Posts tagged ‘New York Times’
When Marriage Isn’t What You Expect
From the pages of the New York Times comes this startling statistic:
A half-century ago, only 2.8 percent of Americans older than 50 were divorced. By 2000, 11.8 percent were. In 2011, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, 15.4 percent were divorced and another 2.1 percent were separated. Some 13.5 percent were widowed.[1]
It turns out that for the first time in American history, more people over 50 are divorced than widowed. Sam Roberts, the deliverer of this sobering statistic, puts the situation curtly: “So much for ‘till death do us part.’”
Unsurprisingly, the reasons more and more couples are divorcing after they pass into their golden years are manifold and varied, but Stephanie Coontz’s analysis in this article of one of the reasons for the increasing divorce rate is especially insightful:
It’s still true that in general the longer you are married, the lower your chance of divorce, but it’s sure no guarantee anymore … Staying together until death do us part is a bigger challenge than it used to be because we expect so much more of marriage than we did in the past, and we have so many more options when a marriage doesn’t live up to those expectations.
Coontz’s analysis is sadly brilliant because it not only identifies a reason for marital breakdown – that people’s expectations from marriage are not being met – it also offers insight into what many believe about marital makeup. People increasingly view marriage as a commodity to be consumed rather than a commitment to be kept. This is why if the commodity of marriage does not live up to whatever arbitrary standards a particular spouse sets for the relationship, that spouse is willing to search elsewhere for a commodity that better meets their expectations.
Certainly there are – and should be – expectations for marriage. The Bible itself lays out certain expectations, including faithfulness (cf. Matthew 19:4-9) and gentleness (cf. Colossians 3:19). But a crassly consumer oriented view of marriage rooted in arbitrarily prescribed criteria is destined for failure. One person cannot meet the wants – or, for that matter, even the needs – of another person all the time. It is for these times, when disappointment with your spouse sets in, that commitment is needed. It is for these times that God’s wisdom on marriage is necessary: “A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Marriage means holding fast to your spouse in spite of disappointments, frustrations, and hurts along the way. This is what makes a marriage work. This is what makes a marriage last.
Your spouse will not always meet all your wants and needs. But your spouse can be devoted to you in love – even when you’re not all that fulfilling to be around. And you can be devoted to your spouse in love – even when they’re not all that fulfilling to be around. And such devotion can, in and of itself, be fulfilling.
[1] Sam Roberts, “Divorce After 50 Grows More Common,” New York Times (9.20.2013).
Love That Lasts Past One Night
Over the past few weeks, the New York Times has published a couple of articles of special interest to Christians. The first is by Kate Taylor and chronicles the seedy underbelly of the college hook up culture. The picture she paints is dark and disturbing:
At 11 on a weeknight earlier this year, her work finished, a slim, pretty junior at the University of Pennsylvania did what she often does when she has a little free time. She texted her regular hookup — the guy she is sleeping with but not dating. What was he up to? He texted back: Come over. So she did. They watched a little TV, had sex and went to sleep.
Nationwide, nearly 3 in 10 seniors say they have never hooked up in college.[1]
Take a moment to ponder the significance of this statistic. It’s not that three in ten college seniors have hooked up, it’s that three in ten college senior have not hooked up. This means by the time a college graduate walks across the stage to receive a diploma, there’s a 70% chance he or she has engaged in casual, illicit sexual activity. This is nothing less than ghastly.
Now, contrast this with a New York Times article by Ross Douthat on college campuses as one of the last non-virtual bastions at which to meet a lifelong mate. He begins his column by citing a 2012 study:
From about 1960 to 1990 … neighborhood and church had a roughly steady influence over how heterosexual couples met, with about 10% of heterosexual couples meeting as neighbors and about 7% meeting in or through houses of worship. After 2000, neighborhood and church went in to steep decline along with most of the other traditional ways of meeting romantic partners.[2]
It seems the dating strongholds that have traditionally set people on the path to marriage are in steep decline. This trend does not hold true, however, for college campuses: “College has also dipped since 2000 as a place to meet, but only modestly,” Douthat notes. What, then, is the upshot of these statistics? Douthat concludes:
It seems fair to assume that there are still a lot of people who would prefer to meet their future spouse the old fashioned way — through initial flesh-and-blood encounters embedded in a larger pre-existing social network. If that’s your preference, the university campus is one of the few flesh-and-blood arenas that seems to be holding its own as a place to form lasting attachments. So for those Americans who do attend college, the case for taking advantage of its denser-than-average social landscape might actually get stronger as the non-virtual alternatives decline.
So there you have it. On the one hand, college campuses can be hotbeds of squalid sexual hookups – places where people make out at night and walk out the next morning. On the other hand, college campuses remain ideal environments for meeting, dating, and, eventually, marrying.
The apostle Paul issues a sobering warning about the effects of sexual immorality, saying that God gives over people “in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another” (Romans 3:24). When reading such a warning, I can’t help but think of an especially telling story from Kate Taylor’s article:
For many Penn students, their initiation into the sexual culture takes place at fraternity parties during New Student Orientation, a five-day period before classes start in the fall, which, along with Spring Fling in April, is known as the biggest partying time of the year.
“You go in, and they take you down to a dark basement,” Haley, a blond, pink-cheeked senior, recalled of her first frat parties in freshman year. “There’s girls dancing in the middle, and there’s guys lurking on the sides and then coming and basically pressing … up against you and trying to dance.”
Dancing like that felt good but dirty, and like a number of girls, Haley said she had to be drunk in order to enjoy it. Women said universally that hookups could not exist without alcohol, because they were for the most part too uncomfortable to pair off with men they did not know well without being drunk.
The first line of the last paragraph haunts me: “Dancing like that felt good but dirty.” Another word for “dirty,” of course, is “degrading,” the very thing which Paul says is the result of sexual immorality.
So often we read Paul’s words in Romans 1 as a condemnation of those whose sexual ethics differ from those of Christianity. But Paul’s words are much more than a condemnation. They are a sad statement of reality. And even the New York Times knows it. Sexual immorality is dirty. Sexual immorality is degrading. Perhaps C.S. Lewis puts it best when he writes specifically of females trapped in sexually promiscuous lifestyles: “I have no sympathy with moralists who frown at the increasing crudity of female provocativeness. These signs of desperate competition fill me with pity.”[3] Like Lewis, may we pity those who are so desperate, they willingly degrade themselves sexually. Such degradation is truly heartbreaking.
The choice is clear. At college, a student can either degrade him or herself in sexual recklessness, or take advantage of a university’s social landscape to form friendships and, by God’s grace, a lifelong marriage relationship.
My prayer is that more and more people would choose chastity – not only because it gives glory to God, but because it really is better for His creations. It really is better for you. You don’t need to degrade yourself. For you have One who was degraded for you on a cross.
[1] Kate Taylor, “Sex on Campus: She Can Play That Game, Too,” New York Times (7.12.2013).
[2] Ross Douthat, “The Dating World of Tomorrow,” New York Times (7.19.2013).
[3] C.S. Lewis, C.S. Lewis: Readings for Meditation and Reflection, Walter Hooper, ed. (New York: Harper Collins, 1992), 88
Oh, Those Good Ole Days
Recently, the New York Times featured a sanguine article on the value of nostalgia. In a culture that tends to obsess over the “next big thing,” it turns out that “old small things” are worth remembering and celebrating. Journalist John Tierney explains:
Nostalgia has been shown to counteract loneliness, boredom and anxiety. It makes people more generous to strangers and more tolerant of outsiders. Couples feel closer and look happier when they’re sharing nostalgic memories. On cold days, or in cold rooms, people use nostalgia to literally feel warmer.[1]
Of course, nostalgia has not always been so appreciated:
Nostalgia was originally described as a “neurological disease of essentially demonic cause” by Johannes Hoffer, the Swiss doctor who coined the term in 1688. Military physicians speculated that its prevalence among Swiss mercenaries abroad was due to earlier damage to the soldiers’ ear drums and brain cells by the unremitting clanging of cowbells in the Alps.
Even now, many psychologists mistake a case of nostalgia – often brought on by a major life transition when people understandably pine for parts of their past – for depression.
Nostalgia, though often underappreciated in our world, held primacy of place in the lives of the ancient Israelites. In fact, one of the most common commands of the Old Testament is to be nostalgic – to remember:
- Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. (Deuteronomy 5:15)
- Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the wilderness these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. (Deuteronomy 8:2)
- Remember the wonders [the LORD] has done, His miracles, and the judgments He pronounced. (Psalm 105:5)
Over and over again, the LORD asks His people to remember what He has done for them. Why?
For the ancient Israelites, remembering was more than taking a nostalgic trip from the present to the past; remembering actually made the past into the present. Indeed, whenever the Jews celebrated the Passover, they recited the Haggadah, a Hebrew word meaning “telling.” The Haggadah recounted the mighty acts of the Lord the night He brought them out of their harsh slavery in Egypt. A key line in the Haggadah read:
In every generation, a person is obligated to regard himself as if he had left Egypt. It was not only our ancestors whom the Holy One, blessed be He, redeemed from Egypt; rather, He redeemed us, as it is stated: “He brought us out from there, so that He might bring us to the land He promised our fathers, and give it to us.”[2]
The Jews believed that when they remembered what God had done, they not only recalled God’s acts in the past, they became the beneficiaries of those acts in the present. One cannot help but think of the Haggadah that Jesus gave His disciples, also on a Passover night, when He said, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19). When we partake of the Lord’s Supper, we do not just remember what Jesus did in the past, we receive the benefits of His very body and blood in the present.
For the Christian, nostalgia is a good thing because remembering is a good thing. But nostalgia is more than nostalgia when it reflects on what God has done in Christ. For what Christ has done in the past still blesses us – and saves us – in the present.
[1] John Tierney, “What Is Nostalgia Good For? Quite a Bit, Research Shows,” New York Times (7.8.2013).
[2] “Text of the Haggadah,” Eliyahu Touger, trans.
The State Of Our Public Debate: Same-Sex Marriage As A Test Case
When the Facebook page of the Human Rights Campaign changed their profile picture to a red and pink equal sign on March 25 in anticipation of the Supreme Court hearing cases on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which prohibits same-sex marriage in California, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts federal marriage benefits to only opposite sex marriages, the response of many in the Facebook universe was nearly instantaneous. By the time the Supreme Court was listening to arguments for and against Proposition 8 the next day, roughly 2.7 million people had changed their profile pictures to the red and pink equal sign.[1]
Welcome to the way we debate and discuss watershed issues in the digital age. We post a profile picture.
As I have watched the national debate over same-sex marriage unfold, I have been struck by the daftness of so many of the arguments concerning such a monumental issue. As a Christian, I have grave theological and moral concerns with same-sex marriage, but others have registered cogent concerns with same-sex marriage quite apart from the traditional moorings of biblical Christianity. For instance, in their book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George offer an excellent argument for traditional or, as they call it, conjugal marriage over and against a revisionist view of marriage. The heart of their argument is this:
If the law defines marriage to include same-sex partners, many will come to misunderstand marriage. They will not see it as essentially comprehensive, or thus (among other things) as ordered to procreation and family life – but as essentially an emotional union…If marriage is centrally an emotional union, rather than one inherently ordered to family life, it becomes much harder to show why the state should concern itself with marriage any more than with friendship. Why involve the state in what amounts to the legal regulation of tenderness?[2]
The authors’ argument is simple, yet brilliant. Those who argue for same-sex marriage seem to define marriage based strictly on affection. But there are many relationships that are affectionate, such as friendships, and yet are not state-regulated. So marriage must be something more than simple affection. But what more is it? This is a question that proponents of same-sex marriage have a difficult time answering with any uniformity.
Sadly, the work of these authors has not been well received or responded to. Ryan Anderson, appearing on the Piers Morgan Show to explain the arguments of his book, was attacked by Suze Orman who dismissed him as “very, very uneducated in how it really, really works.”[3] Considering that Anderson is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation who received his degree from Princeton and is currently working on a Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame, I find it hard to believe that he is “very, very uneducated.”
In another example of supporters of traditional marriage being flippantly dismissed, Kevin Drum of Mother Jones took Ross Douthat of the New York Times to task for daring to suggest that an orientation toward procreation ought to be part of the definition of what constitutes a marriage:
It was opponents [of same-sex marriage], after realizing that Old Testament jeremiads weren’t cutting it any more, who began claiming that SSM should remain banned because gays couldn’t have children. This turned out to be both a tactical and strategic disaster, partly because the argument was so transparently silly (what about old people? what about women who had hysterectomies? etc.) and partly because it suggested that SSM opponents didn’t have any better arguments to offer. But disaster or not, they’re the ones responsible for making this into a cornerstone of the anti-SSM debates in the aughts.[4]
In his response, Douthat questions Drum’s account of the origin of the procreation argument for traditional marriage:
If gay marriage opponents had essentially invented a procreative foundation for marriage in order to justify opposing same-sex wedlock, it would indeed be telling evidence of a movement groping for reasons to justify its bigotry. But of course that essential connection was assumed in Western law and culture long before gay marriage emerged as a controversy or a cause. You don’t have to look very hard to find quotes…from jurists, scholars, anthropologists and others, writing in historical contexts entirely removed from the gay marriage debate, making the case that “the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation” (that’s a California Supreme Court ruling in 1859), describing the institution of marriage as one “founded in nature, but modified by civil society: the one directing man to continue and multiply his species, the other prescribing the manner in which that natural impulse must be confined and regulated” (that’s William Blackstone), and acknowledging that “it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution” (that’s the well-known reactionary Bertrand Russell).
Douthat ends his response to Drum with a brilliant one-liner: “Once you’ve rewritten the past to make your opponents look worse, then you’re well on your way to justifying writing them out of the future entirely.”[5]
This line, more than any I have read in a long time, encapsulates the problem with our public debates – not just over same-sex marriage, but over many controversial issues. No longer are people interested in debating a big issue with the kind of intellectual rigor or careful thought such issues deserve. Instead, we change our Facebook profiles to an equal sign. Or we ridicule a Notre Dame Ph.D. candidate as “uneducated.” Or we make patently false claims about the historical origins of our opponents’ arguments. We try to write our opponents out of the future entirely.
We, it seems, are much less interested in intelligently discussing and debating an issue and much more interested in asserting our will on an issue. We no longer care whether or not we arrive at the right position on an issue as long as others bow to our position on an issue. And, lest I be accused of intimating that only proponents of same-sex marriage engage in such dubious debate tactics, let me be clear that I have seen opponents of same-sex marriage pull these same kinds of sorry tricks. After all, they’re on Facebook too. They host cable news shows too. They write less than thoughtful columns too.
The nihilist Nietzsche seemed to take special delight in laying bare the basest corners of human nature. In his seminal work Beyond Good and Evil, he summarizes his thoughts on the heart of humanity: “A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength – life itself is Will to Power.” Nietzsche purported that people, at their cores, desire to assert Machiavellian power over others much more than they ever desire to converse with others. This is why Nietzsche saw “slavery in some sense or other”[6] as necessary to human advancement. Those who are strong must assert their wills over those who are weak.
As I have watched the debate over same-sex marriage unfold, I have become worried that Nietzsche just might be right. In this debate, winning against the other side has become more important than discussing and reasoning with the other side to arrive at the right side. And because of that, I can’t help but think that, no matter who wins, we might just all lose.
[1] Alexis Kleinman, “How The Red Equal Sign Took Over Facebook, According To Facebook’s Own Data,” The Huffington Post (3.29.2013).
[2] Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson & Robert George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (New York: Encounter Books, 2012), 7, 16.
[3] Jamie Weinstein, “Fresh off his Piers Morgan confrontation, Ryan Anderson explains his ‘un-American’ views on marriage,” The Daily Caller (3.30.2013).
[4] Kevin Drum, “The Gay Marriage Debate Probably Hasn’t Affected Straight Marriage Much,” Mother Jones (3.31.2013).
[5] Ross Douthat, “Marriage, Procreation and Historical Amnesia,” The New York Times (4.2.2013).
[6] Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1907), 20, 223.
Moving In Together…Or Whatever You Call It
“Now that we’ve come to some consensus on same-sex marriage, let’s move on to the next puzzle: what to call two people who act as if they are married but are not.” So begins Elizabeth Weil in her New York Times article, “Unmarried Spouses Have a Way With Words.”[1] Though I suppose I could quibble with whether or not judicial fiat or the vote of some states to legalize same-sex marriage really constitutes a “consensus” on this issue, that is beyond the aim of my thoughts here. No, the aim of my thoughts here is to address Weil’s call for a new vocabulary to address the ever-increasing number of cohabitating couples. Weil explains:
The faux spouse is a pretty ho-hum cultural specimen for such a gaping verbal lacuna. But none of the word choices are good. Everyone agrees that partner sounds awful – too anodyne, empty, cold. Lover may be worse – too sexualized, graphic, one-dimensional. Boyfriend sounds too young. Significant other sounds too ’80s. Special friend or just friend (both favored by the 65-and-over crowd) are just too ridiculous.
When it comes to people who are living together and are playing the roles of husband and wife, albeit without all the cumbrous pledges, but who are not legally or ecclesiologically husband and wife, there is a yawning verbal vacuum. Just what do you call these people?
The twentieth century French philosopher Jacques Derrida famously claimed, “There is nothing outside the text.”[2] Though this famous phrase has been unfairly disparaged and mischaracterized as a wild assertion that nothing exists outside of words in and of themselves, the context of this quote reveals Derrida’s claim to be far more modest. Derrida is countering a Rousseauian view of reality which see words as cracked and foggy lenses that inhibit and blur the experience of reality as it truly is. This is why Rousseau, in his writings, yearns to return to a time before language, for he believes that only in a proto-linguistic and, I might add, ruggedly individualistic society can people experience the fullness of reality.[3]
In contradistinction to Rousseau, Derrida takes a much more positive view of language. In his thinking, there is no such thing as an experience of reality which is somehow free from a person individual’s interpretation of it. Language, Derrida continues, provides the framework for this interpretation and can even provide a good framework to do good interpretations of the human experience. Words, therefore, have incredible formative power over our worldviews because words mediate and amalgamate our encounters and experiences with everything around us.
This leads us back to the vocabulary void that Elizabeth Weil decries. From the perspective of a Christian worldview, the dearth of terms for Weil’s mate that can make Weil feel good about her status and her relationship may perhaps reveal that, when it comes to cohabitation, there is not much to feel good about! For the vocabulary of marriage – terms like “husband,” “wife,” and “spouse” – grew up around marriage precisely because marriage between one man and one woman is a good and God-ordained institution that needed a full, rich, and positive cache of terms to describe it. Cohabitation can make no such claim. Thus, perhaps it is good for us to follow Derrida’s lead and let the vocabulary of one of society’s fundamental institutions inform the reality of our relationships. Perhaps we would do well to leave behind the verbal vacuum of cohabitation behind for the rich vocabulary of marriage. After all, words do matter. And words do shape worldviews. Why do you think Jesus came as the Word?
[1] Elizabeth Weil, “Unmarried Spouses Have a Way With Words,” New York Times (1.4.2013)
[2] Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1997), 158.
[3] See Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Essay on the Origin of Languages” (1781).
The Problem with Poverty
“The poor you will always have with you,” Jesus said (Matthew 26:11). This is most certainly true. Our best-laid plans to abolish poverty have fallen woefully short. New York Times journalist Nicholas D. Kristof shines a spotlight on just how short our plans have fallen in his recent column titled, “Profiting From a Child’s Illiteracy.”[1] His opening paragraphs are bone chilling:
This is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability.
Many people in hillside mobile homes here are poor and desperate, and a $698 monthly check per child from the Supplemental Security Income program goes a long way – and those checks continue until the child turns 18.
A plan that seeks to alleviate poverty in the form of Supplemental Security Income in some instances actually perpetuates it. After all, there is no immediate economic payoff for having a son or daughter learn how to read, only a potential loss. And though a myriad of statistics could be marshaled concerning how, over the long haul, children who enjoy solid educations early in life enjoy economic and social stability later in life, these parents can’t afford to concern themselves with “the long haul.” They’re just concerned about their next meal. And so these parents are pressed into a self-perpetuating poverty.
“The poor you will always have with you,” Jesus said. This means two things. First, it means that the sinfulness that leads to poverty will always be with us and in us, at least on this side of the Eschaton. There will always be some people who are lazy and refuse to work, placing themselves in poverty’s grip and on the government’s dole. There will always be some people who are victims of economic injustice – just ask those who were bamboozled by Bernie Madoff. There will always be some people who, because of some fortuitous tragic circumstance – a devastating illness, a lost job, a natural disaster – find themselves with bills they can’t pay and a family they can’t support. Satan will continue to find delight in impoverishing people.
And yet, Jesus’ words are not only a commentary on human sinfulness, they are also a call to Christian action. For with His words, Jesus opens for us plenty of opportunities to show mercy. After all, there are hungry people for us to feed. There are naked people for us to clothe. There are hopeless people for us to encourage. There are plenty of people to which we can offer a cup of water in Jesus’ name (cf. Mark 9:41). In fact, I love how Mark records Jesus’ statement: “The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want” (Mark 14:27).
Jesus says, “You can help.” So let’s get to it! How and who can you help this holiday season? Maybe you can serve at a soup kitchen. Maybe you can visit someone who is lonely. That’s your mission. That’s your calling. And, as Jesus says, you can carry out that mission “any time you want” – even beyond the holidays.
I hope you will.
[1] Nicholas D. Kristof, “Profiting From a Child’s Illiteracy,” New York Times (12.7.12).
ABC Extra – You Need A Break!
Yes, this is a picture of me. This is when we were at the rodeo in January, seeing MercyMe in concert. Well, our friends and my wife were seeing MercyMe. I, on the other hand, was a little tired that evening. So I took a little nap in the middle of a big concert.
I am one of those people who can sleep anytime and anywhere. If I’m tired, my eyes begin to close and my head begins to nod. It doesn’t matter if it is at night or during the day, at a public place or when I’m at home. I can even doze at a rodeo. My wife, on the other hand, needs everything to be just right before she can fall asleep. The room must be pitch black. The ambience must be dead quiet. Even the slightest noise in the middle of the night can startle her awake.
This past weekend in worship and ABC, we talked about gift and glory of rest. But in a world full of appointments, tasks, meetings, and errands, rest can be hard to come by. Especially during this holiday season, when we have parties to host and presents to buy and relatives to visit, the specter of a restful Christmas can seem to be nothing but a cruel illusion.
So how do we get the rest we need when the world around us never seems to slow down? First, to rest, we must intentionally slow ourselves down. I shared this quote in ABC, but it is so insightful, I want to share it here again. It concerns the biblical day of rest, otherwise known as the Sabbath:
Most people mistakenly believe that all you have to do to stop working [and rest] is not work. The inventors of the Sabbath understood that it was a much more complicated undertaking. You cannot downshift casually and easily, the way you might slip into bed at the end of a long day. As the Cat in the Hat says, “It is fun to have fun but you have to know how.” This is why the Puritan and Jewish Sabbaths were so exactingly intentional, requiring extensive advance preparation – at the very least a scrubbed house, a full larder and a bath. The rules did not exist to torture the faithful. They were meant to communicate the insight that interrupting the ceaseless round of striving requires a surprisingly strenuous act of will.[1]
Resting “requires a surprisingly strenuous act of will.” In other words, rest isn’t easy! It must be intentional. You must schedule rest, prepare for rest, and then stubbornly take a rest, even if it spites a calendar which clamors for your every waking moment.
Second, to rest, we must examine our hearts. The apostle John writes, “We set our hearts at rest in God’s presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and He knows everything” (1 John 3:19-20). Rest, John reminds us, goes deeper than just how many appointments we have scheduled. It goes down to the state of our hearts. Thus, even when our schedules are packed full and our lives are running at high speed, our hearts can be at rest because our hearts are held by the Lord. The stress our world does not have to ruin the rest of our hearts. Thus, even when we feel as though our hearts are overwhelmed by this world’s demands, we can cling to this promise: “God is greater than our hearts.” God’s power and grace far outweigh, outlast, and outdo the anxiety and unrest we can harbor in our hearts. So find your rest in Him. He’s just the break you need.
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
[1] Judith Shulevitz, “Bring Back the Sabbath,” The New York Times (3.2.2003).
Pastor Zach's Blog 