Great Question III

Why did God create man if he knew that man was just going to mess things up?

I got this question from one of my Good News Club kids last year. It's a tough one to answer and I don't think that there is just one reason either.

Here is what I believe:
God created man for at least three reasons (originally)

1. To show a reflection of Himself in His creation (notice I said reflection not copy. I believe there is a difference) (Gen. 1:26a)
2. To create a being that was able to have a relationship with Him that was unlike that of the other creatures of creation.
3. Originally to have dominion over the other creatures in creation and to subdue the earth (Gen. 1:26,27). Interestingly, though, it is not repeated to Noah in Genesis 9 (though, the "Be fruitful and multiply" command is).

     I believe that God could have stopped what happened in the garden but didn't. In essence He allowed man to disobey His command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2:17, 3:1-7)
      I believe that God allowed things to happen this way so that we might know more fully how deep His love is by showing just how far He was willing to go.
     Think about it. If we had never sinned, then Christ would not have had to die. If Christ didn't die we would know that God loved us but we wouldn't be able to even try to comprehend how deep that love is for us. Now at least we can begin to grasp the desperate, painful, deep, powerful, passionate nature of His love!

The Myth About "Just Friends"

     "Just friends" has kind of gotten a bad rap from our society which seems to constantly send the message "all or nothing" to young people out there, and many of us have bought into this way of thinking, especially when it comes to relationships. You see guys on TV shows balking at the fact that they are in the "just friends zone" and trying to "fix" things in order to get on the girl's "good" side. The fact of the matter is he probably doesn't need to fix anything and the fact that he is even in the "friend zone" is a good thing.
     Girls need to feel safe in a relationship. They need to know that you are trustworthy and feel comfortable being around you. They need to know that you aren't going to suddenly ditch her, tear her to pieces with your words, or pressure her into doing something that she doesn't want to do.
     I would say girls typically have 7 stages of relationship:
1) stranger
2) acquaintance
3) friend
4) good friend
5) best friend
6) more than friends (this stage is usually pretty short)
7) a couple (boyfriend/girlfriend, fiancées, spouses, all that jazz)

     For some girls it's more for some girls it might be less (on the rare occasion) but for the most part I think that girls can pretty much agree that these are the basic stages of relationship that we go through (or hope to go through).
   Notice that I have three stages for friend? If you have reached that zone you are at least going in the right direction. For girls like me it might be a little bit before I feel comfortable starting a conversation with you so you might stay in the acquaintance stage for a while (introverts tend to be that way).
    When girls say that "we're just friends" context is everything. If we are saying it to complete strangers or just casually to people it could be any one of the 3 stages of friendship. When we are talking to our closest friends and say that usually you can gauge where you stand by how you are introduced. Are you introduced? You probably are either a friend or an acquaintance if she is not quick to introduce you. Are you the first person she tries to introduce to people? Then you are probably either really cool or a good friend (possibly even a best friend or heading that way). Do all her best friends know about you and seem pretty comfortable around you? What about her family? If you can answer yes to both of these you are either in the good friend stage or the best friend stage.
    Now I have grossly generalized the female and how she will respond in the different stages of relationship and so you are going to have to use your own judgement when it comes to different females. Which means you have to get to know us. The fact is we are all very different and need to be in relationship in order for you to even attempt to understand our system.
    Becoming friends should be the first priority. Unfortunately because we give in to "popular opinion" (call it what you want, media, peer pressure, the stupid mind games that you play with yourself) many people have bought the lie. "Just friends" is not a bad thing. It's a step in the right direction.

Analyzing Literature: Getting More Out of a Book

     So I started a literary analysis class this week. I was not sure how exactly it would go but it seemed to go pretty well for a class.
    This semester we are studying Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, and Tale of Two Cities. I am so glad I started with the easy book because it will help me to "feel the waters" so to speak and get into the groove of things. It will also help me to understand how my students study better before jumping into something more complex.
    With literary analysis you take a book and really pay attention to what the author is saying. What do they believe? Do I believe that? What kinds of attributes would I expect the author to have? Are they displayed in any of the characters? What kinds of characters do we see (introverts, extroverts, proud, silly, vain, kind, accepting)? Who do you think you would like to meet? Who do you think you would definitely avoid meeting? What characters become more interesting as you ask questions? Why? What kind of person can you draw from these characters?

     As you can see I ask a lot of questions of the text and particularly about the characters because Pride and Prejudice is all about the characters. Other books are too but as we go on I think that we will find that books like Tale of Two Cities have a lot of setting and background scenes that we would ask other, more tailored questions about the setting. For Pride and Prejudice this is not a huge focus in the book so naturally we will ask more questions about the characters themselves. We could also draw out more about who the author is because the focus is not as broad or deep as it will be in the other books.
     I had some information about Jane Austen that I had the kids read and I had them read to chapter 6 this week. Here are some of the questions that I asked them in particular for discussion (along with some of the general ones above):
   
What did Jane Austen originally name Pride and Prejudice? (First Impressions)
What kind of writing was she known for? What did people say about her writing? (She wrote about the ordinary in an interesting way)
What would we categorize it as today? (Romance, classical, historical fiction)

    Jane Austen is very good at portraying (especially in this book) how destructive, and silly, human Pride can be. What examples do you see in the first few chapters of this?
      Do you typically rely on first impressions? Why or why not?
      Do you think that first impressions of others usually are good judgments? Why or why not?
      Which characters do you think you could be friends with? Why?
      Which characters (if any) would you prefer to avoid? Why?

     It fascinates me how fictional books hold so much information that we often don't get in just reading through them. We get to meet someone and engage in the world that they either live in or have created. In these stories we can see how this person thought about others and catch a glimpse of what they are/were like as an individual.
     As I'm writing I just had a thought. What if we read the Bible in a similar fashion? I end up asking the same question every time I read the Bible when I have devotions (what does this passage tell me about God? Or some variation of that.) but what if I asked questions that asked first about the human author and then about God (or vice versa). Just an interesting thought.
      Anyway, rabbit trail :)
      Fictional stories can hold so many ideas in them and explore how different people think which is one of the reasons why I enjoy analyzing them.

Put the Screen Down!

     We all need this reminder every once in a while (I know I do).

       We live in a culture that is saturated with media. We go and watch movies, we listen to music, we check our email, we get on our various social networks, etc. this is just a reality of our culture.
     It wasn't always this way. It used to be that you lived in either a small farming town or a big city like New York and you would be reliant on the people around you to help out when you needed a hand or to keep your business running. There was a greater sense of community because our reliance was on the other people around us. Now there were those who lived way out in the boon docks who hardly ever had visitors (just read Laura Ingalls Wilder's books to get a peek at this) but you still had to rely on others for being able to get stuff like seed for the crops next year and fabric so that you could make new clothes for your family or mend the old ones and other basic necessities. There was more human interaction that was necessary back then than there is today and I think that it is not all good. If I need something I can guarantee you that someone is either selling it online or you could get the info pretty easily.
     It is no longer necessary to really have human interaction, even calling people is becoming more and more optional as time goes on. It is possible to live in a busy city and be completely cut off from human interaction. (Basically to be an urban hermit). I realize that it is not healthy for people to be like this (and most people aren't) but it is possible.
     It is convenient to have a computer and be able to text people but is that really fostering community or is it removing it one step from us? I think that in our society it would be really hard to find work without being able to use a computer and a phone. It is important to have these things in our culture.
     I believe there is a difference between using our various means of connecting as a tool and as a toy. I using it for a little recreation is fine but when you find yourself glued to a screen no matter where you are then you have a problem. I cannot say that I have always been good at being self controlled about this issue myself and as soon as I see myself getting more and more attached to my screens I find that I need to put them down or away for an hour or more and do something else.
      Maybe that means you go outside and enjoy whatever nature is close by, or maybe you sit down quietly with your Bible and journal for a while, or go doorbell ditch flowers on a friends doorstep. Just do something that gets you off and away from the screen for a while. You might be pleasantly surprised at what you can discover without being connected for an hour or two.

     Here is my challenge to everyone who has a smartphone/tablet/laptop who reads this go out without those things for at least an hour this week (if you are a parent then you may take a phone but absolutely NO using it unless it's an emergency). Go spend some time just enjoying the nature around you or your kids (if your a parent) without your phone (people don't need to see every second of your life). Go and just enjoy the beauty that God has blessed us with and do it without the distraction of a screen in front of you.
    (For the parents and others who already do this out there, you're awesome!)