Burroughs explains what he means by "contentment comes from subtraction instead of addition" when he says: "...not so much by adding to what he would have, or to what he has, not by adding more to his condition; but rather by subtracting from his desires, so as to make his desires and his circumstances even and equal." We are content when our hearts desire is equal to our circumstances. This, Burroughs posits, is why some men are happy with little and others miserable with much. We are rich when we have our desires fulfilled. Burroughs central point in this section (p15) is that, "a contented man has his desires satisfied, God satisfies them, that is, all considered, he is satisfied that his circumstances are for the present the best circumstances".

I agree with what Burroughs is saying. Yet, I would perhaps phrase it a little differently. As C.S. Lewis said:

Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased. (From The Weight of Glory, 1949)

I would say then that Burroughs is correct that contentment comes from having our desires met. As Burroughs has hinted at before; we as Christians are the most contented and at the same time most dissatisfied creatures. Therefore if we are to be contented it will come from having strong desires for the Lord and not having hearts entangled in the world. We will be content with whatever lot we have in the world because that is not where our heart is. Our heart has a much stronger affection and because of that we will not be dissatisfied by our circumstances, but rather we will be panting after the Lord. Satisfied, yet hungry! Burroughs, I believe, would agree with this. Yet I have chosen to word it a little differently than he does for the sake of clarity in the 21st century.

The first article I read this morning is probably the most sad. Dr. Mohler addresses a new agenda-filled T-shirt worn by toddlers. The T-shirt reads "My Daddy's name is Donor". No, that's not Donner, one of the 8 reindeer; it is a reference to a sperm donor. What is communicated to this little guy is that his daddy does not matter. Mohler sites Catherine Bruton of The Times in London who says: The T-shirt is offered by a company called Family Evolutions, founded by a lesbian couple whose son modelled the shirt. The co-founder, Stacey Harris, says that the T-shirt is empowering. "We want to lift the taboo surrounding donor conception so that kids don't feel that their coming into the world is a shameful secret," she says. "Kids who are empowered will grow up well-adjusted." Despite my concern over the political agenda behind this, I am most pained for this little child and the host of other little boys. What does it communicate to a male child when he is told that daddy doesn't matter? It means men do not matter. It means your masculinity does not matter. Truly sad.

John Piper reminds us that we need to feel homesick: "The likelihood of dying because you are a Christian is closer than it used to be for Americans. The freedom from such threats has generally existed in this country for a tiny portion of history (about 400 years). We have gotten used to it. It seems like the way things must be. So our first reaction to the threat that things might be otherwise is often anger. But that anger may be a sign that we have lost our sense of being aliens and exiles (“Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles . . .” 1 Peter 2:11). Perhaps we have settled in too much to this world and this country in particular. We don't feel as homesick for Christ as Paul did..." Continue reading

In Acts29/MBC news, Founders has posted an interview with Kevin Larson. Larson is one of the 3 churches that will be deeply affected by this decision. The St. Louis Post has ran an article as well. My friend Sam of Believers Church, also deeply impacted by this decision, was interview for this article. My only regret is that in the Post article the author refers to these churches as "Emerging". That is not helpful to the discussion.

Josh Harris has parts two and three now posted on his affluenza series.

Pulpit Magazine attempts to answer a very good question about being unequally yoked: Question: Some people have told me that being unequally yoked is talking exclusively about marriage. Others have said that it applies also to business partnerships and other situations. Could you please expand on this? What does it mean to be unequally yoked and what type of a guideline should I have if it is okay for me to have a business partnership with a non-believer? Read the answer here.

And finally Thabiti Anyabwile, from Pure Church, tackles the Satan (I mean Santa) Claus debate. I am hoping that my friend Will accepts my invite to begin writing on this blog. If he does I would love to see him address this issue--I appreciate his stance on Christmas. As for Thabiti he says Down with Santa Claus. Here is his conclusion: "I'm not arguing a dogmatic causality here. I'm simply asking the question, "Why include Santa Claus at all?" Is the imagined upside of following the culture here worth what we think it's worth? And are our justifications helping us to point our children to Christ or masking the reality that we may be pointing our children away from Him? Personally, I doubt Santa Claus is worth it, and pointing our kids away from Jesus at Christmas may be the worst form of child neglect I can imagine."