Just In Time for Mother's Day

First published May 15, 2009 in The Daily Sentinel.



Last week, an article about motherhood caught my attention. Maybe it’s because we just finished celebrating Mother’s Day last Sunday, maybe it’s because the article indicates that American society has radically changed its expectations of motherhood and fatherhood.

In figures released by the US National Center for Health Statistics, four of every 10 babies born in 2007 were born to single women. In babies born to moms between ages 20 and 24, the number of babies born out of wedlock increased to 6 of every 10. Sixty percent of babies born to a mom in her early 20s – more than half – are going home to households without the traditional dual-parents-united-in-marriage structure.

The article’s sociologists (and perhaps the writer of the article itself) seemed to be gushing over the finding. Here’s how the story concludes:

Some experts said the trend represents positive changes for some women – women are less likely to be shunned if they have children by themselves or to be forced to give their children up for adoption.

“We’ve seen a transformation of social norms," said Rosanna Hertz, a professor of sociology at Wellesley College. "Women can have children on their own and it’s not going to destroy your employment and it’s not going to mean that you’ll be made a pariah by the community.”

Until recently (say the last 30 years or so), the concept of the two-parent household – a mother and father married to one another with children born from that marriage – was commonly recognized as the best context in which children could be raised. Unfortunately, that best context was sometimes the façade behind which much ugliness was contained. Spousal abuse, incest, alcoholism and drug addiction were all kept out of view behind the two-parent family pretext of perfection.

As our society grew increasingly suspicious of institutionalism in all its forms (remember the saying, “never trust anyone over 40”?), the institution of marriage also began to falter. Divorce rates skyrocketed, and so by the late 1970s, a majority of children in America grow up in a home in which at least one parental figure was NOT the child’s natural parent.

With so many homes made up of divorced adults remarrying other divorced adults, our vocabulary changed. No longer called “broken” homes, such households became “blended families.” Today’s 20 and 30-year olds are the product of that change. Often miserable in their blended families, those kids vowed that they would not repeat their parent’s (and step-parent’s) mistakes. If marriage is so miserable, their logic goes, then let’s throw away marriage completely and just live together.

And so we are now in an era when parenting and marriage are no longer linked together. I know that there are many people – probably including that professor from Wellesley College – who consider this a good thing. Don’t count me as one of them. I think this is a very sad development in our society, and time will only tell what the results of it are in the long term.

Yes, the 1950ish ideal portrayed by “Leave it to Beaver” and “Ozzie and Harriet” are probably nostalgic wishful-thinking of a time that never really existed, but I am still convinced that the best context for child-rearing is a home in which a man and woman make a lifelong commitment to one another, and they bring children into the world from that commitment.

Other studies, which often don’t receive much publicity, have shown that the traditional marriage continues to be the most conducive environment for successfully raising children. For example, the majority of children whose parents do not get or stay married experience at least one year (often more) of poverty. Boys whose parents divorced or never married, are two to three times more likely to end up in jail as adults. Finally, children whose parents get and stay married are healthier and much less likely to suffer mental illness, including depression and teen suicide.

As a Christian, I see marriage as something more than just the best context for raising kids. I also see it as a reflection of God’s desire for us to be in a specific type of relationship with one another. In a way that I cannot adequately explain, marriage is God’s idea; and it somehow reflects the relationship between God and us. Several times in the Gospels, Jesus makes an analogy between God’s kingdom and the bride and groom. Jesus is the groom, and those who follow him are his bride. In the book of Revelation, the church is described as the bride of Christ, “beautifully adorned” in Rev. 21:2.

Genesis 2 is seen as the theological foundation for marriage when God announces, “It is not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper for him. (Gen 2:18) And so God created woman out of the man, and “for this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24).

My older daughter will turn 20 later this year. I pray that she does not join the statistical majority and choose to have a baby without first laying the foundation of Biblically oriented marriage. I want the best for her – God’s absolute best – and not what our society seems to have settled on as adequate or easier. If we want God’s absolute best, we must cooperate with God to make it happen. It takes work: dedication, commitment, patience, and especially forgiveness.

And the good news is this: even when we blow it, God can take our mistakes and turn them into a new best. So even if you ARE one of the six in ten, God won’t shun you. And neither will I. But carefully, prayerfully, consider what is best for you and your child for the long term. And if you are not already a parent, please carefully, prayerfully, consider your actions and attitudes before they lead you to parenthood.

Every home – even the traditional mother-father-married-for-life one – is a broken home. But God is here to fix them. Will you let Him fix yours?

Disappearing Brands, Labels, and More

First published May 7, 2009 in The Daily Sentinel.




The US automotive industry is in turmoil. Chrysler is in bankruptcy and preparing to be at least partially merged with Italy’s Fiat. And GM has announced the elimination of Pontiac as an icon of American performance automobiles. The latter development has caught my attention.

As soon as 2010, Pontiacs will no longer be produced. For me, a car-oriented male, this is tragic! As a high schooler, I used to drool over the Pontiac Firebirds and Trans Ams at the Pontiac dealership. They were as untouchable for me as the far more exotic and expensive Porsches and Lamborghinis, but not for others. Several guys in my school drove them, and they were the envy of the rest of us. We knew guys who drove those cars somehow were way cooler than the rest of us.

But Pontiac is simply the latest major brand to fall in the storied history of American automobiles. After 107 years, Oldsmobile died in 2004; Plymouth went away in 2001. Older names have also disappeared. DeSoto was a Chrysler brand from 1929 through 1961. Packard and Studebaker were other once popular car brands that died in the late 1950s and 60s.

So this isn’t the first time the American automobile industry has gone through significant change, but it may be the most dramatic. Here are some of the numbers for GM:
• Hourly employees: 1991 = 304,000; 2008 = 63,700; by 2011 = 38,000
• Salaried employees: 1991 = 91,000; 2008 = 29,000; by 2011 = 15,000 or less
• Dealers: 2000 = 8,138, 2008 = 6,450; by 2011 = 3,605

In just 20 years, GM will shrink by more than half (sometimes by much more) in every measurement. Compared to how GM once dominated the American industrial scene across all sectors – not just in automobiles – this is even more remarkable. The old saying of “what’s good for GM is good for America” may not necessarily be so anymore.

As much as we may bemoan the downfall of the traditional American automobile manufacturing base, it is not the only area where significant downsizing has occurred. America’s religious landscape has also changed tremendously since the 1950s. Just looking at one denomination – which happens to be my own – the United Methodist Church has declined even more than GM.

The American Methodist Episcopal Church was formed in 1784 following the withdrawal of the Anglican Church from America in the aftermath of the American Revolution. By the close of the 19th century, nearly half the population of the United States was associated with a church in the Methodist tradition. In the 20th century, however, Methodism began to wane. By the time of the merger of the Evangelical United Brethren Church and the Methodist Church in 1968, there were 11 million members in the USA. In 2007, the latest year with figures, the US membership had declined to 7.9 million, while global membership was just over 12 million.

What this means is that the Methodist movement is losing ground in America even more than GM, Chrysler or Ford. One researcher made the comment that the US Methodist movement would soon revert to its 1825 size, and perhaps diminish to the small numbers that launched the movement in 1784.

But the United Methodist Church isn’t the only church with shrinkage problems. All mainline Christian denominations – Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, etc. – are diminishing populations. Even the Southern Baptist Church reversed its trend of growth in the past decade. Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church is growing only in areas where Hispanic migration has increased. Non-Hispanic Catholics are declining as rapidly as the Protestant churches’ populations.

A recent report from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows that 44% of the adult US population has abandoned the faith in which they were raised. Nearly half of us are no longer in the church we went to as children. Some have switched churches, but even more have become completely unaffiliated with ANY church or faith group.

I conclude from all of this that Christianity is as much danger of collapse as the American car industry! People aren’t loyal to brands of cars, and they seem to have less loyalty to brands of faith. So the question, then, becomes this: what should we do about it?

People in favor of strict secularism would say, “Do nothing! This is what’s supposed to happen.” Europe is already a secular society – except where significant immigration of Muslims have occurred in parts of France, Germany, and England. Conflicts between Muslim law (known as Sharia) and secular governmental law are increasing.

But as a Christian, I think this is a terrible trend - and we Christians MUST do something about it! But what we do is almost less important than HOW we do it. I am as turned off by radical, guilt-driven, pushy evangelism tactics as anyone else. We may think we can guilt people into belief, or that we can (literally speaking) scare the hell out of them, but those are not effective motivations for true Christian transformation. People can be scared into short-term change. Take the flurry of masking by folks scared of swine flu, for example. But long-term change cannot be driven by fear or guilt.

Pontiac is dying because GM failed to maintain its brand image. They lost their core reason to exist. I think Christianity in American is doing the same thing. We’ve allowed ourselves to become characterized as either liberal “anything goes” or conservative “look just like us” people. On one side, we’ve gotten lost in “love” that has become syrupy sweet and non-nutritious. On the other side, we’ve gotten lost in separatism and insistence on “righteous behavior” before even getting to the One who can bring us righteousness.

But is it too late for Christianity to recover? Are we doomed to join Pontiac, Studebaker, and Oldsmobile in the dustbins of history? I don’t think so. We are in the midst of the Easter season, and Easter is all about Resurrection! Maybe we need to get this close to death as a faith group in America in order for God to give us really new life! This time not based on cultural expectations but on relevant, radical and reliable faith in Jesus Christ!

Believing is Seeing

Ai-yai-yai! Has it really been a month since I posted!

Here's the latest article from The Daily Sentinel. Maybe at some point I will post the "back issues."



First published in The Daily Sentinel on Friday, April 24, 2009



In The Santa Clause, the first movie with Tim Allen as Santa, there’s a scene in which Tim’s character – Scott Calvin – cannot believe what he’s seeing in Toyland at the North Pole. Judy, the wise elf, tells him, “Seeing isn’t believing; believing is seeing.”

While I don’t want to get into a debate about the reality of Toyland at the North Pole, I think Judy makes a very profound statement – especially as we consider the implications of Jesus’ resurrection during this season of Easter. There is a lot of debate regarding the historical accuracy and validity of Jesus’ resurrection. As I wrote last week, historian Bart Ehrman doesn’t believe that the resurrection can be taken as an actual historical event. He claims that the question of Jesus’ resurrection is not an historical question but rather a theological one.

Personally, I think it is both. But the emphasis is rightly on the theological answer. Believing is seeing. If I believe in the resurrection, then I can see the resurrection. If I do not believe it, then I cannot see it.

That seemed to be the case with the disciples of Jesus, too. They were seeing, but not sure how to believe what they were seeing. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus came to the disciples and went out of his way to prove they were seeing a real person – in the flesh – and not some kind of apparition or ghost.

“Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.’

“When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, ‘Do you have anything here to eat?’ They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.

“He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.’” (Luke 24:36-48)

The scars on Jesus’ hands and feet weren’t enough to convince the disciples that He was real. So he asked for something to eat. He got a very ordinary food from them – broiled fish. And he ate it! Ghosts, even if they are real, don’t eat – they don’t have stomachs. But Jesus did.

Once they believed, they were ready to see. And so Jesus opened their eyes and their minds to understand all the prophecies regarding him from the Hebrew Scriptures. And he finished with “you are witnesses of these things.” In other words, now their believing has given them the ability to truly see the truth of Jesus.

Two thousand or so years later, we are less convinced. Even those who claim the name Christian aren’t quite sure what to do with Jesus – especially a resurrected, physically real Jesus. It’s easier to keep Jesus on the cross than out of the grave. It’s easier to relate to a baby in a manger than to the one whose “name is above every name.” We want a Jesus that we can keep at a safe distance, not one who can penetrate walls and locked doors, move instantly from place to place, and who visibly demonstrates God’s power over all creation – even death.

C.S. Lewis captured this idea in his fantasy series set in the land of Narnia. The first book published (and first film released in 2005) was called The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The “Lion” od the title is Aslan, and he is the Narnian Jesus. We first learn about Aslan with Mr. and Mrs. Beaver describing him to Lucy, Edmund, Susan and Peter:

“Is—is he a man?” asked Lucy.

“Aslan a man!” said Mr. Beaver sternly. “Certainly not. I tell you he is the King of the wood and son of the great Emperor-beyond-the-Sea. Don’t you know who is the King of the Beasts? Aslan is a lion—THE Lion, the great Lion.”

“Ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man. Is he—quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous meeting a lion.”

“That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver. “If there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”

“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.

“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver. “Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”

Throughout the Narnian tales, Aslan is never a tame lion – he is never “safe.” And neither is Jesus, despite our best efforts to make him so. When we come face-to-face with the truth of a resurrected Jesus, we realize that we, too, have our knees knocking.

What will Jesus ask me to do? What will Jesus ask me to change in my life? What can I risk in order to follow Him? Answering these questions honestly is very dangerous. And so we often don’t answer them without first taming them down. We rationalize away our worst fears and Jesus’ strongest demands. We see Jesus as we want to see him rather than see him as he is.

As Lewis writes, “People who have not been in Narnia sometimes think that a think cannot be good and terrible at the same time. If the children ever thought so, they were cured of it now. For when they tried to look at Aslan’s face, they just caught a glimpse of the golden mane and the great, royal, solemn, overwhelming eyes; and they found they couldn’t look at him and went all trembly. At last Peter realized that it was up to him. He drew his sword and raised it to the salute. He advanced to the Lion and said: ‘We have come—Aslan.’

I ask you to risk something this Easter season. Do what Peter did. Be willing to give yourself fully to the Resurrected Jesus and discover how dangerous—and Good—he is. Believing really IS seeing!