David Thinking

Some months ago, Yoplait was running an ad campaign educating women on the calcium contents of yogurt. Did you know that the leading brand of yogurt has only 20% of a woman’s daily recommended amount of yogurt? I didn’t either. But can you imagine having to eat 5 yogurts per day? That would be awful. I don’t know how women can stand to be themselves.

But Yoplait has a solution. See, their yogurt has a whopping 50% of a woman’s daily recommended calcium. (So, doing the math, you only need to eat two per day.)

Now, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. Yogurt is great! Why would a woman (or anyone, really), regardless of her risk of osteoporosis, want to cut back on her yogurt intake? (Have you seen Michael on Burn Notice? I can’t remember anything about that show, but I guarantee you, he won’t be getting osteoporosis any time soon.)

But okay. Yoplait wants to convince women everywhere to buy their yogurt. (It’s better for you!) So they were giving out free yogurts to encourage women to try the yogurt. Just go to the website, fill out the form, yada-yada.

Sweet! I like yogurt! I totally went to the website, all decorated in dramatically girly girlishness, and filled out the form. And today, I got my free yogurt coupon. I’m so excited. Free food tastes even better!

Somewhere out there, though, there is a woman who wanted a coupon, but they ran out just before she filled out the form. She was denied. She’ll never have her chance to taste the goodness that is a free Yoplait yogurt. (She’s been oppressed by the man—me.) I hope she doesn’t break her hip.

If I recall correctly, there was a time my family played Risk together. It was the first time (and the last, as far as I know) Mom had ever played it. She won, too.

She played as best she could, because none of us would have enjoyed winning if we were just given the victory. Winning is always meant to be earned. Otherwise it cannot be enjoyed.

So she played as best she could, and she won, but she felt bad about it. She would have gotten more joy from one of us winning than from winning herself. If it were possible, she would give winning away.

My mom is just the sweetest. I love her.

Contemporary “Christian” models of dating are unable to address the reality of the modern courting environment. Many Christians rightfully bemoan how the current freedom in dating has led to innumerable mistakes and hurts, and that this has led to problems in later relationships and in marriage. Most of the less fundamental-ish Christians haven’t seen this as a deep problem, merely the way things are. Kids have to grow up—they get hurt along the way, and they learn to deal with it. Much of the over-fundamental-ish Christians have viewed this as a problem for solving. What can be done to address this situation so that our children, unlike those of the current age, are not baggage-stricken, scar-riddled, and relationally overwhelmed?

Now, I think that the more correct side so far is the side of the fundamentalists. This is not an acceptable situation. We shouldn’t just “let kids be kids.” If possible, we will want to find a relational framework that, as much as possible, minimizes these problems. But in some sense, I agree with the solution of the less-fundamentalist camp.

I say this because I believe that the fundamentalist solution to this problem is, in some sense, basically dishonest: it pretends that dating is not what it is.

This problem becomes particularly clear to me when I consider a conversation a very long time ago between me and a girl I had just started dating. C (as she will be called) and I were both skeptical of the Joshua Harris model, but we came from circles heavily influenced by it. We were young. We were happy. We needed to write down some dating standards.

[Side note: Congrats to C, who is to be married this very weekend, I believe.]

We both had our thoughts on how this should be done. We each had our ideas for standards. One of the “standards” she thought was in regards to gifts. I was only allowed to give “consumable” gifts. Not consumable in the sense that they could be eaten, but in the sense that they could be used, and used up. I was only supposed to get her pens, pencils, and notebooks, for example. Things that would last—things of sentimental value—were excluded.

The more I think about the implications of this “dating standard,” the more I am convinced that, though well-intentioned, it was an attempt to make dating into something other than what it truly is.

In gift-giving, it is always said (in half-jest) that it’s the thought that counts. The value is not in the thing itself, but in its giving, that it was thought of and prepared, it was searched for with care, all the while, the giver was considering how the other will think of it.

Of course, this is why the gift actually does matter; because it shows whether any thought actually occurred. The thought is what the other does truly value, but it is most tangibly measured by a gift that shows it did received significant thought, time, and affection.

This standard of gift-giving was intended to remove all of the deep value from a gift. In some sense, these sorts of gifts become money saved by the giver, not something of true worth to be treasured by the other. Gifts could only be minimally thoughtful. There were significant handicaps for creativity or expression of any sort of sentiment.

Sure, non-married couples should be limited in the degree and means by which they show affection, but they must feel some affection, or they are in an unhealthy relationship. And if they have some affection, they must show it in some manner, for not to express it is in some sense dishonest; it is a denial of the true nature of the relationship.

Dating couples should have some degree of affection. Otherwise, they shouldn’t be dating. People who have affection, and that rightly, should have some means of expressing it rightly. When people do care, their external actions should line up appropriately and honestly with their internal state.

Now, the reason for this particular gift-giving standard, and the reason for a whole host of dating standards out there today, is definitely well-intentioned. Young (and not-so-young) people tend to emotionally invest beyond the level of commitment. Couples who are not married should be acting and talking (and, for sure) giving as though they are not married. (Otherwise, they are being, in some sense, dishonest about the real nature of their relationship.) These standards are rightfully designed to curtail and limit the emotional engagement that can lead to needless pain, and then bitterness, sinful thinking, and harmful baggage for future relationships.

But I still say that many (though not all) such standards, when codified and rigidly enforced, are inherently dishonest about the nature of the relationship. When people care, they show it. When people care, and they show it, and the relationship doesn’t end in marriage, people will be hurt. That’s just the way it is. If two people are dating, and they break it off, and no one is hurt, then they had no good reason to be dating to begin with.

People get hurt, they get scars, they get baggage. That is the way things are. This happens because things are wrong and people are sinful, but that is, simply, the world we live in. If we construct a dating model that attempts to escape that reality, we’re doing something wrong. If you are in a relationship, and you are not vulnerable to that person, you are not in a relationship.

The Christian life (and by extension that season of life where we seek a husband or wife) is not to be characterized by over-avoidance of scars and hurts; indeed, these are typically the means of our sanctification. Rather, it is characterized by a wisdom that, while avoiding needless pain (we are not dating ascetically), is willingly vulnerable to significant harm and, when such trials are encountered, uses the pain as a means of sanctification. Though not recklessly so, there must be a real vulnerability for a real relationship, a sort of vulnerability that cannot but be hurt if the relationship ends in disappointment.

Baggage is not to be embraced. Much wisdom should be used to ensure that the emotional engagement is no deeper than the level of commitment. But baggage and “failed” relationships are not relational bogey-men. Indeed, for most of us, our failures and hurts will be redeemed magnificently to turn us into someone who can be a better husband or wife than we would be without those painful experiences. And the baggage of our significant other merely becomes another opportunity for us to show them mercy.

The solution, then, is multi-fold:

1. Increased wisdom and counsel (for which I applaud the Joshua Harris model).
2. No denial of the right place for affection and emotion within the relationship (appropriately).
3. A recognition that baggage, though painful, is not a burden, but a platform for sanctification. It is not to drag us down, but to be redeemed by God so that it builds us up into the image of his son. It is not something to be fearfully avoided but joyfully redeemed.

Do I have baggage? Oh, sure. I have to fight battles constantly, battles that I’m sure I wouldn’t have to fight if I didn’t have my past. But I have knowledge and wisdom I wouldn’t have. And what battles I still face only continue to be used by God to make me stronger. I have baggage, probably more than if I followed a Joshua Harris model more closely. But by God’s grace, I will be a better husband for it.

But I look around and see it isn’t so

This is not intended to be an exhaustive or authoritative source for Valentine’s Day music. But I guarantee everyone can find at least one song here that they haven’t heard and that they like. I also guarantee that you can find at least one (probably more) that will cause you to judge me. (“Really? David likes this trash?” “Yes, yes I do. Thank you.”)

When I compiled this list, I had three goals:

• It should touch a wide range of Valentine’s Day related emotions.
• It should have such music that no one who reads this post will have heard everything on it. There will be something new for everyone.
• Everyone should be able to like something on the list.
• It should be a list that distinctively reflects my own musical taste.
• The list should avoid the cliché but not be afraid of the classic. And, hey, I can be cliché if I really want; it’s my list.

I’ve broken the list down into categories: Anti-Valentine’s, Sappy, a Little Less Sappy, When Love Has Passed, and a few that may or may not reflect my current situation.

Anti-Valentines Day

• On My Own (Les Miserables is my favorite novel and one of my favorite musicals.)
• Unbreak My Heart? (Do you like opera? In Spanish? Then this number is for you.)
• How Do You Leave the One You Love (Couldn’t say, Katherine. You’ll have to figure that out on your own.)
• I Only Know How to Love (At least, I think this one is ant-Valentine’s. I haven’t actually listened super-closely to the lyrics. But the four-part operatic harmony with full orchestra synthesizer background is amazing.)
• One Day I’ll Fly Away (Did you know Nicole Kidman can sing? Welp, now you do.)
• Littlest Things (Lily Allen generally has amazing lyrics.)
• Hallelujah (Very anti-Valentine’s Day: a musical consideration of an adulterous relationship. Some emotional musical irony. That version is performed by the Canadian Tenors. Here’s a version by Katherine Jenkins and a version by Il Divo in Spanish.)

Sappy

• Viva Tonight (Perhaps my current favorite female singer. I just love the sound of her voice. Also, she knows how to use a backup choir.)
• Can’t Help Falling in Love (A classic, in a fantastic arrangement. Just wait for the key change.)
• Don’t Let Me Forget (That is some great harmony with some fantastic alto work.)
• Endless Love (I like it when they sing in two different languages. That way, no one person can understand the whole song.)
• Come What May (So you know that Nicole Kidman can sing. But with Ewan McGregor? Yes. One of the best songs on this list. Of course, they all are, or they wouldn’t be on this list, but still.)
• When You Tell Me That You Love Me (Westlife has boyband envy.)
• The Man You Love
• How Wonderful Love is (In case you want to hear Ewan McGregor again.)
• Somewhere out there (Not intended for Valentine’s Day, exactly, but it works pretty well.)
• Your Love (banal lyrics, but the melody is divine.)

A Little Less Sappy

• Who’d Have Known (See, Lily Allen still has amazing lyrics.)
• Birds (Oh, and Kate Nash has amazing lyrics, too. And I hope you don’t mind some language…)

When Love Has Passed

• To Where You Are (A perfect song
• Requiem (Harmony doesn’t get much more heart-rending than that.)

Of course, I have a few songs that I claim as my own this Valentine’s Day. Besides Katy Perry’s Firework and Teenage Dream (No, I’m not kidding), I have to say that this Valentine’s Day, I’m especially digging Titanic Fantasy and If I Had A Million Dollars

It is occasionally fun to look at the times around us an attempt a crude calculation of how long it will be until Jesus returns. Has Iraq finished rebuilding Babylon? Has the U.N. taken yet another step toward becoming a one world government? Is the Euro about to take over as a global currency?

I’ve found technology to be something interesting to think about here. Even one generation ago, it would have been nearly impossible to coordinate and organize a global government. But with technology, that goal is far easier. Technology makes us capable of what we couldn’t do before. Tracking citizens and criminals is possible in a whole new way. Enforcing regulations and coordinating policy implementations across broader regions is now a reality. Real time tracking of crises and and emergency allocation of resources is easier than ever. And it’s being done.

So for years, I viewed the growth of technology and the exponential increase in information generation and aggregation as a harbinger of the end times. Now, it’s easier than ever for the stage to be set for one man to rule the whole world (if you take that view of the AntiChrist and the end times).

But, as has become incredibly clear in Tunisia and now Egypt, technology does not have simply a unifying impulse. Technology makes us capable of new things, but technology is, in itself, aimless. Though technology itself is ordered, it can just as easily be subverted for disorder. Despotism as well as anarchy come from democracy. Big Brother and 4chan’s “Anonymous” both come from technology. Technology makes government possible on a global scale, and it makes it possible for anyone to disrupt any emerging world order.

Which ruins my hobby of trying to calculate when Obama is going to declare himself the AntiChrist. (jk, jk.)

Imagine this scenario with me: someone at the State department leaks top secret information about espionage and diplomacy to the New York Times. Then would the Justice department prosecute the New York Times for publishing the information? I don’t think so. That’s not typically the way the press and the government relate to each other.

What if the official leaked the information to the Drudge Report, and online only publication? Would that be any different? No, it is still considered an institution of the free press.

What about WikiLeaks? How is it different? Did Julian Assange forget to register with the government as a licensed journalist? Oh, wait, we don’t require that. It would be a means of limiting the press.

Why is there so much talk of prosecuting WikiLeaks and no talk of prosecuting the newspapers that have published the material? Would we even be having this discussion if Manning had leaked directly to an established giant of the old media press?

Now, I’m not here arguing whether what WikiLeaks did was ethical or responsible. I don’t know whether it was. I do know that top military officials consider this leak to be significantly less damaging than the previous leak about Afghan intelligence, including Afghani informants. WikiLeaks may well have been indirectly responsible for the deaths of U.S. allies on the ground in Afghanistan. Why was there not as big an uproar then? This was surely unethical and irresponsible.

But I’m not convinced that what WikiLeaks has done is or should be illegal. Manning acted illegally, and he should be punished accordingly. Period. But we’re at best acting hypocritically if we view WikiLeaks as fundamentally different than other organs of the press. And at worse, we’re setting a precedent that will eventually infringe on the freedom of our presses.

Some newspapers report everything. Some specialize in technology. Some papers are regional. And this one specializes in leaks. Does that make it illegal?

I really don’t know. But I don’t think so. I think we’re in a national panic. Settle down, folks. It’s not the end of the world. (I only wish it were.)

I'm a little teapot...

As Bertrand Russel put it, the burden of proof does not rest with the skeptic, but the proponent.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

–Russel’s Teapot – Wikipedia

If we have no reason to believe it is there—if it contributes nothing to our theories and does not give sensible evidence for its own existence—we ought at least to refrain from believing that it exists, or more probably assert its non-existence. (For those who haven’t caught on, the “razor” in the title is an allusion to Occam’s own shaving implement.)

The Benoist XIV, ca 1913.

We have no more reason to believe that the universe makes sense without a God than we have reason to believe that there is a china teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. And, as Bertrand Russel says, we have no good reason to believe that.

Therefore, we must entertain at least as much skepticism of the “scientific” atheism as that atheism entertains of of teapots. Here Christianity takes the position of the skeptic. The burden of proof lies elsewhere.

I just heard a philosophy joke. In context, the philosopher who delivered the joke was being asked what Philosophy is. He said he didn’t have an answer, but he did have a joke that he thought might explain it. So here’s what Philosophy is, explained with impeccable British humor…

A young man is going on a date. He’s very nervous. He asks his father, “What will I talk about tonight, in those little dead spaces when no one has anything to say?”

“Remember the three F’s.” he says. “Food, family, and philosophy. You can always talk about them.”

So he goes on his date. After a while, there is silence. Oh dear, he thinks. What will should I say? Food! So he asks her, “Do you like asparagus?”

“No, not really.”

Well, that didn’t go over so well. What’s next? Family. I’ll ask her about her family. “So do you have any brothers?”

“Well, you know, I don’t actually.”

Hmm, I’m not making good progress here, he thinks. What else is there to talk about? I’ve covered food and family. I guess that leaves philosophy. Oh! I’ve got this!

“Well, if you did have a brother, would he like asparagus?”

I was recently asked a question that I felt was blog-worthy. So I’m introducing a new feature: Q&A With David. It should be pretty self explanatory. I have no idea if I’ll ever get asked another question that I feel is blog-worthy (or that I feel like I can answer helpfully). So this may be a very short-lived feature. We’ll see.

Today, I’ll be responding to Blind Irish Pirate. In reference to Matthew 19:3-12, she said, “I feel that people are taking this verse out of context when they use it to talk about how celibacy is spiritually more pure than marriage,” and asked me to discuss it. BIP, I’m happy to oblige. (By the way, why are you a Blind Irish Pirate?)

I’ll start by unpacking what’s going on in this dialogue to show what the disciples are objecting to. We’ll see that this is not an argument for celibacy so much as it is an incredible misunderstanding of what is good in marriage. (And I’ll use John Piper to back me up.) Just as so many in our day cannot conceive of a happy lifelong commitment, so also the disciples could not see that as an ideal for marriage. Let’s begin by reading the passage.

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

The Pharisees have come to Jesus, asking him whether divorces is acceptable or not. He answers not with his own opinion, but by first quoting scripture to them, and then offering an interpretation of that scripture. He quotes Genesis, and then states the implication: Marriage is a thing made by God. Man should not undo what God has done.

The Pharisees didn’t come to Jesus because they wanted to know the answer. They wanted to trap him. So they came back with another piece of scripture. They quote Deuteronomy 24, asking why Moses would allow for divorce if marriage is a permanent institution made by God.

The next statement is the key for this passage. The following verses are just applications and interpretations of this principle. Marriage (with a few key exceptions) is a life-long commitment any breach of which is a sin.

“Well, then,” say the disciples, “it’s better not to marry!” What are they upset about? They’re protesting the permanence of marriage! It’s inconceivable to them that such permanence is a good thing. It’s odious to them! If that’s what marriage is, they say, then “it is better not to marry!”

Were this an argument for celibacy, we would assume that the disciples remained celibate. We know this isn’t the case from I Cor 9:5. (Hey, Catholics, your first pope wasn’t celibate. It’s in the Bible.) I don’t think that’s what’s going on here at all. What we have is a knee jerk reaction to an idea of marriage. From the disciples perspective, from their culture, a committed marriage looked awful and unhappy. It would be better not to marry than to have that!

John Piper begins his book This Momentary Marriage with a comment on this passage. (Free PDF available here. Sermon series it was based on here, messages a bit out of order.) Here is an extended quote from the beginning of the first chapter:

There never has been a generation whose general view of marriage is high enough. The chasm between the biblical vision of mar- riage and the common human vision is now, and has always been, gargantuan. Some cultures in history respect the importance and the permanence of marriage more than others. Some, like our own, have such low, casual, take-it-or-leave-it attitudes toward marriage as to make the biblical vision seem ludicrous to most people.
…
That was the case in Jesus’ day as well. But ours is worse. When Jesus gave a glimpse of the magnificent view of marriage that God willed for his people, the disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt. 19:10). In other words, Christ’s vision of the meaning of marriage was so enormously different from the disciples’, they could not even imagine it to be a good thing. That such a vision could be good news was simply outside their categories.

If that was the case then—in the sober, Jewish world in which they lived—how much more will the magnificence of marriage in the mind of God seem unintelligible in a modern Western culture, where the main idol is self; and its main doctrine is autonomy; and its central act of worship is being entertained; and its three main shrines are the television, the Internet, and the cinema; and its most sacred genuflection is the uninhibited act of sexual intercourse. Such a culture will find the glory of marriage in the mind of Jesus virtually incomprehensible. Jesus would probably say to us today, when he had finished opening the mystery for us, the same thing he said in his own day: “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given… Let the one who is able to receive this receive it” (Matt. 19:11–12).

Whether you agree with Piper’s exegesis, he is implying that what is difficult to accept is not the statements about celibacy (although that has its own difficulties, to be sure), but the permanence of the marriage and even the goodness of that permanence. That’s what they had trouble accepting.

Of course, there are those who, for the several reasons given in the text, will be celibate. This is a good thing. There’s no need to qualify that statement: celibacy is a good thing with many benefits. But marriage is also a good thing. To say that celibacy and marriage are both good things is not a contradiction. (That’s a very important statement, can I say it again? “To say that celibacy and marriage are both good things is NOT A CONTRADICTION!” Thank you.)

This isn’t fundamentally a passage about celibacy. It’s a passage about marriage. It necessarily deals with the opposite state, but it’s about what marriage is supposed to be. It is instituted by God. The preacher doesn’t in himself make a marriage. The ceremony in itself doesn’t make a marriage. The state license in itself doesn’t make a marriage. God makes it. Let not man undo what God has done.

In our culture, as in theirs, this was a hard saying. Not everyone can receive it. “Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

It’s 6:30pm, and I’m at home. Whenever I’m home at 6:30, I like to watch the news. After all, I am a grown man. So, as I write this, I’m watching (with interest) on election night as I get the latest updates. Where I currently live (but not where I’m registered and reside “permanently”) there’s a particularly interesting campaign with Rand Paul. I’m also interested in what will happen to Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid.

But one thing that the news isn’t reporting is what the current polls say about us, the voting public. And I find this to be very telling. Here’s what I think we can learn from the 2010 campaign, especially when we combine our knowledge of what happened in the 2008 campaign.

We are fickle and angry. We are not politically educated, but we do know who is in office when we need someone to be angry at. We understand rhetoric but not policy. Our morals are written on our paycheck. Our votes our bought, not by big boogie-man lobbying groups, but by politicians who promise that they will deliver the economy into our wallet. We are a giant unhappy mob.

Personally, I admire more those who will have voted consistently between the last two elections. The problems haven’t changed. The solutions haven’t changed. Why are so many votes changing? Either everyone was deceived, or everyone is deceived. Either way, I find our current electorate to be almost as troubling as the current political situation.