Intellectuelle   Life Issues

There once was a natural desire
To fulfill, a spouse we acquire.
We are called to be chaste, but oft in our haste
We ignore that which God doth require

What is Biblical purity and chastity?

I know that some well known Church father (which, I cannot determine with a Google search) used as a proof of the Christian faith the chastity of the Christian people. Is purity and chastity simply not doing "It" until marriage, but still doing various other things that usually lead up to "It"? From your understanding of the Bible, what do purity and chastity mean, and how are they lived out?

Since Samantha brought up sexual purity, let's discuss some other hot and bothersome topics:

1) How can Christian men, especially married ones, go to the beach? Or to a waterslide park?

I realize that just going out the door at this time of year is visually challenging for most men, but I've never understood how they can plant themselves right in the middle of guaranteed nakedness. It may even be worse than conducting a Bible study at Hooters (which I blogged about here and here).

2) How can Christian women wear bikinis in public?

I confess that I did for a season (I could write a whole post on that), but after I got married (and foolishly read Every Man's Battle--every man should read it, but not most women), I repented.  Of course now I wouldn't be caught dead in any swimsuit, but that's another matter.

3) How can Christian teens wear skimpy outfits?  And how can Christian parents let them?

Waterfall expresses my thoughts exactly:

One of my pasttimes lately is to contemplate the fact that pre-teen and young teenage girls will wear their Jesus t-shirts and cross necklaces with shorts that are so miniscule that you can see the beginning of the curve where the bottom of their butts start. Now, I'm not one to look at that aspect of people's anatomy, but you really can't help it when these kids wear these clothes. Particularly when their Jesus t-shirts are about two sizes too small, bringing their neo-breasts into perky prominence. My word. I'm really not getting prudish in my old age ... I just find it odd that these kids, of all people, dress this way.

Odd..dangerous..tragic.  Moms, where are you?  Hopefully not in the closet looking for your low cut form fitting sweater or your cleavage peek-a-boo sheer blouse or your butt hugging jeans or your...let's see, what other outfits have I seen on women of all ages at church lately? 

A woman at MOPS shared how she overheard her two elementary age sons discussing which woman at church wore the most "trampy" outfits.  They were debating whether it was one mom or another, based on the articles of clothing that had seen them in, i.e. "her shirts are the most low-cut" ..."yeah, but she [the other mom] wears the shortest skirts."

Because I'm on a major modesty crusade, I've blogged about this topic before here and here (you might want to check those before rehashing what I may have already covered). Sexual sins (which aided by lust) have brought down more Christians, especially leaders, than any other kind. I'm not isolating immodesty and lust and adultery from other sin issues that are obviously inextricably linked, and I do agree with getting to the root causes, but the basic fact remains that men are wired a certain way, and just as they have a responsibility to take precautions against lusting, we women need to do our part to not cause them to stumble...which means having our identity/security/esteem in God, not in the feeling we get from men paying attention to our looks.

There once was a gal quite alive
Who could think of no way to deprive
The spectre of death from from a-stealin' her breath...
But she knows in the Lord she'll survive

Every year or so I like to take a vacation, and I go spend a few weeks in the morgue. A fictional morgue, but a morgue nevertheless. In a novelistic fashion, I have been present at autopsies (virtual autopsy link, not for the squeamish), seen the sharp surgical scalpel slice into dead flesh, heard the power saw cut through skulls, and spent time with medical examiners, profilers and police officers; I have seen the effect that brutality has on those who immerse themselves in it. Normally my mystery reading does not fall into the gruesome or graphic category, but every so often I pick up novels that have some of these qualities and I am reminded of the depths of human depravity and the brevity of human life, including my own.

Memento Mori. Remember, you must die.

During the middle ages, when real death was more visible than it is today, Hans Holbein, Albrecht Durer and others designed woodcuts that are known as The Dance of Death. These works show people of every rank, age and trade, well, Dancing With Death. The purpose of these works was to portray death as the great equalizer, and to remind the living that their day would come. One of the reasons to hold this thought was because of the certainty of judgment by God after death, and one could never be sure when that would occur. Although these images are not frightening or grisly by our modern standards, they are a sobering reminder of that most dreaded of human experiences. More modern artists as well, especially Kathe Kollwitz, have created works that being forth in stark reality of the horror of death and also the grief of those left among the living

Memento Mori in some form, it seems, will always be with us. The theatres and bookstores today are full of graphic murder depictions and cold blooded cruelty. We are faced on every side with manufactured death, while actual death is hidden in hospitals, nursing homes and the like. We feed ourselves on the kind violent death that breeds desensitization and avoid the kind of death or suffering which breeds compassion. We see this stuff so much that we can sometimes no longer tell the difference between fiction and reality. I watch virtually ZERO violent films, and yet when I saw the footage of people jumping out of the World Trade Center, I could not believe that what I was watching was real.

The Memento Mori of the past was not sensational, electric with the excitement of the chase. It never portayed death as something to laugh about, but as a serious reminder of the human condition and the consequences of human action. It brought out the reality of pain and grief, and the necessity of being reconciled to God. Today's Memento Mori too often sees violence as a joke and people as utterly disposable...instead of creating a sober respect for death, it glorifies it.

I have struggled with whether I, as a Christian, should sometimes read these novels depicting ugly violence. I know that I am called to focus on those things that are true, beautiful, of good report, etc. However, occasionally looking these things in the face helps me to remember what is in the human heart, and not to fall prey to the common modern platitude that people are basically good. In other words, I am reminded of the need for salvation, and the truth of the old saying "There but for the grace of God go I". For all the hatreds within the breasts of "pretty good people" are murders in miniature, different only in degree, not in kind.

I have also noticed how fittingly the Scripture speaks of today's obsession with death, and not only that which is fictional; the rise in murder, rape, suicide, abortion and euthanasia fills the news. The first three are rightly called tragedies, the second two are more and more often encouraged. Looking at our our current landscape, God's Word that "...he who sins against Me wrongs his own soul; All those who hate Me love death" (Proverbs 8:36), is made manifest.

There once was a glorious salvation
Offered freely to each tongue, tribe and nation
By grace we are saved; not because we behaved....
But some issues still cause conflagration.

As I mentioned in my introduction, one of my great challenges in Christian thinking has been to understand the proper relationship between law and grace. Like the issue of the proper sphere of government, this topic often disappears into my subconscious, and I don't think about it for a while...then, I read or hear something and it pops back to the surface. This happened earlier this week when I was browsing at Annie's impressive blog and came across a link to a discussion about the OT mandate to stone a stubborn and rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The conversation began with quotes from a sermon preached by a well-known pastor, and the comments were almost unanimously horrified that this would be considered a proper topic for a Christian sermon because hearkening to this passage seemed to 1) bypass God's grace and 2) give abusive parents a justification for their abuse.

As I was pondering this, I found myself once again wondering exactly what the Law of God is for in the life of a Christian, and I remembered hearing about a theological idea called the threefold use of the law. In the words of John Calvin, "The use of the Moral Law is threefold. The first use shows our weakness, unrighteousness, and condemnation; not that we may despair, but that we may flee to Christ. The second is, that those who are not moved by promises, may be urged by the terror of threatenings. The third is, that we may know what is the will of God; that we may consider it in order to obedience; that our minds may be strengthened for that purpose; and that we may be kept from falling."

While I think it is very uncommon for anyone to think that we are today bound to the exact sanctions of breaking God's law (which seemed to be part of the problem in the thoughts on the disobedient son), this quote from the Reformer indicates that God's law is there so we can know His mind on what is good and right (what we should pursue) and what is bad and wrong (what we should avoid), and that being in Christ in no way means that we are not bound by the moral law of God, but simply that we are not condemned by it because of Christ's death and life, and our appropriation of those benefits, by faith.

But what does that have to do with our passage in Deuteronomy, and others like this one:

"If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin...if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

Are we supposed to *only* see the rebellious son and the fornicating daughter as a picture of sinful people in general, with the penalties as pictures of God's general wrath against sin, and make the application only gratitude that through Christ, we are saved from those penalties? Or are we to *also* see in these passages the utter seriousness with which God looks upon children who do not respect and obey their parents, young women who do not remain chaste, and parents who do not take seriously their role as protectors of their children's virtue? Is it sidestepping the reality of God's grace to use such passages to help us both act and react in ways that are pleasing to the Lord, even though our good works and right living have nothing at all to do with our salvation?

On a tape, I once heard someone ask R.C. Sproul if he thought that Christians were obligated to work towards a Christian Theocratic State. He said no, but was quick to clarify and say that we need to be careful that we don't start thinking that it would be inherently *wrong* to criminalize, for example, adultery, because we would then be saying that we are somehow more gracious and compassionate than God, and that His idea of morality was overly strict and harsh. Sometimes I wonder if, in our very real concern to show forth God's grace and avoid any semblance of teaching salvation by works, we have, on a personal rather than legal level, actually begun to fall into what RC Sproul warned against.

I'll look forward to your thoughts on this, as I am not at all convinced that I understand this subject beyond the most shallow level, which is probably why it continues to be a struggle for me.

This is required reading because at some point (if it hasn't already) your church will be faced with a similar situation and now is the time to prepare...

Six years ago I became acquainted with a young woman whose father was halfway through a 12 year prison sentence for an undisclosed crime she claimed he didn't commit. I felt empathy for her and a sense of indignation that an innocent man, a Christian husband and father, was unjustly incarcerated and separated from his family.

After I got married, I rarely saw this woman except for occasionally crossing paths at Christian functions. Then last year we joined the church where she and her family have been members for over a decade. We occasionally chit-chatted but I was usually too busy chasing after my three year-old to have a real conversation, though I kept meaning to ask her about her father.

Instead I ended up meeting him, though never face-to-face. This is where the story begins...

Since Marla has clarified blog policy for me, I�m going to break the promise I made in a former post and link to a post at my other blog again. I do so biting my fingernails, though, because I�m not sure what I�m in for. (Maybe if I don�t make a big deal out of it, it won�t be a big deal?)

The post has to do with sex...the kind of sex that doesn�t require another person. The thing that either no one talks about (and probably rightly so), or that people talk about as if to say, what�s the big deal?

I�m writing about it because others have, and I�m concerned about much that�s been said. I�m writing to offer a perspective that I feel is important. I think the subject is a big deal, even though a private one. So I�ve gone out on a limb and added my thoughts to the mix. Have a look.

Frances Newton will be executed in two weeks for a crime she probably did not commit.  She's been on death row for 18 years for the murder of her husband and two children--she will be the first black woman to be killed by the state of Texas since the Civil War.  The New York Times just reported on new evidence that might help exonerate her.  Just six months prior to her incarceration, she became a Christian and that is what has sustained her.  Here are excerpts from a recent interview:

Terry: I know from the very beginning that you have always declared your innocence. How have you kept your heart from being bitter? Seventeen years is a long time.

Frances: Yes, but I�ve prayed that I wouldn�t become bitter, that I wouldn�t remain angry, that I would just give all of it to God and let Him handle it. There have been moments where I felt myself going that way, and I have people around me who will help me... The Holy Spirit reminds me too.

Terry: When you�re alone, how do you occupy your thoughts positively?

Frances: I put the Word of God in my heart, and I�ll sing songs. I�ll quote Scripture. I�ll remember stories of the Bible, and I�ll try to think of those things. I just finished reading Joseph, a man of integrity and forgiveness by Chuck Swindoll. I was so moved by his story, because here he was, had been sold in slavery, put in prison, yet he had no bitterness in him. When I can read that, I pray, "Lord, help me not to have bitterness."

...

Terry: I know that there are a lot of people who have prayed and walked through this with you and a lot of people who are still praying for you. You came within a couple of hours of execution. How did you prepare yourself for that? That�s a place of total surrender, Frances.

Frances: It is, and I thought, Lord, if it is today, I�m going to be glad to be with You. As Christians, that�s our goal. We talk about heaven, and we sing about heaven. Now I might be going to heaven right now. It�s like our faith. Is our faith going to stay strong just when things are going okay, but when we have struggles and things are bad� what about our faith then? If our faith is strong and our faith is what we say it is, it�s going to be strong even in the bad times. It may weaken a little, and I have been weak at times, but it�s there and because God is in it, He makes Himself strong. He keeps us strong.

Terry: When asked what His name was, God gave the term, �I Am�� tell them that I Am because He is everything that we need. What attributes of God have meant the most to you while you�ve been in here?

Frances: His constancy. He is so consistent. That has meant the most to me because in the environment, so much changes all the time. If you allow yourself to get bothered by the change, then you�re not stable. But God is so stable, and if you keep yourself in Him, that stability is going to come off on you, too.

Terry: How do you want people to pray for you?

Frances: Pray that I would keep my focus on the Lord, no matter what.

***

The Committee to Free Frances Newton has more information about the case and a form letter it will email to government officials if you sign up (it takes less than a minute).  Here's a portion of what it says:

"The dubious motive, unrealistic timeline, the police's refusal to follow important leads, and most of all, her incompetent counsel, all point to the compelling evidence that proves Frances Newton is innocent. She has been on death row for 18 years, and you have already granted her a 120- day stay. But on the basis of new evidence, Frances needs to finally have her day in court. We plead to you in good conscience to STOP THE EXECUTION OF FRANCES NEWTON."

***

I found this story by accident while on what I thought would be a brief googling adventure with and about God.  That's how I know he led me to it.  I'd tell you the phrase I typed in but it may be part of a future post, and I don't want to spoil it while I'm still exploring the meaning.

This also ties in with something else I wanted to blog about.  A few weeks ago I found The Innocence Project which has stories that will break and bless your heart.  They are a non-profit student-operated legal clinic whose mission is to free wrongfully convicted inmates who can be exonerated by DNA testing (which wasn't available when they were originally tried).  Many have been incarcerated for over two decades, some are now senior citizens who were young men ripped from their families because they were poor or uneducated (usually both) and unable to get fair representation.

NOTE:  Please do not argue whether capital punishment is scriptural here, but you are welcome to do it on this post.  Just be sure to read through the comments before adding anything.

iconoclasm, n. [icono-, and Gr. klan, to break.]
1. the act of breaking or destroying images; especially, the destruction of objects of veneration, as pictures and images in churches.
2. the act of attacking or ridiculing traditional and venerated institutions or ideas.

All reality is iconoclastic. - C. S. Lewis in A Grief Observed

I fell right in with this brief, rich chronicle of Lewis' reaction to his wife's untimely death. Comprised of diary entries and originally published under a pseudonym, the book reveals Lewis� progression from initial anguish to a place of resolution. We see the process by which he regains his equilibrium, mercifully, and comes to terms with both Joy�s death and God Himself. I am grateful for this glimpse into a great mind, heart, and soul which, when taken in, ennobles my own inner convolutions. (Which are hardly so lovely, worthy, or brilliant.)

I had been warned � I had warned myself � not to reckon on worldly happiness. We were even promised sufferings. They were part of the programme. We were even told, �Blessed are they that mourn,� and I accepted it. I�ve got nothing that I hadn�t bargained for. Of course it is different when the thing happens to oneself, not to others, and in reality, not in imagination....The case is too plain. If my house has collapsed at one blow, that is because it was a house of cards. The faith which �took these things into account� was not faith but imagination. AGO, pp. 36-37, emphasis added

I've posted a follow-up to my original post on autoerotism at my personal blog.

I welcome charitable discussion of specific points made in the post.

Talk to me about the truth of religion and I�ll listen gladly. Talk to me about the duty of religion and I�ll listen submissively. But don�t come talking to me about the consolations of religion or I shall suspect that you don�t understand.

Reality, looked at steadily, is unbearable.

One of the reasons I like A Grief Observed so much is that Lewis confronts things that I have often confronted myself yet not known quite what to do with. Several months ago, I wrote a post at my own blog about well-being, its definition, and the proper pursuit of it. I also explored related issues in my series on contraception (including the comments sections), links to which can be found in the right sidebar of my blog.

...�Do not mourn like those that have no hope.� It astonishes me, the way we are invited to apply to ourselves words so obviously addressed to our betters. What St. Paul says can comfort only those who love God better than the dead, and the dead better than themselves. If a mother is mourning not for what she has lost but for what her dead child has lost, it is a comfort to believe that the child has not lost the end for which it was created. And it is a comfort to believe that she herself, in losing her chief or only natural happiness, has not lost a greater thing, that she may still hope to �glorify God and enjoy Him forever.� A comfort to the God-aimed, eternal spirit within her. But not to her motherhood. The specifically maternal happiness must be written off. Never, in any place or time, will she have her son on her knee, or bathe him, or tell him a story, or plan for his future, or see her grandchild.

My discovery of some other writings by Christians on the subject of autoerotism has led to another set of installments in what has become a series of sorts at my other blog. The latest posts examine a limited defense of masturbation by a Christian: part 1, part 2, and part 3.

Working on (read: blissfully devouring) my Latin vocabulary yesterday, I got to diligere, a verb that Wheelock defines as "to love, esteem highly; to choose." Well, that's a bit different than the derivative word in English, I thought, and the wheels started turning.

Paraphrased from Etymonline, the source that is to amateur linguists what Monergism is to amateur theologians (okay, or what the The Evangelical Outpost is to aspiring front-runners of the blogosphere):

diligence: from O.Fr. diligence "attention, care," from L. diligentia "attentiveness, carefulness," from diligentem (nom. diligens) "attentive, assiduous, careful," originally prp. of diligere "value highly, love, choose," from dis- "apart" + legere "choose, gather." Sense evolved from "love" through "attentiveness" to "carefulness" to "steady effort."

I'm going to take a risk and infer some things about human nature from the evolution of a word. (At least you can know that if my logic is flawed, the basic principles still hold true.) The word begins with yet another denotation of "love" and travels through "attentiveness" and "carefulness." This makes perfect sense connotatively, if you will: we know that all men have some ultimate goal in mind that commands their worship and directs their will. Whatever his highest end is, a man values anything that can get him there. Even a lazy man will pay close attention to the means by which he can attain his goal; some of the most evil men in history were obsessively detail-oriented.

It should be convicting to consider the ultimate end of a Christian's work. Within the context of an exhortation to servants in Colossians 3, Paul identifies it: "Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ." If the attentiveness and effort we put into our work is in accordance with the measure of our love for Christ, how can laziness, time-wasting and any form of slacking off be things to joke about? The place to begin in cultivating diligence, then, is not in driven attempts at self-discipline, but in cultivating a love for God and for his law. Unless we learn to "delight in [his] testimonies as much as in all riches," we cannot consistently uphold a work ethic that differentiates us from the world. In this way we enjoy the logical progression from loving and highly esteeming our Master to keeping up steady, careful effort in every work that he has prepared for us to do.

Spotlight on Darfur 2 is up! Eddie from Live from the FDNF is the host. He's done a great job bringing together a wide variety of posts and he even accepted my small entry after the entry deadline was past. With so many blogs competing for your attention, this carnival is worth visiting. Come on! Quit reading what I have to say and go over there. It is a small but powerful way to help raise awareness of the situation in Darfur.

I am convinced that these carnivals (it's not exactly a carnival but for lack of a better word. . .) do make a difference. I personally know of one blogger who is prone to forget to pray and is easily distracted by less important issues--like how many unique visiters her blog received today. This blogger tells me that although she cares about those who suffer, she needs regular reminders of what she can do to help.

And if you fear to take the big "click" and read about Darfur because you don't want to feel guily, you're not alone. But consider this. Even if you were a janjaweed and personally responsible for the death and destruction in Darfur, God's grace would be wide enough to cover your sin. But you're probably not a janjaweed. You're probably a pretty comfortable middle-class person like myself whose worst sin is apathy. But God's grace is still wide enough to cover your sin and mine. Even the sins of apathy, sloth, and greed.

The point of raising awareness for Darfur is not to make us feel guilty because we didn't send all our extra money to Sudan or because we didn't pray for more than five minutes today (or this week). The point is not to make us feel bad because we're safe, warm, and well-fed. If anything, we should be humbly grateful, not wallowing in guilty. The point is to give us an oportunity to express our thankfulness to God by helping those who are in need of our assistence.

Reading about the suffering in Darfur is hard, yes. It is painful. But in the end, we shouldn't fear being made to feel guilty or frightened that we may end up depressed by the horror in this world. God is more than able to bring good out of evil, even out of genocide, rape, and starvation. In the end, we know that good will triumph over evil. God is not impotent or slow to act. God will hear and answer our prayers for the people of Darfur and for our own hard hearts. So don't avoid thinking about Darfur. Rest in the power and goodness of God.

All right, I'll get off my soapbox now.

The Pacific Fertility Center of San Francisco intends to recruit women to donate eggs for cloning and embryonic stem cell research for the South Korea-based World Stem Cell Foundation, which announced this week that it is opening a satellite operation in the San Francisco Bay area.

According to the Fertility Center's Dr. Philip Chenette, "women are fascinated by by the chance to help." Of course they are interested in the chance to help. The alternative response to the request would be "no, I'm not interested in helping people who are dying of diseases that research might prove to benefit."

Cloning and embryonic stem cell research depends upon the willingness of women to risk their own health and even their lives in order to produce eggs for research that they are told will help save lives (while, obviously, destroying lives - another issue for another blog entry). What real choice does a woman have to say "no" to such a request? The liberal side of our culture says that a woman has a right to make choices about her own body, but that real choices are often obscured by oppression, coercion, and power-mongering. Doesn't anyone else see how this project is exactly that and amounts to a pure objectification of women? The feminist outcry is barely a whisper at this point.

addiction, n. 1. the condition of being addicted (to a habit); habitual inclination.

addicted, a. devoted or given up (to a practice or habit, especially a bad habit.) Syn. � devoted, accustomed, prone, attached, habituated, disposed, inclined, abandoned.

Addiction is a difficult thing. It�s something that�s not easy to talk about, especially for those who�ve struggled with it. Which would include me, but I guess I�d like talk about it anyway.

Probably the greatest factor influencing any kind of addiction is discomfort, or pain �- emotional or mental discomfort/pain, most likely, but perhaps physical pain as well. The pain may involve shame, guilt, feelings of insecurity, self-loathing, or depression, in varying degrees. Most of all, the addicted person lacks ability to deal with very strong and perhaps confused feelings, thoughts, and desires, usually of the negative type but sometimes of distorted-positive type as well, which are often exacerbated by the addiction itself.

Persons may have difficulty dealing with pain or managing out-of-control thoughts and feelings because they have been very deeply wounded. They may have suffered at the poor treatment of important persons in their lives, i.e., family members, relatives, friends, teachers, or coaches. Or they may not have had good role models for the proper handling of emotions and thoughts (negative ones especially) nor anyone to help them deal with these things, in their formative years especially. Perhaps they were punished for even having negative feelings or thoughts. How many �normal� people don�t have trouble dealing with these things, let alone someone who hasn�t been �allowed� to have them? It�s that much worse for the truly abused or profoundly hurt person, who may go through all sorts of inner turmoil trying to make sense of negative experiences and the resulting emotions and thoughts. It�s natural to want to try to end the torment, both external and internal, and to go to great (if misguided) lengths to do so.

A person may become addicted to something in order to try to escape pain even though he/she knows it only works temporarily and in the long run actually adds to the pain. Such a person may become addicted to a certain pleasure (not necessarily a �vice,� but anything, even something legitimate, that causes pleasure, indulged in an intemperate way) in order to avoid dealing with some part of his/her reality. Such persons may try hard to find ways to feel adequate, significant, or valuable in various pursuits that are not ultimately healthy. They either do not know how to express their thoughts, desires, and strong emotions properly within their relationships, work habits, and hobbies, or else have no one with whom to safely do so, so they pour their desires and strong emotions into an unhealthy pursuit. (They cannot trust.) Such situations therefore become prisons, trapping persons inside and exacerbating their distress.

Others perhaps punish themselves with habits they otherwise justify, but, in moments of honesty and transparency, are aware of what they are doing. The resulting feelings then cause a downward spiral. Often the escape and the punishment occur within the same activity.

Sometimes it�s hard to draw the line between something merely relied upon and an actual addiction. We all rely on many things every day. Some things we can do without, some we really can�t. Some things we become used to, and if those things change, for whatever reason, we find ourselves grieving or going through a withdrawal of sorts. This is quite normal. But it becomes abnormal if the feelings and thoughts get put into some practice or habit that keeps a person from truly dealing with them to the point of resolution.

As to overcoming addiction, there are treatment centers, books, support/discussion/prayer groups, and counselors for the purpose. But there is another major source that may be under-availed: people willing to befriend those who are troubled, appreciate them for who they are, and get close enough to provide a listening ear and a safe haven. It may take a fairly strong person to do this, but what a ministry. Wouldn�t it be helpful if long-time friends were willing to �go into� areas that are usually avoided because they�re awkward & uncomfortable, or because the friends think they wouldn�t know what to do or say to help, or don�t want to invade unspoken boundaries? Boundary issues are certainly a legitimate and necessary consideration, but perhaps they ought to be reassessed and redrawn in certain situations.

Surely the most fundamental way an addicted person can be helped is in the same way any person who�s dealing with a traumatic situation can be helped: through friends being there for them and listening to them. Through being treated with dignity, as if they are �normal,� and as if their feelings and thoughts matter. �Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.� (Romans 12:15)

Those who are troubled need to step out and risk revealing their insecurities, which can be difficult since they may lack the skills to do so properly and/or they�ve had their vulnerability trampled in the past. Often personal boundary issues are involved because troubled individuals have had their own boundaries violated by those in whom they put their trust.

Obviously, though, if persons in either position cannot put aside their trepidations, then not much healing can take place.

This healing may include �unlearning� the lessons of pain, lessons that have imparted confusion and feelings of worthlessness. Wounded persons may need to learn that in bearing suffering or difficulty without seeking an instant escape, they may truly find their identity in Christ. Christ is the ultimate example of one who took on humiliation and abuse that He did not deserve. By seeing wounded-ness in this light, a person can find value in being made in the imago dei as well as strength from identity in Christ as a person redeemed and called for a purpose. A person can find strength to forgive, and thus gain insight into the pain of the one(s) who have caused pain, by learning to rely on God rather than created things. Empathy and compassion bloom in such a healed heart and mind, leading to restored relationships and healthier social interaction. Increased understanding and cultivation of a tender heart are benefits also reaped by the friend who�s helped salve a wounded heart/mind.

You may have thought that this post was over, but there�s one more thing I�d like to throw in: that of addiction and the unregenerate person. No doubt there are many unregenerate persons who are slaves to all sorts of addictions. But addictions are not limited to the unregenerate; I�m sure we all agree on that. So my statements above are made with the assumption that many a person suffering addiction of some sort can be �evangelized� or otherwise brought closer to Christ via loving fellowship. (And, indeed, some addictions are more severe than others, or more destructive than others...perhaps there is no one completely free...?)

On Thursday of last week (January 12), my colleague Joe Carter and myself provided testimony at an Illinois committee hearing. As proponents of a bill to ban the funding of human cloning in Illinois, our testimony focused on how human cloning will exploit women, especially poor and minorities, in that it is her eggs that are necessary to the pursuit of human cloning.

The Human Services Committee of the Illinois General Assembly seemed completely uninterested in the facts. Sometime after Joe and I finished giving our testimony, the chairman began a comment with "You people..." as he went on to complain that people like us - I guess conservative, white people - shouldn't be worrying ourselves about the exploitation of the poor and minority communities...apparently that's forbidden territory. And at some point after that outrageous remark, the chairman attempted to describe the goal of human cloning, describing embryonic stem cell research as somehow creating a clone and injecting it into a person's spine (as one example he had for treatment.) Finally, a witness who offered testimony for the opposition of this bill insisted that eggs are not needed for human cloning, that we can get all we need from left over embryos at fertility clinics. Apparently she doesn't know that those aren't cloned embryos in frozen storage at fertility clinics. It's a shame that this level of intellect is attempting to play a role of leadership at an organization called Protestants for the Common Good...but then, perhaps, that's all they have.

An interesting quote I found today is egg in the face of Illinois' liberal political establishment: "You cannot clone an embryo without an egg and you cannot get eggs without a clinic." This, from Newcastle University Professor Michael Whitaker, dean of research at its faculty of medical sciences.

There�s a difference between compliance and surrender.

� leader, Celebrate Recovery program (for people dealing with addictions), pointing to his head at the word �compliance� and his heart at the word �surrender.�

These words are in reference to the person who is past the denial stage (which applies to sin in general, not just addiction) and who recognizes and acknowledges his/her sin but has not yet relinquished it in the sense of having overcome it in his/her heart. Such a person may be able to resist the sin for a time, but the sin returns because surrender is not complete.

I believe that the leader chose the word "compliance" to convey the idea that compliance can be accomplished outwardly whether the heart is in total surrender or not. Compliance may be a step past acknowledgment but still a step (or more) short of surrender. How many merely compliant folks are sitting in the pews on Sunday mornings?

My son, give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings. Do not let them depart from your sight; Keep them in the in the midst of your heart. For they are life to those who find them, And health to all their whole body. Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life. Proverbs 4:20-23, NASB

I recently read Schedule, Interrupted at ChristianityTodayOnline and was glad I did.

God's school is not like most. It's not regimented, age-adjusted, fixed in its curricula. The classroom is life itself; the curriculum, all of life's demands and interruptions and tedium, its surprises and disappointments. In the midst of this, through these things themselves, God hands us an abacus and tells us to tally it all up.

I've also always had a very hard time limiting my activities to fit into a 24-hour day. I have many interests and abilities as well as responsibilities, and there just isn't time to do everything justice. I've had to decide what to pursue when and to what extent (which I suppose everyone has to do), and it�s never been easy.

It's been difficult for me to find a balance of work and rest, and to prioritize activities properly. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. It just seems that, where so many people solve their balance and priority issues by scheduling their lives, I go the other way. See, I just can't stand the pressure and demands of a schedule. Not that I don't live by the schedules of things that affect my life as well as a loose schedule of my own (or, rather, a loose routine) -- as a member of a busy family and a mother of young children who home schools, I must. It's just that I can't get things done right if I'm always trying to follow a schedule. I always find myself feeling squelched and trapped by a completely planned-out day. (Actually, one of the main reasons my family homeschools is our belief about schedules, schooling, and life as articulated in the above quote.)

Now, the flip side of this is that it's easy to become undisciplined, or, rather, fail to honor the top priority of any given moment because of something else I'd rather be doing. Fortunately I'm also conscientious enough not to become too undisciplined; I have a strong sense of responsibility (probably too strong!) that helps keep me doing what I should be doing. (Note that I said that it �helps�...:-) ).

Unless, however, I have to deal with a big problem, illness, or great emotional distress. These things are very difficult to schedule into one's life; they kind of show up whenever they will regardless of what you have on your docket. Now, discipline keeps going with what must be done as much as its charge is able, and succumbs to whatever the trouble is during "break" time. But, sometimes, perhaps, discipline also requires one to temporarily set aside the "schedule" in order to deal with the trouble. A scheduled life doesn't really accommodate this well, though; nor does a busy life, and who doesn't have one of those?

I write this at a time when the church talks much about being purpose-driven. This is a good thing, but we ought to practice a bit of holy cynicism about it. We should be a little uneasy about the pairing of purposefulness and drivenness. Something's out of kilter there. Drivenness may awaken purpose or be a catalyst for purpose, but it rarely fulfills it: More often it jettisons it.

A common characteristic of driven people is that, at some point, they forget their purpose. They lose the point. The very reason they began something-embarked on a journey, undertook a project, waged a war, entered a profession, married a woman-erodes under the weight of their striving. Their original inspiration may have been noble. But driven too hard, it gets supplanted by greed for more, or dread of setback, or force of habit.

Drivenness erodes purposefulness.

The difference between living on purpose and being driven surfaces most clearly in what we do with time. The driven are fanatical time managers-time-mongers, time-herders, time-hoarders. Living on purpose requires skillful time management, true, but not the kind that turns brittle, that attempts to quarantine most of what makes life what it is: the mess, the surprises, the breakdowns, and the breakthroughs. Too much rigidity stifles purpose. I find that the more I try to manage time, the more anxious I get about it.

(No, I haven�t read The Purpose-driven Life, or The Purpose-driven Church, nor the purpose-driven anything...I�ve got plenty of purpose!)

(This post is brought to you courtesy of WorldMagBlog)

what wives want

The most thorough study ever undertaken to inquire into what makes wives happy reveals that working outside the home isn�t #1. The study found that

Having an affectionate and understanding husband was by far the most important predictor of a woman�s satisfaction with her marriage.

The happiest wives in their study were the ones who said that housework was divided fairly between them and their husbands. But those same happy wives also did more of the work at home while their husbands did more work outside home.

...A woman wants equity...That�s not necessarily the same as equality.

what relationships need

See Life Differently is singing the same tune I�ve been singing in my blogging, in Getting Naked Relationally. (OK, maybe I haven't sung it quite that way, but the lyrics are basically the same).

There is something about getting naked with someone - once the clothes come off, you see everything, in all its glorious splendor and its embarrassing imperfection. There is something deeply satisfying in being fully seen by someone, warts and all, and to still be loved. I suspect many of us go through our entire lives without ever experiencing that kind of intimacy.

I realized that the most personal and important parts of our lives fly under the radar of our typical relationships in the body of Christ. We live frenetically busy lives with activity-based friendships, punctuated only by brief conversations with each other. Now I was sitting across from a friend I did not know. ...

We tend to have permanently casual relationships that never grow into real intimacy. There are things we know about each other, but they fool us into thinking that we know the human beings who live within the borders of those details.

what theology needs:

Removal of The stumbling block of the average systematic theology. At Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength:

Logic is a good thing, but the logical process does not necessarily lead to truth. If you do not start with the right premises, you do not get the right conclusion, logically enough. "Garbage in, garbage out" as they say in my line of work. If you want your logical results to be true, your starting point must be true.

Jesus challenges us to understand God through him, to begin our systematic theologies with him, to start with him as our premise and end with him as our aim. Our natural thinking hardly knows where to begin with a venture like that. So we take an easier road -- but that road is not the way we were meant to travel.

I am not against systematic theology. But if we assume that Christ is the truth, then the best theology would begin and end with Christ; the best theology would center around Christ. The best "systematic theology" might very well be a biography. In the Bible, God has given us the right kind of book. Our systematic theologies are like a child's notebook, where we copy down pieces we do not yet fully understand. The more fully we understand, the more closely our systematic theologies resemble the Bible.

Are we relational to one another merely because it�s a creature-thing? Or is it part of the imago dei? God speaks to us; this is relational. We are to love Him with all our hearts, minds, and souls, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Sounds pretty relational to me.

Not that our relationship to God is completely analogous to our relationship with persons; God is not human. Many crave to find in other persons things that can be found only in God, but this the error of sin in general -- putting "god", or looking for �God,� in all the wrong places. It�s not creature-relationships vs. some sort of position or ranking in a spiritual hierarchy (although that aspect is present in a relationship with God as well); it�s relationship with �other� (Satan, the �flesh�) vs. relationship with God.

HT: Mark Olson at WorldMag Blog Blogwatch

(This entry is cross-posted at my blog.)

(update: If I had it to do over again, I would title this post, “Thoughts on Singleness and Fantasy.” I would also include statements about fantasizing being sinful even for the person who will never marry, i.e., who is called to a lifetime of singleness. My apologies for not thinking to do this the first time around, and my thanks to commenters who helped me to see this!)

There have been several articles of late addressing singleness and the Christian; apparently there is a greater percentage of Christians who are single now than ever before. Some have even gone so far as to say that God does not intend for anyone to be single. I don’t think a biblical case can be made for that, however. At the same time, it’s probably true that relatively few are “called” to singleness and celibacy, and in general it cannot be used as an excuse to avoid marital commitment. Especially since people don’t seem to care to wait for marriage to indulge in certain marital-type activities. But marriage is of course much more than domestic companionship and sex.

Marriage, in a nutshell, is about mutual purpose, and usually children, and intimate support and care of another person (of the opposite sex) for life. It is about a meshing of lives in a way that demands loving accommodation, adjustment, sacrifice, and compromise; it is two becoming one in all the wonderfully mysterious and difficult ways that is manifest.

In some instances it may be good that a person remain single for an extended period of time; it may mean that he/she is unwilling to marry for the wrong reasons. In other instances it may mean that a person is uncertain or fearful, or has personal problems that must be overcome. These are things that can be dealt with in prayer and with the help of family and friends.

In other instances, though, a person may be single for idolatrous or lustful reasons. I have seen evidence that some single Christians are looking for certain fleshly characteristics in a spouse, not so much in place of godly character but in addition to it, which seems like wanting to have their cake and eat it too, or rather, searching down two different paths at the same time.

What really matters

A great comment was left by dollymama on my post, Thoughts on Christian singleness. I began a response but it got so long that I decided to continue it in another post. To begin I affirmed that I am not suggesting that someone �settle for� marriage to someone they do not truly love, although at the same time I believe that, should this happen, true love can be developed through mutual commitment.

Dollymama suggested that an initial spark between two people greatly increases chances of a successful marriage, since marriage can be difficult even with someone you were nuts about in the first place. I agree with her regarding the latter, but not the former. While a spark is certainly nice, it�s not necessary initially. The sparks may develop later as the relationship develops, and it is those later sparks that are more useful toward a marriage.

It often takes awhile to get to know someone well enough to determine whether they are �the one,� and by then, a very close friendship will have developed, which is really the basis of a good marriage. I also believe that there is not necessarily only one person with whom a person could have a successful, fulfilling marriage, matters of destiny aside. Marriage is largely made. It is based on walking through life closely with someone whose qualities you generally respect and choosing to act intimately and behave lovingly toward that person. Many times, especially initially in a relationship, the choice to act lovingly is easy because it is based on strong affection. But as a relationship develops, loving behavior may become more of a challenge. Differences surface and it takes more work to maintain positive relations due to increased familiarity and amount of time spent with a person. At times the affection may be lost. In this case, response is made according to a commitment to love, in the active sense of the word.

Judging by response to my previous posts addressing certain elements of this subject, Christian singleness is a highly-charged issue. It seems that there is a real need for godly support of single Christians.

I�m wondering if facilitation of dialogue on the subject might be helpful, so I will provide some threads for discussion here.

Of course the subject has many aspects that might be discussed. I think it will be helpful to look at them separately in separate threads. Although there will no doubt be areas in which answers to these questions overlap or are interrelated, I think maximum benefit can be accomplished by keeping responses as close to the topic(s) of each particular thread as possible. If there is a need, an additional thread(s) can be started after the first set for any other questions/issues not yet dealt with.

Here are four areas of questions to start discussion for four threads:

1) What does the life of a single Christian living fully unto the Lord �look like�? What are ways that a Christian single may serve God both in work and relationships?

2) How might a single Christian live a life of purity in thought and in deed? How might such a Christian deal with sexual desire and desire for close companionship and children?

3) How might a Christian deal with the �waiting and wondering�? How does a Christian single find his or her �calling�? What does calling mean in terms of the single Christian?

4) How might a single �find� a spouse?

This thread is for discussion of (1): a picture of the life and service of a Christian single serving the Lord fully, in work and relationships. What might it include? What might it not include?

Thank you!

I'd like to open up a new topic of discussion here. I'm very intereste in what othes have to say.

The wonderful news that the Fox News reporter and cameraman were released yesterday brought up a question that has been on my mind and was the first topic of conversation in the office this morning. Their captors forced them to "convert" to Islam on camera. Steve Centanni said they did it because their captors has guns. It was what was necessary to survive. He also seemed to indicate that the request was absurd because it obviously meant nothing coming from force.

This brings home the theoretical Sunday School question (not to be confused with a trivial question): Is it permissible for a Christian to profess another faith at the point of a gun? Isn't that tantamount to denying Christ?

My questions are by no means a criticism of the two men because I have no reason to believe they're Christians. It's also very difficult to imagine being in their circumstances. But the right thing to do is not the same thing as the hard thing to imagine. What is the right thing for a Christian to do under those circumstances? I'll confess I'm a bit torn, though the preponderance of my sense is that it would be wrong and tantamount to denying Christ. I know what I've answered in Sunday School - no! But are there mitigating circumstances? I think not, but here's why I'm somewhat torn.

As Centanni intimated, such a "conversion" would obviously not be taken seriously by most people so would it amount to denying Christ? On the other hand, many Muslims would probably take it seriously and interpret it as denying Christ. If I refused their demand and was killed, no one beyond that room would ever know the reason for my death and it wouldn't be a witness. On the other hand, it would be a witness to the captors and hopefully a powerful one. Given the "conversion" would be a sham, is it better to cooperate and try to survive the situation, and later on camera reiterate my commitment to Christ? On the other hand, it is forsaking my commitment to Christ and claiming adherence to a false religion, and isn't my commitment to Christ worth the loss of my life? I think so, and that's why I think I should not cooperate with the captors.

And yet, I just can't get over the sham of such a conversion. What do you think? Some of you may think less of me for even wresting with what to do.

On a related thought, for the vast majority of Christianity's history the appeal for conversion is a result of persuasion and example, not force. But the Inquisition and other rare events are glaring, horrible exceptions contrary to Scripture. I've always wondered why anyone who does such a thing thinks they're getting a real conversion. What did the inquisitors and the Muslim captors last week think they were accomplishing? It's silly and tragic.

Personal strength is an issue I think about often. I ask questions like, �Where does it come from? How is it formed? Upon what does it depend? How is it exhibited? Is it always necessary?� etc. A Christian will no doubt answer these questions along the lines of, �It comes from God...it is found in God, it is given by God, it is developed through a relationship with God� etc. And he or she will be entirely correct. However, it�s the hows of those answers that interest me, as well as the dynamic interplay between strength and weakness that is a paradox of human existence. (Bear with me here :-) ).

I read the following piece on the website of a little boy suffering from an aggressive form of childhood cancer. He is a former preschool classmate of my daughter�s. His father posted this:

The Strength of an Egg
by Juliet Freitag

Parents of children with cancer, or really any serious condition, are often referred to or viewed as having strength "like a rock." Albeit flattering, it isn't quite true. It is more like the strength of an egg. An egg, you ask? Yes, an egg. If you think about it, you will see the point I make.

An egg has a polished, smooth outer appearance, with no cracks or weak spots visible. It seems almost inconceivable that the inside might not be so smooth or solid. Most children, at some point in their lifetime, are shown the famous egg trick. An egg set at just the right angle can withstand enormous amounts of pressure and cannot be cracked or broken. Yet the same egg, tapped gently at an even slightly different angle, will break. The contents, once so neatly concealed inside, will come spilling out, and the no longer perfect shell will be crushed. Then the shell looks so fragile that it seems inconceivable that it ever held any strength.

That is where parents of children with cancer are more like eggs than rocks. A rock is solid all the way through. If you tried to break a rock, it would be almost impossible. If successful, one would find that there was nothing inside but more rock. It takes a lot more than pure hardness to hold the hand of hope. These parents are not solid all the way through. They hurt, they fear, they cry, they hope. It takes a very careful balancing act to keep the shell from being shattered.

Balancing an egg while running a household, going for doctors' visits and hospital stays, keeping the family together, and holding on to the constantly unraveling ties of your sanity can be very tricky indeed. Occasionally, the angle will be off and the shell will break, shattering hope and all the neatly secured appearances of a truly fragile existence. Unlike Humpty Dumpty, though, the parents of [medically fragile] kids will pick themselves up and put themselves back together again.

You gotta love Todd Wilson, homeschooling father and founder of Familyman Ministries:

Somewhere in the heart of the Midwest lives the perfect homeschooling family. They have 15 kids, each of whom does four hours of chores each day, is several grade levels above the norm, thinks only of others, and never raises his/her voice to his parents.

Their mother still fits into her wedding dress, is modest but stylish, gentle but firm, spend two hours in prayer before making a hot breakfast for her growing family, has her school schedule written out two years in advance, makes her own bread and clothes, and has someone over for dinner three nights a week � not including Sunday lunch.

Her house is immaculate. She serves her husband with a cheerful spirit and plans to complete her Doctorate in her spare time.

Yeah, right!

The truth is � most moms feel inadequate. The fear failing their kids in their education and in example. They feel like their house is out of control, their children are beasts, and the sizzle has left their marriage.

They work hard to portray the contrary...

You know what? Homeschooling�s hard enough without having to live under the pressure of looking like you have it all together...in fact, we encourage each other to play the �I-have-it-all-together game.�

A couple days ago I wrote about grief, describing the stigma it carries (though not in so many words). Addiction is another of those awful, scary, ugly, messy, stigma-carrying things, which is also too bad.

As I was scanning the AM radio dial for something interesting during a rare moment alone in the car last week, I caught part of an interview with William Cope Moyers. He was discussing his struggle with addiction. Moyers has co-written a book called Broken; is vice-president of public affairs at Hazelden, a recovery center; and also has a website, at which he hosts a blog.

Moyers is the son of Bill Moyers and a former journalist for CNN. Though he says that he had a happy childhood, a good family, and looked, on the outside, like a respectable person in every way, he privately battled alcohol and drug addiction. His battle went on for many years, and he moved in and out of recovery.

By sharing his story, Moyers is hoping to help remove the social stigma from addiction, which I think is a wonderful thing. Although, I fear that, by nature of the fact that Hazelden is for the very wealthy, and that the senior Moyers is outspoken for many liberal causes, he may cultivate another stigma, or cynicism, in the minds of many. Did privilege and certain philosophies or ways of relating within his own family give rise in part to Moyers' addictions, that he himself may not be aware of? Perhaps. Who knows?

Moyers calls addiction a disease, an illness, to which 10% of the population is genetically predisposed. And this may be true. Yet I strongly believe that addiction, like depression, is also a deeply spiritual affliction. I say this from my own experience and observations, for what they are worth. Please understand, though, that when I say that I would like to see addiction rise above the level of stigma, I am not suggesting that it is respectable. Nor am I saying that one has no responsibility to deal with it, as even Moyers does not. But his, and my, point is that it can affect anyone at all, in any social strata and from any background, and it is not through stigmatizing those who suffer that they may be helped to recover.

I didn't always believe this. I thought that there had to be trauma somewhere in someone's life that led to addictive behavior. Or some terrible, horrible character flaw that only a portion of the population was lucky enough to possess (and of which I was one). But at a Celebrate Recovery meeting last year, I met a retired doctor who had become an alcoholic after retiring from his practice. He told the group that he couldn't think of anything in his background that would've led him to this; he had a happy childhood, a wonderful wife, good kids, and a successful and well-respected career.

But upon retirement, he began drinking socially. One drink led to another, and in his boredom, perhaps, with his life in retirement, and with nothing to replace the work he'd done all his life, he slowly became an alcoholic. This gentleman was the kindest, gentlest, cleanest-cut, intelligent-looking guy you'd ever want to see. He came to the meeting, I think, in part to show some of the "tougher" cases in the room that it's not just the "down-and-outs," the abused, or otherwise socially disregarded who struggle with addiction.

I myself still deal with a tendency toward addictive behavior, a compulsion to assuage strong feelings of dis-ease with something - anything - that I enjoy. I don't think this an altogether unusual thing. Or even a bad thing; it's not always inappropriate to seek something pleasurable in order to cope with pain as long as the pleasure is legitimate. Yet at the same time, a legitimate pleasure can be objectified, reached for impulsively, and looked to monolithically - i.e., relied upon - in a salvific and extremely short-sighted kind of way.

Regarding recovery from addiction, while I don't deny all the body chemistry involved, I do believe that this chemistry can be changed, or at least dealt with, through changed feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. But not mere behavior modification -- changes that come about as a result of spiritual transformation, specifically, a truth-led transformation. "Truth" with both a capital and a small "t". And I believe this not because I read any studies, or because someone I respect said it, but because this was my own personal experience.

I hope that the church will accept that addiction is a common problem that exists in many degrees even among its members, and take steps to address it in a truthful, compassionate, and transforming way.

(William Cope Moyers can be heard in an interview from an October 2006 NPR broadcast of "Fresh Air.")

Our host Joe Carter writes today about partial birth abortion which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and will soon be made illegal.
He posts details of a cross-examination of Dr. Stephen Chasen, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, by counsel for the Government.

The discussion is graphic in it's descriptions of the procedure but worth reading if you can. it's also thoroughly depressing to realise that Dr Chasen, with all his ability, experience and influence would choose to be an advocate for infanticide instead of , well, something that actually helps people, which is after all what doctors are supposed to do.

Meanwhile on this side of the Pond The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says there has been a big rise in the number of doctors who are "conscientious objectors". BBC news reports that:

Experts say the decline in the number of NHS doctors willing to perform abortions has also declined because they are able to "pick and choose" the areas they train and specialise in - and very few opt to carry out terminations when they can choose other areas such as fertility medicine.

Just have to say a few more things about Dawn, the mother of six I wrote about in this post (whom Sheena introduced us to originally -- thanks, Sheena!). First, and main: She did not contrive, conspire, maneuver, plot, scheme, plan, arrange, or otherwise try to achieve influence, notoriety, etc., on eBay or anywhere else. She simply began using her gifts, and her situation -- i.e., what she already had.

Apparently, the Pokemon card auction wasn't her first landslide writing (or auction) success; a couple years back she sold an old, dirty baseball for $1125 because of the description, which chronicled a morning in her life as a mother. (Another great read!)

As result of that auction, she got emails from people telling her she should write a book. But, considering the logistics, she decided to start a blog instead. Because I Said So "(changing lives, one diaper at a time, since 1994)," is as good as her auction. She's also been collecting stories from her family life with the possibility of a book in mind...and may have her opportunity to publish soon!

Dawn hasn't been to college and has never taken a writing class outside of high school. But she's a natural writer, with a fantastic sense of humor. She portrays motherhood as the crazy, messy, expensive, exhausting, and joyful thing it truly is -- free of shame and apologies. She's not afraid to express the feelings that all mothers have, whether they'll admit it or not. (About shopping for school supplies, she says, "Yes, it's almost that most wonderful time of the year and it can't come soon enough.") It's apparent that she loves her kids and is a great mom (she wouldn't have such a sense of humor about everything if she didn't, and wasn't), but she's also honest about things such as the exhaustion factor and the relief of a break.

...and its implication for our relationships. And our evangelism.

I recently came into possession of the book, Making Peace With Your Mom, by H. Norman Wright and Sheryl Wright Macauley. So far I’ve just skimmed it, but found a passage that I want to share because I think it can be helpful for any relationship.

Before I do, though, I want to say that I think the parent-child relationship is incredibly, deeply formative. The patterns set by these relationships carry through our entire lives. I’m not saying this to burden anyone nor give them ammunition, and I truly believe that God’s grace can both cover parental sins and work them for the good in the lives of children. But there’s no escaping it. The parent-child relationship affects a child's every subsequent relationship, even with God. And to understand the dynamics of these relationships so as to understand how they can be truly healthy requires apprehension of their spiritual dynamics, which cannot be done fully apart from a saving relationship with God.

Perceive the need
On page 80 of the book, under the heading, “Disconnecting From the Controller,” is this advice: “Ask yourself, ‘What does [Mother, or whoever] need from me that might lessen [her] need to desire to control me?’”

As I’ve thought about this and about its implications for my own relationships, it’s occurred to me that if this question were asked (and its answer followed) in any relationship, then the relationship couldn’t help but improve. Whether with a controller, an avoider, a boss, a spouse, a friend, a child, or whomever. True, it’s often hard to know just what a person might need, but in general it probably has to do with respect, appreciation, honesty, and trustworthiness.

For those of you who are just becoming familiar, The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has recently made public a report on what they term "the medical right" which is essentially the scientific counterpart to the religious right. The purpose of the report is

to provide information on how the incorporation of religious views into secular policy and law is limiting medical services.

The report goes on to assert that the views of the "medical right" contradict "accepted medical consensus" and that to the degree in which they have influence should be cause for concern, especially to those who "value scientific integrity."

Equally disturbing is the disregard of the principle of the separation of church and state in the drive to impose sectarian religious tenets on people of all faiths and beliefs. In sum, the Medical Right threatens basic