christians in particular times and places. Paul's letters, for example, are written to both groups -- the church at Rome in the 1st Century A.D. and by extension to all believers everywhere at all times. Let me emphasize what I think is an extremely important point: if you are a Christian -- a genuine follower of Christ, not just a "Christian" by default -- you are, by necessity, a member of the first group. All believers at all times in all places are members of the first group. But the first and second categories were never meant to be thought of separately. Read Paul's letters and see if you think that the pioneer of the early church had any category in his mind for a person who was a Christian but not a part of any local church. (I'll give you a tip to save you a little time: he didn't.) It's not optional for a follower of Christ to be consistently out of fellowship with a local body. In fact (brace yourself, people, this is pretty serious), I would go so far as to say that if you steadfastly refuse to join yourself with a local congregation of believers, you are in serious danger of revealing that you are not a follower of Christ at all. And now I'm just going to back away... slowly... slowly...

That leads to the second misunderstanding. There is a whole group of folks in the church, as I mentioned in my previous post, who glance through their Bibles, don't see the word "membership," and conclude that any formal affiliation with a church is unnecessary at best and unbiblical at worst. First, I have bad news for those people -- the word "trinity" isn't in the Bible, either. Ruh-roh, Raggy.

Second, there is substantial evidence throughout the New Testament that the pastors of the early churches kept very precise, formal records of the believers they had charge of. I would basically defy anyone to do a careful study of the Jerusalem church in the book of Acts, the job description of an Elder in the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), and Hebrews 13 and come away with the idea that it's cool for a believer to sorta hang out on the fringes of a church and never commit to it.

Side note: one of our teaching pastors, Daniel, tells a pretty great little story at the beginning of our membership classes about a guy who falls in love with this amazing, beautiful girl, spends all his time with her, can't shut up about her... and then three years later, they're still dating, but not married or even engaged. Of course she's frustrated, all his friends are saying, "What are you waiting for, dude?" but he keeps telling her, "We don't need to get married to prove I love you, right, baby?" Well, obviously the story is about us and the church. Of course we don't "need" to join a church to prove we love it, but we also can't reap the benefits of commitment unless we're actually committed!

Well, what are the benefits of commitment to a church, i.e. formal membership? First off, when a church admits you to membership, they're saying, "We testify to your salvation. We believe and acknowledge that you are a Christian." (Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why walk-the-aisle, sign-the-card "Baptist" membership is so pernicious -- if your pastors don't examine you and make sure you're actually saved, how on Earth can they be accountable before God for your soul?) What a precious testimony this has been in seasons of doubt! I have often countered the lies of the enemy and of my sinful heart about my salvation by saying, "No! 417 other people, including my pastors, daily witness to my salvation! They see fruit in my life! They believe I am a Christian!" Second, formal membership provides a structure of accountability in a way that mere attendance cannot. You are consciously, intentionally placing yourself under the authority of your pastors, and humbly opening yourself up to be held accountable to a life worthy of the gospel. You're also taking on the responsibility of bearing the burdens of your brothers and sisters in the church and being willing to call them out when they sin as well.

Speaking of sin... Sin. I'm always surprised to read the "Dear Boundless" letters that deal with couples having sex or living together outside marriage -- the writers almost always characterize their behavior as "mistakes" or "slip-ups" or "crossing the line" or some other such convenient phrases; rarely does anyone write in and say, My boyfriend and I have been violating the standards of a holy God every Friday night for three months. We've also been dragging the name of Jesus through the mud by our behavior, and we'd like some advice on how to stop being an offense to the Gospel...

But that's just what sin is -- defiance against the rightful Ruler of the universe. Listen, I don't know if you know this, but God, as the Creator of all things, has the right to rule the universe as he wishes. You don't go to Iran, dance around on a picture of Muhammad in a town square in a bikini, and then think you're going to get away with it by calling it a "slip-up" when somebody throws your butt in jail. Sin is a serious, serious matter -- why would we look at our brothers and sisters in the church falling into persistent sin and look the other way? We should feel shame at the thought of standing idly by while those who bear the name of Christ deny him with their actions when we could do something about it!

And that's just what church discipline is, people. Church discipline, at heart, is the Body of Christ refusing to allow the beloved children of God continue in sin unchecked. It is a reminder to those who have ignored the Spirit's whispers that danger lies ahead.

99% of the time, church discipline does not involve "excommunication." Usually, the preaching of the Word, worship, the sacraments, and community life are the means the Lord uses to discipline his people. Occasionally, a brother or sister will have to call you out for a particular sin. Less often, someone will have to be confronted in love by the pastors if they continue to live in unrepentant sin. Usually, that person will repent in the course of one of those events. If not -- if that person continues to refuse reconciliation and ignore the pleas of his brothers and sisters, acting like he is not a believer -- then the church is to treat him in the way he is acting! The problem is, people see Paul's command to the Corinthian church to treat the adulterous man in their midst "as an unbeliever" and think that means they kicked him out. But doesn't your church welcome unbelievers? Don't you pray that unbelievers will show up? Don't you invite unbelievers to your services?

Church discipline is a beautiful ministry of the local body; I for one am blessed to be a part of a congregation that has the structures for church discipline in place -- it reminds me of both the grace and the judgment of God. I pray that I never have to be placed under formal discipline by my church, but I know that my fellowship with them is part of what ensures that I never will!