I was stumped as I was pondering on what to write for the exact joys of being single. Not saying I don't enjoy it for the most part but my blogs intention have been to divulge my theory on different subjects, relationships/dating included. So for me to continue to explain such information and then gear into a joy of being single it has taken a bit more thought. So building on where I left off, Joys of Being Single Pt I I figured I would go in the direction of what can be learned being single.
I am single, satisfied, and celibate. I think if someone is constantly single and looking they might not stop and enjoy the personal development I have found from this season in my life. The main point of Pt I was the joy of knowing yourself. So it seemed it would make sense to dive into knowing others. I have known for a while I make friends with women far more and easier than with men. I think this is for several main reasons.
First, I am not the typical male. How do I define a typical male? A typical male is one who is constantly on the prowl to seek females for either physical gratification or personal satisfaction. I think this is generally referred to as being a “player” or “pimp”. I wouldn't go so far to say the average male is a player or a pimp but I will say the majority either attempt to live that lifestyle or hold it in high regard. From what I have seen of it, the goal of the player/pimp is to either have one night stands and or multiple girlfriends simultaneously without any sense of remorse. I believe that lifestyle is altogether shallow and selfish. This is perhaps the ONLY thing I can agree with feminists.
Second, I can talk about my feelings. I have gotten over the stigma, actually I don't know if I ever had it, to be able to describe in words what I am thinking and feeling. This can also fall into the not-typical-male criteria, it is rather more common for males to not be in touch or have the desire to express themselves emotionally. When they do, it happens to be in the situation of a relationship. Dare I say, either many men are shallow or have walls which keep people away from their inner being. I think I am pretty far from either of those descriptions. I am irked that most males have not yet been given social permission to express themselves emotionally in a masculine manner. In fact, the very thought of expressing one's emotions is still socially, feminine.
Third, I do not seek a relationship upon first meeting a woman. Any relationship seriously based on physical attraction will only last as long as the plastic surgery can be paid for. I seek to be friends first, I don't have any pick up lines nor do I try to flatter a girl by her attractiveness. I want to be friends first. Most men asses if they are “interested” within a few seconds of seeing a woman. They will introduce themselves to start a relationship (or less). Their goal from first sight is to quickly determine if they want to hook up or start a relationship. Maybe, since I don't approach women with intent to get something from them and they realize it by me being authentic, they are willing to open up on a personal level. Because my goal is to meet people/be friendly, I approach women as individual people with functioning brains. Something I think the Rico Sauvé approach completely ignores.
As I expressed in The Single Guy moving from being the friend to possibly boyfriend is completely unknown territory for me. On the other hand, I know who people are. I know how to talk, approach, and treat them on a level foreign to most women in modern society. To value someone for who they are, I think is one of the most powerful ways of sharing my faith and a great way to authentically know someone. Few people go about life to truly try to understand the people we share this world with. This is kind of ties into my current read, people are yearning for community. So far the book has addressed how people are lonely on the inside and how small groups meet that need. I want to try to meet people's need, to know them. I take it even further Christians ought to be seeking people to meet the need as well.
Enough of the segue, back to the theory. The theory as mentioned in Dating, or Lack Thereof a relationship should not be start on a superficial level. Through my method of social interaction people who I know on the superficial level are not people I would claim to know. The joy of knowing people on their individual level is why I had not had a desire to start a romantic relationship. I was satisfied with knowing my friends, the friendships I held were rather deep. The change that has hit me over the months has been my desire for more than that because I am starting to approach the point in my life where I want to start a family. For the whole family thing to happen, I can't really do that with just friends, unless I start a cult or something.
For Jonathan's sake and pickiness I think I will write a closing paragraph. The second joy of being single is learning and knowing how to interact with women on a similar level as knowing men, we’ll probably even deeper. Which reminds me of Christian Men, men in the church are not being what they should be. I am also reminded of a Hume talk that will likely result in a blog about the general lack of emotional awareness and ability to love (phileo) fellow men. The social skills of being able to interact with the opposite sex is highly effective in sharing Christ's love and knowing the true person.
Oct 14, 2006
Oct 9, 2006
Joys of Being Single pt I
One of the first things I noticed that I neglected to mention in Dating or Lack Thereof was the importance of self identity. I think this period in our lives begins in Jr High for most and is well on its way through high school and is finalized in the college age years. Of course this does vary with maturity and the individual's experiences. This factor I think is the primary reason why the teenage years are deemed to be so chaotic by parents, sociologists and the like. I know we can all think of some people who are past college age and still have no idea of who they really are. If the stage of self development is overlooked or not completed I think one of two routes will happen. Either the person will continue to act as they were wherever they “developmentally left off”, never fully developing into a mature adult in that respect, or they will be influenced by others into someone they might not have become had they defined themselves earlier. Actually let’s add one more possibility in the mix, upon a major life changing event, such as becoming a parent; some people start to figure things out at that point.
Many people start getting into relationships too soon in their personal development and are often directed in ways they did not intend or plan. I spent my teen years watching people live and get-together, I used those experiences of friends and classmates to build a “study” of high school relationships. I recall asking many friends “what their goals were in the ____ relationship?”. The majority of people had no idea what I was talking about, which I found rather interesting.
In my over-analyzed life, I attempt to always have a reason why I do something. It is not necessarily always the best, most productive reason, but I will have a reason nonetheless, to quote Agent Smith ”there must be a reason, a purpose.” For those who do have an answer as to why they were in such relationship it would usually be one or more of the following: “to have fun”, “to discover myself”, “to find out what kind of person I want”, or “to get X (X being some physical gratification)”. I don't think I need to dive into why it is a bad idea to have a relationship simply for fun; emotions are great when it is great but are really bad when it is bad. It is not wise to play with emotions. When physical gratification is the primary goal one or both parties are in it for their selfish desires. Their attitudes will reflect their desires and eventually lead to using and/or demeaning each other.
I find the most mentally perplexing reason for the relationship is “to discover myself”. I don't think self discovery is a group activity. Whenever I hear a person talking about “finding themselves” I wonder “when did you lose yourself?” I think what they mean is they are trying to define themselves. When someone in a vulnerable position, such as a dating relationship, is undefined; an inherent burden is put the other person to assist in their definition. This is a highly disadvantageous situation if the burdened person is not acting for the benefit of the other. If both individuals are trying to “find themselves” you have two lost people looking for someone they don't know.
I find the motivation “to figure out what kind of person I want” as a valid reason to date nonsensical. It is an attempt to give them license to not discern who they give their emotions to. I know exactly what kind of woman I am looking for, how do I know? I know who I am. I know what I want to be. I would only make sense to select the kind of person who will encourage my lifestyle and direction. I am looking for someone whose life will be complimentary to mine. Opposites might attract but attraction does not build families.
The foremost advantage from my years of singleness, I have been able to develop and define myself for who I want to be. I know in thought and my dreams, I imagine the first person I date I'll marry. I am not entirely opposed to that happening but I should not expect it to happen. To do so would be the definition of un-necessary stress on a relationship. I also take into account the advice from those who have experience with the other half, many of whom proclaim “I have much to learn about relationships”. I must agree with them.
I recently finished a relationship book. I find it funny that I am reading books about Christian courtship and relationships especially when I know I won't be acting on the things I learn from it for at least another 2 years. It is a topic that has been circulating my head more in the recent months, and it is a nice break from a deeply philosophic or scientific reads which are more typical. As the title suggests it follows the relationship of Isaac and Rebecca in Genesis. Although they went through the courting style of getting together the book was formatted to suit dating more than actual courtship in my opinion. I have a better idea as far as mental knowledge goes as to what sacrifice and love is. Actually my idea of love much more clear than it has previously been. Love is so much more about a commitment and conscious decision than a feeling many people have made it out to be. I was also chuckling upon the conclusion of the latest book, I can spend months on a deep read but the average time for a book on relationships is less than 24 hours.
Many people start getting into relationships too soon in their personal development and are often directed in ways they did not intend or plan. I spent my teen years watching people live and get-together, I used those experiences of friends and classmates to build a “study” of high school relationships. I recall asking many friends “what their goals were in the ____ relationship?”. The majority of people had no idea what I was talking about, which I found rather interesting.
In my over-analyzed life, I attempt to always have a reason why I do something. It is not necessarily always the best, most productive reason, but I will have a reason nonetheless, to quote Agent Smith ”there must be a reason, a purpose.” For those who do have an answer as to why they were in such relationship it would usually be one or more of the following: “to have fun”, “to discover myself”, “to find out what kind of person I want”, or “to get X (X being some physical gratification)”. I don't think I need to dive into why it is a bad idea to have a relationship simply for fun; emotions are great when it is great but are really bad when it is bad. It is not wise to play with emotions. When physical gratification is the primary goal one or both parties are in it for their selfish desires. Their attitudes will reflect their desires and eventually lead to using and/or demeaning each other.
I find the most mentally perplexing reason for the relationship is “to discover myself”. I don't think self discovery is a group activity. Whenever I hear a person talking about “finding themselves” I wonder “when did you lose yourself?” I think what they mean is they are trying to define themselves. When someone in a vulnerable position, such as a dating relationship, is undefined; an inherent burden is put the other person to assist in their definition. This is a highly disadvantageous situation if the burdened person is not acting for the benefit of the other. If both individuals are trying to “find themselves” you have two lost people looking for someone they don't know.
I find the motivation “to figure out what kind of person I want” as a valid reason to date nonsensical. It is an attempt to give them license to not discern who they give their emotions to. I know exactly what kind of woman I am looking for, how do I know? I know who I am. I know what I want to be. I would only make sense to select the kind of person who will encourage my lifestyle and direction. I am looking for someone whose life will be complimentary to mine. Opposites might attract but attraction does not build families.
The foremost advantage from my years of singleness, I have been able to develop and define myself for who I want to be. I know in thought and my dreams, I imagine the first person I date I'll marry. I am not entirely opposed to that happening but I should not expect it to happen. To do so would be the definition of un-necessary stress on a relationship. I also take into account the advice from those who have experience with the other half, many of whom proclaim “I have much to learn about relationships”. I must agree with them.
I recently finished a relationship book. I find it funny that I am reading books about Christian courtship and relationships especially when I know I won't be acting on the things I learn from it for at least another 2 years. It is a topic that has been circulating my head more in the recent months, and it is a nice break from a deeply philosophic or scientific reads which are more typical. As the title suggests it follows the relationship of Isaac and Rebecca in Genesis. Although they went through the courting style of getting together the book was formatted to suit dating more than actual courtship in my opinion. I have a better idea as far as mental knowledge goes as to what sacrifice and love is. Actually my idea of love much more clear than it has previously been. Love is so much more about a commitment and conscious decision than a feeling many people have made it out to be. I was also chuckling upon the conclusion of the latest book, I can spend months on a deep read but the average time for a book on relationships is less than 24 hours.
Oct 6, 2006
Can Christians Believe in Evolution?
As I was joyfully approaching the end of my current read when I got to thinking again. Something I noted in the midst of the 14 essays contained in the book was virtually all of the contributors never pronounced any stance on what they believed. They only stated they did not believe in evolution in its current state or under the present evidences of support. Myself being clearly defined as a young Earth creationist found that somewhat disconcerting. I find it necessary to explain some terms so we are speaking and reading the same language.
First, by reference to evolution, this pertains to macro-evolution and the guidance by survival of the fittest. I in no way attempt to argue against bacteria adapting and "evolving" as some phrase it, to antibiotics, or that the peppered moths did not change in quantity in relation to the air quality during the observations of the peppered moths in the UK. Second, what on earth is a young earth creationist? Within the camps of creationist, those that believe the Genesis account of creation, there are young Earth and old Earth. The young Earth creationists believe the Earth and the universe is somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years old, while old Earth creationists hold to the billions of years suggested by evolutionary theory. As I go along any other choice vocabulary I happen to describe I'll be sure to define.
As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, the majority of the contributors did not explain what they believed. The editor and contributor of the book, Willaim Dembski, mentioned he was a creationist but I am unsure if he is in the young earth or old earth camp. I know I have written several other blogs about the topic as a whole and you may start to notice as I have learned from the number of books I have read so far on the topic, it is a vast topic. Something I have definitely noticed there are not many books about young earth creationism by very many people with decent credentials showing that they have a functioning brain. I would say Answers in Genesis is one of the main forces for the young earth theory.
Why this is I think is very understandable. In the scientific community there are very few (by proportion) people that have actively stated that they have disagreements with evolutionary theory. In fact, it is even mentioned in Darwin's Black Box if you are a beginning scientist whom wishes to have a career to be silent about your reservations/disagreements. To publicly state that you may have disagreements about the evolutionary theory is in the same breath to kill one's scientific career. Every intellectual I have read so far started believing the theory and after time, tenure and critical thinking they changed their beliefs. In addition to having a red letter on their white collar to much of the community discredits their further science. So unless someone plans on working for a creation science organization to pursue a career in science it is any wonder that there are so few scientists who actively pursue young earth science. A further difficulty in having a greater number of young earth scientists is the limitation of opportunities. By the nature of young earth science, it is related to the Genesis account (they would be Christians) whereas the intelligent design theory while many of the proponents are Christians the actual theory only pertains to an intelligence, be it God, aliens, or some other form of intelligence.
I asked it in the title and it was not a rhetorical question, “Can Christians believe in evolution?” The simple short answer, I do not believe so. Then again you knew I would never answer something so simply. In order to fully answer that question it begs the prior question of what one believes the Bible is? If it is the literal Word of God (take into account that the books of prophecy and poetic books like Psalms, Song of Solomon, and Proverbs use metaphors) or if it is merely a book of stories and legends. Anyone who has looked can easily find the historical proof Jesus of Nazareth existed, be it the direct ancient manuscripts which composes the Bible, the writings of the ancient Jewish historian Tacitus, Jesus’ existence has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. What about the history of the Old Testament? Namely Genesis since that seems to be the key book in this topic.
I think we can biblically figure out if those that wrote the bible believed in the Genesis account of creation. Through a simple search on Biblegateway there are 24 results, allow me to dive into some of them:
In Matthew 13:34-36 Jesus refers to creation in such a way as a specific time. This is also confirmed in Matthew 25:33-35, Mark 10:5-7, and John 17:23-25 just to start. One of my favorite passages, Romans 1:19-21 Paul refers to Creation as the starting point people knew about God and chose to exchange God for something else. Paul mentions creation several other times in Romans, in those terms it was in reference to all the created things. In 2 Corinthians 5:16-18, we are described as new creations when we are in Christ, the logical implication is that before we were in Christ we were old creations. I think that is worth mentioning that we are described as created things, one would reasonably think that to be referred to as something that was created that the event of Creation was believed as such. Galatians 6 also mentions that we are new creations.
Creation is mentioned as an actual event multiple times in Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, and Revelations. Does it make sense that if the authors of scripture believed creation happened, it did? If that is true then I think it would make sense for us also to approach our origins in a similar way.
The other major point about creation being necessary to Christianity is one's belief of original sin. Did sin and death enter the world the moment the fruit from Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten? Be it those that say Christianity is compatible with evolution claiming that it was guided by God or those that take Psalm 90:4 out of context to claim creation was not 7 literal days, day being 24 hours not thousands of years. If sin did not usher death into this world first, alternative theories are saying that at the point in the world when God pronounced the world and all creation to be very good death was present. It also contradicts Romans 5:12-21, Romans 6:15-17. As those passages clearly state, sin is the prerequisite of death. That doesn't mention there for those that want to believe the Day-Age Theory (a day is like a thousand years) there are certain issues of science to answer, such as how did plants survive without the sun. After all plants were created on day 3 while the sun and moon (light to govern the day and light to govern the night) were created on day 4.
So what is the gist of all this? A person can call themselves a Christian and believe whatever they want. However, to be a Christian, is to believe the Bible as the Word of God. I do not think a Christian can believe evolutionary theory as it is in its current form, ie without acknowledgement of God. Those who claim the two beliefs can be compatible negate to mention in order for their faith and idea of science to be compatible, either the Christian doctrine or the evolutionary doctrine must compromise.
First, by reference to evolution, this pertains to macro-evolution and the guidance by survival of the fittest. I in no way attempt to argue against bacteria adapting and "evolving" as some phrase it, to antibiotics, or that the peppered moths did not change in quantity in relation to the air quality during the observations of the peppered moths in the UK. Second, what on earth is a young earth creationist? Within the camps of creationist, those that believe the Genesis account of creation, there are young Earth and old Earth. The young Earth creationists believe the Earth and the universe is somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years old, while old Earth creationists hold to the billions of years suggested by evolutionary theory. As I go along any other choice vocabulary I happen to describe I'll be sure to define.
As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, the majority of the contributors did not explain what they believed. The editor and contributor of the book, Willaim Dembski, mentioned he was a creationist but I am unsure if he is in the young earth or old earth camp. I know I have written several other blogs about the topic as a whole and you may start to notice as I have learned from the number of books I have read so far on the topic, it is a vast topic. Something I have definitely noticed there are not many books about young earth creationism by very many people with decent credentials showing that they have a functioning brain. I would say Answers in Genesis is one of the main forces for the young earth theory.
Why this is I think is very understandable. In the scientific community there are very few (by proportion) people that have actively stated that they have disagreements with evolutionary theory. In fact, it is even mentioned in Darwin's Black Box if you are a beginning scientist whom wishes to have a career to be silent about your reservations/disagreements. To publicly state that you may have disagreements about the evolutionary theory is in the same breath to kill one's scientific career. Every intellectual I have read so far started believing the theory and after time, tenure and critical thinking they changed their beliefs. In addition to having a red letter on their white collar to much of the community discredits their further science. So unless someone plans on working for a creation science organization to pursue a career in science it is any wonder that there are so few scientists who actively pursue young earth science. A further difficulty in having a greater number of young earth scientists is the limitation of opportunities. By the nature of young earth science, it is related to the Genesis account (they would be Christians) whereas the intelligent design theory while many of the proponents are Christians the actual theory only pertains to an intelligence, be it God, aliens, or some other form of intelligence.
I asked it in the title and it was not a rhetorical question, “Can Christians believe in evolution?” The simple short answer, I do not believe so. Then again you knew I would never answer something so simply. In order to fully answer that question it begs the prior question of what one believes the Bible is? If it is the literal Word of God (take into account that the books of prophecy and poetic books like Psalms, Song of Solomon, and Proverbs use metaphors) or if it is merely a book of stories and legends. Anyone who has looked can easily find the historical proof Jesus of Nazareth existed, be it the direct ancient manuscripts which composes the Bible, the writings of the ancient Jewish historian Tacitus, Jesus’ existence has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. What about the history of the Old Testament? Namely Genesis since that seems to be the key book in this topic.
I think we can biblically figure out if those that wrote the bible believed in the Genesis account of creation. Through a simple search on Biblegateway there are 24 results, allow me to dive into some of them:
In Matthew 13:34-36 Jesus refers to creation in such a way as a specific time. This is also confirmed in Matthew 25:33-35, Mark 10:5-7, and John 17:23-25 just to start. One of my favorite passages, Romans 1:19-21 Paul refers to Creation as the starting point people knew about God and chose to exchange God for something else. Paul mentions creation several other times in Romans, in those terms it was in reference to all the created things. In 2 Corinthians 5:16-18, we are described as new creations when we are in Christ, the logical implication is that before we were in Christ we were old creations. I think that is worth mentioning that we are described as created things, one would reasonably think that to be referred to as something that was created that the event of Creation was believed as such. Galatians 6 also mentions that we are new creations.
Creation is mentioned as an actual event multiple times in Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, and Revelations. Does it make sense that if the authors of scripture believed creation happened, it did? If that is true then I think it would make sense for us also to approach our origins in a similar way.
The other major point about creation being necessary to Christianity is one's belief of original sin. Did sin and death enter the world the moment the fruit from Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten? Be it those that say Christianity is compatible with evolution claiming that it was guided by God or those that take Psalm 90:4 out of context to claim creation was not 7 literal days, day being 24 hours not thousands of years. If sin did not usher death into this world first, alternative theories are saying that at the point in the world when God pronounced the world and all creation to be very good death was present. It also contradicts Romans 5:12-21, Romans 6:15-17. As those passages clearly state, sin is the prerequisite of death. That doesn't mention there for those that want to believe the Day-Age Theory (a day is like a thousand years) there are certain issues of science to answer, such as how did plants survive without the sun. After all plants were created on day 3 while the sun and moon (light to govern the day and light to govern the night) were created on day 4.
So what is the gist of all this? A person can call themselves a Christian and believe whatever they want. However, to be a Christian, is to believe the Bible as the Word of God. I do not think a Christian can believe evolutionary theory as it is in its current form, ie without acknowledgement of God. Those who claim the two beliefs can be compatible negate to mention in order for their faith and idea of science to be compatible, either the Christian doctrine or the evolutionary doctrine must compromise.
Oct 2, 2006
My Place In This Place
So last night as I was listening to Lifesong to go to sleep to I was pondering/reflecting what I have done I have been in the Army. I was thinking in more consideration of how I have been living than what the work has had to offer. One of the thoughts which came to me I found rather soothing and satisfying.
I remember in the weeks leading up to me signing the papers I was talking to several important people in my life concerning my worries and reservations about the decision that was to follow. I think I got a deeper understanding of how God's will works and presents itself. One of those dreading questions over my head “was it more my will to join than any pulling of the Holy Spirit for me to join?” From that point I was satisfied God will use me anywhere I let him use me. Last night I think I had an epiphany of purpose.
While in my previous duty station, I was rather disenchanted things didn't work out to help out with the youth ministry there. I don't think I set for myself how I was to evangelize to my peers. The first several months I was getting used to the atmosphere of alcoholism, partying, and the sort. I think I was primarily concerned with keeping my own faith strong. This was when I started ordering the books and studying more than I had ever done so in my civilian life. I think around Christmas time one of the guys in the barracks asked me to do a bible study with him. I was quiet excited.
After several months of spotty meetings we generally stopped meeting, he was always tired or sleeping and as life went on and people talked I could clearly see no change in his lifestyle. I don't think I was expecting much but when I see the growth and understanding in the Word and then to see him at the barbeque the following weekends, he spoke through his actions how much he really wanted to change. I didn't want to become his little confessional booth he could do as he pleased and then have a little Bible study and be good until the next time we met. The entire experience was a learning one to say in the least.
When our studies ended I didn't really make a pursuit to get something else started as the rest of the unit was preparing to move to Kansas. This was also after a failed attempt to have a lunch time Bible study typically consisting of myself and the two chaplains. In my mind I think since I wasn't actively pursuing a time involving activity I wasn't really doing anything productive for God. As a whole I was unaware of my spiritual usefulness.
This brings me to last night. While pondering my accomplishments of non-work nature it popped into my head how many people I have been talking to all along who either seek me as a guy for advice, being the voice of reason, or spiritual council. It just hit me, I can think of at least 5 or 6 deep discussions with people in the field alone, not to mention who I have talked to online. Although I was not aware of how loud my lifestyle spoke as I reflected it has been more than worth it. So many of the "lifestyle" sacrifices I have made to actively live differently have served their purpose here. I thought these experiences would only be of use when I am youth pastor or something as an example how to stand up against peer pressure and the party lifestyle.
I find blogs of this nature to be awkward at times, I don't write this to get on a pedestal and proclaim a victory as super Christian. I am often reminded of a song my Dad jokingly liked to sing to himself, "It's hard to be humble". We are called to be humble in what we do. Not always an easy thing but something I noticed from one of the spur of the moment conversations about my life, I don't approach life wanting to prove something. The audience found what I was telling them unbelievable, but believed it because of my demeanor. From that conversation with several guys I had an even more in depth time to share my life and beliefs with one of the guys as we washed dishes for several hours.
Aside from the people who were curious why I live so differently, I have been useful to many people who have fallen away from their faith since being in the Army. I am also pondering writing a blog about how much of a ministry opportunity I have found the Army to be, but I was going to be sure to include the dangers as well. I know far more people that came into the Army with a meaningful faith than are in the Army and live a faithful life. When I pondered it more I don't think I realize that I am an encouragement to those around me. Or at least I never really thought of it that way. I have been much concerned with keeping up with my known spiritual gifts and trying to develop my leadership skills that I think I overlooked something that God has been polishing for some time now.
Do I have this awkward feeling of awareness about what I am doing constantly, no not really. I think I am looking through my glasses with a better prescription on life now.
I remember in the weeks leading up to me signing the papers I was talking to several important people in my life concerning my worries and reservations about the decision that was to follow. I think I got a deeper understanding of how God's will works and presents itself. One of those dreading questions over my head “was it more my will to join than any pulling of the Holy Spirit for me to join?” From that point I was satisfied God will use me anywhere I let him use me. Last night I think I had an epiphany of purpose.
While in my previous duty station, I was rather disenchanted things didn't work out to help out with the youth ministry there. I don't think I set for myself how I was to evangelize to my peers. The first several months I was getting used to the atmosphere of alcoholism, partying, and the sort. I think I was primarily concerned with keeping my own faith strong. This was when I started ordering the books and studying more than I had ever done so in my civilian life. I think around Christmas time one of the guys in the barracks asked me to do a bible study with him. I was quiet excited.
After several months of spotty meetings we generally stopped meeting, he was always tired or sleeping and as life went on and people talked I could clearly see no change in his lifestyle. I don't think I was expecting much but when I see the growth and understanding in the Word and then to see him at the barbeque the following weekends, he spoke through his actions how much he really wanted to change. I didn't want to become his little confessional booth he could do as he pleased and then have a little Bible study and be good until the next time we met. The entire experience was a learning one to say in the least.
When our studies ended I didn't really make a pursuit to get something else started as the rest of the unit was preparing to move to Kansas. This was also after a failed attempt to have a lunch time Bible study typically consisting of myself and the two chaplains. In my mind I think since I wasn't actively pursuing a time involving activity I wasn't really doing anything productive for God. As a whole I was unaware of my spiritual usefulness.
This brings me to last night. While pondering my accomplishments of non-work nature it popped into my head how many people I have been talking to all along who either seek me as a guy for advice, being the voice of reason, or spiritual council. It just hit me, I can think of at least 5 or 6 deep discussions with people in the field alone, not to mention who I have talked to online. Although I was not aware of how loud my lifestyle spoke as I reflected it has been more than worth it. So many of the "lifestyle" sacrifices I have made to actively live differently have served their purpose here. I thought these experiences would only be of use when I am youth pastor or something as an example how to stand up against peer pressure and the party lifestyle.
I find blogs of this nature to be awkward at times, I don't write this to get on a pedestal and proclaim a victory as super Christian. I am often reminded of a song my Dad jokingly liked to sing to himself, "It's hard to be humble". We are called to be humble in what we do. Not always an easy thing but something I noticed from one of the spur of the moment conversations about my life, I don't approach life wanting to prove something. The audience found what I was telling them unbelievable, but believed it because of my demeanor. From that conversation with several guys I had an even more in depth time to share my life and beliefs with one of the guys as we washed dishes for several hours.
Aside from the people who were curious why I live so differently, I have been useful to many people who have fallen away from their faith since being in the Army. I am also pondering writing a blog about how much of a ministry opportunity I have found the Army to be, but I was going to be sure to include the dangers as well. I know far more people that came into the Army with a meaningful faith than are in the Army and live a faithful life. When I pondered it more I don't think I realize that I am an encouragement to those around me. Or at least I never really thought of it that way. I have been much concerned with keeping up with my known spiritual gifts and trying to develop my leadership skills that I think I overlooked something that God has been polishing for some time now.
Do I have this awkward feeling of awareness about what I am doing constantly, no not really. I think I am looking through my glasses with a better prescription on life now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)