Emotions

It's something we don't necessarily like to talk about sometimes - at least some of us don't.  And if we do talk about them, others may not like showing them.  On the other hand, some people love to put them on display for all the world to see and pity/admire.  These even stereotype the genders.

Emotions.

Women cry; men do not.  Women are weak; men are always strong.  

Now, I don't want to sound feminist - I'm FAR from it.  I'm all for women submitting to their husbands (though I don't agree that women are slaves to their husbands - simply the neck that turns the head....;) ) and husbands being the head of the home, etc.  However, what's with this idea that men are always stronger than women and don't cry while women are always emotional basket cases that are so weak?

I'm a woman, obviously.  But you know what?  I rarely cry.  My friends KNOW that I'm extremely hurt or angry when I cry simply because I don't cry often.  If you see me with puffy eyes, you can be assured that I am either torn deeply inside or I just got finished praying my heart out.  Heaven forbid (my idea) you actually see me cry.  I hide my tears when there are people around unless, however, they are my closest friends whom I trust.  I might cry during a Spirit-led service.  But otherwise, I don't really shed that many tears.

Now, I know some women/girls that think you can't live a day without tears.  Some women are simply made that way.  They HAVE to cry.  They can't take it inside if they don't let something out every now and then - or every other minute.  I would go absolutely crazy if I cried that much.  And I have to admit, sometimes I view some of those women (not all of course) as weak, emotional basket cases.  Perhaps it is this mentality that keeps me from crying most of the time.  I hate that stereotype so I avoid it at all costs.

Men, on the other hand, seem to think they are not allowed to cry simply because they wear pants.  Why is it "un-manly" to cry???  I have a dear friend whom I love SO much that thinks he's not allowed to cry.  He told me once, "It's weird for a guy to cry!"  Needless to say, I let him have it for that one.  And needless to say, that same guy has cried to me a few times.  I know he's truly hurting because of his mentality on tears.  When he cries, he is truly broken and grasping for hope in a situation.  Other guys are criers - they have NO shame whatsoever in tears.  I know one that, I confess, I view as an absolute baby.  He blubbers at the smallest things.

My dad is my favorite example of guys crying.  Daddy does not cry all the time - he's far from emotional usually.  However, when he testifies, when he talks about his little girl graduating or falling in love, when he talks about his beautiful wife when she is hurting, when he sees a heart-wrenching scene in a movie, he will shamelessly shed tears.  He won't break down and bawl - I have never once seen my dad cry like a baby.  But I've seen him truly broken or truly moved to the point that tears will stream down his rough, whiskered cheeks and into his red mustache.  

My mom is a wonderful example of a woman who is strong, but still cries.  My mom faces turmoil every day.  No one in her family is a Christian.  She works in labor and delivery at the hospital where she sometimes watches babies die because of complications.  Sometimes, she gets a phone call that her mom, who has MS, has fallen again and is hurt.  She herself has Fibromyalgia, a painful disease that some people will tell those who have it that it is all in their head.  Let me tell you something - it's not.  She is often in pain, severe pain that none of us can comprehend because it's indescribable and strange.  When she's in that pain, she cries.  When she testifies in church or gives my graduation speech, she cries.  When she has a baby die at the hospital, she cries.  Then she's done.  She cries a little, sometimes she cries alot to grieve something horrible, such as when her mother fell down a flight of stairs head first and was in the hospital.  But she is the farthest thing from a weak, emotional basket case I have ever seen in my life.

So tell me, do you think it is un-manly for a guy to cry?  Do you think women are weak and always emotional?

Forgiveness and Trust

Have you ever had this problem: someone really hurt you, as in, s/he totally back stabbed you, and you truly want to forgive them, but it doesn't feel like you did because you don't trust them?

I've been in this situation several times in the past year or so.  I've had some people hurt me so badly that it was hard to forgive them; then, when I finally was able to totally forgive them, I felt that it wasn't enough because I couldn't trust them.  I never told them anything, never put myself in a position to allow them to hurt me again.  I would constantly pray "God, help me forgive them" because I thought I wasn't forgiving them.

But in reality, trust does not always come with forgiveness.  Trust doesn't even always come when a person says he's sorry and promises to change.  

When you simply forgive because someone wronged you, there is not going to be an automatic trust.  Say someone is a tale-teller.  You tell him in confidence your darkest secret, then when you are out of ear shot, he tells several people even though he promised to never tell a soul.  You know he did it, and it hurts, but you forgive him anyway.  Do you still trust him with your secrets?  Not if he did not apologize to you for it, right?  Why trust someone that will obviously spread the word?  Forgiveness does not necessarily mean trust.

This is difficult to learn, sometimes.  At least, it was for me.  I struggled to trust several people, and because of that struggle, I felt I wasn't forgiving them like I should.  But actually, I had forgiven them.  I just didn't trust them - and I still don't.  But I HAVE forgiven them.

Tattle-Tail

You just got a new job at Bruster's Real Ice Cream shop, and you want to show your boss how dedicated you are.  You work extra hard and make sure you're never standing still long enough to not be busy.  You're always doing something - cleaning, stocking, helping customers, making cones.  Your manager sees, and you have a reputation for never "letting the grass grow under your feet" and for being a hard worker.  She trusts you and tells you everything.  She tells you that the pies are only supposed to be in the freezer for a certain period of time.  Inspection is coming up and some of them are older than they should be, or some of them don't have dates.  She tells you to simply change the dates of the old pies and put recent dates on the pies that aren't marked - no matter how old they are.  

What do you do?

What about this one - same work place.  There's a girl there that out-ranks you by miles.  She even trained you.  But you notice that her work ethic is in the pits.  She spends 99% of the time at work at the back desk on the business's phone talking to her mom or her friends.  The rest of the time she's doing the easiest (and slowest) job - the slowest way, by the way - and makes sure that she takes care of every customer she can so that she can get tips (because she knows you're not socialist and that you won't take what you haven't earned, so you don't split tips).  

Do you tell your manager?

One more:  You're sitting in class.  It's the first big test, and you know you're ready, but you're still nervous.  You've done the flash cards, you've drilled the terms.  You get the test and breeze through it.  You're on the last page and you have to list 5 reasons for something - you only remember 4.  You KNOW the last one, but you just can't bring it to the forefront of your brain!  You sit back and think.  Then you notice the person next to you - your friend that you studied with right before class - ok, "studied."  He looks over casually, then writes on his paper.  You brush it off, resign to not knowing the answer and resting in your bonus question, and leave the room, your friend on your heels, having finished at the same time.  When you walk back in at the end and everyone grades their tests, you see that your friend has all the same answers as you - even the same wrong guess for the last question that you couldn't remember.  Every short answer is written word for word.  Later you find out that he's had the same thing happen with another one of your friends in another class.  You know he cheated - but you don't want to say anything.

Who do you go to?  Or do you?

There's a horrible name for little kids.  They all hate it - we all did when we were little, too:  "Tattle-Tail."  A tattle-tail was someone who always told on other people.  No one got away with anything because you would always tell Teacher or Mommy.  The same goes for older people, too, though not in the same way.  High school students, college students, young employed adults, even older adults - they may not call you the name, but they sure will have the same attitude as the name-calling child does when you tell an authority what they've done.

So what do you do when you know someone did wrong?  In the work instance, when the manager basically told you to lie to the state?  Do you flat out refuse?  Or do you change the dates on those freezer-burned pies?  What about the fellow employee?  Do you tell the manager that this employee is a lazy bum and should be fired?  What about your cheater-friend?  Do you tell the professor?  Do you tell the dean/principal?  Or do you just keep your mouth shut and pray it doesn't happen again?

I think there is a time to stay quiet and a time to open up.  In our first incident, I think it would be wise to speak up to the manager personally - just out and tell her that you won't lie.  You will gladly remake pies to fit the proper dates, or you will simply take the responsibility.  But you will NOT lie.  The second situation - the non-working employee.  I think you should talk to the employee first, then, if there is no change, talk to the manager.  Don't point fingers, but maybe say that there is someone who is not showing proper work ethic, then ask what to do about it.  In the third instance, I'd say go to the person.  And if nothing happens after that, or if the person will not listen to the point you don't bother talking to them in the first place, simply pray about it.  It's tough to watch someone do wrong and get away with it, especially when you know it will only hurt them in the end.  But sometimes you have to let people live the consequences of their mistakes.

Here's a question not many people have to face:  how should a missionary respond when the culture to where he is ministering involves nudity as righteous?

We talked about this in Dr. Glick's Historical Foundations of Missions class yesterday, and I want to see what everyone was thinking and not saying.  I know most of us were waiting for Dr. Glick's answer.  Some of us were wracking out brains for a logical answer that fit with what we've learned from other missionaries of the past so far.  So I'm curious.

Now, for those of you who were NOT in the class, let me explain what I'm talking about:

In our missions class yesterday, Dr. Glick brought up the issue that a certain missionary to the South Seas faced in the 1800s.  When this missionary arrived at the Islands, all the people were naked.  He immediately began the obvious:  ministering and trying to teach them morals such as clothing.  But he soon found that because of the loose culture, clothing proved to be even more seducing for the men.  In fact, he learned that one reason the Christian women of his church did not want to wear clothing was because only prostitutes wore clothes.

What should a missionary do in this situation?  At first thought you might think "Make them wear clothes!"  But the clothes made them feel like prostitutes (which, for those of you who may not know, is one reason why it is tradition for conservative women to wear their hair up:  because prostitutes wore their hair down back in the day, so to wear your hair down was seductive....just a little side note - sounds like another blog to me!).  Sounds similar to the situation faced in the New Testament of the eating of meat.  Some people did not want to eat meat because it was offered to sacrifices.  To them, it was wrong to eat meat.  But to those who were not in that culture of sacrifice, it was perfectly fine to eat meat.  God even showed Peter in a vision that it was perfectly acceptable for Christians to eat meat.  "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" He said (Acts 10:15).

Another view is that we should do as missionaries such as William Carey and Hudson Taylor did:  respect the people's culture and simply add the Gospel to it.  Taylor went so far as to dress and do his hair as the Chinese.  Carey, too, did little to change the Indian culture.  However, Carey did work (and succeeded) to abolish such traditions as widow burning, or suttee.

So should a missionary allow the people of the culture to go about naked because they feel they would be sinning otherwise?  Or should he enforce clothing as a rule and simply reassure them that it is right and that God instituted clothing as a standard?

My belief is that a missionary should always call his people to holiness.  The Great Commission does not say "Go give my word and let the people live as they want to."  It says "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20).  We are to teach them to follow the commandments of God.  So if their culture involves something that goes against God's word, it is sin and it needs to be changed.

To Talk, or Not To Talk

Do you know when you should talk to your friends? If one of your friends is doing something wrong, should you tell them? Or should you simply let them find out for themselves? What do you think is the wisest? What do they deserve? Does that even matter?

Let me use a personal account to see. As I've been at school, there have been characteristics in people that I've criticized to myself. I've told myself how pathetic some people act and at the same time, unconsciously, how glad I was that I was not that way. I convinced myself that I was more mature than that. Little did I know that I had become the very thing I hated, and apparently, many others hated it too. I've been at school for two and a half months, but no one ever said anything negative to me. Until the other night.

I have one friend here that is the only one who had the courage to come to me about it. He'd debated on whether or not to talk about it, and he told me it wasn't until then that he had the courage to. He didnt' think I would listen - thought I would walk off or shut him down. Instead, as he started telling me things, I stood there, wide-eyed, listening and hanging onto every word. I'd had no idea. He opened my eyes and showed me things I had never noticed. I see now how I've been acting, and for those of you that know what I'm talking about, I am so sorry. I am working on changing, even now. My friend is helping me, and he has promised to never leave me. I couldn't ask for a better friend.

So from that story, is it right to tell your friends? Had my friend never come to me, I would have been left alone and helpless, with no idea why. As far as I knew, I was fine and I had friends. I had no idea the reputation that followed me to classes, to work, and to my dorm. I had no idea the words that were being said behind my back, the discussions about me. What would I have done then? I certainly don't know. And I'd rather not think about it.

From my experience, it's best to go to your friends. As obvious as their mistakes may be, and as strange as it may be for them to not know what they are, they truly may not understand their actions and what those actions are portraying about them. I didn't know. Had I not had a friend willing to offend me for the sake of my changing, I would be lost and lonely with no idea as to why.

What do you think?

What in your mind is the biggest debate among denominations? Do you think it's dress? What about jewelry and makeup - could that be it? Then there's always the issues of the evils of television and the Internet. So what do you think?

To me, one of the biggest issues, and possibly the most important difference among denominations, is the issue of eternal security. For those of you who don't recognize the term, eternal security is the belief that after you've said the sinner's prayer and are saved, you cannot ever lose that salvation, no matter how you live your life. Basically it means that you can sin and still go to Heaven.

Take this scenario:

A man gets saved. He was saved from a horrible past, was baptized, and couldn't wait to start a new life serving his new-found savior. He does really well the first year, slacks a little the second year but is still holding on, but by the third year is back to living how he was before. He's into alcohol and women. He ignores his Bible and his pastor's calls; he shoves aside all conviction and feelings of conscience until he feels nothing just as he did before he was saved. Is this man going to Heaven? He got saved. He was even baptized as a public display of that salvation and that turning around of his life.

Before we jump into what we all believe, let's look at what the Bible says about salvation and sin:

• Romans 2:1-10 ~ "Therefore thou art inexusable...But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this...that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? But after thy hardness and ipenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: ...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth...Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil..." (KJV)
  
• Romans 6 ~ "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?...What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" (KJV)
  
• Hebrews 10:26 ~ "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, these remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (KJV)

So what do you think? From these few verses (trust me, I could have had more, but I don't think you either want to read all of it on this blog or you just plain would NOT read all of it on this blog, therefore it would be a waste) what do you gather? Is the man in the scenario above going to Heaven? Or is he destined for Hell now unless he turns his life back over to God where it was? Let's add the Scriptures we read:

The two places found in Romans that I quoted both ask questions that basically say the same thing: "Now that I'm saved, can I still sin?" What's the answer the the following verses give? "God forbid." Sounds pretty basic, doesn't it? Now, God understands if you make a mistake. Sometimes we slip up - but that's when we go to God with a truly repentant heart and seek His forgiveness. As long as we are truly sorry, He will always forgive us and keep us under that grace. However, as it says in Hebrews, if we "sin wilfully" after we're saved, then there is "no more sacrifice for sins," meaning there is no longer the protection of grace. A willful life of sin is that of one against God, and therefore it is a turning from one's salvation.

So to answer the question about the man who backslid, unless he turns back to God, he is destined for Hell. Eternal security is not found in the Bible.

Let's look at a few verses that those who believe in eternal security use as their basis:

• Romans 8:38-39 ~ "...neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (KJV)

What's the key word in this section? The one I see is "love." Nothing CAN separate us from the "love of God." God loves the sinner - but He hates the sin and cannot allow that sin to enter into the Kingdom. Therefore, since the sinner is full of sin, God cannot allow him to enter His Kingdom unless he is washed in the blood and grace of Christ. And if he does come under the blood, he must keep his life in a life of holiness ("...for I am the Lord...ye shall therfore be holy, for I am holy." Leviticus 11:45, KJV). God's grace will cover his mistakes, his failures; but it will not cover his willingness to sin (Heb. 10:26). If one is to go to Heaven, he must take his life of sin and have Christ wash it clean then make it a life holy unto the Lord.

So now what do you believe? Is eternal security real? Is it biblical? Can you live however you want after salvation? Or must you keep your faith alive by the works you do in Christ in order to stay in the path of righteousness and therefore make it to eternity with Him?

"Wuv, Twu wuv!"

It's what everyone wants. It's what all the stories and fairy tales tell about. It's a small word, so often used, yet so often misunderstood.

Love.

What is love?

To some, love is "want" and "need." It's someone who gives me what I want and what I need at that time. To them, love is a pleasure of the moment, or a security blanket. It's something that only supports them with little regards to others.

To others, love is "lust." Do I need to explain further? Just in case: to them, love is all physical. It's a good figure, muscles, soft skin. It's kissing and so on. It's a Samson view of love - beauty matters most.

But then to some, love is emotion. It's all a feeling and has little or nothing to do with commitment. It comes and goes with each person that they find interesting. It lasts a while - maybe even a few years - until the person makes them mad or does something they don't like. Emotions come and go.

Then there's another viewpoint. Love is a choice. You choose to love someone - that's all it takes. You just have to tell yourself "I am going to love this person, no matter what," and you will love them. Compatibility doesn't matter, likes and dislikes don't matter, and personalities don't have to match. It's just the choice that counts.

So what is love? In my experience (yes, limited perhaps, but still there nonetheless), I'd have to say I disagree with all of the above.

Shocked?

You see, to me, love is definitely not "want" or "need," though when you love someone, you do try to give them what they need, and it's fun to give them what they want when you can. Love is not "lust." However, in a marriage relationship, sex (not a cuss word, people!) is very important to the relationship. It's a fact of life, kids - get over it. Love is not "emotion." But where would the butterflies come from if it had nothing to do with emotion at all? Where would the blushing happen? Where would the shaking on the first date happen? When would you cry over a loss? When would you blubber like a baby while proposing? And where would the joys of a wedding be without the emotion behind love? Last but not least, love is not just choice. This is where this gets sticky, so let me explain further.

The phrase "love is a choice" is so common that it's often taken as solid fact and nothing else. However, love must be more than a choice. If love were only a choice, then it would be easy to find a guy that is a total slob, doesn't know his left from his right, and thinks that a woman is only for cooking his meals, and fall madly in love with him. Get real! I'm sorry, but there are some guys out there that it would take an act of God to make me love him. Love is so much more than a choice.

BUT, let's not forget the importance of the choice. Answer this: what makes love last? One word sums it up: commitment. Choice is that commitment. Choice is what says that no matter what happens, I am going to continue loving this person that I love now. If times get tough, I'm still going to love him. If she becomes paralyzed, I'm still going to love and care for her. If he is unfaithful, I'm going to forgive him and try to love him. Regardless of what happens, when you make a commitment, it is the choice that makes love survive throughout time.

So what is love? In summary, I say love starts as an emotion that blossoms into a commitment. That sums it up pretty well, I'd say. Love will last with the commitment, and love lives with passion.