It’s the most frequent practical question I hear in college/singles ministry.  It has the ability to tie people in knots like no other.

I’ve said this before, but the most helpful resource I’m aware of on sorting through these conundrums is Kevin DeYoung’s Just Do Something.  DeYoung walks through the maze and helps the reader discern what kinds of questions to ask and when you’re verging on the unhelpful extremes of spiritual subjectivism.

Here is a very short interview with Kevin DeYoung on the issue of finding the right spouse.

In this brief post, Ed Welch talks about how to come alongside people who are going through trials.  He makes very helpful comments about the difference between questions that are “orthodox” and questions that are “orthodox and pastoral/edifying“.  Taking Welch’s wisdom to heart could go a long way in bringing support and encouragement to our friends who are going through hard times.

Another gem from Justin Taylor’s blog.  How often I find myself lacking words for how grateful I am to God for David Powlison.  He is a man who has suffered and has dedicated his life to helping others in suffering.

From Thabiti Anyabwile’s post entitled, ‘What It Means to Me’:

That little sentence has been the death of many well-meaning attempts to understand the Bible.  “What it means to me” ruins our understanding because it decapitates the intent of the original author.  What matters first and primarily is “what did it mean to John or Paul or Luke or whoever wrote Hebrews.”  What did the author intend to communicate.  That’s first base in biblical interpretation and its the guard rail that keeps us from driving off into the wilderness of subjectivity and a million swamps of private interpretation.

And, ultimately, we’re concerned to know what the Author–God Himself–intends to communicate with us.  If we’re hasty to rewrite the Bible with our own thoughts, we’ll ultimately write God right out of it.  A premature “what it means to me” takes the pen out of God’s hand and dips it in the ink of our puny intellectual, emotional, social, psychological and usually idolatrous wells.

Read the whole post.

Stephen Altrogge loves Jesus, the gospel, the local church, preaching, writing helpful books (actually, for the time being, book), and writing great songs that serve churches all over the place.  He also has serious comedic gifting.  Most of the time he’s just shooting from the hip making people laugh with his random facebook status updates.

Here Stephen imagines what it would be like to be pastored by Jack Bauer.

About this time last year the PAMIC (People Against Massage In Church) became more or less formalized as blogger, Prodigal Jon, wrote a manifesto summoning fellow non-massagers to unite.  The four main articles go as follows:

1. The difference between a pat and a massage.
We recognize and respect the need to pat someone on the back. Sometimes, it’s good to say “Hi” or “Good job” or “Your chair is currently resting on my big toe” with a small tap on the back. We support that. But when you pat more than four times and then linger, you have now crossed into massage territory my friend. And you’re about to find yourself on the other end of a “PAMIC Attack.”

2. Circles are great for cheerios, not church.
We recognize and respect the need to lay a hand on someone as you say hello or want to show your spouse support during a prayer. But when you start rubbing in a circle, a square or any other geometrical shape, you are now giving a massage. That’s not a big deal right? Wrong. Your rotating hand is creating what we call a “circle of distraction.” People around you will not be able to focus on the sermon as they instead become hypnotized by watching you. God hates that. It’s in Numbers or Exodus I think.

3. There are consequences if you try to massage us.
The members of PAMIC are attractive and funny and Godly and often smell very nice. Please don’t get confused by those four things and think it’s OK to ever give us a back or neck rub during church. If you do, we can’t be held responsible if you suddenly find yourself in some sort of karate arm bar lock, a sleeper hold or at the bottom of a wicked leg drop.

4. Don’t confuse not loving in church massages with not loving life, Jesus, our spouses etc.
You will assume, based on our plans to rid all churches, in all countries of “during church massages,” that we are not loving people. That perhaps you are rubbing someone’s neck as an act of worship or praise or affection. And that members of PAMIC are not into any of those things. That is adorable. It’s possible we held hands with our spouses as we walked into church. We might give back rubs at home. We could be amazing “snugglers” but when it comes to touching folks at church, we follow the Bible. And there’s not a single example of someone in the Bible giving someone else a neck or back rub while Jesus taught. I dare you to find me a verse that show someone massaging someone else while they listened to the Sermon on the Mount for instance.

Carolyn McCulley adds her voice along with a word at the end to make sure people don’t freak out and get serious/ugly about the issue.

That’s the name of a message I heard years ago from friend and mentor, Bob Kauflin.  As a worship leader in my local church I get comments rather regularly like “that song really makes me worship” or “now that was worship” (at the end of a particularly energetic time of corporate singing) or “if you want to really wake people up, you should do this song”.  Bob has challenged my thinking in these areas over the years and has helped me think more biblically about the Sunday meeting – how the ancient practice of singing praise to God connects to the larger picture of God’s purposes in the corporate gathering.

In this post, you enter a conversation that is already in progress.  Bob is responding to Pastor Greg Gilbert’s thoughts on the pitfalls of over-emphasizing music in our thinking about gathered worship.  Follow the links that Bob includes.  The entire conversation will prove stirring and, I believe, beneficial.

Yes, CJ wants the Saints to win, expressly because he loves our local church.  This brings him into the happy, expansive family that many are calling The Who Dat Nation.  But alas he must  “belong before he can believe”, for he is a Who Dat Nation ‘member’ with ailing faith, a weaker brother.  I hope he comes all the way by the close of the big game on Sunday night.

I seriously doubt he will wear a dress if he is proven wrong.  But perhaps he’ll come back to preach in 2010 and receive a signed Jersey or something.  Meanwhile, let us pray for our dear brother.

Alex Chediak’s article over at The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) needs no introduction.  Very insightful.

In the latest issue of World magazine, Megan Basham reviews romantic comedy He’s Just Not That Into You (rated PG-13 for sexual content and some strong language).  I’ve not seen it, but I am not surprised to learn that the film is nothing other than the latest variation on the same, worn theme of aggressive, independent women chasing men into their late 20s and early 30s, hoping against hope that they will somehow earn the unwavering love, commitment and respect for which they so deeply (and painfully) long.  They are mainly unsuccessful, as the film’s title suggests, as these men are “just not that into them.”  Basham explains:

“Behind the laughs, and, indeed, the film’s popularity, is an unspoken question: What left women in such a precarious position? Why do we so rarely see romantic comedies that show men pursuing women anymore, as opposed to merely ‘realizing’ they’re in love two-thirds of the way through the film?”

What’s changed, Basham goes on to insightfully explain, is that women are now “liberated from the social norm of saving sex for marriage” which means that men are free to approach their pursuit of women as a quest for physical and relational intimacy apart from any long-term, binding commitment.  They can enjoy sexual intimacy without being “stuck” with a particular woman, so they in turn grow more “stuck” in passivity, unwilling to exert sacrificial energy for their woman, unable to savor the joy that only a lifelong, binding, monogamous relationship can cultivate.

Moreover, given the abundance of women willing to play by these rules, many men feel justified in scornfully regarding a woman for even wanting marriage and family.  In the film, the character Beth (Jennifer Aniston) is afraid to bring up marriage with her seven-year, live-in boyfriend because she doesn’t want to seem “clingy or psycho.”

The 80% female audience ought to be left with the inescapable conclusion: trading hearts and bodies for the temporary affection of men is a losing proposition. On the other hand, the confident, steadfast reservation of sex for marriage results in a woman attracting the right kind of man – a man who will lay down his life to earn her respect and win her love.  Sadly, the movie’s ending suggests that the four love-hungry protagonists can have their cake and eat it too.  Only in the movies, folks.

“Be careful what books you read, for as water tastes of the soil it runs through, so does the soul taste of the authors that a man reads.”  -John Trapp