It's really not.
My director and his wife (Dwight and Dorothy) went to the States to visit their kids. Their son has been dating a girl for a little over a month and they were excited to meet her. They liked her, their friends approved, everyone was happy.
Suddenly he decided to get married. In May. So they're staying in the US an extra week in order to attend their son's wedding. He's doing it in such a hurry so that they don't have to spend so much money to come back in a few months to attend.
It's all very well and good- except that I want to get married! It's not fair, I keep hearing in my head. They've been together a month. We've been together three. We know as well as they do that we're going to get married, except they get to do it now and I have to wait a flipping year and a half! I don't want to wait.
I was always one of those people that said, "Why are you in such a hurry? It's the rest of your life..." But now the tables have turned and I'm really having a hard time being happy for him.
Especially since my director and his wife have been telling us from the start that they're not fans of long engagements. More than six months, they say, is too long. And I understand- I feel it!
But I have no choice. I have to wait. None of my family can be here. None of my friends can visit. My church would be very hurt if I didn't marry there. These are all very important reasons for me to wait. But I'm hearing all this about Josh getting married- it doesn't help that before Caleb and I were even together, Dorothy said "Dating's not really allowed- but marriage is! So just get married and get it over with."
Don't think I don't want to. I'm fairly miserable waiting. Why do I have to wait? What is God trying to teach me by allowing me to go through this? Why, God, Why?!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Friday, April 04, 2008
There's a semi-popular bumper sticker that says, "If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention."
I first saw this sometime in high school and was assured that it was some sort of ultra-liberal propaganda against Bush and his policies. But the more I think about it, the more I agree. Not about Bush, necessarily, but about culture. Christian culture.
Example: The Emerging Church
If you're not familiar with the term, I'll give you a brief summary: the emerging church is an organ of Christianity which is reacting against modernism by saying that we should incorporate postmodern views and values into our faith. The movement criticizes fundamentalism for its methodological and formulaic view of doctrine, while the so-called 'orthodox' movement condemns the emerging church as being seeker-friendly and wishy-washy when it comes to doctrine.
In fact, John MacArthur said the following;
However, this is intrinsically untrue. Donald Miller, one of the supposed front-runners of the emergent movement, says in his book "Searching for God Knows What" that the Bible IS clear in what it says, but that we've lost some of its clarity with our attemps at formatting it into neat bullet points. Indeed,
Both sides, however, are faulty here. Both think that they have arrived at Truth, and both criticize the other for their shortcomings. And both are wrong.
Jesus prayed "Make them one as You and I are One," and this reactionary approach to the church is not unifying at all. Peter and Paul got into an argument about the place of Gentiles in the church. There's been disagreement after ugly disagreement since the very beginning of our faith.
I'm not condoning all the beliefs of the emergent movement. Nor am I condemning it. I believe that it has some very valuable things to say about our faith and how we approach God's Word, the Gospel, and Other People. I don't agree with everything it says, though. I think that it can be a bit too all-embracing and it can forget that the Gospel of Jesus is an offence. So, to resolve this issue in my own heart, I have to quote my brilliant friend Jordan, "Moderation can solve a great many theological disputes."
P.S. Remember in History we learned about the Inquisition where anyone who disagreed with the Church was called a heretic, or the witch trials where anyone who disagreed with the leadership was accused of being a witch, or the 'Red Scare' when someone who questioned the US government was called a communist? I think a new "witch trial" is upon us in the fundamentalist Christian movement. Only instead of being a heretic or a witch or a communist, people who raise controversial issues (whether their point is good or not; whether they're right or now) are called "emergent" and discounted in everything they say. Didn't we learn our lesson?
I first saw this sometime in high school and was assured that it was some sort of ultra-liberal propaganda against Bush and his policies. But the more I think about it, the more I agree. Not about Bush, necessarily, but about culture. Christian culture.
Example: The Emerging Church
If you're not familiar with the term, I'll give you a brief summary: the emerging church is an organ of Christianity which is reacting against modernism by saying that we should incorporate postmodern views and values into our faith. The movement criticizes fundamentalism for its methodological and formulaic view of doctrine, while the so-called 'orthodox' movement condemns the emerging church as being seeker-friendly and wishy-washy when it comes to doctrine.
In fact, John MacArthur said the following;
“They [the leaders of the emergent movement] are saying, in effect, that God may have spoken, but He mumbled, and we’re not really sure what He said. Saying that Scripture is not clear is just another way to undermine biblical authority.” (AIG)
However, this is intrinsically untrue. Donald Miller, one of the supposed front-runners of the emergent movement, says in his book "Searching for God Knows What" that the Bible IS clear in what it says, but that we've lost some of its clarity with our attemps at formatting it into neat bullet points. Indeed,
"Sometimes I feel as thought the church has a kind of pity for Scripture, always having to come behind it and explain everything, put everything into actionable steps, acronyms and hidden secrets, as though the original writers, and for that matter the Holy Spirit who worked in the lives of the original writers, were a bunch of illiterate hillbillies. I don't think they were illiterate hillbillies, and I think the methodology God used to explain His truth is quite superior." (Miller,SFGKW, 217)
Both sides, however, are faulty here. Both think that they have arrived at Truth, and both criticize the other for their shortcomings. And both are wrong.
Jesus prayed "Make them one as You and I are One," and this reactionary approach to the church is not unifying at all. Peter and Paul got into an argument about the place of Gentiles in the church. There's been disagreement after ugly disagreement since the very beginning of our faith.
I'm not condoning all the beliefs of the emergent movement. Nor am I condemning it. I believe that it has some very valuable things to say about our faith and how we approach God's Word, the Gospel, and Other People. I don't agree with everything it says, though. I think that it can be a bit too all-embracing and it can forget that the Gospel of Jesus is an offence. So, to resolve this issue in my own heart, I have to quote my brilliant friend Jordan, "Moderation can solve a great many theological disputes."
P.S. Remember in History we learned about the Inquisition where anyone who disagreed with the Church was called a heretic, or the witch trials where anyone who disagreed with the leadership was accused of being a witch, or the 'Red Scare' when someone who questioned the US government was called a communist? I think a new "witch trial" is upon us in the fundamentalist Christian movement. Only instead of being a heretic or a witch or a communist, people who raise controversial issues (whether their point is good or not; whether they're right or now) are called "emergent" and discounted in everything they say. Didn't we learn our lesson?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Excerpt: "Searching for God Knows What" by Donald Miller
"...they work hard, they accept the facts of reality, they enjoy life as it is. 'But the facts of reality stink,' I told him. 'Reality is like a fine wine,' he said to me. 'It will not appeal to children.'
We sat in our chairs not speaking, as we often do. I laughed softly at thoughts rushing through my always-busy mind.
"What?" he asked, as he always does.
"Nothing," I said with a smile, and he poked my side. "Would you rub my shoulders?" I asked, thinking about the knots that had accumulated over the past few months.
"Sure." So I moved to sit on the ground in front of him and he smoothed out the stress I carry in my shoulders. We didn't talk for a while, but then at once he leaned down and put his arms around me.
"I love you," he said rather matter-of-factly. I smiled.
"I love you," I replied, and we were silent again. "You know," I said finally. "That's the first time you've said that to me."
"I figured it was about time. I know you already knew that, but I had to tell you."
I sighed.
"What?" he asked, as he always does.
"Nothing," I said with a smile, and he poked my side. "Would you rub my shoulders?" I asked, thinking about the knots that had accumulated over the past few months.
"Sure." So I moved to sit on the ground in front of him and he smoothed out the stress I carry in my shoulders. We didn't talk for a while, but then at once he leaned down and put his arms around me.
"I love you," he said rather matter-of-factly. I smiled.
"I love you," I replied, and we were silent again. "You know," I said finally. "That's the first time you've said that to me."
"I figured it was about time. I know you already knew that, but I had to tell you."
I sighed.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
What we believe...
I was rather surprised to find out that Arthur C Clarke died yesterday. I didn't even know he was still alive! He's one of the greatest science fiction writers- up there with HG Wells (The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds), Jules Verne (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea), and Isaac Asimov (I, Robot). Through the writings of these four men, we can track the change in scientific views of God over the past century and a half in direct relation to the introduction of Darwinism in 1859. Books could be written on this topic, and indeed have been. But that's not what I want to talk about.
On Facebook, there's a sticker that says "Religion: my favorite substitute for thinking." I can't help but be saddened by this statement, naturally. As a lay theologian, I spend a good percentage of my time thinking, especially about how my faith affects my day-to-day life. It forms my framework for the way I view the world. However, our culture has shunned religion as a crutch for fools and weaklings.
I ran across a blog the other day called "Carried the Cross: Thoughts from Life After Jesus". It's the story of a young man (young being 21 or so) who got saved when he was 14 and was on fire for the Lord, very involved in his church and the youth ministry, even leading it for a time. But when he went to a Christian college, he found that the faculty, books, and students had no answers for the pressing philosophical questions he had to ask about his faith. He became increasingly disgusted by the hypocrisy he saw around him and even more disgusted by the ignorance. So he left the faith and became an atheist. He shares a rash of reactions of the Christians around him (he chose to stay at the same college to finish his degree), some of them lousy, some good, and some just plain silly. But who is to blame for this young man's slow loss of taste for Christianity? Who really convinced him that God does not exist? We could point fingers almost anywhere. The church. The college. The Christians around him. Satan.
But the sad truth is that this young man has a choice. He's chosen to reject God for the time being, but I pray that he will find his way back as the Scripture says, "Your Father in Heaven does not want even one of these little ones to be lost." (Matt. 18:14).
Arthur C Clarke too, had a choice. He chose atheism as well. My mother always says, "Well, he's not an atheist anymore!" and that makes me sad too. I've always wished that perhaps when people die, they are given one last chance. They stand before God and He allows them to see the truth clear and unperverted. Then none of them would be lost, for who indeed would reject God after seeing Him in His full glory? But that's not what Scripture says.
I know that God, in His sovereignty, does what is best and glorifying to Him. I know that my view of the issues is skewed. I know that it's better for God to be in charge because He is all-knowing, all-powerfull, all those things that we aren't.
But I'm still sad that Arthur C Clarke has now faced his Maker, and it's too late.
On Facebook, there's a sticker that says "Religion: my favorite substitute for thinking." I can't help but be saddened by this statement, naturally. As a lay theologian, I spend a good percentage of my time thinking, especially about how my faith affects my day-to-day life. It forms my framework for the way I view the world. However, our culture has shunned religion as a crutch for fools and weaklings.
I ran across a blog the other day called "Carried the Cross: Thoughts from Life After Jesus". It's the story of a young man (young being 21 or so) who got saved when he was 14 and was on fire for the Lord, very involved in his church and the youth ministry, even leading it for a time. But when he went to a Christian college, he found that the faculty, books, and students had no answers for the pressing philosophical questions he had to ask about his faith. He became increasingly disgusted by the hypocrisy he saw around him and even more disgusted by the ignorance. So he left the faith and became an atheist. He shares a rash of reactions of the Christians around him (he chose to stay at the same college to finish his degree), some of them lousy, some good, and some just plain silly. But who is to blame for this young man's slow loss of taste for Christianity? Who really convinced him that God does not exist? We could point fingers almost anywhere. The church. The college. The Christians around him. Satan.
But the sad truth is that this young man has a choice. He's chosen to reject God for the time being, but I pray that he will find his way back as the Scripture says, "Your Father in Heaven does not want even one of these little ones to be lost." (Matt. 18:14).
Arthur C Clarke too, had a choice. He chose atheism as well. My mother always says, "Well, he's not an atheist anymore!" and that makes me sad too. I've always wished that perhaps when people die, they are given one last chance. They stand before God and He allows them to see the truth clear and unperverted. Then none of them would be lost, for who indeed would reject God after seeing Him in His full glory? But that's not what Scripture says.
I know that God, in His sovereignty, does what is best and glorifying to Him. I know that my view of the issues is skewed. I know that it's better for God to be in charge because He is all-knowing, all-powerfull, all those things that we aren't.
But I'm still sad that Arthur C Clarke has now faced his Maker, and it's too late.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Lonely...I am so Lonely... I have nobody....
For the third time in 6 months, I'm living alone.
When I first came to Kenya, the main short-termer apartment was full, so I moved in next door. No one lived there. A couple months later, I was asked to move into a smaller apartment because the older couple that had moved in needed more room for their work. Then, a few weeks ago, one of the girls went home so I moved into the main apartment. But another girl went home a week later and now, my final remaining roommate had to move out of town for her ministry. So here I am, alone.
"Don't feel sorry for yourself," Nathan, my adopted little brother, said. "You live on a compound with lots of people. If you feel alone, it's your own fault."
Nevertheless, I've learned through these experiences that I really don't enjoy living alone. I need contact with people; I need company or I die. That's why I can't imagine living in the bush. I need people to relate to, people that I can communicate with. Caleb likes his wide open spaces- areas where there's no people for miles around. I like those places too- for a time. But then I need to get back to civilization. God made us communal beings. And for that, we need to be together.
When I first came to Kenya, the main short-termer apartment was full, so I moved in next door. No one lived there. A couple months later, I was asked to move into a smaller apartment because the older couple that had moved in needed more room for their work. Then, a few weeks ago, one of the girls went home so I moved into the main apartment. But another girl went home a week later and now, my final remaining roommate had to move out of town for her ministry. So here I am, alone.
"Don't feel sorry for yourself," Nathan, my adopted little brother, said. "You live on a compound with lots of people. If you feel alone, it's your own fault."
Nevertheless, I've learned through these experiences that I really don't enjoy living alone. I need contact with people; I need company or I die. That's why I can't imagine living in the bush. I need people to relate to, people that I can communicate with. Caleb likes his wide open spaces- areas where there's no people for miles around. I like those places too- for a time. But then I need to get back to civilization. God made us communal beings. And for that, we need to be together.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Questions Arise
One month. Today marks one month that I have been with Caleb, making this my second-longest relationship to this point.
We never would have started this thing if we weren't intentional. In fact, I asked him from the get-go what his intentions were. We both knew that we would plan on getting married, and that would be the point of our relationship.
Now that I know him better, I know his parents (and chat with them quite often), and I see how he's approaching this relationship, I feel even more certain that I will, indeed, marry him in a couple of years. But knowing this, I guess I feel let down about my feelings.
I don't know what I expected. Fireworks, maybe? Writing across the sky saying "This is it!"? A jittery feeling in my stomach? Really, I'm not sure. But not this. I certainly didn't expect to feel nothing.
I know that this 'in love' feeling is a myth. It's what Disney teaches us to wait for. But Disney does give us unrealistic expectations about our prince and what falling in love means.
Meanwhile, I've been reading a lot of Christian articles about relationships (as I tend to do), and I'm having a problem with these men that write them. They all are totally convinced that their wives are the best women on the planet. One said, "When I proposed, [she], in a momentary lapse of sanity, accepted." They're convinced that they each have discovered the single most fabulous woman the world has ever seen and that she was crazy to marry him. It makes me wonder how these women feel about themselves and about their husbands. Are they equally enchanted?
I'm not the greatest woman on the planet- not even close. I can't imagine anyone ever feeling unworthy to be with me. I'm just a normal girl but somehow I'm supposed to convince my husband that he doesn't deserve me?
How the heck am I supposed to do that?
We never would have started this thing if we weren't intentional. In fact, I asked him from the get-go what his intentions were. We both knew that we would plan on getting married, and that would be the point of our relationship.
Now that I know him better, I know his parents (and chat with them quite often), and I see how he's approaching this relationship, I feel even more certain that I will, indeed, marry him in a couple of years. But knowing this, I guess I feel let down about my feelings.
I don't know what I expected. Fireworks, maybe? Writing across the sky saying "This is it!"? A jittery feeling in my stomach? Really, I'm not sure. But not this. I certainly didn't expect to feel nothing.
I know that this 'in love' feeling is a myth. It's what Disney teaches us to wait for. But Disney does give us unrealistic expectations about our prince and what falling in love means.
Meanwhile, I've been reading a lot of Christian articles about relationships (as I tend to do), and I'm having a problem with these men that write them. They all are totally convinced that their wives are the best women on the planet. One said, "When I proposed, [she], in a momentary lapse of sanity, accepted." They're convinced that they each have discovered the single most fabulous woman the world has ever seen and that she was crazy to marry him. It makes me wonder how these women feel about themselves and about their husbands. Are they equally enchanted?
I'm not the greatest woman on the planet- not even close. I can't imagine anyone ever feeling unworthy to be with me. I'm just a normal girl but somehow I'm supposed to convince my husband that he doesn't deserve me?
How the heck am I supposed to do that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)