the substance of things hoped for

Do you ever have those emo moments where you just find yourself unintentionally sitting in some random place, thoughts wandering between reality and the abstract and you end up asking yourself a bunch of existential questions that you never really given much thought to before? That's what happened to me recently, when I started reading a book that a friend loaned me two years ago (sorry Geo, you’ll get it back in 4-6 weeks tops) by Elisabeth Elliot.

I’m not sure why it took me the better part of two years to crack open this particular book, but I guess it finally gained relevance to what God has been teaching me recently – about what it means to allow Jesus to be Lord of all my life. I know, this is something I should have been trying to focus on years ago, but I suppose this is one of those better late than never things. Of course, this has been an incredibly slow-moving process (mostly the limiting factors revolve around me being stubborn).

Like a lot of guys my age, my mind gets cluttered with worries about work, thoughts about relationships, and a desire to be able to gain clarity for what the future held. We’re at an exciting juncture in our lives, where we find ourselves dealing with choices that may have long-lasting effects. The questions we face, however, are mostly the same for life-altering decision as for everyday things: Is this God’s will? How can I be sure this is God’s will? Should I move to this place? Should I marry this person? What career should I follow?

I remember a bible study from 2 years ago after retreat on Exodus 13, about God leading the Israelites through the desert. If God had wanted to, He could have led them down the known path to the Promised Land. But would that have taught them to trust in Him? He led them through the desert for 40 years until they fully trusted in God's presence, power, and provision.

Last night's small group discussion had one question regarding how we are affected by the fact that God has a plan for us even before we're born. That question sparked a lot of interesting discussion, and rightly so. How should we feel? This morning, I cracked open the E.E. book and came across this rather convicting quote:

"But how in the world can I find out what God wants me to do, if I don't know what I want to do?" The logic of this question escapes me, but it is one I have heard more than once. Why not start by simply telling God you'll do anything He says? You're the servant. He's the master. It's the only reasonable approach, isn't it?

Seeing that gave me an odd tingly slightly guilty feeling, primarily because I've found myself asking that question a few times before. I think of some of the decisions I've made without consulting God first. Was that me trying to figure out what I want to do first? I wonder what plans Abraham must have had for Isaac? Here, he waited soo many years for a son. He trusted that the Lord will provide, and after years of praying and petition, his aging wife gives birth to Isaac. Can you imagine the kind of things Abraham must have thought he would do with his son? Teach him to fish, build a fire, or even whistle. What does it say about Abraham that he was willing to lift Isaac over that altar?

Great, so I know that I'm supposed to allow Jesus to be Lord of all my life. I see it as a theme throughout the bible, and in this book; so what does that look like?? (I have a friend who's favorite thing to ask in a bible study is this, so buddy, if you're reading this...I know you were thinking it!) Truth be told, I'm not entirely sure...that's what I'm going through this book in hopes of discovering. One of the key points in her book is how to wait on the Lord and how to keep lifting our gaze upward. I suppose there's no real good way to close this post, so maybe today I'll take a page out of Ernest Hemingway's book and walk away in the middle of a sente–

**to be continued**

the hidden cost of television

Let's talk about watching television. Why? Television is something most people enjoy. You can learn how to cook or see the world with it. And, well shucks, it can be wildly entertaining. Often, after a long day at work, I'd unwind with an episode of Frasier or the Office. I’m sure people got along fine before the days of tv, but now that I have this stuff, I can’t see myself going without tv (movies, youtube, and hulu included I guess). I know, pathetic isn’t it?

Ok, so this week’s chapter isn’t really about television. As a matter of fact, there really isn’t much mention of tv at all in the chapter. In this week’s chapter of Why Guys Need God, we arrive at the topic of purity. Of course, any book aimed at a guy’s walk with God needs to address purity, and this one is no exception. Putting our thoughts under Christ’s lordship is something that will be a lifelong discipline, regardless of how our walk is going with God. Struggling with purity issues is something that affects all guys (I’m sure girls too); the impurity just manifests itself in different ways.

Trying to walk in purity requires some tough decisions on my part in how I conduct relationships, how I spend my free time, and yes, even what tv shows I’ll watch (or not watch). I think when John said Do not love the world or anything in the world in 1 John 2:15, he didn’t anticipate the kind of stuff we encounter in the 21st century. These days, we have the internet, print media, movies, and even tv barraging us with a deluge of worldly attitudes and values. In my mind, I sometimes will act as if I have a subconscious threshold of what’s acceptable in the things I watch. If Frasier’s trying to hook up with the neighbor in his building, well… I know he’ll fail so it’s ok to watch. If he engages in an adulterous affair, well then I’ll turn the tv off. The danger of having that subconscious threshold isn’t that this is would let in a one-time exposure to sin. The frequent exposure is what can deaden our hearts to sin. This is why purity is such a serious issue. The worldly definition of what is ok is a fluid concept, changing with every generation and never in line with what God wants for us. For us, keeping guard of our hearts and what we consume is critical to our fight for purity. It’s important to remember Matt. 5:8 - Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

I close with a story from this past weekend. My fraternity’s Davis chapter turned 20 this weekend, and we had a bunch of alumni in town to celebrate at First Baptist Church out in west davis. I was surprised to see my friend Colin, who I did accountability with back in college, but had since lost touch with, at the event. The thing that struck me the most when I ran into him was the roman collar he was wearing. I knew he was a devout catholic, but it had never occurred to me that he was in the process of becoming a priest (in my mind priests were all old geezers). We caught up, talking about old times and what we’re doing now (I guess for him it’s kind of obvious). We chatted about the state of the church now, talked a little about spiritual walks and yes, we even discussed tv shows. Like me, he grew up with tv so I’m sure he probably couldn’t really give it up either. Admittedly, with the way tv morals are these days, there’s very little that he can watch on tv. A lot of shows can be pretty raunchy, and rather than give in to temptation, he would rather limit what he watches to shows he considers safe and fairly clean. “So, what do you watch these days?” I asked. He thinks for a second and replies: Storage Wars.

gettin' along.

Can you think of a time where you had a petty disagreement with someone at church? It maybe be about how the worship set should go, or who leads the next study, or whose small group brings drinks to the next potluck. What if, many years from now, your role in that disagreement about fellowship refreshments or who does the vaccuming on friday night is the only record of your existence?

This is what we see in Philippians 4 - Paul calls on Euodia and Syntyche to stop fighting with each other (incidentally the only mention of them in scripture). Since he didn't mention the actual argument, or take sides, I'm guessing it wasn't very important (if it was a matter of faith or theology, he'd probably pick a side or set them straight). What was important, was that their behavior was creating a distraction within the church in Philippi. Of course, Paul being Paul, handles this with tact. He urges them to agree in the Lord, asking a yokefellow (awesome...) to assist in mending the rift.

When I was young, I was of the opinion that disagreements within the church body was to be avoided, since we're meant to love each other aren't we? However, the more I observe fellowships and church folk, the more I realize that disagreements are a natural part of any community, churched or not (yes, we're still meant to love each other). We are a community made up of people of all different lifestyles, experiences, temperaments, etc. With these differences, there is bound to be friction. I feel Paul is pointing these two ladies toward commonalities rather than differences. The next verse changes direction, extolling the two to rejoice in the Lord. He points them to the joy we have in Jesus Christ and the peace of God which will guard our hearts and minds in Jesus. In view of the joys we have in Jesus, the petty disagreements (whatever they may be) don't seem as big. Finally, in one of the most oft quoted passages in Philippians, Paul exhorts the church to focus on the good:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. (Philippians 4:8)

In the midst of prepping for this study on Phil. 4, I've started a new book called Team of Rivals (Doris Goodwin), which dives into the background behind Abraham Lincoln and the men that make up Lincoln's cabinet, particularly William Seward (secretary of state), Salmon Chase (secretary of treasury), Edwin Stanton (secretary of war), and Edward Bates (attorney general), all accomplished men in their own right. It's fascinating to note that these men that Lincoln chose to surround himself with, the ones that are to become among his closest friends and most trusted advisors, were all his political rivals only a few months before their appointments. Seward, Chase, and Bates all ran for the 1860 republican presidential nomination, and were all expected to place above the dark horse Lincoln. Set during Lincoln's presidency, the book focuses on Lincoln's process for reconciling conflicts and bringing together these men and their political differences as the country is thrown into the midst of the Civil War. The book brings out the internal friction within the administration, and the growing pains that occured in order for them to function together in running the country.

I see similarities in how Lincoln resolved the conflicts among these men and how Paul resolved the conflicts in the early churches. He holds together the group of men (and their personalities) by soothing egos, appealing to their sense of duty, and dealing with the numerous challenges to his leadership, all for the sake of the greater good. I'm still on the earlier chapters of the book (it's a looonngggg book), but I look forward to finding out more about how he dealt with conflict internally while dealing with the larger conflict that threatened to pull the country apart.

This post is a bit of a mish-mash of random thoughts, which help me go through the frustrations of prepping for the study (shameless plug: tomorrow - 7:30pm at dccc), especially in dealing with the tyranny of the blank page. Hopefully I'll have a sheet filled with questions, a general direction to follow, and a keen sense of timing (i'm horrible at keeping track of time). We'll see how it goes!

soldier, scholar, horseman, he...

Teddy Roosevelt was a man, but not just any man. He was the very model of a guy's definition of a masculine man. He was both politician and cowboy, soldier and peacemaker. He holds the distinction of being the only man to ever earn both the medal of honor as a soldier, and the nobel peace prize as a statesman. He wrote books, hunted in the jungle, and explored nature all at the same time. He was the original Chuck Norris. During an assassination attempt at a campaign rally, a man put a bullet in his chest. Since he wasn't coughing up blood, he surmised that his lungs were ok, and proceeded to deliver a 90-minute speech before going to the hospital. History has generally accepted all of this as part of the rough rider Teddy Roosevelt persona. Only, don't call him Teddy. Apparently he found it vulgar and felt it was "an outrageous impertinence" (yep, he even used big words like impertinence). Yes, Roosevelt was a man, much like how John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and Chuck Norris are men. I'm reminded of a piece of the poem by W.B. Yeats, written in honor of a friend (and from which the title of this post was borrowed). I sometimes wonder if the poet had men like Roosevelt in mind when he penned these words:

Soldier, scholar, horseman, he,

And all he did done perfectly

As though he had but that one trade alone.

When I read stories and biographies about guys like Roosevelt, I tend to think that this guy's amazing, that he must be what a lot of guys aspire to be; basically, the model of manliness. I'm not sure if girls look at other women and think, that's a woman. She's the definition of what being a woman embodies (I don't think so?). For a lot of guys, we instinctively see others that may be more manly, exhibit more masculine qualities and think, woahhh, that guy's crazy. I think that's why guys like Bear Grylls (man vs wild) and Chuck Norris get the majority of their fans. Of course, not every guy thinks this is the ideal manliness, and so for those guys there are the Hugh Grants and the John Mayers, ones that can showcase the sensitive and/or musical side of guys. Of course we must not forget the funny guys and the sad-but-determined guys. With the world giving us so many different (and often times conflicting) images of what guys are supposed to be like, figuring out what kind of guy characteristics to espouse is pretty difficult.

Going off a previous post, I've been learning about how a man made in the image of God ought to be, while at the same time retaining a God-equipped sense of what it means to be a man. The problem is (at least for me), how do I fend off that impulse to want to be more like those particular men, to return to what the world has deemed to be the model of what a manly man ought to be? Every once in a while I'll watch man vs wild or any Denzel Washington movie and feel inadequate about myself as a man. Those guys are out there doing some pretty butch stuff, and I sit in a cubicle and work all day in front of a computer. Not exactly inspirational stuff.

The thing is, that isn't how God created me. Sure, I could try to pursue that kind of masculinity by attempting to be more like that guy ( maybe...Roosevelt's pretty crazy...), but it's not what God may have intended for me. How do I know? I don't know for sure; however, my (occasionally flawed) logic is this: for me, trying to be masculine in the way like the guys in tv/movies (Denzel charging on the fort in Glory, Bear Grylls getting water from his own poop, etc.) the main motivation is to look and feel better about myself. It's a self-centered motivation to become more masculine. Basically, it's in some ways trying to glorify myself, whereas God wants us to glorify Him.

Of course, coming to this realization alone is only maybe the first 10% of a lifelong journey. In essence, it doesn't really mean squat if I can come to this realization. What I choose to do with this realization is much more important than actually having the realization itself. It's like the Israelites in Egypt. It took them so long just to be persuaded by Moses to trust in God enough to get up and leave Egypt, and even that took ten plagues and some serious arm-twisting. Then it takes the Israelites another forty years of wandering in the desert for them to learn to obey God fully and make Him the center of their lives, and even then it was a constant struggle to keep them in line.

For me, trying to discover what God has intended for me to be as a man is something I should have done a long time ago, but the journey itself is what I would characterize as the full measure of the experience. It's not like I'm going to finish this book, and there, now I know what it means to be a man. No, I don't think that's the intended purpose of the book or the journey. Rather, it's intended to make me aware of the journey that I'm already on, and to make me understand and take and active part in the experience. Ok this isn't exactly chapter three from the book, but rather something that's been on my mind recently.

weaknesses and fig leaves

Ever since finishing the hunger games series, I've been torn between wanting to flip through the pages of 1776 and uncovering little nuggets of historical obscurities or continue through Why Guys Need God, which I'm told (by the back cover) will help me understand myself better (and my people), but will obviously lack the little morsels of historical pleasures. On Monday, I ended up being indecicive, watched the new episode of community, then dived into both, secretly hoping that my week would be free enough to be able to finish off the duo.

Incidentally, this week has turned out to be a pretty weird and particularly difficult week for me. The first two days have been some of the worst days at work I've encountered in at least a few months. It's just been one weird issue after another. Then, on wednesday morning I learn that my grandpa, who has been in and out of the hospital for the last few months, has not been doing well, so I'm on my way to Beijing on Sunday. On the bright side, he got baptized a few weeks ago in his hospital bed, so that's always a praise and prayer request answered. My fondest memory of my grandpa was always going to hongkou park in the afternoons to walk around the lake and look at the leaves. Going back this time around, I'm just not sure i'm prepared to see him in this state.

I don't know if many people know this, but I tend to horse around a lot. At times, when I don't want confrontation or tension or pain, I've tried to diffuse certain situations with (sometimes off-color) humor so that people will lighten up. Some of my friends, and occasionally my boss, will point this out to me. Yea...I guess I'm working on it. In chapter two of Mike Erre's book, he discusses the masks guys hide behind. We (guys) tend to try to find an escape, rather than dealing with life's difficulties (I guess i'm not alone?). I suppose that's why a lot of guys hit the bottle in an attempt to flee their problems. Even more simply ignore their problem and go about with a façade, as if nothing's wrong.

I do this (not hit the bottle, but the other thing). Many times I hide instead of stepping forward, avoid instead of owning. It's easy to deal with the superficial problems and shy away from the real ones. Many of the images I grew up with of great, tough men, are what I would see in pop culture. Denzel Washington is very good at portraying this kind of guy, the internally conflicted but I'm invincible on the outside character. This is often what society's definition of a manly man is: never admit or show weakness, keep it deep down and tucked away, and only show your strong exterior. This is what years of TV and movies and other stuff have drilled into my head, except, this image doesn't jive with what the bible says. Paul embraced his weakness:

I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Corinthians 12:5-10)

At the time of Paul's conversion, God chose not to use Paul's strengths. As a matter of fact, in Acts 22, Paul recounts how was ready to use his Jerusalem connections for God, after all, he knew all the major players in the Jewish religious and political scene, but God had other plans for him. God sent him elsewhere, where any benefit of Paul's previous life, any advantages that may have carried, would be useless. God sent him far away to the gentiles. This is the paradoxical truth of what men should strive for: to delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. I think this is what the author refers to when he describes the goodness of thorns. Our weakness compels us to drop the façade (what he likens to fig leaves), and face life's difficulties as they are.

As I'm preparing for my trip, I know everything I need to do from a logistical standpoint (what to pack, how to get from the airport to my grandpa's place, etc), but I'm having trouble preparing myself mentally and emotionally for this next week. I don't know what to expect, how to handle things when I get there. I have the weekend (with the acacia retreat) before heading out to SFO, but that's pretty much it. With that and an eleven hour flight, I hope I can prepare myself at least a little bit. As I look over the blog-post from the last time I went to visit him, the same comforting verse re-established itself in my mind:

From the end of the earth I call to You when my heart is faint; Lead me to the rock that is higher than I. (Psalm 61:2)

men and God

"I don't naturally gravitate toward having quiet times with Jesus, where I simply bask in His love. My biological dad and I don't bask in each other's love. We go fishing. I'd like to go fishing with Jesus."

The above is from chapter 1 of the book I just started reading called Why Guys Need God by Mike Erre (pastor at rock harbor church in Costa Mesa,CA). I picked this book up at a men's conference about a year ago, but haven't really had the chance to read it yet. I decided to start this book this afternoon (I needed a day off from hunger games haha) since I had gotten off work at a reasonable time.

So far I've only gone through the first chapter, and it's a little interesting to see the perspective this pastor has. He touched upon some of the same things that David Murrow brings up in an article I read on Boundless a few months ago. I had a few issues with that article, which categorized men in the church into five fairly undesirable categories. It seemed like it was identifying a problem, and then simply leaving it there. While going through the first chapter of this book, I saw a few similar points, but this book tries to tackle the problem by asserting that guys need to not only be image-bearers of God, but also address the fact that we're men and need to act like it. Now he's not saying that all guys in church are wimpy pansies, but he makes the distinction between maleness (being male gender-wise) and masculinity (having a man identity - culturally and spiritually).

I think it's important to be able to pursue God while maintaining the masculinity that God gave us. I know that it's not necessarily something that we should be doing alone, and I think that's why churches with men's and outdoor ministries have been thriving lately. I feel sad that our church doesn't have a men's ministry that addresses that need, and that it's an important aspect of a christian community. I've always thought that girls simply connected better, I see it in Acacia all the time. They get together regularly for sister's breakfasts and stuff. It's like it comes naturally to them.

For guys it's not exactly like that. I don't feel a special instant connection to George or Dave or Joe, and that's ok because we're created differently than the girls. We're MEN! But men need support and the community just the same, though we would want to do it differently because as men we're created with a masculine mindset. As people, we're made in the image of God, and as men we play our own unique (manly) part in God's world.

I'm looking forward to the next few chapters, though I'm still not entirely sure what to expect, but I'll keep you folks updated if I come across anything interesting.

who gets this excited over a book??!

Last week marked the start of my amazon prime membership (after hearing everyone rant and rave about it, I figured it's time to jump on the bandwagon). It's my hope that I will be able to read more with this membership (although it's my nagging suspicion that I will end up using this membership for stupid stuff like toilet paper subscriptions or something). Anywho, my first 2-day shipping order arrived today!

The original 1776 book (David McCullough) was released to some pretty good reviews, and was a best seller when it was published, which is quite an accomplishment for a history book. McCullough is a two-time Pulitzer prize winner for his books on Truman and John Adams, and this book is meant to accompany the book on Adams.

see that wide folded paper in the middle? george washington's commission into the continental army. how cool is that?!!

The illustrated edition of 1776 (arrived today) contains the original text plus some additional cool stuff. Boasting 256 pages of pure historical awesomeness (ok, I suppose awesome for me, maybe not you...), this book packs in the fun with a detailed account of the pivotal year of the war with replica historical documents, letters, and maps (and for some odd reason it was cheaper than the regular kindle version). I'm not usually one to pull all-nighters for the sake of books (although I did the other night; different book, very juicy read), but I may be tempted to do it again with this one...