A Precept

Courage is bravest with love to embolden it;

Love is warmest with courage to defend it;

Virtue unites the two.

A Butterfly Kissed My Hand Today

While I was reading biochemistry.  I thought it odd, to see the contrast between the science in my book–atoms and molecules and enzymes–and beauty of it all put together.

Somehow with creation, it seems the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference.”

–(Lewes 1875, p. 412)

Top Five Myths of Christian Dating

Somewhere on ChristianSinglesToday.com, surrounded by advertisements for such CM classics as “Choosing God’s Best” and “Boy Meets Girl,” stands a lonely column entitled “The Top Five Myths of Christian Dating.” Written by Stephen W. Simpson, PhD, and selected from What Women Wish You Knew About Dating: A Single Guy’s Guide to Romantic Relationships, the column tackles some of the extra-biblical teachings propagated by many within the Courtship Movement.

Though Simpson grants more concessions than necessary, especially when describing past pre-marriage activities as “courtship” without distinguishing between what modern Christians mean by that term (there’s a vast difference), I heartily recommend it as a huge step in the right direction.

Check it out and let me know what you think.

–Edmund

Your Daily Briefing

CBN reports that Obama plans to unveil a program designed to attract young Catholics and Evangelicals called “Joshua Generation.”  Sound familiar anyone?  Homeschoolers have long operated a youth program called Generation Joshua.  Read the HSDLA’s statement here.

German Lutherans will likely elect their first openly, actively homosexual bishop. I praise God for all the Lutherans who, in resistance to forced syncretism, came to America and founded the Missouri Synod.

You should be sure to check out St. Anne’s Pub for interesting theological discussions in an informal atmosphere.  I recommend track number six on the Fatherhood album.

Ann Coulter has some nice things to say about President Bush.

I generally don’t write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America’s greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I’ll consider downgrading Bush from “Great” to “Really Good.”

I love this site correcting common grammar errors.

“You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good…”

Just a quick thought:

With the Californian ban on teaching your children (somtimes referred to as “homeschooling”) settling in and rumors of similar plans in other states beginning to spread across America, I wonder if this is going to have an effect on the career choices of young Christians.

You see, the Californian ban, like bans in the past, stated that only certified teachers can homeschool (Nature forbid children somehow hear something the government hasn’t sanctioned).  Since it is mostly conservative Christians who want to homeschool, this encourages conservatives to enter the education field so they can be certified to teach their children, should this certification ever become necessary.

Whether this translates into more conservative teachers (the barrier to entry has been removed), more conservatives involving themselves in education institutions, or a greater ability for conservatives to connect with and respond to educators remains to be seen, but there is one thing we do know:  Romans 8:28.

Hello friends,

I haven’t had an opportunity to post much recently because of a family medical emergency. I trust you’ll understand. I do have a few odds and ends you might find interesting.

Pyromaniacs is a fun theology blog.

Someone is selling knit models of a frog being dissected: perhaps one of the neatest intersections of the cute and the scientific I’ve seen.

This is why it’s cool to know chemistry, and why the DEA’s restrictions on Class 1 compounds are mostly a joke.

A bunch of college kids figured out how to play the tetris theme by blowing on bottles.

This is one of my favorite videos on the internet. A bunch of folks in Mobile, AL think they found a leprechaun– this is an actual news report.

I recently discovered this radio show, Issues Etc., which discusses all sorts of (what else?) issues facing the church today. I highly recommend it for all sorts of entertaining and informative discussion. One subject I might search the archives for would be pietism. I found their treatment on the subject thoughtful and timely.

I’m working on a significant post addressing a proper Christian understanding of Self-Denial, as described in Matthew 16:24. You can look forward to publication on this within the next couple days. Until then, feel free to look around the (admittedly sparse) archives, and post any comments/questions/ or thoughts that come to mind. I’m always interested to hear what my readers think, even if it’s just a simple note.

Stop by again soon!

God bless,

Edmund

Clinton, Osama Meet

Sorry guys, but this was too rich to pass up.

Welcome to the Democratic Party, ladies and gentlemen.

Faith[less?]/[is?]/[and?] Emotion

I’ve written this as a response to the blog post dated May 27th by a Ms. Emily at:

Yay for gummy bears : Emily’s blog

—————————————–

Dear Emily,

Fair warning: I’ve rambled most immoderately. I feel a bit as though I’ve stumbled upon someone’s favorite reflection-spot while wandering through the Arb. But blogs are a place to write down one’s thoughts, so perhaps you’ll forgive me if I intrude into your private room, to lay down my thoughts beside your own.

Thank you for this post. I have often been concerned about the callous hearts Christians have toward those in pain. Some authors have even turned heartlessness into a virtue, especially for cross-sex friendships. They write of the need to practice “emotional abstinence,” or of how you should “not [be] emotionally available to every guy that comes along.” Others criticize supportive youth groups as a place for “emotional strip-tease” and “emotional fornication.” If a boy is hurt because a relationship ended, they condescendingly suggest that he is suffering from the “broken heart syndrome” or the “teen-romance mentality,” turning an appropriate human response into a mental disorder. If a girl is lonely, then she must not be “content with her singleness,” which, they preach, is a prerequisite for God to grant you a companion. Emotions are viewed as something Christians must “learn to control, and squelch, and suppress”. They are presented as the greatest threat to self-discipline in a manner which, I am tempted to say, seems to replace sin with emotion, and sanctification with stoicism.

And sadly, many of the Christians who are sensitive to the pain of others are themselves at a loss for how to comfort them, because they have emptied their faith of all content in favor of emotional experiences divorced from objective meaning. This in turn reinforces the first error, because, in order to determine which of the (naturally contradictory) feelings constitute the elements of their faith, they must label some feelings as legitimate, and others as illegitimate. They will question others’ faith and their own with the daily change of sentiment. But to feel fear or sorrow is not a mark against your faith. As C.S. Lewis writes in Perelandra, “one can believe in anesthetics and yet feel in a panic when they actually put the mask over your face.”

A few years ago I read Jane Eyre. Though I loved poor Jane, or perhaps because I loved her, I could not bring myself to approve of her romance in any fashion. The dichotomy was established wherein one suitor was an upright, honorable Christian man but entirely unconcerned with romantic love, and the other suitor had no redeeming features whatsoever save his passionate desire for Jane. It struck me that there is a third alternative. It is possible to love, and still to place that love within a rational context. It is possible to feel, and yet to know. If anything, knowledge should grant emotion confidence, and emotion should grant knowledge strength.

C.S. Lewis has put it another way:

For some, “every feeling is justified by the mere fact that it is felt: for [others], every feeling on the same ground is suspect…. We were made to be neither cerebral men nor visceral men, but Men. Not beasts nor angels but Men-things at once rational and animal.”

We live neither in Heaven, nor in Hell, but on Earth. There is Good here, and there is Evil, too. There are always reasons for happiness, and reasons for sadness. Thus, it could be said that no emotions are inappropriate. The real question is whether they are felt within the over-arching context of the Christian faith; it is possible to feel both sorrow and contentment, or both loneliness and hope, as you point out impeccably. Christians who assume that it is wrong for them to feel sad would be wise to consider that Jesus himself cried. Christians who despair should be reminded of the hope we have in Christ.

For this reason, though I agree that we would be fools to make a virtue of emotional stability, I would suggest it is an equal error to make a virtue of emotional instability. Our emotions are our “interpretation of circumstance”; Christians ever have two circumstances before them. One is their immediate reality: that we live in a fallen world. The other is our final reality, which is Christ. Thus Christians do not “grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope,” though we may yet grieve. As Christians we understand that our current circumstance is not final, and this gives us the freedom to guide our actions to serve, glorify, and rejoice in God whether we are cheerful or sad. As Paul has written, “Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold.”

Biblical Christians have a foundation to be both fully emotional and fully rational, both of which flow from the common wellspring of our doctrine. Likewise, Christians most keenly know most the loss of The Fall and most firmly possess Christ’s “hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. ” And so it is in Christianity that the paradoxes of emotion and reason, of joy and sorrow, are united after all. It is on this foundation where the “southern swamps” and “northern mountains” meet to form the “main road.” Let us then go forth, “straying neither to the left nor to the right.”

The protagonist of a musical asks, “Is it ‘a,’ what I know, or ‘b’ what I feel?”

Why not all of the above?

______________________

Update: I found this article from Issues, Etc, which I found to explain a good deal of doctrinal insight into this discussion.

Fighting Words

“A very great part of the mischiefs that vex this world arises from words.”

–Edmund Burke

This quotation aptly describes the Christian singles scene today.  Though serious theological disagreements lie beneath the surface, it often seems the debate between courtship and dating has more to do with the words of our mouth than the intentions of our hearts.

As we begin our first, cautious forays into this war zone, I would like to take a moment to consider the significance of choosing to “court” rather than “date.”  Though these terms are not interchangeable, neither are they antonyms.  In fact, they could be used together to describe different aspects of the same relationship, as in the example below:

Abby is my girlfriend, whom I am courting; sometimes, we go on dates.

Courtship advocates make much of the fact that the term dating was once used to describe prostitution.  But they forget their word, courtship, has no higher of origins.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary, court is the descendant of courtesan, a word used to describe the prostitutes of a royal court.  In addition, it was first used as a verb to describe a process of ritualized adultery in courtly love.  Randle Cotgrave in his 1611 Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues, describes a courter as “a fond woer [sic] of wenches.”  But I belabor the point.

Personally, I would be happy to allow myself the full breadth of the English language to describe such a personal matter as my relationships.  It seems however, that the courtship movement has seized that word for its own to distinguish itself from other Christians, eschewing dating, boyfriend, and girlfriend.  And since the courtship movement has redefined courtship in connection with its own underlying philosophical system, the “daters,” not wanting to imply these beliefs, have consequently abandoned the various forms of the word courtship.

But ironically, most “daters” would only use the term dating to describe the earliest period of their relationship.  Early on, it is this activity that is the most significant aspect of, and therefore defines, the relationship.  After getting to know each other, however, the verb of dating, which refers to the noun of a date, no longer is sufficient, because they now have a genuine relationship with the other person. Therefore, requiring a word to describe this person, she calls him her boyfriend, and he calls her his girlfriend.

Consider, however, the situation in which a “courting” couple is placed.  They lack a noun to describe each other, having only the verb “to court.”  As a result, the literature and thought of the courtship movement is inherently focused on a process, rather than a person.

Romance and love have truly fallen on hard times.  The terms “boyfriend” and “girlfriend,” when used by most, may connote a consequent depravity of conduct.  I sympathize with Christians who wish to abandon our whole sullied language and turn back the clock or start afresh.  But I, for one, refuse to allow the taint of society to change how I describe my girlfriend.  No amount of darkness can ever extinguish light.  We must remember that we have something far stronger then our words to make us pure—we have the light of God’s saving gospel, and we have no purity apart from it.

Hold up your torch, and let it shine.

If Courting Couples Are “Just Friends,” Then Nothing Is Left For Actual Friends

In my experience, when Christians reduce romantic friendships to “just” friendships, their general friendships (at least with the opposite sex) are reduced to mere acquaintances. And even these acquaintances are viewed with suspicion; why shouldn’t they be? What if your new friend becomes too close of a friend? There is a firm bond that exists even in unromantic relationships; if this bond is severed, it will feel as though you have “lost a piece of your heart.” And don’t forget the possibility that a young man who appears to be just friendly, is actually pursuing an “undefined emotional relationship.” A young Christian ought to do whatever he or she must to “flee temptation.”

But why stop there? As courtship author Heather Paulsen writes in Emotional Purity, “Let’s apply the commitment-then-intimacy idea to same-sex friendships, siblings, parents, or teachers. How many of us desire to be intimate with others who are not proven trustworthy or loyal or who have ulterior motives?” Yes, we should never take a risk— we should never reach out in love to another broken human being. All I can say in response to this, is that we are lucky God doesn’t treat us like Ms. Paulsen recommends we treat other people.

In practice, we see that a cry of “just friends” is truly a cry for shyness. And perhaps there is a time and place to be shy in a relationship. But if timidity becomes the overarching principle used to define one’s friendships, one’s purity, and one’s search for a spouse, then romance is not all that is lost. The entire function of the church as a family of believers who “love one another” and “greet each other with a holy kiss,” is consumed by fire. Though we would only have meant to refine our relationships, we have destroyed them instead.

“Lo, how good and how pleasant The dwelling of brethren,” David sung. May it be so for us.

“For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.” –Ephesians 3:14-15

This Blog is Under Construction!

We’ll be finished shortly! Thank you for stopping by; come again soon or subscribe to our RSS feed for new content.

Writing My Thoughts On A Rainy Day

It rained all day today.

The drops clung to my bedroom window, obscuring my view and emphasizing the difference between outside and in. I sat at my desk—a massive work of oak and cherry—wrapped in a flannel sheet and tapping my finger in a pensive staccato against my notebook. My pen served for a bookmark, holding Bill Gothard’s unfortunate tome open to page one hundred and forty-three. The scent of cedar drawers danced with the moisture seeping in from my drafty window, until both hung suspended in the air, as if paused on the second step of their waltz. The patter of rain against my window sealed me in further, and Vivaldi’s Concerto Madrigalesco, for strings & continuo in D minor lit the room like a roasting-fire.

I don’t understand why more people don’t like the rain. Even if you don’t enjoy how it cools your arm as it races down to complete its fall, or how it softens your voice and skin as it softens the earth, then surely you could yet enjoy what it does to the rest of the world. The browns of the earth and tree bark turn dark as sealed wood, and the leaves are verdant with absorbed water. The wind removes the “still” from this still life, leaving just life, and turning the forest into a violent sea.

The sky may obscure our view of the heavens, but only as the rain on my window obscures the view of the forest beyond my yard—it emphasizes and defines, turning our eyes inward toward the beauty we enjoy on our side of the division. In obscuring, then, it clarifies, because it defines the difference. So it is with rain, and so it is with much in life.

I often tease my friends about being home-schooled instead of public-schooled (as I was), but I do this because we can only fully appreciate the specific goodness of homeschooling when we differentiate it from everything else. It is similar with men and women, though I am rarely such a fool as to make fun of them. I believe we only can appreciate masculinity when it is distinguished from femininity, and femininity when it is distinguished from masculinity.

I enjoy the little things women allow men to do for them at Hillsdale—opening doors and pulling up chairs—because they allow us to be better men. This is one of the greatest benefits of a cross-gender friendship; within the rich framework of what is itself a valuable relationship, each gender is free to act fully as it should. Men and women can best be respectively masculine or feminine when in a relationship with each other.

Some authors have written against acknowledging these differences in cross-gender, “just-friends” relationships, saying they were meant only for marriage. John Holtzmann suggests that if you would pull up to the door of a store to drop off a girl before parking on a rainy day, then you also must for men— that if you open doors for women, then you must do so equally for men. Heather Paulsen writes that you must “avoid treating friends of the opposite sex special. Treat them as you would anyone else” and that “[my] sisters and I hope our husbands are starving for female attention.” Even the somewhat-more-reasonable Joshua Harris in his book I Kissed Dating Goodbye, insinuates that friendships with the opposite sex are to be viewed with suspicion– that if you have too many such friendships, it likely “betray[s] [your] true desire for the excitement and comfort romance provides.” Others have made similar claims on progressive, feminist grounds.

But such views fail to recognize that our gender is always a part of who we are, and relegates the differences between men and women to the bedroom. A woman is called to be womanly, and a man is called to be manly, twenty-four hours a day. Everything we do, in every relationship, we do as either a man or a woman. This is the magnificence of what God created in Genesis 2:22.

I pray that we will recognize this magnificence in our life, and love our sisters in Christ as sisters, and our brothers and brothers.

I pray, then, that we will more nearly live up to the calling of living as Men and Women of Christ.

"Nothing that you have not given away will ever be really yours." –C.S. Lewis

“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law” –Romans 13:8

One day a young man stood in the middle of the town proclaiming that he had the most beautiful heart in the whole valley. A large crowd gathered, and they all admired his heart. It seemed perfect, without a single mark or flaw. Indeed, all of the townspeople agreed his heart truly was the most beautiful they had ever seen.

The proud young man continued through the town, boasting loudly about his beautiful heart. An old man hobbled to the front of the crowd and gathered everyone’s attention with a shake of his cane. “Why, your heart is not nearly as beautiful as mine,” he claimed.

Taken aback, the crowd and the young man looked at the old man’s heart. Though it beat strongly, it was covered in scars. There were places where some pieces had been removed and others put in, but they didn’t fit quite right and there were several jagged edges. In some places, deep gouges revealed that whole pieces were missing.

The people stared in disbelief. “How can that old man say his heart is more beautiful?” they thought. The young man looked at the old man’s heart, observed its sorry state, and laughed. “You must be joking,” he said. “Compare your heart with mine. My heart is perfect, while yours is a mess of scars and tears.”

“Yes,” replied the old man, “yours looks perfect, but I would never trade with you. You see, every scar represents a person to whom I have given my love – I tear out a piece of my heart and give it to them, and often they give me a piece of their heart which fits into the empty place in my heart, but the pieces aren’t exact. I have some rough edges, which I cherish, because they remind me of the love we shared. Sometimes I have given pieces of my heart away, and the other person hasn’t returned a piece of his heart to me. These are the empty gouges-to love is to take a chance. Although these wounds are painful, they remain open, reminding me of the love I have for these people too. I hope someday they may return and fill the space I have waiting. So now do you see what true beauty is?”

The young man stood silently with tears running down his cheeks. He walked up to the old man, and reached into his perfect, young, and beautiful heart. Ripping out a piece, he offered it to the old man with trembling hands. The old man took his offering, placed it in his own heart, and then took a piece from his old, scarred heart and placed it in the fresh wound in the young man’s heart.

The piece from the old man fit, but not perfectly, as there were some jagged edges. The young man looked at his heart– not perfect anymore, but more beautiful than ever, because love from the old man’s heart flowed into his. They embraced and walked away side by side.

How sad it must be to go through life with a whole heart.
We wicked people are far too selfish to worry about “giving away” all of our hearts– about loving too much. If we are honest, we will confess the temptation is quite the opposite.

Between carelessness and cowardice there is courage; between recklessness and fear, there is hope.

This courage, this hope, is at it’s root the faith we have in Christ. May its beauty grow ever more visible in our lives.

–Edmund Bertram