Around the Interweb (09/05)

Should you “friend” your ex on Facebook?

Interesting post over at the Her-meneutics blog on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of adding an old flame on facebook:

I believe that all relationships in my life either support or detract from my marriage, however tacitly, and they stay or go based on that criterion. I believe spouses should have access to each others’ phones and e-mails and should approve of each others’ Facebook friends. I believe privacy with exes, even and perhaps particularly virtual privacy, is dangerous. I’m on the road I chose, and no good will come from revisiting roads not taken…

I know what full-blown adultery is, but fidelity is breached long before physical acts occur. How about looking at an ex’s profile pictures and imagining the life you could have had together, the children you could have been raising, the house you could have bought? How about looking at old photos your ex has posted, remembering the encounters you had in that time and place? How about indulging the brief thrill that arises when his or her name appears in your e-mail inbox or your Facebook wall (the rush is fueled, after all, by past words and experiences shared only between the two of you)? How about nurturing the notion that you missed your chance with your real soul-mate by keeping in touch with the supposed soul-mate? These actions and attitudes may not be adultery, but they certainly do not represent loyalty.

Facebook presents me with nicely worded options: “Confirm this request for friendship, or quietly ignore it.” This man is likely just saying hello, having seen my name or photo on a mutual friend’s page. Chances are, it’s no big deal. But I’ve made my choice, regarding the man as well as his request. Old flame, consider yourself quietly ignored.

Read the whole thing. (HT: Challies)

In Other News

Podcasts: Al Mohler is starting not one, but two new podcasts: The Briefing and Thinking in Public

Free Stuff: This month’s free download at ChristianAudio.com is Spiritual Leadership by J. Oswald Sanders. Use coupon code SEP2010 when checking out.

Apologetics: Justin Taylor offers an FAQ on the differences between Christianity and Mormonism

In Case You Missed It

Here are a few of this week’s notable posts:

A week-long series on getting serious about your studies—Choosing your study Bible, your systematic theology, your reading plan and your digital resources

A review of Ryken’s Bible Handbook

Darrin Patrick: “We need better men, which means we need better pastors.”

Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris in conversation with Francis Chan

Religion Saves: Birth Control, Sexual Sin and Dating

Religion-Saves-Birth

893 questions posted. 343,203 votes cast. Nine controversial subjects. The resulting sermons were then reformatted and expanded in the book, Religion Saves & Nine Other Misconceptions, released in June, 2009, through Crossway and RE:Lit.

This post will be dealing with three subjects from the book: Birth control, sexual sin, and dating.

Birth Control

Method or use of birth control is a subject that is almost always sure to bring up a great deal of heated discussion. For Catholics, to use any form of birth control would be unthinkable. At the risk of oversimplifying, it strikes me that many Catholics would believe that to use any method of birth control would actually be an attempt to thwart the sovereign will of God (this is certainly the impression we got from reading some Catholic literature on the subject).

For Protestants, however, there’s a great deal of debate on appropriate methods. In this chapter, Driscoll addresses five types of birth control: None, natural, non-abortive (barrier methods), potentially abortive, and abortive murder.

When reading, I was struck by how, with few exceptions, gently this subject was handled. Because there is a great deal of contention surrounding the various birth control that exist, it is one that requires delicacy. This is not something that Driscoll has historically been known for, but he did very well. [Read more...]