It has been a long time since I wrote anything on this site, and now I bring you big news. I am moving One Resolve over to blogspot for a couple of reasons. One, I use many of Google’s web services already and this transition will give me some consistency. Two, the purpose of this blog has changed a lot over the years. The original purpose of the blog is to continue to sharpen my written by giving me an intentional avenue to do so in. However, I have found that it is best to write though a process of proof reading and editing so that the quality of the work is worth reading. In addition, the blog has morphed into a bit of an organizing system for web-articles, books and other information so that I can easily access them later. It seems that less and less commentary is given, and more directing myself and my readers to information that is of interest to me. Third, this transition will allow me go through all my earlier posts and edit, delete or transfer these posts over to the new site.
So there you go. A first post in a long time leads to news of a different site. The new site is: oneresolve.blogspot.com
Belloit College puts out something called a Mindset List that identifies ”the experiences that have shaped the lives—and formed the mindset—of students starting their post-secondary education this fall..” Here is a brief description:
The Mindset List is not a chronological listing of things that happened in 1991, the year they were born. It is instead an effort to identify the worldview of 18 year-olds in the fall of 2009. Of course, our students come from many backgrounds and different traditions and these generalizations may not apply to all. The list identifies the experiences and event horizons of students and is not meant to reflect on their preparatory education.
It is also not deliberately designed to make readers feel really old!
On World Population Day this year India’s new health and welfare minister came out with an idea on how to tackle the population issue: Bring electricity to every Indian village so that people would watch television until late at night and therefore be too tired to make babies.
so much that passes for spirituality these days is nothing more than middle class, 20something coffee culture. If you like jazz, soul patches, earth tone furniture, and lattes, that’s cool. But this culture is no holier than the McNugget, Hi-C, Value City, football culture that most people live in. Why does incarnational ministry usually mean hanging out at Starbucks instead of McDonalds?
Why does incarnational ministry seem to often end up meaning one ministers only to poor people? It is certainly true that Christ made Himself poor and ministered to the lowly. But He and His disciples ministered to people from all spheres of society. Was the apostle Paul not “incarnational” when he challenged the philosophers of Mars Hill? Was Peter not “incarnational” when he witnessed to the truth of Christianity to Cornelius, the Roman centurion? …
engaging culture does not mean that one must own a Mac, listen to Sufjan Stevens, Bob Dylan, and Bon Iver, watch CNN, listen contemplatively to NPR, drink local-brand coffee only, and cultivate stylish facial hair.
One may be engaging culture with these sorts of life choices. If so, terrific! But isn’t one also engaging culture, so to speak, by listening to Hank Williams, eating at Wendy’s (note: I do not encourage this), and seeking to witness at the local truck stop? Are these things not “culture” that we should engage? Or is “culture” only what is branded cool by the upwardly mobile? Though I like a lot of the stuff that this group likes, I confess that it drives me nuts to see otherwise thoughtful Christians think that they alone are “engaging culture” because their brand of “culture” happens to line up with the societal zeitgeist. That is just plain dumb.
What you find on many websites is some kind of description like this: “I love reformed theology, U2, anything by Steven Soderbergh, and a fresh cup of joe.” Or maybe: “My interests are theology, issues of social justice, Beastie Boys, and an Americano from (fill in neighborhood coffee shop here).” Or perhaps: “Can’t resist a good Bonhoeffer quotation, Edwardsean philosophy, and a venti mocha with light whip.”
You get the point. Here’s the thing about this situation: there’s nothing ironic or unique about liking coffee. We all like coffee. Coffee is good. Made well, it’s really good. It’s kind of like saying you like bread. “Anything by Piper, Band of Horses, and Pepperidge Farm rocks my world.” Everyone likes bread. And everyone likes coffee.
These posts made me laugh so hard that it hurt. Then again, maybe it hurt because it is convicting.
Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of “Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers,” has posted two articles online that are creating a stir. One article is from the Washington Post titled “Say Yes. What Are You Waiting For?” and the other is from Christianity Today titled “The Case for Early Marriage.” The major point he is making: “Evangelicals tend to marry slightly earlier than other Americans, but not by much. Many of them plan to marry in their mid-20s.Yet waiting for sex until then feels far too long to most of them. And I am suggesting that when people wait until their mid-to-late 20s to marry, it is unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex. It’s battling our Creator’s reproductive designs.” His solution is to marry early, perhaps early 20s, rather than later.
Perpahs Mr. Regnerus is onto something.
“18 Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated always in her love.”
A refreshing article at the Washington Post titled “Church: Love it; Don’t Leave It” by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, here is a preview:
Here’s what Bono, Oprah, and the guru speakers on PBS won’t tell you: Jesus believed in organized religion and he founded an institution. Of course, Jesus had no patience for religious hacks and self-righteous wannabes, but he was still Jewish. And as Jew, he read the Holy Book, worshiped in the synagogue, and kept Torah. He did not start a movement of latte-drinking disciples who excelled in spiritual conversations. He founded the church (Matt. 16:18) and commissioned the apostles to proclaim the good news that Israel’s Messiah had come and the sins of the world could be forgiven through his death on the cross (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:14-36).
$10 billion would sponsor 20 million children for a year, and just $330 million would sponsor 150,000 indigenous missionaries in countries closed to religious workers. $2.2 billion would triple the current funding of Bible translation, printing, and distribution. $600 million would be enough to start eight Christian colleges in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia.
These figures only begin to spend that extra cash. What Christians could do—if they managed their money in a way that gave priority to giving a portion away—is astounding.
The point about what could be done if Christians would give what they could is well taken. However, may I suggests that how that money is spent depends on local congregations and church leadership. Perhaps we are assuming too much when we say that these billions of dollars would go to Bible translation, mission work, and training schools for ministry? My belief is that even if this extra amount is giving to the church in America it would be spent mostly on larger buildings, video venues, and other inward focused line items. Do I have stats to back up this claim? Not off the top of my head, but I do not think my hunch is too far off.
The church is exhorted to be “rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life” (1 Timothy 6:17-19). Does the size of our buildings and the number of multi-sites reflect an American church that is “generous and ready to share,” especially for the advancement of Christ’s global kingdom? What do you think?
A great perspective from an article titled “Christianity and Sexuality“ by Christopher Ash. In the section on “Public Order: Servicing God by Guarding Sex for Marriage,” he introduces his point with these words:
It is worth asking in this connection what the difference is between unmarried cohabitation and marriage. Why not just live together? The main truth to understand is that there is an intrinsic connection between sexual intimacy and permanence. Sex is designed for permanence, and the breaking of a sexual relationship, whether by death, by divorce, or by infidelity, is always the breaking of something created to be maintained. This is expressed in a saying of Jesus: “those whom God has joined together, let not human beings tear apart” (Matthew 19:6). Every married couple is joined together by God. This has nothing to do with whether or not they were married in a church. It is a simple fact about marriage: when a man and woman publicly pledge themselves to lifelong faithfulness, God joins them together and holds them accountable for keeping their promises. Sexual intimacy is either in the context of the public pledge of lifelong faithfulness, or it cuts across Creation Order. This is important for at least three reasons.
The three reasons he gives are protection against injustice, the removal of ambiguity, and the accountability of a public promise. Each point is worth reading, and so is the entire article, but his remarks on marriage and injustice are insightful:
the public pledge of marriage helps to provide a measure of protection against injustice. Whenever someone walks out on a sexual relationship, someone is hurt. It may just be the other partner; often it is children as well. If we swallow the myth that “what happens in the bedroom” is not the concern of the rest of us, then much injustice will be done, especially by men, and there will be no redress from those who are wronged. The public pledge of marriage, upheld by a healthy society, begins (at least approximately) to ensure that justice is done.
In the UK legislation is very gradually imposing obligations of justice on cohabiting partners. Perhaps before long no one will be able to walk out of a cohabitation without some obligation to fulfill responsibilities to the other (especially if there are children). We must welcome this. But we must also note that every move in this direction makes unmarried cohabitation less attractive to those who entered it precisely in order to avoid the obligations of marriage. Indeed, we could make a case for saying that society ought to treat cohabiting partners as if they were married, with all the obligations that entails. This would mean that to break a cohabitation one party would have to sue for what would effectively be divorce! If that were to happen, then the mere action of moving in together would come to signify the commitment verbalized in the marriage vows, and then cohabitation would mean marriage. It does not at the moment. And until and unless it does, only marriage provides proper protection for the vulnerable.
The UK legislation that he mentions may or may not be the best political solution to the problem, however, his point on the measure of protection that marriage gives against injustice is certainly a valid one.
