The Gideon Theory

Fell in Love with a Girl

2011-02-06T22:59:00.000-08:00

This entry is in response to a blog posted here. There are about a dozen other entries on the same topic; feel free to browse them for more back story if you have time.

The aforementioned blog has caused quite a stir in our church community. The response has been mostly negative, although there have been a few people who understand where the blogger (Darcy) is coming from. I'd like to show where I agree, where I disagree and also deconstruct some of the unfair criticism that has been flung at Darcy.

First of all, the topic is courtship vs. dating, two very loaded terms. Due to the fact that courtship can mean such a vast number of different ideas to different couples/families, it might be best to stay away from this term throughout this post (as much as possible). Also, the word dating tends to have negative connotations to courtship proponents, so I'm also going to abstain from using that term as well (again, as much as possible). Instead, I'm going to discuss relationship principles rather than using terms loaded with presuppositions which change dramatically based on who is considering the terms "dating" and "courtship". I believe either model can and does work as long as Biblical principles are applied. Of course, if we just stuck to principles, we probably wouldn't have the need for loaded terms. ;)

In her posts, Darcy points out some of the grave errors that courtship can cause. While Joshua Harris' name gets tossed about as an example of what's wrong with courtship, I partially disagree. I've read I Kissed Dating Goodbye twice and Boy Meets Girl once, and I never came away from them believing that Harris was pushing some sort of strict formula for having a successful relationship. I've always believe that he was pointing out deficiencies in the short term, or serial dating, model while setting principles for having a Biblical relationship. These principles never seemed rigid to me, but I can only speak for my male viewpoint. Harris' two books helped me understand how I was viewing relationships incorrectly (I was a short term dating junkie who wasn't mature enough to be pursuing romantic relationships), and offered me a more Biblical way to view relationships.

Now, this doesn't mean that I think Harris is the greatest thing ever. Although I agree with him from a general standpoint, I often found his stories of "good" relationships a little strange. Is a guy really giving his relationship with a girl to God when he's burying the love letters that girl sent him in her front yard? That doesn't sound like someone who has truly let go of his feelings for someone. And seriously, how creepy is it to do that anyways? Another area where I vehemently disagree with Harris is this idea that if you have multiple romantic relationships, you give a piece of your heart to each of the people you have a relationship with. I've been in multiple relationships, and can honestly tell you that not a single one of those girls has even a sliver of my heart. I am fully cable of putting my whole heart into my relationship with E, and I am not fearful of my past girlfriends showing up at my wedding so they can each take a piece of my heart. Did breaking up hurt? Sure. Does having past relationships affect who I am? Definitely, but I wouldn't be who I am if those relationships hadn't happened. I learned from them, grew and matured. I needed the bad relationships so I could understand how to have a proper relationship with God and with the opposite sex. And by saying this, I'm not advocating going out and having bad relationships on purpose. But I do think that sometimes, our attempts to avoid pain and hardship rob us of the ability to grow.

I believe the biggest reason Harris's name often gets trampled on by courtship detractors is not so much because what he says is wrong, but because he is the most recognizable name when it comes to discussing courtship. Courtship proponents such as S. M. Davis and Doug Phillips teach a style of courtship that is completely controlling and authoritarian and is closer to betrothal than anything else. These teachings are what many detractors who aren't very familiar with the idea of courtship tend to believe about courting. Unfortunately, Harris often gets pinned with these types of beliefs even though he has never taught them. I'm not saying that Darcy hasn't had some bad experiences with the teachings of Joshua Harris, I just don't believe that what Darcy experienced is really the essence of what Harris was trying to teach. Maybe Darcy is more critical of Harris than I am, or maybe her parents totally misunderstood what Harris was trying to get at, but I've never seen him as the main problem with courtship teachings.

I was not brought up in a home where my parents taught us courtship from a young age (although that did come along once I hit my teen years), and, obviously, I'm not a female, so I'm not really qualified to speak on Darcy's discussions about how these teachings can be emotionally scarring to women, but I've witnessed and read about enough courtships where the ideas of patriarchal headship and parental authority have been taken to such an extreme that the parents consider themselves autonomous and are not accountable to anyone. (Sometimes, they are accountable, but the church they are attending puts parental authority on such a high pedestal that unless the abuse is extreme, they don't do anything.) I can agree with Darcy that I've seen a lot of pride and self-righteousness in how some parents handle courtships, and this is a major issue for me as a guy who's currently in a courtship and for a man who will someday be a father. I don't want to be overbearing or unBiblical in how I deal with my children and their romantic relationships. Darcy is completely right in calling our attention to the abuses that courtship teaching has caused in some cases.

It seems to me that the points that Darcy is making should cause us to objectively and critically consider whether the way we, as parents and as couples in a romantic relationship, are handling our relationships is Biblical, or if we've gotten to the point where we're pushing legalism on others. Darcy's points are not made any less valid because we do or don't agree with how she's handled situations in her past, and unfortunately, much of the discussion surrounding Darcy's blogs have not been about the validity of her points, but rather, about how we should ignore her points because she was rebellious, or because she's cynical, or because we have a tendency to get overly defensive about something we really care about. Just because you've gone through "dating hell" doesn't mean that courtship is the only option. There are plenty of people who have dated and are emotional healthy and plenty of people who have courted and are now forever emotionally scarred. There are no rules or formulas that guarantee avoidance of emotional pain. Whatever you want to call it, dating (and yes, I have no problem with dating as long as there is accountability, transparency and parental/pastoral counsel involved) or courtship or some other term, it shouldn't matter, as long as we're practicing Biblical principles.

A Little More Than I Can Give

2011-01-31T20:26:00.000-08:00

Today has been the (seemingly) busiest day I've had in quite awhile. Not necessarily busy because of what actually needed to be accomplished today, but because of the number of things that have been added to my plate for the short term future.

In trying to finish my associates degree, which I only need three classes to complete, I started a college algebra class today. Technically, I started it a week ago, but the class officially starts today. I've gotten a bit of a head start, but this is the first time I've taken an online class that had a fully interactive website and didn't just involve the professor e-mailing the students assignments and us submitting the assignments via e-mail. It took me most of the first week just to get the hang of all the features the websites (yes, there are multiple sites associated with this class) offer. It's been about ten years since I've touched a math textbook, so I'm hoping that I won't be too rusty and that I can find the time.

At work, I've fallen behind in my training (not entirely my fault) and I'm trying to have that complete by the end of the month. One of the major issues I have with on the job training in the military, though, is that I'll learn how to do a bunch of different tasks, but I won't necessarily learn them hands on because the hands on opportunities aren't available. So, in three years when a situation comes up that I'm supposed to be able to handle, I won't remember what to do. Also, I got tasked with a huge project: I have to look at the existing lights on the airfield, combine them with the new lights that are going to be built during our airfield lighting project and number them all. This will probably also involve having a map made with all of the light numbers on it. I'm supposed to have this completed by July before our inspection.

Finally, I found out today that I do indeed have a hernia and that it needs surgery. I won't be able to schedule this surgery until tomorrow, but it will knock me out of work for probably a couple of weeks. I'll be glad for the time off, but with some of the manning issues we're having, I know it's going to put the office in a tough spot. Oh well, at least my girlfriend E and I will be able to spend some time together (hopefully).

Here's to hoping that I've got what it takes to persevere through the next several months.

Forever and a Day

2011-01-30T01:04:00.003-08:00

That feels like how long it's been since I've visited my poor blog. I guess I relegated it to the darker corners of the interwebz. That's what happens when you get lazy and/or have a lack of things to discuss. And what do I get as a prize for returning? 50+ spam comments on my last blog entry. Since most of it looks like it was in Hongul, I'm figuring I picked up some spammers while I was in South Korea. Those crazy Koreans!

Anyways, hopefully I'll be back to update this more often. I don't have a whole lot of inspiration at the moment, but we'll see what happens.

For E and C

2008-07-31T13:27:00.000-07:00

Not sufficient

2008-03-06T06:43:00.000-08:00

It is becoming quite clear that in our postmodern world, Scripture is no longer sufficient to meet the needs of our faith. I have known for quite awhile now about the Emergent Movement and its deemphasis on doctrinal importance and over emphasis on social awareness. While I don't deny their concern that the Church can be negligent in its awareness of and involvement in the world around them, their belief that Christianity is simply a salvation prayer followed by Christians uniting to solve the wrongs of the world is grossly erroneous. To them Scriptural doctrine is some unnecessary idea that just creates arguments between uppity intellectual Christians who care nothing for the world around them.

What they don't understand is that knowing Scripture and doctrine IS knowing Christ. Christianity and salvation is not just saying a prayer. In order to properly understand and live one's faith requires intense study of Scripture. Living one's faith will and should involve caring about and being involved in the world around us, but we can't do that until after we begin to understand the Scriptures God gave us.

If you want to be socially aware, that's all well and good, but if you're not actually going to understand what Christianity is all about, then you're no different than any non-Christian out there who volunteers their time to lend a hand in the community, so there's no reason to mask your environmental concerns as Christianity. The Emergents want to put the cart before the horse, and that breakdown in logic is bound for failure.

Another erroneous "form" of Christianity I have just recently become aware of is Christian Mysticism. This seems to be, for the most part, an off shoot of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. These movements have always been problematic because of their poor understanding of Acts Chapter 2. On top of this, Charismatics often times base the depth of their faith on how emotional they can get during a worship service and demand signs and wonders from God, or they won't believe his existence. The flaw in logic here should be very apparent.

However, Christian Mysticism adds a new wrinkle to this idea that is even worse. Christian Mysticism is an attempt to fuse Eastern Mysticism with Christianity. So, not only are the people practicing this adding to Scripture, which is already spoken against in the Bible, but they are also attempting to add a pagan flavor to Christianity. Paganism and Christianity will never work together because at their favor base they are in opposition to each other. This is a very dangerous place to play and Pastors who are leading their flocks in this direction should be ashamed of themselves.

What is wrong with Christians today? Why is Scripture no longer sufficient? In a recent chat room discussion about Christian Mysticism I was involved in, Christians were actually defending this. The conversation went something like this:

Person 1: "I can't believe this guy on this forum has a problem with Christian Mysticism. After all, it is Christian Mysticism."

Me: "I'm sorry, but I see no Scriptural support for Christian Mysticism."

Person 2: [link to wikipedia article on Christian Mysticism] "See, there's Scriptural support. It's very similar to what Charismatics practice."

Me: "That is a complete misinterpretation of Scripture and the Charismatics have no Scriptural support for their practices either, in my opinion."

Person 2: "Well, I think we need to look deeper and not just judge things on the surface. After all, if their focus is on Christ, we shouldn't judge what they do."

Me: "If their focus is on Christ, then they should want to follow what Scripture says about worshiping Christ, not say 'We're doing whatever the hell we want...but it's alright, because our main focus is Christ.'"

Man-made Dogma

2008-01-01T21:46:00.000-08:00

I've been sick for about a week now, so my sleep patterns have been really off the wall. Because of this, I was awake at 3 am this morning and decided to go grocery shopping at Walmart. I was in a Five Iron Frenzy mood, so I grabbed "The End Is Near" to listen to during the drive. I really wanted to hear "New Years Eve", since it's pretty much a tradition now for me to listen to that song during the New Year.

While jumping around different tracks on the album while in the car, I ended up listening to "Something Like Laughter". The song is basically about about a "girl who's lost her way". She's trying to find meaning in her life and struggling with her faith and the world around her. The chorus is basically a prayer for the girl to see the glory and wonder of God. I can relate to this (as I'm sure most true Christians can) because there was a time when I was also struggling with my faith and God stepped in and revealed Himself to me, which propelled me out of the rut I had fallen in.

I have heard this song many times before and I think it is one of the most moving, beautiful songs Five Iron Frenzy has ever written. While listening to it this time, however, one particular lyric really struck me: "searching for more than mere lies disguised as dogma". This got me thinking about the state of the church. What does the church claim as doctrinal dogma that is no such thing?

Sure some particular denominations are legalistic, and that would fit the profile. However, during this election season, it really got me thinking about politics. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that the vast majority of Christians believe that voting Republican is Bibilically mandated. Now, I'm not a Democrat, but any person with half a brain can see the flaw in this line of thinking.

Understandably, certain moral issues are discussed rather specifically in the Bible and the Republicans stance on several of these issues is on the side of Christianity. However, it doesn't follow that being a Christian equals being a Republican. This will be the first election I am strongly considering voting for Independents in the election. In fact, there is only one Republican I would support: Ron Paul. While the Evangelicals are falling all over Mike Huckabee, he does not truly stand for The Constitution and has a questionable past as governor of Arkansas.

I do not mean for this to be all about voting for Ron Paul. This is a decision I have come to for various reasons. I just hope that during this year's election Christians at least consider their voting options before blindly vote for Republicans. Do a little research, and it is very clear that the Republican Party is not pro-Christian, it is pro-votes. In other words, they care little for your beliefs and care more that they appear to support your issues so you will vote for them.

Amazing!

2007-10-29T09:01:00.001-07:00

Because I'm such a huge football fan and this is one of the most ridiculous plays I have ever seen...

My sister's music video

2007-10-27T05:08:00.000-07:00

My sister Janna is very interested in photography and film. She tried her hand at making a music video, and I thought it turned out pretty well, so I'm posting it here.

The song is "Merry Go Round" by PFR.

The state of modern "Christian" music

2007-10-12T02:44:00.000-07:00

Christian artists that have been heavily promoted by the Christian music industry since the early 90s have been, in my opinion, mediocre at best. Sure, most of the artists that came out of the 70s and 80s could be a little cheesy at times, but at least they had, in general, a strong Biblical foundation on which to base their lyrics.

Most of the musicians who have been promoted in the Christian market since the explosion of alternative bands in the early 90s were not only trying to emulate the musical trends of the times (although they always seemed to be a bit behind the curve), but the lyrics started to become watered down as well. The problem was two fold: many of the upcoming young artists did not have a strong Biblical foundation, and there was also a shift in focus to become pallatable enough to attempt to crack the mainstream market.

While there were probably good intentions involved, this has caused the Christian music industry to become shallow and weak. Many of the major Christian labels either folded, leaving the artists they had signed suddenly unemployed, or sold out to larger mainstream labels who realized that they could make a decent profit off of Christian music. However, the focus of the mainstream labels snuffed out the Christian artists who wrote with a strong, Biblical intent. It would take several years before these artists could carve out enough of a niche to have any kind of impact again.

The mainstream labels intended to turn the Christian market into a smaller version of what they already had in the mainstream market, except they would be able to package many of these artists in such a way that they would be able to make money off of Christians who opposed listening to mainstream music. Viola! These labels now had a very sizable consumer sector in their back pocket and could make even more money than before.

Thus we have come to the sad state of Christian music today. The majority of the promoted Christian artists now don't look any different or sound any different than mainstream artists, but they throw that vague spiritual reference in every now and then, which allows them to separate themselves just enough to make them seem different. Thus, we are left with a Christian market that promotes mini-mainstream artists with watered down lyrics.

One band that I have a love/hate relationship with is Skillet. I love the energy of this band; they are quite an enjoyable live band, and they really do mean well. However, they tend to take their enthusiasm a bit far at times to a point where it rubs me the wrong way. Three songs in particular, "Obsession," "Better Than Drugs" and "Comatose," really irritate me.

"Obsession" is a song about being obsessed with God, and although in a sense this is how we want to be, the choice of words really irks me. Here are some lyrics from the song:

"You're my only infatuation
Don't leave me stranded
In my obsession"

First of all, the word "obsess" has a bit of negative connotation, i.e. you are overly interested in something to the point of it being unhealthy. I'd never want to describe my relationship with God as being too interested in it. Secondly, the fact that the lyricist is actually asking God not to leave him stranded is Biblically flawed. God has promised to never leave us or forsake us (Deuteronomy 31:6), so pleading not to be left stranded in one's obsession with God is quite a bit of a theological faux pas.

"Better Than Drugs" and "Comatose" both compare a relationship with God to being addicted to drugs, but better. Here are lyrics from "Better Than Drugs":

"You're better than drugs
Your love is like wine
Feel you comin' on so fast
Feel you comin' to get me high"

And lyrics from "Comatose":

"Comatose
I will never wake up without
An overdose of you"

Putting aside the fact that comparing God to a drug addiction (which is another negative connotation) is bordering on sacrelige, do we really want to be promoting a relationship with God like this to Christian teens and young adults? Maybe it's even worse that non-Christians are hearing this and then looking for that "God high." A relationship with God should not be comparable to a drug high. It shouldn't be a high at all. Granted we have highs and lows in our faith, but pursuing a "high on God" to get us through a tough time should not be our intent.

While no one expects the Christian industry to break new ground musically, their blatant ripoffs of popular trends in the mainstream sector is appalling and well behind the curve of popularity. Christian music's first grunge band, Grammatrain, came on the scene in 1995, just in time to completely miss the grunge movement, as it began to fade in 1994 with the dowfall of Kurt Cobain. The mainstream market has teen pop idols Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson and Mandy Moore? The Christian market responds three years later with Rachel Lampa and Stacie Orrico. The Christian Music industry even tried to jump on the boy band train with Plus One, but was still even later to react to that musical trend.

A modern example of a blatant mainstream ripoff is Krystal Meyers. Take her song "Anticonformity": it has a great message for teens about not conforming to the ways of the world. While nothing new, this is one of those ideas that constantly needs to be reinforced. But then came the music video accompanying her single. If I hadn't known any better, I would have thought it was Avril Lavigne's new video. It was shot very similar to an Avril video, and Miss Meyers was sporting the new faux punk look that is oh so popular these days, just like Avril does. Wait a minute, doesn't that contradict the message of her song? I thought we weren't conforming, but apparently pretending to be Avril Lavigne and sporting the most popular "look" of today's teen culture isn't conforming.

We need to stop letting the Christian music industry feed us this trash they call art, and demand they focus on providing us with artists that have substance, both musically and lyrically. Stop buying music from the Christian bookstores and start looking for the independent artists that are willing to sacrifice making money to provide those who will listen with quality music and a quality message.

What's More Inhumane?

2007-08-22T10:09:00.000-07:00

Ever since the Michael Vick scandal broke, I have been reading sports sites (mostly thesportingnews.com) to see what other people's thoughts were. For those of you who don't know, Michael Vick, the starting quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons of the NFL and one of the league's biggest icons, was indicted last month on a host of charges including dogfighting, gambling, and animal abuse. Some of these inhumane acts included eloctrocuting, drowning, hanging, and shooting dogs (mostly pitbulls) that lost fights or couldn't make the cut. Michael Vick has just pleaded guilty to these charges and is facing up to three years in prison as well as fines of up to $250,000.

Now, I have never been a fan of Michael Vick. I have always thought he was a bad role model for kids who went out and bought his jerseys and athletic wear. He wasn't a team player, he was a locker room cancer, and he got coaches firerd because of his attitude and unwillingness to do what he was asked. Yet, because of his phenomenal athletic ability and his status of "cash cow" for both his team and the NFL, everyone has bent over backwards to cater to his needs and wants. If you know me then you know that I have a problem with all of these things. However, that does not mean that I am willing to blast him the way I've seen about 97% of the comments and blogs I've read about him have done.

In all my life, I have never seen more vicious attacks on a person. Dog lovers and PETA members are coming out of the woodwork to protest Vick's actions, as well they should. However, calling for him to be treated the same way the dogs he tortured and killed is, in my opinion, uncalled for. What Vick did was inexcusable and he is being punished for his crimes. Even the NFL is taking a firm stance, as Vick will likely see a lifetime ban from the league. I think, though, that my biggest issue with these comments lies in the fact that people are more willing to viciously defend dogs than they are human being.

Where are the people clammering for abortionist doctors to be vacuumed through a hose using the same procedure they perform on a unborn babies? I am in no way condoning this, and I doubt even those who are calling for Vick to be drowned wouldn't be able to bring themselves to do it if they were put in a room with him and a tub filled with water. What I am saying is that I am saddened that we have come to a point in society where when a dog is treated poorly, it is considered more inhumane than when a baby is disturbingly murdered. It's times like these that make me so glad we are under the rule of a righteous God and not held accountable by an unruly mob of our peers who have no basis for deciding what is right and wrong.

New Blog

2007-08-22T10:02:00.000-07:00

I decided to move my bible study notes to a different blog. If you would like to read them, I have listed the blog in my list of other blogs.

Where did he go?

2007-07-17T11:46:00.000-07:00

Uh, yeah, so I've gotten kinda side-tracked with my job which has been really frustrating and stressful lately, so I've had some troubles keeping myself organized. Fret not! I will return with more posts soon. Stay tuned!

Proverbs 13

2007-06-14T01:50:00.000-07:00

Focus verse : Prover 13:18
"Poverty and disgrace come to him who ignores instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is honored."

Meaning: The whole of this book hinges on Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowldege; fools despise wisdom and instruction." Provers 13:18 echoes this verse, but also provides an understanding of the consequences attached to the outcome of those who fear the Lord and the fools who reject Him. Similar to the theme throughout most of the Proverbs, these consequences are not just phyiscal or things that will happen in this world, but can also be consequences of a spiritual nature. You may amass a wealth in this life, but you will be spiritually poor for eternity if you have ignored the knowledge and advice of those who walk in the ways of the Lord. However, the Lord admonishes those who diligently seek and listen to the counsel of those who are wise in the law of the Lord.

Application: My age is an especially tough time because I am trying to find my own spiritual identity, yet I also still must rely on the spiritual nurturing my parents provided me. Now, my parents aren't perfect, and they're not right about everything, but not only have do they have far more spiritual maturity than me, but they also have much more life experience. In the short time I have been away from home, ignoring their advice has actually landed me in very disgraceful and poor financial situations. Perhaps now that I am doing my best to listen to their counsel, I will find some honor in my life.

A New Direction Already?

2007-06-12T21:25:00.000-07:00

So, here's the deal. With a lack of things to write about (I do have a subject or two brewing in the pot, but that's about it) I have decided to start recording thoughts on the Bible study I am doing for the next month on Proverbs. Thirty-one chapters means (hopefully) thirty-one straight days of posts. We shall see how it goes...

Is God A Masochist?

2007-06-07T23:30:00.000-07:00

I went for my weekly run today (I know, it needs to be a little more often than once a week) and I was reminded of a conversation I had with someone a few months ago. This person posed a question to me: is God a learning God? To which, of course, I replied emphatically no! If God did not know everything then God could not be all knowing, and if God is not all knowing, why serve and worship Him? I mean, He could be completely wrong about everything!

This very confused Christian then pointed me toward Genesis 6:5-6, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth and it grieved him to his heart." His point? God had no idea that man would choose sin and wickedness, and man had gotten so out of hand, that God needed to lay the smack down. Therefore, God learned that His creation was a mistake.

Obviously the vast errancy in this statement is blatantly clear. However, I will attempt to break down my defense in brief form. First, I responded that God knew that mankind would choose sin and because of this, He could not have "learned from this mistake." His response? Well then, God must be masochistic because he knew his creation would bring him pain. Yes, apparently, God is a masochist.

From here, I made two points:

1) Why can't God be masochistic? Who are we to judge God based on our finite experiences? What is that compared to His infinite wisdom? Continuing on from this thought, how can we even begin to fathom how God works anyways? God is outside of time and space. How can we try to define in our limited human words? Calling Him masochistic is awfully presumptuous!

2) More importantly, is it necessarily masochistic to do something that causes one pain? After all, running causes me quite a bit of physical pain and I know it will before I even begin to do it. I guess I must be a masochist for partaking in it, then! Or maybe my driving force of getting in shape overrides the fact that I will incur some physical pain. Maybe God's ultimate plan is more importnat than the temporary "pain" it may cause Him along the way.

So, no, God is not a masochist.

Us Darn Christians Are So Closed Minded

2007-06-07T01:25:00.000-07:00

I was thinking about going and finding an old editorial I wrote for the school newspaper several years back so I could be lazy and not post anything new, but this issue has been gnawing at my brain for awhile, so I will attempt to briefly disect it.

In today's culture it is very apparent that one of the worst "burns" out there is to be called closed minded. Want to win an argument? Beat your opponent over the head by calling them close minded. Every single onlooker will gasp in awe at how dumb your opponent is for being so ignorant to your point of view.

But honestly, if you call someone closed minded because he refuses to see things the way do, aren't you doing the same thing? Are you trying to see his view, or are you just trying to get your shots in while you can because you're upset at being "offended"? See, the thing is, if you weren't being ignorant in the first place, you'd have no reason to call someone else closed minded. So, what we have here is a fine and dandy example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Let's extend this into the land of Christendom. Christians are some of the biggest goats out there for receiving the "closed minded" label. We are considered closed minded and ignorant because we stand for truth. Not just a truth, but THE Truth. And this truth is offensive to some. Christ told us to expect to be rebuked (Luke 6:22) for His sake. So while we shouldn't be suprised when those who disagree with us resort to labeling us closed minded, the irony is that it is those who disagree with the truth of The Bible that are closed minded and ignorant.

While the humanist may claim to be objective, how can one really be objective when they are relying on false truth to "objectively" observe the world? The honest truth is, there is no objectivity outside of God's truth; none whatsoever. So, we should never fear that oh so scary (not really) label of being ignorant or closed minded because we can be assured in our knowledge that the truth of Christ gives us the only true objectivity that exists.

"Objectivity's the myth of plenty who doubt His truth within their soul" - Five Iron Frenzy

An Introduction

2007-06-06T00:34:00.000-07:00

I have always been fascinated by the story of Gideon, a man whose "clan [was] the weakest in Manasseh, and [who was] the least in [his] father's house." (Judges 6:15) Yet God used this seemingly meaningless man in the grand scheme of things and a rag tag group of just 300 men to defeat one of the greatest armies the world had known at that time. To me, this story is not only one of the greatest examples of God's power to do as He wills with whatever tool he chooses, but it also shows that just a few righteous men who seek to follow the will of God can have a far greater impact on their world than they could ever see themselves having..

How does this relate to the title of my blog? I am a recently Reformed Christian who is still wet behind the ears. I don't consider myself in any way a masterful theologian. Yet, however small and incompetent I may feel in this vast universe, even I can be used by God to do His will, and just like Gideon and his 300 men, have a far reaching impact on the course of human history. Please don't misunderstand me, I don't have such lofty expectations. I just want to do what I can to be a glimmer of hope in this dark world.

So please, read, comment, discuss, and even correct me if you feel I'm wrong. I don't claim to know everything and still have a lot to learn. I hope what I have to say will positively effect the lives of those who read this blog.