I received the March flyer from my local Christian booksellers yesterday and browsed through the pages. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the most recent product for young girls: the Proverbs 31 doll. Here's what the ad says: "Proverbs 31 dolls encourage young girls to pursue Biblical womanhood. [They] come with a Bible lesson, cookie recipe, two cookie cutters and a list of activities." And they have very spiritual, Old Testament names like Leah, Elisabeth (with an "s," not a "z"), and Abigail.
And now I see that I've done all the wrong things in training up Katie to pursue biblical womanhood. I've made sure that she goes to church and hears solid preaching, I've tried to teach her at home using biblical principles of right and wrong, I've made sure she goes to catechism, and I've sent her to Christian school so she will learn how to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. What she really needed was just a good cookie recipe (Do you think the Tollhouse chocolate chip recipe on the bag of chocolate chips would be okay?), a cookie cutter (probably the Christmas star), and a list of activities (I'm guessing things like read your Bible, sew an apron, and make a scrapbook). I've completely messed up! And to top it off, the name Kathleen/Katie is nowhere in the Bible!
But wait a minute--shouldn't these dolls come with a flashlight for those occasions when they work while it's still dark, a laptop with Quicken for tracking and calculating all those real estate transfers and for all of that personal finance they manage, and maybe a really great sewing machine for all of those scarlet clothes, bed coverings, and linen garments they'll be making? I don't see anything at all about cookie baking in there...
2/27/07
Self Esteem v. Confidence (and the Plight of America's Youth)
One of my co-workers shared a Fox news story with me today that reports on a new study that shows that today's college students are more narcissistic and self-centered than their predecessors. Apparently we've been telling them that they are special too much. The benefits of this narcissim: It can be useful for meeting people and auditioning for American Idol. So those children going into the sales and entertainment businesses should be all set.
The downside to this emphasis on specialness is that these students won't be able to sustain a romantic relationship, they are at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and exhibit overcontrolling and violent behaviors. They also react agressively to criticism and favor promoting themselves over helping others. The psychologists who conducted this study attribute this narcissism to the self-esteem movement of the 1980s, technologies that encourage narcissism such as MySpace and YouTube, and just too much indulgence.
"Permissiveness seems to be a component," one of the experts noted. The antidote? More authoritative parenting. Duh!
Contrast this report on America's priviliged, spoiled youth with last night's ABC special on the South African young girls who have been selected to attend the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy. While I'm not a big Oprah fan, I am glad to see an overly rich celebrity putting her money where her mouth is--giving these underprivileged girls an education in the hope that they will be able to make a difference in their country.
These young girls, twelve to thirteen years old, were amazing. As many advantages as American children have--that's how many disadvantages these children have. Several of the girls interviewed have lost one or both of their parents, and they all come from poor homes, most without indoor plumbing. One young girl gets up at 4:00 in the morning to walk to the bus and risks rape and murder every time she leaves her house.
These girls should be (by American standards) defeated, bad students, depressed and despairing, and completely lacking in confidence. But, on the contrary, they were remarkably poised, confident, and communicated their desires to be leaders, "make a difference," and find a cure for AIDS. Again, these are twelve- and thirteen-year- olds. One girl, commenting on her poverty, said, "We don't have much, but my mother told us that we shouldn't let that get us down. This is what God has given us." They were quick to tell interviewers what they were good at ("I'm at the top of my class," I'm a hard worker," I love mathematics"), but never once did they express an attitude of arrogance.
They spoke respectfully, lovingly of the parents and grandparents who care for them--even two sisters who watched their father shoot their mother and then kill himself. It was an inspirational story, and I used about a whole box of tissues during the hour the special was on. (I'll also be recording it Saturday night when it is shown again; it will be required viewing for Katie and Jonathan. It should be required viewing for every child in America.) When these children were shown their new school--an amazing facility designed by Oprah herself--they were most excited by the shiny new bathrooms and showers. You'd have thought they were given an iPod or some kind of game system.
So in America, we have been teaching our children to sing, "I am special, I am special, Look at me," to the tune of Frere Jacques. In South Africa, poor children are taught the value of education, family, hard work, and responsibility to others. In fact, they have already learned the important lessons that we are trying so hard to buy for our children here in America. I'm thrilled that these lovely girls will have this opportunity in Oprah's academy, but the plight of American children seems to suggest that money isn't the answer. Maybe once these girls get their education in South Africa, they can come to America and help us out.
The downside to this emphasis on specialness is that these students won't be able to sustain a romantic relationship, they are at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and exhibit overcontrolling and violent behaviors. They also react agressively to criticism and favor promoting themselves over helping others. The psychologists who conducted this study attribute this narcissism to the self-esteem movement of the 1980s, technologies that encourage narcissism such as MySpace and YouTube, and just too much indulgence.
"Permissiveness seems to be a component," one of the experts noted. The antidote? More authoritative parenting. Duh!
Contrast this report on America's priviliged, spoiled youth with last night's ABC special on the South African young girls who have been selected to attend the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy. While I'm not a big Oprah fan, I am glad to see an overly rich celebrity putting her money where her mouth is--giving these underprivileged girls an education in the hope that they will be able to make a difference in their country.
These young girls, twelve to thirteen years old, were amazing. As many advantages as American children have--that's how many disadvantages these children have. Several of the girls interviewed have lost one or both of their parents, and they all come from poor homes, most without indoor plumbing. One young girl gets up at 4:00 in the morning to walk to the bus and risks rape and murder every time she leaves her house.
These girls should be (by American standards) defeated, bad students, depressed and despairing, and completely lacking in confidence. But, on the contrary, they were remarkably poised, confident, and communicated their desires to be leaders, "make a difference," and find a cure for AIDS. Again, these are twelve- and thirteen-year- olds. One girl, commenting on her poverty, said, "We don't have much, but my mother told us that we shouldn't let that get us down. This is what God has given us." They were quick to tell interviewers what they were good at ("I'm at the top of my class," I'm a hard worker," I love mathematics"), but never once did they express an attitude of arrogance.
They spoke respectfully, lovingly of the parents and grandparents who care for them--even two sisters who watched their father shoot their mother and then kill himself. It was an inspirational story, and I used about a whole box of tissues during the hour the special was on. (I'll also be recording it Saturday night when it is shown again; it will be required viewing for Katie and Jonathan. It should be required viewing for every child in America.) When these children were shown their new school--an amazing facility designed by Oprah herself--they were most excited by the shiny new bathrooms and showers. You'd have thought they were given an iPod or some kind of game system.
So in America, we have been teaching our children to sing, "I am special, I am special, Look at me," to the tune of Frere Jacques. In South Africa, poor children are taught the value of education, family, hard work, and responsibility to others. In fact, they have already learned the important lessons that we are trying so hard to buy for our children here in America. I'm thrilled that these lovely girls will have this opportunity in Oprah's academy, but the plight of American children seems to suggest that money isn't the answer. Maybe once these girls get their education in South Africa, they can come to America and help us out.
2/26/07
Vision for God
It's the final few days of February, it's Monday, I'm tired, it's still snowing, and I still have to help Jonathan study for an American history test . . . So it would appear that all of you, dear readers, are in for another "good book" posting.
Yes, there are other books out there besides those published by Discovery House, but this is my world, and I have come to know many of these books like a good friend. One of the books I am pleased to have had a (small) part in is Vision for God by Dr. Margaret Brand and her son-in-law, James Jost.
Dr. Margaret and her husband, Dr. Paul Brand, author of Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, are best known for their pioneering work in the treatment of Hansen's disease, first in India and then in Carville, Louisiana. This book was born when Dr. Margaret's family decided they wanted to record her stories of the family's history and their adventures in medical missions. Eventually it turned into a manuscript of sorts, which Discovery House's managing editor pared down to about half its original size into the book I am now holding in my hands. (You can hold it in your hands by clicking on the link for DHP and placing your order!) I actually got to meet Dr. Margaret shortly after I began working at Discovery House when she and her daughter and son-in-law came to visit our offices. Even in her late eighties, Dr. Margaret's eyes twinkle and her British accent drew us in as she shared stories of her work in India and her genuine desire to serve God. I think this book is even more meaningful to me for having met her in person.
Dr. Margaret grew up in South Africa, was educated in boarding schools, and went to medical school during World War II in London. There's enough material in her pre-marriage life for an exciting book, but the story continues. She met Paul Brand when they were both in medical school, and the two of them eventually got married and went to India to work as medical missionaries. They worked there for eighteen years, raising six children along the way, and then, after establishing themselves as experts in treating Hansen's disease (leprosy), they worked in Carville, Louisiana for twenty-two years at the U.S.'s National Hansen's Disease Center.
More on the book itself:
Philip Yancey's foreword to this fascinating memoir sums it up best: "It would be difficult to invent a life more full of adventure than Margaret Brand's." This colorful and delightful memoir tells the story of Dr. Margaret Brand, a medical pioneer in the treatment of leprosy ophthalmology. From her childhood in South Africa to her World War II medical training in London to her world-renowned work with victims of Hansen's disease (leprosy) in both India and Carville, Louisiana, Dr. Brand's biography is a "can't put it down" story that demonstrates that truth can be even more amazing than fiction. "Dr. Margaret" is a skilled storyteller, and her surgeon son-in-law, James Jost, has done us all a great service by coauthoring her story and bringing it to print. Dr. Margaret's service to God, her family, and those around her suffering from a once mysterious and debilitating disease will inspire readers.
This is not your (let's be honest) "ho-hum" missionary story, complete with slide presentation, snakes, lizards, nasty-looking food, and people scantily clothed in their native garb. Dr. Margaret and her family did encounter wild animals, sickness, injury, danger, and just downright exciting adventure wherever they went. With humor, poignancy, and humility, Dr. Margaret tells her story of lifetime service and Christian faith.
Yes, there are other books out there besides those published by Discovery House, but this is my world, and I have come to know many of these books like a good friend. One of the books I am pleased to have had a (small) part in is Vision for God by Dr. Margaret Brand and her son-in-law, James Jost.
Dr. Margaret and her husband, Dr. Paul Brand, author of Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, are best known for their pioneering work in the treatment of Hansen's disease, first in India and then in Carville, Louisiana. This book was born when Dr. Margaret's family decided they wanted to record her stories of the family's history and their adventures in medical missions. Eventually it turned into a manuscript of sorts, which Discovery House's managing editor pared down to about half its original size into the book I am now holding in my hands. (You can hold it in your hands by clicking on the link for DHP and placing your order!) I actually got to meet Dr. Margaret shortly after I began working at Discovery House when she and her daughter and son-in-law came to visit our offices. Even in her late eighties, Dr. Margaret's eyes twinkle and her British accent drew us in as she shared stories of her work in India and her genuine desire to serve God. I think this book is even more meaningful to me for having met her in person.
Dr. Margaret grew up in South Africa, was educated in boarding schools, and went to medical school during World War II in London. There's enough material in her pre-marriage life for an exciting book, but the story continues. She met Paul Brand when they were both in medical school, and the two of them eventually got married and went to India to work as medical missionaries. They worked there for eighteen years, raising six children along the way, and then, after establishing themselves as experts in treating Hansen's disease (leprosy), they worked in Carville, Louisiana for twenty-two years at the U.S.'s National Hansen's Disease Center.
More on the book itself:
Philip Yancey's foreword to this fascinating memoir sums it up best: "It would be difficult to invent a life more full of adventure than Margaret Brand's." This colorful and delightful memoir tells the story of Dr. Margaret Brand, a medical pioneer in the treatment of leprosy ophthalmology. From her childhood in South Africa to her World War II medical training in London to her world-renowned work with victims of Hansen's disease (leprosy) in both India and Carville, Louisiana, Dr. Brand's biography is a "can't put it down" story that demonstrates that truth can be even more amazing than fiction. "Dr. Margaret" is a skilled storyteller, and her surgeon son-in-law, James Jost, has done us all a great service by coauthoring her story and bringing it to print. Dr. Margaret's service to God, her family, and those around her suffering from a once mysterious and debilitating disease will inspire readers.
This is not your (let's be honest) "ho-hum" missionary story, complete with slide presentation, snakes, lizards, nasty-looking food, and people scantily clothed in their native garb. Dr. Margaret and her family did encounter wild animals, sickness, injury, danger, and just downright exciting adventure wherever they went. With humor, poignancy, and humility, Dr. Margaret tells her story of lifetime service and Christian faith.
2/25/07
Walk through the Water (The Baptism of Israel)
A baby girl of our congregation was baptized today, so the sermon and sacrament flowed together nicely. The text for the sermon was Exodus 13:17-14:14, where Israel crosses the Red Sea and is saved from the Egyptian army.
Israel was led to the sea by God, who appeared to them in a theophany: the pillar of cloud and fire. Our pastor asked the children especially to think about how it would be great to have a pillar of cloud and fire from God to lead us where we are to go. But he explained that as great as that was for the Israelites, what we Christians have today is far superior. The pillars are only shadows of what God would eventually give to His people for guidance: His Spirit. (See Matthew 3:11, where John explains that he baptizes with water only, but Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire, and Acts 2:3.)
God has led Israel into a seemingly impossible situation, a place from which it was impossible to escape. God even tells Moses that Pharoah will say that the Israelites are wandering aimlessly. With the wilderness on one side (a great place for chariot warfare) and the sea on the other, the Israelites have made a poor decision, militarily speaking. But again, it is God who has led them there, and nothing is impossible for God.
Israel would escape by faith in the promises of God. First the people complain, but eventually they obey. The promise of salvation came through the mediator, Moses, who tells the people that they should not fear, that the salvation of the Lord would be accomplished for them that day (Hebrews 11:29). How much better is it today when the church of Jesus Christ or an individual steps forward by faith in obedience to the will of God? Israel also had faith in the provision of God, who protected His people. He revealed Himself to Israel through the pillar of fire, so that they could see their way through the path in the sea; Egypt, on the other hand, was surrounded by the cloud. The sea turned out to be the waters of judgment for the Egyptians. Today, as we walk through the waters of life and death, God leads and provides what is needed (Philippians 4:19).
In 1 Corinthians 10, we see that Israel's experience at the Red Sea was a shadow of baptism. We are told that all of Israel was baptized into Moses, even those who did not have true faith. This baptism was an external sign. This shadow of baptism was fulfilled in Christ, so that now we are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even though this too is an external sign, it is significant. Our baptism tells us that our children are separated from the world and are baptized into Christ. The word baptism means to merge, to be made one. In our baptism, we are moved from one arena to merge into Christ. The rest of 1 Corinthians 10 then tells us how those who have been baptized into Christ should now live: We should flee from idolatry to Christ the Mediator with whom we are now one.
Israel was led to the sea by God, who appeared to them in a theophany: the pillar of cloud and fire. Our pastor asked the children especially to think about how it would be great to have a pillar of cloud and fire from God to lead us where we are to go. But he explained that as great as that was for the Israelites, what we Christians have today is far superior. The pillars are only shadows of what God would eventually give to His people for guidance: His Spirit. (See Matthew 3:11, where John explains that he baptizes with water only, but Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire, and Acts 2:3.)
God has led Israel into a seemingly impossible situation, a place from which it was impossible to escape. God even tells Moses that Pharoah will say that the Israelites are wandering aimlessly. With the wilderness on one side (a great place for chariot warfare) and the sea on the other, the Israelites have made a poor decision, militarily speaking. But again, it is God who has led them there, and nothing is impossible for God.
Israel would escape by faith in the promises of God. First the people complain, but eventually they obey. The promise of salvation came through the mediator, Moses, who tells the people that they should not fear, that the salvation of the Lord would be accomplished for them that day (Hebrews 11:29). How much better is it today when the church of Jesus Christ or an individual steps forward by faith in obedience to the will of God? Israel also had faith in the provision of God, who protected His people. He revealed Himself to Israel through the pillar of fire, so that they could see their way through the path in the sea; Egypt, on the other hand, was surrounded by the cloud. The sea turned out to be the waters of judgment for the Egyptians. Today, as we walk through the waters of life and death, God leads and provides what is needed (Philippians 4:19).
In 1 Corinthians 10, we see that Israel's experience at the Red Sea was a shadow of baptism. We are told that all of Israel was baptized into Moses, even those who did not have true faith. This baptism was an external sign. This shadow of baptism was fulfilled in Christ, so that now we are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even though this too is an external sign, it is significant. Our baptism tells us that our children are separated from the world and are baptized into Christ. The word baptism means to merge, to be made one. In our baptism, we are moved from one arena to merge into Christ. The rest of 1 Corinthians 10 then tells us how those who have been baptized into Christ should now live: We should flee from idolatry to Christ the Mediator with whom we are now one.
2/24/07
Truth and Consequences
Some interesting quotes:
"If you are going to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh; otherwise they'll kill you." ~George Bernard Shaw
The apostle Peter in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost:
"This Man [Jesus the Nazarene], delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." ~Acts 2:23
Stephen:
"'You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it. . .'
"And when they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him, and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'" ~Acts 7:51-53; 58-59
Jesus:
"Pilate therefore said to Him, 'So you are a king?' Jesus answered, 'You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears My voice.' Pilate said to Him, 'What is truth?'" ~John 18:37-38
It would seem that the truth is very rarely funny.
"If you are going to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh; otherwise they'll kill you." ~George Bernard Shaw
The apostle Peter in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost:
"This Man [Jesus the Nazarene], delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." ~Acts 2:23
Stephen:
"'You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it. . .'
"And when they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him, and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'" ~Acts 7:51-53; 58-59
Jesus:
"Pilate therefore said to Him, 'So you are a king?' Jesus answered, 'You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears My voice.' Pilate said to Him, 'What is truth?'" ~John 18:37-38
It would seem that the truth is very rarely funny.
2/22/07
Waiting
It seems like the theme for the week is waiting. When we're little, we wait for Christmas, our birthdays, our parents while they're talking, and however long it takes "to get there." When we're older, we wait to graduate, get a job, get married, and have a baby. These waits are of varying length, depending on the situation. It's probably one of the first disciplines expected of us, and we probably will never master it completely, no matter how long we live.
Not only does the length of waiting vary from person to person but the types of waiting as well. This week I've been reminded of a time of waiting in my own life as I've read the postings of my friend from church whose infant son has undergone two heart surgeries since early January in the University of Michigan's children's hospital. She stays there with her baby son--waiting for news that he is improving, on a couple of occasions waiting to see if he'll live through the day, waiting for her husband and other three sons to come on the weekend, waiting to see if her baby's condition will stabilize so that his long, slow recovery could happen here in Grand Rapids so that their family can be together again.
She is, understandably, discouraged. And as I read her posting today, I recognized her sadness. I've been there--different person, different illness, same hospital, same questions: Is this ever going to end? Will we ever have a normal life again? Why can't our family be together again like we're supposed to be? Isn't this just a waste of time? What good could possibly come of this?
Waiting is hard, and we really don't value it in our culture. From our dislike of waiting come fast food, microwaves, digital cameras, highways, and--yes--the Internet itself, where we have instant information, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. And yet waiting seems to be one of God's favorite tools for conforming us to the image of His Son. I'm still not sure how it works, even though I admit that I'm a different (and, I hope, more mature) person for having had to wait. I think that waiting forces us to recognize that things will happen when God desires them to, in His perfect time, which very seldom is the same as our perfect time. We learn hope and trust as we wait.
I did tell her that one day she will probably look back on this season and realize that it wasn't as long as it seemed at the time. And with hindsight, she will probably even be able to see some good that has come of this. I also told her that the situation reminded me of last summer, when our family visited the Empire State Building. When we were on the first floor, outside the building, all we could see was the building itself. But from the viewing deck, we could see the beauty of the whole city laid out before us--the whole thing. I'm not sure that we'll ever reach "the viewing deck" in this life--and maybe not even in eternity. But I do know that from my own experience, time has clarified things a little.
So here are some words on waiting from those far wiser than I:
"I waited patiently for the Lord;
he turned to me and heard my cry . . .
Be pleased, O Lord, to save me;
O Lord, come quickly to help me . . .
I am poor and needy;
may the Lord think of me.
You are my help and my deliverer;
O my God, do not delay (Psalm 40:1, 13, 17).
And from John Milton, the excellent Christian poet, who, at the end of his life was blind and unable to write any more, come these words of insight on the service of waiting:
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts. Who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly: thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve who only stand and wait."
Not only does the length of waiting vary from person to person but the types of waiting as well. This week I've been reminded of a time of waiting in my own life as I've read the postings of my friend from church whose infant son has undergone two heart surgeries since early January in the University of Michigan's children's hospital. She stays there with her baby son--waiting for news that he is improving, on a couple of occasions waiting to see if he'll live through the day, waiting for her husband and other three sons to come on the weekend, waiting to see if her baby's condition will stabilize so that his long, slow recovery could happen here in Grand Rapids so that their family can be together again.
She is, understandably, discouraged. And as I read her posting today, I recognized her sadness. I've been there--different person, different illness, same hospital, same questions: Is this ever going to end? Will we ever have a normal life again? Why can't our family be together again like we're supposed to be? Isn't this just a waste of time? What good could possibly come of this?
Waiting is hard, and we really don't value it in our culture. From our dislike of waiting come fast food, microwaves, digital cameras, highways, and--yes--the Internet itself, where we have instant information, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. And yet waiting seems to be one of God's favorite tools for conforming us to the image of His Son. I'm still not sure how it works, even though I admit that I'm a different (and, I hope, more mature) person for having had to wait. I think that waiting forces us to recognize that things will happen when God desires them to, in His perfect time, which very seldom is the same as our perfect time. We learn hope and trust as we wait.
I did tell her that one day she will probably look back on this season and realize that it wasn't as long as it seemed at the time. And with hindsight, she will probably even be able to see some good that has come of this. I also told her that the situation reminded me of last summer, when our family visited the Empire State Building. When we were on the first floor, outside the building, all we could see was the building itself. But from the viewing deck, we could see the beauty of the whole city laid out before us--the whole thing. I'm not sure that we'll ever reach "the viewing deck" in this life--and maybe not even in eternity. But I do know that from my own experience, time has clarified things a little.
So here are some words on waiting from those far wiser than I:
"I waited patiently for the Lord;
he turned to me and heard my cry . . .
Be pleased, O Lord, to save me;
O Lord, come quickly to help me . . .
I am poor and needy;
may the Lord think of me.
You are my help and my deliverer;
O my God, do not delay (Psalm 40:1, 13, 17).
And from John Milton, the excellent Christian poet, who, at the end of his life was blind and unable to write any more, come these words of insight on the service of waiting:
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts. Who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly: thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve who only stand and wait."
2/21/07
Creeds and Deeds
Some great thoughts from one of my favorite authors, Michael Horton, professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (and former non-Reformed person like myself):
"If deeds without creeds is possible, how about creeds without deeds? While it is certainly possible to have a church that is formally committed to Christian doctrine--even in the form of creeds, confessions, and catechisms, without exhibiting any interest in missions or the welfare even of those within their own body, I would argue that it is impossible to have a church that is actually committed to sound doctrine that lacks these corollary interests . . .
"Within my own circles, I have seen a difference between churches composed mainly of those who have come either from non-Reformed or even non-Christian backgrounds and churches that have come gradually to take their doctrine for granted. The former tend to be animated by doctrine freshly discovered, while the other tends to assume, in a variation of the rich young ruler's response, 'All this I have believed since my youth.' Losing the joy--the doxology--of our salvation is the result not of 'dull doctrine,' but of dull churches that have begun to forget the wonder of it all. They need to start over again with Paul's famous letter [the book of Romans]: moving from doctrine to doxology, yielding grateful lives. [If Paul were to write a letter to churches only formally committed to orthodoxy today,] he would begin the letter . . . with the assumption that if people understand the gospel better--which is to say, doctrine better, they would get caught up in it all and it would make a difference in their lives, their relationships, their witness, and their loving service to their neighbor."
From "Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living," from Modern Reformation, November/December 2006
"If deeds without creeds is possible, how about creeds without deeds? While it is certainly possible to have a church that is formally committed to Christian doctrine--even in the form of creeds, confessions, and catechisms, without exhibiting any interest in missions or the welfare even of those within their own body, I would argue that it is impossible to have a church that is actually committed to sound doctrine that lacks these corollary interests . . .
"Within my own circles, I have seen a difference between churches composed mainly of those who have come either from non-Reformed or even non-Christian backgrounds and churches that have come gradually to take their doctrine for granted. The former tend to be animated by doctrine freshly discovered, while the other tends to assume, in a variation of the rich young ruler's response, 'All this I have believed since my youth.' Losing the joy--the doxology--of our salvation is the result not of 'dull doctrine,' but of dull churches that have begun to forget the wonder of it all. They need to start over again with Paul's famous letter [the book of Romans]: moving from doctrine to doxology, yielding grateful lives. [If Paul were to write a letter to churches only formally committed to orthodoxy today,] he would begin the letter . . . with the assumption that if people understand the gospel better--which is to say, doctrine better, they would get caught up in it all and it would make a difference in their lives, their relationships, their witness, and their loving service to their neighbor."
From "Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living," from Modern Reformation, November/December 2006
2/20/07
Happy Birthday, Tim!
Today is my "little" brother's birthday, so I can think of no more worthy subject for today's posting than he. He arrived on the scene about two-and-a-half years after me, much to my chagrin at the time, I am told. But both of us are all grown up now, with families of our own, and I am very thankful for his life and for the other two lives that now exist because of him and his wife, Zella.
There are so many stories I could tell as I reflect on my memories of my brother--some of them stories he would probably prefer that I not share (even though some of them are pretty funny). But there are also some very wonderful moments, and so it is easy to choose one of those.
Poor Tim grew up in the middle of two girls--one pretty smart and one very pretty. But Tim was no shrinking violet. Although he was not much of a student (even he would have to admit that he was one of those who probably could have applied himself a little more), God blessed him with a natural vocal ability that he has used to be a blessing to others. (He's also worked very hard to develop that natural ability with voice lessons during high school and as a vocal performance major in college.)
So the memory I will share today is one of his using his vocal abilities to bless me. In April 1996, Jon died. Jon and Tim had shared a good relationship--they were friends and brothers. Again, Tim had grown up the only boy with two sisters, so he saw Jon as one of my better contributions to our family. The two of them got along very well. They played video games together, teased Kristi (our younger sister) together, and just were the "guys" together. So when Jon died, it was a significant loss for Tim, too--especially in light of the fact that Kristi had died just six years earlier.
I asked a simple and hard thing of my brother all at the same time: to sing Jon's favorite hymn, "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," at Jon's funeral. I don't remember a lot about the details of that funeral service, but I will never forget watching my brother walk to the front, get the pitch from the organist, and sing all four verses of "A Mighty Fortress" a cappella, from memory. God must have been pleased, hearing His words of comfort and strength sung back to Him, and Jon could not have been honored in a more beautiful way.
Happy Birthday, my brother!
There are so many stories I could tell as I reflect on my memories of my brother--some of them stories he would probably prefer that I not share (even though some of them are pretty funny). But there are also some very wonderful moments, and so it is easy to choose one of those.
Poor Tim grew up in the middle of two girls--one pretty smart and one very pretty. But Tim was no shrinking violet. Although he was not much of a student (even he would have to admit that he was one of those who probably could have applied himself a little more), God blessed him with a natural vocal ability that he has used to be a blessing to others. (He's also worked very hard to develop that natural ability with voice lessons during high school and as a vocal performance major in college.)
So the memory I will share today is one of his using his vocal abilities to bless me. In April 1996, Jon died. Jon and Tim had shared a good relationship--they were friends and brothers. Again, Tim had grown up the only boy with two sisters, so he saw Jon as one of my better contributions to our family. The two of them got along very well. They played video games together, teased Kristi (our younger sister) together, and just were the "guys" together. So when Jon died, it was a significant loss for Tim, too--especially in light of the fact that Kristi had died just six years earlier.
I asked a simple and hard thing of my brother all at the same time: to sing Jon's favorite hymn, "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," at Jon's funeral. I don't remember a lot about the details of that funeral service, but I will never forget watching my brother walk to the front, get the pitch from the organist, and sing all four verses of "A Mighty Fortress" a cappella, from memory. God must have been pleased, hearing His words of comfort and strength sung back to Him, and Jon could not have been honored in a more beautiful way.
Happy Birthday, my brother!
2/19/07
The Dangers of Publishing
Danger and intrigue rocked the Christian publishing industry here in Grand Rapids today when Zondervan's corporate offices were evacuated after a suspicious package, emitting a foul odor, was opened in the mailroom.
Of course at our own publishing house we followed the breaking story with great interest. Some of our coworkers once worked at Zondervan, and the news writers on our local TV station's web site entertained us by, at one point, saying the package "omitted" a foul odor. For those of you who just aren't seeing the entertainment value here, these kinds of language slip-ups are incredible fun for us editorial types.
Also, the same web report featured a paragraph explaining that two Zondervan employees were being treated for respiratory problems (seriously! no laughing matter!); following that was a paragraph saying that other employees were taken to a Krispy Kreme office across the street for further treatment. And in a great gesture of charity and concern, the Rapid bus service sent two of their buses to the scene to provide a warm place to stay for the rest of the evacuated employees. (This may be a silly question, but why didn't they just go home?)
And so, as an editor at a Christian publishing house, ever mindful of the great risk I take every day when I go to work, I will be contacting my insurance agent tomorrow to increase my life insurance policy--before the insurance industry catches on and increases the premiums for employees of Christian publishing houses.
And so we are left with so many questions about what could have motivated such a horrendous attack. The following are my own theories:
*An outraged radical fundamentalist Christian has simply had it with gender-inclusive Bible translations
*A twentysomething is frustrated by the lack of authentic, relevant books and is seeking vengeance on one of the largest Christian publishers
*Someone has decided that forty days of purpose just isn't enough; "I need at least fifty days of a Purpose Driven Life!"
*One of those silly dogma-insistent people has taken great offense at Rob Bell's "creative" definition of heaven and hell in chapter 1 of The Sex God
*A collector is ticked off because she will no longer be able to add to her plush collection of "Jesus Loves Me" animals since Zondervan is discontinuing its 3-D line of Inspirio gift products
The theories are as endless as the Christian fiction mysteries that Zondervan publishes . . .
Postscript: One day later, we still don't know much more about the circumstances surrounding this mystery. But the Kent County Police Department has identified the lethal substance in the package. It is . . . DIRT!!!
Of course at our own publishing house we followed the breaking story with great interest. Some of our coworkers once worked at Zondervan, and the news writers on our local TV station's web site entertained us by, at one point, saying the package "omitted" a foul odor. For those of you who just aren't seeing the entertainment value here, these kinds of language slip-ups are incredible fun for us editorial types.
Also, the same web report featured a paragraph explaining that two Zondervan employees were being treated for respiratory problems (seriously! no laughing matter!); following that was a paragraph saying that other employees were taken to a Krispy Kreme office across the street for further treatment. And in a great gesture of charity and concern, the Rapid bus service sent two of their buses to the scene to provide a warm place to stay for the rest of the evacuated employees. (This may be a silly question, but why didn't they just go home?)
And so, as an editor at a Christian publishing house, ever mindful of the great risk I take every day when I go to work, I will be contacting my insurance agent tomorrow to increase my life insurance policy--before the insurance industry catches on and increases the premiums for employees of Christian publishing houses.
And so we are left with so many questions about what could have motivated such a horrendous attack. The following are my own theories:
*An outraged radical fundamentalist Christian has simply had it with gender-inclusive Bible translations
*A twentysomething is frustrated by the lack of authentic, relevant books and is seeking vengeance on one of the largest Christian publishers
*Someone has decided that forty days of purpose just isn't enough; "I need at least fifty days of a Purpose Driven Life!"
*One of those silly dogma-insistent people has taken great offense at Rob Bell's "creative" definition of heaven and hell in chapter 1 of The Sex God
*A collector is ticked off because she will no longer be able to add to her plush collection of "Jesus Loves Me" animals since Zondervan is discontinuing its 3-D line of Inspirio gift products
The theories are as endless as the Christian fiction mysteries that Zondervan publishes . . .
Postscript: One day later, we still don't know much more about the circumstances surrounding this mystery. But the Kent County Police Department has identified the lethal substance in the package. It is . . . DIRT!!!
2/18/07
The Firstborn
We heard another exceptional sermon today in Pastor Freswick's ongoing series in Exodus from chapter 13, verses 1-16. A continuation of our study of the Passover was this week's focus on the firstborn. In his introduction to the sermon, our pastor pointed out that there were three types of firstborns: those who die; those who are sacrificed; and those who are redeemed. In order to properly understand and appreciate New Testament references to the firstborn, we have to understand the Old Testament references, where the significance of that term is declared.
The status of the firstborn is commanded in Exodus 13:2, and this status is rooted in redemption. The firstborn is consecrated; a more familiar word that means the same thing is "holy, set apart." The firstborn were to be set apart to the LORD, and the signs of this setting apart were that the firstborn received a double portion, and he was the strength of the father. The firstborn were owned by the LORD; they were set apart by being "passed over" to the LORD. We often think of the Passover as a leaving behind; those with the blood on their doorposts were passed over. But being passed over to the LORD has another meaning--passed over to Him in the sense of being set apart. An interesting point: Even the Egytian firstborn were set apart to the LORD in the sense that they were used exclusively for His purposes. Eventually, God chose a tribe of Israel (the Levites) as representations of the firstborn to serve as His priests (Numbers 8:15-17).
In the Old Testament, the law applies to the firstborn male that "opens the womb," and this is significant for a couple of reasons. This points to the headship position of males, and also because in Jesus Christ (the one Man) is redemption.
Even the firstborn males of unclean animals had to be redeemed by a lamb, and interestingly, in this passage, the firstborn of men are included in the verse (13) where the treatment of unclean animals is addressed. This is because men, too, are unclean and in need of redemption. We are reminded that Israel (and we as well) was not chosen because they were so worthy; they were saved by God's mercy and grace.
The firstborn needed to be redeemed by the slaughter of a lamb, a clean animal. The parallel between the redemption of the firstborn and Christ is made in Luke 2:21-24, where Christ is presented to the Lord and sacrifice is made in Jerusalem after His birth. Reference is made to this Exodus passage in Luke 2:23.
Having an understanding of the Old Testament concept of the firstborn sheds new light, then, on the references in the New Testament to Christ as the firstborn. In Colossians 1:15, Christ is declared to be the firstborn of all creation. He is the strength of His father, His power, the Child who took the place of us all, that we might live. In Romans 8:29, Christ is the firstborn among many brethren, and in Christ, we (male and female) become the firstborn of God, receiving all the blessings that the firstborn receives. In fact, in Hebrews 12:18-24, the word firstborn is used in reference to the church, and in the Greek, the word is plural (the church of [all] the firstborn, v. 23).
Because of the sacrifice of the clean firstborn (Christ), we who are unclean firstborn now enjoy the blessings of the firstborn. This is why in Hebrews particularly we are declared to be priests who now have the right to enter the Holy of Holies.
The status of the firstborn is commanded in Exodus 13:2, and this status is rooted in redemption. The firstborn is consecrated; a more familiar word that means the same thing is "holy, set apart." The firstborn were to be set apart to the LORD, and the signs of this setting apart were that the firstborn received a double portion, and he was the strength of the father. The firstborn were owned by the LORD; they were set apart by being "passed over" to the LORD. We often think of the Passover as a leaving behind; those with the blood on their doorposts were passed over. But being passed over to the LORD has another meaning--passed over to Him in the sense of being set apart. An interesting point: Even the Egytian firstborn were set apart to the LORD in the sense that they were used exclusively for His purposes. Eventually, God chose a tribe of Israel (the Levites) as representations of the firstborn to serve as His priests (Numbers 8:15-17).
In the Old Testament, the law applies to the firstborn male that "opens the womb," and this is significant for a couple of reasons. This points to the headship position of males, and also because in Jesus Christ (the one Man) is redemption.
Even the firstborn males of unclean animals had to be redeemed by a lamb, and interestingly, in this passage, the firstborn of men are included in the verse (13) where the treatment of unclean animals is addressed. This is because men, too, are unclean and in need of redemption. We are reminded that Israel (and we as well) was not chosen because they were so worthy; they were saved by God's mercy and grace.
The firstborn needed to be redeemed by the slaughter of a lamb, a clean animal. The parallel between the redemption of the firstborn and Christ is made in Luke 2:21-24, where Christ is presented to the Lord and sacrifice is made in Jerusalem after His birth. Reference is made to this Exodus passage in Luke 2:23.
Having an understanding of the Old Testament concept of the firstborn sheds new light, then, on the references in the New Testament to Christ as the firstborn. In Colossians 1:15, Christ is declared to be the firstborn of all creation. He is the strength of His father, His power, the Child who took the place of us all, that we might live. In Romans 8:29, Christ is the firstborn among many brethren, and in Christ, we (male and female) become the firstborn of God, receiving all the blessings that the firstborn receives. In fact, in Hebrews 12:18-24, the word firstborn is used in reference to the church, and in the Greek, the word is plural (the church of [all] the firstborn, v. 23).
Because of the sacrifice of the clean firstborn (Christ), we who are unclean firstborn now enjoy the blessings of the firstborn. This is why in Hebrews particularly we are declared to be priests who now have the right to enter the Holy of Holies.
2/17/07
Twentysomethings Part 2
While the attitudes of twentysomethings professing to be Christians are scary enough, those who make no such claim are even scarier. In January, USA Today reported the findings of a Pew survey that was part of the MacNeil/Lehrer Productions' Generation Next project. The findings revealed that the views of young people today on politics, social attitudes, and life goals are far different from their baby boomer parents'.
The survey asked more than seventy-five questions; 579 young adults (18-25) and 922 adults (age 26 and older) were a part of the study. It is purportedly the most extensive study of this age group. Interestingly, 130 of the participants had to be reached by cell phones because they didn't have land lines.
Generally, it was determined that the younger generation is far more tolerant than its predecessors. No surprises there.
Here are some of the scarier findings:
*Young people are equally split (47 percent in favor, 46 percent opposed) over gay marriage; of those in the older age group, 64 percent were opposed.
*The top goals of the younger generation: 81 percent want to be rich, and 51 percent want to be famous. A study of college freshmen in 1967 revealed that 85.8 percent believed it was essential to develop "a meaningful philosophy of life"; only 41.9 percent thought it was essential to be "very well off financially."
*48 percent of the younger group identify more with Democrats; 35 percent with Republicans.
*36 percent of the younger group have a tattoo; 30 percent have a body piercing in a place other than an ear lobe; 25 percent have dyed their hair a nontraditional color.
And the bottom line? Scott Keeter, Pew's spokesman, projects that this group's views on social issues will not become more conservative with time. "One can imagine the complexion of these issues changing pretty significantly when this generation is in positions of power and authority," Keeter says.
I think it's going to take more than a Starbucks card, a laptop, and a group of friends to stand up to these challenges. . .
The survey asked more than seventy-five questions; 579 young adults (18-25) and 922 adults (age 26 and older) were a part of the study. It is purportedly the most extensive study of this age group. Interestingly, 130 of the participants had to be reached by cell phones because they didn't have land lines.
Generally, it was determined that the younger generation is far more tolerant than its predecessors. No surprises there.
Here are some of the scarier findings:
*Young people are equally split (47 percent in favor, 46 percent opposed) over gay marriage; of those in the older age group, 64 percent were opposed.
*The top goals of the younger generation: 81 percent want to be rich, and 51 percent want to be famous. A study of college freshmen in 1967 revealed that 85.8 percent believed it was essential to develop "a meaningful philosophy of life"; only 41.9 percent thought it was essential to be "very well off financially."
*48 percent of the younger group identify more with Democrats; 35 percent with Republicans.
*36 percent of the younger group have a tattoo; 30 percent have a body piercing in a place other than an ear lobe; 25 percent have dyed their hair a nontraditional color.
And the bottom line? Scott Keeter, Pew's spokesman, projects that this group's views on social issues will not become more conservative with time. "One can imagine the complexion of these issues changing pretty significantly when this generation is in positions of power and authority," Keeter says.
I think it's going to take more than a Starbucks card, a laptop, and a group of friends to stand up to these challenges. . .
2/15/07
Twentysomethings
I first became aware that the twentysomethings were a special demographic, worthy of my complete attention, in the fall of 2005 when I attended a publishing conference. I sat in on a session for editors on how to reach the twentysomething market with the books we publish. As I sat next to my co-worker, listening to the twentysomething experts tell us what we must do if we want to capture the attention of this age group (and it's simply understood that we do want to), we scribbled notes to each other like, "Grow up!" and "It's all about me!" Since that day, I have concluded that the only thing more disturbing than the twentysomethings' self-absorption is my industry's obsession with kow-towing to their demands--as if there were no such thing as thirtysomethings, fortysomethings, fiftysomethings--you get the idea. So now Christian bookstores are filled with books that tell our stories in a relational, experiential, and authentic way; none of that old-fashioned garbage that would advise us how to live Christianly or address that most useless subject of all--doctrine and theology. (Twentysomethings love words like "authentic" and "relevant." They have discovered that in the entire history of mankind, there have only been a handful of authentic, relevant authors, including the early church fathers, three or four medieval Roman Catholic mystics, a couple of Jewish rabbis, and Rob Bell and Donald Miller. Hopefully with their cultural contributions, we will have many more authentic, relevant writers.)
Apparently, twentysomethings are the inventors of community, coffee, and computers (the 3 Cs), and so they expect these things to be readily available to them wherever they go. So if your bookstore, church, doctor's office, or hair salon doesn't offer lattes, feature a warm, comfortable gathering place for conversation, and provide wireless internet service, twentysomethings tell us that they will go elsewhere where they can have these things. This is kind of like when you were a child and your friend came over and insisted on having the blue ball gown for her Barbie; when you told her that the blue Barbie ball gown was yours and you wanted it for your own Barbie, she told you to give it to her or she would take her Barbies and go home. Except that you and your friend were about eight, and these people are in their twenties.
The good news, however, the twentysomethings tell us, is that if we build it for them, everyone will come. Yes--I actually have a quote from Aspiring Retail magazine, November 2006, where twentysomething expert Margaret Feingold tells us as much: "If you can pull a twentysomething in your store, you can get anyone in your store and they'll want to stay." Whatever did we do before the twentysomethings came along and showed us the pleasure of gathering with friends, drinking good coffee, and surfing the Net? Thank you, twentysomethings! Our lives were so dull and lonely before you introduced us to these innovations in entertainment and culture.
When asked why retailers (and, by implication, publishers) should care about reaching out to twentysomethings, the enlightening answer is that we should care because "long-term they're the future shoppers of your store." So for now, even though they're not interested in purchasing much, we need to give them free coffee, soft chairs, and wireless internet so that they will come back in a few years when they are ready to spend money. Twentysomethings--do you realize that you are going to be twentysomething for only about ten years? Then you will be thirtysomethings, then fortysomethings, then fiftysomethings--you get the idea. If you follow the pattern of previous generations, you will get married, have children, and work full-time. You won't have time to sit and chat with your friends, sipping coffee, and reviewing your favorite web sites together. You will not always be twentysomethings.
My suggestion to the twentysomethings who will not attend a church, purchase a book from a bookstore, go to a doctor, or buy jeans at a clothing store unless the 3 Cs are somehow incorporated into the experience is to realize that not everything in life is about entertainment. We go to church to honor God (not ourselves)in the way He wants us to honor Him, we go to a store to purchase whatever product we may need or want, and we go to doctors' offices to get help with our health needs. Those of us who aren't twentysomethings discovered a place long ago where the 3 Cs are available 24/7. We call it "home." Check it out sometime.
And by the way, twentysomethings: You really didn't invent coffee, community, or computers. They've been around for at least forty or fifty years.
Apparently, twentysomethings are the inventors of community, coffee, and computers (the 3 Cs), and so they expect these things to be readily available to them wherever they go. So if your bookstore, church, doctor's office, or hair salon doesn't offer lattes, feature a warm, comfortable gathering place for conversation, and provide wireless internet service, twentysomethings tell us that they will go elsewhere where they can have these things. This is kind of like when you were a child and your friend came over and insisted on having the blue ball gown for her Barbie; when you told her that the blue Barbie ball gown was yours and you wanted it for your own Barbie, she told you to give it to her or she would take her Barbies and go home. Except that you and your friend were about eight, and these people are in their twenties.
The good news, however, the twentysomethings tell us, is that if we build it for them, everyone will come. Yes--I actually have a quote from Aspiring Retail magazine, November 2006, where twentysomething expert Margaret Feingold tells us as much: "If you can pull a twentysomething in your store, you can get anyone in your store and they'll want to stay." Whatever did we do before the twentysomethings came along and showed us the pleasure of gathering with friends, drinking good coffee, and surfing the Net? Thank you, twentysomethings! Our lives were so dull and lonely before you introduced us to these innovations in entertainment and culture.
When asked why retailers (and, by implication, publishers) should care about reaching out to twentysomethings, the enlightening answer is that we should care because "long-term they're the future shoppers of your store." So for now, even though they're not interested in purchasing much, we need to give them free coffee, soft chairs, and wireless internet so that they will come back in a few years when they are ready to spend money. Twentysomethings--do you realize that you are going to be twentysomething for only about ten years? Then you will be thirtysomethings, then fortysomethings, then fiftysomethings--you get the idea. If you follow the pattern of previous generations, you will get married, have children, and work full-time. You won't have time to sit and chat with your friends, sipping coffee, and reviewing your favorite web sites together. You will not always be twentysomethings.
My suggestion to the twentysomethings who will not attend a church, purchase a book from a bookstore, go to a doctor, or buy jeans at a clothing store unless the 3 Cs are somehow incorporated into the experience is to realize that not everything in life is about entertainment. We go to church to honor God (not ourselves)in the way He wants us to honor Him, we go to a store to purchase whatever product we may need or want, and we go to doctors' offices to get help with our health needs. Those of us who aren't twentysomethings discovered a place long ago where the 3 Cs are available 24/7. We call it "home." Check it out sometime.
And by the way, twentysomethings: You really didn't invent coffee, community, or computers. They've been around for at least forty or fifty years.
2/14/07
Valentine's Couples
It's Valentine's Day--one of the most loved and/or hated days of the year. This year, I'm celebrating with a list of five of my favorite fictional couples. These lovers and their stories are guaranteed to produce an "awwww" from you romantic types!
*George and Mary Bailey from It's a Wonderful Life: As a little girl at the drugstore, Mary Hatch looks admiringly at George and says, "George Bailey, I'm going to marry you someday." And she does. Even though she goes away to college and is admired by other suitors, Mary holds firm. When George uses their honeymoon money to salvage the building and loan, she uses the time and her creativity to create the most romantic honeymoon suite ever in the rundown old house that eventually becomes their family home. At the end of the movie, she rallies the town to financially bail her man out. And George realizes what he has in Mary. His restless heart calms down when he gives it to his girl.
*Belle and the Beast from Disney's Beauty and the Beast: Belle is the Disney princess that I've always held up as a role model for Katie (because every little girl wants to be a Disney princess--so you better choose one). Beautiful and smart, Belle is not satisfied to settle for the boorish Gaston, even if he is the most handsome man in her little provincial town. Possessing a heart as big as her brain, she sacrifices herself for her father, taking his place at the Beast's castle; when the Beast smartens up and realizes this could be his ticket out of the enchanted curse he lives under, what does he do to win her heart? Offer Belle the best of the crown jewels? A vacation house by the sea? No--he introduces her to his library--and it works! The Beast is smart enough to realize it will take a smart woman to see through his gruff exterior, and, of course, Belle does. And in the end, the smart girl wins!
*Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice: Again, the smart girl sees past the exterior and wins the prize! (Is there a theme emerging here?) Elizabeth, who is not as desperate to be married as her mother is desperate to have her married, is not impressed when the wealthy Darcy arrives at his friend's summer home. Her initial impression: He is arrogant and proud--and he is. His first impression: Elizabeth comes from a lower-class dysfunctional family and really isn't even all that pretty. But in the end, both Elizabeth and Darcy look beyond what appears on the surface, recognize their own pride and prejudices, and find true love-with each other. And definitely read the novel if you haven't, but the final scene of the recent movie version with Keira Knightley deserves at least a 20-second "awwww."
*Kate and Petruchio from The Taming of the Shrew: Spoiled and, well, shrewish, Kate is having a little trouble finding a husband. The older of two sisters, Kate needs to be married off before her younger sister can be married to her suitor. Enter Petruchio. Here is a man who can tame a shrew! He steps in, takes control, and kindly and lovingly shows Kate who is boss. He's the first person brave enough to stand up to her and command her respect, so by the end of the play, Kate is chastising the rest of the women at her sister's wedding celebration for not being as obedient to and appreciative of their husbands as they should be. Talk about character development! And at the end of the play, when Petruchio says, "Come, kiss me, Kate," we all coming running--whether our name is Kate or not.
*Harry and Sally from When Harry Met Sally: Harry and Sally meet when she gives him a ride to New York after they both graduate from the University of Chicago. Both quirky, Harry earns Sally's contempt when he tells her that men and women can't be just friends--because the sex part gets in the way (in the broadest sense of that word). And we all know he's right. Of course Harry and Sally do become friends and eventually fall in love. Harry knows that Sally is the worst kind--"high maintenance who thinks she's low maintenance." And Sally understands Harry, scolding him through meaningless relationship after meaningless relationship. Sally sums it up at the end of the movie: "First we hated each other, then we were friends, then we fell in love, and then we got married." All as it should be (except, maybe, for the hate part--but it makes for a more interesting story). And it all takes only a little more than twelve years for the two of them to discover each other.
Happy Valentine's Day! May your love story be as exciting and awwww-invoking as these great couples'! (Feel free to add to this list in your comments.)
*George and Mary Bailey from It's a Wonderful Life: As a little girl at the drugstore, Mary Hatch looks admiringly at George and says, "George Bailey, I'm going to marry you someday." And she does. Even though she goes away to college and is admired by other suitors, Mary holds firm. When George uses their honeymoon money to salvage the building and loan, she uses the time and her creativity to create the most romantic honeymoon suite ever in the rundown old house that eventually becomes their family home. At the end of the movie, she rallies the town to financially bail her man out. And George realizes what he has in Mary. His restless heart calms down when he gives it to his girl.
*Belle and the Beast from Disney's Beauty and the Beast: Belle is the Disney princess that I've always held up as a role model for Katie (because every little girl wants to be a Disney princess--so you better choose one). Beautiful and smart, Belle is not satisfied to settle for the boorish Gaston, even if he is the most handsome man in her little provincial town. Possessing a heart as big as her brain, she sacrifices herself for her father, taking his place at the Beast's castle; when the Beast smartens up and realizes this could be his ticket out of the enchanted curse he lives under, what does he do to win her heart? Offer Belle the best of the crown jewels? A vacation house by the sea? No--he introduces her to his library--and it works! The Beast is smart enough to realize it will take a smart woman to see through his gruff exterior, and, of course, Belle does. And in the end, the smart girl wins!
*Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice: Again, the smart girl sees past the exterior and wins the prize! (Is there a theme emerging here?) Elizabeth, who is not as desperate to be married as her mother is desperate to have her married, is not impressed when the wealthy Darcy arrives at his friend's summer home. Her initial impression: He is arrogant and proud--and he is. His first impression: Elizabeth comes from a lower-class dysfunctional family and really isn't even all that pretty. But in the end, both Elizabeth and Darcy look beyond what appears on the surface, recognize their own pride and prejudices, and find true love-with each other. And definitely read the novel if you haven't, but the final scene of the recent movie version with Keira Knightley deserves at least a 20-second "awwww."
*Kate and Petruchio from The Taming of the Shrew: Spoiled and, well, shrewish, Kate is having a little trouble finding a husband. The older of two sisters, Kate needs to be married off before her younger sister can be married to her suitor. Enter Petruchio. Here is a man who can tame a shrew! He steps in, takes control, and kindly and lovingly shows Kate who is boss. He's the first person brave enough to stand up to her and command her respect, so by the end of the play, Kate is chastising the rest of the women at her sister's wedding celebration for not being as obedient to and appreciative of their husbands as they should be. Talk about character development! And at the end of the play, when Petruchio says, "Come, kiss me, Kate," we all coming running--whether our name is Kate or not.
*Harry and Sally from When Harry Met Sally: Harry and Sally meet when she gives him a ride to New York after they both graduate from the University of Chicago. Both quirky, Harry earns Sally's contempt when he tells her that men and women can't be just friends--because the sex part gets in the way (in the broadest sense of that word). And we all know he's right. Of course Harry and Sally do become friends and eventually fall in love. Harry knows that Sally is the worst kind--"high maintenance who thinks she's low maintenance." And Sally understands Harry, scolding him through meaningless relationship after meaningless relationship. Sally sums it up at the end of the movie: "First we hated each other, then we were friends, then we fell in love, and then we got married." All as it should be (except, maybe, for the hate part--but it makes for a more interesting story). And it all takes only a little more than twelve years for the two of them to discover each other.
Happy Valentine's Day! May your love story be as exciting and awwww-invoking as these great couples'! (Feel free to add to this list in your comments.)
2/13/07
A Love Poem
In the spirit of Valentine's Day, here is one of my favorite love poems by Anne Bradstreet, a Puritan writing in 1678:
To My Dear and Loving Husband
If ever two were one, then surely we,
If ever man were loved by wife, then thee;
If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me, ye women, if you can.
I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold
Or all the riches that the East can hold.
My love is such that rivers cannot quench,
Nor ought but love from thee, give recompense.
Thy love is such I can no way repay.
Then while we live, in love let's so persevere
That when we live no more, we may live ever.
To My Dear and Loving Husband
If ever two were one, then surely we,
If ever man were loved by wife, then thee;
If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me, ye women, if you can.
I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold
Or all the riches that the East can hold.
My love is such that rivers cannot quench,
Nor ought but love from thee, give recompense.
Thy love is such I can no way repay.
Then while we live, in love let's so persevere
That when we live no more, we may live ever.
2/12/07
Why Is It So Hard?
I have asked this question many times in recent years about a variety of things, but it reared its head again as I observed acquaintances (thankfully, by God's grace, not me this time) struggle through the hurts and disappointments of broken dating relationships. And the most basic answer I can come up with is that many of us are single as a result of sin--not necessarily our own but that same sin that results in disease, poverty, pain, and the general ills of this life. Some of us are single because of an unwanted divorce or because a spouse has died. So we find ourselves in this unnatural situation--a situation we wouldn't be in were it not for sin in this world. And then we must learn how to redeem it.
And so we find ourselves struggling through, learning lessons through experience that we never dreamed we'd have to learn. In our own sin--the sin of impatience, selfishness, covetousness, and discontentedness--we hurt ourselves and others, until we learn to accept the advice of Tom Griffiths, as quoted in Quest for Love: True Stories of Passion and Purity by Elisabeth Elliot:
"My advice to singles who want to marry is: hang on. Don't despair of God's resources, so infinitely greater than ourselves. Don't limit His capacity to bring a mate out of nowhere, when the pool of candidates seems small and hopeless. Don't chafe at Scripture's stress on waiting to know God's will in this matter. He has a will for you, whether you follow it or not. When you get ahead of God and try to force things, the consequences are often tragic. The statistics tell the tale; so do the personal cases we all hear of misfired romances and wretched marriages."
God is faithful and true, and He will provide what we need. If we don't have a spouse, it must be that because, for right now, that is not what we need. When we learn the difference between need and want, we can truly say, "He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, all things must work together for my salvation."
And so we find ourselves struggling through, learning lessons through experience that we never dreamed we'd have to learn. In our own sin--the sin of impatience, selfishness, covetousness, and discontentedness--we hurt ourselves and others, until we learn to accept the advice of Tom Griffiths, as quoted in Quest for Love: True Stories of Passion and Purity by Elisabeth Elliot:
"My advice to singles who want to marry is: hang on. Don't despair of God's resources, so infinitely greater than ourselves. Don't limit His capacity to bring a mate out of nowhere, when the pool of candidates seems small and hopeless. Don't chafe at Scripture's stress on waiting to know God's will in this matter. He has a will for you, whether you follow it or not. When you get ahead of God and try to force things, the consequences are often tragic. The statistics tell the tale; so do the personal cases we all hear of misfired romances and wretched marriages."
God is faithful and true, and He will provide what we need. If we don't have a spouse, it must be that because, for right now, that is not what we need. When we learn the difference between need and want, we can truly say, "He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, all things must work together for my salvation."
2/11/07
All Israel Is Saved
It was so good to be in church today. Since we were snowed in last week, it had been two weeks since we were in church. It was truly good to be in God's house today.
And I was very happy to find that the Exodus series is not over. This morning's sermon was from Exodus 12:43-51, where God gives instructions about who should be included in observing the Passover. Our pastor pointed out that there is a correspondence between circumcision and the Passover and baptism and the Lord's Supper.
God commanded that all of Israel should celebrate the Passover, and the church today celebrates the Passover in its reality. The central theme of these sacraments is the redemptive work of God through sacrifice. The Passover was to be a feast that never stops--for all generations. So in the Lord's Supper, we celebrate Christ, the substance of the Passover. Israel's release from Egypt was but a shadow of our being released from our sin, the true Exodus.
Our pastor noted that sojourners and hired, uncircumcised servants were excluded from participating in the Passover. People do not have a right to the Passover simply because they are present. This is why our elders guard the table. God has established a standard regarding those who may come. The pattern of Exodus 12, which sets forth restrictions regarding who may participate in the Passover, is the pattern for our church. Baptism and a profession of faith are necessary before one can take part in the Lord's Supper. He pointed out, though, that when a person meets the requirements, he or she should no longer be regarded as a sojourner. We should not be apologetic for practicing closed communion; to have closed communion is not to exclude--it is to make inclusion more significant and meaningful.
And I was very happy to find that the Exodus series is not over. This morning's sermon was from Exodus 12:43-51, where God gives instructions about who should be included in observing the Passover. Our pastor pointed out that there is a correspondence between circumcision and the Passover and baptism and the Lord's Supper.
God commanded that all of Israel should celebrate the Passover, and the church today celebrates the Passover in its reality. The central theme of these sacraments is the redemptive work of God through sacrifice. The Passover was to be a feast that never stops--for all generations. So in the Lord's Supper, we celebrate Christ, the substance of the Passover. Israel's release from Egypt was but a shadow of our being released from our sin, the true Exodus.
Our pastor noted that sojourners and hired, uncircumcised servants were excluded from participating in the Passover. People do not have a right to the Passover simply because they are present. This is why our elders guard the table. God has established a standard regarding those who may come. The pattern of Exodus 12, which sets forth restrictions regarding who may participate in the Passover, is the pattern for our church. Baptism and a profession of faith are necessary before one can take part in the Lord's Supper. He pointed out, though, that when a person meets the requirements, he or she should no longer be regarded as a sojourner. We should not be apologetic for practicing closed communion; to have closed communion is not to exclude--it is to make inclusion more significant and meaningful.
2/10/07
Why Ask Why? Part 2
My first posting on this topic was intended as a humorous reflection based on some lighthearted, enjoyable conversations that I had last week with several people near and dear to me. And, interestingly, it's a topic that just doesn't want to die, so I'm compelled to visit it again.
I have no brilliant answers to those questions raised by categorizing the population into two groups: language people and math people. And based on some of the reactions I've gotten, I was starting to think that perhaps I had oversimplified--that maybe to place people in one of two categories was unfair. But after further reflection, I think those reactions tend to support my theory rather than destroy it. So at this point, I'm not prepared to take a dogmatic position on this matter of great universal significance, but these are some of my observations I'm gathering as evidence in forming my theory (admittedly a scientific process, so there may be some holes in the process for this language person).
First, all of the objections I've heard to my two-category theory have come from those I would classify as math people. Note the comments: Aaron (math person) is rolling his eyes at me, and Julia (math person) is exclaiming "Good grief!" And H., the math person who wanted to know the reasons apostrophes form possessives the way they do (rather than simply accepting the rules), pointed out quite convincingly that his experience would show that he is both a math and language person (and to be fair, he is--and yet, as of last night, he really had to think hard to remember the reasons for the apostrophe rules that I had explained to him the previous week).
On the other hand, the language people who have read the posting have made comments like "That's cute, Annette!" "That's funny!" No objections, no eye rolling, no criticism, and no attempts to argue that they are both language and math people.
Another observation I noted was from lunch yesterday. I found myself at a table with two accountants who said that they did not care about the whys. Neither of them liked algebra, and one of them even pointed out that his wife, an English/literature teacher, was the one in their family who was always asking the "why" questions. Before this, I would have automatically placed accountants in the math people category--that's what they do all day.
So here are some of the questions and observations that emerge from this. My first thought, especially after talking with the accountants, was that obviously there must be subcategories. There are, in fact, math people who can do what language people do--and do it well. But further reflection makes me go back to my original two-category theory: Of course math people want more than two categories. Two categories is just too simple, too easy. So it would just be part of their "why" nature to object to a two-category theory. Note that the language people are very happy to accept that there may be just two categories of people. How typical of both groups!
It does seem that math people do tend to cross over into the language category more often than language people venture into the world of math. Again, this fits the profile. We language people are perfectly willing to accept our limitations, to stay where we belong, to keep letters and numbers separate and distinct. Math people--not so much...
And as to the accountants? I've decided that maybe their work is just a language form of math. They simply "crunch numbers," looking for the bottom line. They follow a process, and so there is no need for algebra, theorems, or anything more than an understanding of basic math. But--oh no--I have just placed myself into a category with accountants! There must be some other explanation...
I have no brilliant answers to those questions raised by categorizing the population into two groups: language people and math people. And based on some of the reactions I've gotten, I was starting to think that perhaps I had oversimplified--that maybe to place people in one of two categories was unfair. But after further reflection, I think those reactions tend to support my theory rather than destroy it. So at this point, I'm not prepared to take a dogmatic position on this matter of great universal significance, but these are some of my observations I'm gathering as evidence in forming my theory (admittedly a scientific process, so there may be some holes in the process for this language person).
First, all of the objections I've heard to my two-category theory have come from those I would classify as math people. Note the comments: Aaron (math person) is rolling his eyes at me, and Julia (math person) is exclaiming "Good grief!" And H., the math person who wanted to know the reasons apostrophes form possessives the way they do (rather than simply accepting the rules), pointed out quite convincingly that his experience would show that he is both a math and language person (and to be fair, he is--and yet, as of last night, he really had to think hard to remember the reasons for the apostrophe rules that I had explained to him the previous week).
On the other hand, the language people who have read the posting have made comments like "That's cute, Annette!" "That's funny!" No objections, no eye rolling, no criticism, and no attempts to argue that they are both language and math people.
Another observation I noted was from lunch yesterday. I found myself at a table with two accountants who said that they did not care about the whys. Neither of them liked algebra, and one of them even pointed out that his wife, an English/literature teacher, was the one in their family who was always asking the "why" questions. Before this, I would have automatically placed accountants in the math people category--that's what they do all day.
So here are some of the questions and observations that emerge from this. My first thought, especially after talking with the accountants, was that obviously there must be subcategories. There are, in fact, math people who can do what language people do--and do it well. But further reflection makes me go back to my original two-category theory: Of course math people want more than two categories. Two categories is just too simple, too easy. So it would just be part of their "why" nature to object to a two-category theory. Note that the language people are very happy to accept that there may be just two categories of people. How typical of both groups!
It does seem that math people do tend to cross over into the language category more often than language people venture into the world of math. Again, this fits the profile. We language people are perfectly willing to accept our limitations, to stay where we belong, to keep letters and numbers separate and distinct. Math people--not so much...
And as to the accountants? I've decided that maybe their work is just a language form of math. They simply "crunch numbers," looking for the bottom line. They follow a process, and so there is no need for algebra, theorems, or anything more than an understanding of basic math. But--oh no--I have just placed myself into a category with accountants! There must be some other explanation...
2/8/07
Who Has Your Heart?
Who Has Your Heart? by Emily Ryan is this week's good book. A 2006 Discovery House Publishers release, it is the first book that I acquired from the author and edited all the way from manuscript pages to finished book. I found the manuscript proposal in a Christian writers' service, The Writers' Edge, where authors submit their manuscripts, and, for a small fee, they are evaluated, summarized, and included in a report that goes out to Christian publishers.
I'm always looking for manuscripts that are biblically solid but have a uniqueness about them; there are plenty of books for single women out there, but this one sounded different. Emily draws the principles that form the chapters of her book from the Old Testament Judges account of Jephthah's daughter. That caught my attention.
So after requesting the manuscript, I read through it, and because I recognized a good book, I passed it on to my managing editor and publisher. They agreed that it was a good book and recommended it to the publishing committee, which is composed of the publisher, managing editor, marketing managers, and Mart DeHaan, president of RBC Ministries. It is no small feat to convince this group to publish a book for single women by a previously unpublished author, so the day they approved the book for publication was exciting, to say the least.
Since the manuscript was my discovery, I got to call Emily and tell her that we would be offering her a contract if she was interested. Of course Emily was interested (you can read about her experience finding a publisher on www.writersedgeservice.com), as any twenty-nine-year old unpublished author would be. The next step was coming up with a title, which was probably the most difficult step in the whole process, followed by choosing a cover design. The rest was all production: editing, typesetting, proofing, and, eventually, a gorgeous published book!
So what is it about? This quote from the jacket copy sums it up: "With freshness, humor, and I've-been-there-insights, author Emily Ryan provides an 'unnamed, unmarried, and unshakeable' scriptural role model for single women. Drawing biblical principles from the example of Jephthah's daughter, whose story is told in Judges 11, the author gives single women a unique perspective. Rather than throwing their energies into finding a husband, Emily encourages single women to discover who they are in Christ, following the lead of a 'single woman who teaches us how to be godly.'"
I'm a little prejudiced, but this is a good book for single women. It doesn't offer any how-to tips on finding a husband or even how to find a date. Emily emphasizes finding meaning and satisfaction in a woman's knowing who she is in Christ--not in being married. While she acknowledges the challenges and disappointments of singleness, she explains that complete contentment comes in a solid relationship with Christ--not in marital status.
I'm always looking for manuscripts that are biblically solid but have a uniqueness about them; there are plenty of books for single women out there, but this one sounded different. Emily draws the principles that form the chapters of her book from the Old Testament Judges account of Jephthah's daughter. That caught my attention.
So after requesting the manuscript, I read through it, and because I recognized a good book, I passed it on to my managing editor and publisher. They agreed that it was a good book and recommended it to the publishing committee, which is composed of the publisher, managing editor, marketing managers, and Mart DeHaan, president of RBC Ministries. It is no small feat to convince this group to publish a book for single women by a previously unpublished author, so the day they approved the book for publication was exciting, to say the least.
Since the manuscript was my discovery, I got to call Emily and tell her that we would be offering her a contract if she was interested. Of course Emily was interested (you can read about her experience finding a publisher on www.writersedgeservice.com), as any twenty-nine-year old unpublished author would be. The next step was coming up with a title, which was probably the most difficult step in the whole process, followed by choosing a cover design. The rest was all production: editing, typesetting, proofing, and, eventually, a gorgeous published book!
So what is it about? This quote from the jacket copy sums it up: "With freshness, humor, and I've-been-there-insights, author Emily Ryan provides an 'unnamed, unmarried, and unshakeable' scriptural role model for single women. Drawing biblical principles from the example of Jephthah's daughter, whose story is told in Judges 11, the author gives single women a unique perspective. Rather than throwing their energies into finding a husband, Emily encourages single women to discover who they are in Christ, following the lead of a 'single woman who teaches us how to be godly.'"
I'm a little prejudiced, but this is a good book for single women. It doesn't offer any how-to tips on finding a husband or even how to find a date. Emily emphasizes finding meaning and satisfaction in a woman's knowing who she is in Christ--not in being married. While she acknowledges the challenges and disappointments of singleness, she explains that complete contentment comes in a solid relationship with Christ--not in marital status.
2/7/07
Why Ask Why?
Today I enjoyed lunch with two publishing co-workers. C. majored in French, and J. and I were English majors, so we're all fairly math challenged, and it took all three of us to figure out how to work out the tip since lunch ended up being on the house. (We were eating at Bennigan's, which offers a 15-minute lunch challenge; if they don't bring your food in 15 minutes, it's free. It took them 15 minutes and 42 seconds.) And from that we concluded that it's the math people who must know why; it's enough for us language people just to know.
But what led up to all of this was a conversation about why some of us are willing to simply accept a rule or follow a procedure--and that is enough for us. I shared with the two of them a recent incident where I was explaining to a friend a rule of punctuation. When punctuating a possessive noun that is a proper ancient name, like Jesus or Moses, the appropriate punctuation is this: Moses' staff. No extra "s" on the end--that's just how it is. We editors know these things. But more modern names, like James, even though they may end in "s," get an apostrophe, "s": James's giant peach. My friend asked me why this was so. My response was that it didn't matter; that's just how it is. He wanted to know why. He is a math person.
So from there we began to compare notes. J. has been an editor most of her adult life; like me, she's content to know the rules--she doesn't really care why. All three of us agreed: Just tell us the procedure for accomplishing a task on a computer. We really don't even want to know anything more. C. shared with us that she has just recorded in her planner the steps to finding out the percentage of difference between two amounts, a task she has to perform every year at this time. So now she's written down the procedure, giving her a list of steps to follow, so next year she'll be okay.
Please don't mix up numbers and letters for us language people. We like things straightforward and kept in their appropriate places. 2a-3c=x is meaningless. And don't ask us to figure out which train will arrive first when one moves at x number of miles per hour and one moves at y number of miles per hour. Just tell us what time the trains are arriving and departing so we know which one to take. We really don't care about the math that will tell us how fast they're moving and which one will get there first! Life is just too short. . .
But what led up to all of this was a conversation about why some of us are willing to simply accept a rule or follow a procedure--and that is enough for us. I shared with the two of them a recent incident where I was explaining to a friend a rule of punctuation. When punctuating a possessive noun that is a proper ancient name, like Jesus or Moses, the appropriate punctuation is this: Moses' staff. No extra "s" on the end--that's just how it is. We editors know these things. But more modern names, like James, even though they may end in "s," get an apostrophe, "s": James's giant peach. My friend asked me why this was so. My response was that it didn't matter; that's just how it is. He wanted to know why. He is a math person.
So from there we began to compare notes. J. has been an editor most of her adult life; like me, she's content to know the rules--she doesn't really care why. All three of us agreed: Just tell us the procedure for accomplishing a task on a computer. We really don't even want to know anything more. C. shared with us that she has just recorded in her planner the steps to finding out the percentage of difference between two amounts, a task she has to perform every year at this time. So now she's written down the procedure, giving her a list of steps to follow, so next year she'll be okay.
Please don't mix up numbers and letters for us language people. We like things straightforward and kept in their appropriate places. 2a-3c=x is meaningless. And don't ask us to figure out which train will arrive first when one moves at x number of miles per hour and one moves at y number of miles per hour. Just tell us what time the trains are arriving and departing so we know which one to take. We really don't care about the math that will tell us how fast they're moving and which one will get there first! Life is just too short. . .
2/6/07
Thoughts on Internet Dating
A recent poll by The Single Connection, Christianity Today's on-line singles newsletter, asked the question, "What are your thoughts on Internet dating?" Most responded that they were neutral, but there were those who have tried it and loved it (obviously those who have met the loves of their lives and married), and those who have tried it and hated it (obviously those who have either hoped to meet someone and haven't met with success or those who have had broken relationships that were formed via the Internet).
I confess: I have Internet dated. Obviously, however, my attempts to find a lasting relationship through the Internet have failed. But is it because there is something inherently wrong with Internet dating? Or was there something else that brought about the failure of my e-relationship?
Although I would never have wished it, I have nearly eight years of grown-up, post-marriage dating experience--most of it not that great. I have ended up on dates through a variety of means: well-meaning acquaintances, yes--the Internet, and even an insurance man who was impressed with me and hooked me up with his brother. Most recently, even my pastor has played matchmaker, and in all honesty, his handiwork has resulted in the most positive, happy dating relationship I have ever experienced.
But back to the Internet: Can it work? Can true love be found on the Net? Like any vehicle for meeting other singles, the Internet is just that--a vehicle. It can be used responsibly for meeting people or it can be used irresponsibly. It isn't the fault of the Internet itself that a relationship succeeds or fails any more than it's the fault of a well-meaning insurance salesman that his brother and I didn't make a love connection. This may be a little old-fashioned of me, but whether a relationship rises or falls depends on the people involved, regardless of how they meet.
So here are tips on Internet dating. They have come at a high price--my own experience, but you may have them for free:
*Join a Web site where you are likely to find someone who shares your values. Currently I am a member of Sovereign Grace Singles (although my profile states clearly that I'm interested only in friendship right now--and I've found this particular site to be valuable for making both male and female friends), which is not only a Web site for Christians, but a Web site for Calvinistic Christians. If you are a Reformed single, the likelihood that you will meet someone who shares your theology is greater on such a site.
*Establish boundaries before you ever place a profile on a site, and do not compromise them, no matter how attractive a prospect might appear. For instance, I decided long ago that I was unable to relocate, not because I love Grand Rapids so much, but because I have two children who call GR home. So at this point in my life it would make no sense to involve myself with someone who lives in Australia or Alaska. More seriously, set your theological boundaries; do not involve yourself with a person who would require you to compromise them for him or her.
*Move slowly and cautiously--just as you would with a person who lived nearby. Because people who meet on the Internet sometimes live at a distance from one another, there seems to be a greater sense of urgency in Internet dating. When it's only possible to be physically with a person in whom you have an interest on long weekends every couple of months, the temptation is to speed things along so you can be together; for committed Christians, this means marriage. Marriage is not the solution to being apart and wanting to spend time together. Finding a way to spend time together is the answer to wanting to spend time together. I have no sage advice on how to accomplish this, but marriage is permanent, not to be taken lightly. Exercise self-discipline and take the time to make sure you are making a good choice.
*Do not view Internet dating as your last, best hope. It does seem like those who do Internet date view this method of dating as less than ideal. (And since I'm currently enjoying a "local" relationship, I'd have to say I prefer it.) But if you embark upon Internet dating thinking that it's do or die, you probably will be willing to ignore the previous three suggestions, which could result in relational disaster. Simply view an Internet dating site as another avenue for meeting other singles, one more way of "getting out there" where there may be a potential spouse--or not.
*Be completely honest about yourself--what you look like, what you do for a living, past failures, future hopes. It is easier to be less than truthful on the Internet, but what is the point? If someone finds you interesting and has any sense at all, he or she, in the process of getting to know you, will eventually discover the truth. And when that person does, he or she will be angry and hurt, and you will be disappointed. When the time is appropriate, put it out on the table so that the person can come to know you.
More on this another time. Eight years of experience results in a lot of thoughts!
I confess: I have Internet dated. Obviously, however, my attempts to find a lasting relationship through the Internet have failed. But is it because there is something inherently wrong with Internet dating? Or was there something else that brought about the failure of my e-relationship?
Although I would never have wished it, I have nearly eight years of grown-up, post-marriage dating experience--most of it not that great. I have ended up on dates through a variety of means: well-meaning acquaintances, yes--the Internet, and even an insurance man who was impressed with me and hooked me up with his brother. Most recently, even my pastor has played matchmaker, and in all honesty, his handiwork has resulted in the most positive, happy dating relationship I have ever experienced.
But back to the Internet: Can it work? Can true love be found on the Net? Like any vehicle for meeting other singles, the Internet is just that--a vehicle. It can be used responsibly for meeting people or it can be used irresponsibly. It isn't the fault of the Internet itself that a relationship succeeds or fails any more than it's the fault of a well-meaning insurance salesman that his brother and I didn't make a love connection. This may be a little old-fashioned of me, but whether a relationship rises or falls depends on the people involved, regardless of how they meet.
So here are tips on Internet dating. They have come at a high price--my own experience, but you may have them for free:
*Join a Web site where you are likely to find someone who shares your values. Currently I am a member of Sovereign Grace Singles (although my profile states clearly that I'm interested only in friendship right now--and I've found this particular site to be valuable for making both male and female friends), which is not only a Web site for Christians, but a Web site for Calvinistic Christians. If you are a Reformed single, the likelihood that you will meet someone who shares your theology is greater on such a site.
*Establish boundaries before you ever place a profile on a site, and do not compromise them, no matter how attractive a prospect might appear. For instance, I decided long ago that I was unable to relocate, not because I love Grand Rapids so much, but because I have two children who call GR home. So at this point in my life it would make no sense to involve myself with someone who lives in Australia or Alaska. More seriously, set your theological boundaries; do not involve yourself with a person who would require you to compromise them for him or her.
*Move slowly and cautiously--just as you would with a person who lived nearby. Because people who meet on the Internet sometimes live at a distance from one another, there seems to be a greater sense of urgency in Internet dating. When it's only possible to be physically with a person in whom you have an interest on long weekends every couple of months, the temptation is to speed things along so you can be together; for committed Christians, this means marriage. Marriage is not the solution to being apart and wanting to spend time together. Finding a way to spend time together is the answer to wanting to spend time together. I have no sage advice on how to accomplish this, but marriage is permanent, not to be taken lightly. Exercise self-discipline and take the time to make sure you are making a good choice.
*Do not view Internet dating as your last, best hope. It does seem like those who do Internet date view this method of dating as less than ideal. (And since I'm currently enjoying a "local" relationship, I'd have to say I prefer it.) But if you embark upon Internet dating thinking that it's do or die, you probably will be willing to ignore the previous three suggestions, which could result in relational disaster. Simply view an Internet dating site as another avenue for meeting other singles, one more way of "getting out there" where there may be a potential spouse--or not.
*Be completely honest about yourself--what you look like, what you do for a living, past failures, future hopes. It is easier to be less than truthful on the Internet, but what is the point? If someone finds you interesting and has any sense at all, he or she, in the process of getting to know you, will eventually discover the truth. And when that person does, he or she will be angry and hurt, and you will be disappointed. When the time is appropriate, put it out on the table so that the person can come to know you.
More on this another time. Eight years of experience results in a lot of thoughts!
2/5/07
Why We Need to Be Better Theologians
I always find myself feeling a little sad when I finish a good book, and so my conclusion of When Life and Beliefs Collide is bittersweet: I'm grateful for all I've learned and a little sad to leave it behind.
The author's contention is that "every woman's first and highest calling is to be a great theologian," and she concludes by giving four solid reasons for this. First, we need to be better theologians for ourselves. Every one of us, at some point in life, will face difficulty, and we need to know God's character so that we can believe, even in the midst of suffering, that He rules all things for our good and His glory.
We also need to be better theologians for those we love--husbands, children, and friends. We need to be prepared to be a help to them in their struggles, and if we are weak, we won't be able to meet the challenge.
We need to be better theologians for the church. "The church is weakened and vulnerable when women take lightly their responsibility to think, study, and gain a deeper knowledge of God. But a church filled with women who are growing as theologians is a church that is gaining strength."
But knowing God is the "greatest and most compelling reason for us to get serious about theology . . . He alone can quench the thirsting of our hearts. He is the joy that nothing can destroy. He is the satisfaction of our deepest longings . . . We were made for this."
The author's contention is that "every woman's first and highest calling is to be a great theologian," and she concludes by giving four solid reasons for this. First, we need to be better theologians for ourselves. Every one of us, at some point in life, will face difficulty, and we need to know God's character so that we can believe, even in the midst of suffering, that He rules all things for our good and His glory.
We also need to be better theologians for those we love--husbands, children, and friends. We need to be prepared to be a help to them in their struggles, and if we are weak, we won't be able to meet the challenge.
We need to be better theologians for the church. "The church is weakened and vulnerable when women take lightly their responsibility to think, study, and gain a deeper knowledge of God. But a church filled with women who are growing as theologians is a church that is gaining strength."
But knowing God is the "greatest and most compelling reason for us to get serious about theology . . . He alone can quench the thirsting of our hearts. He is the joy that nothing can destroy. He is the satisfaction of our deepest longings . . . We were made for this."
2/4/07
The Commission-Driven Reformed Church
Due to the Blizzard of '07 (see yesterday's post), both morning and afternoon church services were cancelled. I think this is the first time since we joined Bethany United Reformed Church that we knew on Saturday night that both Sunday services would be cancelled--which is an indication of just how severe this storm is. So I spent the morning having a nice breakfast with Jonathan (Katie spent it sleeping) and reading from The Outlook. We faced the elements to have our usual Sunday dinner at my parents' house, and then this afternoon, our family listened to a sermon on the Internet by Rev. Adam Kaloostian, a URC minister in Ontario, California. Katie and Jonathan were less than enthusiastic about having to listen to an Internet sermon, but they ended up being pleasantly surprised. And we were able to have a great conversation about evangelism and being Reformed afterwords (which always warms this single, Reformed mother's heart--to know that her children are interested in and desire to know and live the truth).
As we listened to the sermon, we sensed a freshness and a greater sense of urgency from Rev. Kaloostian than we often sense here in Grand Rapids. He preached this first of two sermons on the church's responsibility to evangelize in January, and he reminded listeners of six ideas we must believe and live to be a commission-driven Reformed church: 1. Learn that the Lord calls all churches, even those with limited resources, to do remarkable things for the expansion of His kingdom; 2. Learn that if we fail to reach out biblically to the lost world, Christ will leave our church darkened; 3. Be convinced that distinctively Reformed teaching and worship faithfully summarize the truth; 4. We need to be convinced that our evangelism must be built on the pillars of preaching and prayer (which may not be flashy or entertaining, but they are the Christ-appointed means); 5. We need to be convinced that it is our privilege to give money for the sustaining of preaching and benevolence; 6. We need to become personally involved in the lives of unbelievers.
It wasn't like actually being in church, but it was a way of remembering the Sabbath and keeping it holy. And a way of having dominion over the Internet. And again I find myself asking, as I realize that my family has just been ministered to by a church and minister clear across the continent in California: What did we ever do before the Internet?
As we listened to the sermon, we sensed a freshness and a greater sense of urgency from Rev. Kaloostian than we often sense here in Grand Rapids. He preached this first of two sermons on the church's responsibility to evangelize in January, and he reminded listeners of six ideas we must believe and live to be a commission-driven Reformed church: 1. Learn that the Lord calls all churches, even those with limited resources, to do remarkable things for the expansion of His kingdom; 2. Learn that if we fail to reach out biblically to the lost world, Christ will leave our church darkened; 3. Be convinced that distinctively Reformed teaching and worship faithfully summarize the truth; 4. We need to be convinced that our evangelism must be built on the pillars of preaching and prayer (which may not be flashy or entertaining, but they are the Christ-appointed means); 5. We need to be convinced that it is our privilege to give money for the sustaining of preaching and benevolence; 6. We need to become personally involved in the lives of unbelievers.
It wasn't like actually being in church, but it was a way of remembering the Sabbath and keeping it holy. And a way of having dominion over the Internet. And again I find myself asking, as I realize that my family has just been ministered to by a church and minister clear across the continent in California: What did we ever do before the Internet?
2/3/07
The Blizzard of '07
It's a rare occurrence, but the weather forecasters predicted with accuracy the Blizzard of '07. Determined that weather panic would not disrupt my life, I awoke with plans of meeting my friend Julia for breakfast. We consulted with each other briefly about a half hour before we were to meet, and hearty Ohio-transplanted-to-Michigan girls that we are, we decided that a little snow was not to interfere.
So there we were at Panera, enjoying our lovely egg souffles and coffee, catching up on our children, our work, life in general, reminiscing about the good old days when we worked together at our local Christian bookseller's (that's how Julia and I met), and just having a nice time, when I happened to glance out the window. I suddenly realized that I could no longer see the main road from my seat in the restaurant because the blizzard had come! For a moment Julia and I both paused to think that Panera would not be the worst place to be stranded--it features a fireplace, comfy chairs, and obviously plenty of good food--but reality hit and we realized we had to go home to our families. Why? Because we Ohio women will not allow a little nasty weather to keep us from our homesteads and our young 'uns.
So today I am very thankful for coats, hats, gloves, boots, warm houses, furnaces, blankets, and all things that protect us from the driving cold of blizzards and icy winds. And I'm also thankful for the courage and creativity of Katie, who withstood the elements to capture these pictures.
So there we were at Panera, enjoying our lovely egg souffles and coffee, catching up on our children, our work, life in general, reminiscing about the good old days when we worked together at our local Christian bookseller's (that's how Julia and I met), and just having a nice time, when I happened to glance out the window. I suddenly realized that I could no longer see the main road from my seat in the restaurant because the blizzard had come! For a moment Julia and I both paused to think that Panera would not be the worst place to be stranded--it features a fireplace, comfy chairs, and obviously plenty of good food--but reality hit and we realized we had to go home to our families. Why? Because we Ohio women will not allow a little nasty weather to keep us from our homesteads and our young 'uns.
So today I am very thankful for coats, hats, gloves, boots, warm houses, furnaces, blankets, and all things that protect us from the driving cold of blizzards and icy winds. And I'm also thankful for the courage and creativity of Katie, who withstood the elements to capture these pictures.
2/1/07
The Un-Super Bowl Party
For those of you who view the Super Bowl as an excuse for people to gather together to eat pizza rolls, little hot dogs in barbecue sauce, chips and salsa from football-shaped serving platters, and have nacho cheese sauce flowing from what ordinarily is used as a chocolate fountain (yes--I heard that one on the radio!);
For those of you who think that the Super Bowl is a prime example of how advertising and marketing executives have negatively influenced our culture by manipulating gullible Americans into believing they will somehow be "missing out" if they don't watch the game and purchase abovementioned products for a party;
For those of you who can't see how advertising is an art form and do see that "halftime entertainment" has come to be a euphemism for legalized, televised soft porn;
For those of you who know of others who haven't watched a professional football game all season long but will participate in Super Bowl Sunday as a national holiday~
Here are some Un-Super Bowl alternative activities:
*Go to your church's afternoon/evening service and recognize just how blessed you are that your minister is preaching the Gospel
*Eat baked brie, have a chocolate fondue with fruit, serve spinach dip and your favorite bakery's bread, and share a nice bottle of wine with the other grown-up(s)
*Watch a movie classic together as a family
*Read a book together as a family
*Listen to music together as a family
*Play games together as a family
*Talk together as a family
*Invite friends over and engage in any of the abovementioned activities
Snobby? Maybe. Cynical? Definitely. Clueless at the office on Monday? Absolutely! Missing out on an astounding life experience? Probably not...
For those of you who think that the Super Bowl is a prime example of how advertising and marketing executives have negatively influenced our culture by manipulating gullible Americans into believing they will somehow be "missing out" if they don't watch the game and purchase abovementioned products for a party;
For those of you who can't see how advertising is an art form and do see that "halftime entertainment" has come to be a euphemism for legalized, televised soft porn;
For those of you who know of others who haven't watched a professional football game all season long but will participate in Super Bowl Sunday as a national holiday~
Here are some Un-Super Bowl alternative activities:
*Go to your church's afternoon/evening service and recognize just how blessed you are that your minister is preaching the Gospel
*Eat baked brie, have a chocolate fondue with fruit, serve spinach dip and your favorite bakery's bread, and share a nice bottle of wine with the other grown-up(s)
*Watch a movie classic together as a family
*Read a book together as a family
*Listen to music together as a family
*Play games together as a family
*Talk together as a family
*Invite friends over and engage in any of the abovementioned activities
Snobby? Maybe. Cynical? Definitely. Clueless at the office on Monday? Absolutely! Missing out on an astounding life experience? Probably not...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)