You're Men Ain't Ya?

I hope the title kind of gave it away, but this one is directed towards the fellas.  Not to say my female friends ought not to read this, perhaps it might strike some interesting feedback with the other fellas you know.  I am reading Way of the Wild Heart currently; the title is one of the catchy phrases that John Eldredge was expounding upon.  This is an excerpt from the movie Open Range found in Way of the Wild Heart.

"In the saloon, they try to rouse the men of the town to action.  One of the local tradesmen says, "It's a shame what this town's come to," to which one of the cowboys replies, "You could do something about it." "What?" The frightened man replies.  "We're freighters.  Ralph here's a shopkeeper."  Then my favorite line: "You're men, ain't ya?"

            The author carries on suggesting that if you are a man you are a fighter.  He also points to biblical examples of population counts which counted the men and also counted every one of them as a fighting man (Numbers 1).  So I have been pondering these statements over the last few days and was curious about what my battles are?  What do I fight for?  I don't know how confrontational I really was prior to reading this book but I feel a fire being fed inside that I ought to be clearly fighting for something.

            It is suggested this desire is part of being a man and I think he's right.  I know this doesn't mean I need to re-class into an infantrymen to get up close and personal when I do happen to go to war.  I make clear that I choose not to fight over stupid things, and when I sense what I hold dear to be in danger, threat or ridicule, I have no problem with charging in.  I tend to keep most battles things that are fought in speech and intellect; I don't have the highest confidence in my physical contact abilities so I do avoid those confrontations very well.  To be honest, I don't think I have ever been in a fist fight in which I was actually fighting for something in such a way.

            I was pondering writing about the evils of the entertainment industry hold on men's hearts and minds.  I have had to reanalyze those thoughts altogether.  I am frustrated that so many millions of American men get caught up into sports, to watch and watch for no seen gain or purpose beyond the entertainment of watching a game.  I think some get a personal value out of knowing who is the best running back or how many touchdowns this player made or how many yards that player ran.  Similar to how some women find value in themselves by knowing powerful or popular people, are some men so satisfied or gather their self worth by watching and knowing sports data?

            I love to play sports; anyone ought to be able to attest I have no issues getting a little contact in sports.  I can't stand to watch a game though.  Sure I suppose there is much to learn from watching the professionals play.  How far is too far?  Sports, in itself are a great thing, to go out on a field and play is one of the ways I feel more like a man.  It is the same feeling as when we've scaled the waterfall on the Guy's camp outs, or kayaking out to the middle of Hume Lake.  The feeling you get after a long run or march is completed.  The sense of accomplishment, the body is exhausted but the heart is charged and I feel alive.  I did play a good game of football this afternoon so I got a little bit of that sensation still running through me.

            The connection between the battles that men ought to fight because we are men and our apparent fixation with sports is this.  We get caught up into watching and get comfortable with it.  I think this is true of our attitudes of sports and it carries over into the realm of the battles we should be fighting as men.  Our sense of leadership and rawness that is who and what we were created to be is stunted by getting close to the battle or the game.

            I am reminded by Darrin McWatters' frustrating "guy's talk" at Hume a few years ago in which he observed the purpose of the modern male is to be nothing more than comic entertainment.  That was the conclusion he came to according to his observations of the role we have in society.  The most frustrating part of that to Darrin, was that the vast majority of men are satisfied in that role, or worse believe themselves to be in that role as an actual purpose.  I like to think and wholeheartedly believe that we are here for more than laughs.

            I recall writing a bit about this in Role of Men, this blog I have a sense of fire inside me.  We need to be more active and assault the forces that assault us.  Not looking for a fight like an angry drunk but be precise about our battles.  As men we our appointed to be the leaders, we need to step forward with the "here am I, send me attitude" and stop fading in the back hoping we won't be asked to help.

Why Do I Blog?

             I know I know it has been a while. It certainly feels like it from my end. I planned on writing several blogs last weekend following a political awareness one that got me reading far too much news than was healthy. That was one of the few outlets of boredom I had while I was "away" for a few weeks. The ability to logon and read boundless or hit up the bodybuilding forums has been my mental outlet of some sorts. Under further investigation of my own motives for blogging I think it is because I like to argue and teach.

            I recall the first stages of my plugging into the web when I was in high school. It had a period of life that I would hang out in the religious or philosophical chat rooms to discuss topics; I gave those up because I was constantly reaching a point of futility in the chat rooms. It is not easy to have a real conversation with anyone when there are multiple conversations about other topics; it is just rather chaotic in terms of practical communication.

            The next step in my mass form of communication came in the form of forums. I think depending on the year I was involved heavily with at least two forums, my gaming clan at the time and bodybuilding forums. Each forum offered areas that we could discuss elements in line with the give topic, such as the game of choice, or something about bodybuilding and the like. In addition, those forums also had the infamous Misc. section, which the topics are usually relationships, religion and politics. Knowing me I can get wrapped up into those conversations very easily. In which the duration of much of those discussions and debates will cycle through the most common controversial issues.

            In those years I typed my heart out, I think they were valuable learning experiences. One of my primary joys of discussing/debating beliefs is because one does not truly know something well until they can explain or defend it. Perhaps it was a slight joy of teaching that I had not yet recognized at that time, but I enjoyed it a great deal. Granted I doubt I converted a single person or lead anyone directly to Christ in those forums but I know I presented the Gospel and biblical principles in such a way that some people had to re-examine themselves and their thinking.

            Then there was that period I was disconnected from the internet. It wasn't a difficult thing in certain terms, I adjusted. While I was in Basic Training, I studied the Bible with a depth and devotion I long to repeat and continue. With what little time I had to myself I was very conscious about how to best use it. Often I think I ended up mailing my study notes to mom for communication just so she could know I am doing okay or what I was thinking about. I can't remember what exactly my outlet was when I was in Arizona. I recall having lots of chapel activities to take part in and volunteer, but as a whole the intimacy level of the Christians I fellowshipped with was not that deep. Perhaps it was in the conversations I had with my roommates. I really can't place a finger on my thoughts at that time.

            I get to Germany and find there is very limited internet access. In addition to that, the spiritual isolation was something fierce; I had not expected it to be so cold and dark spiritually. There was emptiness surrounding me constantly. Between the lack of single Christians and adapting to socializing with the young married Christians nearby, I started to blog. You can look down and see my quick progress from writing about things of minimal importance before I dove in heart first and just started writing.

            So here I am still writing, less frequently but still writing. I continue to try to keep it balanced with issues of the heart and soul more than issues of the mind. Upon getting internet in my room I went wild, getting back into the video games, the forums and myspacing like I have just been cured from an eating disorder and was at a buffet. Earlier this weekend, and it is not the first weekend, I spent a large portion of time in the debating section of the bodybuilding forums. You know, share the word again. The years I was absent the site has grown and provides a myspace like atmosphere in addition to all the previous services it offered when I was just a forum member. I can even blog there, but those are called bodyblogs, so I am pretty sure those are meant for blogging that has to do directly with fitness issues.

            Yes I did get into that scene as well, this is my bodyspace if you want to take a look. It is fairly new; I don't know how many blogs I'll keep going on that thing. Part of me getting back into bodybuilding, as I have lamented frequently as a whole I think I was in better fitness condition as a civilian than I have been since I joined the army. Something to encourage my commitment to the right diet, regular gym attendance and the proper lifting schedule is to read up on the material. Very similar to how to be a more committed Christian among some parallels that apply. Just as we can read the articles, scripture and practice it in our lives, so are the choices of the bodybuilding lifestyle/hobby. I have personal gains I would like to return to, mostly because I feel like I have been lazy for the past two years not pushing myself physically in the right direction.

            It was this weekend in particular that I squandered the majority of my Saturday having some debates in the forums that I was clearly hit with a sense of pointlessness. The setting of the forum is rather shallow. It is great for getting quick answers to quick questions from various sources. To carry on a discussion like "How can Christians be happy in heaven, if they have family in Hell?" or "Rant about people who don't believe in evolution" is far beyond the ability to discuss such topics effectively. This is where the last 2 years have really contributed, mainly the books I have been reading. There are many books that answer all people's questions, to give a detailed response in the form of a forum post people most often don't read them because it is too much reading. The same thing goes with links with evidence or statistics to back up our arguments. The forum atmosphere is not the appropriate place to have in-depth discussions.

            On the flip side it is a decent place to get used to criticism and start to get familiar with the different through processes of people around. This brings me to my ultimate appreciation for the blog. Granted on my blogs I would always appreciate more feedback than I usually receive, the ability to control the "discussion" and have the complete atmosphere for writing an in depth topic is very suiting. I can make these as personal or private as I like. I choose to keep all my blogs public because I want to share with the "world" the things I learn and experience. Granted I know the chances of a random person reading this is unlikely, but it is possible. It is more possible to encourage and have a discussion in blog form than in any forum I have found.

Intellectually Faithful

When I started writing the last blog in mind I also wanted to include a conversation I had Monday night and how it tied to some of the principles addressed in Way of the Master (WotM) as well as my overall displeased perception of Christians. The WotM study did bring up so harsh criticisms of the modern church that I think are fair and to certain degrees true. While the discussion/debate I had on Monday was one of those that I couldn't pray for something more. Seeds were probably planted and the opportunity just presented itself as clear as day.

I was just hanging out in my room as usual, lately more people have been stopping by either to game or just chill and one of the guys happened to notice my new set of Systematic Theology. I have a couple shelves full of books that I have been accumulating and slowing reading. Anyways, being sparked by curiosity the individual pointed out my collection and proceeded to ask me about my beliefs. I was more than happy to tell him my stance and he seemed even more curious as to how or why I believed such scriptural beliefs and as he phrased it "[I] appear to be moderately intelligent". I jumped on the opportunity explain myself and the ensuing conversation went on for about an hour and half. Don't worry I am not writing to give a play by play recap of the conversation, I was just excited and I thought some lessons I noticed ought to be shared.

The first point I noticed and found interesting was the description of myself at least appearing to be "moderately intelligent". Being that we had never had any real discussion of meaning prior I took that as a good thing. I try to come across as an intelligent person as much as I do a man of faith. In the current world such a stance is often seen as incompatible. To present myself as an intelligent man of faith often catches people off guard. Once intrigued, we get in conversations that cover a plethora of hot topics. Do I ever try to explain someone the Gospel and see if they want to become a Christian? Usually not, by the time we finish the conversation there has been so much discussed, that the information just needs to be absorbed. I do look forward to further encounters when such an opportunity would be appropriate.

I recall at Hume one of the speakers, Chris Brown, both "decision nights" the students remaining easily outnumbered those that had left the chapel in silence. On the first night, traditionally the night to introduce people to Christ, he did not present the Gospel. What hit me even more, I recall at the counselors meeting the following day he was responding to one of the objections from a church's counselor wanting to know why he didn't present the Gospel at that time and that he left them hanging. Chris' response was, where he had taken them emotionally he could've gotten them to pray to the Easter Bunny, and they would've. I had never seen such a powerful response from a message before, nor did I hear such care in how and when to present the Gospel. That night has left a constant reminder to me about when those moments present themselves. In the scheme of eternity what is more valuable, someone that will have a greater grasp of what it means to be a Christian, or someone that while emotionally open says a prayer?

Putting Evangelism Back in Evangelical

Without trying to come up with something desperate the last month or so has been rather uneventful. I wanted to ensure when and what I write about is worth your time to read and give serious thought to. In one of my regular bible study groups we recently finished the Way of the Master series, a very interesting study but I found extremely useful because I did not agree with ample portions of the material. I also had a very stimulating and possibly a seed planting conversation last night.

The Way of the Master series is designed to show us simply how to introduce people to Christ. The primary audience in the style presented by example were random people they met in various places, be it the beach, mall or sidewalk. From the beginning of the study I had reservations about how simply they presented sharing the Gospel. As the weeks went on it would build how to answer certain reservations or having on-the-spot rebuttals to what people had to say. The gist of the technique was "Do you consider yourself a good person", "Have you ever ____ (go through the Ten Commandments)", "Since you have admitted to ______, do you think you will get into heaven?" Then if appropriate present the Gospel to the person on the spot.

My initial reservations were the presentation of the Gospel in this form of evangelism was to be practiced on a street corner to get people to say a prayer and be sent on their way. I know that was not the goal, because as the leaders presented the message it was the Holy Spirit to work in them to get plugged into a Christian community after they make a commitment via the sinner's prayer. I have been to too many weeks at summer camp, weekend retreats, and choir tours to see a radical emotional change in a person's life at a powerful moment only to see them fall away spiritually within an unspecific span of time. Do I contest the validity of their faith or attempt to know if they truly are "saved" or not? No, that issue is between them and God. However, those who have prayed and had the emotional heart moving moments and then fall away are not living the Christian life as it was meant to be. I am frustrated that often the church will measure success by commitment cards or some other empirical method and not by how much the people lives are changed. I realize being able to quantify such results would be much more difficult. I wonder at times if I am so reserved about presenting the prayer of salvation because I think there is so much more than an emotional moving in the heart and a person repeating after what is lead in prayer.

I have this inclination that the idea of bringing people to Christ is so based from Romans 10:8-9 & 13, I already addressed some frustrations about how those passages seem to be frequently taken out of context in Semantics Or More. Another objection I have about the presentation of such a simplistic method of evangelism is the lack of personal care. As the weeks go on in the study you can quickly see how simply and 1-2-3 method of presentation is taught. In the recent years I think I have developed a good deal as a teacher. I am not satisfied with follow steps 1-3 to teach anything. The joy of discovering a concept is far too valuable than to hand someone a plate of Christ. Are the methods used in the study supported by scripture? Yes, one clear example is the Woman at the Well. So I cannot completely turn off their method as unscriptural or useless.

I tend to point out the Gospels as a whole as a counter example. The growing of the twelve that Jesus invested so much into shows to me that we ought to concentrate much more on discipleship. I am reminded of an analogy I heard at Hume concerning discipleship. If I were to personally evangelize to 1000 people per day it would take me 160 years to bring the world to Christ. On the other side if I spent 1 year discipling a person and the following year disciple another person, in addition to the person I discipled would disciple 1 person the following year, then the entire world would be reached in 20 years. What is more believable to actually bring a thousand people to Christ a day or discipling one person in a year?

My final objection to the methods presented was almost a constant apprehension to evangelizing to the intellect. Often it is mentioned to not let the person's objections to what may believe intellectually but continually speak to the heart and the conscience will speak for itself. Although I understand the reason for wanting to keep the conversation direct and to the point I found it profoundly unsatisfying, then on the study addressed how to reach atheists the method seemed particularly weak. Dave, one of the leaders of the study and a fellow fan of apologetics would remind me of how easy it is to get caught up discussing the particulars of creation vs evolution, the historicity of the Gospels, or the philosophy and miss the Gospels because the other topic gets so engaging. One of my prime joys of the intellectual discussions is it assists in seeing where their heart is as well as removes the smoke screen that "science" seems to pull of the majority of people I have encountered.

Enough of me providing my dissensions with the Way of the Master series, as a whole it was one of the most interesting and thought provoking bible study series I have encountered. You know how I like to discuss controversial material. The lesson plans were simple each week and in depth enough that we could have a deep conversation without being too general about an single topic. Throughout the series they were very scripture based, which is something one finds as not as often as you'd think for bible study lessons.

The most interesting part about the series is each week there would be a segment of either Ray or Kirk talking to a number of people using the methods they just taught about. I couldn't think of a better form of how to apply what was learned by actually showing us. To actually see the people's reactions and real answers on the spot more than proved the series validity. It was a huge reminder that people are not afraid to talk about their beliefs. I think that was one of the immediate results I have come away from so far. Granted I am not asking every person I encounter how they measure up to the 10 commandments but the fearlessness they showed was a true reminder how I can be more bold in my faith. What is the worst thing that could happen to invite someone to church or bible study? They say "no"...

Growing Out of Faith

While I was home I got a chance to go to church college group for a couple weeks. The group discussions we had are one of the things that I miss the most about being away from home. One of the discussions was concerning the results of a recent Barna Group poll showing the majority of young adults who attended church in their teens cease to continue church attendance in their 20's. This was a particularly interesting topic to me considering my location and environment which I can confirm the poll's results in my sphere of influence.

According to the survey 81% of teens have attended some sort of church for a period of 2 months or more. From face value that is an awesome progress report. Youth workers of today are reaching the future generation. Too bad the study didn't just provide some encouraging information that we can quantitatively see that we are making a difference. The survey also reports 61% of now twenty-somethings who were engaged in church are now disengaged. Even more, only 20% of the twenty-somethings polled have maintained their level of spiritual activity consistent with their high school days.

Before I get too far on the statistics I find it necessary to point out that these results were found over the course of sample surveys for the last 5 years interviewing more than 22,000 adults, 3500 twenty-somethings, and 2100 teens. I know statistics can be manipulated to express anyone's agenda, I think the most important thing we can consider for ourselves when questioning the data is, "How true is this around those I know?” I know in my situation it is seems right on par. I can't tell you how many people I have encountered in my experiences that had once been active in church activities in their youth, some even being leaders in the youth groups, but now do not even attend chapel services at all. The reasons are various, be it faith is not something they want the military to dip their hands into or church is something they do at home.

I don't expect to claim there is a clear formula as to why the young adults of today stop attending church; there are too many variables to account for. What can be addressed are issues or methods that might have better success at keeping people active in the church. I also wish to make clear that by no means does one attending church show or define their devoutness to the faith. I believe it is so important to be active in a Christian community of some sort for two reasons: teamwork at any task is more effective and Christianity is not meant to be practiced in isolation. Hopefully, the goal of active Christians is to introduce people to Christ. This is a very trying task and is much more difficult to do so without a support structure or encouragement that ought to come from a church.

I think one of the most contributing factors as to why there is such a dip in church attendance is how teens are prepared spiritually as adults. For some reason in the recent 40 years of history, so little is expected of the 18-24 age group that most don't bother to develop themselves. I understand the importance of further education, but remember that for the majority of civilizations people were fully fledged adults by 18 if not earlier. Today, as I hold similar bias, an 18 year old is barely getting started with life. I know of more than a couple people that I have wondered "Did your mommy know you're in the Army?"

I think one of the first steps that ought to be taken is to empower the young adults. If today's young adults realized what they are capable of great things will happen. It would not be a stretch to say the only thing society expects from the 18-24 age range is to continue education or start a career. Not bad expectations but with it comes the impression that they are not expected to accomplish anything grand until they are complete in the final form of education. With such an expectation the majority of the nation's young adults express themselves accordingly. I think that is one of the main reasons why there is so much carefree drunkenness and promiscuity. This suggestion is more to combat the overall culture war, not so much to keep the pews filled.

Consider the factors that dramatically change upon entering the young adult stage. Most people leave home, be it college, just moving out, military, Peace Corps or some other adventure. Just from that point there are huge changes that have great influence as to which direction a person might choose to live. Leaving high school is huge in itself. Education is likely to continue, however, the method of hand-holding and minute-by-minute structure is gone. Leaving home reduces the influence parents have by proximity. The sphere of friends is also likely to change due to distance. For those that did attend church in their teens, they are no longer in the high school group. That looks to be if not all almost all the support structures that had existed in the young person's life for the previous years of development.

Venturing into the new world with so much freedom most young people are not prepared for so much change so radically when the only thing that is familiar is themselves. Is it easier to navigate from high school student to adult with or without a map and a start point? Those who leave home and don't know who they are do just that. This is why I think it is so important high schoolers define who they are when the support exists so they don't get defined by the pressures around them when those pressures outweigh their support structure. I know for myself one of the main reasons I have been able to hold my ground is because I know who I am and who I want to be. I knew this before I entered the military, seeing so many people who don't know who they are around me is a regular recipe for disaster.

Once the youth of today know who and what they are I think the next step is to answer their questions. Sadly, the church has been failing miserably to answer their questions. I don't think the lack of answers is limited to the youth, other polls I have seen are showing an overall decrease in church attendance in all age groups. The most logical conclusion why such a large demographic of people would cease attendance is that they don't see a relevance to continue attending. Life is a busy thing so if time will be invested in something like church it had better be worth it, if not why waste their time? How many of us have attended church for a decent period of time and been unsatisfied or unaffected by the experience?

How many topics are there that the culture talks about almost constantly but the church remains silent? Granted some churches will make a stance but even fewer will explain why. Why does the Bible speak against premarital sex and homosexuality? What does it mean by sexual immorality? Is evolution true? Is the Bible reliable? Is there Truth? How do we know what is right and wrong? These are just a few of the many that either took years of studying to find the answer or took years for the answer to come to me. I know that for some of the most meaningful answers it is more than the concept that must be conveyed but a heart ready to accept the answer. Answers discovered always have more meaning than answers explained. That does not mean those of us who know the answers can't help guide those searching in the right direction.

I am more than aware a Sunday morning sermon can only cover so much to reach so many people, the real change happens in small groups. I suppose this will count as a shout out to that every mature Christian should lead some kind of small group. There is always the difficulty of getting the skeptical to invest even more time than they already do in something as personal as a small group can be. The nice thing about a church service, it is easy to get lost. I can attend church for years without ever opening up to someone; in fact I did it for years. There is the common small talk but that is on the similar level of "how are you doing?" and we all know what that really means. For some the impersonal side of the corporate church is all they know. There is a general fear in our culture to be real. The most effective thing about small groups is the personal atmosphere present.

What is Truth?

I was laying awake pretty much the whole night from the jet lag cause I just got back to Germany in the recent 24 hours. Needless to say my transition to the time is less than smooth. While I was thinking in my bed amidst uncomfortable silence I gathered thoughts about life and its meaning. Well, not so much the meaning of life for me, I settled was a while ago. However, the significance of Truth in this world, I did come to some interesting thoughts. How do I know Truth exists? How can Truth be known?

I know there is a Truth for two primary reasons. First, I am aware of this thing we call conscience; there is a part of us that knows how things should be. The knowledge of what the world should and ought to be like that I believe to be present in all people is very similar at the most fundamental stages. Typically as we mature our ideas of how things should and should not be gets tainted by our own selfishness and personal interests. While some call that growing up, I think that is us realizing who we are. Upon learning who we are we all choose to live for ourselves or for someone/something else. Secondly, the mere existence of the attitudes of "should" or "should not" instantly implies that there is right and wrong. I'll explain that more in the following paragraphs. The biblical reason for knowing Truth exists is from Romans 1:18-20, although it does not say Truth in its exact words but it describes it quiet clearly.

Since I made such a bold pronunciation that there is Truth I should probably attempt to explain how it can be known. The first point that comes to mind I classify as common sense. Why would there be Truth that cannot be known? After all if there is Truth then there must be a Truth Giver (God), and what is the purpose of having something that cannot be known or utilized? The only option would be a sort of cynical or twisted Truth Giver that likes to treat us like rats running through the maze of life. Good thing I don't believe in such a God that treats the creations like that. Coming to such conclusions about God is not even needed by Scripture. In modern philosophy a similar deduction is known as the Teleological argument, it too points to a caring personal God independently of any religious bias.

The first question I pose to people whom claim to deny Truth is, "How do you tell right from wrong?" The answer is usually somewhere between "I decide" or "based on what society holds to be right or wrong", although many people disguise their explanations in fancier terms I have yet to encounter a relativist that has an answer that cannot be answered by the following points. The only other answer to "what is right and wrong?" that people might claim is there is no such thing.

For those who claim to hold to their own truth the mere ownership proves their definition to be false. By definition, truth is independent of what it is applied to. In English, if I hold to my own personal truth then my truth has no authority over anything or anyone including myself. The truth I might pronounce can only apply to what I control, which is nothing. Since I can change my own truth then I don't even abide by my own reality. Aside from a personal truth holding no authority, it is very easily false. I can claim it is my truth that the earth is not round. However, there are a number of scientific methods that can prove my truth to be false. One can claim anything as truth, whether it can be verified as true is completely different.

For those who claim their truth to come from society, which very few actually do, all one needs is history. What society values changes as time passes. Truth is static, it does not change. This is mostly true of any developed nation from which one would most likely encounter people in such a mind set. For the United States the Dred Scott case was not one of the most proud moments in modern history. For the Supreme Court to pronounce an African American a non-person is rather outrageous in today's worldview. However, it is rather common in today's worldview to pronounce an unborn child a non-person; a view which taken back 100 years ago would be seen to be just as absurd as we see Mr. Scott’s judgment. Aside from a society's inconsistency in what is right and wrong, the authority might apply only to members of the specific society. For example, the ethnic cleansing between the Hutus and Tutsies in Rwanda shows that what is acceptable to one society is not necessarily acceptable to another. This might be an extreme example, but it is the extreme examples that such logical flaws which also scream the loudest.

For those who are willing to claim there is no such thing as right or wrong, they are either in denial or simply trying to take the logical upper hand by throwing a curve ball. If they are in denial simply violate some commonly held principles to prove to them that they do indeed believe in right or wrong. Suppose Bob pronounces there is no right or wrong, I therefore proceed to take his TV, unplug it from the wall and load it into my vehicle. I continue this process until Bob makes an objection, which unless he has sworn off personal property; he will do at some point. When questioned what I am doing I reply that I am taking his stuff. The natural reaction will be one of passionate objection, Bob will likely then claim that is not right! Point proven, now I must unload Bob's possessions from my car. In the event that he has sworn off personal property figure out something that he holds dear and violate it. It is upon violation of our rights and values people are most clear of what we do value and believe.

Back To Basics pt. I - Why Do I Beleive

I was lying in bed last night restless from thought; I was pondering what I should write about. My recent writings based on magazine articles have left feeling like I have been getting unattached and rather impersonal. I do enjoy doing such writing, but I want to remember my primary reason for writing. To share what God has been teaching me. I never laid out down much of a foundation of the whats and whys of my beliefs.

Why do I believe? A rather unspecific question in itself. I recall the first time I was ever asked that. I was at Hume my sophomore year. I don't know why I was asked or for what purpose but I was asked, "Why do I believe in Christ?" The best answer I could come up with on the spot was, "because I know I am sinful and I know I need forgiveness." I am convinced if anyone is honest with themselves they can come to the same conclusion. That moment was almost six years ago, upon further analysis there is not a more simplistic answer I think to answer the same question.

One of my initial objectives for this topic was to try to prevent people from foolishly saying I am a Christian "because that is what I was raised with". I have no doubt my upbringing a great deal to do with who I am but why I am the way I chose, is because that is what I want. I would say until my junior or senior year, when people asked how long I had been a Christian I would usually refer to a prayer I said at the dinner table when I was four. Not that I disregard that moment, after all I still remember it today, but I don't think that was any momentous turning point in my life at that point. When people ask me today when I became a Christian it was at Hume my freshmen year. I was in a kayak watching some of friends getting baptized. There was something different about that moment that I think I was finally honest with myself with what it meant to be a Christian. I knew all through jr. high I was holding back a little bit, whether I was actually "saved" from the dinner table prayer I said so many years ago I don't know, nor have put much thought into it. Guessing over past states of faith like that seems rather frivolous. I suppose the best way to phrase what happened at Hume was I realized God wanted me, personally.

Years following my personal spiritual development have lead to a much grander picture of why I believe. I think it was that same year at Hume I was introduced to apologetics. The main pursuit of apologetics is to reconcile reason with faith. Not to say that faith is contrary to reason, but generations of "enlightenment" philosophy and science has hailed faith to be separate if not incompatible from reason and logic. I personally love apologetics so much because I am able to know why I believe through logic which reinforces what I know to be true in my heart. In addition to apologetics my thirst for understanding has lead me to study just about any secular topic that might impact our faith. Be it the origins of the universe in understanding the Genesis creation or microbiology to show how complex we were made from God's breath. 1 Peter 3:8-17 has been my motto to live by. From where I stand now, I know my faith to be true by: personal experience, philosophy, history, biology, chemistry, and psychology. The list of olgy's is growing and getting more in depth with every book I read.

I recall a tidbit I heard on the radio some years ago. I think it was Chuck Colson speaking. He said something along the lines that even if he chose to live a completely selfish life he would still arrive at the conclusion to be a Christian. He would arrive there simply by logically comparing the pro's and con's of what God asks of us in return for what we get. The offer God has presented to us is enough that through reason we can know his existence, our purpose and who God is. The funny thing is so popular today in any discussion of Christianity and logic mixing the common perception is that one must sacrifice some logic for some faith or vice versa. The easiest response to why so many highly educated people proclaim to deny God has come to light on several occasions that the primary reason for disbelief is desire. A common mindset, the more independent one strives to be, the more alien it seems to spend it selflessly living for God. I suppose from the military stand point we can appreciate that a little bit. Freedom we had as civilians is a weak comparison to the freedom from sin. One of the major apparent differences is every person knows when they are in the military and most people are blind or in denial that they are chained by sin.

I know anyone can read the same books I have read and see where I am coming from to see how I know the empirical facts about Christianity are true. The most important part about why I believe is based on my personal experience with God. This is where many people tend to claim that they are spiritual and sense God in and around them. Often it is more of a pantheistic god in nature or spirit of earth mixed with an idea of God. I cannot discount those claims as legitimate experiences except by what they are lead to do or how it guides them, I might be able to point out that the "spirit" is certainly not the God of the Bible. I say this so there is no confusion when I claim I have heard God, that it is not muddled as my unique form of spirituality that speaks to me in my own little world. I have found with my own experiences and examples of scripture that when God speaks to someone it will radically shape them.

I am convinced that God has spoken to me first because what he told me was not what I wanted to hear but consistent with what I should do and second because it was such a direct answer to a present situation. I remember when I contemplating being called into the Army, I was waiting for "the call". At that point I looked into scripture to see what kind of examples there were of the Holy Spirit's leading. Much to my surprise the instances in which individuals were called by the Holy Spirit was in relation to an immediate and specific event. As influential as those two instances in my life were presently they are reference points. When I draw near to the spirit it is a daily meeting that I know he is near.