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.

Oh the Drama!

College - it's the place where so many young people go to not only get the education necessary for their careers, but also where they can start to venture out on their own, where they can move from childhood to adulthood. Suddenly they are thrown into a world of laundry, classes, all-nighters, roommates, and dorms. They're on their own, independent, and still think they're in the high school cafeteria.

Yes, college is possibly more dramatic than even a high school drama club! What is it that makes a person who is college age, who's gone through thirteen years of school (not to mention life), to gossip like a lady at a barber shop and make a candle a stick of Carbon-14? Why does everyone have to be interested in someone of the opposite sex? Why is it that a guy and a girl can't walk to class together or sit at a table together without people all around them talking about them as though they were a couple? Can a person move to another room without someone thinking that she's got a grudge against someone else? Can someone be just having a rough day without someone thinking the person has an incurable disease?

So many people think that they are automatically grown up when they get to college. However it seems that so many people who go to college haven't gotten out of the high school years of their lives. They still pretend that they are better than others. Upper classmen treat freshmen as though they were lower than cattle. Girls think that every guy is in love with them. Guys think they can get any girl they want despite their perverted or disrespectful remarks. Friends accuse friends of crimes not committed.

Are college students really any better than high schoolers? My opinion is that they are worse. At least on an average. They may learn how to live on their own (or some of them do), but how much do they grow up?

"What's Forever For?"

"If love never lasts forever, tell me
What's forever for?"
-- Anne Murray, "What's Forever For"

Oh how America needs to listen to this song. What is forever for, if no one wants to commit to anything, or be faithful to anyone? Can a person truly be unsatisfied with the one in his arms that he would find another to hold? Can a woman be so fickle that while she has one wrapped around her finger, she makes ties with another when the other one is not around? What I think is really sad is that I'm not talking about adults here. I'm talking about young people. So many young people seem to be afraid to commit to one person and hold to them. For some, it's a fear of being hurt. For others, it's a fear to commit to someone only to become dissatisfied later. Others are simply selfish and are more focused on the pleasure of the moment rather than the consequences in the future. Why do so many young people fall into this trap?

Cheating - that's a strong word. I'm not talking about someone looking over at Johnny's test during class and copying his answers. I'm not talking about taking the short cut on a marathon to get to the finish line faster. I'm talking about unfaithfulness. What is it that causes someone to turn his head from the one who loves him and whom he's claimed to love and run to another? Does he no longer care for her? Has she offended him? If so, why does he not simply go to her? Why hurt her even more than confronting her?

Unfaithfulness is like a disease. It begins with a word or look - the germ or virus. Then it grows and becomes attraction. Soon, the well-being, the health of the original relationship has become something that only the proper medication - counseling or will-power - can overcome.

Two people like each other. They aren't quite to the dating stage, but everyone knows they will be there soon. They're just waiting for the right time. But when one is absent, the other flirts with someone else. Is she lonely? Is she simply wanting attention at all hours of the day rather than just when her significant other can supply it? Is his voice over the phone not enough to satisfy her that she would go to another's arms so quickly? She holds him on a string, a mere strand of her affections, only to tie another to her heart while still holding on to the first. Is it hormones? Is it emotions? Or is she simply trying to get more attention?

Where do young people see that cheating, being unfaithful to one who holds their trust, is fine? I can't help but think it's the culture in America. Look around. Look at the TV shows, the books, the magazine articles, the Hollywood stars. What do you see? I see a sea unfaithfulness. An ocean of heartbreak and selfishness. Divorce is rampant - not just in Hollywood, but in our own neighborhoods, even our own families and homes. Men have affairs with their secretaries; women party with other men. What's the point of marriage if it's just going to be thrown away?

So answer the question. What's forever for?