Larson Hicks and Rich Lusk started a podcast a few months ago and it's been fantastic. Allow me to recommend it to you.
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/@got-a-minute/videos">Got a Minute? on YouTube</a></li>
<li><a href="https://gotaminute.podbean.com/">Got a Minute? On PodBean</a> (a more traditional podcast format, subscribable in your favorite podcast app, which is how I listen and keep up with the podcast)</li>
</ul>
<h2>Dating vs. Courtship</h2>
I'd say my favorite episode so far has been <a href="https://gotaminute.podbean.com/e/dating-vs-courtship/">Dating vs. Courtship</a> (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3B_PjdBZWc">YouTube</a>). That's because, in the '90s and '00s (at least in my circles) we went through "a phase" and things got really weird regarding courtship, dating, betrothal, you name it. But the end goal of all the weirdness sometimes got lost in the shuffle. Oh, we would talk about the end goals sometimes, solid marriages, avoid divorce, don't give yourself away to someone before the vows are made, sexual purity, etc. etc. But courtship (or betrothal in some circles) became an end unto itself. If you didn't follow the formula, things were bad, you were a sinner, you were probably getting a divorce later, and you had committed much sin.
Larson and Rich point out a lot of the pitfalls and talk about the troubles surrounding courtship and such — including (and I found this an especially salient point) that often these alternative methods of young people finding their spouses were explicitly designed to give the parents of those involved in the courtship all or almost all the control. But if you think about it for two seconds and remember that these are young adults that we're about to turn loose (at least in the common case, I realize there are and could be long-time adults entering into relationships — but we're mostly talking about the common case here in the illustrations), if they're not capable of being the front-runner on choosing their own spouse, things aren't gonna be great for that couple regardless of the method for getting there.
But, though my thinking and approach has changed a lot on this topic in the last 18 years, my view of the end goal has not changed. That's why I like Rich's emphasis on Christian Dating. And what I think he means by that based on his explanation, and what I certainly mean, is that we don't want to do the casual dating and sleeping around of the world. Dating is not an end unto itself. We don't enter into these kinds of relationships with someone with no intention of ending in marriage, or just for the fun of it. When a man or woman begins "dating" someone, it should be with the end goal of marriage. You should be in a relationship with someone to evaluate spending the rest of your life with them. And of course, there are off-ramps: we're not right for each other, there's significant sin in someone's life, they're not mature enough yet, turns out I'm not mature enough yet, and in a Christian context I shouldn't need to say that the other person must be a faithful Christian. But as the relationship progresses, it should more and more surely as it moves forward lead to marriage.
The word dating becomes a placeholder word for beginning a relationship with the opposite sex for the purpose heading toward marriage.
I want to say here, too, something about emotional attachment. When I was coming up through the ranks, there was a big emphasis on detaching your emotions during the "courtship." One was not to become emotionally attached or involved during this phase in case things didn't work out. That is probably the shakiest part of the whole deal in my experience. Every single human relationship involves emotion on some level — even the most casual friendships. To not form emotions or some sort of investment over the course of the relationship is a). impossible for most, b). is actually a mental health issue, c). I would argue is not in the least desirable. Yeah, sometimes hearts are broken, Guess what, that's life! Ideally, reasons for breaking off a relationship are discovered early and much pain can be avoided. But humans are designed by God to be communal. We form attachments to others in our lives. And in preparing for marriage, the strongest human bond possible, it is both natural and desirable to form a deep emotional connection with the one who will be your spouse.
I remember, because of all the teaching in my life about courtship, trying to understand my feelings toward Rachel right before and right after we were engaged. All the teaching confused me and told me I shouldn't love Rachel yet. But after wrestling for some time, I came to the conclusions that I both loved Rachel deeply, and that this was right and proper. I then told her so, and she expressed some relief since neither of us had ever said it and it gave her some pause about whether I really loved her. It seems silly from my vantage point now. Of course I loved her (and still do more and more every day). How could I not? We were made for each other, which is what we had been discovering over that season of our relationship, we had been in a relationship for over a year forming attachment (whether we thought we were or not). If I did not love her, something would have been seriously wrong with me.
So, anyway, yes, go listen to this episode, it's really good.
<h2>Church Membership</h2>
My second favorite episode thus far is <a href="https://gotaminute.podbean.com/e/does-church-membership-matter/">Does Church Membership Matter?</a> (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNkxjZUeTYU&#x26;t=2886s">YouTube</a>). I would say, of course it does, but Larson and Rich get to the why. It's a very important topic in our day of maverick Christianity. We know from numerous Biblical passages that Christians are required to submit to the elders and authority of the local church. But what does that mean? Who's in, who's not? We call that, "membership" these days. But all it means is drawing the boundary so that elders know who is under their care and members can know who's care they are under.
Give it a listen!

Got a Minute? Dating vs. Courtship and Church Membership

Great stuff from my friend, Tim Gallant.

Tim Gallant — Stop Closing Your Eyes for Communion

Stop Closing Your Eyes for Communion

<blockquote>
Advocates of so-called Christian Nationalism now are mostly a part of a protest movement, even if they pretend otherwise. Secularists deny certain historical truths about America’s founding; the CN camp replies with excessive revisionism of its own. Secularists scream for the coerced removal of God from the public square; the CN camp replies with advocacy for some coercive notion of their own. Secularists scream that Christianity has no part of America’s identity; the CN camp seeks to merge Christian and American identities. I could go on and on. Things that ought to be acceptable at worst and commendable at best get taken to a place of authoritarianism or nativism out of a temper tantrum.
</blockquote>

The Shine Falls off Christian Nationalism

Bahnsen on Christian Nationalism

<blockquote>
You might ask why I would describe this paragraph on page 118 as the “end” of a 475-page book? Because the sentence that follows begins, “Having established these conclusions…” Since, as I will explain at length, Wolfe has in no way “established” these conclusions, everything that follows from page 118 to page 475 is essentially superfluous. There may be some material of interest—and some of it will elicit comment—but none of it reaches the heart of the matter.
</blockquote>
Brutal.
<blockquote>
Wolfe begins the book by exempting himself from the tasks of exegesis and biblical theology: “Some readers will complain that I rarely appeal to Scripture to argue for my positions. I understand that frustration, but allow me to explain: I am neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar. I have no training in moving from scriptural interpretation to theological articulation.”
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
Wolfe’s ambivalence toward the Bible has deeper roots, however, than mere feigned ignorance about how to do biblical interpretation. The fact is rather that he doesn’t think he needs to do any biblical interpretation in the first place. The irrelevance of the Bible to the task at hand—political theory—is deeply embedded in his own understanding of reason and revelation, nature and grace.
</blockquote>
What I find fascinating is that Wolfe sees the Bible and Biblical interpretation as not interesting or important to what he's writing about. Yet his work is being promoted by those of my acquaintance or who's work I have liked or am familiar with, who cast themselves in the Van Tillian or Kyperian traditions. In The Defense of the Faith, Van Til (perhaps famously) says:
<blockquote>
The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work, but it also tells us who God is and where the universe about us has come from. It tells us about theism as well as about Christianity. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the word of God that you can separate the so-called religious and moral instruction of the Bible from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe.
</blockquote>
I'm not sure how you can cast yourself in this tradition unless you are willing to apply the Bible and Biblical interpretation to everything, including the political realm.
Stephen Wolfe is also of a very two kingdoms persuasion. I do have friends of the two kingdoms persuasion. I would never say they weren't Christians. We can be friends and I even have some sympathy for some two kingdom thinking. Nevertheless, the primary influences in my life are not of two kingdom thought. Yet this book, which is clearly based on two kingdom theology, has taken my non-two kingdom influences by storm.
<blockquote>
If one consults, say, his academic Ph.D thesis looking for some deeper explanation, one finds more of the same: the crassest sort of dualism, with everything divvied up very neatly between “heavenly” things about metaphysics and salvation known by faith and “earthly” things like science and politics known by reason. In that work he even includes a flowchart dividing it all up that would get full marks from Professor Kant of Königsberg, who would then, of course, just tear the sheet of paper in half and throw the “heavenly” side into his fireplace.
</blockquote>
Because you like someone's conclusions (and I'm not saying I like all of Wolfe's conclusions, though I dare say I would fall in line with a great many of them) does not mean I agree with the means used to arrive there. Just because two opposed trajectories intersect, that is no reason to jump on the opposing train. If you jump off the train going in the right direction for the intersecting train going in the wrong direction, you will find yourself at the wrong destination.
And finally, somewhat relatedly, I made a meme, and Andrew Sandlin saw it somewhere and shared it 🙂.
<blockquote>I always knew Brian Mattson was a superhero. <a href="https://twitter.com/The_Square_Inch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@The_Square_Inch</a> <a href="https://t.co/AT5HAWEX2m">pic.twitter.com/AT5HAWEX2m</a>— DocSandlin (@DocSandlin) <a href="https://twitter.com/DocSandlin/status/1594182974840311808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2022</a></blockquote>

Brian Mattson

On Nationalism

<blockquote>
Even Christians’ advocacy for laws against gay marriage is problematic because it rests on the assumption that the power of government can be harnessed in order to impose one group’s opinions on the rest of society. While Christians should have been defending their rights to make their own determinations on these issues, they instead tried to leverage the strong arm of government to enforce their point of view.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Clumsy, inarticulate pieces of legislation like that in Indiana will do nothing in the long run to achieve this goal.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
In doing this, Christians will have to come to grips with the reality that this means they will no longer be able to use government to stop people from making poor moral decisions. They must realize that they cannot continue to try to use laws to control other people and then be surprised when the government decides to control them.
</blockquote>
These are just some choice quotes that I enjoyed, but all of this is highly recommended and I completley agree.

Why Christians Should Immediately Become Libertarians — Ben Lewis

Christians Should Be Libertarians

So many people seem to be misunderstanding the issues at hand with President Obama and immigration.
Issue 1: The executive order is entirely unlawful. So are most executive orders. Big deal. I mean it is a big deal, but in the grand scheme of things, why fuss about this one? (Oh, I know, it's because Bush didn't give it. Bleh).
Issue 2: Congressional restriction on immigration is unlawful. They have the authority to restrict naturalization, but not immigration. We have become quite the xenophobic culture — at least on the conservative side of the isle — and we are trying to keep people out of the country. We have no right to do so. The constitution of this United States knows nothing of this "illegal" immigration which conservatives love to talk about. Immigration was always meant to be unrestricted. Also, try to remember, every single one of us who is not an American Indian descends from immigrants to this country.
Issue 3: Conservatives love to talk about what a drain illegal immigration is on our society. I beg to differ. The drain they speak of is already present, immigration just tends to really emphasize it. We have the government doing things it's not supposed to do, providing benefits it should not be providing, meddling in things it ought not to be meddling with. "Illegal" immigrants come and take advantage of our broken system, receiving welfare, food stamps, and all manner of benefits that no one at all should be receiving. Immigrants otherwise present a net positive to our society. Without government benefits in place, they would be forced to work for their living like decent and able bodied humans should, they would use their wages to buy things, and our economy would be strengthened. So the real issue is not immigration at all, that's just a smoke screen — a scapegoat conservatives love to point to. The real issue is the size and scope of the government and what it is doing with the money it has extorted from us.
Issue 4: Conservatives love to talk about how "illegal" aliens are already criminals and tend to do criminal things which is harmful to society. The problem is our immigration laws do indeed keep the more law abiding types out, but let in those who are cunning and tend toward illegal activities. It's sort of like the war on drugs in that way. By criminalizing certain substances, it has been made attractive to criminal types and created a black market and trade that otherwise would not exist. Two solutions to this problem are apparent: 1). stop restricting immigration, 2). properly execute justice on immigrants the same as we do for citizens. They should not get a pass because they are not a naturalized citizen. If they steal, they should make restitution. If they kill, they should face the death penalty. If they damage property, they should repay. In short, it should be the same experience for them as it is for us natural citizens (and yeah, I realize that the justice system in general has issues which are exacerbated by immigrants).
<h2>A couple other thoughts</h2>
Are you conservatives all up in arms about "amnesty" really telling me that you want the same government you say you distrust to be in charge of restricting immigration? Why do we suddenly trust the government with the power to do that, but we don't trust it with the power for other things? This is inconsistent. Let's get the government out of the immigration business.
The other thing is that the Bible is not silent on the issue of foreigners in the land. There are two verses that immediately come to mind. Exodus 22:21:
<blockquote>
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
</blockquote>
And Deuteronomy 10:19:
<blockquote>
Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
</blockquote>
Note that the children of Israel were not told, make sure the paper work is in order, make sure they came here "legally" then treat them right. No, the expectation was that people would be coming and going, there would be foreigners in your midst and you must not oppress them. Seems pretty simple, really.
So let's stop getting outraged over the wrong issues and start being outraged that this is even an issue over which Obama could illegally issue an executive order. Why were these strangers in our land considered illegal to begin with? Why are we oppressing them? We need to stop it.
Which goes right to my final "other" though. Let's remember that these immigrants we speak of are real people that God has put here on this earth. We must treat them with the respect due to our fellow human beings. I don't think trucking people off and dumping them back where they came from is the respect that is due to them. Unless one of these immigrants is harming you, damaging your property, or otherwise doing you harm, I suggest you shut your flapping lips and live in peace with your fellow man. Romans 12:18:
<blockquote>
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
</blockquote>
Seeking to deport your fellow men (or women) who are not harming you in any way is not living peaceably with all men.
Lastly, I will recommend a resource to you on this very issue with only the caveat that I don't agree with Bojidar Marinov on very many things. And yet, despite some wide chasms, I consider him a fellow laborer for Christ. And on this issue, I can wholeheartedly recommend and commend his material. Go <a href="http://www.apologiaradio.com/?p=877">here</a> and listen to an episode of Apologia Radio where he and Jeff Durbin address this issue in a Biblical manner.
<a href="http://www.apologiaradio.com/?p=877">A Biblical Look at Immigration – 8/2/2014 »</a>

Immigration and Executive Orders

<blockquote>
Adrenal Fatigue is a very trendy diagnosis in the alternative health industry right now, and I’m seeing more and more clients who come to me having previously been diagnosed with it. I’ve noticed a troubling pattern that deserves to get some air time, so I’m talking about it here.
</blockquote>
It's likely to make some health minded folks mad, but this is really good and you need to read this.

Go Kaleo

Adrenal Fatigue or Starvation?

I know I've completely let this site go, and I hope one day to return it to some manner of glory. But I did want to let you know, if any of you still have this site in your RSS feeds, that <a href="http://infrequenttech.com/1">I recorded a podcast about iOS 7</a> and the iPhone 5C and 5S. Head on over and give it a listen in honor of the launch of iOS 7 tomorrow.

The Infrequent Techcast

<blockquote>
My dad has used Photoshop since 1.0. Twenty-odd years ago, he was a forward-thinking graphic-design upstart unafraid to use a computer instead of an X-ACTO knife. It turns out he made the right bet. These days, Photoshop is the only way to do his job. There's no X-ACTO fallback, and no viable "modern" alternative for this generation’s upstarts. And yet, today my dad feels like a hostage.
"I love and hate Adobe," he said when we first discussed this piece. See, Adobe doesn't build Photoshop for my dad. Adobe just builds Photoshop, and Photoshop is an insane mess. Every couple years brings a new version, costing hundreds of dollars, chock full of new features he doesn't need, and lacking the improvements he wants. Later, he downgraded his original sentiment: "I hate Adobe."
</blockquote>
This is a fairly lengthy ready, well, I mean it takes some time. But I loved reading it so much. It’s funny, I have a love hate relationship with Photoshop as well. It is integral to so much that I do and I have not been able to find a replacement for it. I cannot do those things which I often need to do with any other tool (yes, I've tried Pixelmator, it just doesn't live up. And no, I will not use Gimp thank you very much, it's a far worse mess than Photoshop). So I love Photoshop because I can do awesome things with it.
But Photoshop also has a steep learning curve, and even though I've been using it for years, I still probably only know how to use about 10% or less of it's capabilities. I hear that even folks who work on Photoshop, who should know it intimately, don't know how to use all of it's functions and stuff. That's just bad. Poor design, poorly thought through.
And it costs WAY more than it should. WAY more.

Paul Miller writing at The Verge

Photoshop is for Everyone

I have, since the day the iPhone came out, and I subsequently purchased one that same day, loathed all note taking options. Obviously the first iteration of iPhone OS iOS did not have third party apps or any ability to sync notes of any kind. It had a notes app and any notes one took there were forever siloed in that app. And any notes one took in any form on a Mac were also not able to be synced to one's iPhone. There have been various web based solutions, none of them good.
With third party apps came note taking apps. I have never been happy with any of them. I've tried various services and apps, like them all a little for a time, found them frustrating and moved on. For a while, I used Evernote. And to some extent I liked it. But both the Mac app and the iOS app have been through various stages of bugginess. I have had trouble with sync between the apps, sometimes, notes simply, stubbornly refused to sync at all. Additionally, I found the interface for both confusing and cluttered.
The last straw for Evernote came when the app ate a very VERY important note. I was editing the note on my phone when the app crashed. When I returned to the app, the note was gone. My computer had been left on, connected to the internet in another location so it naturally synced the lack of note and that was that. I could never get that note back. I left Evernote.
For a time I used the built in Mac and iOS notes app, which strangely, uses an IMAP mailbox on your mail server to sync. I find this to also be buggy and unreliable, but it never offered to flat out eat any of my notes and the interface is much less cluttered. But in the end, it just was not powerful enough.
I moved on to Simplenote. It's too simple, and syncing can again be a bit of a pain.
So in frustration, about a week ago, I complained on Twitter about the state of note taking and syncing.
<blockquote>
It’s 2013, can we please have a really good note taking app that syncs between computers and phones now? So far I hate all the current ones.
— TJ Draper (@tjdraperpro) <a href="https://twitter.com/tjdraperpro/status/297473239645569024">February 1, 2013</a>
</blockquote>

I received several recommendations to try Evernote again, they've been through a major overhaul and are rock solid now. I was skeptical, but thought it could not hurt since I was simply not happy with any note syncing solution/app in any capacity.
And I’ve been using Evernote since February 1 and I'm impressed. The interface has been seriously cleaned up, note syncing is rock solid and instantaneous (so far... knock on wood), and it is doing almost exactly what I want a note app and note syncing to do:
<ul>
<li>Multiple Notebooks</li>
<li>Tags</li>
<li>Nice, Lion Mail style wide screen layout on the mac, very intuitive interface on the iPhone</li>
<li>Nice, simple and clean, WYSIWYG note editing (in the past I found the WYSIWYG note editor to be very buggy, that seems to be gone)</li>
<li>A lot less cluttery feeling.</li>
</ul>
In short, if you have not used Evernote in a while due to frustrations with syncing and the interface, give it another try, it has changed much for the better and so far, this is the happiest I have ever been with note taking and syncing.

Note Taking and Syncing

<blockquote>
A company called Personal Audio is claiming that it owns a <a href="https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/us8112504.pdf">patent</a> that covers podcasting technology and has send podcasters letters, demanding that they pay Personal Audio to use the technology. As with many patents, this one is dangerously broad and vague, allegedly covering, well, any and all podcasting. Just take a look at this language:
<blockquote>
Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available…
</blockquote>
Of course, as with most software patents, this one fails to explain how that “apparatus” would actually work, apparently letting its owner make the ridiculous claim that essentially _any_apparatus that disseminates episodes infringes its patent.
</blockquote>
I hate patent trolling so much!

Julie Samuels writing on EFF

Podcasting Patent Troll

<blockquote>
I didn’t just lead Apple to a <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/2026112/iphone-ipad-sales-up-macs-fall-as-apple-sees-record-sales.html">record quarterly profit</a> of $13.1 billion on sales of $54.5 billion, so I don’t expect to be consulted. But were <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/tim-cook.html">Tim</a> to ask me, here’s what I would tell him Apple should do in 2013—in broad strokes, and in no particular order. (We’ve got people to work out the details—right, Tim?) This is not a fantasy wish list. These are things I think Apple can and should do this year. This list is not exhaustive.
</blockquote>
It's Siracusa, so as usually, it's good stuff, even if I don’t agree with everything. Such as bullet 3: Diversify the iPhone product line. I don't see at all that Apple needs to do this. Also, the point Make Messages work correctly. Am I the only one that doesn't have any trouble with Messages (hint: I'm not). It feels like John has just jumped on the bandwagon for that one. Message works just fine. I never have any trouble with it. In fact, I love Messages/iMessage a lot!
Everything else seems great!

Posts tagged “Recommended Resource” from the blog