Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Gender Roles

There are many ways to take this conversation and topic, mainly because there are so many differing views concerning the role of a man and the role of a woman. I believe that each gender has a role, and that those roles are not interchangeable. The phrase "don't send a woman to do a man's job" is totally applicable. But you have to remember the reverse - "don't send a man to do a woman's job." This leads me to a rather large problem: What is a man's role, and what is a woman's role?

Well, looking to the Bible, I see a pretty good description in Genesis 1 and 2. We share a common purpose and thus are equal in our role as stewards of the earth. God's blessing and directive was given to both Adam and Eve: To be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth and subduing it(1:28). However, we see more detail in their creation in chapter 2. Woman was made from the rib of the man, to be a suitable helper for him. And as I have learned from my Gospel of Matthew class, the naming of someone else exerts dominance over them, and Adam named Eve, "because she would become the mother of all the living." Earlier in that chapter God says to Eve: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

But in the NT there is defintely a brighter depiction of the relationship between men and women. It isn't right for men to simply be dominant over women, that is not our role. I do believe that men have a more authoritative role in the world than women do, and I think this can be seen in the mere fact that Jesus came to us as a man. (It can also be said that he did so because we are such a male-dominated race.)

I once had a great conversation with my pastor about this topic, though it was more directly related to the relationship between a man and his wife. He explained that the man is the head of the household, and thus makes the decisions. However, this does not make him the authority of the household, since he should be making decisions based on what would be best for his wife. Basically, the man should be thinking about what is best for his wife, not what is best for himself. The woman should be in submission to the decisions of her husband, understanding that he is making those decisions in her best interests. As Christians, both partners should be supporting one another and growing closer to God in their relationship with each other(this can also be applied to unmarried relationships, like dating).

In addition to this, I think there are certain strengths and weaknesses to each gender which are complemented by the other. I cannot at this time pinpoint any of these(or maybe I just don't want to for fear of contestation <- great word, thanks A Knight's Tale), but if you look around you can definitely see it. I think probably one of the more prominent differences are a man's ability to see the simple side of things, and a woman's ability to see the more complex side.

I'd like to note that of course this is all generalization, and that there are some pretty complex men and some very simple women. In which case, I don't know what I am saying, maybe my mind is just too scattered on this one, interpretation = fail.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Relationships

We had a Convocation today about relationships. Not just boyfriend/girlfriend relationships, but friendships, roommateships, family ties, and how it can fall apart when you go to college. One thing that focused on is the disconnect that occurs when you leave your high school friends behind at home and leave for college. They understood you better than anyone at college does(at least at first), and you have that feeling of aloneness when there is no one you can talk to about the deep stuff going on in your life.

I have to say, I definitely felt this when I first came to college. My best friend ever, Samwise, was the one guy  could talk to about literally anything. We met in the 3rd grade and ever since we have just clicked. As the expression goes, we were "two peas in a pod". We never fought, we never had "falling outs," we just clicked. Then halfway through middle school he switched schools and it became much more difficult to retain our friendship, but we made it work. When you have a friend like that, you don't just let them go. But now that we're in college, we both just can never find the time to chat or hang out. And while I've made friends here that I can talk to about the deep stuff going on, I still can't talk to them about everything, that base child-like connection just isn't there. What I am trying to say is that I miss him.

It's critically important to retain friendships that you've had before college. Even if it may upset our new friends a little, you can't just forget your past, nor should you. Samwise is someone who was around as I grew up into the person I am now. We may not be able to talk much anymore, but when we do, that connection is still there. I feel like we can still talk to each other about anything, and if those of you reading this have a friend like that, DO NOT LET THEM GO. They are the kind of friend that is unreplaceable(if that's even a word).

The convocation also talked about roommate relationships, and how sometimes good friends don't make good roommates. I've learned this the hard way, unfortunately. Leroy Jenkins is a treasured friend, but now that he is also my roommate, I don't get a break from him. As I mentioned quite extensively in one of my previous posts, I need alone-time, and he doesn't like to give me that. He's probably not intentionally doing it, but he is just always around, which forces me to try and "escape" from him, which is a terrible thing to try to do. It's not fair to him. At the same time, good roommates don't always make good friends either. Like my roommate last year. We did pretty well as roommates, but we didn't click as friends. We could respect each other (which is very important for roommates), but we didn't have enough in common to be good friends.

And finally, the convocation talked about boy/girl relationships. At college you meet a lot of people from the opposite sex (especially here, with a 3-1 girl-boy ratio). These people come from all over the country, and come with a lot of different views concerning the opposite gender. Some girls are used to hanging out with a lot of guys, and guys can easily take that interest the wrong way (as I have seen time and again). It just gets messy, as one of the guys said.
In high school, I would always hear girls say things like "Guys just don't get hints." Well, when you've got different messages coming from all over the spectrum, like girls who just want to be friends to girls who are interested, it becomes necessary to ignore hints, because honestly you just can't tell. One very good piece of advice they gave was to avoid a relationship freshmen year. Heck yes. Because if that relationship doesn;t work out, you've both made the same friends (typically), and a break-up means a loss of more than just a boyfriend/girlfriend. I don't really have anything more to say about this(due to a lack of personal experience in my college years, and due to an unwillingness to share anything deeper than that at this time), so I guess that's all for now.

As for family relationships, keep in touch with your family. Your parents have known you literally your entire life, longer than you even remember. They love you and care about you, and just because you are more independent now doesn't mean you shouldn't check in with them and let them you're all right. And your siblings still love you and care about you, and it would not be fair to them to leave them "out in the cold" and do your own thing. Especially if you're the oldest in the family. Your younger siblings rely on you, and you should be there for support.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

The Essence of Stress

I've come to realize that stress is only what you allow it to be. I think it comes from a need to be in constant control, and when that control begins to slip out of our fingers we freak out and scramble to keep it in place. In the end, we are left with no control and a huge mess. I don't see myself as a very stressful person, and so from this definition, I can't tell if that means that I just have such a solid grip on my control that its rare for that control to slip away, or if I'm just a very malleable person in that I can "go with the flow" so to speak. I tend to think I am more of the latter, because a lot of times my lack of stress comes from a lack of general care about what would typically stress people out.

I had a paper due in the morning, 6 pages, based off of a comparison of two theologians. All the people around me are stressing out and frantically trying to finish it before class in the morning. I've had at least a good week to prepare and get it done. But no, I didn't really give it much thought because I figured "hey, its nothing, you can get it done in one night." And you know what? I did. No stress, no real hassle, just did it.

It's kind of been the story of my life. Very rarely will I get stressed out about stuff. It's definitely not always a good thing, because there have been times when I didn't get my work done, and paid the penalty for it. But I look around sometimes and I see people freaking out and I wonder why. If we go through life worrying about everything, how are we supposed to enjoy the life we have been blessed with? If we surround ourselves with drama all the time, when will we be able to break ot of it enough to take in the world around us? To enjoy the beauty of God's creation, and the company of others. I'm not trying to advocate a life dedicated to pleasure or anything like that, but I just don't see why we should have to stress out over matters that are trivial in the grand scheme of things.

As Christians we are called to give our lives over to God. This includes our grip on control. I think the reason why I have been so stress-free these past couple of years is because I have trusted that God has a plan for me and will help me in my endeavors to fulfill that plan. Well, that and a general lack of concern for HW, never did like doing it. =D

But I don't know, I think stress is just a result of our holding onto control which we just don't have. It's an illusion of control, in reality I don't think we have as much control as we think we do, or think we should.

Friday, October 28, 2011

The Trinity...?

So for our Theology class this week we are going through the Trinity. Trying to understand how God can be three persons in one; three individuals, all with unique responsibilities and personalities and yet all one single entity. The typical response for this kind of lack of understanding is "Oh, well we can't comprehend it with our limited human understanding, we just have to accept it as it is." What I don't understand is, why would God reveal Himself to us in way that we couldn't understand? That just doesn't make sense with what I understand of who God is. If the Bible was written for us as a special revelation, revealing God and His nature to us, then why would He insert this concept of Himself that we could not possibly understand? Either He revealed it to us because we can understand it, or He didn't reveal it to us and the Church inserted the idea of a Triune God into their understanding of the Bible. My main reasoning behind this second answer is that there is no mention of the trinity anywhere in the Bible. I have to admit that during my class period I didn't pay any attention to what the professor was teaching. Instead, I spent the hour searching through my NIV Bible for all references to God as well as any reference to the other two members of the Trinity - Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Here is what I found:

There are 3 specific persons of God mentioned in the Bible: God (the Father), Jesus Christ, and it is understood that the Holy Spirit is of God. However, throughout both the Old and New Testaments, there are no statements, allusions, or references indicating that the three are indeed one. The use of the word "God" and all references to Him are used throughout the entire Bible in a singular form, with the general exception of Genesis 1:26 - "Let US make man in OUR image..." In all other cases, you will see grammar like: "The Lord your God", "The God of Israel", "I am God Almighty", "and I will be your God". God, as He is revealed to us through Scripture, is a singular entity.

Let's look at His Son, Jesus Christ. In Mark 16:19 Jesus ascends into Heaven, to sit at the right hand of God the Father. Note that he is not sitting on the same throne, there are at least two seats up there. Sitting at the right hand also implies a certain degree of servitude, or submission, to whomever it is that you are sitting at the right hand of. I'd like to qualify here that I still believe Jesus Christ is divine. After all He is called the Son of God(as well as the Son of Man), and just as I am a Spatz because I am my father's son, so Jesus is divine because He is the Son of the Divine. One can know the father through his son, or at least that was case back in those days. In those days, the son would learn his father's trade(we see this in the case of Simon Peter and his brother, and James and his brother, working with their respective fathers). In some cases, Jesus would be called the son of the carpenter, or a carpenter in and of himself. His father was a carpenter, so he was too, or at least he knew the trade. In the same way, just as God is divine in nature, so is Jesus divine in nature because he is God's Son.

I want to stress the difference though. Jesus is divine, but He is not God. Nor do I believe He ever claimed to be God (at least not God, the Lord Almighty). He claimed instead to be the Son of God, the promised Messiah sent to save mankind from their sins and eternal damnation. In John 3:16, it says that God sent His Son. He didn't send Himself, He sent His Son, one whom He has authority over and can thus send. To further this concept of their separateness, in John 14:1 Jesus himself says, "Trust in God, trust also in me." Indicating that He and God are not the same person. In Acts 2:24 God raised Jesus (a man) from the dead. He exerted power over someone separate from Himself. In fact, the entire crucifixion scene indicates to me that there could be no direct being between God and Jesus, meaning that they are not the same person. At one point God forsakes His Son because He cannot look upon sin "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" In Luke 18:19, Jesus asks "Why do you call me good? ... No one is good, except God alone." In Philippians 2:5-11 it says Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. And later God exalts Jesus to the highest place, so that "every tongue [may] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." So while Jesus is definitely worthy of our worship and praise as Lord and Savior, it does not seem to me that he is God. So far I see a definite separation of status between Jesus and God. In 1 Timothy 2:5, Jesus is called a mediator between us and God, and as we know he is the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father except through him. So while Jesus is definitely of a divine nature, he is not of the same nature as God the Father, nor does he seem to be on the same level as God the Father.

Then comes the Holy Spirit. This one is more plain than the argument for Jesus. In Genesis 1 it says the Spirit of the Lord was hovering over the waters. This can either be the Holy Spirit or it is referring to God being in spirit form, I'm not really sure. Then later, in Genesis 6:3 it says, "Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal, his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'" A little note here brought me to Galations 5:16-17, where it says, "So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature." And it goes on to say that the Spirit and the sinful nature are in direct conflict with one another. I think in both these cases it seems that the Spirit has some separation from God as well, just like Jesus did. And of course, the concept of the Trinity allows for this kind of separation. They are 3 distinct entities in one. However, in Jesus' case, he had claim to divinity, being the Son of God. However, this is not the case for the Holy Spirit. Not a single passage in the Bible, at least not one that I could find, made any reference to the Holy Spirit as God. Instead, the verses I found all seem to reflect the idea that the Spirit is a lower entity that belongs to God, as something/someone which He can give commands to and send to places. In Isaiah 63:10 it says, "Yet they(the Israelites) rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them." And in the context of this passage it would seem that it is indeed talking about His essence, His Spirit, in the same way that we would talk about being in high or low spirits. But in the New Testament, where most of our information about the Holy Spirit is found, the Holy Spirit (or the Spirit of God) is portrayed as a manifestation of God's will, meaning that God works through His spirit on earth. In Luke 11:13 we see the Holy Spirit as something/someone who can be given away by God the Father: "...how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" In John 4:23-24 we see that God is spirit: "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth."
This passage also had a  note, which brought me to Philippians 3:3, which says that "we worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus." Here it seems plain to me that the use of the term "spirit" is directly related to God. It isn't saying that there is a Spirit that is God, but it does say that God is spirit, indicating that He is not of this world, He is not physical in form. Yet we can worship Him by His spirit, which He has given to those of us who have asked. In John 14:26 it says that God will send us a Counselor to be with us after Jesus has ascended. And we get a look at the function of that counselor in John 16:13-15:
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you."
The Holy Spirit, then, is not God the Father, as we see here, because he only speaks what he hears from Jesus, to whom it was given by God the Father. The Spirit of God is a messenger from God, revealing to us what he hears from God, which is truth. And finally in John 20:22, we find Jesus giving the Holy Spirit to his disciples. Once again we see the Holy Spirit as someone who can be given away. The Holy Spirit comes from God, but is never said to BE God, at least not in the NIV translation.

Something that Leroy Jenkins brought up to me during class was the Nicean Council, which met to determine the person and nature of Jesus Christ in relation to God. At this time, there was no concept of the Trinity. The Council met in 325 CE, and the conclusion was that Jesus Christ was of divine nature. It was not until many years later that the idea of the Holy Spirit being part of this triune God came into the catholic church doctrine.

An idea similar to what I have been contemplating is Subordinationism, which was thought of by Origen, and which inspired Arius' Arianism (which was condemned as heresy in the Nicean Council). Subordinationism claims that the Son is eternally divine but not equal to the Father in being or attributes. Another idea is that of Adoptionism, which says that Jesus was just a man until his baptism, when God the Father adopted him as His Son. This doesn't seem likely in my opinion when I consider the birth narrative of Jesus.

I would propose, to sum up what I have said thus far, that God the Father is the eternal God and Lord Almighty who created the world and all that is in it. His Son, who is also of divine nature, acts as a mediator between God and Man, and came down to earth as a man to save us from our sins, offering up his life as a sacrifice for our atonement. The Holy Spirit is then a manifestation of the will of God, given to us as a messenger and sanctifier, indwelling and empowering us to be followers of Jesus Christ and his example. God is God, Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ, and they are both divine; the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and though it has divine qualities(being of and from God), he is not the God we worship, but rather he is what allows us to worship and know who it is that we worship.

This still leaves me with some questions, like were Jesus and the Holy Spirit created? And if so, when? Or is it possible that Jesus has always existed but is not God? That is to say, can he have existed before creation and yet be separate from God? And what do we do with passages like Matthew 28:19?
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

The other side of the argument of the Trinity is whether there are ONLY 3 persons of God. As Leroy Jenkins figured out during another class, 3-sided objects do not (and cannot) exist in the 3rd dimension. So either God has only one Person, or He has 4 or more. Who really knows? All I know is that if the Bible is supposed to give us Special Revelation, why would it contain concepts and ideas beyond our comprehension? I feel like He would want us to be able to understand who He is, and thus worship Him as such.

I would also like to state that my denial (or contention) in regard to the Trinity is considered heresy in the Church. But what if the concept of the Trinity is not an accurate portrayal of the nature of God? What then? How might that impact our understanding of who God is, and thus who it is that we worship?

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Chapel

We are talking about chapel and how we are required to go to 30 every semester. I just want to say that if chapel were not required, I would not go.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Truth

So what is truth? How can we as human beings grasp it? CAN we as human beings grasp it? Does it really exist or has the postmodern world destroyed it? Has our newfound concept of multiple truths killed any prospect of absolute truth, and in so doing destroyed any hope we have of stability in a society of spiritual chaos?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I started thinking aout these questions during my Christian Formation class the other day. We were talking about philosophy's effect on the Christian faith and how we've come to the postmodernity we live in now. By postmodernity I mean an age in which we question everything because we are skeptical of everything. Tradition, history, all stability we might have is thrown out the window as we question everything people used to hold as absolutely true. And so a question that was asked in class was how we viewed truth, and how we believed it could be obtained and defined and verified. The issue we were dealing with is the multiple truth philosophy held by our society; how what is true for you is not necessarily true for me. And the problem that poses to Christianity is this: How can we claim to have the truth when everyone else has their own truth? Who are we to challenge the truths held by other religions, or even just the truth held by the people around us?

How do we define truth? From a Christian standpoint truth is defined as the Words of God. He is our precedent of truth. But is that adequate today? I don't think many postmodernistic people would say so. Truth has to be something that everyone not only CAN agree on, but HAS to agree on. An absolute truth is something that cannot be denied, it cannot be contested, because it is absolutely true. This is a poor example, but you cannot adequately argue that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. It is a known truth, it is something we can all agree on. But that is math, not theology. How do we defend our faith as true from a postmodern world? If nothing is absolutely true anymore, what can anyone believe in beyond themselves? Nothing. There is no stability in a world without universal truth. And despite the chaos that is rampant in society, I would say we live in a very stable world, which means that something or someone is keeping it that way. In my mind, God is a necessary truth. He has to exist, or none of this makes any sense. Without Him, there is no purpose to the world, no order to the world, and no purpose in our lives.

Unfortunately I can't think straight right now, so I'll end this post here. Hopefully I'll have more structured things to say on this later.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Worship

This is less focused on what worship really is, and more focused on the differences between contemporary and traditional worship. We were talking about hymns and musical preferences when it comes to worship in a church service during my apologetics class today. And it got me to thinking which is better, if either of them, in regards to worship? Because we were also talking about the benefits of clinging onto tradition, and how especially in today's world of constant motion and change people are searching for something constant and stable. So during class I kind of listed out some of the pros and cons of each(from my perspective of course):

Contemporary Pros:
More relevant to contemporary listeners/worshippers
Directed more toward individual
Carries a lot of emotional content and feelings
Fast-paced like our society

Hymn Pros:
Communal
Simple, easy to pick up
Solidly based on Scripture
Traditional
Recognizable
Slow-paced

Contemporary Cons:
Complex, hard to pick up new songs
Tempos and rythms vary a great deal
Theological ideals range drastically
Too focused on self, not enough on God

Hymn Cons:
Emotionless sometimes?
"Old"
Disconnected from today's society and today's problems

So which is better for a church service? I know some churches like to have two services; one for contemporary worship and one for traditional worship, and other churches try to mix it up during the service, and put in a little of both. My professor hates that idea, he believes that leaves everybody unhappy. And of course there are churches that decide one is better than the other and only offer that kind of worship. Now, I actually enjoy services that include both forms of worship, especially when its done well. But I'm still left with the question: Which is better, or more conducive to worship?

I'm not sure there is an answer here, at least not an all-encompassing one. Different people grow up with different forms of worship, and thus prefer different forms of worship in accordance(most of the time) with what they grow up with. Not to say that some if not most people can/will adjust to new forms of worship, but I still think there is a preference in everybody for what they grow up with.

Which leads me to believe that there is no best form of worship. So long as we are worshipping our God and Creator, I think we can do that in whatever way works.

Food for Thought

This post will probably be updated with comments or something like that now and again. But a question that came to me during my Christian Formation class as we talked briefly about Rene Descartes was this: In his statement "I think therefore I am.", was Descartes asserting some claim to divinity with the use of the phrase "I am"?? He was a man of the Christian faith, to the shock of many, and his philosophical ideas were intended to further man's knowledge of, and ability to know, God. And so I am wondering if he intentionally used that phrase in his philosophy, in an attempt to draw the image of man closer to the image of God.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Am I Selfish or Selfless?

The title is deceiving, because as far as humanity goes we are selfish in and of ourselves due to our sinful nature. However, the question I am trying to ask is whether or not I am thinking in the best interests of others or if I am simply being selfish right now. As you probably have read in the previous post, I am currently struggling with this pervasive need to be alone. I'm in a state of mind where I need time to myself to think things through without worrying about what those around me want to do. And it is difficult to draw the line between collecting myself so that I can better interact with those around me, and simply wanting to give in to the selfish desires of my heart. I know deep down that in order for me to deal with other people in a godly way I need time alone with God to reevaluate my life and priorities, and in that way I know that my desire to get "Me-time" is a godly desire. However, the other part of me wants to be able to get away from everyone else so that I can do my own thing. That's the selfish part, and I can clearly distinguish the two. The problem is not identifying the two sides, the problem is that while I really do need time to myself, I only really want to use it as an excuse to do whatever I want to do.

And maybe doing what I want to do isn't such a bad thing, but when it leads me away from my friends and distances me from God, then it is a problem. The interesting thing is, I hadn't even thought about this until I started writing this post. So perhaps the real dilemma was that I knew deep down what the real problem was, but didn't want to admit it. While I have been thinking deeply about God's Word and theodicy and all sorts of issues lately, I've been ignoring my relationship with my Creator. This doesn't mean that my breakdown the other day is irrelevant, on the contrary it means that I need to start setting apart time where I can talk with God and study His Word in a more relational way.

So to conclude this, I am selfish, very selfish, but I need to start working on being more selfless, as should we all.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Community

So today we had a field trip for our Christian Formation in a Cultural Context class. I don't really want to go into the details, but basically we talked with kids from Lynn who took part in a study on human formation 6 years ago, and are back to follow-up. The class talks a lot about how important it is to have a Tri-polar relationship with God, meaning that there should be a triangle between God(at the top corner), you(at the bottom left), and other people(at the bottom right). This triangle represents the role of community in a right relationship with God. You can see and understand yourself better through other people, thus allowing you to see and better understand God. We develop our relationship with God in the same way that we develop our relationship with others, and by developing healthy Christian relationships with others, we grow closer to God.

While this field trip got me out of a class, it also made me late for the Inaugural Ball. My friend group all went together, which is totes better than trying the "Bring a Date" thing. If it came down to dates, let's just say I wouldn't have gone. Not because I'm not interested, but because I'm a retarded baffoon with no self-confidence or ambition. Anyway, so I showed up late after changing into nicer clothes, said hi to people, felt awkward for a few minutes, then decided to leave. I didn't feel right. Something about the whole thing left a pit of ... something, I don't know what, in my stomach, so I had to leave. I had to get out of there.

And of course, it's raining outside. It's bad enough that rain depresses me, but with me already not feeling right, it just got bad. I am currently in no mood to deal with people. And perhaps this is a result of not getting alone time, like, ever. I never get to spend time by myself, unless I go seclude myself in some corner of Ferrin or walk somewhere in the woods, which I don't really want to do. For me I get alone time by playing videogames, or reading(which I haven't had a good book to read in ages), or writing a story. *On a side note I guess you could say writing this blog is like writing a story.* Anyway, I can't play videogames because that's in my room and that's where there is ALWAYS somebody who wants to DO something, and I can't be alone if I'm worrying about what other people want to do. I can't read a book for two reasons: I don't have anything worth reading(besides the Bible of course, but that's not the kind of reading I'm thinking of), and I've got almost nowhere to read that is both secluded and comfortable. Where I am now excluded, though it is cold. And for some reason that I cannot adequately explain, I can't write a story while at Gordon. Something about the atmosphere of college life hinders me from focusing on a story. Words won't come, ideas don't flow, it sucks... P.S. I've resorted to naps, people tend not to bother me when I'm taking a nap, though some get pretty pissed off.

So anyway, I don't want to deal with people right now. Someone asked where I was and I lied to them(sorry), because I can't talk about this with someone right now. Maybe later, but now is not the time.

All this to ask, how does community help develop Christian character and a right relationship with God if dealing with people ends up just pissing you off in the end? *On another side note, if any of you are reading this, it's not you that's pissing me off, it's dealing with people in general on a daily basis to the point where I don't get to deal with myself.*

Warning: profanity
I think I'm too nice, because some people just came in and asked if they could play something real quick, and I said sure, no problem. And maybe that's the other reason I can't talk to someone right now. I'd force myself to shrug it off for later, and then I'd be stuck with this shitty feeling again some other time. And once again I would seek solitude to the exclusion of my friends and those I care about. Just get the fuck out of me, and let me be in peace.
End profanity

On the bright side, I found out Chris is a really good guitar player. I'm impressed, even in this mood. And with that I think I will end this post.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

The Beginnings of a New Year

No, its not New Year, but this is the start of my Junior year at Gordon College. I have a new job, I am now the Director of the student venues council, basically placing me over Chester's Place and giving me oversight of several other spaces on campus. It's been difficult adjusting to my new responsibilities, especially since coming in I had very little knowledge of what the previous directors had done. Basically, I didn't know anything. But I am getting the hang of it, it's all starting to make sense and fit into a pattern and rythm. Which is good. I make a bit more money than I used to (always a plus, I really suggest it), and I get to work with a lot of great people. Some aren't so great, but you can't win everything.

Classes are freaking sweet. I'm finally taking all Youth Ministry major-related classes, and it is fantastic. I get to discuss stuff basically everyday, which I LOVE to do. I've already thought at least a little bit about everything we are going through, and some of those thoughts have already been posted in here, so I can just go back and reread my own thoughts... It's pretty neat, once again I'd suggest it. Thankfully this will give me more to talk and think about for this blog, so all you non-followers will finally have some reading material again (exciting, I know).

I think friendships are getting a little strained this year. I'm in a triple now, and it's been difficult reconciling the differences me and my new roommates have. We aren't very good at expressing our feelings on things and dealing with each other, and the bigger problem is that we all have the same friends. I'm starting to second guess my decision to room with them, not because of who they are but because we can't seem to get away from each other enough to refill our "straws" of patience. It doesn't help either that our friend group has dwindled. We lost several key members this year, both to studying abroad and switching colleges, and it has been painful. We can barely fill up a booth now in Chester's, and we've run out of exciting things to do. I feel like we need to reexpand our friend group, but how do you even go about doing that? Hold auditions? That would be fun, but I doubt it would work...

On the upside, my floor this year is the best I've ever had. We got a bunch of new freshmen, and all the stuck up seniors from last year have fled the premises. It's so much easier to have community when everyone actually wants to get involved (which is more than I can say for my roommates =P). But for the first time since I came to Gordon I have a floor that I can connect with, and it's amazing. I love it. And also on the upside, even with a smaller group of friends, I think that has allowed me to grow closer to my friends, to get to level of friendship that we didn't have last year or two years ago. I'm not very open by nature, I'm used to holding myself back(more because I don't know how to let it out than because I'm afraid of getting hurt or anything like that), and because of this closedness I feel like there has been some distance between the others and I, there has been a lack of depth which I have been desiring for quite some time now.

And on a final note, I think that depth begs more than simple friendship. I might actually be looking for something more serious, or to put it better, someone more serious. I've noticed over the past several months that I have been longing for something, something deeper than what I have. Something more relational than I've ever had outside my family. I've been longing for a relationship with a significant other, someone to share my experiences with and grow close to.

And just so I don't get too focused on that before I go to bed(yes it is that time of night), let me just say that squirrels are awesome, guns are cool, and I might need some tape because I am ripped!

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Family Versus Friends

This is less of a philosophical post than previous ones, I'm trying to figure out why home has become so dreary since college started, and I think I have come up with an adequate answer. The answer is a social life, I finally got one and every break(Quad, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Spring, Easter, and Summer) I desert my social life for my family.

I suppose this is putting it a bit drastically. I mean, I love my family, I would not have ever survived my childhood with any other family(they would have killed me). But there is something about friends that make life more interesting, they make life, at least my life, worth living. I have found that I am more free to be who I want to be when I'm around my friends than when I'm with my family. When I go home for breaks I go back to who I used to be, to some degree, because I'm placed back under the direct authority of my parents and the expactations of my family. They expect me to be the same person I was when I left, and while I still am for the most part, there is change and I like the change.

Like I mentioned, I now have a social life. Before college, I had friends at school(not many mind you), friends at church, and once upon a time friends in my neighborhood. But I never really hung out with anybody outside of those areas. Most of my time was spent at home, playing videogames by myself or watching tv or some other mindless activity. When I went to college, I got to experience what it was like to go hang out with people whenever and wherever. Spur of the moment trips to Starbucks or just about anywhere off-campus, latenight movie nights and Claymore runs. I got to hang out with people my own age, schedule my own time, and do essentially whatever I wanted to do. (Of course I still had hw and stuff I had to do.)

Going home, while there is no work to be done(homework-wise), there is no one to hang out with either. I get to spend time with my family, but its just not the same... And since I totally just lost my train of thought, I'm going to say that the new Pirates movie was freaking awesome and end with that...

P.S. The whole point of this post is to say that I miss my friends, and its only been two days for some of them... If any of you are reading this(though you had better not be, because that means you are probably following me), I miss you.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Hell, A Nightmare?

Can we imagine what Hell is like? Can we experience "A Hell on earth", as the expression goes? I think because of sin we get little snippets of Hell here and there. The consequences of a lie, rejection, the loss of loved ones, bad break-ups, divorce, miscarriages, rape, war... These can all give us a taste of what it's like to be apart from God. But what is Hell, really? What makes it so bad? Is it really a pit of fire that burns our souls for eternity? I don't know for sure, no one does. But we can speculate.

Personally, I believe Hell is simply the complete isolation of a person for all of eternity. The pain that is described as fire is the pain of complete loneliness. Think of a time when you were left alone at home, or got lost in the woods, or found yourself alone working on hw when everyone else has gone to bed. Think of the pain you felt when you realized there was NO ONE else around, that there was absolutely no one to talk to, no one to help you find your way, or to comfort you. Then try multiplying that pain by infinite. Hell is complete separation from God, and I take that to mean that a person in Hell is completely isolated from everyone and everything else in existence. No God, no family, no friends, no pets, not even any enemies. Nothing but yourself.

Maybe you're ok for a day, maybe you like being alone. But after a week, a month, a year, a decade, a century, a millenium, you might begin to long for companionship. The loneliness will creep up on you, it will begin to consume you, every fiber of your being will be racked with the pain of the absence of others. What's worse, you might even be able to remember your time here on earth, so you remember what its like to have friends, or at least someone to talk to and hang out with. You remember what it's like to not be alone.

I don't know about you, but I couldn't take it. I like being alone for a little bit here and there, I just need to get away from people and breathe. But even then, God is with me. He is always by my side keeping me company, guiding me through my life, giving me strength to go on. Without Him, I don't think even my friends could begin to fill the gaping hole that would be left in my life. I've got wonderful friends and I don't know what I would do without them, but they can't take the place of God.

Hell is too much, way too much for me handle. If anyone truly thought about it, they wouldn't be able to handle it either. There would be no choice left to them but to accept God's free gift of salvation. And I realize that I haven't said much, nor have I put much structure in these paragraphs, but whatevs, right? It's just a blog, not a term paper for Historical Perspectives or anything serious like that, so get off my back. =P Also, I'm definitely too self-critical...

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

End of Evil?

After the last post I decided to go back and look over some of the other handouts he gave us, remembering that I had a similar spurt of writing at another time. In class we were talking about deconstuctionism, whichdoes not look to resolve conflicts or derive true meaning in a text, it simply points out inconcistencies and how the text unravels itself. Here is what I found:

"Evil won't be done away with because God destroys evil with evil, inflicting pain and suffering upon those who do not submit to His will.
- However, one must consider that if God truly is the Creator of this world, He not only has the right to exert authority over us, but also the authority to determine what is right and wrong.
- Sin is defined as an act of disobedience to God. Therefore evil must be defined as any force acting in opposition to the will of God. If this is the case, God truly cannot sin, because He cannot act contrary to His own will. In this way, His actions in Revelation are not evil, they are a judgment against those who do not/did not follow the rules He set out for us to live by. Christians are exempted from most of this judgment because we have chosen to accept the gift of salvation that God gave to all who were willing to accept it.
- Hell is defined as complete separation from God. I don't believe there is any fire involved, just the pain and suffering that comes with being totally and utterly alone. When God condemns all unbelievers to Hell, He is essentially giving them what they want in that to them He will no longer exist; they can no longer know Him."

Once again, I think there is a bit of a lack of transition between my thoughts, but at least they are separated by bullet points, right? And the conclusion I have come to here is that God cannot sin, nor is He evil. Christians are not judged as harshly as non-Christians because we chose to at least try to follow God. And when non-Christians go to Hell, they suffer from complete and utter loneliness, there is nothing worse than being alone, and no pain greater. Fire is simply used to elaborate the fact that its a constant, searing pain.

There will be an end to evil, as we see in God's act of destroying it which I touched on a little bit in my previous post. Also, I have decided that short posts are useless in this blog, so don't expect to see any more...

The Origin of Evil

So I haven't posted in forever, not like it matters... But anyway, this semester I took a course on Biblical Hermeneutics, which is the study of interpretation and translation in regards to the Bible. Well at one point in class the professor mentioned a passage in Revelation which refers to the sea being no more, and he interpreted that to mean that evil would be no more, because earlier in Revelation the beast, which definitely represented evil, rose up out of the sea, and so the professor proceeded to equate the sea with evil. Well, this did not sit well with me, and so I began to write furiously on the back of our handout(he loves handouts). Here is what I wrote:

"When John mentions/adds the fact that the sea will be gone (no more), I do ont think it is the case that he is referencing the evil represented by the sea. A close reading of Genesis 1 will show that there is no mention of the creation of the sea (water). "The Deep" is mentioned, and God separates the Deep into the sea and the sky. He does not create it, He only separates it. So the significance in John is that not only will God destroy created things but pre-creation things as well.
It is possible that one can still allude the sea to evil, since there is no explanation about how evil came to be. In this case, the Deep could be a possible source of evil, as most Christians will not tolerate the thought that God created evil. Which begs the question, If not from God, where did evil come from?
Personally, I believe that in some way evil came from God. Without evil, He cannot be glorified in every aspect of His being. His goodness cannot be glorified if there is no evil to compare it to. His mercy and grace cannot be glorified if we did not fall and become in need of it. Therefore, in order to be fully glorified, I believe God created evil. It's that or evil is also eternal. Once again, the significance of the destruction of the sea can be seen as God destroying something that He did not create, which would glorify His omnipotent power."

As you can probably tell, I was writing fast and didn't really pace myself enough to make transitions between thoughts, so it might a little difficult to follow, and I apologize for that. Basically the conclusion i came to is that either God is the creator of evil, and ultimately its destroyer as well, or evil, like the sea, is an eternal object like God, and that He is so powerful that He can destroy even other eternal things (which of course would make them a little less eternal than they thought =)).

I've never really heard any other suggestions for the origin of evil. I feel like Christians like to believe that Satan (or Lucifer) created sin, although they would probably never actually say it, because that means that God is not the only being with the power to create. Maybe He is, maybe He isn't. I'm not sure that we can really know. But my purpose in writing this is to put some questions in your head, and if you don't like it, that's too bad because you shouldn't be following me anyway...