The Biblical Weltanschauung of a Moderate-Conserative Mennonite Christian

John 5: Not Just A Guitarist

2012-01-25T18:05:00.003-05:00

The title for this chapter is probably going to take some explaining. The only ones who will probably get it is from my generation, and even then, not everyone in my generation will know what I’m talking about. “John 5” is the stage name for John Williams Lowery, who was the lead guitarist for David Lee Roth, Marilyn Manson, and Rob Zombie. I did not know about John 5 until Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock put on their game “Black Widow of La Porte” by John 5 (featuring rhythm guitarist Jim Root). Every time I heard or I played this song, I would always think of John 5 as in the book of John chapter 5. But now every time I read the book of John chapter 5, I think of John 5 the guitarist and the song “Black Widow of La Porte.” Let’s talk less about the guitarist and more about the book and chapter.

John 5:1 is proof I’m pretty sure this supplemental Gospel was written topically and not chronologically. If you read to the end of John 4, the last place you leave Jesus is Cana in Galilee. At the beginning of John 5, Jesus is in Jerusalem in Judea. The best transition we get is “some time later.” But let’s talk less about time and more about location. More specifically than Jerusalem, Jesus is at out pool by the Sheep Gate, which has the name Bethesda (or Bethzatha or Bethsaida, depending on what manuscript your translation used). The name literally means, “House of Healing,” so you know where this story is going. The setting is a sad story, as the place is crawling with the ill, the injured and the disabled. Why?

Now’s the perfect time to point out John 5 is missing verse 4. Why is it missing? Verse 4 can only be founded in the later manuscripts. All the discovered early manuscripts don’t have it. Most likely, John never wrote verse 4. Later on, an editor put in it to explain the significance of the pool because people forgot the importance. So let’s look at verse 4.

John 5:4-
“From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease he had.”

So legend had that every now and then (and it was a rare every now and then), an angel would come down and stir up the waters. When the angel stirred the waters, the waters had healing powers, but only enough power to heal one person. The first one in the water would be healed. You might be thinking, “Then why don’t you just sit the pool the whole time?” It didn’t work like that. It would have to be the first one in the pool after the water was stirred, not during or while the pool was being stirred. Besides, if you sat in the pool waiting for a rare occurrence, you’d have more wrinkles than a raisin and a prune combined. Now this legend isn’t as pure as you think. First, I will note that this was a local legend, local meaning only the people of the city believed it. You probably couldn’t find any other believers in the rest of Judea, Samaria, Galilee or anywhere else in the world. Second, the legend was brought about by the Greeks while they were in the land, not the Jews. You will find nowhere in the Old Testament, New Testament, or even the Jewish Talmud (commentary on the Torah) that would support this legend. The Bible Knowledge Commentary points out that this is unbiblical because it’s so cruel to make disabled people compete for healing. So it’s not a Jewish legend, but rather a Greek legend. It has to be a Greek legend, because when the Greeks were in the land, they worshipped snakes there. As a matter of fact, a lot of them worshipped snakes on poles, just like the Bronze snake on the pole Moses made while the Israelites were wandering in the desert. In the Greek legend, it probably wasn’t an angel that stirred the waters, but their god of healing, which is also symbolized by a snake on a pole. (And that is why hospitals and ambulances use a snake on a pole as their symbol. It is the Greek god for healing.) When the Jews took back the land, the local Jews fixed the legend, replacing the Greek god with an angel of the Lord. It really doesn’t matter where the legend came from. The point to be to made is that the disabled people were willing to anything to be healed, even if it is hoping in a silly superstition.

John 5:5 picks out one of these men, but it’s only descriptive to a point. The NLT and NCV calls him “sick.” The RSV, NRSV, and NASB calls him “ill.” The NET calls him “disabled.” The NIV, ESV and Message call him an “invalid.” The KJV and NKJV says he has an “infirmity.” Very generic. I looked at the original Greek. The word they used is asthenia, which can be translated “weakness” or “frailty.” It still doesn’t help clear things up. A lot of commentaries will simply say he’s paralyzed because context clues says he has problems getting off his mat. The text does tell us this man has been invalid for 38 years, and he’s possibly been waiting at the pool for 38 years. The text doesn’t tell how many ill people are at the pool at this point, but Jesus chooses this invalid man to pick out.

When Jesus asks the invalid man in John 5:6, “Do you want to get well?” we may find it a stupid question. Of course a man disabled for 38 years wants to get well! Many scholars have given many interpretations for why Jesus asked a question that seemed so obvious. Perhaps the man made his living off begging for money out of the people’s pity for him. Healing him would take away his source of income (compare to Acts 16:16-21). Maybe the man got so use to a lifestyle of being invalid he had accepted it and no longer desired to change his lifestyle. It would be like asking a man in a wheelchair, “Would you like to walk?” and the wheel chaired man replying in anger, “What? Am I not good enough because I am in a wheelchair?! Does it make me less of a human because I am in a wheelchair?!” On that note, perhaps Jesus didn’t want to offend the man by making him look weak and pathetic being invalid. Sometimes disabled people do get offended if you baby them too much. Maybe Jesus asked the question because, as we’ll see later on the story, both He and the invalid man knew that they would be breaking the man-made “Sabbath laws” by being healed and carrying a mat. Jesus didn’t want to throw that kind attention on the invalid man if he didn’t want it. Perhaps Jesus said to get the man excited about the real possibility of getting healed. Also remember that Jesus many times connected physical ailment to spiritual ailment and physical healing to spiritual healing. Many people, back then and today, don’t recognize they have sin, and even if they do, both those who do and do not may enjoy their sin and not see as wrong. As much as God hates, he will still honor their free will and allow them to stay in their sin (see Romans 1:24,26,28). On last possibility is that Jesus is calling the man out on his superstition, and calling him to real faith in Christ. It’s like Jesus is saying, “Do you [really] want to get well? [Because this superstition isn’t working. Believe in Me instead. I can really heal you.]”

What may seem weirder than Christ’s question is the invalid man’s answer. The invalid man’s answer is somewhere along the lines of, “Yeah, but it’s not going to happen because I’m too weak and too slow to get in the water when it is stirred, so someone always beats me to it.” It’s like the invalid man doesn’t even answer Christ’s question. The man is so hooked on this superstition, he believes it’s his only way to get cured.

As expected, the miraculous healing takes place in John 5:8,9, but pay close attention to what’s happening. Jesus doesn’t say, “I’ll help you next time the angel stirs the water!” then precedents to wait until the next stirring, when Jesus throws him in the pool. Jesus doesn’t say, “Well, I’m God, so I’ll stir the water for you so you don’t have to wait for the silly angel” and then waits for the man to get so He can stir the water. In fact, notice Jesus doesn’t use the water at all. He just says the word, and the man is healed! Once again, Jesus is drawing the man away from believing in superstitions and towards believing in Jesus Christ. Actually, in light of John 5:14, maybe his superstitious beliefs caused him to sin, which led to his disability.

May I pause him here to say “Amen?” You won’t believe the number of Christians I know who are superstitious is some way, shape or form. Well, ok, I don’t know too many, but that number should be zero, but it isn’t! You might think “I’m not a superstitious Christian” but you might just be. Do you believe in good luck and bad luck? If you do, then you are! The idea of “luck” really denies God of His Will and His sovereign control. It states God cannot destine or predestine anything. But we all know God does control everything with His sovereign hand, and He can destine and predestine events in people’s lives. Thus, anything that happens in our lives, whether good or bad, shouldn’t be credited to luck because that’s crediting it to a non-existing force. Instead of “good luck” we have “blessings;” instead of “bad luck” we have “curses.” None of that is out of God’s control, for it is God who blesses and God who curses (although I will note that some bad things are the consequences of sin, which is the absence of God, but that’s another long post for another time). So Christians, stop believing in “luck” and stop involving yourself in those superstitious things that are suppose to give you good luck, for you are messing with forces that are not meant to be missed with. You too can be invalid by sinning, or something worse!

(Alright, that last paragraph reminded me of a funny saying I had during quizzing. I went into quizzing believing in good luck and bad luck. I even had a lucky t-shirt for quizzing. When I started quizzing for Spring City, my coaches Dave and Vicki Deitrick taught me there was no such thing as good luck and bad luck, but only God’s blessings and God’s curses. So I would teach my quizzing teammates the same, saying to them, “I don’t believe in luck. I only believe in God’s blessing. So remember that next time you see me turn my quizzing opponents and say, ‘Good luck!’.” :-) haha).

What might be crazier than Christ’s question in verse 6 or the invalid man’s answer in verse 7 is the Jewish leaders’ response in verse 10 when they see the man walking. Most people would be happy to see a lame man walking. Even in today’s day and age, we’d be glad to see a man who use to need a wheelchair, crutches or a walker walking on his own. Not the Jewish leaders, though. What is their reaction? They call him out for breaking the Law! The only problem is this “law” is not written in the Torah, not is it even written in the Talmud (Moses’s commentary on the Torah). It’s a law the Sanhedrin wrote out of their interpretation of the Law. Still, in their eyes, this man is in trouble, and he probably would have gotten into trouble, too. But then he mentions someone made him well. In their minds, they could be thinking, “Well, whoever this man is who made you well is in bigger trouble because he did a bigger work on the Sabbath: healing!” At least it got the healed man out of trouble. The Jewish leaders ask the man who healed him because they want to interrogate this healer, but all the man can do is shrug his shoulders. He doesn’t know either, but what does he care, he’s healed! Later on, though, the man finds out the healer was Jesus, and once he does, he reports back to the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus, possibly to keep himself out of hot water.

Before we go any further, we got to ask ourselves the question, “Why does Jesus perform this miracle?” or even “Why did John decide to include this miracle in his book?” Remember, John only put 7 miracles in books. We’re already up to the 3rd miracle (yes, I did skip the 2nd miracle in John 4, but that’s because the post on John 4 was already long enough and it was off topic). So why is this one so important? We could just stick with generic answers. It shows Christ’s power over nature. Jesus came to defeat the Fall, and Jesus defeated all aspects of the Fall, including sickness and disease. Christ’s power to defeat a physical ailment that everyone can see demonstrates His power to defeat the unseen spiritual ailment known as sin. All of those do work, all of those do show Jesus as God, but it would be better if we could have a reason that’s less generic and more specific to the story in this chapter. I’m not going to read the verse, but let’s just say the next verse, John 5:16, shows a dramatic transition in the chapter’s text. It’s almost like a cause-and-effect transition. Many commentaries agree on why Jesus performed this miracle, but they don’t really word it correctly, so it sounds harsh. If I were to paraphrase their belief on why Jesus performed the miracle, it would be, “Jesus healed the man to start a debate with the religious leaders.” Doesn’t that sound harsh, that Jesus would only heal a person to start an argument? It would totally reword Christ’s question in John 5:6 to “Can I make you well so I can pick a fight with the Jewish leaders?” But if you think about it, it does make sense. Jesus never healed people just for the sake of healing people. To borrow the title of an ApologetiX song, Jesus did not want to become the “Temple Physician.” Jesus performed His miracle to demonstrate His authority and verify His message. In short, Jesus performed miracles to demonstrate who He is and verify what He did. Once again, notice how this miracle smoothly transits into Christ’s preaching. So the commentaries did have it right; they just needed to word it better. They could say that the miracle was an attention-getting introduction to His preaching, or say that the healed invalid man was the “visual aid” his teaching.

Now it’s time for the great transition from miracle to teaching. John 5:16 says that because Jesus was preaching work on the Sabbath (or so it seemed) and even working himself on the Sabbath (miracles constituted as work), the Jewish leaders begin persecuting Jesus. Let’s quickly compare the Jews from Jerusalem’s reaction toward John the Baptist to their reaction toward Jesus. When it came to John the Baptist, it was just a close, watchful eye. Yeah, John the Baptist was calling out the Pharisees and Sadducees to hypocrites and sinners, but beside that He was doing nothing wrong. Baptism has its roots in Jewish cleansing rituals, so there was nothing really wrong with John baptizing (although the Jews didn’t think it was necessary to baptize yet). Both John the Baptist and the Jews believed the Messiah was coming, even though John thought he was coming sooner than the rest of the Jews thought. And as matter of fact, John the Baptist’s preaching called for the people to repent of their sins, which was very similar to the Jewish leaders teaching the people to follow the Law. So while the Jews from Jerusalem kept a close eye on John the Baptist to make sure he didn’t start a revolution, the Jews really didn’t see him as a threat. Now when the disciples transfer from John the Baptist to Jesus Christ, so the Jewish leader’s watchful eye also transfer from John to Jesus. At first, their reaction is skeptical. Their questions are merely to get a better understanding of what Jesus is preaching. But by now, by John 5:16, it goes from curiosity to persecution. Their questions go from curiosity and understanding to criticizing and doubting. Why? Jesus is not only working on the Sabbath, but telling others it’s alright to work on the Sabbath. Although healing and carrying a mat are not declared work in the Torah or Talmud, the Jewish leaders saw it as work, therefore they saw as a man breaking the Law and teaching others to break the Law, and the religious leaders would not put up with that. Any man who broke the Law and taught of breaking the Law, even if it was just their interpretation of the Law, was deemed a sinner, a blasphemer and a heretic. To them, the situation called for persecution.

We’re going to skip over John 5:18 for now, but we’ll come back to it. Right now, we’re going to jump right into Christ’s teaching, starting in John 5:19. Now I’ll point out some specifics, but I want to more show the overall message and how it reveals Jesus as God the Son because it will stick to the overall message of John’s Gospel. And you’ll see the number one way John shows Jesus is the Son of God is by teaching trinity.

To fully understand John 5:19-30, we have to get out of our Western mindset of thinking and go into an Eastern mindset of thinking. What’s the difference? The Western mindset of thinking is all about dissecting, breaking down and analyzing. When it comes to trinity, it will break the trinity into 3 parts, break it into 3 categories, and then try to nicely and neatly put categorize all the acts of God into these 3 categorize, by what entity performs what task. The reasons we want to get out of this mindset is because, as we’ll find out, it will create a big mess. Instead, the better thinking is the Eastern mindset, which sees the trinity as 3 persons, and then tries to see how these 3 persons relate to one another. You’ll see John 5:19-30 does not try to categorize the actions of the Father and the actions of the Son, but instead shows how the Father and the Son relate, and how they work together.

So first, starting with John 5:19, we learn that God the Son cannot act independently from God the Father, nor can the Son act in opposition to the Father. There is only love in this relationship, and they come to work together in unity. Just an earthly father mentors his earthly son, so the Heavenly Father mentors His Son and shows the Son the Father’s Will and the Father’s works. In John 5:21, Jesus gives the specific example of life and resurrection. Both the Father and the Son have the power of life. The Son offers eternal life (salvation), and the Father will raise from the dead whoever took up on Christ’s offer for eternal life. In John 5:22, Jesus provides judgment as another specific example. The Father has handed over His power to judge to the Son in order that the Son may be treated like the Father. After all, the Jews in the Old Testament feared God the Father because they knew of the power He had to judge them. Now the Jews in the New Testament were in a whole lot of trouble because the Jew in the New Testament were not treating the Son of God, Jesus, with that same honorable fear. Because Jesus warns the people that to not fear or honor Jesus is like not fearing or honoring God.

Since Jesus is on the subject of judgment, he will talk about the present state of judgment. This talk is going to be very similar to Christ’s talk with Nicodemus in John 3. Whoever hear Christ’s words and believes in Him will receive eternal life. If anyone does not, that person will remain in his or her state of condemnation. That is what is mean when Jesus mentions crossing over from death to life. Before a person has Jesus, the person stands condemned in his or her sin, condemned to death. When a person receives Jesus, the person goes from condemned to forgiven, the person goes from hell to heaven, the person goes from life to death. How can Jesus do this? Jesus is God the Son. God the Father has given the power of life to God the Son. So Jesus, God the Son, can give life to whomever He pleases. And while Jesus is on the subject of judgment, he will talk about the future state of judgment. To demonstrate that the Son has the power of life, the Son of God will resurrect everyone on the Last Day, both the good and the evil. Those who are evil will be condemned to eternal damnation, while the good will be raised to eternal life. Once again, how is this possible for Jesus? Only by the Father.

Before we transit into the next section, let’s once again summarize the teaching of Jesus here, as well as summarize the theology that goes along with it. God the Father loves God the Son, and God the Son loves God the Father. Therefore, they work in unity with one another. Their thoughts, words, and actions are always working together. They will never be in opposition, nor will they ever contradict. Since there is love and unity between the Father and the Son, the Father can entrust the Son will power, such as the power to judge and the power to give life. The Father does not have to worry about the Son abusing these powers because the Father knows the Son loves Him and wants to work to please Him. Everything the Son does is done just the way the Father wants it done because the Son wants to please the Father. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to categorize the trinity into 3 parts because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all have the same powers, such as the powers to judge, condemn, forgive, heal and give life. It all comes down to how the 3 persons relate to one another and work together for unity.

Let’s make one quick application pause before we move on. I’ve always believe the relationship between the persons of the trinity, or the community of the trinity, can demonstrate how humans should develop relationships, both with God and with other humans. Since this passage more talk about divine things, let’s look at what humans can learn about their relation to God the Father from God the Son. If we as Christians truly love God, we should seek unity with him. What does it mean to have unity with God? Our thinking should be the same as God. Our feelings should be godly. Our wants and desires should be the same wants and desires our Lord as. If it’s God’s Will, then it should be our will as well. When we do something, whatever it is, it should be done the way God wants it done, in order to give God praise, honor and glory. I believe when we do that, and when we get to that point, God will give us more power because He know and entrusts us to use it continue give him the glory and the praise. I believe that’s what all the authors of the Bible books had in common. They were able to get to the point where their wants, their needs, their desires and their will was the same as God’s. So God entrusted them to write His words.

Just as Jesus makes a smooth transition into another topic (or maybe it’s a sub-topic), so shall we make the same smooth transition. I want you to notice something very important about the transition. The last few paragraphs, John 5:19-30, Jesus talks about God the Father and God the Son. In the next few paragraphs, John 5:31-45, Jesus talks about God the Father and Himself in the first person (I, me, my, mine, etc.). I’ll put it into a simple sentence to show the transition more easily. It goes from God the Father and God the Son to God the Father and Himself. God the Father & God the Son --> God the Father & Himself. Notice the parallel in the transition. It’s almost like Jesus is talking about Himself interchangeably with God the Son. That’s because He is. This is another piece of evidence, another proof, another sign, another sighting that Jesus is God the Son. He declares by talking about Himself as God the Son.

The NIV calls the next section “Testimonies about Jesus.” The ESV calls the section “Witnesses to Jesus.” Both would be accurate descriptions of the section. As a matter of fact the Greek word martyreo, used throughout the section, is most accurately translated “testify” or “bear witness” (it is also where we get the word “martyr” from). Jesus is being nice to Jewish leader by offering the sign of authority that the Jewish leaders have been asking for. So Jesus lies down 4 pieces of evidence, 4 proofs, 4 reasons or 4 signs of Christ’s authorities. This would be similar to the God Sightings we did in John 1 because all 4 do reveal Jesus to be God the Son. So just like John 1, let me list the 4 witnesses that give testimony that Jesus is the Son of God.

4 Testimonies that Jesus is God the Son as found in John 5
1. God the Father’s testimony (vs. 31,32,37,38)
2. John the Baptist’s testimony (vs.33-35)
3. Self-testimony through miracles and miraculous signs (vs. 36)
4. Old Testament Scripture’s testimony (vs.39-47)

Once again, through 4 different testimonies, the evidence clearly proves Jesus is God the Son. I could go through each testimony explaining the proof, but most of these have already been covered, either in this chapter or the chapter before. The last one, however, hasn’t been discussed too deeply, and it’s the one that really hits home, back then and today. Let’s look at the testimony the Old Testament Scriptures gave.

First, let’s look at the testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures in light of 1st century context. Jesus was making no understatement in John 5:39 when he said the Jewish leaders had diligently studied the Scriptures. Any well-educated Jew had the whole Torah memorized. Imagine having Genesis to Deuteronomy memorized by heart! Most Jews did. The highly educated Jews that were rabbis, teachers of the law and Sanhedrin went further and memorized the whole Tanak (Hebrew Bible). Imagine having Genesis to Malachi memorized. Some went even further and memorized the Talmud, which is Moses’s commentary on the Torah. They knew the Scriptures and every possible interpretation. Why were they so dedicated? They truly believed that the Law would bring them salvation, so they made sure they knew it in and out, and they obeyed every word. Jesus says the only way the Scriptures bring salvation is that they point out salvation through Christ Jesus. The problem was the Jewish leaders did not recognize this, so they refused to recognize Jesus as Messiah, or even sent from God. Jesus really gets gutsy when He tells the Jewish leaders that they do not believe Moses and Moses is their accuser, condemning them. In the Jewish mindset, Moses is the hero because he is the lawgiver who gave the Law that brings salvation. Jesus corrects the Jewish mindset, remind them that the Law condemns them because it reveals they can never truly follow the Law, even if they declare they do. Moses also accuses and condemns them because Moses warned the Jews that a prophet like him was coming, and if they did not believe in the prophet, they would be cut off from God’s people (see Deuteronomy 18:15). The Sanhedrin refused to believe in Jesus, so as Moses foretold, they are condemned to be apart from God.

Now bring it up today. Today Christians use the term “Bible-based” like it is the ultimate safety net. For example, if a church is Bible-based, it’s a good church and nothing can wrong. Christians must be careful to use this term as a safety net, for if they are not, they will fall into the same problem the Pharisees and the Sadducees fell into. It will quickly lead to legalism, and before you know it, we’ll be worshipping the Bible, believing the Bible gives us salvation. The Bible can show us the way of salvation, but it does not give us salvation, as it has the Law in it, which condemns us. This is why I am Cristocentric, or Christ-centered, instead of Bibliocentric, or Bible-centered. It is Jesus Christ who created me, loved me and saved me, not the Bible. The Scriptures can only point me in the way to Jesus. Now it is true that there is a strong link between the Word of God and Jesus. After all, it was just in John 1:1 where we read the Word was God and was with God in the beginning. But the saving Word is the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ. The Bible is just the words on paper. Scriptures are not to be treated like a 4th person of the trinity, for that would be a paradox.

And because I wrote this for the quizzers studying John, I believe this is a helpful reminder that our knowledge of the Bible does not save us. Your rank on the standings does not show how good of a Christian you are. The Top 50 Bible Quizzers List is not a list of the 50 most spiritual people in Bible Quizzing. It’s very possible that the most spiritual quizzer (if it’s possible to measure spirituality like that) may only score 10 points all year. Quizzers, don’t make the same mistakes as the Pharisees and Sadducees and know the Scriptures more than you know God. For that alone is proof that being Christ-centered and Bible-centered are not the same thing. Because it is possible to know the Bible, yet not know God. So quizzers, don’t get too stuck in the technicalities in knowing the material. Actually read the Bible as God’s Word, and get to know God through it.

Before we close, let’s go back to John 5:18, for I think it sums up the chapter, as well as connects back to John’s overall message for his gospel.

John 5:18-
“For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”

Remember how in the introduction to John I told you to look out for who Jesus claimed He was, as well as the claims about Jesus from those “pro-Jesus” and those “anti-Jesus”? Throughout John 1-4, we’ve seen the claims from Jesus and the “pro-Jesus” about who Jesus is, but not really from the “anti-Jesus” people. Here, in John 5, the religious leaders, who are clearly against Jesus, weigh in on their opinion. Why are they trying to kill Jesus? They knew he was calling God his Father, and they knew calling God your Father meant you were calling yourself equal to God. The only way to be equal to God is to be God. So what’s the testimony of the Jewish religious leaders? Jesus is the Son of God. Now with all 3 groups of people weighing on Jesus, we’re now starting to see a fuller picture of who Jesus is, more specifically the Son of God. As we move on in John 5, we’ll see how these 3 people groups will continue to weigh in on the subject. We’ll also see how the teaching of Jesus becomes bolder, how the proponents of Jesus continue to support Jesus, and the opponents of Jesus sharply oppose Him.

John 4: The Woman Who Met Mr. Right

2012-01-23T15:34:00.004-05:00

I hope you liked my devotional commentary on John 3. I know I did. I wasn’t expecting it to go the evangelistic route, but it did, and I liked it. I know for sure this John 4 commentary will go that route. When I was in 8th grade, the 8th grade Bible curriculum at my middle school was the Gospel of John. I remember that when the class got to John, the teacher paused to do a whole unit of evangelism and witnessing. I would like to do the same because I clearly see evangelism in John 4, too. While John 3 was evangelistic because the chapter preached a Gospel message of salvation; John 4 will be evangelistic because it will disciple believers on how to evangelize to non-believers (although if a non-believer paid close attention to what Jesus is saying in John 4, I believe a non-believer could come to faith). In John 4, the reader learns how to evangelize by watching Jesus do it Himself. The person Jesus will evangelize to is not like Nicodemus in chapter 3. In fact, you’ll find out she is almost the quite opposite.

Before John dives into the “meat” of the story, even before John describes the setting of the story, John sets the scene for the setting. The first 3 verses in John 4 actually clarify something all the way back in John 1. John 4:1-3 clarifies why Jews in Jerusalem were sending priests and Levites to observe John the Baptist. They weren’t curious; they were keeping on eye on him. They were making sure John the Baptist didn’t start a revolution, either a religious one or a political one. Why? Because John the Baptist had earned quite the following. If so many people were following John the Baptist and becoming his disciple, he must be up to something. By the time John 4 rolls around, people are following John the Baptist less and following Jesus more. The only thing John the Baptist’s disciples are listening to is John the Baptist saying, “Go follow Jesus.” With less people around John the Baptist, the Jews from Jerusalem saw John the Baptist as a “fad” or a “phase,” but no longer a threat (the only one who saw John the Baptist as a threat was Herod, but that’s for later). But now Jesus has the large following, so now Jesus is seen as the possible threat. From now on, the Jews in Jerusalem are keeping a closer eye on Jesus. During John 4, Jesus does not feel comfortable or safe in Judea because of the Jews in Jerusalem, so He decides it is best to return to Galilee.

Onto the setting of the book. The land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, once known as Israel, has now been divided into 3 regions by the Roman Empire. Galilee is in the north, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee. Judea is in south, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea. Between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, between Galilee and Judea, right smack dab in the middle, is a region of land called Samaria. Its inhabitants are the Samaritans. The Jews and the Samaritans did not get along. They hated each other with racial prejudice.

Quick history lesson. To understand the racial hostility between Jews and Samaritans, we have to go back to the time of Divided Kingdom of Israel and Judah. God warned both Israel and Judah that if they did not follow the Law, they would be conquered and they would be exiled. Of course neither Israel nor Judah listened and instead both broke the law. God followed through with his warning. In 722 BC, Israel would be conquered and exiled by the Assyrians, and in 586 BC, Judah would be conquered and exiled by the Babylonians. The Assyrians and the Babylonians had different views on how to deal with conquered people. The Babylonians would take the upper class citizens of the conquered back to their main homeland and capital, leaving only the lower class conquered people back in their homeland (there was no middle class at this time period). The Assyrians, on the other hand, did the opposite. Instead of dragging people back to your homeland, you implant your people in the new land, and have them intermingle with the natives, keeping the conquerors at a higher status than the conquered. And so that’s what happened. The upper class of Judah was exiled to Babylon, while the lower class of Judah was left to fend for themselves with whatever was left over. The Assyrians moved into their new conquered land of Israel and settled there, intermingling with the people. Now the Jews, the people from Judah (the term “Jew” does technically come from “citizen of Judah”), realized that their exile was due to the sin, so they finally sincerely repented. All the years in exile, the Jews of Judah lived a life following the Law. The conquered Israelites didn’t exactly get the picture still. They kept up with their old sinful habits. As the Assyrians intermingled with the Israelites, the Israelites intermingled with the Assyrians. The Israelites took on the ethnical, cultural, political and spiritual identity of Assyrians. Some Israelites and Assyrians intermarried. I will note here that some of this intermarrying was willing and intentional, but sometimes Israelites were forced to marry Assyrians. After all, the Assyrians were the ones in change, and Israel had to submit to them. So the offspring of these intermarriages created a new race of people. They were the Samaritans.

So when the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were allowed back into their original lands, thanks to the Persian, Greek and Roman Empire, the reunion between the Jews and the Samaritans was not a happy one. The Jews found out that the Israelites had intermarried with a foreign people, a direct violation of God’s Law. The pious Jews would have nothing to do with a people who did not obey God’s Law. The Jews refused to consider the Samaritans as real Jews, even though the Samaritans believed they were. The Jews saw the Samaritans as “half-breeds” and they looked down upon them for it. Jews would not eat at the same table as Samaritans, nor would they even eat from the same dishes a Samaritan used. The Jews would not allow Samaritans to use their temple on Mount Zion or read from their scrolls. So in order for the Samaritans to continue their religion, they had to build their own temple on Mt. Gerizim, and they had to write their own Scriptures, in order to make sense of a temple on Mt. Gerizim. Yet when the Jews heard this, they criticized the Samaritans for not even being true Jews in religious worship. It would seem as if the Samaritans were stuck in a rut, with no way out. So the Jews and Samaritans became enemies, with racial hostility between them. The hostility got so bad, Jews traveling between Galilee and Judah would go around Samaria instead of going through. If they would have gone right through Samaria, the trip would only take 3-4 days, but they hated the Samaritans so much, they took a trip that lasted 7-10 days!

With that in mind, imagine the disciples’ reactions when Jesus tells them they have to go through Samaria. They might have thought He was out of His mind. I imagine that the racial hostility between the Jews and Samaritans got so bad, that at this point, it might have become unsafe for a Jew to travel through Samaria, like today it is unsafe for an Israeli to be in Palestine. Maybe Jesus stressed a need of urgency to get back to Galilee, so the disciples were willing to go along with the plan. Then imagine the reaction from the disciples when they get to Sychar, and Jesus tells the 12 disciples to go off without Him to find food. If some of the disciples were willing to walk in Samaria because they knew they had God the Son Incarnate literally walking beside them, they didn’t have that anymore. I bet as they walked through Sychar, they said to one another, “Alright, stay close together, watch each other’s back…” But as we begin our story, I have a feeling Jesus purposely sent the disciples away, for a bigger reason than to look for food because he was hungry. Jesus was about to encounter a Samaritan. He didn’t want his Jewish disciples giving neither Him nor the Samaritan hard time for having a conversation. After all, these were the disciples who rebuked children (see Matthew 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17), so they probably would have no problem rebuking an adult.

One more time, let me summarize the setting. Jesus and His disciples are in the region of Samaria, a region hated by Jews. More specifically, Jesus and His disciples are in the town of Sychar. This town has some Old Testament history, as it is the land Jacob gave Joseph and Joseph’s sons. Some scholars believe that Sychar is the New Testament name for the Old Testament time of Shechem. Even more specifically, Jesus is sitting at Jacob’s well, which also has some Old Testament history (see Genesis 33:18-20). As for the time, it is the “6th hour,” which is believed to be around noon, about midday.

While Jesus is sitting at the well, waiting for his disciples to return with lunch, a Samaritan woman comes to the well to draw water. Jesus asks her for a drink. This might seem like a simple question to those reading this story in 21st century, but in the 1st century, this was a shocker. On top of racism between Jews and the Gentiles, sexism was very strong. Most women in the day lived in the shadow of men. They were not allowed to speak unless they were spoken to, and most of the time, it was culturally unacceptable for men and women to have conversation in public. So this person had two strikes against her: she was a Samaritan and she was a woman. Most Jewish rabbis would be so appalled by her, they would totally ignore her, as if she didn’t exist. If they were really thirsty, they would probably be more willing to dehydrate than have to ask her water. How shocked and surprised she must have been to see a Jewish man talking to her a Samaritan woman. She even tries to remind him of the social barrier between the two of them.

Christ’s move is genius, though. Jesus has got her attention, but not he needs to hook her curiosity. So Jesus says something along the lines of, “Oh, if you only knew who you were talking to, you’d be asking me for water, and not just any water, but living water.” Now the Samaritan woman’s curiosity is hooked, but it might hooked by a misconception. Just like Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman might have tried to understand Christ’s words in a literal, physical way. Back in Bible terms, wells, or cisterns, had tops that were open and exposed to nature. So the water wasn’t as clean as it is today. The dirt, bugs and other junk would be at the top of the water, and the cleanest of water would be at the bottom. People in the 1st century lacked the technology to get the clean water from the bottom without the dirty water on the top. The Samaritan woman might have thought Jesus was claiming He could do such a thing. The Samaritan woman pretty much replies, “Who do you think you are?” and then citing a famous patriarch, Jacob. She questions if Jesus is better than Jacob. While the Greek shows that she asked it in a way that expects a response of “no,” the irony of it all is Jesus is greater than their forefather Jacob.

Jesus tries to clarify what He meant. He explains that the water in this well will make people thirsty again, but then He offers Living Water, in which people will never thirst again and they will have eternal life. At this point, the Samaritan woman goes from a liberal understand of the physical laws to a supernatural understanding. She’s imagining a literal water she can drink so her body will never literally thirst again. It would be like she could drink one cup of this water and never have to worry about dehydration ever again. Now Jesus has her full, undivided attention. Of course she wants this water! If she had this water, she wouldn’t need to keep going back and forth to the well to get water so often. She’s all ears on how to get this water.

What Jesus does next is challenges the Samaritan women by asking her to bring her husband. I bet Jesus said it subtly and innocently, like, “Alright, bring your husband so I can tell him, too.” Now the Samaritan woman knows what kind of trouble she’s in. So she tries to also cunningly reply that she has no husband. Jesus replies, “You’re right, you don’t have a (1) husband. You have husbands. Five, to be precise, and maybe a possible 6th, because the man you are with now isn’t one of the 5…” Doesn’t this sound perfect for a Jerry Springer episode?

And now all of a sudden it makes sense why the Samaritan woman is at the well during the middle of the day. You were probably thinking, “Why would someone be doing chores like fetching water in the middle of the day when it’s the hottest out?” You’re right, something is wrong with that. But understanding this Samaritan woman’s situation, it makes sense. Indeed, most of the women would do all their outside chores, like fetching water, at sunrise and sunset, when the sun wasn’t shining down directly on them. But women around a well in Bible times are like office co-workers around the water cooler. Gossip is rampant, and this Samaritan woman was probably the talk of the town. You can’t sleep around with 5 different men and not get some nasty rumors circulated about you. It wouldn’t surprise me if the women of the town called this one Samaritan woman “slut,” “tramp,” “whore,” “ho,” or “prostitute.” The women probably pointed fingers at her, fingers of accusations, meant to put her down. Perhaps even if she went to the well with the rest of the women, the women would ignore, and they would pass her with chins up. So that’s probably half the reason this Samaritan woman came at noon: because the other women weren’t there. The other half of the reason is who IS there. At noon, it’s lunch break for the men who have been working hard out in the fields or with the flocks. They will gather around the well for a water break. It’s very probably that’s where this Samaritan woman got her 5 husbands. It’s very likely she goes there to pick up me. And may I even suggest a scary, odd thought: Maybe the Samaritan woman was trying to pick up Jesus.

Like any other person caught in sin, the Samaritan woman tries to change the subject. The Samaritan woman pretty much says, “Alright then, Mr. Smarty pants, if you are so smart, tell me which mountain is the right mountain to worship on: Mount Zion in Judea or Mount Gerazim in Samaria.” Remember the Jews would not allow Samaritans to worship at the temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem. So the Samaritans had to result in building their temple. Rising hostilities between the 2 races led to religious arguments over the right place to worship. Between Jews and Samaritans, the right place of worship was a hot topic. Jesus gives a simple reply, saying it’s not where you worship that’s important, but rather how you worship. After all, it is made possible by Christ’s atoning death, in which we all become temples for the Holy Spirit.

The Samaritan woman isn’t fully satisfied with this answer. All she can reply is “Well, I know when the Messiah comes, He’ll tell us the right answer and straighten everything out.” To which Jesus raises his hand and says, “That would be me.” This is the first recorded time that Jesus declares Himself to be the Messiah. Jesus hadn’t told anyone this before, not any man, not any Jew, not His own family, not even His disciples. Up to this point, the disciples are just going on the assumption Jesus is the Messiah, and it’s true Jesus has done nothing to deny these claims, not stop these claims. The first person Jesus tells that He is the Messiah is a person with 3 strikes against: Samaritan, woman, adulterer.

Just as Jesus makes His confession, the disciples walk back to the well with lunch. They see Jesus say something to the Samaritan woman, and then see the Samaritan woman run into town all excited. The first thing on their mind is “What was that all about?” The second thing on their mind, being the stereotypical Jewish men they were was, “Why is Jesus talking to her?” But of course, no one is brave enough to call Jesus out on this, afraid of consequence, for good reason. They made the smart call by keeping quiet. Then Jesus and His disciples have a little conversation, something like this-

Disciples: “Jesus, eat something”
Jesus: “I have Living Food, so I never go hungry”
Disciples: “Wait, did someone else bring you food?”
Jesus: *sigh* “Not again… Didn’t I just get done with this?...”

Meanwhile, the Samaritan woman is going through the town of Sychar, urging everyone to go see Jesus. Her tagline: “He told me everything I ever did.” Well, who wouldn’t want to see the stranger that knows everyone’s life in and out? So many Samaritans come down to meet Jesus and listen to him. I wonder if this made the Jewish disciples uncomfortable. The Samaritan people are so impressed by Jesus, they urge Jesus to stay for a couple more days, and he does. During that time, because of the Samaritan woman’s testimony, many Samaritans come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah and the Savior of the world.

Before we move onto the direct application of the chapter, let’s quickly glance back at the overall application of the book with the book’s theme. How does John 4 portray Jesus as the Son of God, or God the Son? Well, the obvious answer is we see the omniscience (all-knowing) of God in Jesus because Jesus knows the Samaritan woman’s adulterous life without her telling him. The Samaritan woman can testify to that. The other proof is within Christ’s teachings. His words alone are bringing people to faith. But the strongest evidence that makes Jesus the Son of God is His love and compassion for a Samaritan woman, who was an outcast three times to Jewish men. Any other Jewish rabbi would have ignored her, but Jesus cared about her spiritual well-being and was out to save her from her sin and bring her into his family. This love can only be seen from God, who loves and cares for all His creation.

Alright, now onto the discipleship of evangelism. Clearly we see evangelism happen in John 4, as Jesus presents the gospel message to the Samaritan woman and she comes to salvation. Before I go further, let me add a disclaimer that there is no perfect “cookie-cutter” method to evangelism that will work perfectly for everyone every time. As one who has the gift of evangelism, I had heard many methods to evangelism, and I can see the pros and cons of each method. I believe that Christ’s evangelism to the Samaritan woman shows a method of evangelism, and it gives us good pointers. Did the evangelism of the perfect, sinless Jesus have its cons? In context, no. Jesus, being the all-knowing God, knew exactly what the Samaritan woman needed and was able use the method of evangelism that would best work with her. We, as humans, are finite and flawed beings who will not be able to figure out every little detail of a person’s life, so even if we used the exact same methods, we would still not have a perfect method to evangelism. Still, John 4 gives us a few good pointers for whatever method we use, so let’s look at those pointers.

1. Find a common ground to talk about to open conversation
A lot of times I think 20th and 21st Century American Christians are guilty of “ambush evangelism” in a few aspects of their evangelism. The definition of ambush, according to the Merriam-Website Collegiate Dictionary (11th Edition), is “a trap in which a concealed person lies in wait to attack by surprise.” Sometimes Christians do that to non-Christian. A non-Christian might be just walking down the road, mind his/her own business, when, all of a sudden, a Christian pops up out of nowhere and starts talking about Christianity. It can be positive and passive, like “Jesus loves you! He wants you to be part of His family in heaven!” It can be negative and aggressive, like “Repent of your wicked sins and be saved from the fires of hell!” Either way, it’s an interjection that catches one off guard and by surprise. Have you ever thought of what kind of message that is sending to whomever you are evangelizing to? They are getting the message all you want to do is talk about your faith, convert them to your faith, and whatever the results may be, when you are done, you are done with them. This can be a turn off right from the start because it shows little care about the person himself/herself.

Instead of starting by talking about your faith, open the conversation with some other topic you both have interest in and you can both openly converse on. I believe Jesus was doing this in John 4:7 when he simply asked for a drink. Most likely the Samaritan woman was at the well because she too was thirsty and needed water to drink. She was thirsty and needing a drink, and Jesus was thirsty and needing a drink. There’s your common ground. Common ground doesn’t have to be too complicated. If it’s at a restaurant, compare favorite dishes. For girls who like talking about clothing, comment on each other’s outfits. Speaking of clothing, look at their shirts. What people wear can tell you a lot about their personality. If you have a good knowledge about the subject they are advertising on their clothing, talk about it. Most people know what’s going in the world, so you can use current events to open conversation, like the news, the weather, or sports. On the same note, most people know about the media coming out of Hollywood, so movies, television and music can be a conversation starter, too. But I would really encourage you to evangelize to someone who shares a favorite hobby of yours, so you can talk about that. Why? All the other things I mentioned above would just be short and “shallow” conversations in order just to get conversation. But if it’s your favorite hobby, activity or interest, you probably know it front and back, left and right. If the person you are evangelizing to also shares that hobby, activity or interest as favorite, he/she will also be able to talk about as well as you can. Then you can go in-depth with the conversation. For the deeper you can do with the conversation start, the more it will display how much you genuinely care for the person, and that you are not just trying to add another one to the Christian number. Just remember, this initial common ground conversation cannot be about religion, beliefs or faith. For if you are a Christian, and he/she is a non-Christian, that is not common ground.

2. Make a smooth transition into talking about your faith
Once again, another way Christians do “ambush evangelism” is they might start a conversation other than Christianity, but then they will make a sharp turn into talking about the faith. One minute the non-Christian thinks he’s having a nice conversation with a Christian about something else than religion, so he let’s his shields down, then all a sudden the Christian says out of no where, “You need to believe in Jesus!” and the shields have to quickly spring up. Again, think about the message you are sending when you this. It does feel like you are entrapping the non-Christian. The only reason you had the nice conversation about whatever was just because you wanted to lure them in talking about faith. If the conversation before now seems fake, it, once again, will seem like you really don’t care for the person.

Notice the first thing Jesus says to the Samaritan woman in John 4:7 and then the second thing Jesus says to the Samaritan woman in John 4:10. Both lines are talking about water and about drinking water (although those words might not be used exactly). Jesus smoothly went from asking for a drink of water (talking about a physical need) to talking about drinking Living Water (a spiritual need). The smooth transition will make it seem less like an ambush to talk about faith, and more like a natural change of subject. There’s a couple ways to do this. The first method I call the 3 C’s: correlates, contradicts, or corrects. “Correlate” means it agrees with your Christian faith. “Contradict” means it doesn’t agree with your faith. “Corrects” means it agrees with your faith in some areas, but in other areas it does not, but after making the corrections with the areas it does not agree, it now fully agrees. Talk about if your faith correlates, contradicts or corrects with the subject you started talking about. A second transition you can use is comparing your opening subject to the simple, overall redemptive history God has written. If you are unaware of this simple, overall redemptive history, it simply states the history recorded in the Bible can be simplified into four stages: God created the world and man, man and the world fell into sin, Jesus redeemed man and the world, the Holy Spirit is re-creating man and the world. To shorten it to just one word each: Creation, Fall, Redemption, Re-Creation. See if any of those 4 stages can be seen in what you were talking about before. One stage, if not all 4, if you were talking about popular books, movies or TV shows. Compare what it says to what the Bible says. A third approach I would use is to take something from your earlier conversation and turn it into an analogy for something in Bible. Jesus used this in John 4, calling salvation “Living Water” because they were talking about drinking water. So do the same. Say, “You know, [previous subject] kind of reminds me of [something in the Bible]…” Those are 3 transitions I would believe would work. But may I add that transitions may not happen immediately. They may take time. After your first initial conversation about whatever may not lead into talking about your faith. You might need to have a couple common ground discussions before you can discuss your beliefs. Be patient, as God is patient, and it will all come in time.

3. Hook them and lure them in to an interest
Don’t make your evangelism a boring lecture about what you believe. Anyone listening to that will zone out and not care. Look how Jesus piqued her interest. He said he had a water in which the drinker will never thirst and have eternal life, and the Samaritan woman immediately wanted it. To put it in the words of the song “Shine” by the Newsboys, you got to “make them wonder what you got, make them wish that they were not on the outside looking bored.” For example, if you are talking about something materialistic, like the latest fashion or the more recent technological gadget, say, “It’s OK I don’t have one, I know have a greater treasure than that.” Show them that that you have something they don’t, and make them want it, or even better, need it.” Expose the need. If they are scared about what happens after they die, say to them you have comfort in your life after death. If they are afraid and worried about their future on earth, tell them you feel secure because you know God is watching over you. Many unsaved people out there feel like their life is incomplete, even if they have a life where they can do whatever they want and party hard. Many unsaved people have fallen for the lies of the world, that worldly ways will bring happiness. Demonstrate that even if you don’t have that life, you feel complete and joyful. If you can display joy without having a worldly life, it will blow their mind.

4. Expose the Problem and the Need
An answer is no good if there’s no question. A solution is no good if there is no problem. You need to expose the problem and the need. I already started talking about that in the last point. That “expose the need” was more along the lines of demonstrating you have something they don’t to draw them in. At this point, it could more of “expose the want” because, at this point, it’s just something the person might want. Now it’s time to turn the want into a need. This “expose the need” is showing them the problem in their lives. We Christians know the problem is sin.

Now there’s a right way and a wrong way to expose sin, and we have to be careful with how we expose sin. I’m going to reference back to John 3 for this. Remember how John 3 says that Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world? Since we are following in the path of Jesus, we are to be like Him, and this means our evangelism is not one that condemns, which means to judge guilty of sin, with no way out. Make sure in no way it appears as if you exposing their sin so you lift yourself above them morally, or so you can be right and they can be wrong. It’s a turn off. Display you are exposing their sin out of genuine concern for their life and their well-being. Remember we said that the word “perish” in John 3:16 is along the lines of “ruining.” So when exposing sin, show how their sin(s) is(are) ruining their life.

One more note on exposing sin, don’t touch “hot-button” subjects, like homosexuality or abortion. Yes, they are sins, but even if you witnessing to a gay man or a lesbian woman, or you are evangelizing to an abortion “doctor” or a woman who got an abortion, don’t bring them up. These hot topics can become just as much political as religious, so you could be mistaken for preaching political propaganda instead of evangelizing the gospel. But I also think it is a strong witness. What a strong witness it is to avoid these, but bring up other sins in their life which they truly see as a problem. My favorite sin (that sounds so wrong) to talk about is lying. My generation has gotten so use to lying, they see it as natural. It will really open their mind to how destructive it can be. On that note, try to nab a sin that really drives home to the person. Jesus was able to do that with the Samaritan woman when he exposed her for her adultery. The more closer and more harder you hit home, the more the person knows he/see needs a solution.

5. Be prepared to answer questions and objections
When the Samaritan woman was faced with her sin, she quickly changed the subject. You’ll face that too when evangelizing. She decided to change the subject with a question, possibly to throw Jesus off. You’ll face the same. People will ask you questions. Some questions are real questions because they don’t understand something, and they want answers. Other questions are fake questions, meant to throw you off, show contradictions in your faith, or to object to Christianity. Know you will face these questions and be prepared. Study up, and always be prepared to be to give an answer and give a defense (1 Peter 3:15). And if you don’t know, it’s OK that you don’t know. If you don’t know, don’t try to pass it off as if you do know. Be honest and admit you don’t know. But make sure you make clear a difference between “don’t know” and “don’t care.” Even if you don’t know, do care. If you have the time, tell the person you will look it up and find an answer. Just make sure that you demonstrate that even if you don’t know, you still have faith in your beliefs, not knowing doesn’t mean your faith is wrong.

6. Point out the Way to the Solution
The Samaritan woman knew the solution was the Messiah, for she knew that Messiah would come and fix everything. What the Samaritan woman didn’t know was Jesus was the Messiah. When Jesus revealed He was the Christ, the Samaritan woman believed and came to salvation. Your evangelism is no good if there is no solution. Even if you start the conversation on a non-related topic, smoothly go into the topic of faith, interest them in the topic, expose their need and answer all questions, it’s no good if you cannot give a solution to their problem. Now’s the time to give the solution. The solution can be shared in five steps. First, say that Jesus is God, is man, and is perfect. Second, tell them that Jesus willingly died on the cross to pay the payment for our sins. Third, say that Jesus rose 3 days later, defeating sin, evil and death. Fourth, tell them that they can be saved of their sins if they repent of their sins, believe in Jesus and follow Him. Fifth, say that God promises all who repent and believe will be forgiven of their sins, welcomed into God’s family, and have a room in heaven one day. It’s as simple as that. Have your Bible ready if the person you are evangelizing to needs proof.

One more note I need to make on sharing the solution. Be careful of the words you pick! Being Christian for so long, you may have picked up “Christian-ese” a foreign language to non-Christians. I have a funny story that shows this. One night I was having dinner with a non-Christian at a diner. She was checking Facebook on her phone, and while still looking at her phone, she said to me, “Graham, you’re a Christian, right?” I confirmed. She went on, “My friend is a Christian who goes to Liberty University.” I’ll admit, I thought in my head, “Oh no…” The young lady continued, “My friend’s Facebook status says, ‘Volunteered at the Campus Crusade and saw 9 people give their lives to Christ. So excited!’ What does she mean when she says ‘gave their life to Christ’? Are the Liberty students performing human sacrifices? Is there a ritual suicide happening down there? I’m pretty sure both are illegal.” I did my best to suppress breaking out in laughter because her question was a sincere one. She didn’t know about being a living sacrifice, so the term “giving your life to Christ” was totally foreign. I had to explain it was pretty much converting to Christianity. As much as Christians like to avoid the term “converting” because it’s “too religious,” it’s the only term she understood, so I had to use it. Use terms they will understand.

7. If the person receives Christ, encourage her to spread the good news!
Look at the Samaritan woman’s reaction when she found out Jesus was the Messiah. How did she act? When she realized Jesus was the Messiah, she ran back into town and told everyone that they needed to meet this man, who she was pretty sure was the Messiah. The gospel message is a contagious one. We want to tell everyone the good news because it changed our lives. Someone who sincerely comes to faith in Christ will also want to spread the good news. Do not hinder them to do so. Let them do it. Don’t worry about if the new Christian will know how to start or what to say. If their salvation is genuine, they know the transformation that has happened in their life and they will communicate that transformation. On top of evangelism, encourage them to spiritually grow in other places, like Bible reading, praying, confessing and fellowshipping. If they don’t have a Bible, give them one. If they don’t have a church, invite them to your church or set them up with a local church.

I’ll write down the 7 bullet points together you can see them together

7 Tips for Evangelism Learned in John 4
1. Find a common ground to talk about to open conversation
2. Make a smooth transition to talking about your faith
3. Hook them and lure them into an interest
4. Expose the Problem and the Need
5. Be prepared to answer questions and objects
6. Point out the way to the solution
7. If the person receives Christ, encourage them to share the good news!

So go out and try it. Start with people you already have connections with, such as family, relatives and friends. Remember, the only thing you can bring into heaven with you is family, relatives and friends, so make sure they are coming with you. Then branch out into you local community, and then the surrounding communities. If every Christian could start out by just doing this, they could easily spread the gospel to the ends of the earth. So go out and show the world that Jesus is the ultimate Mr. Right, for men and women of all tongues, all tribes and all nations!

John 3: Nick@Nite

2012-01-21T13:46:00.004-05:00

My favorite band of all time is the ApologetiX, a Christian parody band. The first album of theirs that I owned was called Keep the Change. My favorite song from their album Keep the Change is “The Real Sin Savior,” a parody of “The Real Slim Shady” by Eminem. One of the lines from that song that sticks out to me is “But if Jesus loved his enemies, and Pharisees…” The first couple times I heard this song, I thought it said, “But if Jesus loved his enemies, like Pharisees…” The ApologetiX could have said the same thing and it would be true. Jesus did preach, on the Sermon on the Mount, to love our enemies. I truly believe Jesus never asked his followers to do anything He did not do. So we ask, “How did Jesus love his enemies?” but then that leads us to ask, “Who were His enemies?” Christ’s enemies were the ones who opposed Him and His gospel message. Mostly, those opponents were the Pharisees and the Sadducees, as well as other religious parties within the Jewish religion. So Christ’s enemies were the Pharisees and Sadducees. So how did Jesus show love to the Pharisees and Sadducees? Whenever a Pharisee or Sadducee would approach Jesus in a way that wasn’t meant to insult Him, belittle Him, threaten Him or doubt His authority, Jesus always was open to discuss spiritual matters in a non-threatening environment. John 3 paints a wonderful picture of this.

John 3 opens in verse 1 by introducing Nicodemus, and with quite a résumé. Nicodemus is a Pharisee and a member of the Jewish Ruling Council, which some people might know better as the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was a Jewish Ruling Council of 70 Jews, from each and every religious party. They were still under Roman rule in the Roman Empire, but among Jews, they were the highest form of government. Religiously speaking, these 70 men were the most intellectual and most spiritual Jews in the land. Nicodemus definitely had the five books of Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) memorized, and it’s very possible that Nicodemus had all the books of the Tanak (what we know as the Old Testament) memorized. The Bible only speaks positively of 3 Sanhedrin members: Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea and Gamiliel. But the Bible doesn’t just hand Nicodemus a positive outlook, so we’ll see how Nicodemus builds up that repertoire throughout the Gospel of John.

Verse 2 first tells the reader that Nicodemus came at night. The Bible doesn’t explicitly tell the reader why Nicodemus came at night, but I have a hunch. It’s the same reason why crime happens more often in the night than in the day. Because of the darkness, night is associated with hiddenness and secrecy. Even if there is 3 men in the Sanhedrin on the side of Jesus, there’s still 67 (maybe more, maybe less) who are against Jesus. If Nicodemus is exposed as being on the side of Jesus, or even giving Jesus a chance, he could be ridiculed or discredited among the Sanhedrin. So Nicodemus has to go when there is the fewest amount of witnesses. As the reader reads on in verse 2, the reader learns that Nicodemus is a skeptic, what politicians would call a “swing vote.” Going back to the Sanhedrin’s stance on Jesus, some scholars have suggested that the standpoint Nicodemus reveals in his beliefs about Jesus is where most of the Sanhedrin members stand on Jesus. They don’t want to believe Jesus is sent from God because Jesus is preaching against them. Yet they can’t help but believe Jesus is from God because of all the miraculous signs. Especially consider this in light of the temple cleansing in John 2. When Jesus cleanses the temple, the Jews demand a miraculous sign to back up his actions. Now, sticking with my belief that the temple cleansing happened within a week of Christ’s crucifixion, Jesus has been performing several miracles, many of which were healing people. On top of that, Christ’s preaching itself was a sign and testimony to His authority (see Matthew 12:39 and Luke 11:29). So signs are aplenty. It all comes down to whether or not the Jews accept the signs, for whatever those reasons may be. Nicodemus realizes it has come down to this. It’s almost like Nicodemus is saying, “They don’t want you to be a rabbi, but you have to be, because as much as they like to deny it, you do have the signs to prove it.”

Since Jesus sees Nicodemus is coming to Him to really learn, Jesus presents Nicodemus with a simple teaching in verse 3. The NIV translates it as “born again” but other translations have translated it “born anew” or “born above.” All of these translations mean the same thing. Jesus is talking about a spiritual transformation that changes the whole person. Change like this can only come from above, from heaven, from the Father. When this transformation happens, it turns the person into a whole new person, as if he or she has a brand new life. Hence, it is appropriate to compare this to a second birth.

Yet in verse 4 Nicodemus can’t handle the metaphor, and he gets hung up by it. Nicodemus takes the metaphor very literally, believing he must re-enter his mother’s uterus and re-emerge from it in order to receive salvation. Christian readers know this obviously isn’t the answer. But I don’t think Nicodemus believes this is the answer either. It’s like Nicodemus is saying, “You don’t really expect me to believe I have to go through the birthing canal again, do you?”

Jesus can tell Nicodemus can’t handle this “born again” teaching with ease, so He makes the teaching easier for Nicodemus to understand. He uses an analogy of the Spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit) to wind. In English, this analogy already makes sense, but it makes more sense in Hebrew and Greek, two languages in which Christ’s Jewish audience would be well familiar with. The Hebrew word is ruah and the Greek word is pneuma. In both languages the word means both “wind” and “spirit.” So comparing the Spirit to wind is like comparing apples to apples because it is the same word. It’s a beautiful wordplay. And whether you’re reading John 3 in Hebrew, Greek or English, the analogy works in full. Nobody knows the source of wind, nor its final destination. Back then, how wind worked puzzled people, and still today our laws about wind are fully complete. Just as wind is still somewhat a mystery, the Holy Spirit is a mystery to us in some aspects. Jesus even tries to reach out to Nicodemus using simple logic. Flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit. Simply state: Flesh --> Flesh, Spirit --> Spirit. This verifies Christ’s teaching above on being “born again.” Your first birth was a physical birth. Your second birth, in which you are “born again,” is a spiritual birth. Your physical birth was a result of man’s decision and man’s will (mom + dad. Need I say more) on the earth. Your spiritual birth comes from above, from heaven, from the Holy Spirit.

Before I move on, I guess I must make a comment on John 3:6, where Jesus says that no one is able to be born again “unless he is born of water and the spirit.” What does he mean, especially in regards to “of water and the spirit”? Someone might easily want to say that this is a reference to baptism, for when you are baptized with water, you receive the Holy Spirit. But from that, a lot of issues arise. What about that one criminal crucified next to Jesus who recognized he is being just punished for his evil deeds (I believe this is repentance) and who believes Jesus is Christ, God and sinless (I believe this is showing belief). He was not baptized, and Jesus told him that he would be in Heaven with Jesus. And what about the book of Acts, where people received the Holy Spirit before and after baptism, just as much as those who received it at the same time? Also, if this was a reference to baptism, wouldn’t that technically mean there is an act or work necessary for salvation, so salvation isn’t by faith alone? So it can’t be a reference to baptism. Others have claimed this parallels the difference between the first birth and the second birth. The first birth is of water (after all, when a woman is about to give birth, he “water breaks.”), and the second birth is of spirit. I would say this is the second best interpretation, for it tries to take this verse literally, but at the same time, it’s out of pure logic. People have tried to take “water” more as a metaphor, giving it symbolic. Perhaps water is a symbol for the Holy Spirit or the Word of God. I don’t like either of these interpretations, because it removes a literal meaning too much, and the meaning becomes purely allegorical. Instead, combine the symbolic meaning to first interpretation. When we think of “water” in our faith, we do normally think of baptism. What does baptism represent, or what is it a symbol of? It is a symbol that shows we are dead to our sin, and we are brought back to life by the work of the Holy Spirit. Ah, there’s that word, “Spirit.” So we know this interpretation is dead on track. “Born of water and of spirit” means that we must repent of our worldly life and worldly living, and instead let the Holy Spirit transform us to more spiritual beings. This is the best interpretation because it fits historically, logically and theologically.

Still, with all this explaining, Nicodemus still doesn’t get it. In verse 9, all Nicodemus can utter is, “How can this be?” Jesus wants to reply, “How can you be so dense?” but instead replies in verse 10, “You are Israel’s teacher and you do not know these things?” Christ’s question does raise some legitimate concerns. Nicodemus is on the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council. He’s suppose to have the Pentateuch memorized, and very possibly the whole Old Testament. Every Jew looks up to this man as a Rabbi who knows the way to God and can show other people the way. What a shocker it is to Jesus, and to the rest of the Jews, to find such a highly regarded Jewish man dumfounded. Think back to what I said about Nicodemus representing the general consensus of the Sanhedrin. If knowledge was measured in comparison to the population, Nicodemus would be average among the Sanhedrin. He probably carries the same knowledge as those 70 Jews do. So all 70 members of the Sanhedrin would also be dumfounded by Christ’s teachings. Maybe that is why so many Pharisees and Sadducees oppose Christ’s preaching. They just don’t get it. This kind of reminds me of the Dark Ages of the Church. The pope, the cardinals, the bishops and the archbishops were suppose to read, remember and understand the Scriptures in order to lead the parishioners into the right spiritual life. Instead, they stopped reading the Scriptures. Their memory of what the Bible actually said faded, and all they could remember was dogmatic tradition. Both this dogmatic tradition and the faint memories of their Bible reading they didn’t understand. It resulted in totally walking down the wrong path. Same seems to be true for the Sanhedrin in 1st century. They don’t understand what the Scriptures are telling them. Instead of receiving grace and faith, they resort to legalism.

I think Jesus sees this and calls out Nicodemus, as well as the whole Sanhedrin, on this. First, they call themselves teachers and rabbis, yet they still lack a lot, so much, they need to be taught. Second, as seen in verse 11, even if the Jews of the day did not understand what was being preached, they could have at least accepted the testimony, or the result, of what was true. Yet they did not even do that. In short, they could (and should) have said, “We don’t fully understand, but we’ll still believe it.” Instead, they said, “We don’t understand it, so it can’t be true!” Third, as seen in verse 12, they are trying to go onto bigger things without understanding the smaller things. It would be like a brain surgeon, trying to operate on a patient’s brain, without knowing how brain cells connect to one another. It would be like a rocket scientist, trying to build a newer rocket for astronauts to use, when the scientist does not know how combustion works. It would be like a mechanic, trying to build a car from scratch, without knowing the parts of an engine. Of course Nicodemus didn’t understand the spiritual matters Jesus was talking about! He couldn’t even comprehend how earthly matters worked! What Nicodemus may or may not have known is that no one can fully understand spiritual matters. Heck, even with the science we have today, we still don’t comprehend earthly matters either. This was humbling experience for Nicodemus, and it would also be a humbling experience for anyone, back then or today, who acts like they know everything earthly and spiritually. Lucky for Nicodemus, and for us, there is someone who does understand the spiritual world, because he was from the spiritual world. His name was Jesus. Jesus is the only one who descended from heaven, and he will also ascend there.

The thought of descending and ascending leads Jesus to another thought, a thought from history. No, it’s not Jacob’s ladder in Genesis, but rather the bronze snake in Numbers. Let me give you a quick reminder of the story. The Israelites are complaining and whining in the desert wilderness. God, sick of the Israelites constant complaining (and probably sick of having to come up with new punishments all the time) decides that if an Israelite sins, he or she will be painfully bitten by a poisonous snake, which will lead to sickness and even possibly death. Well, the Israelites realize their mistake and cry out to the Lord for salvation. So Moses seeks the Lord for a solution. God tells Moses to forge out of bronze a snake on a pole. If an Israelites sins, he or she will receive a fatal bite from a snake, but if the Israelite looks at the bronze snake on the bronze pole (a sign of repentance), God will forgive that individual and heal him or her from the snake poison. Jesus uses this typology for what He is going to do. Jesus reveals humankind is sick with a more deadly poison: sin. Sin kills us both physically and spiritually. The Son of Man, Jesus, will be lifted up like the Bronze Snake, but it will be on a cross. If anyone was to look towards Jesus on the cross (a sign of repentance and belief), he or she would be healed from sin and will receive eternal life.

Now before we go any further, we need to have a lexical study of John 3:16-21 (and “lexical study” simply means we’re going to look at the original text in its original language). If you were to look at different Bible translations, you might have notice that they differ in where they place the quote the ends Christ’s words. Most translations put the end quote after verse 21. But a few translations, like the RSV, place the quotes at the end of verse 15. The 1984 edition of the NIV places the quotes at the end of verse 15, but the 2011 edition has the quotes end at verse 21. What gives? Koine Greek, the Greek language of the 1st century AD, did not have quotation marks. So it’s not as clear when someone’s speaking begins and ends. Trust me, I take Greek. It’s frustrating translating because you don’t know if you should translate the sentence “The prophets say, ‘You should believe, be baptized and become a disciple.’” or “The prophets say that you should believe, be baptized and become a disciple.” Of course, I’m only beginning Greek 2, and some Greek experts might say this is an amateur mistake. But at the same time, this doesn’t mean the experts find translating easy, for there is debatable passages, such as John 3. So if the quotation ends at John 3:15, then who is saying John 3:16-21? That would be the narrator, who in this case is the beloved disciple John. Remember that John’s Gospel is a supplementary Gospel, one in which John gives his own commentary while narrating the events of the book. John 3:16-21 could simply be John explaining Christ’s teachings in John 3, especially 3:11-15. Proponents of the view that John 3:16-21 is John’s commentary say their number 1 proof is that that the speaker is speaking in the third person. But someone could easily object, showing that Jesus many times spoke in the third person. I do believe these verses, especially the famous 3:16 verse, are indeed the words of Jesus. I don’t want to go into the whole lexical, exegetical and hermeneutical arguments, so I will simply defend my view with the numbers. A majority of the scholars believe these words belong to Jesus, and most of these scholars are conservative scholars. A minority of scholars believe those verses are John’s words, and most of those scholars are liberal scholars. But at the end of the discussion and debate, someone can simply say that it doesn’t matter who said them, the words themselves speak a powerful message, a message that needs to be looked at. So let’s stop talking about who said it, and let’s look more at what these verses are saying.

I’m going to breeze over John 3:16 because most Christians already know. It has become a famous Bible verse, seen commonly at football games. One thing I will quickly note is that the Greek word for “perish” does not necessarily mean “annihilate” or “wiped out of existence” as we would think in our English minds. A better definition for perish in this context would be “ruined,” as if verse 16 is telling the reader that whoever does not believe in Jesus is ruining their life, and at the end of life, his or her life will be left in ruins. Very interesting concept. But enough of the famous verse. Let’s look at the lesser famous verses, which have a messages that is just as powerful, if not more powerful. I’ll even put them right into this text.

John 3:17-21-
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”

The common questions I will get from non-Christians are questions over the judgment of God, or sometimes even more specific, like the judgment of Jesus. These questions range from “Does God/Jesus judge people?” to “Does God/Jesus judge sin?” Sometimes these questions will turn into comments, some saying, “It’s wrong for God to judge people as sinners for all the wrong things they have done.” (and I still have to hear a convincing argument for why), while others say, “Jesus doesn’t judge people’s sins or judge people as sinners because He loves us and He forgave us.” There are many different routes we can go to point the errors in these comments, including correcting an incorrect view of the Law (or maybe even making light of the ignored Law!). But let’s stick to using this passage to formulate an answer, for both these questions and these comments/claims.

First of all, let me start by saying both the questions and comments are a result of a misunderstanding of the definition of “judgment,” which comes from an unnecessary negative connotation of the word “judgment.” It seems like the generations of the 21st century (and maybe I’ll even add the 1990s generation) have associated the word “judge/judgment” with having to go to court. With a generation that has heavy gang involvement, from which a “no snitching” policy has arisen, this generation has associated going to court, or going to a judge, as a negative experience because they have been convicted of a crime, and the judge will punish them. Even outside the court setting, a lot of people out of this generation, when judged by authorities or even older people, have come out with a bad judgment, for one reason or another. Either way, the 21st century generation sees judgment with a negative connotation, as if it was bad. But a closer look and deeper thought reveals it isn’t always true. Yes, it is bad if you are judged and declared guilty. But it’s good if you judged and declared innocent. It’s also good if the judgment brings justice to you. So “judge” and all forms of it (judging, judgment, etc.) are suppose to be neutral in connotation. The negative word is suppose to be “condemn,” which means to be judged, fail judgment, and to be punished with no hope of escape from the judgment and punishment. And there are many positive connotations to judge, like “forgive,” “innocent” or any other word that shows a positive passing of judgment.

Back to the verses, I do believe God and Jesus play an active role as judge, but I also believe there’s a more passive role, and John 3:17-18 bring light to that. When I say God/Jesus has a passive role in judging, I could simply state it as this: “When sinners stand in the presence of a holy and righteous God, their sins are exposed and they stand in judgment.” God doesn’t have to point out sins. The sins stand out like a sore thumb when they are exposed. To deny fully exposed sins would be like denying a black eye or a big pimple at the end of your nose, which everyone can see. I don’t have to announce to everyone that you have a black eye or big pimple at the end of your nose, for everyone who looks at your face will see it.

What a better way to talk about judgment that using courthouse language, as well as analogies to light and darkness. Did you catch the courthouse vocabulary? “This is the verdict.” Jesus is saying, “The trial has happened, judgment has been passed (neutrally!), and these are the results. What are the results? “Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” The Light is Jesus and His Gospel message, the one that will save humankind from their sins. The darkness is the sinful, fallen, depraved world we live in. Logically speaking, someone would think people would want to go from darkness to light. But they don’t! Why not? The light exposes the evil deeds of the dark world, and people are too afraid to come into to the light because their deeds will be exposed, and they will stand condemned. Why are they so afraid? Perhaps they are afraid of shame. Maybe they fear they will ruin their pride.

How true it is for this 21st century generation (and once again, may I add the 1990s generation into this). A common banner I see this generation’s youth and young adults wave is “You have no right to judge me.” This banner covers everything from religion to beliefs to morals. Sometimes this banner comes out in a passive form: “Well, that’s what you believe, but I believe different. So you believe what you believe, I’ll believe what I believe, and let’s keep it at that.” Other times, this banner has come out more aggressively: “How dare you judge me for my beliefs! Who gave you the right to decide my beliefs are wrong and yours are right?! Your beliefs are right for you, my beliefs are right for me.” Modernists blame postmodernism for this. Modernists claim that postmodernism has made beliefs, spirituality and religion so individualistic that every person’s religious and spiritual beliefs are their own religion and their own personal religious truth, so no one has the right to infringe on their “personal religion.” So what happens to morals? Morality becomes a thing of emotional feeling. If it feels right, it’s moral, but if it doesn’t feel right, it’s immoral. So if something feels right for you, but doesn’t feel right to me, that means it moral to you, but not moral to me. What kind of system is that?

There’s a reason John calls Jesus the “true light.” Think about what light can do. It’s easy to keep things hidden in darkness. You can place something out in the open in the darkness, and the darkness will hide it. It’s hard to hide things in the light, for light will expose everything that it touches. Jesus is the light, and evil is the darkness. Evil tries to hide our sins, tries to convince that our sins are right and we have nothing to be embarrassed about. If someone or something tries to embarrass us or judge us for our sins, they are in the wrong, not us. Jesus, the true light, works differently. Jesus exposes everything, the good and the evil, the righteous and the sinful.

So what do I say to the people who ask me if God judges, if Jesus judges, or even if Christians should judge other people, both Christians and non-Christians? First, I do acknowledge God and Jesus as the judge over all humankind. After all, God/Jesus is holy and righteous, which makes Him better than us fallen sinners. Second, I do admit that the Bible does say Christians shouldn’t judge other people, but I do also recognize the Bible says Christians should judge sinful actions (not going any further on this discussion, as it would take us way off topic). But then I follow that up by saying, “But Christians really don’t have to judge people, and technically, God doesn’t have to either. Because the people already stand in judgment, and the judgment is they are guilty of their sins.” I use John 3:18 to back me up.

That is why, as John 3:17 tells us, that Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world. The world already stood condemned because their sins and their evil ways had been exposed. Their crimes had been exposed, and so they were exposed as guilty. They were already condemned. If Jesus were to come into the word to condemn the world, it would be redundant. If humanity were to look at themselves honestly, they would already know they were condemned.

If I were to stop right here, I would be just as guilty as my generation for giving the word “judge” a negative connotation. If Jesus didn’t come into the world to condemn it, he must have come for another reason. Hopefully it’s a positive one! Indeed it is. John 3:16-21 simply says we believe and come into the light by living the truth, we will not be condemned, we will not perish but we will live an eternal life in the light. Jesus didn’t come into the world to declare us guilty, but Jesus came into the world to forgive us, so He could declare us innocent.

So you’d think it would be a “no-brainer” to receive the light and the salvation that comes with it. Everyone should be running out of the darkness and into the light. But not everyone does. Why? It goes back to John 3:19-20, and even back to the true meaning of “perish” in John 3:16. People are given the chance to come into the light, but when they come into the light, their sins will be exposed, so they would have to admit those sins, admit they were evil, and then reject them. The sad reality is some people love the darkness. Some people love their sins and love evil. There’s a reason phrases like “the ways of the world” or “worldly ways” can be synonymous with “sinful ways.” Since the world we live in is a fallen and depraved one, it’s a world that’s going to offer us sin as the “high life.” Sex, drugs, wealth, popularity, partying is what it tries to sell you. Any threat to these lifestyles is an enemy. So if the True Light tries to expose these as wrong, the True Light is your enemy. The ways of the world begs you, “Don’t walk into the light! It will just judge you to put you down and make you feel bad. It wants to embarrass you. Stay in the darkness. It is your friend.” People listen to this dark world. Fear of hurting their pride or even the pride of their sins keeps them from entering the Light. They know a life in the Light will have them reject their old life, and they want to selfishly hold onto their life of sin. So they stay in the darkness. Even if a beam of light comes near them, they yell, “Stay back, Light! Don’t judge me!” Little do they know that they have brought judgment upon themselves. Little do they know that while the darkness hides the evil, it does not get rid of it. They still stand with their evil sins, and thus they still stand condemned. And little do they know that they are slowly perishing, which means they are slowly ruining their lives until they die.

In closing, I am reminded that some evangelists use this book of the Bible as an evangelism tool. While I said and shown that this book is better used for discipleship reasons, I do believe this passage does give a strong evangelistic gospel message. Just don’t use John 3:16, but include John 3:17-21 into this as well. John 3:16-21 paints a beautiful picture of the gospel. There we were, in a dark and fallen world, slowly perishing and slowly ruining our lives. But God, out of His everlasting love, sent God the Son into the world, to expose the world of sin so the people could see how much they were ruining their lives. Some people didn’t mind their sins, so they went back into the darkness and went back to a slow ruin. But some people walked into the light, believed in the Son, and received eternal life. The reader is faced with the same 2 decision. You either go back into the darkness and back to your evil sins, or come into the light by believing in Jesus and walking the ways of truth. Does this gospel message work? Well, look at the first hearer of this word: Nicodemus. Does Nicodemus come to faith? Well, the next time you’ll see Nicodemus, he’ll denounce the Pharisees (remember Nicodemus is a Pharisee!) for not giving Jesus a fair chance to preach or even to defend himself. Later on, you’ll see Nicodemus help Joseph of Arimathea bury Joseph. I think both actions are a demonstration of his faith. By the end of chapter 3, Nicodemus know what Jesus is teaching, understands what Jesus is preaching, believes Jesus is the Son of God and walks from darkness into the light. After all, the next time you see Nicodemus, he won’t be sneaking around in the dark, but boldly standing up for Jesus in the light of the day.

P.S. I decided not to go into the rest of John 3. Why? The rest of John 3 is John the Baptist confirming what Jesus preached earlier in the chapter. To give a quick summary, John the Baptist’s disciples come to John the Baptist whining, complaining, “That Jesus man is taking your disciples!” to which John the Baptist replies, “Good. He is suppose to.” Then John the Baptist verifies Christ’s teaching in John 3 by preaching that Jesus is from above, Jesus testifies about heavenly things, people have not believed in Christ’s testimony, those who receive Christ’s testimony has eternal life, and those who do not are condemned. Everything I can about this I have already said above. Besides, it was already getting too long.

John 2: 2 Events

2012-01-15T00:43:00.001-05:00

When you have a following, and you’re trying to gain a bigger following, the first thing you have to do is convince those close to you and those already following you. A crucial part of a hopeful politician’s path to become presidents is to win his party’s nomination, and even before that, he’s got to win a few caucuses over to his side. Although Jesus has called his disciples (John only tells the calling of a few, but by John 2, we can assume all 12 have been called), He can’t slack off around them. He’s got to prove to them he’s worth following, and he doesn’t waste a minute doing it. John 2 provides 2 stories to show how Jesus proves himself to his disciples, and to us.

The first story in John 2 Bible versions have titled “The Wedding at Cana,” “Jesus Turns Water into Wine” and “Christ’s First Miracle.” From these titles, you can tell wacky interpretations and application came from this passage. From what I’ve heard and read, I’ve seen this passage used to write doctrine on how Jesus treated his mother (and sometimes an application on how we should treat our mothers!), to write doctrine and application for alcohol, and even to write doctrine on the proper way to hold a wedding ceremony. But is John writing the book of John to inform us how Jesus treated his mother or to inform us how we are to treat our mothers? No, John is not writing the book of John for either reason. Is John writing his book to make a statement on alcohol? No, he is not. Is John’s purpose of his Gospel account telling us how to run a wedding? No. If you want to make an applicable doctrine on any of those three subjects, there are much better passages in the Bible to do make such doctrines. Here’s a quick reminder on the purpose why John is writing. John wrote the book of John to persuade Christians to believe [or continue believing] that Jesus is the Christ and God the Son. So when reading this story, any reader needs to see how Jesus is revealing himself to be the Son of God. But of course, if any of it helps, I’ll definitely mention it.

Although this chapter is not meant to design Christian weddings, I think if I told you with some background information on 1st century Jewish weddings, it would help set the scene. If you thought 21st century weddings were crazy with events all day, you ain’t seen nothing until you’ve seen a 1st century Jewish wedding. The events didn’t just last all day, but rather the events lasted all week (sometimes only six days to avoid working on the Sabbath). Just like ours, the wedding would start in the beginning with a ceremony. Then they partying would commence for a week, with activities and gift giving, but especially with lots of eating and drinking. The wedding would end with a giant parade leading the newlywed couple to the bedroom of their new house so they could consummate the marriage. If you think that last part is crazy, there are crazier stories about how they made sure the marriage was consummated. Sometimes the wedding guests would stand around the bedroom until they heard the appropriate sound effects that go along with consummation. At other times, both the bride and the groom’s parents would enter the bedroom the day after to find the evidence to prove the couple consummated the marriage. Crazy. Who was invited to these weddings? Anyone and everyone. Weddings guests consisted of family, close relatives, distant relatives, close friends, distant friends, family friends, neighbors, co-workers and maybe even you dad’s co-workers and business partners (considering most people back then were in the family business). Because back then (and this is probably true today too), weddings could be used to show wealth and social status. The rich would throw big, extravagant weddings to show off their wealth. The bigger the wedding and the more people you could invite, the better. But you had to make sure you had enough food and drink for everyone. Don’t over-estimate, in fact, never ever over-estimate! For if a family did not have enough food or drink for everyone invited, it would bring embarrassment and shame on both of the newlywed’s family. Keep that last bit in mind as we enter into our wedding story in John 2.

John begins by telling the reader a wedding was taking place in Cana in Galilee. Mary and her family was invited, so I would have to say that Mary was related to either the bride or the groom. Naturally everyone knew that a rabbi’s disciples went wherever that rabbi went, and everyone was beginning to accept Jesus a rabbi, so naturally all of Christ’s disciples were there, whether it be 5 or 12 (it is debatable how many disciples Jesus had picked at this point. Some say all 12 have been chosen at this point, while others say only the 5 mentioned in John 1 are the only one following him. Personally, I believe it’s all 12.). So if the reader places himself/herself at the setting, the reader is in a wedding in Cana in Galilee, with Jesus, his disciples and his mother.

Now the conflict arises. The wine is gone. Now that we understand the culture, Mary’s concern doesn’t make Mary sound like a drama queen. Mary’s concern is also our second proof to why she’s related to one of the newlyweds. Running out of wine means that the newlywed’s families are faced with shame, Mary and her family could face shame, and it’s even possible Jesus could face shame. So what does Mary do? She goes to Jesus.

Why did Mary go to Jesus? Remember, the Bible claims this is Christ’s first miracle. How would Mary know Jesus could help? There’s a whole spectrum of possible answers, from a liberal answer to a supernatural answer, and everything in between. The liberal answer is Mary just wanted Jesus to run an errand. The liberal answer is Mary telling Jesus (paraphrased), “Jesus, they ran out of wine. Would you mind running down to the nearby liquor store and picking up a couple wineskins with whatever money you have? Or better yet, send one of your disciples to do it.” Too liberal for me. Well, what about the supernatural answer? Well, there are crazy stories that circulated in the 2nd century AD (although believed to be pseudepigrapha, which means “false writings”) that have stories about Jesus performing miracles in his childhood. Indeed, these stories are truly crazy, like Jesus turning clay birds to life, carrying water on a cloth, stretching out a beam of wood, and bringing down curses on kids bullying him. Maybe Mary saw and remembered these childhood miracles, so she went to Jesus and said (my paraphrase), “Remember those childhood magic tricks you use to do? You think you could do another one here and give us wine?” I’m still not satisfied with this answer. I do hold to the Words of the Bible as true, and this is truly the first miracle of Jesus. Is this a middle ground to this spectrum? I think so. In Luke, the Bible says that everything before and during the birth of Jesus, Mary “treasured up in her heart.” I think Mary still treasured up all those memories in heart, even though her boy was all grown up. I believe she constantly looked upon her as not just her son, but the Son of God. At this point, in this story, maybe Mary was thinking, “Whenever I need help with something out of my power, I pray to God and ask for help. But wait! My son is God. Maybe I could ask God by asking him right to his face.” Maybe, in a way, this is Mary testifying that Jesus is God the Son.

The most literal translation of Christ’s response is “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not come.” Some people (mostly women) have tried to claim Jesus is belittling his mother in a sexist way by calling her “woman”. But those people are thinking in a 20th and 21st century context, not in a 1st century context. In the 20th and 21st century, yes, calling a female “woman” is to put her down as someone whose only good is to make the house clean, make sandwiches and make babies. But in the 1st century context, Jesus calling Mary “woman” is no different than calling her “mother.” And the rest of the statement is not Jesus disobeying his mother. Instead, he was announcing that He was listening to his father first and foremost. Yet when Mary tells the servants to listen to him, it seems like it’s too late, and now it’s time for a miracle.

For some reason, sitting nearby are six stone jars, used by the Jews for ceremonial cleaning. Jesus has the servants fill the jars with water, then tells one of them to deliver the wine to the master of ceremonies. Now notice in verse 9, John is already calling it “water turned into wine.” I’ve always wondered at what point it turned into wine. It could be the minute it was poured into the six jars. It possibly could be the minute the water was taken out of the jars. Or just perhaps it was when it touched the master’s lips. No matter when it turned into wine, the matter of the fact is it happened. And note that the wine master calls it the best wine served. Although Jesus have given mediocre wine because no one could taste it being so wasted, he still gave the best, because Jesus always gives the best.

So if this story wasn’t meant to give us doctrine on Christ’s relationship with his earthly mother Mary, nor was it meant to teach us about alcohol, nor as instructions on how to run a wedding, then what is it for? The overall purpose of John is to portray Jesus as the divine Son of God, so how does this story show us that Jesus is God? We could simply say, “It shows manipulation of nature as only God could do.” Yes, it does show Jesus as God because Jesus is manipulating His creation. But I think this story is in here for a deeper meaning, and the Bible would agree with me, for John wrote it right in the story. Look at John 2:11.

John 2:11-
“This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.”

I believe the “revealed his glory” part is just what we said above. The revealed glory is Jesus show He is the creator and He can control it. But more specifically, look at who the miracle was done for. It’s not for the newlywed couple, not their families, not even his mother. Rather, it’s for his disciples. Jesus performed the miracle to reveal his glory to his disciples. This story takes place early in Christ’s ministry. He’s just rallied together his 12 disciples. Now he’s got to prove that He is who He claim he is, and He can do what He claims He can do. Now they can see He is the Son of God, and they can believe Jesus is God the Son. Keep that in mind for the next story

Our next story is a familiar story, the cleansing of the temple. Yes, already in John 2, we have the cleansing of the temple. So I need to discuss a bit about the structure of John. It’s not as straightforward as you think. What do you do when John writes about a temple cleansing so early when all the synoptic authors write about the temple cleansing later? One way is to simply say there were two temple cleansings. Proponents of this view would say that Jesus would have to go to the temple multiple times a year if he was a good Jew. Indeed, I would agree. But you would think if Jesus cleansed out the temple so early, security at the temple would be so much higher, so high that Jesus would not be able to perform a second cleansing. Or at least those selling and changing money would learn their lesson. So I don’t think there were 2 temple cleansings, but only 1. How can this be when the Gospel writers placed it at different points? Remember that the synoptic Gospels are writing Gospels that are early to outline, so they will outline Jesus from Galilee to Judea is one smooth line. John is not as concerned with chronology, so John doesn’t mind going back and forth, in and out of Judea. Instead, John is writing a supplemental gospel, so John could have written his Gospel more topically. I do believe it is written topically, for we’ll see the temple cleansing does have something to do with the wedding at Cana.

To summarize the story, Jesus enters the temple and sees that people are unjustly selling the animals for sacrifice. Jesus is filled with rage for such sin happening in a place where sin is supposed to be paid for. His rage causes him to make a whip out of cords and to overturn tables.

Right now go to Google Image Search (images.google.com) and simply put the word “Jesus” in the search box. Now search. When I did it, I went through 10 pages and not a single picture showed this scene. Now they do exist, if you were to type in Jesus cleanses the temple, they would show up. Clearly they are a minority. We rather have pictures of a loving Jesus, one that hold children and lambs. Maybe there is something good out of that. After all, God’s love is stronger than God’s wrath. But we must not forget that Jesus did get angry and did become wrathful.

As a Mennonite, who takes a non-violent pacifist stand, people have questioned my beliefs, using this passage. How do I, as a Mennonite, understand this with my Mennonite beliefs? It goes back to the message of this book, that Jesus is God the Son. This is Jesus showing His divine side. After all, God the Son calls this building “His Father’s house.” Here, we see the wrath of God through the Son of God. Since Jesus, being the Son of God, is sinless, I believe Jesus is showing a righteous anger, so He does not sin by being angry or violent. Yet Christians are not to act in this way because, simply put, we are not God. So we do not have the authority to perform such acts, especially without sinning. This is where it is important to see Jesus as God.

That’s how the disciples saw it. Well, not immediately. But then again, some of it was immediate, some of it was not. The disciples remembered the Psalm “Zeal for your house will consume me.” The Jews did recognize this psalm as a messianic psalm, a psalm that describes the messiah. They knew “your house” meant God’s house, the temple. Thus, the messiah was has extreme emotional attachment to the temple. When Jesus saw the sin in the temple, and the disciples saw his reaction to it, they remembered this psalm, and saw Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. Once Jesus is done cleansing the temple, the Jewish leaders ask Jesus for a sign to accompany his authority. The Jewish leaders have the right to do this, for the Old Testament commands them to do this to divide the true prophets from the false prophets. Jesus says his sign is that he can rebuild his temple in 3 days. Jesus is referring to His body, but the Jewish leaders, as well as Christ’s disciples, don’t get that. They think he is referring to the temple building. For Christ’s disciples, it’s not until after Jesus dies and rises again that they finally get Jesus was talking about the resurrection of His body. What’s the result? John 2:22 tells us.

John 2:22-
“After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.”

There’s that word again: believe. It’s 1 of the 92 occurrences. And look who it is intended for again. The disciples. It makes sense. The religious leaders did not benefit from this story. If anything, they probably used it against Jesus at his trial. The men who were selling animals and exchanging money did not benefit from this story. In fact, they are probably upset at Jesus and don’t want anything to do with him. But look at the impact on the disciples. They believe Jesus is the Messiah because they see his actions towards the temple and remember the Psalm. They remember Jesus called his body the temple after He rose from the dead, and so they believe Jesus is the Son of God. Between these 2 stories, John has accomplished his purpose for the 12 disciple. They believe Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. And now, the disciples are fully behind Jesus. Hopefully these two events have proved to you that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, and hopefully you are now fully behind him, too.

John 1: Early God Sightings

2012-01-03T12:18:00.001-05:00

A few years back my church’s small groups were going through a Bible study book that had us record “God-hunt sightings.” What qualified as a “God-hunt Sighting” was anytime in our day or week that we saw God at work. I always liked the term “God sighting.” When I taught a 10th grade class on God’s providential hand in Esther, I asked them to make “God-hunt Sightings” so they could see how God’s providential hand in their lives. This time around I’m going to use the term “God-hunt Sightings” slightly differently, and to differentiate, I’m going to shorten it to “God Sightings”. It’s not going to be God’s providence, although we could do that in the Gospel of John. Remember how I said the purpose of John was to portray Jesus Christ as the Son of God? Our goal for this Bible study of the book of John will be to see if John fulfills his purpose. So instead of “God Sightings” meaning God’s providential hand, we’re going to look for “God Sightings” in Jesus, or rather times we see the divine nature of God the Son in Jesus. So let’s begin!

Ah, but where do you begin? Where does one begin a story? Storytellers have started stories in all different places. Some start stories before the action takes place. In the first movie of the Back to the Future triology, Marty McFly merely goes on his day like a typical 80’s teenager: school and chores at Doc Brown’s house. Some other stories begin right in the middle of the action. Many movies of the Star Wars saga start in the middle of a fight. Episode One starts with negotiation talks gone violent; Episode Three begins with a battle in the Clone War; Episode Five begin with the Rebels desperately trying to defend their base on a frozen planet. Some even start after the action. These books, movies or TV series rely on flashbacks to tell the story in full. Think about Disney’s The Emperor’s New Groove. The movie begins with a sad llama, who seems to be very human-like, crawling in the rain. Why is the llama crawling through the rain? Why is the llama sad? How did it get there? These questions are answered through flashbacks full of action, but by this point, the action has passed. Stories can start at many different points, and where the story starts may even reflect the message the storyteller is getting across.

Let’s get back to the Bible. We have 4 Gospel books, 4 Gospel authors, and 4 different starts to the Gospel narrative. Let’s start with Mark, since his Gospel account came first. Remember Mark is writing to the Romans, who want an action packed story. So Mark starts right away with an adult Jesus preaching his authoritative message performing powerful miracles. Sure, there are quick blurbs on John the Baptist, as well as the baptism and temptation of Jesus, but they are literally short blurbs, quickly thrown in just to set a little background information. Matthew has, in a way, 2 starts. The first start goes all the way back to Abraham, and traces Jesus from Abraham through David (and ultimately tracing Jesus as a fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant and David Covenant). The second start is in a more immediate context, with the announcement of Christ’s birth to both Mary and Joseph, followed by the birth itself. Luke wants begin further back than the birth or the annunciation of the birth of Jesus, but he doesn’t want his start go back as far as Matthew did (although he will put in his genealogy later, but we’ll talk about that later). So Luke believes the best way to begin an “orderly account” is to begin with annunciation and miraculous birth of the Preparer of the Christ, and how it interlinked with the annunciation and miraculous birth of the Christ. So where is John going to begin his Gospel narrative? In the beginning!

“In the beginning…” How would you complete that? Well, alright, most of you know this is a Bible study on John and have read John 1 to know where I’m going with this and how to complete, so never mind on how you would complete it. But if I were to do a Bible version of Jay Leno’s “Jay-walking” (if you don’t know what that is, go look it up on YouTube) among Christians in church, how do you think they would complete that phrase? Most of them probably would complete it, “In the beginning…God created the heavens and the earth.” There’s nothing wrong with that. It would be right. In fact, I bet if you were a 1st Century Jewish Christian, you would complete the phrase in the same exact way. Both of you are quoting Genesis 1:1, which both of you can recognize from learning it so young. So that is why John chose to begin his Gospel with those 3 words: “In the beginning.” He knew his Jewish Christian audience would immediately be thinking about Genesis and the Creation story. He wants his reader in that mindset. But read closely, and you’ll realize he’s actually bringing you further back than this. I won’t do this for every verse in John, but the important verse I really want to zoom in on and focus on I will put in this devotional commentary. So let’s take a close look.

John 1:1,2-
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.”

John’s beginning is not with a birth or the announcement of a birth. It doesn’t begin with someone preparing the way. It doesn’t begin with a Patriarch, like Abraham or David. It doesn’t begin with the fall of man and the need for a Savior. It doesn’t even begin with the creation of the earth. It begins with the Word. From further reading of this chapter, the reader understand that this Word is Jesus. Jesus is the Word incarnate. Look at the doctrine we get from these 2 verses alone. First of all, it explicitly states Jesus is God. That should be good enough alone, but in case you want more, you can find out more in these 2 verses alone. Second, Jesus was with God. This means that despite Jesus being God, He’s not the exact same as Yahweh because He is God and He is with God. Already we have signs of trinity. Third, these verses state Jesus was present at the beginning. Remember, we’ve already said this beginning is before creation. So this verse shows us Jesus is as eternally past, eternally present and eternally future as Yahweh is. Already in two verses, John has de-bunked many incorrect beliefs about Jesus that could have floating around in his time. Jesus was 100% God. While Jesus was a man, He was not just a man. He was God. Jesus did not have a beginning. He is as eternal as His father is. While Jesus is God, He is also with God. So much correct theology standing in the face of bad doctrine. So we have our first God sighting within the first 2 verses of John. I’m going to make a list of these God Sightings we have in John 1, but I encourage you to make your own list to hold on to.

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)

Before I go on, if you’re still not convinced with the first passage, think about it as a genealogy and compare it to the other genealogies of the other Gospels. You’re probably thinking, “You’re crazy. Only Matthew and Luke has genealogy.” No, as a matter of fact, all of them have genealogies, and they all point back to how the author is portraying Jesus. Matthew’s genealogy goes back to Abraham, tracing it through all the kings of Israel/Judah, especially Jesus. This is important to the Jewish reader of Matthew because it will prove Jesus is the Messiah through the Patriarchs who were promised the blessed seed of the covenant, which is the Messiah. Luke traces the genealogy all the way back to Adam. This not only shows the Adamic and Noahic Covenant on top of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant, but it also shows Luke’s Greek Gentile audience that Jesus isn’t just for Jews, but for everyone because he’s just as human as the Gentiles are (and Luke does show us Jesus is the Son of God because he reminds us Adam is technically the Son of God too). What about Mark and John? Well, you’re right Mark doesn’t have a genealogy, but it’s not like Mark forgot it. Remember Mark is trying to display a servant to his Roman audience. Does anyone care about a servant’s lineage? No. A servant/slave (the Greek word is the same) is considered property of the master, and thus has no lineage. So there’s no need for a lineage for the servant Jesus. But there is indeed a genealogy in John, and it’s right there in the first 2 verses. It’s a simple as this: God -->Jesus. God is the Father of Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God. But remember that “God the Father” and “Son of God” are not just title. Both are equally God and one in the same. So if it’s easier, replace the word “God” with “Yahweh.” Yahweh --> Jesus. Yahweh is the Father of Jesus, and Jesus is the Son of Yahweh.” John uses this simple genealogy to show his Christian audience Jesus is God.

We’ve seen how John has used the phrase “In the beginning” to get his audience, mainly the Jewish Christian audience thinking about the beginning of the world. And he even brought us back further with before the beginning. But he’s not trying fool us or deceive us. He really wants to bring us back to the “In the beginning” that we know of: The Creation. And it will only take another 2 verses to do so. Let’s look at John 1:3,4.

John 1:3,4-
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.”

This is a Sunday School you were probably asked as early as preschool and it deserves a Sunday School answer. The question: “Who created the earth and everything in it?” The answer: “God.” Now let’s ask any Preschooler who has been well-raised in the church the question, “Is Jesus God?” and the church-raised Preschooler would probably be able to answer, “Yes.” Now put those 2 answers together, and you’ll probably get a true claim that you probably don’t think about a lot. It’s as simple as, “If X=Y, and Y=Z, then X=Z.” If we believe God created the world, and we believe Jesus is God, then we must believe that Jesus created the world. When we usually think about the creator of the universe, we uses think about Yahweh, or the Father, not Jesus. But it’s true, Jesus created the world. It’s not just a conclusion or an assumption out of logic. The Bible clearly defends Jesus as the creator of the universe. If you don’t know this out of memory, I would write the next sentence down, for it is important doctrine. There are 3 chapters in the New Testament that state Jesus as the creator of the universe: John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1 (some would add Romans 1 as a 4th chapter, but that one takes a little bit of interpretation). But for John, simply stating Jesus as the creator is not enough. He also clearly states that Jesus is giver of life. No man can have life, whether it be physical life or spiritual life, without Him, God the Son. So we have our 2nd God Sighting, and that’s 2 God Sightings in 4 verses alone.

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)
2. Jesus is the creator of the universe, and Jesus gives life (vs. 3-4)

One way to do storytelling is to give a summary of everything that is going to happen in the introduction, and in the body, show all it all plays out, with all the details. William Shakespeare does this in several of his plays. It would seem as if John does this in his introduction as well. From reading John 1:5-14, it seem like John is starting his Gospel in the same way. John 1:5-14 spells out how the narrative of the book will turn out. It will start with John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus. Despite John’s preparations, the world did not recognize him, nor did it receive him. And we’ll see throughout the book of John people rejecting Jesus. But let’s get back to our immediate God Sightings.

John 1:15-34 zooms in and focuses on one character. It’s not Jesus, but rather it’s John the Baptist. You might remember in my John Introduction that I said the baptism of Jesus is not told in the book of John. So why have John the Baptist if we’re not going to talk about the baptism of Jesus? John (I hope you don’t get confused, but understand when I just say “John,” I mean John the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, the first cousin and disciples of Jesus) has an interesting way of telling us about John the Baptist. It’s almost like he talks about John the Baptist without Jesus. We’ll see John the Baptist before Jesus, preaching, teaching and answering questions. Then we see John the Baptist after Jesus, giving his testimony about Christ. Let me point out some key information. In John 1:19-28, priests and Levites are coming down to the Jordan River near Bethany to find out who this John the Baptist thinks he is and what authority John the Baptist thinks he can preach with. When they ask John the Baptist who he is, notice his answers get shorter every time: “I am not the Christ”…”I am not”…”No.” While John the Baptist has a very important role in preparing Christ’s arrival, John the Baptist is not interested in talking about himself. He much more rather talk about the Christ. His answers in verses 23 and 26 are very humble. He knows the importance of his position, but he humbly accepts his position.

John’s story telling gets interesting in John 1:29-34. Remember, there is no baptism story in John, but we get the before and after. In verses 29 to 30, John the Baptist sees Jesus coming and immediately recognizes who it is. But by the time we get to verse 31, all the action already happened. It’s almost like John the Baptist is saying to reader, “Aw man, you just missed it! It was so amazing!” and then John the Baptist goes on to describe what happened. Why doesn’t John just tell the story of the baptism of Jesus instead of John having someone tell the story after it happened? Because John is not focusing on the event itself, but rather the testimony that came from it. In fact, for the rest of the chapter, John is going to show the interactions between Jesus and people, and how each person testifies after meeting Jesus. The first one is John the Baptist. What is John the Baptist’s testimony? Not only does John the Baptist verify everything he said before Jesus was baptized, but then some more. In verse 29, John the Baptist calls Jesus “the Lamb of God,” recognizing Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. In verse 30, John the Baptist calls Jesus “a man who comes after me [who] has surpassed me.” The Gospels tell us in both Matthew 11:11 and Luke 7:28 that John the Baptist is greater than any of the Patriarchs, Prophets or Kings of the Old Testament. For someone to come after John the Baptist to be greater, it’s got to be the ultimate Patriarch, Prophet and King, and that would be Jesus (this verse even hints at “messiah.”). Verses 32 and 33 acknowledge Jesus as the one with the greater baptism. But the key part of the testimony is last in verse 34, for it’s the whole reason John is writing the book. In verse 34, John the Baptist explicit calls Jesus the Son of God. With that, John the Baptist gives us our next God Sighting

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)
2. Jesus is the creator of the universe, and Jesus gives life (vs. 3-4)
3. John the Baptist’s testimony: Lamb of God and Son of God (vs. 15-35)

John 1:35 overlaps the stories a bit. In verse 35, we are still with John the Baptist, declaring Jesus is the messiah. This time, John the Baptist is standing with two of John the Baptist’s disciples, probably Andrew and John (the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, the cousin of Jesus, the author of this book). And it is like John the Baptist is saying to them, “Look, the Messiah is here. What are doing still doing following me? Follow him!” And so in John 1:37, when the book of John tells us that the two disciples “followed” Jesus, it has a double meaning. First, it is to be taken literally, as these 2 men went from walking behind John the Baptist to walking behind Jesus. Second, it is to be taken figuratively, as on this day the 2 men ceased to be John the Baptist’s disciples and they became disciples of Jesus. In John 1:38, when Jesus turns to talk to James and John, the 2 men call him, “Rabbi,” which simply translated to teacher, but means much more than our heads can wrap around. A Rabbi was a teacher, but he was greater and higher than the typical teacher. A rabbi was a master teacher, so much that disciples (which disciples are students with greater dedication) would call their rabbi “master” as much as they would call him “teacher.” Rabbis were watched carefully and listened to carefully, for their knowledge and wisdom was known to be great. John and Andrew calling Jesus Rabbi is a strong testimony to Jesus being the Son of God. John the Baptist’s testimony that Jesus was the Son of God and the Lamb of God was all the convincing these 2 brothers needed to follow Jesus. And between John the Baptist’s testimony and just walking behind Jesus, they already recognized Jesus was a Rabbi, without Jesus needing credentials from anyone else. So I believe James and John’s Testimony is good enough for a God Sighting.

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)
2. Jesus is the creator of the universe, and Jesus gives life (vs. 3-4)
3. John the Baptist’s testimony: Lamb of God and Son of God (vs. 15-35)
4. Andrew and John’s testimony: Rabbi (vs.35-39)

In John 1:40, we meet a new character: Andrew. Andrew is simply described as the brother of Simon Peter. From the New Testament, we know that Zebedee, the father of James and John, and John (yes, another John!), the father of Simon Peter and Andrew, worked together in the fishing business, in some kind of combined business. So obviously the 4 worked together fishing on a daily basis. It wouldn’t surprise me if one son of John got one son of Zebedee (or vice versa) interested in this John the Baptist, and then each brother got the other brother interested in John the Baptist. Well, the same is about to happen for Jesus. When Andrew gets back from spending a day with Jesus, the first thing he does is run to his brother Simon and excitedly declare, “We have found the messiah!” and he drags Simon to Jesus. At the first meeting, Jesus renames Simon to Peter, basically calling Peter to be his disciple. But let’s take a step back with Andrew. All Andrew needs is a testimony from John the Baptist to follow Jesus, and after spending one day with Jesus, combined with John the Baptist’s testimony, it’s enough for Andrew to believe Jesus is the Messiah. Andrew believes it so much that he drags his brother to Peter to go meet Jesus. And all Peter needs is his brother’s word to believe Jesus is the messiah. Andrew has a strong testimony for Jesus: messiah. Messiah is a Hebrew term. The Greek equivalent is Christ. No matter which word you choose, this person was suppose to be the one promised by God to save the people from sin and from evil. The children of Israel had been waiting over 2,000 years for this man, and now he’s finally come. If you remember our theme verse, John 20:31, John tells the reader he wrote this book to prove that Jesus is not only the Son of God, but also the Christ. Also remember how I said that the Jews believed that both titles went hand-in-hand. The messiah was to be the Son of God. So Andrew’s testimony, backed up by the reaction from Peter, is our next God Sighting in Jesus.

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)
2. Jesus is the creator of the universe, and Jesus gives life (vs. 3-4)
3. John the Baptist’s testimony: Lamb of God and Son of God (vs. 15-35)
4. Andrew and John’s testimony: Rabbi (vs.35-39)
5. Andrew’s testimony: Messiah (vs. 40-42)

Philip, our next character, is introduced in John 1:43. The meeting is simple. Jesus walks by Philip, Jesus says, “Follow me,” and Philip follows. And before you know it, Philip also has a strong a testimony: “the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote.” The Bible doesn’t exactly say how Philip came to this conclusion. It could have been through the authority that Jesus called Philip by. Maybe, just like John and Andrew, after spending the day with Jesus, Philip could just tell. Perhaps it was through talking to John, James, Andrew and Simon Peter that Philip came to faith. Either way, Philip is sure this is the man the Moses talked about and the prophets talked about. It’s hard to pin down exactly what prophets Philip was talking about. Maybe it was the suffering servant in Isaiah. Maybe it was the Ancient of Days in Daniel. Perhaps it was the ruler in Micah or the king in Zechariah. It could have been all of these or it could have been none of these. Since we don’t know exactly, let’s focus less on the prophets and more on the one we know of the Lawgiver: Moses. It takes place in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites’ time of wandering is almost up, which also means the life of Moses is almost up. So for his last instruction, Moses is re-instructing the Law which he has already given (hence the book name Deuteronomy, meaning “Second Law”). In Deuteronomy 18:18,19, Moses foretells of a prophet that will be like him. Moses was a ruler, judge, Lawgiver, law-enforcer, priest and all around leader to the Israelite people. The prophet Moses foretells of will be like all of these things, clearly making him the Messiah. Since Deuteronomy, Israel has been waiting for this prophet. Philip recognizes Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Moses, and he’s got to tell everybody.

Before we check off Philip’s testimony on our list, let’s see the reaction of the testimony, just in case it’s significant to his testimony. Philip is so excited he tells Nathanael. Nathanael does not receive his friend’s testimony as willingly as everyone else. His reaction comes with skepticism. He yells, “Nazareth! What good could come from there?!” Although Galilee is north of Judea, the people of Galilee were like the “southerners” of Israel. They even had an accent to go along with it. And if Nathanael was told that the Messiah was coming from Nazareth, the epitome of the Galilean stereotype, it was like Nathanel was being told that his Messiah was a redneck, a hick! Nathanael would have nothing to do with that. But Jesus was about to turn that.

In verses 48 and 49 of John 1, Jesus reveals to Nathanael that He saw him before Nathanael knew Jesus or even before Philip knew Jesus. How can this be? Two words: Omnipresence and omniscience. Omnipresence is being all places at all times. Omniscience is being all-knowing. Jews and Christians alike ascribe omnipresence and omniscience to God. When Jesus shows he is omnipresent and omniscience by knowing where Nathanael is, He has proved to Nathanael, as well as the reader, that He is God. But to Nathanael He is not just God the Son or the Son of God, but also a Rabbi and the king of Israel.

Let me close with the closing verse of the chapter, John 1:51.

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)
2. Jesus is the creator of the universe, and Jesus gives life (vs. 3-4)
3. John the Baptist’s testimony: Lamb of God and Son of God (vs. 15-35)
4. Andrew and John’s testimony: Rabbi (vs.35-39)
5. Andrew’s testimony: Messiah (vs. 40-42)
6. Philip’s testimony: The One Moses and the Prophets foretold (vs. 43-46)
7. Nathanael’s testimony: Rabbi, Son of God, King of Israel (vs. 46-49)

John 1:51-
He then added, “I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

There’s a couple interesting points to point out. First, you might note your Bible has a footnote connected to the word “you” that says, “The Greek [you] is plural.” I never understood that…until I took Greek and now I get it! While English has a second person, the word “you,” for both singular and plural, the word “you” in Greek changes, based on whether it is singular or plural. The difference between the singular version of “you” and the plural version of “you” is, as the Southerners would say, “you and you all (y’all).” Why is this significant? If Jesus was simply talking to Nathanael, the singular form of you would be in there. But instead, we have a plural form. He must be talking to more than one. In the immediate context, it’s most likely his small crowd of followers: James, John, Andrew, Simon Peter and Philip. But maybe he’s almost addressing us, the reader, directly. And he viritually says, “This is nothing. You’re going to see greater things than this.” And he uses a certain term that sticks out: Son of Man. In Bible terms, as well as our terms, it is a reminder of the humanity of Jesus. But “Son of Man” has links to a lot of apocryphal works. The Old Testament prophets, like Daniel, give the title “Son of Man” to the Messiah in the end times. This is the first time in John we hear the term “Son of Man,” and it’s Jesus himself using that term. With such strong links to eschatological works in the Old Testament, I believe that Jesus has given us a self-testimony that He is God. If that’s not enough proof, I believe heaven opening and angels ascending and descending would be. So our list moves up to 8 God Sightings.

God Sightings in John 1
1. Jesus explicitly stated as God, and is seen with God in the beginning (vs. 1-2)
2. Jesus is the creator of the universe, and Jesus gives life (vs. 3-4)
3. John the Baptist’s testimony: Lamb of God and Son of God (vs. 15-35)
4. Andrew and John’s testimony: Rabbi (vs.35-39)
5. Andrew’s testimony: Messiah (vs. 40-42)
6. Philip’s testimony: The One Moses and the Prophets foretold (vs. 43-46)
7. Nathanael’s testimony: Rabbi, Son of God, King of Israel (vs. 46-49)
8. Jesus gives a self-testimony: Son of Man (vs. 50-51)

So 51 verses later, we have 8 God Sightings, or 8 times/ways we can see Jesus as God the Son. 6 of which are explicitly spoken testimonies, but if you really think about it, John is writing this book, and this Gospel book is the closest we’ll get to a 1st person testimony, so the first 2 God Sightings could be considered a testimony from John. So far, not only does Jesus Himself declare He is God, but John the Baptist, John, Andrew, Philip and Nathanael all claim Jesus is God. By the end of the first chapter alone, John already has a convincing argument that Jesus is indeed God the Son, and someone might already believe by just reading only the first chapter of John. But we can’t quit now, we got 20 more chapters to go! Stay tuned for John 2 to see how Jesus continues to reveal himself as God.

John 0: An Introduction

2012-01-02T13:15:00.001-05:00

In accordance with my New Year’s Resolution, this post will officially begin my devotional commentary on the Gospel of John. But we’re not going to dive into the chapters just yet. Consider this a “prequel,” or better stated, an introduction. I believe it is appropriate to go over the background information to set the scene. Yeah, it’s not absolutely necessary to know all these facts, but to quote the title of a Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart book on Bible Hermeneutics, if we really want to read the Bible for all its worth, the background information can really open up our eyes to smaller details we may not have noticed. We can learn a lot more about our God and apply the Scriptures for a deeper use then.

When I would teach Bible class, I would tell my students to discover the background information, we must be like good reporters and ask the right questions. You know what I’m talking about. Those question words, like, who, whom, what, where, when, why and how. You might have noticed I included in another word: whom. And technically, the difference between “who” and “whom” is the subject and the object. But the difference is important. Let me make it short and simple for you

WHO = AUTHOR of the book
WHOM = AUDIENCE, the original one, the first readers of the book
WHEN = THE DATE the book was written
WHERE = THE LOCATION of where the book was written and where it takes place
WHAT = HISTORICAL OCCASION, or what happened to cause the author to write
WHY = THE PURPOSE of the author writing to the audience
HOW = THE STRUCTURE, which could be an outline or writing methods

All 7 pieces are key to understanding the basic background information for any book of the Bible. For the Gospels, there needs to be another key aspect to look at. There’s no question word that would cover it, but if there is a non-question word, it would be PORTRAYAL, which is how the Gospel book portrays the character of Jesus. It could technically be a combination of the purpose and the structure, for the portrayal will be seen in both of them. We’ll talk more about it when we get to it. So which one shall we start off with? Well, if you remember your elementary English/Literature class, the setting of the story is where and when it happened. So let’s start with the setting, since the setting will place the characters in context.

THE LOCATION WHERE the Gospel of John was written was most likely Ephesus, but other scholars have suggested Alexandria and Antioch. But what’s more important than where the book was written is where the stories in the book take place. Most of the synoptic books simply show a steady path from Galilee to Samaria, to Judea, and then more specifically Jerusalem for the Passion Week. But John’s Gospel is not as simple as that. John has Jesus all over the place. For example, on top of having Jesus in Galilee, Samaria and Judea, he has Jesus in areas east of the Jordan River, such as Perea and Decapolis. And sometimes he’ll even be more specific on locations than the other Gospel writers are. Where Matthew, Mark, or Luke will just say what region Jesus is in, John will give the specific town. John will also spend more time in some regions that the other Gospel writers have. Whereas the synoptic gospel writers show Jesus mostly in Galilee, John has Jesus mostly in Judea, or more specifically, Jerusalem.

THE DATE WHEN the Gospel of John was written was between 85 to 95 A.D. Some scholars have tried to place the Gospel of John before 70 A.D. because one would assume that John would mention the Destruction of the Temple or the Fall of Jerusalem if the book was written after these events. While John does not explicitly mention these events, it doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t happen. Someone could argue that they did happen because John does focus a lot on the time that Jesus and His Disciples were in Jerusalem, and John also includes much dialogue about the temple. John may not explicitly record, “And this was in fulfillment of the prophecy that the temple would be destroyed and the city would fall,” but mentioning both the city and the temple implicitly gives almost a spooky irony to its fate. So it has to be after 70 A.D. It can’t be later than 95 A.D. because John is believed to have died in 98 A.D. But let’s not linger any more on the debate of the date, but instead accept 85-95 AD as the date, and discuss its importance.

The date does have great significance. Being written in the late 80s or early 90s, the Gospel of John is the last Gospel to be written. It is safe to say that Matthew and Luke have been written for at least 5 years and Mark for at least 20 years. Each of those gospels have been floating around to several churches in the Roman Empire. So John is well aware that the Christians in these churches know well the more famous stories of Jesus, like the feeding of the 5,000 and the calming of the storm. So instead of repeating them in synoptic gospel like Matthew, Mark and Luke did, John will write a supplemental gospel. What is a supplemental gospel? For that, we must talk about how John structured his Gospel book. But we don’t have quite enough information yet. The structure won’t make any sense until we know whom the audience was, what was the historical occasion that caused John to write was, or why John chose the purpose He did. But before we get to that, let’s talk about this John man whose name I keep throwing around.

THE AUTHOR WHO wrote the book was John, just like the title of the book tells us. But there are quite a few Johns. No, this is not John, also known as Mark. If you read the post I made in December, we already talked about him. No, this is not John, the father of Peter. No, this is not the John in Acts 4:8 who is in the family of the high priests. And this is definitely not John the Baptist, the son of Zechariah, the second cousin of Jesus. This is John, the son of Zebedee, the first cousin of Jesus. And with that last statement, you got two facts about his family history. Let me throw in a third: his brother was James (and there’s 4 men named James in the Bible, but that’s a different discussion for a different day). John started out his life in the family trade of fishing with his father Zebedee and his brother James. Everyone knows John and James were disciples of Jesus, but not everyone remembers that John and James were first disciples of John the Baptist. Being disciples of John the Baptist, they were probably baptized by John the Baptist and they probably listened carefully to his preaching about repentance and the coming Messiah. Yet their following wasn’t too serious, as it seems like they followed him on the side and stayed focus on their job trade. This seems also true of being disciples to Jesus. When John points the two of them out to Jesus Christ in John 1, they follow him a bit and even acknowledged Jesus as a Rabbi, but then they went back to fishing. It wasn’t until Matthew 4 that Jesus needs to call them to follow to get through their thick skulls to stay with him longer. John, along with his brother James and Peter, were among the 3 disciples in the inner circle of disciples, who were the closest of Jesus, perhaps because they were the first ones called to be disciples. They got to see special events, like the raising of Jairus’s daughter, the transfiguration, and they got to be closer to Jesus in Gethsemane. John seems to go a bit further in and say he was the closest of even the three of them, calling himself in his Gospel book, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” A lot of people have brought criticism towards John and the inspiration of this book, claiming it’s falsely representing Jesus showing favoritism. But all 4 Gospels clearly show Jesus had the inner group of Peter, James and John, and no one criticizes those books for that. Instead, I like to say that really shows us the humanity side of the inspiration of the Scriptures. Remember, the Scriptures were written by men just as much as they were written by God, and it can be seen through the different books and different authors. The title is merely showing John’s flavor in his writing. We’ll talk more about that “flavor” in the structure, but let’s go back to the inner circle of 3. This inner circle of 3 will stay tight until the end. When we see John in Acts, he’ll always be with Peter. From Acts, John will go on to write this Gospel book, 3 epistles, and he’ll write the apocalyptic book of Revelation when he exiled to Patmos. There are other small details I could go through, but we’ll hit them when we actually read through the book.

THE AUDIENCE WHOM John originally intended was Christians. Yes, Christians. Not a certain gender, race, ethnic group, culture or religion, but Christians This is interesting because John is considered a evangelistic book, or a good book to use to evangelize, or share the gospel message. While I do believe this is true, I do believe this book is more intended for discipleship reasons. Many of the reasons I will talk about in the structure, but one reason I will hit on I already mentioned in the date. This Gospel book was one of the last Gospel books written. John assumes that the reader has already read or heard about the stories of Jesus from that book. So John also assumes (and some would say this is a big assumption) that through reading or hearing those stories, you have made a decision to follow Jesus and have become a Christian (seriously, John believes the gospel message is so powerful it will do that). Once again, John knows the reader knows the popular stories. So he will leave most of them out (unless they pertain to his message) and put in new stories, which will only be beneficial for someone who wants to continue and advance his or her faith. Now if you remember, Matthew is written to Jews, Mark is written to Romans, and Luke is written to Greeks. John is well aware that the converts to Christianity are not only Jews, but Roman, Greek and other Gentiles. So John is going to reach out to those 3 main groups in the same way the synoptic authors did. We’ll talk more about that in the structure, but first you have to wonder, “Why would John write a Gospel for Christians if they already know the stories of Jesus, the gospel message, and they are already saved?” That will be answered next, in the historical occasion.

THE HISTORICAL OCCASION is WHAT was happening in that setting that caused the author (John) to write his book. The best way to explain this is to use Family Guy (who would ever think Family Guy could be used in a commentary, devotional or Bible introduction?) In an episode of Family Guy, Peter Griffin invents his own religion of Happy Days-ism, where the Fonz is worshipped. The rest of the Griffin family tries to get Peter to stop, but only the dog Brian is successful. How is he successful? To loosely quote him, he tells Peter, “Whenever a new religion becomes popular, copycats always follow,” and he brings in copycats to take Peter’s congregation away (for example, Brian brings in Gavin McCloud to lead the parishioners to Love Boat-ism). Well, it was true 2000 years earlier. Even though Christianity was still a minority and still facing persecution, it was growing in popularity. With growth like that, copycats jumped on board to make Christian-like cults to get people to join. The biggest one was Gnosticism, a cult which name comes from the Greek word gnosko, which means “to know.” Gnosticism combined two popular beliefs systems of the day: Christianity and Greek philosophy. The popular Greek philosophy of the day was that the body was bad, but the spirit/soul was good. Let me simplify that for you. Body = Bad, Soul/Spirit = Good. So the goal in Gnosticism was to free your soul from your body. Your first reaction might be, “Well, that’s easy, just commit suicide!” which might be followed by your second reaction, “Well, that’s stupid, a religion that convinces you to commit suicide.” But it’s not that easy, and they thought up a way that wasn’t stupid to them. You had to find a way to free your soul from your body while your body was alive. You couldn’t just commit suicide, for if you died before you figured out how to free your soul, your soul would be eternally stuck in your body. After all, a dead body is useless for anything, so there’s no way your spirit could find a way out. So how do you free your soul from your body? By learning a secret knowledge (hence the name Gnosticism). This where the Christianity side of Gnosticism steps in. The Gnostics believed that Jesus knew this secret knowledge. Jesus learned this secret knowledge and taught His disciples this secret knowledge. Now, of course, if you ask them, Jesus taught the secret knowledge, well, in secret, to his disciples. And the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke only record the public teachings of Jesus. So if you want to use those books to learn the secret knowledge, you have read into the text deeper. You have to take everything Jesus says as a metaphor, with some kind of symbolic meaning (in Bible hermeneutics, we call this the allegorical approach to the Scriptures). Some Gnostics were even going as far writing their own gospels, claiming that they were from people close to Jesus, like Thomas, Judas and Mary, who heard this secret knowledge being taught by Jesus when they were in secret meetings. But the real kicker is what they claimed about Jesus and His being. To be the ultimate example to humans on how to use this secret knowledge to free your soul from your body, Jesus was only human. They believed that Jesus was not God at all, but just a human. Furthermore, they believe when Jesus died on the cross, He freed his soul from his body. Therefore, they believe it was only in spirit Jesus raised from the dead. You can already see two big contradictions from true Christianity. Christianity believes Jesus is fully God and fully man, while Gnosticism believes Jesus was only a man who ultimately achieved perfection by being a body-less spirit on earth. Christianity believes Christ’s resurrection was a bodily one, but Gnosticism says it was only a spirit resurrection. The differences are huge, and they are confusing the people. Some Christians are having doubts, while other Christians are going to Gnosticism, believing it’s the true faith. A Christian’s faith is not meant to be an unsteady one. John doesn’t want Christians to convert to Gnosticism. In fact, he wants Christians to avoid Gnosticism. John doesn’t want Christians to be shaky or unsteady in their beliefs. He doesn’t want them to doubt or question their faith. He wants to believe. After all, the word “believe” appears 98 times in the book. John has to take down Gnosticism.

THE PURPOSE is WHY John wrote the book. You’re probably thinking, “He just explained it! John had to take down Gnosticism. That’s why he wrote it.” Yes, John did have to take down Gnosticism, and he did use this book to do it, but last time I checked, I’m pretty sure Gnosticism doesn’t exist anymore, and if does, it’s a very small minority that has no power in the world (although some people still insist on reading the Bible allegorically, as they did). So what’s the purpose for the Gospel of John today? When an author writes a book of the Bible, he’s not only thinking about his immediate audience, but also thinking about a bigger, grander audience. So he needs to express a truth that’s meaningful to them, too. So what truth is John going to teach us that will applicable everywhere for all time, and will also take down Gnosticism?

When it comes to 4 Gospels, we need to look out for an important piece that we wouldn’t look at with other books of the Bible. Have you ever wondered, “Why do we have 4 Gospel accounts? Wouldn’t it just be better with 1? After all, if there are 4 Gospel accounts, we have to worry about contradictions. If there was only 1 Gospel account, we wouldn’t have to worry about this.” The reason there are 4 Gospel accounts is to show 4 perspectives of Jesus. Each Gospel has a different perspective, and each perspective is a perspective for a different people group. Matthew is a perspective for Jews, Mark is a perspective for Romans, and Luke is a perspective for Greeks. Each different perspective gives us a different portrayal of Jesus, yet each portrayal is a true one. Matthew portrays Jesus as the Messiah for the Jews. Luke portrays Jesus as the Perfect [Son of] Man for the Greeks. Mark portrays Jesus as a suffering servant to show the upside kingdom to the Romans. So what’s John going to portray Jesus as? For the portrayal is an important part of the purpose. Lucky for us, John gives us a verse we can call a “theme verse” for our purpose and our portrayal of Jesus. It’s John 20:31.

John 20:31-
“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

Ah, there it is. It doesn’t get any more explicit than that. While in I do strongly believe in the inspiration of the Bible, I don’t think we should simply say, “Well, the Bible says that’s the purpose, and since the Bible is God’s Word, God is saying that’s the purpose. End of discussion.” Let’s look into why it’s right in saying this is the purpose. Some key words and key phrases I see in this verse is “Believe,” “Christ” and “Son of God.” Let’s start with the last one and go backwards.

As we talked about in the historical occasion, it was of the utmost importance John portrays Jesus as the Son of God. The Gnostic’s powerful voice was claiming Jesus was not God, and it was throwing true followers of Jesus into confusion, causing some to doubt and even lose faith. John had to stop this destruction the Gnostic doctrine was causing. I may have listed this key phrase last, but it’s definitely not least. Actually, I think it’s the most important. Why? Tell me, what do you think of when you hear the phrase “Son of God”? I bet you pay more attention to the word “son” than the word “God.” You might think this is nitpicky, but it’s not. When the Bible says Jesus is the Son of God, it’s also saying Jesus is God the Son. That’s not just a re-ordering of the words, but it has a big implication, in both the ancient context and the modern context. Let’s start with the older context, the ancient context. In the polytheistic religions of the ancient world, gods could indeed have children. They could have children either with goddesses or human women. If the god had a child with a human woman, the son would still be considered a god (or daughter a goddess), but it was a demigod, or half-god, half-human. This god was considered 50% divine and 50% human. All its strengths would be credited to its divinity, but all its weaknesses would be blamed on its humanity. I wouldn’t be surprised if at first people were claiming Jesus was 50% god and 50% man, and the apostles had to go around correcting that, teaching that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. A god could also have a child through a goddess, and in that case, it would be considered 100% god, but still it would be considered a lesser god, or a minor god, nowhere near the glory and majesty of his parents. I think that’s the one that modern day people would struggle with the most. This past Christmas season, I was in church and we singing the famous Christmas carol “Come All Ye Faithful.” While singing, I noticed the line, “Son of God, begotten, not created.” At first chuckled a bit, thinking to myself, “Way to make sure you’re theologically covered on all sides,” but after thinking more, I realized we don’t always realize this. We do sometimes think Jesus was birthed from God. This is theological mess. First, it says that Jesus is not as eternal as God the Father, which means he does have a beginning, and would ultimately deny Him His deity. But Jesus is eternal, both eternally past and eternally future. Second, if Jesus was just God’s offspring and not God himself, it would mean God the creator has not been on earth since the creation. It would almost sound like God thought of Himself as so holy that he did not want to deal with sinful man. So God sent down the next best thing: His Son Jesus. No, that’s not true either. Jesus was God incarnate, walking on earth, among the people He created, no matter how sinful. Jesus was not a lesser God, or a minor God, but was God just as much as His Father. We have to remember that when we see “Son of God” we must also see “God the Son.” Simply put: Son of God = God the Son. Maybe another way to put it is the relationship between Yahweh and Jesus was the same relationship between a Father and Son. But both are the same God, the One God, the Only God. (John 1:14,18).

The second word is “Christ.” I’m not going to dwell on this one too long because I’ll talk more about it in the structure (yeah, I know I keep saying that, but I seriously am!). All you have to know is John was a Jew, so John knew how to communicate to Jews. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of Christians at this point in time were Jews, so it would make sense that John is trying to connect to a majority of Christians. This will be helpful to remember when critics will claim that John is being anti-Semitic in calling out the Jews as the enemies of Jesus. Why would a Jew who is writing to Jews call Jews evil? Another thing I will note is that I believe a careful inspection of Old Testament prophecies will reveal that the Messiah, or the Christ, was to be divine in nature. So proving Jesus is the Christ is also proving Jesus is the Son of God.

And then there’s the word “believe.” In that verse alone, 2 forms of the root word “believe” appears twice: “believe” and “believing.” If we were to count up all the times the noun “belief” and the verb “believe” are used in the 21 chapters of John, we’d have 98 occurrences. Obviously we can see the action John is calling us to: believe. If you’re still following me so far, you’re probably wondering, “How can you call this a discipleship book and not an evangelistic book? Aren’t Christians already believing?” Well, I’m not denying that this book can be used as an evangelistic tool. In fact, by the end of this, I’ll show you how to use it as an evangelistic tool. But I don’t think it’s any more evangelistic that the other Gospel accounts. As you were thinking, I’ll repeat it again. We clearly established Christians as the audience. And you’re right, Christians do already believe. But I learned something while reading the Holman Concise Bible Commentary. According to the Holman Concise Bible Commentary, the first Greek form most commonly translated, “you may believe” can also be translated “you may continue to believe.” I do believe this would make sense in light of the historical occasion. Many Christians, although they still believe Jesus was the perfect man who died for their sins and rose again, are giving up believing on a divine Jesus being God. John clearly is presenting evidence to show that it is logical and rational to believe Jesus is God. So the Christians can continue believing Jesus is God. They don’t have to doubt. With that in mind, we can write out a purpose with all the information above in one statement.

John wrote the book of John to persuade Christians to continue believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

THE STRUCTURE is HOW John wrote the book to get his message or his purpose across. Short review: The message or the purpose John is trying to get across is that Christians need to believe that Jesus is the Son God AKA God the Son.

Let’s start with what I promised you first all the way back at the date. John is supplemental Gospel, unlike Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are synoptic Gospel. What’s the difference? The difference is in the name. The word synoptic is the adjective forms of synopsis, which is a synonym of the word summary. The Gospel books of Matthew, Mark and Luke simply summarize the stories of Jesus, which are picked and chosen based on how they will answer the purpose of the Gospel book. Through these summaries, the author assumes the reader will be able to pick up the message the author is trying to convey. John’s Gospel is not like this. John’s Gospel is a supplemental Gospel. You might know the word supplemental if you have ever had a book with supplemental pages in it. You might know that the supplemental pages give extra information or extra detail to the book. Well, that’s exactly what John is trying to do. Remember when we talked about the date and the audience, I told you John assumes that the reader has already read the other Gospel accounts and is well acquainted with the stories, especially the popular ones, like Jesus feeding the 5,000 or Jesus calming the storm. So first, John will leave at many stories that the synoptic Gospels have in them. For example, John leaves out many important stories, such as the birth, baptism, temptation, and transfiguration of Jesus. Another good example is John only has 7 miracles, and from the other gospel accounts (and John 20:30!), we know Jesus performed more than 7 miracles (it also could be noted that none of these 7 miracles are casting out demons). Second, John will use the space he made omitting stories to put in new stories. In fact, 85% of John is unique and cannot be found in any other Gospel narrative. Third, in both new stories and old stories, John will give more details. For example, John will not only tell us about the Feeding of 5,000, but will tell you what resulted after the feeding of the 5,000. Another good example is the Lord’s Supper. Each synoptic Gospel author will only have 1 chapter on that Maundy Thursday, and it mostly talks about the Passover meal. John will spend 5 chapters in the Upper Room where the Last Supper is taking place, making sure to carefully record every word of Christ’s last instructions before He dies.

Speaking of detail, you’ll find John, writing a supplemental gospel, will be more keen on details. He will give names that previously weren’t given. From John, we learn the man whose ear got cut off by Peter was named Malchus. On that note, it will seem that John will “pick on people” by zeroing them out in certain stories. For example, where the synoptic gospels all the disciples doubted the resurrected Jesus, John’s Gospel will point out Thomas as the doubter. Another good example is when the woman poured perfume on the feet of Jesus. The synoptic gospels that tell this story will say all the disciples will indignant about this move. Yet John only records Judas Iscariot complaining about it. This is no reason to say the Gospel accounts contradict one another. For the first example, all the disciples did doubt Jesus rose from the dead, but one by one, each disciple came to faith, and Thomas was the last one to do so. For the second example, all the disciples were indignant about the woman pouring the perfume on the feet of Jesus, but they kept their thoughts to themselves or they grumbled to one another quietly; only Judas Iscariot had to guts to speak what was on everyone’s mind. If anything, John is using a good story writing device: character development. By pinning certain action to certain people, instead of a group of people, we can see if the disciple is static or if he dynamically changes, and if he does change, does he change for the better or for the worse? And it’s not all bad. For example, in the feeding of the 5,000, Andrew is credited for finding the boy with 2 fishes and 5 loaves. And the ultimate example is when John calls himself the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” Once again, this is not to show John lifting himself above the other disciples. It is merely tells us that Jesus had an inner circle of 3 disciples, and of those 3, John might have been the closest. And once again, it’s all for the purpose of character development. Reading John, we can see the relationship John had with Jesus. And if it really is John trying to lift himself above the other disciples, it’s John’s humanity in writing the Scriptures

Another note to make on the structure goes back to the audience whom John wrote his book to. Remember John wrote to Christians. Being Christian does not hold you to a certain race, nationality or ethnic group. Actually, the Christian audience is made up of people of all kinds of tribes and nations. But if I had to pick the top 3, I would say it’s probably the Jews, the Romans and the Greeks (and yes, in that order). That list of 3 should sound familiar. Oh yeah! It’s the 3 audiences the other 3 Gospels are written to. Matthew is written to Jews, Mark is written to Romans, and Luke is written to Greeks. Each of those Gospel authors knew their audience and knew how to structure their book to appease to each audience. Matthew used Old Testament Scriptures for the Jews. Mark used miracles to appease to the Romans. Luke used parables to attract the Greeks. John is well aware Christians from all 3 of these groups are reading his book. So he uses similar pieces for his Gospel. For the Jews, John uses Old Testament Scriptures. For the Romans, John remembers to include 7 miracles. When it comes to the Greeks, John does not use parables as Luke does (in fact, there are no parables in John), but uses long discourses and lectures of logic and reasoning, which would also attract the Greek thinkers. John’s Gospel appeals to Jewish Christians, Roman Christians and Greek Christians, and all of them get the message that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God.

One last note on the structure. When John narrates his book, he’s not doing it from the third person, as the synoptic Gospel writers will. John will do it from his perspective. Thus, John will include his own commentary in the narration of the book. Besides the books of 1 & 2 Chronicles, this is the only God-inspired commentary we have.

Let me close by showing you how to use this Gospel book as an evangelistic tool, just as I promised, but I’m showing it to not just for the sake of showing you, but to outline how my devotional commentary will go. Here’s what you do to evangelize to someone the gospel using the book of John. First, give the person a copy of the book of John. Next, have the person read through the book of John. Then, have the person answer these 3 questions…

1. Who does Jesus claim He is?
2. Who does those pro-Jesus, or for Jesus, claim Jesus is?
3. Who does those anti-Jesus, or against Jesus, claim Jesus is?

Now as you can guess, based on what we talked about the purpose, the answer is “The Son of God.” But truthfully, there are only a couple explicit instances of where this happens. So what you would need to do is give a hint. For a hint, give them two verses from the Bible. No, not John 3:16 and John 20:31. That’s not a hint; that’s giving away the answer. Instead, give them Exodus 3:13-14.

Exodus 3:13-14-
13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

Now you’re probably thinking to yourself, “Why are we giving them a couple verses from Exodus? They’re not even from the same testament!” Note what God says his name is: “I AM.” In the book of John, Jesus makes 7 I AM statements. And when Jesus makes those 7 I AM statements, the Jewish audience is immediately thinking about this Exodus passage and is making the connection. Every time Jesus says “I am,” He is making the claim He is God. I hope you will join me in finding all these claims.

New Year's Resolution...A Real One

2012-01-01T12:41:00.002-05:00

I was never one for New Year's Resolutions. I always joke, "My New Year's Resolution is to not make any resolutions this year." If I did, it was more like a goal for Bible Quizzing. But this year, with little to no involvement in quizzing, I thought I would make a real New Year's Resolution. And there might be another reason.

During my lunch breaks at work, when I got too tired of studying Greek over and over, I would read a book. I was reading The Naked Anabaptist, but I for a short time misplaced the book, so I moved onto Dr. Foster's famous book The Celebration of Disciplines, a book on spiritual disciplines. I was amazed on how spiritually disciplined Dr. Foster was. He was so disciplined, some people would probably claim it's impossible, without seeing him practice them in action. But that's not what I reflected on the most. I merely reflected on the general subject of "spiritual discipline," or even more on the phrase "spiritual discipline."

See, I had no problem with the spritual part. I was being spiritual. I read my Bible. I prayed. I went to church. But it was the discipled part that I was struggling with. I prayed when it was convenient. I read my Bible in the spare time of my spare time, when I had nothing else to do. I went to church only if I was naturally up Sunday morning and had nothing to do in the early afternoon. Nothing was regular, and when nothing was regular, it seemed to be as if my faith was on the side. Well, I can't say I was pleased with myself. Actually, the opposite was true. I was unhappy and miserable with myself. While the irregular Bible study, prayer and church fellowship might be fine for a spiritually newborn Christian, it's not okay for someone who has been a Christian for some time, and especially not okay for someone who has been through 4 years of Bible college. It was like a professional portrait artist settling on drawing stick people. That's just not right. And something had to be done. That's where my New Year's Resolution will come into the picture.

But first, some of this lack of spiritual discipline just couldn't wait until 2012. It was the church part. This came especially crucial with meeting with my small group less and less. I need that Christian fellowship, some people to meet with and worship with, some people to talk about the Lord, as well as listening. So I made it my priority that the week I moved out to Dover, the next Sunday I would start going to church out here as well. And so far, so good. I've been faithfully attending Stony Brook Mennonite Church. I'm still not as involved as I would like to be, and maybe that could be my New Year's Resolution when it comes to Church Fellowship. But it seems like the congregation has embraced me there at least. I think for my New Year's Resolution when it comes to church, I'm going to start going to Sunday School.

Now that we got the communal discipline out of there, now onto the more inward disciplines. The first one was the Bible reading. My eyes became open to this one when I realized that I was once again behind on quizzing questions, as I was last year. I had 9 months to finish one chapter, or 51 verses, worth of questions, and I only got half way there. But I realized what might have been my problem was relativeness. The last time I full did a chapter worth of questions (actually it was 2 chapters) is when I got to be the quiz coach for Conestoga. Since I used my questions for my quizzers, I strived to get them done for them. But last year, only doing timekeeping and not having a team of my own, there was no urge to write the quizzing questions. And this year, with not even having a role in the staff, there's no rush to complete this set. But when I was at work, to keep my mind from not being bored to death doing menial tasks, I would think about the theological implications of what little I was reading in the Bible. And I would have good thoughts. So when I had a little spare time back at my apartment, I would type of these ideas on a Word documents, and I kind of liked it. You might have seen one. I called it "Mark: A Story About A Suffering Servant." I hope you liked it as much as I did. It motivated me to read my Bible more, and study my Bible more.

So I've decided for part of my New Year's Resolution is to follow along with quizzing in John, and write a devotional commentary on it. Now I have to be smart and reasonable with this goal. Halfway through January I'm going to begin taking 2 Grad courses, so I can't overwhelm myself. So for January, I will write a devotional commentary, 1 chapter, 1 week. When I hit February and March, I'm going to switch to a couple chapters per week, but still with the same amount of reading and studying. That will get me to April. We'll see how effective it is, and how on task I can stay, and we'll go from there.

But I know I don't want to go to a reading schedules. Whether it has been Read the Bible in a Year, Half a Year, 3 months, whatever, never a fan of it. Why? Well, if a reading schedule could speak, this would the conversation you'd be having with it...

Reading schedule: "Today, please read John 1."
You: "Ok, got it."
*You read John 1*
Reading schedule: "You read John 1 today?"
You: "Yes, but I really didn't get it. Nothing made sense"
Reading schedule: "Tough luck, we got to stick to the schedule. Move on to John 2 tomorrow."

See, I never thought that made any sense. What's the point of reading it if you're not going to understand it or get anything out of it, or even vaguely remember it? Then it's no more than a chore, or a good luck charm ("If I read the Bible, I'll get blessed!"). The call to read and study the Bible is to serve as a mirror where we can reflect on ourselves. And if that reflection takes a while, so be it. I remember once spending one week on one verse alone! I did not get it at first, and I had to read it over and over, as well as just step back and reflect on it. And once I did that for a week, I got it and I came out a better man. I want my Bible study to be one that makes a better man, for not only my sake, but the sake of the people around me.

The other spiritual discipline I want to work on is prayer. I don't know why I let this one go. My God desires to meet with me and talk with me. It is such a privilege that a holy God would want to meet with a sinner like me! Why would I give it up? So My New Year's Resolution is as simple as this: I will pray at least once a day. And just in general, I will pray more. Once again, I don't want to be held down by a schedule and I want to allow room to be spontaneous. So maybe prayer will come twice a day, or three times, or more! But it will definitely happen at least once.

So here's the official list of 2012 New Year's Resolution, with what I mentioned above, as well some other things I would like to have:

2012 New Year's Resolution

Read a couple chapters of the Bible once a day

Write a devotional commentary once a week from January to March

Pray at least once a day, but allow room to be spontaneous for more

Continue to go to church weekly, and eventually add Sunday School to it.

Talk more openly to my girlfriend

have more fun in life!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Complete hard vocals on all Rock Band games

Learn to play a real guitar. Really

take voice lessons so i can seranade my girlfriend :) (she wrote that one)

Keep my 4.0 GPA strong in grad school.

Mark: A Story About a Suffering Servant

2011-12-26T15:12:00.001-05:00

Before the fall, the group of guys in my small group got to together to decide what book we should study for the fall and the spring preceding it. We had done an Old Testament book before, so we were looking for a New Testament book to study. I threw out the book of John as a possibility. My reason (beside it being next year’s material for quizzing) was that I realized most of the Gospel stories I knew from heart were from the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and that I did not know too many details of the supplementary Gospel of John. All the guys liked this idea, but one of them thought that the 21 chapters of John would be enough to cover only about 21 weeks, not 36 weeks. He suggested that, since John is the last Gospel (in both position in the New Testament and date written), we should start our Gospel study with Mark, the shortest and earliest written Gospel. At first, I wasn’t as on board with this idea. I had studied the book of Mark intensely for quizzing in 2003 and I was pretty sure I knew about it. But everyone else was on board with it, so I went along with it. And I’m glad I did. The last time I took a good look at Mark was when I was in 8th grade. Since then, I have gone through 4 semesters of Bible class at a Mennonite High School, and 4 years of Bible college. Both experiences have greatly improved my Bible study skills. With those skills, I noticed things about Mark I did not notice before in 8th grade. Sadly, my small group was unable to complete our Bible study on Mark, for reasons that will within the confidentiality borders of my small group. But I have stayed true to reading Mark, and I would like to share what I have learned.

Mark is indeed the shortest Gospel account, only 16 chapters long. Mark is also a synoptic gospel, meaning it is just summarizing the events of the life and ministry of Jesus. Both of these make sense if we take into consideration the date the book of Mark was written. The book Mark was written somewhere between 55 and 66 AD, making it the first Gospel account written down. Before this book was written, the only New Testament Scriptures out there were epistles from Paul and perhaps a few general epistles. Stories about Jesus were simply passed down by oral tradition, by word of mouth. With that in mind, it was important to get something written down about Jesus. So when Mark wrote his gospel, he wasn’t into details. Mark wanted, as the famous saying goes, “just the facts,” and it’s apparently throughout this short gospel. Take the temptation of Jesus’ for example. Matthew and Luke go into great detail about what happened during those 40 days of temptation. Mark simply says, “Jesus was tempted, and when he passed the temptations, angels served him.”

Let’s talk a little bit more about the man Mark. Most of what we know from Mark does not come from the book of Mark, but mostly from the book of Acts. Mark was a companion of Paul and Barnabas on a missionary. Mark, however, was an unreliable man, as he left part way through. Thus, when Barnabas wanted to bring along Mark again for the next missionary trip, Paul and Barnabas got in a fight over whether taking Mark was a good idea. Paul and Barnabas split, but Barnabas stayed faithful to Mark, bringing Mark with him to wherever he ministered. I could go on and tell you more about Mark, such as his mother’s name was Mary, he was a cousin to Barnabas, or that he was like a son to Peter, but none of that would really help our understanding of how the man Mark connects to the book Mark. What do think might help, I would have to take from traditional interpretations and modern interpretations. In Mark 14:51-52, Mark inserts a little story about a man wearing nothing but a linen cloth flees naked when Jesus is arrested. One might think, “That’s an odd tidbit to insert in this story. Why does Mark do it when no other Gospel writer mention it?” Some people have suggested that Mark is talking about himself, that the man running away naked is Mark. This would place Mark at the arrest. Why do I find this significant? Jesus did call 12 disciples, but these 12 disciples were not the only ones following Jesus around. There was a larger group of people who regularly followed Jesus wherever he would go. The number cut down greatly in John 6:66, and by the time we get to the book of Acts, we find out the number of Christ’s followers post-resurrection numbered around 120. I would be surprised, and I do believe, Mark was probably one of these 120 followers of Jesus, who might have witnessed Jesus speaking and performing miracles when Jesus was in the public sector. In fact, a tradition dating back to the 500s AD would not only verify me, but would also say that Mark was one of the 72 Jesus sent out to minister in Luke 10. Now to be fair and represent the other side, some scholars say there is no proof for any of this, since the earliest proof of Mark’s appearances is in Acts. They would say most of Mark’s information about Jesus and his ministry from what Peter witnessed. I do agree that Mark did get a lot of information from Peter, as a lot of the book of Mark tells stories about the closeness in the relationship between Jesus and Peter that only Peter could talk about. But if I were to add one last piece to that, and I know this argument is weak because it is merely from logic, but don’t you think God would want the first Gospel account to come from someone who witnessed Jesus more directly? One more key feature I will note is Mark’s name, or rather his full name. His full name is John Mark. John is a Jewish name. Mark is a Roman name. Thus, one can conclude Mark most likely is both Jewish and Roman, just like Paul. The other option would be Mark is from a Jewish family that were slaves to a Roman family and his family took on the last name of his Roman masters. Either way, Mark has Roman ties.

So naturally the audience for the book of Mark is Romans. Let me remind you about the Roman people, although you may not need a lot of reminding if you simply remember what you learned about them in middle school or high school (or maybe even college). The Romans are the power of the western world. They have conquered all the land around the Mediterranean Sea, including the remnants of the Egyptian and Greek Empire, the Germanic tribes and the Anglo-Saxans (English, Welsh, Scottish, etc.). Remember that Israel/Judah is not an independent, free nation. The land belongs to the Romans, ruled by the half-Jew and half-Roman King Herod, overseen by Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. In fact, all the ethnic groups the Romans have conquered have rulers that have been put in place by the greater Roman government. The Roman government has allowed the people to keep their religions, culture, traditions and holidays (as long as they are not against the Romans), but they have to submit to the Roman government and they have to pay taxes. The Romans know they have authority and they exercise it over the people they conquer. So with that mind, what do you think the most important thing is to the Romans? Power and authority. In fact, in their minds, power = authority. Actually, I can throw a third word in there: strength. Power comes in strength. Authority comes in strength. Power = strength = authority. It’s obvious if you think about it. Think about when you learned about the Caesars in history class, or even think back to reading Julius Caesar in English or Literature class. If your father was the Caesar, you were not guaranteed to be the next emperor, even if you were the firstborn son. When Julius Caesar was assinated, both Brutus and Cassius fought Julius Caesar’s son Octavius/Augustus to be the next emperor of Rome. If you wanted to be the next emperor of Rome, you had to fight for it. You had to gain followers by proving your strength, and then fight off any opposition. The last man standing, the strongest man, became the emperor. So if Mark wants to win any Romans over to Christianity, he’s got to show Jesus has strength, power and authority, to show Jesus is worth following, and that is emperor/king material.

Now usually at this part I would state the purpose of the book of Mark, and then show you through an outline of the book how Mark answers the purpose. But I’m not going to do that this time, so you can see how great of a story Mark’s gospel account is. Instead, I’m going to highlight some parts of Mark’s Gospel narrative that will eventually point to Mark’s purpose. As I go through them, and as you may be led to actually read them, think of yourself as a Roman person during the height of the Roman empire, reading this story. You’re looking for Jesus to be strong, powerful and authoritative. If you are a Roman, what are you thinking as you read this narrative? What are you feeling, or how are you emotionally reacting to parts of this Gospel account?

Mark wastes no time showing the authority and power Jesus has. At first, Jesus displays his authority simply by teaching. His message is simple: repent and receive the good news that the kingdom of God is here! As simple as this message is, it has captivated everyone who hears. His words alone have authority. But actions speak louder than words, so we need some action to verify these words. Mark wastes no time showing exciting action in his gospel story. As soon as Mark 1:21-27, Jesus begins preaching and a man with a demon comes to Jesus, and Jesus drives the demon out of the man. The people see the power behind the message Jesus is preaching and they make that connection from words to action immediately. Also in chapter 1, Mark records Jesus getting rid of a fever in Simon Peter’s mother-in-law and a man with leprosy, as well as many other sickness and demon possessions. Already with the first chapter, the Roman reader sees that Jesus has the power and strength to cure people of any sickness and even cast out demons. The demon possession would stick out, showing Jesus has power over the spiritual realm.

Mark chapter 2 opens with the famous story of Jesus healing the paralyzed man on a mat. Here, the authority of Jesus is shown twice, when Jesus first forgives the man’s sins, and then gives him the power to walk. Jesus poses the question, “Which is easier to say: to the paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’?” The one bear testimony to the other. Since the paralyzed man can walk, the observers and readers know the man’s sins are forgiven. Jesus is shown to have power over both physical ailments and the spiritual ailment of sin. After this incident of forgiving sins, the Pharisees and Sadducees are looking at Jesus in a different light. They are questioning him more, and it’s not always to learn more. Some of them are trying to trap him, accuse him, or bring judgment down on him. The rest of chapter 2 is the Pharisees and Sadducees questioning Jesus in both his teaching and actions. Yet none of these questions or accusations phase Jesus. He knows what he is teaching is right and fully stands behind it as right. Furthermore, when Jesus is questioned about Old Testament teachings, like fasting and the Sabbath he shows that he has authority above both of those practices. Once again, Jesus is a teacher with authority. This slides right into chapter 3, and in chapter 3, the reader starts to see the results. All this power and strength is attracting a crowd. People are literally coming from all over to see Jesus. There are so many people Jesus is being crowded and pushed around. From this large crowd, Jesus picks out 12 to be his inner circle, his disciples, who will follow his every move and learn from him. Jesus has a large following, which shows his authority. Even his family is starting to pay closer attention to him.

A majority of Mark chapter 4 is Jesus speaking in parables. Once again, this shows the authority of Jesus in His teaching. It takes great wisdom to teach a parable with perfect meaning; only a smart teacher could do this. Jesus demonstrates he knows what he is teaching by teaching with various stories. But the big sign of strength comes at the conclusion of the chapter, with the famous story of Jesus calming the story. In addition to power, strength and authority over sickness, injury, demon possession and sin, we can add nature to the list. Chapter 5 adds another key element to the list. After another demon exorcism is performed, Jesus brings the daughter of Jairus, the synagogue leader, back to life. Now Jesus has strength and power over sickness, injury, sin, demons and death! Chapter 6 continues to show Christ’s power over nature by walking on water and splitting up food to feed over 5,000 men, not including women and children! But maybe more intriguing is that when Jesus sends out his 12 disciples, they have the same power and authority Jesus has. A Roman reader might be attracted by this: following Jesus gives you power!

This will repeat from chapter 7 to chapter 10, with more miracles showing the power of Jesus, speficially with blindness, deafness and muteness. This is no coincidence that there is so many miracles in the book of Mark. If Mark is trying to show great strength and power, there is no greater strength and power than a miracle, and Mark shows that Jesus just doesn’t do a few miracles, but many miracles. If there is something I would point out with the miracles in this section, as well as the miracles in the first seven chapters. If you read through it, you might see the word “immediately” a lot. The book of Mark uses the word “immediately” more than any other book of the Bible. “Immediately” is one of the most repeated words in the book of Mark. Mark is saying something here. It’s not like Jesus laid hands on the sick and they eventually got better or progressively got better. Immediately, instantly, Jesus brought full healing. Now that’s power!

Now remember I encouraged you to read through this book as a Roman reader. So far, what’s your response to Jesus as a Roman reader after reading the first 10 chapters of Mark? What are you thinking? What are you feeling? A Roman reader, you’d probably be thinking, “Wow, this Jesus guy is so strong and so powerful! He has power over physical nature as well as the spiritual realm. This man would be the perfect leader. He fed people numbering over 5,000 and over 4,000, so he could solve world hunger. He healed the sick, the blind, the deaf, the mute, and the lepers. He’s better than any doctor, so we’d never need a doctor again. He can even heal us spiritually of our sin. No one opposing him can stand up to him. No one is stronger or more powerful than he is!” Now if I asked the Roman reader, “How do you think the last 6 chapters will end the story?” After a little bit of pondering, the Roman might have a few predictions. Perhaps Jesus, with his following, will kick the Romans out of Judah and reclaim Jerusalem for the Jews. Maybe Jesus will also kick the Romans out Galilee, Samaria and Idumea as well to reunite Israel as one. Or maybe even march up to Rome and claim himself the next Roman emperor! It wouldn’t be too far-fetched in the Roman mind. After all, that’s what all the Roman emperors did. Once they proved their strength and power, and once they got a large following, they would march up to Rome with their followers and claim the throne for themselves. Well, let’s see how it turns out (and remember, this is the only Gospel narrative that the 1st century Roman has).

Chapter 11 is looking good for the uprising. Jesus enters Jerusalem like a king, with a parade and people cheering. The shouts of the people crying, “Blessing is the coming of the kingdom of our father David’ even has the Jewish people thinking the same as the Roman Christian: here comes the new kingdom and the reign of a new king. But what’s got the Roman reader excited is when Jesus clears out the temple. It shows Jesus moving to action in order to do what is right. Jesus is using his strength and power to also show authority. Even the cursing of the fig tree demonstrates the authority of Jesus. Jesus won’t put up crap with anyone or anything that disagrees with him. At the end of chapter 11, his authority is brought into full question. While the chief priests, teachers of the law and elders fail to recognize it, Jesus hints that his power is greater than any earthly power. His power is from above. So far, so good for uprising.

But then comes chapter 14, and it all goes downhill from there. Starting in verse 32, we see a tired, troubled, distressed, depressed Jesus minding his own business and then comes trouble. In 14:43, Judas leads a mob of people with swords and clubs. They have not come to peacefully ask Jesus questions. They have come to arrest him. Once again, remember your imagining yourself as the Roman reader. You, as a Roman, are probably thinking along the same lines of Simon the Zealot. You’re thinking, “Now’s your chance, Jesus! Tell all your disciples to get their swords and clubs and fight! Use your divine power to call down nature, angels or demons to attack your foes! We’ll first take down the Jewish leaders that oppose you, then we’ll take down the Roman leaders that oppose and you’ll be the next king of the Jews!” But that’s not what Jesus does. In fact, when a disciple (other Gospel accounts credit it to Peter) does attempt to fight back with violence, Jesus rebukes both sides for even entertaining the thought.

In Literature terms, we call this point the climax. In Literature, the climax is when the dramatic tension is at the highest and the story dramatically changes from this point out. Clearly Mark 14:43-51 is the climax of the book of Mark. The building tension in the first 13 chapters of Mark show that as Jesus builds his authority by displaying his strength and power, opposition tries to flex its power and authority to lower the power and authority of Jesus. The more Jesus rises up, the more the religious leaders are trying to push Jesus down. This all happens with the first 13 chapters, and by chapter 14, someone has got to come out on time. Like I said, in the Roman mindset, the Roman reader is expecting Jesus the one to come out on top. After all, Jesus has clearly demonstrated He is the more powerful one. But the story changes as Jesus no longer is the more powerful one. His enemies are, and to make matters worse, it looks like Jesus is the weakest.

How does Jesus look like the weakest? It gets worse from here. Jesus is brought before the Sanhedrin, and even though Jesus is right, he is declared guilty and beaten. He is handed over to Pilate. Pilate questions Jesus, but Jesus remains silent. Since Jesus does not defend himself, he is flogged then sentenced to death. Soldiers then mock him and torture him. Then he is crucified. Chapter 15 ends with Jesus, clearly dead, buried in a tomb. The Roman reader sits there, eyes wide, jaw dropped, in utter shock. No, it’s not over the way Jesus was treated. Those methods were common methods that Romans used on foreign criminals. Any Roman was use to that. The Roman reader is shocked because after seeing Jesus display his strength, his power and his authority, he doesn’t use any of it. In fact, it makes Jesus look the opposite: weak and powerless. Jesus submits to the mocking, the false accusations, the spitting, the beatings, the flogging and all the other kinds of torturing. Finally, the ultimate submission is when Jesus gives up his life on one of the most painful execution devices in the history of man. If I was a Roman reader, I might want to close this book (or scroll, I guess) in disgust after reading chapter 15. I don’t want to even glance at Mark chapter 16 (besides the fact that the second half of chapter 16 might have been written a couple centuries later). I’m guessing that Mark 16 is some kind of epilogue that concludes the book by saying the Roman leaders then executed the 12 disciples, thus ending the Christianity movement. As a Roman, I’m starting to believe this book is just Roman propaganda to show that not even a religious terrorist can thwart the Roman Empire. Well, let’s play along and pretend this is the case. After reading those 15 chapters of Mark, I slam the book shut, mad at how it ended, and walk away.

But I just can’t get my mind of this book. As a Roman, it baffles me why someone with so much strength and so much power would willingly not use it and get pushed. If he wanted to, he could have called his disciples and followers to defend him, and they would have defended him to the death. If he wanted to, he could have called down legions of angels to counter attack. Or even by his own strength, he could have taken them on single handedly. Yet he didn’t choose any of those options. Why didn’t he? This is puzzling your Roman mind so much that you can’t concentrate and you’re scatterbrained. The Jesus in chapters 14 and 15 does not seem like the same Jesus the 13 chapters before…or does it?

Now you’re Roman mind is thinking back to those first 13 chapters. You’re thinking not about the miracles themselves, but why Jesus performed the miracles. Did He do it to show how strong He was? No. Did He do it to display his power? No. Jesus seems very humble over the experiences. Did Jesus do it to exercise his authority over people? No. The more you think about it, while Jesus gave a general calling to follow him and receive the gospel message, people came to him on their own. So why did he perform his miracles? He was serving the people. He did it for the people in need, not himself. At the most, you could say he did it to win people over to his cause, the kingdom of God, but really that’s for the people’s benefit as much as his own. Every time Jesus healed, he healed to serve the people. And when you think about it, Jesus technically submitted his power to the people to serve them. Think about it. Think about Jesus feeding the 5,000 in Mark 6. In Mark 6:30-32, Jesus and his disciples are trying to run away from the crowd to get some rest. But when Jesus sees how lost they are and how desperate they are for him, he denies himself the rest to serve the people in teaching them. In Mark 5, Jesus is on his way to heal the daughter of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. When another comes along who needs healing just as much as the little girl, Jesus stops to minister to her. Yet Jesus keeps his promise to Jairus, even it takes raising her from death. Both times Jesus submits. Time after time in the Mark Gospel, Jesus is pulled out of his way to heal someone, but Jesus never complains. Every time, he submits. His strength is not meant to be used to gain power for himself for selfish reasons. His strength is suppose to be used to help others.

And it all finally hits you when you remember two important passages: Mark 10:42-45 and Mark 8:34-38. Good old Roman you quickly skimmed over those parts because it seemed like boring teaching and you wanted to get back to action. Yet Christ’s words recorded in Mark 10:42-45 and Mark 8:34-38 linger in your head over and over. Let’s take a careful look over these 2 passages specifically. We’ll go in that order, even though it’s not in chronological order.

Mark 10:42-45-
42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

We’re starting out with these verse because most scholars acknowledge theses verses (more specifically, verse 45) as the theme verse of the book. It would make sense, considering it’s so explicit to the point. It is almost like Jesus is talking directly to the Roman reader. If I may paraphrase, it’s like he’s saying, “I know how your Gentile (or Roman) culture works. You think that being high and powerful means you’re the greatest. But that’s not the way to go, especially if you’re Christians. Rather, if you want to be lord and master, be the servant and the slave. If you want to be strong, be weak. If you want to be powerful, be powerless.” Why? Because Jesus did. As verse 45 clearly states, Jesus did not come to rule in authority, but to be a servant and a slave to the people. The reader can see how Jesus was a servant and a slave to the people up to this point, and as (s)he finishes reading, it is still evident Jesus is being a servant and slave.

See, when it comes to the 4 Gospel books of the Bible, with every book, the reader has to ask the question, “How is Jesus being portrayed in this book?” In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as the Messiah. In Luke, Jesus is portrayed as the Perfect [Son of] Man. In John, Jesus is portrayed about as the Son of God. So what about Mark? How is Mark portraying Jesus? In the book of Mark, Jesus is portrayed as the suffering servant. How did we get suffering servant? Mark chapters 1 to 13 show the servant part, as Jesus serves the people in need. Mark chapters 14 and 15 show the suffering part, as Jesus is willing to go through whatever pain it takes to pay the ransom of sin. The follow-up question everyone must ask is, “So what does that mean in light of the audience?” because that will reveal the purpose. So why does Mark need to show Romans that Jesus is a suffering servant? I thought we’d want to Jesus as a strong, powerful, authoritative leader, like they want. Well, the book does do that. Jesus does have that. But Jesus is also setting an example, and the example is that even if we have those powers, they are not to be used for selfish gain. Instead, they are to be used in servanthood towards others. So this leads us to our second passage, the application passage. But before we go on, let me conclude this first passage with an explicit, written out purpose for the book of Mark.

Mark wrote the book of Mark to persuade the Romans that Christians are not to seek after strength, power or authority, but are called to submit as suffering servants, just like Jesus did.

Mark 8:34-38-
34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37 Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

Mark 10:45 might be the theme verse to cover all the book of Mark, but if I had to pick out a key verse for application of this book, it would be Mark 8:34-38. This drives it home to us. But first, let me connect back to Mark 10:45. Jesus never asked us to do anything he didn’t do on earth. While on earth, Jesus was a suffering servant. While on earth, Jesus gave up his life to pay the ransom for our sins. And now in Mark 8:34-38, Jesus directly calls us to do the same. Jesus did deny himself. It was never about himself while Jesus was on earth. It was about His Father first, then the people. Jesus literally took up the cross, giving up his life for us. Now we’re called to do the same. We are called to deny ourselves. To deny ourselves means to deny your dreams, your ambitions, your pride, your self-worth. It means it’s no longer about the self, but rather it’s all about God. Taking up your cross means to be willing to take up whatever suffering Jesus took, whether it be lighter or heavier. It could mean rejection from society, being mocked, being ridiculed. It could even mean real persecution and martyrdom. Finally, following him means giving up everything in your life and giving your life to God. This might seem extreme, but Jesus provides good reason. It’s the true way to save your soul. Trying to save your soul by your own strength, your own power or your own authority will just cause you to lose it. Even trying to save your soul through worldly strength, power and authority will cause you to lose it, too. Jesus calls us to give up all strength, all power and all authority and give it to him. And then we will truly find out being under his strength, power and authority is so much better.

And now if you’re still thinking you’re a Roman, and you’re still thinking like a Roman, you finally understand that Jesus was has power and authority, not in his strength over physical nature, the spiritual realm or over death and disease, but rather because he served His Father God and the people out of love. Jesus did stay true until the end. But wait, it’s not the end, is it? You forgot all about chapter 16! Maybe chapter 16 isn’t as bad as you think. You’re now ready to sit down and read it.

Interesting enough, Mark chapter 16 opens with women wondering who will be strong enough to roll away the heavy stone (there it is again, strength). But when they get there, they find the stone rolled away, and a really shiny man wearing really shiny white clothes. He reports that Jesus is not here, but has risen! They are given orders to tell Peter and the disciples to go to Galilee and meet Jesus there. Verse 8 concludes with the women running away, telling no one, out fear. Now this is where the debate enters. The earliest manuscripts we can find of Mark 16:9-20 do not appear until a couple centuries after Mark has written. Some scholars have questioned this, and have suggested the rest of Mark may have been added a couple centuries after first manuscript by summing up the other 3 Gospels. I can understand their argument, but I would disagree only because of the abrupt ending if Mark 16:8 was the true ending. If it is the true ending, Mark ends with the women running away scared, not mentioning a peep. If the story were to end this way, then the disciples never hear Jesus rose from the dead, and thus no one goes up to Galilee to see the resurrected Jesus. But we know different from the other Gospel accounts. I do believe Mark 16:9-20 is the original ending, despite not finding an older manuscript. It gives full closure to Mark’s story by giving other appearances of the risen Jesus. It is consistant with Mark’s writing as some of the accounts of the alive Jesus are quick, short summaries. But more importantly, we need Mark 16:9-20 to show the Roman reader the really grand conclusion to the book. Jesus tells the disciples to go continue the ministry He started, and if they do, the signs and miracles will accompany them. After that, Jesus raises into heaven, and he is seated at the right hand of the Father, which means Jesus is the one in charge, Jesus truly has authority and power. And sure enough, the disciples do go preach the simple gospel message of Jesus Christ, and they got the power Jesus has.

I hope you did read this whole thing, despite it being long. But this does show you that while some people would not suggest the Bible as a good storyteller, I would sharply disagree. Mark knew how to tell the true story of Jesus Christ in an exciting way that would grip his intended audience. But more importantly, I hope you got the moral of the story that Mark was trying to preach. I hope you too are persuaded to be a suffering servant, just like Jesus was.

A Thanksgiving Devotional

2011-11-24T10:47:00.003-05:00

Wow, I realized I have not posting anything on here for a year. So I wanted to post something before the year ended. So with this being Thanksgiving, let me share a Thanksgiving devotional I wrote for the Conestoga Youth Group a couple years ago. It's a good one to share.

In my senior of high school, for Faith Walk class, my teacher assigned us to write 100 Blessings we were thankful for in our devotionals. One of my classmates said to him, "What?! 100 Blessings?! Are you crazy?!" My teacher replied, "You're right...110 Blessings." My classmate was shocked even more. "You want us to think up and write down 110 blessings?! That's insane!" My teacher responded, "Yeah, I guess you're right...make that 120 blessing." My classmate was about to object a third time, but the rest of his classmates quickly shut him up before it became 130. Truthfully, I was as shocked as everyone else was. I wasn't sure I could write up 120 Blessings I was thankful either. But sure enough, my teacher knew it was possible, and I did record on paper 120 blessings I was thankful for (click anywhere where it says "120 blessings to read it!). Yeah, sometimes it felt like I was nitpicking, but it really got me thinking about specific things (or people) I was thankful for, and why I was so thankful for these blessings. And it's a good thing. After all, the Bible calls for us to be thankful for all our blessings.

While there are many verses that use the term "thanks," "give thanks" or "thanksgiving," if I had to pick a theme verse for Thanksgiving, I would pick Ephesians 5:20- "always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Now, I'm a student of Greek, and to be a student of Greek, you have to be able to notice the grammatical structure of the sentence, like the subject, the direct object, the indirect object, the verb, and the prepositional, and so on. So let's break down this verse in the same way. What is the subject of the verse, or who is perfoming the action? We, as Christians, are. What is the verb, or what are we doing? Giving thanks. What is the direct object, or what are we giving our thanks for? All things. What is the indirect object, or to whom are we giving our thanks for all things? God the Father. What's the adverb, which tells us when are we to give thanks? Always. And what's the prepositional phrase, which says why we are to give thanks? Because of Jesus Christ.

I once heard somebody paraphrase this verse like this: “Every Christian must give thanks to God for everything in every circumstance in all times”? And I think it's a good paraphrase and a good interpretation. A more literal translation of Colossians 3:17 and 1 Thessalonians 5:18 would agree with it. Colossians 3:17 says,"And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." 1 Thessalonians 5:18 tells us, "Give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus." When we think of commandments, we usually think of the Old Testament, like the 10 Commandments. But there are commandments in the New Testament, and giving thanks is one of them. God has truly given us so much, in light of our condition. What condition is that? We're fallen sinners, living lives rebellious towards God. Our lives should be living hells. Yet every now and then, we get bits of heaven. Nobody would ever give things to someone who purposely annoying them or pissing them off. Yet God does, out of his preverant grace. So would it hurt to give thanks every now and then for these little things?

I know sometimes it's easy to give thanks, and sometimes it's hard to give thanks. It's easy to give thanks when we've gone so long without something, and then, all of a sudden, we get it. But sometimes it's hard to be thankful when we see what others have and then see we don't have it. Instead of being thankful, we replace a thankful attitude with a jealous one. We watched "reality shows" of celebrities, and we wish we were wearing the latest fashions like they were, wearing the shinest jewelry like they were, and driving the coolest cars as they were. Shouldn't we be thankful for the clothese on our back and the car that gets us from Point A to Point B safely? I know these kinds of things use to make me jealous instead of thankful, too, but then I read some shocking statistics that changed my attitude. I hope they do the same for you. Just consider the basic necessities you need for life...

FOOD: It is estimated that 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger of malnutrion. 15 million of these 800 million will die from their starvation. If you are well-fed, you are in the top third of the world population. You would be considered "upper class"
WATER: 20% of the world does not have safe drinking water
MONEY: 3 billion people in the world live on $2 a day. 1.3 billion people live on $1 a day, or less.
HOME: 100-200 million people in the world are homeless.
CAR: Only 8% of people in the world have a car. If you have car, you are in the top 8%
COMPUTER: Only 1% of people in the world have a computer. If you have a computer, you are in the top 1% of the world.
PHONE: Only 17% of people in the world have a phone, and only .1% have a cell phone.

This wasn't meant to guilt you. This wasn't meant to call you to live a simpler lifestyle (although if it does, more power to you). This was meant to show you how fortunate you are for owning any of these things and how it calls for being thankful for these things. So you can't eat out weekly or can't expensive seafood. At least you can eat, which 2/3 of the world can't. So you have to drink water out of the tap instead of buying water bottles. At least you can drink that water. So you work at minimum wage. In some places of the world, minimum wage is 25 cents an hour, not $7.25. Now minimum wage doesn't look so bad. So maybe you wish you had a bigger house, with bigger bedrooms or a bigger kitchen. But you're more fortunate than those living in tents or cardboard boxes. Give thanks for that. So your car is over 10 years old or has more than 100,000 miles on it. If it runs, you should be thankful, for many people don't have that option. Be thankful if you are the top 1% of the world that owns a computer, even if it's not a fast computer. Be thankful if you're the top .1% of the world that has a cell phone, even if your cell phone is not an iPhone or any other smart phone.

And this is where it gets personal. I am only working for $9 an hour. And when I pay tithes, taxes, rent, electricity, internet, car insurance, and gas, I only have $35 left for food...for the week. So needless to say I am use to ramen for lunch and mac and cheese for dinner...every day. My car is 10 years old and over 133,333 miles. I sometimes feel like I am the only one who still has a feature [cell] phone because everyone else has a smart [cell] phone. Some people might not complain about this. But when I realize some people can't afford to live on their own, can't afford to have electricity, can't afford a car (whether that be the payment, the insurance or the gas), or can't afford a cell phone, I give thanks to God that I do have these things. And more recently, I have become extremely thankful that my girlfriend and her grandmother have been gracious enough to feed me a more balance dinner with more variety.

And once Thanksgiving is done, we start preparing for Christmas, and things flip-flop. We go from being thankful to wanting. And it leads me to question, "How can we keep this attitude of thankfulness through a time where people want?" I pray that we can find the answer, and once we do, we immediately act upon it.

3/4 the way through...and I think it's ruining me

2010-06-28T03:30:00.000-04:00

Ever since coming home, people have been asking me "Are you done?" and I'm not sure what they mean. So I answer, "I finished my spring semester and my junior year, but I still have one more year to go until I graduate." Last month I did finish my third year at Lancaster Bible College with 102 credits. My GPA is a bit over 3.0, making me an A-B student. According to many, including the Education Department, that would make me fully competent in my degree to teach Bible. Lancaster Bible College's mission statement is simple: To educate Christian men and women to live according to the a Biblical worldview and to serve through professional Christian ministries. Academically, it has done that. But I still can't help that this school is ruinging me.

Lancaster Bible College is a non-denomination school. This means simply they don't side with any denominations. So when they write their statemet of faith, they try to make it generic as possible to able to reach Christians of all denominations, and yet at the same time, when they need to make a doctrinal stance on a lesser belief (spiritual gifts, for example), LBC can choose to take whatever stance the President and Board of Trustees decide to, without worrying about a certain church's opinion. The first part is very true, and I believe some good has come out of it. I've met people from all kinds of denominations at LBC, coming from many backgrounds, such as traditionalist, fundamentalist, and evangelical. I once heard someone say that one denomination shouldn't bash another denomination because each denomination can learn from each other. I think this has some truth to it. So one would think that a combination of denominations into a non-denominational college would be good. In theory it is, but a problem arises. I believe one of the reasons we have denominations is so we can fellowship in peace and unity with believe of the same beliefts. When within a church or school of the same denomination, the person to the left and right of you will mostly have the same beliefs as you, with maybe a few small variations. But in a non-denominational church and school, the basic beliefs are the same, but there will be also great differences and disagreements. This can cause strife.

Trust me, I've felt this strife at LBC. The biggest one is the Calvinism vs. Arminianism (predestination vs. free will, for those of you who don't speak Bible scholar), but can range from anything from women in the church to spiritual gifts. I've even heard some crazy arguments, like if Jesus said if a smell was good or bad, would we have to accept that smell has objectively good or bad, or would it still a subjective opinion. In general terms, there are arguments over what is sin and what is not, and how to deal with it. But these aren't simple conversations between believers. No, these are full out debates, and they can get quite vicious. You can't find it on facebook, but I wrote a blog in November called "Christians under friendly fire". It was inspired by this. The best metaphor to describe the intensity of these Biblical debates would be gunfire. We load up our guns with the doctrine from our preferred denomination or faith statement, then we go fire on those from different denominations with different faith statements, telling them they're wrong. And it's gotten bad, really bad. I've heard Christian college students questioning another fellow Christian's faith just because the other person doesn't exactly believe the same as the attacker. Let me be clear that I believe in absolute truths, I believe Jesus is the Truth, and God's Word is the inerrant truth. But these arguments are over things like the roles of women and spiritual gifts, things which I believe do not affect salvation.

I feel like I've been under this doctrinal gunfire at LBC. Everyone at LBC has their own faith statement and doctrine, and rightfully so, since LBC is training us to have one. The problem is when we use it against other classmates. I've seen LBC students go on and on for hours, arguing and arguing over the right answer to doctrine. What good has come out of this? None. In fact, the common result seems to be the students walk away mad at each other, not talking to each other for a while. Students start questioning each other's faith, and that never goes down well. You'd be insulted too if someone said that the faith you held on to for your strength and truth was really weak and wrong. How did it end up this way?

I think part of it is responsible to our our belief in objective truth gone to an extreme. When there is an objective absolute turth, there is only one right answer. All other answers have to be wrong. And we also hear so much that if one objective truth falls, everything else will fall around it, too. So we are quick to put up our walls and defend to the bitter end our personal beliefs about minor details, even if it's a kamakazie move to our relationships.

And in response, I feel like I am forced to put up my wall in defense as well. I feel like I have to load my faith statement gun and fire it back at anyone who is firing at me. I use to be like that, too. In my underclassman years of high school, I also had my set of beliefs so firm that I had to make sure everyone knew what I believed, that is what right, and that anyone who said differently were wrong. I would go on and on defending it, which would later lead to a counter-attack. When I realized that I losing the few friends I had and that a couple fellow students were just waiting to contest whatever I said, I stopped being that way and instead became quiet. I still held on to my personal beliefs, but I just was silent about them. And while things didn't get better, they stopped getting worse. Now at a Bible College, these doctrinal subjects come up again. This time I'm more socially involved. Therefore, I'm more engaged in these debates. I tried to keep quiet and passive on my personal convictions, listening to the other side for greater understanding. But when my college classmates take advantage of this by telling me I'm wrong, beating me with intellectual put-downs, I can't stay quiet anymore. I feel like I have to speak up. In a way, I feel like I'm force violently defend my beliefs, too. I don't want to do that. I want to have good intellectual discussion with my college friends, understand where the other one comes from, learning from them and strengthening our own beleifs. Instead, I must set up my own personal convictions as a weapon for debate.

And I've noticed something from high school happening here. In high school, I became very vocal about my beliefs, and I ended up alone. In college, I feel like I'm forced to become vocal about my beliefs, and the effect is a feeling of lonliness. Yes, that's right, I feel alone. Despite being in Lancaster County, there isn't a lot of Mennonites that go to LBC. In fact, I would say that Mennonites are a minority there. And the Mennonites that are there are the uber conservative ones (plain dress, head covering, submissive women, etc.) and some of them legalistic. So when they see me, dressing causually, watching TV, playing video games, I'm even criticized by them! With no one who shares my beliefs or remotely close (in terms of specifics and "third degree triage" if you will), I feel alone. You have no idea what relief it is to go to a Mennonite church every Sunday morning, to be able to worship and fellowship with believers that have beliefs so similar to mine. It is theraputic. I look forward to it so much. There, I am not alone. But at the college, I feel alone. Because my views are different, I feel like they don't want to hear from me.

That's another that changed for high school to college. Sure I was alone, and classmates were hardly involved in my life, but what they know about me was as the Bible Guy. When they wanted me, it was either for their team on the Bible review quiz game or just to keep Bible class discussion going. I answered so much, I had to learn to hold back to give others a chance to answer. The few times I got to stand out, I did. Now here at LBC, everyone is that Bible Guy. I'm on an equal playing field with a lot of people. I don't stick out. So I'm just one of many. What do I have now? The football watching, video game playing Mennonite? Yeah, I do that all. It's all true. But it's nothing that stands out as a part of the community I'm in. How can I contribute? Please do not take this as a selfish cry for attention, but rather a search to know where I fit in when it comes to the local Body of Christ within the college community. With little intearction in the college events, it's a question I've been pondering.

I think the other part of it is our Biblical Education gets to our head. Several of the students at LBC com from a Christian family and has grown up in church. They've heard a lot of the Bible stories over and over again, and might even be familiar with a lot of doctrine and theoloy, depending on family background or church background. Point is very few students come in knowing nothing. Somehow it gets in their head that they are equals with the professors and just here to turn the Biblical knowledge they already have into a degree. Maybe it's because the person believes that since they have a Bible and the Holy Spirit, they have all that can fathomed about the Bible and the Spiritual. It is true that the Holy Spirit guides the believer in interpreting the Scriptures, and any and every believer is worth listening to because the Holy Spirit is speaking through that Christian. But that doesn't mean we should throw away the professor's degree. His degree shows that he has spent hours studying the Bible in-depth and produced sound exegesis. Yet I see students quick to stand up against the professor, contesting him as if he knows nothing. Now, truth be told, I see this more in the adult students (30+ years old) than the undergrad students right out high school. This might be because the teacher no longer has authority of being older, but is now a peer with the adult student. But even the young students will join together to criticize the professor's teaching. Now to be fair, I can't be entirely innocent. In fact, the last semester, I was highly frustrated that I couldn't get an A on the exams simply because the exam question would ask for an interpretation, I would give mine, and the professor marked it wrong because it wasn't the same interpretation as his interpretation. Yes, it ticked me off. But did I call him a bad professor? No. I don't agree with some of his interpretations, but I still respect him as a teacher, and I still learn from him, despite not agreeing with everything he says. I believe all students can learn from teachers, even if the teacher and the student don't have the same exact faith statement. But instead the students must defend their faith to a professor that says differently, even though it's the same faith, and they come across as jerks doing it.

And this jerk notion just doesn't appear in the classroom. It appears when they go to church as well. I can't count the number of students I hear come back from church on a Sunday afternoon and heavily criticize the church they come from, especially the pastor. It always "he said this wrong" or "I didn't like where we went with that." Yes, what both the pastor and the student have in common in is both went through a Bible college or seminary with Bible and theology classes. The difference is he completed it, got his degree, and has real lif experience, unlike the student who has just a few semesters and just few Bible classes. Yet the student acts like he knows more or he knows better. If I was a pastor, I would not allow any LBC student to come to my church. The only people who have the right to criticize the pastor, if anyone beside God has the right to criticize, is his regular church members, not some young student who has to go to church on the honor system. Criticism is not constructive to the church body, especially by a Bible college young adult, whose acts like he knows it all and comes across as a jerk.

I believe there are some LBC students (not using names because I am not calling out specific people, but just saying this in general) that need to humble themselves and need to remove the "jerk" from themselves. And I sometimes think the faculty and staff at LBC recognize the student body needs it. The best example I can think of is the atheletic department. On top of their normal athletic responsibilities, like working out and going to practice, players on the athletic teams at LBC have academic responsibilites, which is not only keeping grades good but going to required "study halls", and spiritual responsibilities, like required Bible studies. I once heard a young freshman athlete complain, "This is stupid. All I want to do practice, play and compete. I don't want to have devotions. I don't want to have study groups. Why am I required to do this stupid stuff?" And the whole time I was thinking, "It's to take the jerk out of you, ya jerk." And LBC righfully so does this. Most of these athletes were athletes of the same sport in high school, whether public or private. Since they did play sports, the high school (doesn't matter if public or private) gives them the highest honors and makes them popular. They get special treatment from their popularity, from both teachers and students. So when they come to college, they come to expect the same popularity and the same honor. They get quite the shock when they find out the students at LBC don't care about the sports teams and their members in the same way as public schools. They're not as popular. If they continue to act as if they are, they can come across as jerks to the rest of students in the school. This is my observation, but I think other LBC students have observed it, too. Truthfully, I remember going to Thursday night worship once and hear one of the older athletes complain about his teammates being immature. Furthermore, I think the faculty and staff at LBC notice this, too, and that's why they enforce discipling the athletes in the classroom and the church setting, as much as in their sport. For the most part, I believe it works. Sure, the underclassman athletes are still immay ture, resisting the discipline they have to adjust to, but the upperclassman who have gone through this process and accepted a more reasonable role among the student body are quite mature. I had many good intellectual conversations with them about athletics, academics and the spiritual. So kudos to you, LBC, for recognizing a need in your school and fixing in a Biblical worldview way.

Now, LBC, take it up a notch and apply it to your music program, 'cause Lord knows they need to have the jerk removed from them too. Seriously, they have more jerk in them than the athletes sometimes. In fact, I think they have more jerk than the athletes do because they take on the jerkiness of an athlete. I think part of this is in due to the ministry they are serving: sports ministry vs. music ministry. It's a bit harder to connect sports with the spiritual, considering a sports competition usually doesn't happen during church on a Sunday morning. Someone in a leadership role of sports ministry has to carefully and naturally integrate the Bible into their sport. But the musical worship program, it is very obvious where the ministry fits in, from leading a Sunday morning worship to performing a Christian concert. In short, you could say music ministry is direct, while sports ministry is indirect. Anyway you put it, it's bad. Another part has to be the attention you give them. The attention high schools give athletes is the type of attention LBC gives their music and worship arts students. Let me tell you, it results in the same thing, too. It doesn't help that LBC makes many of the worship arts students their poster child. I think another part has to do the modern-day attitude if worship. The time of contemporary praise songs has become the center of worship. So when the worship leaders realize they are the leaders of what becomes the most important time on Sunday mornings, a lot can get to them, mainly to their head. And from that, I've heard a lot of heresies. I've heard one worship leader say, "Of course you've got to be musically talented to be gifted to lead worship." Oh really? I've already had two theology professors say that spiritual gifts are more than putting human talents to a spiritual application. I can attest to this. Some of the best worship leaders I know do not have any musical education more than hymn singing at church. And if you think you're so great because you've lessons and training from LBC. you got another thing coming. I've heard Mennonite churches, Mennonite colleges, Mennonite high schools, heck, even Mennonite middle schools, sound better than you. And in those Mennonite churches, most of the members are farmers and trade craftsman, with no musical training. And sometimes these worship leaders, who are trained in their music, feel like their call of worship has to be mini-sermons and they try to become mini-pastors. Let me tell you, this isn't always pretty. I've heard one worship leader say in the same chapel "It's not about worship" and "It's all about worship." Anyone see a contradiction? I've seen verses taken out of context. I've seen big productions made out of a simple worship. The funniest one was when the worship leader showed a video of himself talking, while he was on stage tuning up his guitar. I've heard uneccesarily solos. Let's remember what "solo" means- one, alone, self. Self does not go along with something that is to be edifying to community. I once had a conversation about this to someone I know who plays in a worship band. During the course of our conversation, he said to me, "I just play bass. I just want to play bass." I couldn't have said any better. I think he's got it. Our worship should be focused simply what we're doing to worship God, not making a big production. Now to be fair, this isn't something that just happens at LBC; it happens at a lot of churches. But if LBC is preparing students to become worship leaders, as they claim they do, their school and students need to be an example to the broader Christian community.

But enough of that, what seems to be "LBC Bashing." I don't mean to be "LBC bashing" because I really do love the school, from the teachers and students to its academics and purpose. There's been some quality growth at LBC, too. The best example would be community. There high school I was at endlessly preached community, as if it was a fourth part of the trinity (I know that sentence is a paradox, but you get my point). Yet all four years in high school I never felt an ounce of community. I come to LBC where there is no extra emphasis on community, and I feel community before the fall semster is over. Good job, Lancaster Bible. You've fostered and atmosphere that encourages community, and you've done it so well that the students do it own their own, even without the faculty holding their hand through it. But recently past struggles of community and friendships have reoccured again.

Now this is the part where I start talking generically in some parts. I do this first and foremost to not publicly embarrass someone who might be embarrassed. Secondly, I do this because I am not calling anyone out to make them look bad. Thirdly, the emphasis is not on them individually, but the effect it has been on me. On that note, I would also like say that this isn't a call for attention, but a cry to understand what's happening and to get answers to questions.

Previously to me coming to LBC, the college had small groups along side chapel, called Life Groups. By the time I got there, the individualism of American culture had taken hold of the college, and they shifted from groups to 1-on-1 mentoring betweeen a teacher/faculty/staff or a grad student. I got partnered up Louis Fritz, the best partnering LBC has ever done for me (actually, tied with picking my first roommate, but more about that later). Louis would see me on campus once a week, to have a Bible study and play the infant Wii, only one year old at the time. Life Connect was meant to be 1-on-1, but it quickly became a Life Group. The first one was Dennis. Dennis was in my quad my freshman year, and when Louis came to the quad with the Wii, he would join in playing with the Wii. When dennis learned we had Bible study following, he felt bad for just playing Wii, and joined us for the Bible study. Comparing my interaction in Bible study from the 1-on-1 with the group, Louis must've thought best for me to have more social interaction in a group and encouraged a Life Group. So before you knew it, we had a Life Group of me, Dennis, Brady and Micah. My first roommate Eric Burkhart wasn't in it because we mostly met on Friday nights, and Eric was home. But when he was there during the weekdays, he easily fit in with the rest of group. Since Dennis, Eric and I were in the same quad, and Brady constantly visited and stayed overnight, we quickly and easily bonded. Some of my fondest memories are staying up to 3-4 in the morning, despite having at 7:30 or 8:00 a.m. class, eating Ramen noodles, finishing homework that was due the next day and playing video games like Mario Party or Tiger Woods golf. On top of that, I had a cool section and an awesome quad. With those guys, I felt like I could be myself and be liked for who I was. That's as true as friendship could get. In a Valentine's blog freshman year, I wrote the friendship in my suite was so strong that I didn't care I was single. The irony behind that statement is that I did have a girlfriend for a short time during my freshman year, the first one in 15 months. Socially, life was good, and for me, this was as good as it could get.

Then, near the end of my first year, things changed. We had made simple plans. Eric, Dennis, Brady and I were going to be all in the same quad in Peterson Hall, in two rooms, Brady & Dennis, Eric & me. It soudned good and things were going to be the same our sophomore as our freshman. But a few days before, Dennis said to me a few times, "You know Eric isn't coming back." This was news to me. Eric never mentioned anything. Not wanting to me either a receiver of spredaer or rumors (anything not come from Eric's mouth himself) I dismissed it, figuring if that was true, Eric would tell me himself. Until then, I would assume to continue the plan. The night before room assignment, I was telling Eric my plan to get there early with registration stuff, and he said, "Yeah...I'm not coming back LBC next year." Even though I was warned by Dennis, it was still speechless. My roommate was leaving and I had to find a new roommate. With the end of room registration the next day, and everyone else I knew was set for roomate, I figured I would just take in a new freshman. Hey, I still was going to be with Dennis and Brady in a Peterson Hall quad. So I thought, but was fooled again. Brady had a class, so he trusted his registration info to Dennis. When Dennis went to register, Resident Director Garrett asked, "Where do you want to be?" Dennis shrugged and said, "Wherever." Garrett said, "How about South Apartment?" and Dennis said "Sure." Well, Brady and I were slightly ticked. Why did Dennis make this change? We speculated a lot. Did it have to do with Eric leaving, that Dennis didn't care? At first, I thought Brady made the decision because his sister Trisha was moving to the apartments. Did Dennis want to be closer to Trisha for Brady's sake or his own sake? Was it because a girl he liked? We questioned Dennis, and we couldn't get a straight answer. The best answer we got is "Garret just put me there." It sounded like Dennis himself wasn't sure either, but at the same time, maybe he knew, but wouldn't tell us. I was flustered about it, but Louis saw it for the good. He said it would be good because it would force us to stick together despite myself living in Peterson, Dennis & Brady rooming together into South, and Micah now moving into Brubaker. And for the beginning of the sophomore year, it was like that. For every Bible study, I would leave Peterson, go to South to get Brady & Dennis, then we would go to Brubaker for Micah. But shortly later Micah went from moving out of Peterson to moving out of LBC, and there was one less person in our small Life Group. As for Dennis and Brady in South, at first Dennis would complain about, from the lack of Air Conditioning to the overflowing toilet, and wished he was back in Peterson. But as the year went on, he was glad that was there, so much he was trying to convince me to move out of Peterson and into South. And despite being in two different dorms, I would regularly get calls from Dennis that would be "Graham, could you let me into Peterson?" and I would let him in to play to visit and play on the Wii. And on a few occasions after Eric Burkhart left, he would come and visit, and things were like the same again.

One Eric left and another one came. I knew Eric Bowden from Bible Hermeneutics class. Eric knew me for having orange and black shoes (he was hoping I wore those because I was a Bengals fan with Bengals colors). Eric had planned to room with Rob, but when Rob wasn't welcomed back with his 0.5 GPA (which was not a surpise to anyone...except Rob. lol.), Eric was without a roommate, stuck in the jock's quad. With Eric available, I became his roommate. Why did I want to be Eric's roommate? Confession time. I learned Eric lived in Pottstown, about 25 minutes away from my house. I always wanted a roommate close to home so I could home on the weekend for quizzing. Eric went home on the weekends anyway, so it was easy to find a ride home for quizzing, compared to the hectic search I had the last year. But I wasn't going into this stupid. Both Eric and I watched football and owned & played a Wii. As we got to know each other better, I learned Eric loved anime, and he re-sparked my interest in Pokemon, Digimon and Yu-Gi-Oh. So I thought I had chose a good roommate. And with the same Life Group and a very similar dorm section, I thought things would be similar, and Eric would be grafted in easily.

In the beginning of the sophomore year, Life Group was Brady, Dennis, Micah and me, led by Louis. When Micah transferred out, we always joked about Eric being the "Micah replacement." Eric was slow to the idea. When Louis and Eric first met, Louis saw Eric playing a game on his laptop, and Louis asked, "What are you playing?" to which Eric meekly and shyly replied "An RPG" and Louis responded, "Well, I can see that." Brady encouraged Eric more and more to come. The selling point was when Eric learned that he could go use Lou's internet connect to get on World of Warcraft and fill his World of Warcraft obsession, Eric started coming to our Bible studies, now regularly taking place at Lou's apartment. So now it was Brady, Dennis, Eric and myself, led by Louis. It was another small thing, but things were good.

Or were they good? Truthfully, things weren't as good as they looked. One of us was failing. He was using his maximum skips in chapel and class. He was handing in papers partially done, weeks past their due date. He wasn't doing homework. Now granite there was a lot of stress on his part from family issues, especially due to his sister. But he wasn't helping himself either. He was sleeping appropriately, with not enough hours, and not even in his own bed or his own dorm room (in fact, his roommate even said it felt like he had no roommate). He was spending 3-6 hours a day playing a video game. He was more concentrated fun activities with friends than on schoolwork. All these took up the time he needed for class, and everything that came with class, like homework, papres, projects, and studying for exams, which needed to be done. So naturally his grades did suffer. And it didn't help he started getting overly focused on his girl crushes than his classes. He was well aware about his problem. It worried him, and added to the stress. Being the good Life group we were, we did what any small group would do: offer accountability. The rest of the group was in our failing friend's classes, so we knew what was going in his classes. We would make sure he came to class by walking to class with him, make sure he did his homework by doing homework with him, and help him study by forming a study group with him. It was our plan to start off his spring semester this way, the right way, to get his grades back up. Easier said than done. See, this is where I learned that giving accountability and receiving accountability were two different things. We would tell him, "Go to class." He would never show up. We would ask, "Did you do your homework?" He said he did, but he wasn't. He was just there for the video games and the fun activities, and the occasional Bible study, but even the Bible studies were less and less. That was for a reason. Apparently he found our accountability to be just annoying and pestering. Instead of spending time with friends who cared about him, he started hanging out with new friends. Don't get me wrong, they're not bad people. But with them unaware of how their new friend was doing in school, this guy could have fun in school without worrying about school, when he really needed to worry. He also spent more time with girl crushes than us, too, and gave himself an unneccessary love triangle or love square or some kind of love polygon. He didn't need more stress, but he added on to it himself. And these new friends and girl crushes took more time out of his life. I remember I was in a class with him, which he was miserably failing. It showed he was miserably failing because the class paper he was suppose to write I saw, and all it contained was paragraphs from commentaries cutted and pasted onto a Word Document. Anyways, it was evening class, which means it's 3 hours long. Between 1/6 and 1/3 the way through, he gets a text message. He sprints out of the room, leaving his books and binder behind. I look at the guy next me, and we're thinking, "Must have been some kind of emergency." Well, his books are still here, so he's got to come back. At the end of the three hours, his books were still there because he did not come back. I took his books back to my room to hold on them. About 5-6 hours after he left, he came to my room for his stuff. He told me, "Some girl invited me to build a fort, so I went." Yeah, I almost lost it. He needed to be in that class, and he gave it up for a fort. So naturally he got in trouble with student services. And the more he pushed off meeting with them, the more he got in trouble. So the guys in our small group confronted him, trying to help him so we could see him again the next semester. How did respond? He angrily yelled at us, "Well, maybe if you weren't bugging and pestering so much, I could get some work done!" Yeah, of course, I almost lost it again. Well, I did lose it, just privately. Bugging?? Pestering?! We give him accountability to help stay with us, and he instead blames us! Whatever work he did do during that semester would have never got done unless we did "bug" and "pester" him. In a last minute attempt, we told his other friend. They responded, "He's really failing classes? We didn't know" which just goes to show how much they were in the dark, and how much he kept them in the dark. Now even they were trying to pitch in and help. But it was too late. He had traded his academics for his social life, and it would cost him both.

This wasn't my only encounter with accountability issues. There was another guy in our group struggling with issues. Now his issues were more various than the last guy. He did have struggles with school work being hard. He would always get things done, but would sometimes cheap out on them by just doing them, even if they were in poor quality. At a few times it became so overwhelming that he even felt like giving up. He also had sin struggles, from anger to pornography to addictions (of the non-drug sort). Now at some points he recognized his problems. He would talk them out with me individually and with us as group and he would ask for accountability. Doing the right community thing, I offered it, despite what was happening with the other accountability situation. Now looking at it, I feel like I should have learned my lesson from the last accountability issue. It became a cycle. He would ask for accountabilty, he would give it, he would start strong, then it would degress as time went by, we would remind him out of accountability but not action would follow, he would degress as low as he could go, and then he would realize he hit bottom and ask for accountability help again. Repeat cycle. Now I can get the first time asking for accountability help, and then even maybe a second time after slipping and letting accountability get away. But when it comes a third and fourth time after, I couldn't. I was saying "Yeah, yeah, whatever" because I knew he was going to slip into the same cycle again. He was just saying it, even to just do the right things. He was doing a lot of things just because it was the "right thing to do" like pray, read the Bible and go to chapel, even though I'm not sure he was applying it the right way. But at other times he wasn't even doing those things. When I give accountability, I usually start at that simple level of reading the Bible, praying, and worshipping. But if no one, him specifically, would do that, my accountability and advice are just mere words, and I am talking into the air, to a wall. And it can be frustarting to see nothing you say should be done being done. It feels like they're not listening to you, and that can be frustrating in itself. By the end, he had fallen into a deep funk, the lowest of the low. It was so low he didn't want the accountability. He just wanted to slump in his depression. So I let him, and didn't care. He brought it on himself.

The third guy had nothing to do with accountability, but an issue arose with him, too. He had a habit of being somewhere between blasphemous and heretical. Now everyone in our group has done this, and we've all joked around with it, but we know the point to end it and go back to serious. But he seemed to keep being heretical, whether to be funny or to be just stupid. And some of us would get annoyed by this when we're trying to have a serious discussion at a serious Bible study. It seemed liked after our fearless leader brought this up, he shyed away and started coming less and less. First they were valid excuses, like needing to do homework or study for a test. But sometimes I would get back from Bible study early and find him playing pool or table tennis with other friends, not doing homework as he claimed. Once again, these new friends are not bad guys. In fact, I think they are good guys because they're getting him to do things we could never get him to do, like go to chapel. But it felt like he was lying to us. But as time past, he was more honest, but I'm not sure it was better. One time, in the middle of our Bible study, he got a text message, got up and said, "I'm going back. Someone has clam chowder, and I want clam chowder." Yes, he left our small group for clam chowder. I half wished he would go back to lying to us because even if it was a lie, it was a better reason, while clam chowder, jogging and a Sheetz run were just excuses to leave. Since he was there from the beginning, it was kind of hard to see him leave.

So it came to pass that after my sophomore year, Brady left the group. In the summer of 2009, Brady decided to think over who he was, what he was doing at LBC, and where he was going, so he took a semester off. It made sense. No reason to be spending money for a college if you don't know where you're going with a degree there and if it will help. So naturally Brady, was gone for the fall semester junior year, but after making one appearnce in the spring semester, he was never seen again in our small group. Brady was replaced by Dylan, an incoming freshman Eric knew from a previous encounter. Once again, there was a little joking about Dylan being the "Brady replacement", but not as much because there was a somber feeling because we lost one a second time, and possibly worse, he was still there half the time. Besides, while it was great to acquire Dylan, it really wasn't a full replacement because Dylan was not similar to Brady as Micah was to Eric. So we had still had 4, but the pattern was to continue. During my junior year fall semester, Dennis came less and less, and by the end of the fall semester, Dennis no longer came to group. And then there was 3. Eric, with no PC at Lou's apartment for World of Warcraft had less of a reason to come to Bible study and had other people he rather see and other things he rather do than be with us, so he started coming less and less, and by announcing he was no longer being a resident student, he left the group. And then there was 2 in Lou's small group, and I was the only original. Brought a whole new definition to "small group."

So why do I go through this long story? Do I want to get revenge on them by bashing them? No, I said I wouldn't, I said I wasn't, and I'm not. You have to hear what I've been through to get where I'm going and how I'm feeling. I told you in the beginning of this half I came out of high school and into college, believing that there was no such thing as "community," and every "community" had a negative view to me. I said within the first semester my views of community were healed because I finally felt community. I believed community existed because I was personally experiencing it that freshman year. But from that point on, I watched it slowly dissolve. I even made up a saying to describe this, which is a cross between Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" and ApologetiX's parody of Bohemian Rhapsody "Bethlehemian Rhapsody". And it goes something like this: "People come, people go, people get disposed." It simply states this: people come into your life, and either literally go, as in getting up and leaving, or they "get disposed" which means they are still present, but they are so inactive your life they might as well be gone. And that's what I showed you in the last paragraphs. At LBC fellow college classmates came into my life. Some of them got up and left, due to transferring out. Others are still there in my college, but I see them and talk to them so little they might as well be gone out of my life. It would almost be better if they did got up and leave because you could say it was on better terms.

And looking back at all this, especially from the beginning, can you see the irony? Louis decided to make his and my Life Connect into a Life Group because he saw I needed a small group to boost my social interaction and Christian fellowship for spiritual growth. And what happens? Instead we have people rejecting accountability, people lying, people not sticking around, people leaving, people losing contact. We saw replacements and we saw decreasing numbers. And at the end of this junior year, I couldn't help but turn to Louis and said, "You made this to show me Christian fellowship and community. I saw community is flawed and cannot be trusted to be around in the long term. Thank you for proving me right." While I might have sounded like I was being "smart" I think this is hard for the both of us. We're the only two originals. If Louis is seen as the leader, I'm the one and only original. And from freshman to junior year, we've had 6 different guys in the group, and including Louis would make 7. It has had Louis and I look at each other and ask, "Are we doing something wrong? Is it our sometimes heretical jokes? Is it our uncoventional views? Is it our video game tangents? Is it our separation from the rest of the college? Is it Louis that's causing the problem? Or is it Graham causing the problem? Are we doing something wrong?"

More irony comes with how last year ended. For reasons needing to be addressed, Louis transferred out of Lancaster Bible College's Graduate School to Liberty University's Online Graduate progam, then he moves from the Manheim Township suburb near LBC campus to downtown Lancaster city. These were two big changes, especially including him, but not limited to him, including us. He was no longer part of the larger college community. He was no longer within walking distance. We need someone with a car to drive anyone there, and some way to afford the gas to go visit him, some way to pay for the parking meter. If you're missing one, there's no trip. While its distane is literal, maybe it is symbolic for a distance with the undergrad students. When he was closer, I could visit him 2-3 times a week. Now it's down to one. This summer I am going have budget more gas money to make sure I can make at least a once a week trip. And with these little distancing things adding up, plus Louis sometimes talking constantly about how bad his sickness gets in the summer, sometimes I wonder how long he'll stick around before he leaves me, whether it be leaving because he doesn't like my theology, he doesn't like my choice of video games, or even as extreme as him dying early on me. After all, people come, people go, people get disposed.

It wasn't just the small group. It was the roommate. Yes, Eric was both small group and roommate and small group member, but here were different aspects of each separately, and sometimes those aspects collided together. Yes it was true both Eric and I liked football. But I was an Eagles fan and Eric was a Bengals. It wasn't so much the team that was the issue, but our approach to our teams. While I am an Eagles fan, I am equally critical of all NFL teams, giving all of them positive and negative criticism, including the Eagles. Eric sees his Bengals as God's chosen team, and their quarterback Carson Palmer was the messiah. I tried reaching out to him by talking about Bengals news (and still do), and as long as it was positive, it was all good. But if I dare give a negative criticism, I was committing a blasphemy. Sometimes he got so defensive, I thought he was going to stone me (the bad way, with rocks). Yes, it is true that both Eric and I like video games and play Wii. But our approach to video games, we differ. I am causual in my playing of video games. I do it for relaxation. I seriously just play for the fun of it, whether it be by myself or in fellowshiping with other friends. Eric plays very competitively. Eric plays to win. And if Eric doesn't win, his anger can get the best of him. If he's losing, he blames it on something out of his control, like the controls or the other players. There's a lot of yelling involved while playing with Eric. It got so bad I stopped playing video games with him unless it was co-op. Yes, both Eric and I have a socialphobia of some sorts, some fear of groups of people. But I will not allow my socialphobia to stop me from doing what I truly want to do. Eric's will. For example, a full cafeteria will not stop me from eating if I'm hungry. I just take a booth and strae at the wall. But with Eric, it will stop him, and he would starve instead of dealing with those people. Yes, both Eric and I are Christians seeking God. But our theology was different and that caused strife. I could handle metaphors and liked talking about symbolism and interpretations behind them. Eric couldn't handle metaphors because he needed everything to be literal. For example, I once said about the apartments, "they have a very open-door policy there" (and you should pick up that "open-door policy" means they welcome anyone to come in at any time). Eric replied, "No, you can close the doors there." Obviously he missed it, and that was a small, unimportant one. You can imagine the nightmare when our small group was studying Revelation. We all saw the message of Revelation as God giving hope to a persectued church. All Eric could see was God simply spilling information about the end times. We both did have different opinions on doctrine and different theology. I am usually intellectually open to discussing them by examining all sides, understand each side, and learning for all of them. Eric has his opinions emotionally attached to him. If I dare suggest another side, even if it just for the sake of discussion and I don't believe in it, Eric would be quick to trash it down. If I dared to suggest possible criticism of what he thinks or believes, it was like I was treating him as a non-christian, which I wasn't. It goesall the way back up top to the first half of this blog. LBC students turn doctrine into a full out war. There were also other little factors. Eric made me feel guilty every time I asked a favor from him, even it was so simple. Yet Eric asked me to do many simple favors for him, even stupid things as walking to an office with him (when he did, I was would sarcastically ask, "Do you want me to hold your hand?"). There was also the issue that Eric was taking things from my side, from borrowing me GameCube controller without permission to drinking my water, and I lost trust in him. That led into an argument on how each one should deal with our possessions, which in turn led to more fighting. All in all, I think I can sum it all up in saying this: I became all things to Eric in the places he was the "weaker brother" so I could reach, but he never did that for me. All this has left doubts in my head about him. I use to think he would make a great counselor, with all people he is friends with. But after seeing how he sometimes can't handle groups of people and how sometimes he lets the anger get the best of him, I'm not sure he can do it. I'm not sure I would let my kid see him. Sometimes I wonder if it's sublimination. Is Eric wanting to be a counselor so he can figure his own psychological problems?

But it wasn't just the roommate. It was everyone in the quad, and even everyone in the whole section. In my freshman year, I had a whole section that got along, love having fun, and built community. I was in the same section my sophomore year, with a few graduates leaving and a few new incoming freshmen. Still, I for the most part got along with everyone. The only one who irked me was Aaron Thomas because he just enjoyed making fun of me too much. When I tried to bring the same fun, joyful late night gaming I did my freshman year to Aaron and Eric my sophomore year, they took it and turned it into a fierce competition. When I was winning, they would complain about my win. When I was losing, they would make fun of me and put me down. The late night video gaming was no longer fun, and I stopped playing with them altogether. On top of that, since Aaron didn't have the same serious view on school as I did, he would constantly bug me when I was working on homework, whether it just talking or asking me to do something with him. Now I'll cut Aaron a break. He realized that LBC was not for him, and he was just trying to have fun his one semester. And he wasn't the worse.

No, the worse was my junior. Once again, this was not chosen by me or student services. Actually, this was moreso picked by Eric because he was trying to work in as many friends as possible. I just said it had to be in Peterson, and he was fine with that. It was tough for me to live in that quad. I had another Mennonite in my quad. You think this would be good to have someone of the same denomination in your quad, but as I said much earlier above, he was a hardcore conserative legalistic Mennonite, with plain dress, orthodox beliefs, and a submissive girlfriend. I was under constant constant scruntiny from him, anywhere from the video games I play to the music I listen to. He would put down anyone, including me, his Mennonite brother, for not believing exactly as he does. Now I can handle it, but his roommate, who this year was working on making his parents' beliefs his own got the worse of it. It was good when the two of them would talk about different beliefs on different doctrine because the legalistic pastoral student knew them all. But it was bad because if his roommate dare suggested a different view, it was quickly shot down as wrong, and the roommate was put down for even thinking such a thing. And all around, I felt like this legalism on the campus was a bad witness of mennonites to other Christian denominations, especially when he was hypocritcal (he would yell at other students for not following school rules, but would break others himself, and would defend himself as being in the right). I heard constantly my own roommate Eric mockingly say to him, "Is that how a Mennonite acts?" I know he was talking about our next dorm neighbor, but it still was tagged on to me too. And while I only heard it verbally from Eric, it wouldn't surprise me if others were thinking it, too. And sometimes I wonder if everyone thinks that I think and act the same way. That would be sad. Even sadder, I feel like I have shun him and not associate with him in order to perserve my witness. But this uber-conserative Mennonite isn't my only problem. I had a D.A. who always complained my music was too loud, especially my Guitar Hero. First, I have it nowhere near as loud as at home. Second, I have heard him play so loud I can hear it my room through the wall...after curfew! In my whole section altogether, they spend hours playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl in a loud, obnoxious fashion. I know this might sound selfish, but it makes it so hard for homework or sleep. I dare not say any complain towards it, though, because they will get upset as when they do when my legalistic neighbor does. And also remember playing the wii is a huge stress reliever for me. But it seems whever I got the small window of chance to play wii, they are playing their 50th round of Brawl. Plus when they would get to together to try to have serious discussions too, they also became loud yelling arguments to defend who was right. Once again, the LBC atmosphere causes that. Between the doctrinal arguments and the Super Smash Brawl arguments, I would just have to shut my door and play my music very loud to ignore them, so I would get upset. That's not the brotherhood, the "manctuary" that I knew from my freshman year.

Look what it's done to me. It's totally changed me, and not for the good. First of all, this was the first year that I did not want to be on campus or in my dorm. Second, I found myself visiting Louis more often 2-3 times a week, for hours upon hours, just to get away from my dorm. Third, when winter break came this junior year, this was the time I could not wait to go home. Was it homesickness? Not at all. I just needed to get out of that quad and away from those guys at least a month. To prove it, there was that one Friday where it was just me, and I liked it so much. Fourth, I felt lonely and single, needing a girlfriend. Why is this so critical? In my freshman year Valentine's blog, I wrote that the friendship from my dorm section was stronger than the desire for a girlfriend, so I didn't need one. When I didn't have philos, that brotherly love from my quad, I sought eros, the love from a girlfriend. Seeing all the couples around campus, I felt lonely and was aware of how alone I was. No girlfriend, no friends. I returned to sitting by myself for lunch (when I say "returned to" I meant from high school). More proof to it, when I left college, the desire to date was gone again because I'm not surrounded by couples. But on campus, when I see couples, I not only see boyfriend and girlfriend, I see two best friends, and I want a girlfriend who will be my best friend, too. But even that's in complication, which brings up the fifth thing it's done to me. Fifth, I feel like I have become incapatible with living with someone else. If I can't get along with a roommate of the same gender, how can I get along living with a roommate of the opposite gender. If I can't live with everyone in my quad, how can I live with a family? It didn't help my roommate kept referring to the end of being roommates as a divorce. Now I'm afraid that even if I do get married. she'll end up divorcing me within two years because she's sick of living with me. But even in the nearer context, I'm afraid that my new roommate wil get sick of me living halfway through the year again. I tried picking my own roommate again, and this time I picked Dylan. Now when LBC picked me a roommate, I ended up with Eric Burkhart, and that worked out great. When I picked my roommate, I got Eric Bowden, and that ended terribly. Choosing myself again, I'm afraid it will end tragic again. But Dylan has positive outlooks, and assures me that he thinks it could well.

So as I'm getting near the end of my blog, let me get to the end of my junior year. It was not a pretty one. Dennis rarely talks to me, but when we do talk, we have hearty conversation about football, and the few conversations we do have I appreciate, even though it's nothing like it use to be. Brady fell back into the same slump that got him in trouble in the first place and repeated mistakes from his freshman year. Eric and I jokingly would say he "sold his soul to the devil" as metaphorical joke. I meant that he gave up good brotherly accountability for a girl, while Eric said that in reference to girl exactly. I proverbally washed my hands from anything Brady did, declaring myself not guilty of or responsible for his actions. Between getting rejected by a crush and getting in a fight with his dad, Eric fell into a deep slump. When friends offered to help, he went into a "leave me alone and don't talk to me, I'm depressed" phase and cut everyone off. Anyone who tried to help, he dragged down into his depression, making things worse. He tried to drown his sorrows in a video game, neglecting food, sleep, class, chapel, and social interaction, making things even more worse. When I saw how he was acting, I wasn't going to baby him like everyone else. Once again, I proverbally washed my hands and did not offer my accountability, he was on his own. He responded likewise. I hardly saw him and talked less to him. As far as I was concerned, he was no longer my roommate, Dylan was. As I said, Dylan replaced Eric as my roomate. Eric was also replaced at small group by Greg. Greg is less emotional than Eric and more intellectual like me, which I like. I can see us having good intellectual conversation in the near future. Yet I can't help notice only 3 people there, along with Louis. It isn't what it use to be. Yet we'll keep rolling with the punches. I think the pinnacle of the last day of my third year came with an event on Wednesday evening. Eric had taken his last final and went straight home to play World of Warcraft on his monstrosity of a computer. I was working on my computer, preparing my internship the next day, when I heard the quad door open. Outside my open dorm door, I saw Dennis and Brady. They asked me, "Is Eric still here, or did he leave?" I answered, "He left already." They reply, "Oh ok" and leave. That's it. No "how are you doing, Graham?", no "how were you finals, Graham?", no "what are you doing this summer, Graham?" or not even a "Have a good summer, see you next year." All I got was an "oh ok." Now people would constantly come to my room looking for Eric all year. I got use to it; I didn't like it, but I got use to it. But these guys, who have known me since fall semester my junior year, couldn't even properly hold a short conversation to say goodbye. This was almost as bad as when Brady "cowered in fear" at the sight of Louis after not seeing him a long time. That alone might have led me to write all this.

So now finally concluding, while I am getting equipped so much at Lancaster Bible College, I feel like it's also ruining me. I use to be accepting of all denominations, and now I'm critical of them. I use to enjoy worship time, but now I'm loathing them. I use to thing community was a fantasy, but it was given to me to show it exists, and then it was taken away from me. LBC has forced me to put my faith on defense, and even sometimes counter-attack people. I don't want it to be this way. At LBC, I fee like I'm being criticized from everyone on all sides. I don't know where I fit in this LBC community, and I want to know I belong here. I don't mean to point the finger at anyone, but to simply point the finger back at me. This is not selfish call for attention, but a cry to know I belong in part of the Body of Christ. If someone can endure to read all this, please pray for me and tell me whatever you hear.

More details on the 2010 ACC Tournament

2010-04-20T10:35:00.005-04:00

Let me take a step back. I told you about the Invitational, but didn't tell you about the ACC Tournament. If you went to the Conestoga Twitter page a week earlier, you would have seen that I was giving it a test run with the ACC Tournament resutls. So if you read that, you already know what happened. If not, enjoy this description of the matches.

First, I believe owing God thanks and praise that he made all things work out for this Saturday. The previous Wednesday evening my grandmother passed away, and I wasn't sure if I would make it back from Connecticut for the tournament. But I believe God recognized my needed leadership in the ministry I was serving, so He made it so that the viewing was Friday and the funeral was Saturday. I spent all Friday morning driving up to Connecticut from home and all Saturday evening driving from Connecticut back to LBC so I could be with my team in a big tournament. Thank you God for being faithful to the calling you gave me.

The team met together for the Sunday School hour for quiz practice, and joined together in worship for the church service. After church all the quizzers met together around the ping pong table for lunch. Sharon, Amanda's mom, brought meatballs for meatball subs, along with sides and deserts. We all ate in good time and left in good time, even though we were pulling it close. We got to Lancaster Mennonite School exactly 2 minutes before 1 p.m., when the tournament started. Luckily for us, our first match wasn't until 1:20 anyway. So we waited out for our match to come, reviewing some questions, some lists and some footnotes.

Conestoga was in Group E with 5 other teams. Therefore, we quizzed 5 matches in the afternoon's round robin with other teams in our group. The first team we were up against was Zion 2. In the season, we had faced Zion 2 and had a close loss. Zion 2 started off the match quickly, while Conestoga had a slow start. Zion 2 kept strong through the whole match, Conestoga struggled. Zion 2 had 3 quiz outs, while Justin was the onl one able to quiz out. Conestoga lost 65 to 105. We were 0-1 in Group H. The quiz team didn't feel too good about losing their first match. They needed to get outside into the beautiful weather and bask in the sun. In the meantime, I looked at the early standings.

At 2:00 Conestoga had their second match vs. Bowmansville 1. This match I started Amanda over Kristy. The match did start slow with Bowmansville 1 getting an error, and Denise not getting the bonus. But then things turned around. Amanda, who has been somewhat dormant buzzed in on question 2 and got it right! This was followed by Denise who got a buzz-in correct. Now Bowmansville responded with scoring 30 points, but that was followed by 2 errors, allowing Denise to quiz out on our side and open a seat for Kristy. Joy and Kristy joined in and got a buzz-in correct, getting us team bonus! Conestoga was the winner, 95 to 65. We were now 1-1.

With an hour until our next match, everyone enjoyed a longer break. Most of the Conestoga quizzers had a make-shift game of softball, using Meredith's long wooden name tag as the "bat." I watched a quiz match between Hope of the Nations and E-Town 1, and went back and forth between the standings to see how they were unfolding. For the most part, they unfolded to our benefit and we had much potential to entering the playoffs.

3:00 came around and so did our match against RiverCorner. The music room was fairly empty with no large crowd watching us. The first 2 questions Joy and Densie buzzed-in correctly, giving Conestoga a strong 20 point lead. Questions 4 and 5 slowed down the match. On question 3, Denises errored and Megan Lehman from RiverCorner couldn't pick up the bonus. Question 4 went by without anyone buzzing in. It was ok; it was areally long question with a really long answer. Megan may have rebounded by getting the next buzz-in correct, but then Conestoga took control of the next 4 questions. Amanda kept going on fire with question 6 a correct buzz-in. Densise got her second question right on question 7. Justin buzzed in answered correctly on question 8, getting us team bonus. Denise kept going with right answers and quizzed out on question 9, giving Conestoga a 75 point lead. RiverCorner answered 4 questions correctly, but it wasn't enough. Joy got the last question and finalized the match. Conestoga was the winner against RiverCorner, 95 to 55.

Since we had back-to-back matches, we had to run from the music room to the Rutt Building for our match against Living Rock 2. Still on fire from our last match, we were ready to go. Amanda was the most on fire because she was the one who opened the match with a correct buzz in. Just must've not wanted to be the last one for team bonus again because he got the second question a buzz in correct. After taking a 20 point lead, we then errored twice, which Living Rock picked up easily. Then Living Rock 2 got a buzz in correct, answering 3 correctly in a row. But Joy buzzed in correctly on question 6 and Kristy on question 8, giving team bonus. It got scary when Living Rock 2 got 3 buzz-ins correctly and was one away from team bonus. But they never got it. Isntead, Kristy quizzed out on question 15, winning Conestoga the match 95 to 75. Conestoga was now 3-1 in Group H.

Conestoga's final match in the round robin was against Goods 2. We had quizzed against Goods 2 in the season and won greatly. We hoped to repeat. For the last round robin match, I went back to starting Kristy over Amanda. Conestoga got the first 4 questions right. Denise started off question 1 with a right bonus, then got a right buzz-in on question 2. Joy interruptted Denise's streak by getting her own buzz-in correct. Denise got her quiz out on question 4, putting Amanda in. There was no team bonus this team, but Kristy got her second consecutive quiz out, also on question 15. Conestoga once again was the winner, with a score of 90 to 45. After losing the opening match, Conestoga went on a 4-match winning streak to finish 4-1 in the group. Since Zion 2 had gone undefeated in our group, Conestoga's 4-1 record put the team 2nd place in Group H. We were going to the playoffs.

Sharon once again was kind enough to bring pizza for the quiz team, and so we all enjoyed a pizza picnic outside in the nice weather. Then the quiz team went to get ice cream, but I went back to the standings to get more information on what was happening. In Group H, Zion 2 finished 1st, Conestoga finished 2nd and Bowmansville 1 in 3rd. All were going to the playoffs. Our opponent in the playoffs would be Strasburg 4, the third place team in Group B, with a 3-2 record. We had closed the season quizzing against Starsburg 4, and we won. We hope to win again. Some other things to notice: the combined Petra team records was 23-2. 3 Petra teams went 5-0 and 2 Petra teams went 4-1. 3 of 5 Petra teams were the champions of their group. Also, 7 of the 8 group champions were 5-0.

I had a quick coach's meeting to go for bus assignments. Conestoga didn't get the bus seating we would have wanted, but Fred made sure we would on the way back. The meeting got over in enough time for the quizzing movie. After the quizzing movie was the Top 50 Bible Quizzers List. We (at least I) cheered loudly and wildly for our quizzer on the Top 50 Quizzers List: Denise. Denise finished in 35th with 575 points. Then afterward the playoffs were ready to begin.

So came our playoff match against Starsburg 4. Same quizzers, same line-up. Denise opened the quizmatch with a correct buzz, and Joanna from Starsburg 4 responded on question 2 with a correct buzz-in. Conestoga took a heavy lead into the quiz match. 4/5 the way through the match, we were winning 80 to 30, thanks to Denise and Joy quizzing out. Things sounded set. But the 30 points Strasburg 4 got was 3 buzz-ins by 3 different quizzes. On question 13, Joanna from Strasburg 4 got another question correctly, putting her one away from a quiz out. So with 2 questions left, Strasburg 4 was one question away from a quiz out and one question away from a team bonus. On question 14, Strasburg 4 got that 4th quizzer to buzz in correctly for the team bonus. The score was now Conestoga - 80, Strasburg 4 - 70. I was sitting on the bench thinking, "Anybody but Joanna, anybody but Joanna..." because if no one got it right, Conestoga won, if anyone of the conestoga quizzers got it right, Conestoga won, if any Strasburg 4 quizzer but Joanna got it right, it would be a tie and there would be overtime, but if Joanna got it right, Strasburg 4 would win due the 5 extra points for the quiz out. The worse case scenario happened. Joanna buzzed in, answered correctly, quizzed out and won the match for her team. Strasburg 4 was the victorius team, 85 to 80. Strasburg 4 would go on, but Conestoga was knocked out of the playoffs in the first round. Our day was done.

With Conestoga done, the quizzers went home, but I stayed to see the rest. In the second round, Strasburg 4 would lose their next match against Petra 1. I watched Petra 2 beat Petra 5. In the quarterfinal round, there was a re-match of the semifinal season match between Petra 2 and Slate Hill 1. The match started out close, but Petra 2 took a good lead and the win this time. In the semifinals, Petra 2 won against Gehman and Petra 1 won over Weaverland 2. The final match was Petra 2 vs. Petra 1. This also started out close, but Petra 1 would be the victorious team, winning 85 to 50. So the 2010 ACC Tournament ended with Petra 1 in 1st place and Petra 2 in 2nd place. Congratulations Petra 1 for winning the championship.

More details on the 2010 Invitational in Kidron, Ohio

2010-03-30T10:26:00.014-04:00

I want to thank everyone who supported the quiz team from a distance by checking our Twitter feed as we went through the tournament. Yet I could only put so much on the Twitter feed because I was only allowed 140 characters (letters+spaces) per post. So let me take you through our weekend in more detail.

FRIDAY:
I came into the Dutch Wonderland with the busses around 7:45 a.m. Justin came on his own at 7:50 with donuts for the team. Sharon brought the rest of the team at 8 a.m. At that time, the busses opened and we loaded all are things in the busses, and took our seats between the middle and the back. We were with Media, Parkesburg, Timberline and Living Rock on Bus 5 (or as they call it, Boat 5. lol). Around 8:45, Becky Yoder showed up. Becky was our "team mom" for the tournamet, and she brought lots of snacks, which we were all grateful for. The busses left at 9 a.m. For those of you who know about Pennsylvania's trips out to Ohio, that is extremely early, and we were happy for that.

The bus ride was pretty smooth with no traffic. We stopped around noon for lunch and around 4 p.m. for dinner. Each stop was for an hour. In Pennsylvania, we stopped at Somerset, as we do every year. Now eastern Ohio is not as fond of ACC Quizzing as Somerset, PA is. They didn't want us getting out all at one place. So each bus went to separate restaurants. Bus 5 went to a McDonald's. Some were upset about that because they were uninformed they only had one choice in Ohio and went to the McDonald's in Pennsylvania. They didn't want 2 McDonald's trips in a row. Those people sneaked over to the local gas station, such as the Conestoga quizzers. The Conestoga quizzers got pizza, soda, and snack foods. Amanda got a meat stick, which she loved, but could not eat because she could not eat meat on Friday (even though she had chicken for lunch). I held down the fort until they came back. The busses also did have 10-minute stand up break at a rest stop once we entered Ohio. The bus ride was fun and very load, with people screaming they were on a boat. There were a few games of mafia, but I was too far back, so I didn't want to play. I did play a few rounds of scum, though. A lot of time I was on my Nintendo DS, playing Pokemon. Through that, I found out that Laura from Parkesburg also was into Pokemon and we had 2 pokemon battles. She won 1 and I won 1.

The busses pulled into Central Christian School in Kidron, Wayne County, Ohio at 6:30 p.m., which is also early compared to past years. I got out of the bus as coached and waited 10 minutes for our host family. The daughter in our host family met us. She pulled her car around to the busses so we can unload. We had to wait for someone else to come because her car could only fit 3-4 people beside herself. Once a second person could drive us, we completely loaded in both cars and drove to the house. Her house was 15 minutes away. We were surprised to see snow on the ground, but they told us that a couple days earlier Ohio got 1-3 inches of snow, depending on where you were. The house, although not big in area, had 3 bedrooms (not including the master bedroom the host family was in) and 2 1/2 bathrooms. But it wasn't all for us. We found out we were staying with another team. It was not another ACC team, but a West Liberty team. It was Covenant Fellowship 1. The team normally has 3 boys and 2 girls, but since one of the girls came up with family who was staying a hotel, that girl did not come, and the team only had 1 girl staying at the guest home. That one girl, Abigail, was tickled pink to find out her team, who was mostly boys, was with a team that was mostly girls. And I think it was good for Justin to have other guys with him. The teams got together to do rounds of questions for practice for an hour. Then they had the rest of the night to socialize and hang out. Some played the Wii our host had. Some played pool on the pool table. A lot of them ate and spent time with the family pet: an African gray parrot. Amanda was trying to teach it words like "Mountain Dew", "stick your finger in the cage" (because the host told us not to put fingers in because the bird would go after them) and her favorite: "meat stick." Everyone went to bed at a decent time, and I went to bed after watching March Madness. Needless to say I didn't get a lot of sleep out of excitement for the upcoming tournament.

SATURDAY:
Everyone woke up to our host making egg breakfast sandwiches. We all ate well and left by 8 a.m. so we could get to Central Christian school for the 8:30 announcements. We arrived in enough time, found our seats, and waited for the morning ceremonies to begin. When it did, the Wayne County cordinator made explained the building layout, and made sure everyone had the right schedule and bracket. After prayer, teams filed out of the performing arts center off to their matches. Since Conestoga didn't have a placement match until the 3rd round, we spent the first round watching our friends from Hope of the Nations quiz. To our surprise, they were quizzing against the Covenant Fellowship team we were staying with. In the beginning of the match, Hope of the Nations kept it close, but in the end, Covenant Fellowship took over and won the match. Still, it was an impressive job because we found out Covenant Fellowship 1 was the top team from the West Liberty conference, and Hope of the Nations is quite the opposite in our conference. In the second round, we just went to the classroom we were going to quiz in and hold out until it was our time.

Our first match was during the third round. It was a placement match, and it didn't matter if we won or loss, we were going into the double elimination bracket. The advantage of winning gave us more time until our next match. The match was against Sonirse 2, a NorthWest Ohio quiz team. The team's final record in the season was 6-9-2, but they had 2 of the Top 25 Quizzers in NorthWest Ohio. Since there was a couple minutes before the official start of the match, they asked a practice question, "Where are we?" Joy buzzed in and got it right by answering "Central Christian in Kidron, Ohio." When the real match actually started, Denise started the match by quizzing out on question 3 with all buzz-ins. It got scary when Sonrise 2 took the middle of match to catch up and then some. After 12 questions, Sonrise 2 was winning 55 to 45. Sonrise 2's top quizzer Jessica quizzed out, and their 2nd strongests quizzer Jacob was one away from quizzing out himself. On question 13, Jacob buzzed in, but errored, giving Joy a bonus. Joy got the bonus right, tying the score at 55. On question 14, Joy buzzed in and got it right, putting us up 65 to 55. Now with one question left, both Joy from Conestoga and Jacob from Sonrise 2 were one away from quizzing out. Jacob could take the match, and Joy could secure the match. On question 15, Jacob buzzed in, I held my breath. It seemed like it was going to be a repeat of our last match. Jacob gave an answser...and it was incorrect. Joy got the bonus question. She couldn't give a right answer either, but it didn't matter. Conestoga won the match, 65 to 55.

We didn't have to quiz again until 10:40. It was match no. 71 vs. Calvary. They were the 2nd strongest team in West Liberty. I knew Calvary from before because they hosted Spring City when the Invitational was in West Liberty. It took a while for them to recognize me, but I could only remember one quizzer because I didn't see Lauren there. And in 3 years, Lindy grew up quickly! I knew the strength that Calvary could be and warned my quizzers about it. But they handled it pretty well. Conestoga owned the first 6 questions. Densie took the first, Joy got question 3, question 4 went to Justin. Joy got questions 5 and 6 right to be the first one to quiz out. Questions 7 to 9 weren't too pretty. Calvary errored 3 times in a row, and Conestoga couldn't get any of those bonsues. It was worse for Calvary because that was their fifth error without points, and their scores were in the negative. But they were able to work it back up. After Denise quizzed out on question 10, Calvary took the last 5 questions. All of them were buzz-ins. They couldn't get team bonus because the buzz-ins were only among 3 quizzers, but Kate from Calvary did quiz out. Calvary had no more errors from there. Conestoga won 80-50. Conestoga was staying in the winner's bracket.

Conestoga's next match was at 11:20 vs. Strasburg 4. This was an ACC team we were too familiar with. We had created a history with them this year. The first time we quizzed against each other was for the final match of both of our seasons. In that match, Conestoga beat Strasburg 75-30. The second time was Conestoga's last match in the ACC Tournament. Both teams were quizzing against each other in the playoffs. In that match, Strasbug 4 won because the question 15 quiz out gave them the 5 points to win. So the Conestoga vs. Strasburg 4 series was tied 1-1 and this match would break the series tiebreaker and keep the team in the winner's bracket. Denise started off Conestoga with a nice lead with 2 right bonuses, but then she would error twice, giving 2 nice bonuses for Strasburg 4. It allowed Strasburg 4 to lead 30 to 20. Things seemed to turn around with Amanda, Joy and Justin consectively buzzing in and answering correctly for team bonus, jumping us ahead 40 points. But Joanna from Strasburg 4 quizzed out a brought it close again with a score Conestoga- 70, Starsburg 4- 55. Justin got another buzz in right, but then Deanna for Strasburg 4 quizzed out, making it closer with a 70 to 80 score. On question 14, Denise, attempting to quiz out, errored out. Furthermore, that was our 4th error. So just like the ACC Tournament match, after 14 questions, Conestoga was only up by 10 points. But this time Strasburg 4 couldn't get team bonus or a quiz out for a win. The worse case senerio would be Conestoga errors, 5 lose points, Strasburg 4 gets the bonus right, and wins the match. On question 15, Krista from Starsburg 4 buzzed in answered correctly for 10 points. It seemed like the series was meant to stay tied as our 3rd matchup was tied after regular questions! The teams and staff looked around as if their eyes were asking, "Now what?" Fred jokingly said, "Now we a flip a coin" :P But in all seriousness, we were going into an overtime with 3 extra questions. While the staff figured out new questions, the teams took a technical timeout. Since Denise was errored out, I gave her the option of staying up there or coming out, and she chose to sit up with her team and support them right there. I reminded the team of the 4 errors, but I also pointed that quiz outs would greatly help too. Conestoga owned the overtime questions, being the only ones to score. Conestoga won 105-80. As we shook hands with the other team, the Strasburg 4 coach said to me, "Let us never meet like this again."

The team was relieved to win and ready for lunch. Lunch was chicken, beans, cole slaw, applesauce and a roll. The applesauce was nowhere near as good as Becky's :). We found it funny the gave butter for our rolls but no knives. We improved with forks and spoons. Since seats were limited, by the time we got there, seats were all taken up. So Conestoga picniced on the floor with Hope of the Nations and Grace & Truth. Before the next match, I went to the brackets to fill out and find out our opponent. Instead of filling out a giant bracket, they did it on PowerPoint slides. It was a nice idea, but it went too fast and became very frustrating to write down.

Now in the sweet 16 of the winners bracket, the teams were getting harder. Our next match at 1 p.m. against Orrville, the championship team from hometown Wayne County. 3 of the Orrville quizzers were in the top 10 Wayne County quizzers. Orrville owned the whole match. Their top quizzer getting 2 errors was the worst that happened. Their top 2 quizzers quizzed out and got team bonus. The only points we got was 1 of the 2 bonuses. Else than that, we errored 4 times. When they scored 110 points after question 12, I called a timeout to honestly alert the team we lost it. Denise, tired and frustrated, asked to be taken out, and I fulfilled her wish. So Meredith came now. Now Meredith, having been in very little this year, was not about to let down just because we had lost. On question 13, the quizmaster asked, "Paul gave the brothers what, not solid..." and Meredith buzzed in. She answered, "Paul gave the brothers not solid food, but milk" and got it right! This was Meredith's first buzz in of the year, correct answer of the year, and points of the year. Of course I was crazy excited! Must have confused the other team to wonder why I was so excited despite losing so much. On question 14, we errored for 5th time, losing 5 points, but Joy got last question, giving us a few more. Conestoga lost against Orrville 25 to 130. This put us in the losers bracket. Surprisingly, it gave us a 2 hour break until our next match.

Two hours later we had a match in the losers bracket against Bowmansville 2. Conestoga had quizzed against Bowmansville 2 in the season and won 95-30. Bowmansville 2 fought through 2 E-Town teams to get to this point and weren't backing down now...or were they? Bowmansville 2 did start off the first question answering the buzz-in correctly, but they didn't get anymore points until question 9. In fact, all they got was 3 errors. Denise got back into the game and quizzed out on question 6. From questions 7 to 10 Tim Horst errored twice, causing him to error out, but Meredith continued her streak answered both bonuses correctly, giving her 30 points for the day and the year. Dan from Bowmansville quizzed out, but they couldn't bring the score closer. Conestoga won against Bowmansville 2, 95 to 55.

We had a one match break until until our next match. It was match 211 of the day in the 19th set. Our opponents were Petra 4. The irony behind this was Petra 4 we last quizzed during the opening week, which we tied (and since it was season, there are no tiebreakers). So coach Andrew Jensen (who was a quizzer when I was a quizzer) and I joked that we were going to take this match in a tie all the way up to sudden death question. But this match indeed would determine the tiebreaker. Just like our first meet together, both Amber and Nic on Petra 4's side quizzed out, as well as Denise from our side. The only difference was the season match we had Kristy quiz out for us, and this Invitational match, no second person could make that quiz out. That's what made the difference. So Petra 4 beat Conestoga, 80 to 55. We advanced one spot too far to enter one of the smaller single-elimination brackets, so our tournament was done.

Since we still had 50 minutes until dinner, the quizzers went off enjoy the rest of the trip on their own. Some watched quiz matches and others went to the gym. I spent most of the time trying to update our bracket, competing with the quickly moving slides. At 4:30 p.m. we had a dinner of pizza. This time we found a table. After dinner we all moved to the Performing Arts Center for the final matches of the day.

Before we got to the serious matches, it opened with a fun match among 5 teams. It was the top quizzers from each conference and a staff team, consisting of a staff member from each conference, elected by the quizzers on the all-star team. The quizzers on the all-star teams were as followed (sorry, I didn't know the staff):

NORTHWEST OHIO: Whitney Stamm - Sand Ridge; Hannah; Eliot Nofziger - Lockport 1; Seth Nofziger - Lockport 1.
WEST LIBERTY: Lindy Stapleton - Calvary; Katie King - Calvary; Christopher - Crossway; Gabriel Campbell - Covenant Fellowship 1
ACC: Megan Lehman - RiverCorner; Joel Cristophel - Zion 2; Nic Hurst - Petra 4; Caleb Putney - Timberline 1.
WAYNE COUNTY: Kelli Flemming - Orrville; Olivia Ressler - Sonnenberg; Nathaniel Steiner - Living Water; Michelle Raber - Longenecker.

Now it's interesting on the different approach to this match according to the conferences. It seemed like the Ohio conferences saw this as an all-star match, in which they needed to win to prove they were the greatest conference. The Wayne County fans even brought signs to cheer on their all-star team. But on the Pennsylvania side of things, our quizzers saw it more as a fun match. They were having the time of their lives up there. My favorite is when Megan Lehman buzzed in on "What did the Corinthians..." and Megan started off with saying, "Well, the Corinthians did a lot of things, and also didn't do a lot of things, some things they should have done and some things they shouldn't have done..." While Northwest Ohio had 2 quizzers quiz out (Whitney and Seth), and West Liberty had 2 quizzers quiz out (Katie and Christopher), and even Wayne County had a quizout (Kelli), the ACC team had 5 errors and lost points. Point proven. On the last question, with ACC bound to finish in last place with 5 points, even to the staff who had 10 points, Megan buzzed in early, guesssed, and got it right, giving the ACC 15 points. First place team was NorthWest Ohio with 60 points, second place was West Liberty with 50 points, 3rd place was Wayne County with 35 points, 4th place was the ACC team with 15 points (and 5 errors, lol), and 5th place was the staff with 10 points, which was a buzz-in I believe.

Now with the fun match out of the way, it was time to get serious again with the tournament. There was 3 consecutive matches in the Performing Arts Center to wrap up the night. The first match was the final match in the winners' half of the bracket. The winner would go into the final match without a loss, thus giving them a second chance if they lose in the final match. It was between Sand Ridge, NorthWest Ohio's champion team, vs. Orrville, Wayne County's champion team. Now Orrville had never lost to this point, and it was a total turn around for them. When their top quizzer Kelli errored out, you know they were doomed. Whitney quizzed out, and was replaced by Galen Short. Now my team hadn't watch a Sand Ridge match yet. We were surprised when Galen took the seat because...well, let's say his last name describes his stature. We were saying among ourselves, "there is no way he's in 7th grade." But there he was, and he even gotten a question right. Of course, Sand Ridge won. Their next match would be the final match Sunday morning.

The rest of the matches were on the Losers bracket. Next was Petra 2 vs. Slate Hill 1, two ACC teams. These 2 teams quizzed each other in the season semifinal and the ACC Tournament quarterfinal. Slate Hill 1 was the winner in the season match, and went on to win the season championship. Petra 2 was the winner in the ACC Tournament match-up, and they would go to be the runner-up in the final match of the ACC Tournament. The Slate Hill 1 vs. Petra 2 series was tied 1-1, and this was the tiebreaker. The loser would finish 4th place in the Ohio Tournament, and the winner would live for another match. The two teams made it epic as always, but Slate Hill 1 would win the match, win the series, and would go on in the tournament. But I congratulate Petra 2 for finishing in a strong 4th place.

The last match of the night was between Slate Hill 1, the ACC champion team, vs. Orrville, the Wayne County champion team. While Orrville had a one match break, Slate Hill 1 had to quiz consecutively. Orrville totally turned around from their last match. Kelli went from an error out to a quiz out. But Orrville's effort would not be enough. Slate Hill 1 would be the winner, moving on to the final match against Sand Ridge. Orrville's lost had their finishing 3rd.

So that match ended all the matches for the night. When I rounded up all the quizzers, our hosts drove us back the house. She once again had a wide range of food out there for us. As we ate, we talked about the tournament, mainly discussing how we we thought some quizzers on a certain team were too old or too young. Nevertheless, we were pleased with our tournament results. For the rest of the night, some played wii, some played pool, some read, some just sat around and talked, which includes talking to the parrot. The hostess's daughter showed us clips on YouTube of the smartest African gray parrots. Needless to say, we all went to bed at a decent time and I finished the night by watching March Madness before going to bed.

SUNDAY:
Everyone got up in good time to the smell of our hostess making breakfast for us. She even made waffels at the special request of some of the Conestoga quizzers. Amanda took at last shot at teaching the parrot "meat stick" and "stick your finger in the cage" but to no avail. However, the Covenant Fellowship quizzers thought it was so funny that they left the house saying "meat stick" over and over. So while Amanda was able to get the parrot to repeat the words "meat stick" there are now a bunch of Ohio quizzers saying "meat stick." lol. Before we left the house one last time, the team gave our host family a gift from Bauman's back home. We left the house at 8:30 a.m., heading towards Central Christian.

We got to Central Christian a little before 9 a.m., enough time to take our bags to the bus. We had now moved from bus 5 to bus 3 with Hope of the Nations, Grace & Truth, Bowmansville and E-Town. The team entered the gym, found seats in the bleachers, and the ceremonies started shortly. Not a minute was wasted as we started with the final match between Sand Ridge vs. Slate Hill 1, the champion teams from NorthWest Ohio and ACC respectively. Things didn't seem good from the the start. Slate Hill 1 errored early in the match, and I thought they were going start losing points. They got the 4 errors, but no more than that. Sand Ridge picked up on every one and then some. On the last question, "What can flesh..." Sand Ridge buzzed in, completed the sentence "flesh and blood not inherit the kingdom of God" and took the question and the match. Sand Ridge won, 110 to 50. So the final tournament results were this...

Double Elimination Bracket
1st place: Sand Ridge (#1 NorthWest Ohio)
2nd place: Slate Hill 1 (#1 ACC)
3rd place: Orrville (#1 Wayne County)

Single Elimination Brackets
Resurrection of the Dead: Maple Grove 3 (ACC)
Final Warnings: Chestnut Ridge (Wayne County)
Believers Freedom: Weaverland 2 (ACC)
God of All Comfort: Strasburg 1 (ACC)

Our worship leader and speaker was Matt Wilkinson. He did a good job leading us in worship with only his voice and guitar, and he also gave a good testimony. To wrap up the tournament weekend, Fred got up to speak. That could only mean one thing: the Invitational would be coming to Lancaster next year. Sure enough, it is. But what's next year's quizzing material. It was going to be the rest of Genesis. The previous year we started with Genesis 1-30, the next year would be Genesis 31-50. It was ironic because Denise, when frustrated, would ask, "Can we go back to Genesis?" So Densie got her wish after declaring her retirement. Once the final anouncements were given, the Pennsylvania teams exited in a giant mob to the busses, with some stopping the bathrooms quickly. We left Kidron at 11:45 a.m.

This ride back was more muggier than the sunny trip up, so we were confined to either the busses or restaurant the whole ride. On a brief rainless stop, Bus 3 played ninja before getting on the bus. Knowing our friends better, we had a lot more fun, active ride. We played a few mafia games. For some everyone wanted to kill me off the first round, so I never made it past the first round most of the time. So one time, I said, "Can I be the narrarator? It's the only way I will survive past the first round." I was, but still the mafia tried to kill me off. Near the end, we played a game that wherever Mikey's laserpointer you slapped it...which was most of the time on people. For our stops, in Ohio we went to Wendy's, which was a relief to Conestoga who had to go to McDonald's twice last trip. At Somerset we got whatever choice we wanted. We made good time with only one traffic slow down. We got back to Lancaster, PA by 8:30 p.m.

In the end, we were all tired out, but we had fun this whole trip and were satisfied with how far we got in the tournament. This was a great bunch of quizzers I got to work with. I enjoyed every minute of it. I couldn't have chosen a better group.

Conestoga's 4 last season matches

2010-03-18T21:26:00.002-04:00

My apologies for not keeping the updates with the Conestoga quiz team. I had Spring break this week, and thus last week the professors at my college tried to jam as much work in beforehand as possible. I'm not going to go into every detail on what happening in the two Sundays, but I will inform you on the details for each match. Then I will go into details on how the season ended in the ACC as a whole.

On Sunday, March 7, Conestoga had 3 matches, and its first 2 matches were in the first 2 rounds of the quizmeet. This Sunday the quizzers had the brilliant idea of wearing wigs. I went down to the match while the quizzers put on their new pieces. It was quite the sight to see Justin with longer brown hair, Joy with punky black hair, Kristy gone to a short blonde hair, Meredith with Rageddy Ann red hair, Amanda with her bright blue hair looking like an anime character, and Denise with all those colors like a clown! Of course all the cameras came flying out. When the commotion settled down, Joy, Denise, Kristy and Justin sat down as the team's starters against Living Rock 1. Now Living Rock 1 at the time was only ranked 20th in our league, with an average of 45 points per match. Not a problem, right? Wrong. Conestoga errored 5 times, losing 5 points. Surprisingly, Living Rock 1 only got 1 of those bonuses right. What really separated us from them is when Living Rock 1 got team bonus and a quiz out. Nevertheless, Joy got 2 buzz ins correct and Kristy got a bonus. But still we lost to Living Rock 1, 20 to 110.

We had to quickly get our next match, and I had to quickly encourage the team to forget about last match and keep going into the next match. Our next match was against Hinkletown 3, who was ranked slightly higher than Living Rock 1, but after our Living Rock match, I wasn't so sure. But the team was about to give me good reason to reaffirm my faith in them. The team decided that the wigs didn't help, so they ditched the hair pieces. It might have worked. Denise, frustrated by getting only 2 errors the previous match, buzzed in the first 3 questions, got them all right, and quizzed out by question 3. It was only question 4 and our first substitute was already in. The team bonded together to get team bonus on question 9. Justin would be our second quiz out on question 11, and Joy would be the third quiz out on question 13. Conestoga won, 135 to 10. That was on 2nd best match this year. In fact, our 2 greatest matches were both against Hinkletown teams.

Then we had to wait 3 rounds until our last match of the night against E-Town 1. E-Town 1 was ranked higher than we were, and after that Living Rock match, it gave us fear entering this match. I was even more terrified when I watched E-Town 1 quiz agains Living Rock 1 and saw them win with a score of 160 points - 4 quiz outs and team bonus (and they only have 4 quizzers!). We didn't get much of a word in. Conestoga was only able to buzz in 3 times, and only one of them were right. All the rest was E-Town buzzing in. They did give Conestoga 4 bonuses, but even with the full question, our quizzers struggled. E-Town 1 got team bonus, and 3 of their 4 quizzers quizzed out. We lost, 10 to 135. It was sad to see us go from our second best match of the season to our worst match of the season. (In fact, if you notice, we lost to the same score we won with the previous match.

After that March 7 evening, we scored 165 points, increasing our total to 1495 points in the 20 matches so far, averaging 75 points per match. It put us 11th place in League B. Now Strasburg 4 was ahead of us by 145 points with only 1 match left, just like us. Underneath us was Bowmansville 2. Their average was 4 less than ours. Statistically, we were locked into 11th place. While possible, it would have taken a lot for Bowmansville 2 to pass us, and even though Strasburg 4 was our next opponent, we could only pass them with a blow out. I pointed this out to the quizzers, so I suggested to consider this last match as practice for the tournament, yet they should still give thier best.

When the Sunday came, Conestoga had their one match against Strasburg 4. Kristy was not there because she went to meet her first nephew enter the world, so Amanda got to start, and Meredith was the first sub. This would be good practice for the Ohio Tournament. Denise quizzed out by question 6. Justin and Joy would each get a buzz-in right, but we couldn't get the 4th correct buzz in for team bonus. Amanda did get 2 bonuses correct. In the end, Conestoga won 75 to 30. But once again, it would not effect standings. But it meant we maintained average.

Conestoga finished its season at exactly a .500 percentage: 10-10-1. Conestoga scored a total of 1570 points, averaging 75 points per match. This average placed us 11th place in our league. Our top quizzer was Denise. She had 575 points this season. Our 2nd best quizzer was Joy. She had 350 points this season. That is how Conestoga finished their season. Now here is how ACC Quizzing finished the season.

While the staff is trying to find out the final team standing to figure out who makes it to the playoffs and in which order, there is a fun match. This year there was going to be a 5-way match. Who was going to be in it? The top quizzer from every church. When I heard this, do you know what I was thinking? "Where was this when I was a quizzer? I would have made the all-star fun match 4 times." The match would be 18 questions longThere were to be no time-outs, limited contests, and only 2 bonuses. Quiz outs were 2 questions right and error outs were 2 questions wrong. There were only 2 subs, they the first team(s) to get quiz outs would get them. These are the teams

TEAM 1: Abbie - Maple Grove (1); Ethan - E-Town (2); Stephanie - Hope Community; Jon - Hinkletown (2)
TEAM 2: Megan - Rivercorner; Michael - Slate Hill (1), Austin - Strasburg (1); Caleb - Timberline (2)
TEAM 3: Chelsea - Parkseburg (1); Joel - Zion (2); Nic - Petra (4); Charleton - Media; Jake - Grace&Truth [sub]
TEAM 4: Jesse - Bowmansville (3); Julie - Forest Hills; Kim - Goods (1); Matthew - Weaverland (2); Nate - Hope of the Nations [sub]
TEAM 5: David - Living Rock (2); Denise - Conestoga; Maranda - Gehman; Carissa - Ridgeview (1)

In the match, Jesse from Bowmansville was the first to quiz out, and Nate from Hope of the Nations took his seat for Team 4. The second quiz out went to Charleton from Media, and Jake from Grace&Truth became the sub for Team 3. There were many quiz outs during the match, including our very own Denise, who quizzed out on 2 bonuses. If I counted correctly, there were 8. The final score was Team 1- 45; Team 2- 50; Team 3- 25; Team 4- 50; Team 5- 50. There was a 3-way tie. Now it was time for the serious playoff matches for the season win. The semifinal matchs were going to be Petra 1 vs. Petra 4 and Petra 2 vs. Slate Hill 1.

I watched Petra 2 vs. Slate Hill 1. Boy, that was quite the match to watch. After 14 questions, Slate Hill 1 was winning 80 to 50, and seemed to have the match. But then the one quizzer on Petra 2 who could get them team bonus buzzed in on "about whose" and answered it correctly for team bonus! The score ended tied, with each team having 80 points and 4 errors The match was going into extra questions. But then Slate Hill 1 dominated overtime. Slate Hill 1 got team bonus, while Petra 2 errored and lost points. Slate Hill 1 was victor after 18 questions, with the score 130 to 75. I didn't see the other match, but I heard Petra 1 beat Petra 4 105 to 65.

So the final match of the season was Slate Hill 1 vs Petra 1. This was the same final match that occurred in 2007. I remember it being a huge upset with Slate Hill 1 winning. Would it happen again? Well, Slate Hill had deja-vu with the last match because once again, the scored was tied at question 15 because of team bonus. But this time, it was Slate Hill 1 who got the late team bonus. After question 15, the score was 95 all. Now the difference was this time, the over time was close too. After question 17, the score was tied at 110. On question 18, Slate Hill 1 buzzed in and answered correctly. Congrationals to Slate Hill 1 for another season championship.

A painful visit caused suffering

2010-03-01T13:10:00.002-05:00

This Sunday Conestoga went to Forest Hills for quizzing. I remember Forest Hills from going there a few times for church my freshman year of college. But that is not what made the visit painful. The material was painfully hard. Even the quizzers were crying out to go back to the previous week's material. We had 3 matches. Our first two matches were Slate Hill 2 and Timberline 2. Both teams were just 2 spots ahead of us, with only an average of 1 to 3 points higher. I usually encourage the quizzers to just score as many points as possible, but this week I encouraged them to win because if we win, that (obviously) means we've scored more points than the opposing team, giving us the oppurtunity to move up in the standings.

Quiz practice was at Bob and Cindy's. We opened in prayer and then announcements. We read through the material, and because we didn't have Bible study, I had a short devotional about what it meant to be ambassadors of Christ. Then we went into practice. Denise quizzed out all except one, which she errored out. Justin had a few quiz outs, and even Joy had one. But everyone had their fair share of errors, and even error outs, too. We even had 3 questions which totally went by with no one knowing the answer. In between we had a break by watching the gold medal hockey match between the United States and Canada. Cindy made a wonderful salsa speghetti pie dinner, and we were off to our matches at Forest Hills.

We had the opening match of the night. The bad news was it was in the sanctuary. The good news was it was in the sanctuary. The good news was that it wasn't against the home team. It was against Slate Hill 2. We started off with a strong start. Kristy surprised us all (and maybe even herself) with a correct buzz-in. The second question she would get the bonus correct. When she got another bonus on question 4, I thought she was going to quiz out, but she totally forgot the answer. Denise got the next one right though, putting us up 30-10 a third the way in the match. That was our best point in the match. Slate Hill 2 would score 3 question in row, then error (we couldn't get the bonus), the answer another two questions consecutively right. Slate Hill 2 would get 2 quiz outs, and Denise would close the match by quizzing out. We lost, 55-90.

After a match between, Conestoga was up against Timberline 2. Timberline 2 had just come off a hot win, getting team bonus at the last minute. We wanted that strong start like in our last match, but we got the opposiste. Denise errored on the first questions, and Jessie from Timberline 2 got both bonuses correct, starting Timberline 2 winning, 20-0. I had to call a time out. I wanted Denise to promise me she wouldn't error out and kill the seat, but she said she could promise nothing. That match wasn't any better for her because she would also miss two bonuses and not score at all. Joy redeemed the Beam side by quizzing out on question 10. But that quiz out seemed to be viritually nothing. Timberline got questions 4 to 7 consectively right, which resulted in two quiz outs. They wouldn't get anymore points until the last question, but it didn't help us. Conestoga faced another loss, 55 to 80, giving us a 4-match losing streak.

Then we waited until the last match, which was ours. Denise turned around from last match and started off by answering the first two questions correctly, both buzz-ins. She would buzz-in on question 4 and get it right, quizzing out. The match got exciting as we started scoring points. Both Justin and Joy got a buzz in correct and a bonus correct After question 14, either Justin or Joy could quiz out or Kristy or Amanda could buzz in and get us team. Unfortunately none of those happened. Fortunately, Conestoga won 85-30, breaking a 4-game losing streak.

Surprisingly our average went down only a bit. It went from 81 to 78. And with the 12th place much lower, with an average of 70, unless they had an excellent night, we should stay the same. Please pray for me as a coach. I sometimes come to loss on how to encourage my team. With the 2 losses and only 3 team bonuses all year, I feel like I have to re-evaluate my coaching. Whatever I'm doing must be not be working correctly.

February holiday reflection

2010-02-28T01:07:00.000-05:00

I was going through some of my early notes on Facebok, and it helped me realize two things. First, it made me realize how much I use to like blogging reflections, where I can just talk about what's on my mind. In the past years, due more homework and more friends than high school, I haven't been able to blog as much I can. This past summer I set up a vlog, or video log, to try to achieve the same reflective process without the time-consuming writing. But it seems like the medium doesn't matter. Either way, both take time, and I've had problems to find the time. So now that I have found a little time, let's talk. The second realization I came to while reading my old Facebook notes was what month we're in: February. A few of my earliest notes were about Valentine's Day and dating. Ok, I know this is a big "duh" but Valentine's Day happens every February. Thus, February becomes a hard month for me because it seems that no matter what my relationship status has been in the 6 months before, I always end up single by that day. So a month that has a holiday that glorifies couples is hard on the single man. I praise God that quizzing in during February because quizzing takes mind off of the holiday less and put it on quizzing more. But still, February is always the hardest month, and leads to a lot of reflection on the subject of relationships. So between reading my old blog, and thinking about how I feel now, there's a lot on my mind.

When I last time had a serious sit-down reflection time, I only had two ex-girlfriends, one from a 1-month relationship and another from a 10-day relationship. As weird as this sounds, that was when things were simple (and I use this term loosely). Why do I say things were "simple" back then? Because from that point on, things got complicated quickly. After my second ex-girlfriend dumped me, I then went a couple dates with another girl, but we stopped things before we got into a relationship, realizing both of us were still attached to our ex-es. Shortly after, my second ex-girlfriend and I tried to get back together, only to fail trying to pick things back up from where we left off, leading to us ending it permenantly (she would find a new boyfriend in a week). After that, I found myself taking interesting and flirting with two non-Christian girls over the summer, with both of them overlapping for a short time. With each one we tried to work things out, and I even went on a date with one of them, but when summer ended, so did any relationships with them (more about that later). Because four times with 4 girls (including the 2nd ex trying to get us back together) turned out a disaster, it gave me bitterness in my heart for women. All hope seemed lost until I started talking to a facebook friend I hadn't talked to in a while. We started talking more often, starting texting, and she really helped get rid of those bitter feelings about girls. We hit it off, and soon after the fall semester, we started dating. This 3rd girlfriend would last longer the second one, but not as long as the first. I considered the relationship ended when the year ended because that was the last time we really saw and talked to each other. It dragged out another 2-3 months, with me trying to win her back and her pushing away. It wasn't until late February or early March that everything ended. She said the break-up was "kinda mutual" but I feel like she wanted to dump me, but didn't have the guts to do it, so she pushed me away until I forced to do it myself, possibly so she could pose as the victim who was dumped. But that's not the issue. The issue is that 2-3 months in limbo with a "complicated relationship" (whatever that means, facebook) ended up giving me more bitterness towards women, added to 2 other ex-girlfriends and 3 girls who were something between "friend" and "possible girlfriend" (maybe that's what facebook means with "complicated relationship"). This scarred me enough to not have any interest in women at all for a couple months (aesexual, not homosexual). And then in August, something happened to me that has not happened since April 2006: I was rejected when I asked a girl out. And relationship-wise, I feel like innocence is lost, in terms of optomistic hope.

Why do I mention this to you? Why go through a somewhat embarrassing history of the relationships I've been through? Because all the questions that go through my mind have been caused by these past relationship. The first question is more an attack on Calvinism, or pre-destination in general. If you Calvinists, or anyone who believes in predestination say God has planned everything in our life, and if you believe every good thing is from God, and that God does not create evil, then has God planned, designed and predestined me to be in failed relationships? Does God predestine breakups? Does God want me to go out with girls, well-knowing it won't last and will end in a painful breakup? See, I can't say that because I don't believe it. Partially because I believe a girl and I have chosen each other when we date, but more because I believe God cannot be the cause of any evil, which includes the depression that comes with the break-ups. But I also believe that God can, and does, take an evil, and make good come out of it. God does not want me to be in failed relationships, but when he allows me to do so, he has made sure I've learned a lesson to prevent further hurt in the future. Let me tell you.

The first lesson is that the faith is not worth giving up for girls. This will give me time to explain the sumer of the non-Christian girls. After a disaster of my second girlfriend (who was Christian) dumping me, a failed attempt to start a relationship with a Christians girl, and then my second girlfriend trying to restart our relationship, only to leave again, not only made me upset about girls, but upset about Christian girls. To me, it seemed these Christian girls were not acting Christian in the areas of flirting, dating and breakups. And it got me wondering, "Why is it a big deal to make sure I'm dating another believer if she's just going to act like a non-believer? Might as well date a non-believer. At least I can say she doesn't know better." Another lure was the fact that these non-Christian girls liked things that most typical Christian girls don't like (not saying they are sinful activities; just something not sinful that it seems like Christian girls aren't interested in). The one girl liked football. The other girl liked video games. It's hard enough find a girl who likes football or video games; it's even harder finding a CHRISTIAN girl who likes video games or football. The fact that they had something in common with me that was hard to find among the Christians is what enticed me. I knew what the Bible said about uneven yoking, but I went hoping that I would convert them to Christians through dating them, also known as evangedating. But by being a witness, I got two different reactions. The one girl was indifferent. When I told her about my faith, she said she had no experience with the church or the faith, but she said, and I quote, "I'll try for you." That quote is what stuck with me, resonated with me, and led me to ending things. If she attempted to be a Christian, it was for the wrong reason - me. Her faith would never be genuine. I ended things, and prayed a true Christian would truly win her over to the faith. The second girl was much different. She wasn't just non-Christian, she was an atheist. She didn't believe in God. So it started out with (and these are all paraphrases of long conversations) "well, you can have your beliefs, and I have mine", which went to midway"you can be religious in work and at church, but not when you're around me" which went to "it's either God or me". Praise be to God this is when he smacked me across the head by pointing out that obvious warning sign. We ended it. Through both reactions, I learned that summer that my faith could not be separated from my dating. In the long run, dating a non-Christian will never work out; it would cause conflict later on. Also, being a man whose head is always in the Bible, I realized how much I missed being able to have conservations about the Bible, theology and doctrine. I could never have that with a non-Christian. Besides, in the future, it would cause raised eyebrows by future employers and church pastors/elders, and could hurt finding a job or a ministry if they know I am married to a non-Christian.

Side note on that. When I look back on my "dating history" I am reluctant to show the embarrassing failed relationships. I do wonder how they make me look. It's not out of a selfish concern over my self-image; it's a concern over my witness of Christ. As a Christian, Jesus calls be to bear His image. When people see me, they should see Jesus. Do I represent Jesus well 3 ex-girlfriends and 3 complicated relationships, with the longest serious relationship lasting no more than a month? The time factor makes it worse. If someone were to know that I had 2 ex-girlfriends and 3 complicated relationships within 14 months, what does that make me look like? Does it make me look like I'm girl crazy? Does it make me look like a pimp or man-whore? With my closest friends I have explained what happened so this image doesn't come across because it's simply not true. Before graduating high school, I only had one girlfriend. In between the serious girlfriends, at least a year has gone by (that pattern is still continuing - 14 months since my last girlfriend). Why so much time? I don't easily get over girls, it takes me a while, because I care about them as people. I feel like I might possibly making the mistakes most people make whne they start dating in high school. Because I really didn't date in high school, I might be making those critical mistakes in college. But that's another point; let's keep going in order.

The second lesson is that the ministry is not worth giving up. This one was learned with my second girlfriend. She told me about her dreams of living in New York City, with her two children and her 2 dogs, as a veterinary assistant. But I know from previous experiences (which was verified to me during missions week this year), that I am to stay put in Pennsylvania, and not go any further out of state than Ohio. This was an obvious conflict that I knew about, even before we officially started dating. But silly me was so enraptured by the thought of finally having a girlfriend after so long, my hopes were similar to that of the non-Christian girls I liked: over time I hoped I could convince them to leave their plans for me. Looking back, I know the thought was stupid, but my dreams were too loud to listen. Even when things didn't work out the first time around, when I had a glimmer that she was coming back, I ignored the different future plans factor and went back to her. It's not until the following fall I learned that this lesson. That's why I was so sure girlfriend number 3 was the one- our futures didn't collide, but meshed well. And today I can tell you that I have learned that lesson. During the Israel trip I took an interest in a fellow student who was also part of the trip. She studied abroad the fall semester and when she was back in the spring, I was glad to see her. But talking to her, I learned God has given her a heart to serve in Europe. Far be it to me to steal her away from her calling, nor should I rebuke my calling for her. God has wonderfully equipped us and specially called us all for His workmanship in the world, which we will be rewarded for in heaven. Why give it up for marriage, which is temporary? Why give it up for one spouse, while with another spouse, we could have both?

The third lesson I've learned is to learn from my mistakes. As I have already pointed out, mistakes include attempting to date girls with different faiths and different ministries and different future plans. But I've also learned more than that. I'm a guy who needs closure. When a girl breaks up with me, I need to know why. What did I do wrong? Is there anything I could do better? The first girlfriend ended it because while I listened well, I didn't talk enough, and thus it seemed like I was uninterested in her and her life. The second girlfriend told me that while we talked enough about her, she really didn't hear about me a lot. She even said, "You sound like an interesting person, but you never took the initiative to tell me about yourself." The third girlfriend told me that I wasn't social enough for her, especially around her friends. Not keep these all in mind. Did ex-gf no. 2 complain that I was too quiet and didn't talk to her enough or I didn't seem interested in her? No because she could not. I made sure I keep the conservation going, especially asking how her life was going. Did ex-gf no. 3 complain that I was too quiet around her, that I didn't seem interested in her, nor did I not talk about myself? No, no, and no. I made sure that I kept the conservation alive, balanced between talking about herself and myself. See I have learned from my mistakes. I sometimes imagine that one day my first and second ex-girlfriend meet, and somewhat realize the common connector is that they dated. As they talk about their experiences, the first ex-gf says, "yeah, but i broke it off because he never talked enough, and I didn't know if he was really concerned about me" and the second ex-gf replies, "what are you talking about? He was always talkative, especially about me." The 1st ex-gf, instead of waiting for me to change, decided to give up instead, and missed out on a possible improved relationship. Now ex-gf 2 and ex-gf 3 meet. Once again, they talk and find out they both dated me, and start talking about that. All of a sudden, ex-gf 2 says, "yeah, but I broke it off because he never talked about himself enough" to which no. 3 replies, "What are you talking about? Graham was talked about himself, just as much as me. Our conversation was a healthy balance between the two." Ex-gf no.2 missed out on an improved relationship because moving on was better than waiting. And now if I ever find another girlfriend, if my 3rd ex-gf were to dare complain that I wasn't social around her friends, the new girlfriend would reply, "What are you talking about? He's good friends with my friends, too." I even told my 3rd ex-gf that, but she was done waiting, and just moved on. And it hurt when I found out she didn't want to wait. It's like I said above, since I didn't date during high school, I'm still working out the "bugs" that someone usually has when he starts dating. I'm learning lessons, I'm learning what works and what doesn't, and I'm waiting for the woman who will accept that.

Yet while I have learned those 3 helpful lessons, still more questions pop into my head. While I'm learning what works and what doesn't, I'm still clueless. I'm still asking myself, "What worked? What didn't? What needs to change? What should stay the same?" The worse part is that it seems like the in the case of either/or, neither works. Neither the girl I know well nor the girl I hardly know works. Neither the girl with many similarities nor the girl with few similarities work. Neither the girl with many friends nor the girl with few friends work. Neither the girl with many common friends as I nor the girl who doesn't know any of my friends work. Neither the desperate-for-a boyfriend nor the happy-single work. Neither the popular, nor the artistic, nor the intellectual, nor the preppy, nor the skater, nor the spiritual, nor the girly, nor the tomboy, no the sportsy, nor the musical, nor the dramatic, nor any girl from any clique works. I'm almost at the point where I might just try to talk a girl into working into building a relationship from nothing but the basis of that we're both Christian. But on the other side of that, I sometimes wonder if relationships, both serious and complicated, failed because of stumbling on one point; they were unwilling to accept me for who I was on one point. Do I change that? If I do, I might cease to be me, and thus become uncomfortable with myself. If I don't, I have to better accept when I lose a girl. I do have a list of 8 things that I look for in a girl. That alone leads to questions: Are these in stone or flexible? Do I need all reached, or will half reached or a quarter reached be good enough? This all seems self-centered, which leads me to a second question...

What do I have that I can offer girls? This might seem like a simple question, but it's harder than you think. I struggled with this every Valentine's Day, like I did in my last Valentine's Day blog. Sure I can say, "I'm a good Christian" but there's tons of guys who are. What do I have? I'm not athletic nor artistic. I don't have good looks or a fit body. I'm barely paying through college, so I don't have money, in the present and near future. I got nothing that attracts girls. In fact, sometimes I feel like I have more detering factors that I do helping factors. For the most part, I am introverted, while most girls are extraverted. I like keeping to myself, while most girls like being social. Girls want someone who is social with them, not keeps to himself. Girls like costly gifts, I can barely afford to pay bills, nor spend money on myself. Girls like strong men who can save them and I am weak and have problems with practical issues. Girls are emotional, and I'm more intellectual. Girls like things like proms, formals, and banquets, and I feel uncomfortable at those events. After thinking about these, I feel like I got notihng. Don't get me wrong, I like who I am because I recognize this who God made me to be. That's not the issue. The issue is if the girl likes me for how God has made me.

I also can't help but ask if the failed relationships is a sign that God wants me to be single, and by attempting to date, I am holding a high hand against him and sinning against His Will for my life. Once against, I know that sounds like a little but of Calvinistic predestination, but it might have some truth. I cannot go fully on free will on this issue. For example, let's say by my free will I choose that I want to get married and have a family. What if no one wants to marry me? Then my free will is being violated. My choice to be married is denied, and it is out of my control. But I know God is control. So can he plan for me to be married, which sounds a little more like Calvinism. Either way, we need to recognize that God has commands for everyone of every relationship status, whether single, dating, engaged, marrried, divorced or widowed. I can spout of Bible passages. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul tells us it is better to be single than to be married. In Luke 20, Jesus says that in the new heaven and new heart, there is no marriage. In Matthew 19:11-12, it even sounds like God has predestined some to be single. Those verses all seem to be supporting singlehood over marriage. But there is still some "on the other hand..." Maybe Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, while favoring singlehood, is trying to get across the message, "whatever your relationship status is, use it for the glory of God." And if you look closely at the Matthew 19:11-12 passage, it uses the term "eunuch" as in "God has made some eunuchs" If that is true, then if God has predestined people to be single, it sounds like those predestined single people have no sex drive at all. There is not attraction to the opposite sex at all. Where am I in that mix? While sometimes annoyed at women enough that I want to be single, my heart sometimes still longs for a girlfriend and hopefully one day a wife. But as I have been reminded this week, sex itself is not evil, but it can lead to evil things. Maybe I'm suppose to be resist any attraction to the opposite sex and focus on being single to increase the ministry. But the same time, more doors might be opened to me for ministry as a married because most churches seek couples to lead ministry, for that balance of male and female. Maybe I was suppose to be only dating girls for a time, so they can be edified somehow through our short term lesson and move on to bigger things and to a good husband.

It sometimes seems that way, no lie. Fact: starting with my first girlfriend, all my ex-girfriends, those 3 girls I was in complicated relationships with and even the girl I asked out last summer all have boyfriends. As a matter of fact, the first complicated relationship is actually married. But yeah, my first girlfriend is moving in with her on-and-off boyfriend of 1-2 years (please pray for her, as she is spiritually wayward). My 2nd girlfriend has been dating the guy she started dating a week after ending it the second time with me for 2 years in April. My 3rd ex-girlfriend has been dating the guy she started dating a month or two after we were done for 11 months. They'll probably get married once he's out of the military. Both the non-Christian girls have boyfriends, too, both over half a year. I can't help but feel like Good Luck Chuck. For those of you unfamiliar with the plot line for the movie Good Luck Chuck, every time Chuck sleeps with a woman, she finds her true love with another guy. Ok, not a perverted, but it seems like all my ex-es find true love after going through me (I should almost make this a service). Maybe it just helps them realize they're not as desperate as they thought they were, maybe it helps them realize more what they want or don't want in a boyfriend and find it in the next guy. Whatever the cause, it seems like my ex-es do better than I do. And another thing, they seem to rebound faster than I do. I takes me a year to fully get over it and be brave enough to take an interest in another girl. The girls seem to find a new guy in less than a month, a matter of weeks. I take so long because my past relationships meant something to me. Did our relationship ever mean anything to her?

But the biggest question that I have to ask myself is "why is this an issue?" If you remember from my blog my freshman year, I said that I was finally satisified being single when I had friends, especially ones who were also satisfied being single too. I can't help but think that my insecurity in relationships comes from the insecurities living here at my dorm. This is probably the first semester, and maybe even the first year (this semester and last semester) that I did not want to be in my dorm or on campus. It's tough for me living in my quad. In one dorm I got a legalistic pastoral student who puts down anyone who doesn't share his exact beliefs, including his own roomate. In the other dorm, I got a guy who always thinks my music is too loud, especially on Guitar Hero, when I play it nowhere as near as loud as I do at home. In my whole section altogether, it seems like they spend hours playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl in a loud, obnoxious fashion. I know this might sound selfish, but it makes it so hard to do homework or sleep. Plus, playing the Wii is a huge stress reliver for me. But it seems whenever I might have the small chance to play Wii, they always are playing their 50th round of Brawl. I also got a section who likes open dorms to allow girls to come in. My dorm and my quad is my "manctuary," where I can get away from girls and couples. I feel like my "mantuary" is breeched and defiled when they enter. Every time I feel like I have leave my safe haven. Even my own roommate sometimes gets on my nerves. From his anger issues to crazy ideas, I have found myself frustrated with him. I've been spending more times at Lou's place. It's gotten so bad that I actually enjoyed being home winter break. Not the fact that I was at home, but rather I just wasn't in this quad for a month. I don't mean to point any fingers of blame at people, because I'm not. What I'm really doing is pointing the finger back to myself. Have I really become intolerant of people's views, feelings and actions that I can no longer live with them too long? I once heard that parallel living with someone during the college years was to prepare me for living with a spouse for the rest of my life. I seem to be failing. It's been 2 years and I'm having problems with my roommate, even to the point he keeps asking me if I want to "divorce" him. On one night when I was open to him, I had to ask him, "If it wasn't an issue of money, and if we had known each other sooner, would you have roomed with me all 4 years?" which led me to ask "Am I someone that another person can live with?" Sadly I am at the point where I have to answer "no." I easily get sick of being around too long. Combing intolerance of the guys I am with now, and the short term relationships, both serious and not, I was in, I have this utter fear that even if I get married, my wife will be demanding a divorce in a year or less because I have become unable to live with anymore. That is my fear.

See, the problem is I have is two contradicting fears: the fear of people and the fear of being alone. The fear of people is an intellectual fear - I'm always thinking that people are judging me, so I withdraw so they have nothing to judge. The fear of being alone is an emotional fear. My heart longs for emotional intimacy with someone of the opposite gender. The funny things is that the emotional fear is contradicted by the intellectual, but the intellectual fear is defended by the emotional. Intellectually, I realize I am happier by myself, and it is the emotional side that is just saying I hate being alone. But both my heart and my mind tell me to withdraw to avoid judgment. (But even more ironic my mind is starting to think by withdrawing I'm bringing that same judgment on myself.). This also isn't helping my dating life. Because of my fear of people and rejection, I withdraw and spend little time with people, and even less time with girls. If I don't even hang around girls, what's the odds of finding a girlfriend? Slim to none.

I think another contradiction is that while I want a girlfriend, I have a problem with women. Between my short relationships, show-off couples, and dimishing female friendships, I really don't like girls anymore. Now let's make sure you understand what I am saying. I am aesexual, not homosexual. When I say I don't like girls anymore, that doesn't mean I like boys instead. I do not like either, hence aesexual, meaning "without sexual desire". It is funny, though. Twice in my life I was accused of being gay. The first time was in middle school and the underclassmen years of high school. Because I spent more time with girls than boys, and that I was never flirty around the girls, but just their friends, and girls in 6th-10th grade spend a lot of time talking about boys, others assumed that I hung around them because I was gay and liked talking about boys, too. On the contrary, I was very interested in girls, had many crushes, and would talk to these female friends about these girls just as much as I listened to them talk about boys. The second time was my freshman and sophomore year of college. When some saw that I hung around guys all the time, spent little to no time with women, and when I was around girls, I wasn't openly flirting with them, they concluded I must be gay. This is a horrible assessment because I had two girlfriends during those years. What I find wrong with both of them is the expectation that if a man is talking to a woman, he must be fliriting with her, for there is no other reason to for a guy to talk to the opposite gender. Can't a boy and a girl merely be friends? Apparently not. That brings up another issue why I'm not too fond of women right now. It seems like that every time a female friend of mine gets a boyfriend, she stops talking me to and cuts off any friendship. It has led me to conclude either she is flirting with me when single and I am too stupid to recognize it, or that when these girls starting dating a guy, their boyfriend expects them to cut off all relationships with any guy who is not related to her. I don't know the cause, but I do know the effects. As my female friends find boyfriends, they dwindle down. So not only do I not have a girlfriend, I don't any friends who are female. Without any kind of connection like that, I am doomed to remain single. Excuse me for going on a tangent with that, back on subject. Like I said way above, when the Christian girls would act like non-Christian girls pre-dating, dating and post-dating, I became upset with them. When girls around campus are openly flaunting their relationships, I get angry at that girl (funny thing is I never get angry at the guy. I see him more as a victim of her.). Whenever a female does talk to me about her relationship issues, I automatically side with the guy, no matter how little I know him. I even sometimes slip with my tongue and call a woman a "ho" instead (never to their face or in public, but when referring to them privately around guys). How can I want to date when I get upset with woman? Because there is a very small glimmer of hope in my heart, that one day I will stop meeting "hos" and meet a woman. Yet don't get me wrong, my frustration with women is a mere relationship thing. I reject any of these views for women in the church, in the ministry, in the classroom and in the workplace. I treat them with respect and honor and with equality.

But still sadly I've become cold to relationships. I take bets on how long a relationship will last. I don't know what to say to people about relationships. When my sister announced to my family when her last relationship ended, I said, "Lasted longer than I thought." When two of my friends got engaged, the best that came out of my mouth "Ok." OK?? At least I didnt do what was on my mind: say to the bride-to-be, "Congratulations!" the said to the groom-to-be, "Terribly sorry." To me I see guy with a girl and think, "Game over." Back in high school I was jealous of guys who had girlfriends. Now I find myself feeling betrayed by them. I feel like they betrayed mankind (as in guys, not humankind) for a girl. I think it goes back to see the guy as the vicitm of the girl. There's this one girl is half my classes I can't stand. She is freshman girl ENGAGED to a freshman guy. She is the worst of the show-off couples And for some reason she has to tell everyone in every class how the process is going. Hello?! Not eveyone cares. Personally, I don't give a crap. I'm pretty sure that someone else who has relative dying is more important than finding your perfect wedding cake. The worst part concerns my third ex-girlfriend. Her boyfriend is in the military. I wanted her back so bad that at sometimes I had the uriah and bathsheba idea in the back of my head. I wanted to call the military and tell them to station her boyfriend in the front line at the worse places in Falleujah. It's when you hit the bottom that you finally realize how bad you are. That wouldn't make her come back, and even if it did, I would have gotten her in the wrong way, just like I did the first time. To hate couples is wrong. It would be better to tunnel vision and not see them instead of wanting the worse to happen them.

See, I told you I haved a lot on my mind. So where does this leave me? Good question. When seeking advice about it, I get the answer "Pray about it." This answer has Biblical principles, but it also seems like the automatic, generic Christian response. I can say "Pray about it" for jobs, ministries, girlfriends, best friends and other troubles. What specific advice is for this specific trouble? At least they could be a little more specific than "pray for God's will" or "Pray for a girlfriend." And that answer doesn't help either when I feel guilty for praying for what I think is a selfish reason, when there are people in the world without food, water or homes. What more can someone give me? Something that did help was a book I borrowed from a friend. It is Sex God by Rob Bell. Don't get confused by the title; the book and chapter title is just to get your attention. Only a third of the book is really about sex. Another third is about our gender in relation to God and the other third about male-female relations in general. In the book, Rob Bell looks at those Matthew 19, Luke 20 and 1 Corinthians 7 passages about singleness and compares them to passages about marriage and married couples. Rob Bell makes many statements, but three consecutives statements about my singlehood stuck out to me. First, I am not missing out. Second, God is not holding me back. Third, God has something better planned. Those "pro-single" verses (I use that term loosely) make marriage kind of belittles marriage (I also use that term loosely so it doesn't sound like I'm giving thumbs up for sexual promiscuity. I'm not). Thus, I can't be missing out on something in marriage. Therefore, no one, including myself, should look down on my because I am single. I am nothing less, with or without a girlfriend. God is not using my single status as a curse. There is no curse in being single. In fact, Paul says the being single is easier than marriage (1 Corinthians 7:25-35). So God is not to be blamed for being single. Paul also mentions that those who are single can use the benefit of being single to glorify God by being more flexible for God's plans in the ministry. I can see truth in that already. Remember what I said all the way up top? What did I say made Valentine's Day easier for me? I was quizzing. Everyone who knows me how much my heart is in quizzing. I know that sometimes quizzers who have boyfriends/girlfriends the same time they have quizzing come upon a dillema. They have to find a way to please the boyfriend/girlfriend and meet the quizzing standards. Their interets are divided (another 1 Corinthians 7 quote, lol). I had no such problem, and I put my focus into quizzing for the Lord. And with all my faith in the Lord, I believe it will be true for the rest of my life. If I remained unmarried and single for the rest of my life, God will take the time, money and love I would put forward to a wife and children and put to good use, maybe with quizzers, students or someone I'm mentoring, or even a church or ministry as a whole. Intellectually, in my mind, I know it's true. It's a head truth. Now it's a matter of making it a heart truth: a truth that is emotionally true in my heart. I was struggle with that. Sometimes when I see couples, or even just starting thinking about how single I am, I have to close my eyes, plug my ears, and repeat those 3 statments over and over again. The problem is never that I'm thinking too much, but that I'm not thinking about the right things. I take my thoughts off of God and put it on being single. This is when my walls are down, and Satan tempts me to leave the Lord and the ministry for girls. But I've learned my lesson, that neither God nor the ministry is worth giving up for a girl. So I have to patiently wait for a woman where I am not put in a place to decide either God or girl. Because every time God will win, and the girl will lose. Sometimes I feel like crying out to Jesus what Peter once said to Jesus (in a totally diferent context), "I have left everything to follow You!" and Jesus replies somewhat the same as he did to Peter, "You left that relationship for the kingdom of God" Sounds like a fair trade off to me.

Thank you for putting up with me in so many ways. And if you don't like what I have to say, I'm going to make the same defense my roomates says: "Don't pay any attention to anything I say after 1 in the morning" :-P

An uphill battle

2010-02-23T14:35:00.001-05:00

On Sunday, Conestoga had 3 matches at Lancaster Mennonite. As the night would go on, each of the quizmatches would get tougher as we would have to face a harder team. On that Sunday afternoon, the quiz team met at Julia Yoder's at 2 PM. A few of us had to circle around her road a couple of times to find her house. We practiced in fron the of the fire place. Amanda found one of those old-fashion foot massagers and she had it under her feet most of the time. For Kristy and Denise, who weren't at practice on Wednesday, I updated them where we were in our standings and what are goal was: to get at least 5 team bonuses by the end of the year. We went over 4 rounds of new questions, taking a break halfway through. During our break, I introduced the quizzers to Lightning Reaction Extreme, a game that shocks the slow buzzers. I know a lot of people who fear this game, but the younger quizzers seemed to like it. We ended our practice with one match of all the questions that were missed on Wednesday. This was good for Kristy and Denise to hear those questions. Denise got a little bit frustrated wtih some of my questions, but I insisted it was learning the material. Julia Yoder served us a wonderful breakfast for dinner: blueberry pancakes, bacon fresh fruit and fresh vegetables. I had to leave for a quizcoach meeting at 5:45, so I left the quizzers early, letting them to their own devices.

I got to the coach's meeting right at 5:45 p.m. I think I might enjoy coach's meeting a little too much. Coach's meetings are like a rite of passage to me now. It represents that I have grown up and I am truly the coach now. But the coaches meeting was nothing overly exciting. We discussed what worked, what didn't, and what was going to happen for the final season playoffs, the ACC Tournament, and the Invitational in Kidron, Ohio. The meeting got over at 6:20, 5 minutes after worship started, so I had to go through quite the search to find my quiz team. When I found them, I joined them in worshipping the Lord. Then the typical announcement and joke, then all of us left the auditorium at once. In the midst of trying to get through the crowd, I thought I spotted out of the corner of my eye someone I knew. It was someone I knew! It was Coach Dave and Coach Vicki from Spring City! I darted through that crowd so fast so I could hug them (although it seemed to end up to be more of a tackle). I was so glad to see them. They said they hoped to come to more matches, but they had to go to ministry committee meetings, so they couldn't come to as much as they like, but here they were. I couldn't wait for them to come to Conestoga's matches.

Conestoga's first match was during the second round against Hinkletown 1. When Erik Zimmerman from Hinkletown 1 buzzed in on the first question and got it right, I was worried. Hinkletown 1 was below us in the standings and the easiest match we'd have all night. If we lost this match, it could really damper spirit. But there was nothing to worry about, for Denise quizzed out by question 7, and Justin followed by quizzing out on question 8. This allowed both Amanda and Meredith in to help us for team. After Justin quizzed out in question 8, Kristy and Joy got the next 2 questions correct after buzzing in, giving us team bonus on question 10. We had the four quizzers for team bonus, but it didn't stop there. Amanda buzzed in on question 11 answered correctly with "Paul was abnormally born." It was funny because Amanda told us in practice her favorite phrase for this week was "abnormally born." The match wasn't over yet. Joy quizzed out on question 14, and Amanda got the last question, also a buzz-in. The end score was in Conestoga's favor, 155 to 20. This was our best match by far all season.

Conestoga's second match was against Zion 2, who were slightly ahead of us in the standings. I had watched two of their matches, and it seemed like they were evenly matched to me. It was all a matter of Zion gettig team bonus. I recognized Joel and Ben as younger siblings from older siblings I quizzed along side of. It was pretty close for the first few questions. After six questions, it was Zion 2 - 40, Conestoga - 20. Even with Joel from Zion 2 quzzzing out on question 8, the 35 point deficit was not putting down the team. Sure enough, Zion 2 got four of their quizzers to get a correct buzz-in and got team bonus. I just urged them to stay strong and still get the most points they can. And that's exactly what they did. Denise quizzed out on question 12, and Joy followed, quizzing out on question 14. Justin kept at it by getting the last question correct. Conestoga did lose the match, but did earn 80 points, which technically above our average.

The third match was consective to our second match. The opponent was RiverCorner, 3rd place in our league. Their top quizzer was one away from perfect. Yet she seemed a little tipsy off of Mountain Dew. She did get the first two questions right, one a buzz in and one a bonus. But on questions 3 and 5 she errored, which Denise was able to get one of them correct. The reason she couldn't get in on question 4 was because Denise got the buzz-in correct. With her two errors, RiverCorner called a timeout after question 5, and pulled her. At that point, the score was tied with 20 points each. But after timeout, the team was refreshed. RiverCorner answered 6 of the next 7 questions correct, all buzz-ins. In that, they got team bonus and 2 quiz outs. Joy buzzed in on the last two questions, getting one right, and erroring on the other. After a close start, RiverCorner won, 110 to 40.

So after Sunday night, Conestoga's average went up from 78 to 81. Yet we stayed the same in standings, in slot 11. Denise is now 20th in the Top 50 Quizzers List. And after Justin's quiz out and Joy quiz outs, the two of them are now in Top 100. Next week we have the oppurtunity to go up in the standings.

This is how you end the first half of the season

2010-02-15T11:59:00.000-05:00

On this Valentine's day, the quizzing material was 1 Corinthians 11:17 to 14:25, which includes 1 Corinthians 13, the chapter known for love. Fred said he didn't do that on purpose, but who knows. Quiz practice was at the Essicks. Because they had limited parking space due to the snow, we all drove up in Justin's car, and the Beams met us shortly later. As a Valentine's gift, I told the quizzers I would give them a piece of dark chocolate if they answered a good buzz-in correctly. Candy was flying everywhere in practice. Practice went ok. We got off 4 new matches, and did a match of missed questions. Amanda knew her lists, but seemed to be missing simple bonuses. Kristy seemed absent for many questions and her column would go blank for questions. Denise was quizzing out, and so was Joy. Justin would either quiz out or error out. We studied our best, had dinner, and left for quizzing.

We got to Neffsville at 6:15, just in time for worship to start. Right after worship, announcements, and joke. Then once 6:30 came around, it was time for Conestoga to quiz. Our first round match was against Petra 2. This match some of my quizzers were looking forward to because they had a friend on the team. Other quizzers were not looking forward to it because Petra 2 was the no. 1 team in our league. Again, for the holiday, I gave all the quizzers a duct tape rose to put with their nametag. Not really wanting to do it, but needing to, I started Amanda over Kristy because Kristy wasn't getting a lot and I needed someone who knew the lists in starting just in case the list questions came early. I told them to just do their best, score as much as they can, and rely on God's strength. The first half of the match was pretty close. Both Denise and Joy got 20 points. On Petra 2's side, they had their perfect quizzer quiz out. But by the end of question 9, it was only 45-40 Petra 2. On question 10, Denise errored, Nadine on Petra 2 got the bonus, and the match swung in Petra 2's favor for the rest of the match. Petra 2 buzzed in on every question, getting team bonus. On the last question, Kristen from Petra 2 errored, and Amanda got the bonus right. We lost 50 to 115, but we've score less than that twice before, and held Petra 2 from reaching their average.

We had a match break, but only one. We met Hope Community in the stuffy upstairs room. I told the quiz team to shake off the old match. This was a new match and we couldn't give up. Once again, it was close up to question 9. Hope Community was leading 55 to 40. Stephanie Hartman, Hope Community's top quizzer, quizzed out, and had another quizzer ready to quiz out. Conestoga was set up for team bonus with only 1 quizzer. After question 9, Conestoga took control of the match. Denise quizzed out on question 10. Kristy took her seat and on question 11 she buzzed in, answered correctly, and got team bonus. Question 12 Hope Community had a second quizzer quizzed out. The last 3 questions were review, and they were all Conestoga's. Kristy took question 13. Then, out of nowhere, Joy buzzed in on the last 2 questions, answered them both correctly, and got a quiz out, her first of her career! Way to go, Joy!

Conestoga had a two match break before their final match of the night. We all went down to the room we were going to quiz in, sat on the coaches, and just rested. During one of those matches, we watched Gehman get team bonus on question 4. Yikes! Before we knew it, it was time for us to quiz against Parkesburg 2. I went with the same lineup, seated differently according to what I saw in Parkesburg 2's other match. I told the quizzers to do what they did the last match. A lot of the questions I heard being asked I personally asked during the practices, so they knew it. I personally told Justin that because I knew he could quiz out with buzz-ins in practice, so he could do it in a real match. That talk must have been the encouragement he needed because he buzzed in on the first question and got it right! Denise gave me a scare when she errored on questions 3 and 4. I made her promise me that she wouldn't kill the seat by erroring out. On question 6, Alyssa quizzed out. During the timeout, I told the quizzers she was the only one we say action from, so now the rest of the match is ours. Sure enough, it was. Joy buzzed in twice in a row to get 20 points. Even Amanda buzzed in, but ended up erroring because she finished the question instead of giving the answer. Denise redeemed herself by getting the next to buzz ins correct and quizzing out. We were once again 1 question away from team bonus, with Kristy taking Denise's place. On question 12, Justin, who had been dorment since question 1, buzzed in and answered correctly. On question 13, Joy buzzed in, answered correctly, and quizzed out again! Here's a 2nd year quizzer (and may I mention it's an inconsecutive 2nd year) who got her first two career quiz outs, all with buzz-ins! With Joy sitting down, Meredith got up, increasing our chances for team bonus. So either Kristy, Amanda or Meredith could get team bonus, or Justin could get a quiz out. Technically, with two questions left, we could get both. On question 14, Justin buzzed answered correctly, and quizzed. This was his first quiz out since week 2, and only his third quiz out all season. On question 15, Kristy buzzed in, but couldn't think up an answer and errored. Well, neither could Parkesburg 2 because the bonus was dropped. Conestoga didn't get team bonus, but did score in the triple digits. Conestoga won 105 to 35.

At the end of the first half of the season, Conestoga has a win-loss-tie record of 6-4-1. Our average increased to 78.18. That was a great boost for our team. If we can start the second half of the season the way we ended the first half, we can really move up our average.

Supposedly the easiest week? Ups and downs.

2010-02-09T15:28:00.001-05:00

Week 3 of the quizzing season started off crazy with the snowstorm that went from Friday to Saturday. Even though the snowstorm was done by Saturday, the snow drifted back onto the roads. Sunday School was cancelled, but church service was still on. But we needed practice for the Sunday School hour because he had limited practice in the new afternoon. So I contacted the quizzers and they were all willing to still come out for quiz practice. I hope their driving circumstances weren't as bad as mine. My car stalled starting up, and I slipped about 3 times trying to turn. The scariest part was passing buggies. But I made it in one piece, and so did everyone else. During the Sunday School hour, we read the material and got off two practice matches, althought the second match I only gave them 15 seconds to think. After that, we joined together in worship. Following worship the quiz team ate a warm lunch of sloppy joe and mac n cheese, provided by my mom. We were making good time, so we did 2 more practice matches: 1 new, 1 missed questions. We wanted enough time to drive in the snow, so we left about 1 PM for Bowmansville. We got there around 1:20-1:30 did rounds of questions in a classroom, then joined everyone for worship.

Conestoga's first match was during the second round. We quizzed against Bowmansville 2. Since it was aginast Bowmansville, we were up in the sanctuary. I introduced the quizzers to a sanctuary match, telling them to listen carefully to the quizmaster and talk into the microphones. The match started off with Bowmansville, but Conestoga got back into the swing of things. Kristy, Joy, and Denise all got a buzz-in. We were only one away from team bonus. All we needed was Justin. Denise quizzed out, putting in Meredith and increasing our chance for team bonus. On one question, Justin buzzed in...and errored. I told him to shake it off and keep on trying because we needed him. Soon enough, Justin buzzed in on "What do we partake..." I knew Justin had this because "partake" was one of the keywords. Justin answered "the body of Christ" and got it correct! Of course I went wild; it was our first team bonus of the year! When the quizmaster heard, and was told, he said, "I was wondering what all the commotion was about. That's team bonus." I replied, "DARN RIGHT!" Justin also got the last question right for team bonus, giving Conestoga the win 95-30.

We watched Hope of the Nations for the match in between, and then we were off to our next match. We were quizzing Weaverland 2 downstairs. I had bad memories of that place because that is where I lost my last perfection for the last time. I hoped the team would avenge. That would not happen. Weaverland was just too fast. They got very good buzzes, and on the ones that weren't, they got luck on their answers. Weaverland's point went quickly the the triple digits. Maybe out of frustration, Denise somehow squeezed a quiz out. Conestoga lost with 45 points.

Since we only had 2 matches, and the Super Bowl was 3 hours away, we all went back to the respective Super Bowl party. While the quizzers went to Dylan Beam's, I went back to the college because I had homework I need to finish. The college did put on a decent party for the Super Bowl. They even had a contest to who had the right winner and the closest score. I lost because I picked the Colts. It looked like the Colts were going to win, but with the Peyton Manning interception, the only interception of the game, it turned the game around to the Saints, and sealed the victory to them. The Saints won 31 to 17.

Back to Conestoga and quizzing, Conestoga's average dropped from 74 to 73 points per match. It's not too much, so hopefully we would stay in the same ranking. I was hoping the 95 point match would boost us, but with the 45 point match, it would only negate it. But I believe the quizzers did their best, and we got the best results we could get. Jesus be praised. We'll just keep practicing and learning. And with the snow storm coming, that might become an issue.

Possibly our hardest week of the season

2010-02-01T10:51:00.001-05:00

Going into week 2, we were entering possibly our hardest week of the season. Part of it we were quizzing on 3 chapters and a bit of a 4th chapter. Half of the material was on 1 Corinthians 7, which had a lot of situational people (like "the man who was a slave before he was called" or "the woman whose husband died" for example). But probably the biggest reason was we had 3 back to back matches. It was take endurance to get through something like that.

The quiz team met at Bonnie Beam's house for practice at 2 PM...well, most of the quiz team. Kristy and Denise were at a bridal shower. We waited a little bit for them by doing a crossword with the keywords in it. It was interesting as we discussed how to spell "puffs" (compared to "poofs"), "physically" and "trivial." We read the material and discussed how to distinguish the lists. I had them practice pronoucing idolaters because some of them were saying "idol-laters" instead of "i-dol-a-ters." Still waiting for Densie and Kristy, I didn't want to begin new questions, so the 4 quizzers did a match going over the questions we missed Wednesday, with 4 question quiz outs. Justin quizzed out on this match. Running short on time, we did a match of new material. Both Meredith and Joy quizzed out on this match of brand new questions! During this match, Kristy and Denise arrived. We put them back into the matches and went back to 3 question quiz outs. In the first, Denise, Joy and Justin quizzed out by question 12, and they were all one the same team! That looked good. The next match not som much. The team of Denise, Joy and Justin errored 6 times, and the team of Kristy, Amanda and Meredith only got 2 of those bonuses right. Those 2 bonuses were the only questions they got. With not enough time for another match, we did one set of round questions, and then had dinner. The Beams cooked us a wonderful dinner of Meatball Sandwiches.

We arrived at Petra around 6:05 PM. The girls had a lot of friends from there so they were scattered about talking to friends. In the meantime, I got us seats in the sanctuary, front and center. Andrew Jensen led the worship team and the whole sanctuary in worship. Then there was announcements, a mini-devotional, and then we were off. The quizzers stayed in the sanctuary to watch Grace & Truth the first round and Hope of the Nations the second round. I went scouting, watching Maple Grove 3 the first round and Ridgeview 1 the second round. I was hearing a lot of questions with the keywords I was using, so I thought that this might be easier for us than last week. Some of the quizzers thought so too. Round 3 came up and we headed to the classroom for our match.

In round 3, we quizzed against Strasburg 2. Travis from Strasburg 2 started off the match was 2 right buzz-ins, putting us behind 20-o right of the bat. On his 3rd question, he errored, giving us a chance for points, but the bonus was dropped on our side. Luckily Denise help pick up the team by answering 3 consecutive questions correctly for a quiz out. That shifted the gears of the match. Strasburg 2 struggled with errors, getting six errors, and losing 10 pooints. Conestoga was quick to pick up the bonuses. Joy got 2 consective answers correct for her first points! Conestoga won the match, 75 to 45.

From the Classroom, we had to run all the way to the opposite end of the church for our next match in the sanctuary lobby. Conestoga was on the left, and Ridgeview 1 on the right. This match was hard and hurt us. Ridgeview 1's best quizzer Shaun quizzed out by question 4. After question 4, Carrissa, possibly their second best quizzer, buzzed in twice in a row and got them both right. It was hard starting a match 55-0. Carissa would later on quiz out on question 10, another buzz in. Conestoga tried their best. Justin would go ahead and quiz out. The 5 point bonus from quizzing out would be soon negated by losing 5 points for our 5 errors on question 14. Conestoga lost that match, 40 to 80.

Once again, we were on the run to the opposite side of the church, as we quizzed in the church's cafe (it was literally a cafe) for our match against Maple Grove 3. I encouraged the team to forget about the last match, and to stay strong and sharp, and to endure. I even tried to change the seating up a bit. We started the first question down by 10, but then we answered the next 4 questions correctly, butting us up 40-10 a third the way through the match. Denise quizzed out on question 8. It got scary on question 11 when Maple Grove 3 was 1 away from team bonus, but instead they errored more, losing 5 points. Conestoga won the match, 85 to 45.

The good news is we were 2-1 for the night in terms of win-loss record. The bad news is that the quizzing standings go by points, and our average to 74 1/3 points per match. But combining the two, even if we won with low scores, the opponenents with won against scored even less than we did. So it will be interesting to see how the standings turn out. Looking ahead in the schedule, we seem to be going from possibly the hardest week, last Sunday, to the possibly the easiest week, with only 2 matches. Hopefully the material will be just as easier so it can give the team a confidence boost.

New job, new role, new team, new season

2010-01-25T23:19:00.003-05:00

Just like any other quizzing eve, I had problems sleeping because I was so excited to start a new quizzing season. But new to any other quizzing season, I might have had problems sleeping because it had finally hit me that I was going up to sit in the seat, but had a permanant place on the bench, only getting up for timeouts. It humbled me knowing there was no individual score I could pedestal myself upon, but instead I had to trust my team for all points. So I prayed that God would make me a humble coach, never asking too much nor too little from my team. Then I was able to get some sleep.

During church service Sunday morning, Pastor Bob comissioned the quiz team. We all went up on the stage, and I introduced the quizzers on the quiz teams, which most of the congregation already knew, maybe better than I did. Pastor Bob prayed, as we walked off the stage, Bob commented on my orange suit: "it's amazing what color schemes the younger generation can get away with" :)

After church, the church served a soup and salad fellowship meal, so the quiz team was part of that. We started practice around 1:30 p.m. We started practice by listening to the material, and practiced buzzing in on keywords. We had two brand new practice matches with brand new questions. From when we started having quiz practice on Jan. 6, I had asked 2 questions from every verse in 1 Corinthians chapters 2-4, and 1 question for every verse in 1 Corinthians 1. We took a 15-minute break, in which we took our team picture. We had 3 more practice matches. Those 3 matches were going over questions we missed throughout previous practices. The first match of the 3 the quizzers started out strong, but ended weak. The 2nd of 3 they started out weak, but ended strong. The third of 3 was very weak, as there were14 errors in the whole match. We figured that we were growing tired due to empty stomaches so we called it quits and drove to our dinner hosts.

Harvey & Lillian Stoltzfus gladly hosted the team for dinner. They had this toy, which easily entertained Amanda. For dinner we had taco salad with hot sauce that reminded Amanda of chinese food. Of course, Amanda led in conversation. We thanked Harvey & Lillian and left for our quizmeet at 5:30.

We joined in the LMS Fine Arts center for the worship. After worship, they gave announcements about rulings, where even the staff sounded unsure about the material. Since we had to wait a match, I asked the quizzers whether they want to watch 2 experienced teams in the room we were facing, or if they wanted to watch their friends in Hope of the Nations instead. They were quick to respond "Hope of the Nations." So we watched Hope of the Nations face Media. For being all the way in Reading, Hope of the Nations brought a healthy cheering squad. Charleton from Media was quick to quiz out and take an early lead. But Hope of the Nations came back and won their first quizzing match! Way to go, Hope of the Nations!

We went down the hall to our first match against Neffsville. It was kind of ironic because I had spent several Sundays in my underclassmen years attending church at Neffsville. Neffsville, which was known for having multiple teams, only had one. In fact, since I began quizzing in 2002, I can always remember Neffsville having multiple teams. So it's been at least 9 years since Neffsville only had one team. The only one I recognized was Carissa Harnish, a long time quizzer from the Harnish dynasty. I had Kristy sit across from her. The first question Kristy buzzed in and errored, but Carissa was unable to pick up the bonus. It flip flopped the next question, as Carissa errored and missed the bonus. This is the only bonus we missed all night. By the third question, when Carissa errored, Kristy got the bonus. Well, Denise must have been tired of sitting out the first 3 questions because she buzzed in the next 3 questions, answered them all correctly, and quizzed out on question 6. Justin was next to quiz out, on question 12, with 3 right buzz ins and 1 error. Carissa from Neffsville recovered from her 2 early errors and quizzed out on buzz ins by question 13. Carissa was the only real action on that team. In the end, Conestoga won, 90 to 45.

We had to hurry for our next match back in the other building. We were facing Petra 4, coached by Andrew Jensen, someone who I have quizzed against a quizzer few years back. The match was always close, as no team took more than a 20 point lead. It got scary when Petra 4 was only 1 right buzz in away from team bonus with 4 questions left. Denise quizzed out on question 10, followed by Kristy quizzing out on question 14. But even more exciting was on question 13, when Amanda got her first points on the first night of her rookie year! On question 15, Petra 4 did not get the team bonus for the win, but did get a quiz out to tie the match at 80 points. As I shook coach Andrew's hand, I said to him "Isn't it scary when we become the adults?" :) And I left the music room, someone came out to me and asked, "Spring City, right?" and I couldn't help but laugh and say, "As a quizzed yes" :D

After a one-match break, we had our final quiz of the night against Gehman. My quizzers knew them as the team with the intelligable word of "yes", which annoyed them all. To my surprise, we had added a new fan, but an old teammate of mine: Tim Moss. He encouraged the "revolving door" strategy, but I told him to forget it :P . Gehman started with a correct buzz in from Paul, their top quizzer. Annoyed by his audible word "yes", Conestoga got 3 consecutive buzz ins correct from 3 different quizzers, going down the line from seat 1 to seat 3. I encouraged seat 4 Amanda to get us team bonus on question 5 with 4 consective buzz ins. Paul didn't want to see that, as he buzzed in twice in a row and got them both right for a quiz out. After 6 questions, Gehamn led by 5. This match was close for the next 5 questions. All but one were correct buzz ins, and the 1 error was from Brandon, but Amanda picked that one up. After question 11, Gehman took off. They got team bonus on question 12, and another quiz out on question 15. Denise, seeing a perfect season flash before her eyes, Denise buzzed in on question 15 and quizzed out. Conestoga scored 75 points, but lost to Gehman, who scored 110 points.

Next week is 1 Corinthians 5-8:30 at Petra. Come support the team!

1 Graham vs. 4 Moss Quizzers

2010-01-17T19:54:00.000-05:00

Quizzing is going to be different for me this year as I will be involved from a different perspective. This year I will be a coach. Being a quizzer from the past, I hope it will help make me a good coach. As I try to envision how I could be influential to my quizzers, I think of those in quizzing who influenced me. Naturally I thought of my coaches, and I could write pages on how they influenced me. But who else have influenced me? Well, a lot of quizzers have. And not just merely being on my team or being a tough opponent. These quizzers were my friends, who showed me how to quiz, who gave pointers and advice, and who pushed me to compete my hardest. Quite few have done this, but I would like to highlight a certain family that lead this group. The Moss family was there in the beginning, with Jake & Josh (and even Mrs. Diane Moss helping coaching) to Tim, entering during my second year and exiting during my last year. And even in the middle, when there wasn't any Moss on my team, they were always present somewhere in quizzing. And I'll never forget them.

Now while each has been on my team, each of them has been on another team for another church during my quizzer career as well. Because this was caused by a team split, strong feelings and sharp competition rose between us. I had this want, almost need, to beat them, to show that I was better than them. When tension dropped and friendships were restored, the need to beat them was gone, but the want was there. It was for different reasons now. I saw it more as a "final test," if I could demonstrate that all I learned from them I have put to use. For the "student" to beat the "teacher/master" was a way of "graduating." And by the end, I did graduate. Let me tell you.

Graham vs. Josh Moss
Josh and I were on the same for my first three years of quizzing (2002-2004), and then finished his last year with Zion the year after. Josh and I were pretty close those years, possibly because he was closer to my age and grade than Jake was. I credit my obsession with situation questions to Josh. Before I quizzed for Ark, Ark's go-to-guy for situation questions was Josh. When I came on the scene, Josh entrusted me with the situation. I didn't let him down. When my first points and first buzz in was a situation question, I have to credit Josh with helping me get my first points and first buzz in. Josh to me was always the fun-loving easy-going guy. If there was craziness, he was involved in it somehow. Josh had a successful quizzing year, finishing his last 4 years on the Top 50 Quizzers List, being in the top 10 from 2002 to 2003.

On February 13, 2005, Spring City quizzed against Zion, allowing the two of us to quiz aginst each other, head-to-head. It seemed like a good match-up. Both of us were in the Top 20 at the time. Our teams were pretty well matched up, too. Both had 2 Top 50 Quizzers and 2 previous Ark quizzers. Both of us sat in seat 3, so we were across from each other. I would get his bonus questions, and he would get mine. Josh got one right, but then got 2 errors and was pulled out. I proceeded to quiz out, one of the right answers was a bonus from Josh. As for my team Spring City, Brandon and Mike quizzed out, and we also got team bonus. As for Josh's team Zion, the other top 50 Quizzer errored out with zero points. The final score was Spring City - 135, Zion - 20. I quizzed out, and Josh didn't. From then, feelings were repaired.
Graham wins match-up, 1-0 quizouts.

Graham vs. Becky Moss
I never quizzed along side Becky. Her rookie year was in 2005 with Reading, and I was already on Spring City. Yet I feel like she is worthy of being mentioned because she is a Moss who quizzed the same time I did. Because Abby didn't quiz, she was the last of the Moss family to quiz. Becky would be famous for the 2006 haircut, where she was constantly mistaken for an emo boy. I think the line was drawn when girls were fliriting with here because they thought she was a hot emo boy.

On February 5, 2006, I faced Becky in the Spring City vs. Reading 2, allowing us to face each other in a match, although we were not sitting across from each other. It was a big mismatch. I ranked 29th, and Becky was 124th. I had 125 points; she had 60 points. I opened the match by buzzing in and answering the first two questions correctly. I was aiming to quiz out by question 3, but on question 3 Becky beat me in. She errored on that question. I was able to get my quiz out by question 5. After that, Becky would get her second error and get benched. As for our teams, Becky's Reading 2 had new highlights, but Spring City also had Mike and Jai quiz out. Spring City won, 105-35.
Graham wins match-up, 1-0 quizouts.

Graham vs. Jake Moss
The first memory of Jake was Jake showing me the quizbook and how he marked up his quizbook and giving me tips on how to mark up mine. I don't exactly remember his system, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was something similiar. I always learned from Jake by watching him quiz, and he might have learned a little bit from me. For example, when we were quizzing on Exodus, he would always buzz in on the situation question early and answer "the Lord to Moses" because he saw me do it and got it right. Jake was also a good quizzer, and it wasn't from mere guessing. Jake was one of the top 10 quizzers from 2002 to 2004, peaking in 2004 with a 3rd place, and earning in a spot in the fun match as an all-star quizzer. Jake would wrap up his quizzing career with Reading. He would place somewhere between 100-120th those last 2 years, but that was because Jake took more of coaching role for his team. And in my personal opinion, I think Jake would be one of the top 3 tallest quizzers that I know :)

On March 12, 2006, I quizzed against Jake as Spring City took on Jake's team (what Christine always called it by) Reading 1. I started, but Jake did not enter the quizmatch until one of his quizzers quizzed out, naturally taking the coach's role. still, there was a point where both Jake and I were in the match at the same time. Even with Jake coming in late, he got one right and one error, putting up the best fight compared to his previous siblings. Still, it was no match compared to me, as I quizzed out with only one error.
Graham wins match-up, 1-0 quizouts.

Graham vs. Tim Moss
I knew Tim from my rookie year of quizzing, even though Tim wasn't old enough to quiz. He was many times a fan, even coming to Ohio with the team to root for us. Tim's rookie year was on my second year, and we were both on a team of 7. I remember Tim getting sick on the first week of that season and not making it to his first quizmeet. He only scored about 20 points that year, but could name the list of 13, the biggest list there was. We wouldn't be on the same team for another 4 years, as Tim quizzed for the other Ark team, and then quizzed for Reading after the split. There was a lot of hurt in that split, as Tim got more competitive as he got bettter. We would constantly butt heads because we were so closely matched up. On top of that, Tim was out to get a trophy. He would always trying to stack quizzers into a "super team" coached by himself. Tim tried selling his dream team to many churches but no church would take it. It made me laugh, thinking, "Finally the little punk is getting what he deserves." But when I heard now that he himself could not find any team, I pitied Tim because I hated to see good quizzing talent go to waste. So when Timasked the Deitricks to be on Spring City, Mike and I made sure we put in a good word for Tim. When Tim joined Spring City, it was a true reunion between him and me. Our relationship was reconciled and restored. It went from hard feelings to blessings. We went from fierce rivalry to friendly competition. And that helped as teammates.

Tim and I never quizzed against each other when we were on different teams, so the competition was all in the stats and the standings. It's hard to compare you both of you have different schedules, but being on the same team and having the similar schedules, it's now easier to compare. Tim and I had a way of encouraging each other that some might consider odd. We encouraged each other by being competitive. We encouraged each other by trying to beat each other. While Tim was now on my team, I still wanted to do better than him. So in the 3 years we quizzed together, I kept track of our quizouts. Every season I would try to quiz out more than he did. And altogether, I wanted to have more overall quizouts than he did in our last 3 years together. This wasn't an easy task. Tim finished all 3 of those years in the top 50 Quizzers List: 35th, 29th, and 39th. That is almost expectant because Tim was a Top 50 Quizzer 4 times in his career and one of the top 100 quizzers 6 times in his career. But his placing were no match for my 16th, 8th, and 4th.
Graham wins match-up, 46-40 quizouts (over 3 years on the same team).

So after 8 years of quizzing, I beat Jake, Josh, Tim and Becky Moss. I wish I could build a time machine and take on Debbie Moss, because I heard she was a great quizzer as well. By defeating these 4 Moss quizzers, I have shown that the student has mastered the teacher, and now the student is mastering being the teacher. This will be helpful as a coach, but I hope it's not too late, because these guys were influential to me as older quizzers to a younger quizzer. I hope that I was this mentor to the younger quizzers on my team when I was quizzer myself.

Christians under friendly fire

2009-11-13T10:42:00.005-05:00

This entry is for both my forum post for Redemptive Cinema class and my blog. I've always wanted to write on one my favorite movies, Saved!, and now with needing to do one for Redemptive Cinema class, I have the time to. I could say so much about this movie, almost to the point I could write a book about it. But for now, I'm going to do a small bit. But first, I need you to check out this clip...

The Gospel is not a weapon

or read the transcript of it below

Pastor Skip: [to the Christian Jewels] Listen, I'm concerned about Mary. Something's going on.
Hilary Faye: Yeah, me too.
Pastor Skip: Well, she's part of your posse, and I think that you could help her. I'm gonna need you to be a warrior out there on the front lines for Jesus.
Tia: You mean like shoot her.
Pastor Skip: No, I was thinking of something a little less gangsta.I need someone who's spiritually armed to help guide her back to her faith,to love and care that only Jesus can supply. You down with that?
Hilary Faye:Yeah, I'm down with that.
Pastor Skip:She's pretty vulnerable right now,so I'm gonna need you to be extra gentle.
[cuts to Mary walking, reading a book. Hilary Faye's van swings around]
- Hurry! Hurry! Come on!
- I'm going! I'm going!
- Get her!
- Come on, Tia!
-Stuff her in here!
-Hurry up! Hurry Up!
Hilary Faye:In the name of Jesus Christ, I command you,leave the body of this servant of God.
Mary:You're performing an exorcism on me?! Get off me!
Hilary Faye: We've gotta get rid of the evil in you.
Tia [holding up a picture of Jesus to Mary's face]: It's God's will!
Mary: God's will?
Tia: Christ died for your sins!
Hilary Faye: Ok, wait a second. [to Mary] Are you not going to accept our intervention?
Mary: You mean kidnapping? No!
Hilary Faye: You are backsliding into the flames of hell.
Veronica:You've become a magnet for sin.We've all witnessed it.
Mary: Sure.Veronica acting all pure. What about last spring break at the Promise Maker's rally?
Hilary Faye:You are making accusations as we're trying to save your soul? Mary, turn away from Satan. Jesus, he loves you.
Mary: You don't know the first thing about love.
Hilary Faye: [throws a Bible at Mary] I am FILLED with Christ's love! You are just jealous of my success in the Lord.
Mary: [Mary holds up the Bible] This is not a weapon! You idiot.

So what's your response to the last quote, said by Mary? If you're somewhat knowledgeable in the Bible, I bet you might have though of Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" or maybe Ephesians 6:17b, "... the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Both verses compare the Bible to a sword, the most lethal weapon at the time. When I think of it that way, I wonder if the Bible was written today, would the Word of God be described as a machine gun, shotgun, bazooka or atomic bomb? Actually, I kind of think that atomic bomb might work. An atomic bomb immediately consumes those in close proximity to where it fell, and those off a distance still feel side effects in the present and future from the radiation. In the same way, those in direct contact with the Word of God will be consumed by it, while those who get bits and pieces of it indirectly will still have those bits and pieces weighing down on their heart, in the present and future. But back onto subject, the Lord says His Words are like a lethal weapon, but the movie seems to say "no" to this, and makes anyone who believes this look like a fool. So what do we say? Do we blindly just say, "God is always true, God says it is a weapon, thus it is truly a weapon, no question, end of discussion" or do we have a logical response for the fallen non-Christian who won't accept that as answer? I know when I first saw this movie, I started out saying, "But Mary, you're wrong! It is a weapon. The Bible says so!" But then I started saying it's a metaphorical weapon, or "not that type" of weapon, and it would lead to some pretty messed up theology. And I couldn't help but think that Mary might have had a point. What do you with it?

I came across this clip because I was naturally searching for YouTube clips of one of my favorite movies. This one showed up. Interested on why the person put it up, I clicked on his YouTube profile, which gave a link for his blog, on which he used the clip for a point he was making, called "The Gospel is not a weapon." Below I have provided the links if you want to read them...

The Gospel is Not a Gun- Part 1
The Gospel is Not a Gun- Part 2

If you were too lazy to look at those blogs, I'll quickly summarize what he said. The pastor admitted that in his early years he was treating the gospel like a gun. He would "load his gun" by learning as much Bible and theology as he could. Those on his side with guns were traditional theologians like Calvin, Spurgeon, Piper, Keller, and Edwards. The enemy on the opposite side of the gun were guys like McLaren and Osteen. And he would open fire on them his theology. And he was convicted of this. He felt like he was misusing the gospel.

Are you familiar with the term "friendly fire"? It is when the troops are under fire, not from the enemy, but rather their own side. It may have not been intended for guns to be fired against their on side, but for whatever reason (possibly just bad directions/orders), mistakes are made and friendly fire occurs. The most recent popular story of friendly fire is the story of Pat Tillman, a football player with a big contract from the Arizona Cardinals. He gave up that big contract to go serve his country. He died in Afghanistan, and was made a hero because he gave up both his career and life. When an investigation went on, it discovered he died in friendly. I believe that what's made his story so tragic. Not that he lost his big football career because he died in a war, but rather that he died in a war from his own side not the enemy. Of all the ways to die in gunfire, I feel friendly fire is the most tragic.

And I think the biggest tragedy in Christianity is that Christians are under friendly fire from themselves. We load up our guns with the doctrine from our perferred denomination or faith statement, then we go open fire on those from different denominations, telling them they're wrong. And it kills the relationship between brothers and sisters in Christ; it kills the unity of the Body of Christ. Sometimes it's so bad the attacking Christian will even tell his target that he's not really a Christian if he/she doesn't exactly agree with the attacker's faith statement. Even worse this ends up polluting our evangelism. I believe Christians are to evangelize to save souls from hell and separation from God and bring them into heavenly unity with the Lord. Instead, sometimes it seems like Christians go out and evangelize to prove themselves right and the lost wrong. Heck, I heard someone in my college went out to evangelize to a Jew, and his opening line to him was, "How does it feel to be wrong?" Yes, I believe that Jesus is the Truth, and God's Word is Truth, but are we really aiming to save people from being wrong?

It's sad to say I sometimes see this at my college. People will go on and on, arguing and arguing, about who has got the right answer to this doctrine. And in the end, people just end up mad at each other, not talking to each for a while. The relationship is ruined. And let me tell you, I've been under this friendly fire. I've heard everything from "I would highly doubt you're a Christian if you call yourself a Democrat" to "If a whole nationwide conference of several churches has one or two churchs that are ok with homosexuality, then they support homosexuality, and have no part with the greater church" at my college, and let me tell you, it's made it harder and harder to attend here. I feel like I don't fit in and have no support. Even the few Mennonite "brothers" I have at this school have put my under this same friendly fire, and even my roommate. Is there anywhere safe I can go?

This is what I see in the Saved! clip. I don't believe Mary has fallen away from God, because in the end she admits she messed up. I would also like to (arguably) say many are turning to God. What's happening is Mary is entering this period of questioning and doubting. Even when she seems to be rejecting God, she is still seeking (even though it's other religions) because she believes it can't be all wrong, there has to be a right. Arguably, I like to say what caused Mary to doubt was that she was put under friendly fire. Hilary Faye took her loaded gun of evangelical Christianity, and shot it at Mary, at Dean, and every one who was struggling with sin. And sometimes, I think we're misusing the weapon we're given, to end up killing the soul. Just like the pastor from the blogs I gave you, I sometimes want to cry out to God, "Lord, please take Your Word away from us! We don't know how to use it properly!"

So in the end, I have to conclude by saying, "Yes, the Bible is weapon, but who is our target?" Lucky for us, God provides that answer. Remember Ephesians 6:17b? Look on top of that paragraph at Ephesians 6:12. It says, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." The target is not the flesh and blood human being, but the dark powers behind the sin the human is struggling with. To borrow from the old adage, the target is not the sinner, but the sin. It's time we stop firing at people, especially Christians, and time to start firing on Satan and his demons.

9 Ways the modern-day* church has gone wrong with worship

2009-10-31T13:02:00.001-04:00

Ok, this is something that has been on my heart since fall 2007 (perhaps attending LBC started it), but I have repressed for the benefit of not harming any relationships in the body of Christ. But as we all know, if we fill the gun power keg too full, and if it kept it the heat too long, it might spontaneously combust into a huge explosion. This is something I cannot hold back anymore. I entrust that I can get appropriate feedback from trusted people, instead of just hateful spews from people who barely know me. But I can no longer turn my head and ignore what is going on in the worship time. There are just some things that irk me about the way we have approached worship in the church. I hope that someday worship will be reformed, just like Martin Luther reformed the church. I may not have 95 Thesis, but I do have at least 9 points that the church needs to address to be able to successfully reform worship.

9 ways the modern-day* church has gone wrong with worship

Worship is self-centered. It's all about me.
Worship is all about the emotions
Worship songs are not always Biblically accurate
Worship songs tend to focus more on the death and resurrection
Worship teams does not lead, but rather performs
When worship teams do "lead," they are commanding
There is not always unity in worship
Worship can get too complex with instruments and sounds
Worship and the rest of the service are separate, where worship becomes the center

But before I go on, let me say that these observations I had made were in a "scientific" way. How is it scientific? I kept score; I did a survey. In my notebook, I made 7 columns to find 7 things I thought I would find in worship songs: number of times God is mentioned explicitly (Lord, God, Jesus, Christ, Holy Spirit, Yahweh, etc.), number of times God is mentioned implicitly (any title of God or Jesus that does not use God or Jesus, or any time "You" is used mentioning God or Jesus, but not really stated in the verse or chorus), numbers of time the self is mentioned (I, me, my, myself, etc.), number of times "you" is used (an altruistic use of "you," the ones not in reference to God), number of times the church or the Body of Christ is mentioned (pretty much "we"), number of times the creation is mentioned to worship God, and the number of times the passion weekend and redemption is mentioned (this is Christ's death, resurrection, or any redemption themes, like paying for sins, etc.). These are my results:

Times God/Jesus is explicitly mentioned: 108 times
Times God/Jesus is implicitly mentioned: 138 times
Times God/Jesus is mentioned altogether: 246 times (top 2 added together)
Times the self (I, me, etc.) is mentioned: 247 times
Times the alturistic sense of "you" is used: 1 time
Times the body of Christ/church is mentioned: 6 times
Times the creation is used in praise: 49 times
Times passion week and redemption is used: 56 times

Possible Conclusions:
-We focus more about ourselves rather than God
-We focus more on 3 days of Christ's early life over the whole redemptive history
-While we might understand worship, the non-Christian or new Christian may not
-Very little time is dedicated to building each other up

1. Worship is self-centered. It's all about me.
One of the most eye-opening discoveries in my survey is that the column that won was the high numbers that the self was mentioned, even more than God implicitly mentioned or God explicitly mentioned. I can only naturally conclude that in praise and worship, we sing more about ourselves than about God. In a way, we're not worshipping God, but ourselves, or at least our relationship of God. Do I dare even say we're asking God to praise us for deciding to follow Him? I blame the modern era influence on Christianity during the 20th century. 20th century modern philosophy is very centered around the self. Now don't get me wrong. I do believe that salvation comes with every one's individual decision to follow Christ. But we forget that when we do make this individual decision, we become part of a community, the Body of Christ. One of the reasons we go to church is to help fellow Christians be edified by one another. But the praise and worship time seems to say different. The worshipper sings so little about the church community and even less about others in the church community. It means praise and worship has become narcissistic, which is not Christian.

2. Worship is all about the emotions
Are you familiar with the term "sensual"? Today it has a bad reputation because it is often seen as a synonym to the word "sexual". But the etomology of the word shows the word sensual simply means "exciting, arousing, or appealing to the senses". I want to argue that all music gives us a sensual experience. We play music that reflects our emotions. We play upbeat songs when we are happy, we play downbeat songs when we're sad, and we play loud music when we're angry. No matter what genre you like listening to, this is true. May I go further on to this is true for both secular and religious music. The Bible does this. In David's good times, he wrote Psalms of praise, and in David's bad times, he wrote painful laments. So emotional involvement in praise and worship isn't fully wrong, but it isn't fully right. We have to remember our emotions is only one part of us, one part among many (physical, mental, social, spiritual, etc.). We also have to be careful with driving up emotions so high. Emotional thinking and decision-making isn't always the wisest. It may contradict the logical answer. Sometimes feeling good will become more important than expressing truths. And if that gets to an extreme, a wolf in sheep's clothing can sneak in, exchange the truths with lies, and we won't notice because all we care about is the emotional high. It calls for extra accountability to the worship leaders. Lastly, extra attention on the emotions can cause the intellect or anyone who is less in tune with emotions to feel left out of the worship experience. God wants us to worship Him in spirit and in truth, both emotionally and intellectually.

3. Worship songs are not always Biblically accurate

This piggy-backs off the last point. When all we care about is the emotional connection, we ignore the heresies and blasphemies that enter our praise songs. We need to make sure the songs we sing speak Biblical truth. Anything else is a lie. I can go on and on with this, but I will try to limit to a few examples. First example: "Come, Now is the Time to Worship." The song says in one line, "Come, just as you are to worship." This is not right. The Bible says we need to prepare and cleanse our hearts and minds as we enter God's presence. This is found in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Second example: "Above All." Yeah, it's a cute song about how Jesus died for us, but the biggest error is what i said in point 1: it's self-centered. Hello, Jesus was thinking about [God] the Father's Will above all. Because Jesus always put the Father before His ministry, just as we should. Third example: "Blessed Be Your Name." Now this one isn't as bad because it is taken from Scripture. The only problem is that it is used out of context. It's true that the bridge is a taken right out of the book of Job. But when Job says that, he is lamenting in the deepest sorrows. We sing it in a upbeat, happy praise. Trust me, it's better sung as a lament. Fourth example: "The Heart of Worship." It says "I'll bring you more than a song." Hello, this is a song! And people get caught up in the song, too! I don't know, I just never got it. And there is enough more. I once heard this one song (forget what it was called, but it's not like I want to remember) where the song said that something is missing in life, and that the writer is searching for it, but left it at that! No mention of the Lord, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or how God gives more to life. Worship songs have to come back to praising Jesus in a Biblical way. Furthermore, I call for worship songs to mention God and Jesus more explicitly. Notice in my survey that Jesus and God's name usually came in the form of "You" or some title given to either part of the trinity. Yes, the mature Christian on spiritual meat knows what the song is about, but the non-Christian or the newborn Christian on spiritual milk may be clueless, and it wouldn't be edifying to them. It is key for church to be edifying to all, which means understandable to all.

4. Worship songs tend to focus more on the death and resurrection
My survey alone should show that is true. The survery showed we sung more about redemptive themes than even the creation. Now in writing this, I don't want it to seem like I'm favoring hymns in worship just for the sake of favoring hymns, but if there is one thing I like about hymns, it's the variety. Open a hymnal (if you can find one), and you'll find hymns on peace, hope, love, joy, prayer, praise, thanksgiving, suffering, wisdom and so much more. You can find hymns on the advent of Christ's birth, Christ's birth, Christ's ministry, Christ's works, Christ's death, Christ's resurrection, Christ's ascension, and Christ's Body, filled with the Holy Spirit. But when it comes to comtemporary praise and worship, most, if not all, songs can be placed in two categories: praising God for His creation or praising God for his sacrifice. And the survery shows which one is more used. Is it wrong to sing praise of Christ's work on the cross. Not at all, or at least not fully. Where does it go wrong? When we can't move on. Let me explain better by explaining how worship has ended up just focusing on passion weekend (Good Friday to Resurrection Sunday). To briefly sum up the Bible and redemptive history, it can be done in 4 stage: creation, fall, redemption, re-creation. To say it in sentence form, "God created you, you fell into sin, Jesus saves those from sin who receive him, and makes them a new creation through sanctification." But over time the 20th century evangelical church has shaved off the ends of the redemptive story, leaving only the fall and redemption side in. So the evangelical's method of evangelism is saying to non-believers, "You have fallen into sin, but Jesus can save you from sin if you receive him." Is there anything wrong with this saying? No, but I believe this saying robs people of the full picture, of being wonderfully made in the image of God and, as Christians, being remade into a new creation. But no. Instead, it's just fall & redemption. The four parts are now: humans sin, Christ died, Christ, receive the gift. And this idea has sneaked into our worship time. Our worship singing is all about the fall and redemption. We keep reminding ourselves that we are fallen sinners, totally dependant upon Christ. Is this a lie? Not at all. But it does have a negative effect on us when we don't have the full redemption story on it. Ever feel guilty of your sin, even after being saved. Why would you be? Hebrews tells us that once we are saved, God remembers our sins no more. Romans says that if we are in Christ, there is no condemnation. So why do Christian still feel condemned? They are constantly reminded in worship they are sinners dependant on Christ's salvation, so they keep worshipping God in that aspect, as if God will not forgive them if they don't. Instead, what should be happening is we should be hearing more praise and worship songs that talk about re-creation and sanctification, so that we can grow in those areas. Sometimes I think God can do so much more with us if we moved on in the way of sanctification, and stop groveling at the cross, thanking for forgiveness that we have already received. It is like Jesus is crying out to use, "Yes, I get it you're thankful you're saved. Can we move on to working in my kingdom and in my ministry?" Or better yet, it is like Jesus is saying, "I am off the cross. Are you?" Finally, I'd to close with pointing out a Biblical proof for this: the Psalms. There is not just 1 genre of psalms. There are quite a few: laments, praising God for rescuing, praising God for who He is, and wisdom psalms. If the Psalms are in variety, shouldn't the comtemporary worship be as well?

5. Worship team does not lead, but rather performs
It's typical for the worship team, especially the leader of the team to be incredibly talented musically. Is there anything wrong with that? No. In fact, it seems like they are the first ones willing to do it. Do I think that musical talent should be the discerning factor in choosing a praise and worship band. I don't believe so. I do believe there is a difference between the spiritual gift of worship leader and musical talent. But the problem I am about to discuss can happen to worship leaders who are talented and not as talented; it just seems more prevailant in those who are musically talent. It might be because the worship team is musically talented, or it might be because the stage is set up like a concert. But whatever the cause, it seems like the worship team is performing than leading worship. First sign of a performing worship team: singers, especially the lead singer, uses his/her/their full octive range in singing. Obviously less talented singers in the audience/congregation aren't going to be able to reach these notes. So why are doing it? Second sign of a performing worship team: instrumental solos. Yeah that's cool to hear at a concert, but how is it edifying the rest of the congregation? I won't even rule out it's an act of worship to God, but the soloist is not leading the rest of the church with the soloist. Pretty much, today's worship scene is set up like this: the worship team is the performers, and the church congreation is the audience. It needs to switched as God is the audience, and the performers are both the worship team and the rest of the church congregation. It's time we define the lead in "worship leaders." They are worship leaders, not worship performers.

6. When worship team does "lead," they are commanding
Ever have a worship team tell you what to do, what to think or how to feel? I have a problem more with the last two then the first one, but let's go in order. Now I don't have a problem of worship leaders telling their audience to sit or stand. It tells the congregation, both members and visitors, what the appropriate stance or position is while worshipping. But I think when the worship teams tells the congregation to sing a certain way, say a certain line, or put their hands in a certain position, that goes to far. Those actions are suppose to be something that comes from the heart. Speaking of which, I can move on to my dislike of worship teams telling the congregation on how to think or feel. This is just wrong inside and outstide of worship. If you're telling me how to think or feel, and it's contrary to how I really think or feel, then changing it would not be genuine. And I might be getting something else out of the worship time, but if the worship team tells me to think/feel another way, I might feel wrong, and lose spiritual growth. God made everyone individually special, and the Body of Christ must recognize that it will create different worship styles. I believe the worship team's job is to encourage worship, no matter what the style.

7. There is not always unity in worship
This goes beyond the fact of the powerpoint not matching the worship team. Ever have this happen: half the worship team repeats a verse, another repeats the chorus? Or have the singers repeat a verse, while the instrument players repeating the chorus? This can lead the worshipping congregation confused on what to sing! Heck, that happens, too! The worshipping congregation goes to continue to song as normal, and the worship band decides to change order. Now we, as Christians, claim that the Holy Spirit is with us in worship, and that the Holy Spirit unites. This is true. But what do you say when you the above incidents happen? It is embarrassing! It's a bad witness of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is there at worship, uniting us, this shouldn't happen. Now don't get me wrong: I claim both statements about the Holy Spirit as truth. So that leads me to want to question the motifs of the praise band when it does happen, especially if the praise band has been practicing too. But I will not question too much, so I don't have to face judgment. All I'm saying is that at least at hymns, the hymn leader would say what verse are being sung ahead of time.

8. Worship can get too complex with instruments and sounds

Sometimes I think worship can get too carried away with how we sound. First is the instruments. I think the biggest worship team I saw had 10 performers on stage: 4 guitars (lead, rhythm, bass, and acoustic), 2 pianists (baby grand piano & keyboard), 2 drummers (full drum set & double bongos), and 2 singers. Another time I saw 3 acousitic guitars. I turned to one of my friends, who is musically talented, and asked him, "Is there really a point to 3 acoustic guitars?" and his reply was "No, not really." Doesn't this kind of seem ridiculous? Truth to be told, if we really cared about sound, the better worship teams I've heard are the ones with the fewer instruments, the better. Ever listen to the Amish? They don't believe in playing instruments, and their voices are wonderful. Second in this subject is the singing. As I said above, some worship leaders will sing full octives. Others coordinate the church into 4-part singing. Still others don't care and just have everyone sing in unison. The worst causes is I heard worship leaders say in a low-tone, implicit, "nice" way, "If you can't sing, don't sing" (they will say something like "pause and silently think about the words" but that's what they mean). Last time I checked, Psalm 100:1 says to make joyful sound unto the Lord, not necessarily a pleasant sounding one. Point is that it's about the heart. It may even be true that the worshipper who sings "badly" might have a better heart in worship than someone singing "well." Third part would just be sound in general. This ranges anywhere from designing the church building to have good acoustics to installing microphones and speakers in the right place. For this I say the same I said for singing. It's not how we sound, but where our heart is.

9. Worship and the rest of the service is separate, where worship becomes the center
I've noticed the typical pattern for worship is: call to worship, praise and worship music, announcements, offering, sermon, prayer requests, bendiction. Sometimes prayer time comes between offering and sermon, but not the point. Somehow this setup is group in sections, instead of one whole thing. Thus, sometimes more attention is given to one than the other. The popular choice is the praise and worship time. I've seen people give their all in praise and worship, singly loudly and waving their arms, but then after they are unlively, so unlively it's like they are do. They zone out for rest of the service. Heck, I've even seen some people leave the sanctuary, and even leave the church, after the praise and worship time, as if church is done. Why is this? It could be something as simple as they put in all their energy in the beginning, and by the time praise and worship singing is over, they are out of juice and pooped. But I think there is something more. I think it's because they are in the wrong mindset. They believe that the preacher giving the sermon is merely the preacher's act of worship, not theirs. But this is only paritally true. Sure the preacher is worship God by preaching, but he's also doing it to edify church. He's giving you just as much spiritual food as praise and worship will. And if you believe as I, that the Holy Spirit is speaking through the preacher, then the Holy Spirit might be speaking to us in the sermon as in praise and worship singing. Then those that zone out will be missing out on God's Word. I know that I truthfully get more out of the sermon than the praise and worship music. If you give it a try, you might find that out as well. As an LBC chapel speaker once said, "If you refuse to listen to God through His Word the Bible, then why would God speak to you any other way?" This kind of goes back to my second point. Church, it is time you stop just feeling, and start thinking.

In closing, I want to leave you with a verse and an experience I had. The verse is Hebrews 5:13,14- "Anyone who lives on milk, still being an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by cosntant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil." I love the imagery the author (possibly Paul, because Paul uses the same imagery) uses here. When infants start eating, they have to start on milk first, but as they mature and need more calories, they move on to solid food. In fact, a lot of infant nutritionists say it's unhealthy to push solid food on an infant. But you ever think of this way: is it unhealthy to keep an infant on milk when it needs to move up to solid food? That might be denying the baby the important nutrients, like calories, that the infant needs to keep growing. I will tell you of the experience I had. I went on a fast for five days, having nothing but a quart of milk for every meal (which is about a half gallon a day). See what happened to me and try to connect it with the verse. Did I survive? Yes. Was I hospitalized? No. Did it keep me alive? With the help of God, yes. So on the surface level, it did its job. But deep down inside, I was lacking something. At the end of my milk "meals," I was still hungry. Even though it gave my the nutrients to stay alive, I robbed myself of other nutrients that were neccesary to grow. I could feel inside that I was lacking solid food, and I craved for it. I crave for something to fill me. Some days I felt aching muscles, and I wondered if that had anything to do with the fast. See the connection? While milk keeps us alive, we need to eventually move on to solid foods to keep growing strong. This is true in the spiritual aspects, too. See, I believe that when we are only focusing on a praise & worship time where the individal is center, where feelings are more imporant than thinking, and where passion week and redemption themes are the only themes mentioned, we are just feeding ourselves spiritual milk, the same we did as when we received Christ. When people who have been Christians for a long just feed themselves spiritual milk, they are depriving themselves of the nutrients they need to continue growing spiritually. This will leave them as weak as infants, depending on a "spiritual high" to keep themselves going. They will be aching and yearning for something more. Look at Hebrews 5:13,14 as an encouragement to grow up. Many of you Christians are ready to grow up after many years in the faith. But you must move on from your milk and eat solid food. I believe if we can approach and conquer these 9 ways, we as a church can move on to bigger and better things. Once again, I call the church to grow, taking on solid food instead of staying milk, and to start thinking.

*I chose the term "modern-day" although I was tempted to use "evangelical" instead because these problem seem prevailant in the evangelical church. Yet I've noticed these problems sometimes in the emergent church, as well as the pentacostal/charsmatic church. The only churches who have less of these problems are the older churches with older traditions. Therefore, I think the problem isn't a church movement issue, but rather a time period issue. Thus, I settled with the term "modern-day"

My Quizzing Testimony

2009-09-21T12:39:00.000-04:00

As some of you might know, last week I submitted 50 applications for quiz coach to 50 churches. Most of the application was in the form of a typical resume, but I also included a 3-page testimony on how God has used quizzing to move me spiritually in my life. I would like to share that with you. Now remember, part of the reason for this testimony is also to convince the reader that I am ready to take on a quizzing position, so not every important, life-changing event in quizzing is in here, but most of it is. Enjoy.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

My name is Graham Holcomb. I am a retired Bible Quizzer, seeking to become a quizzing coach. I quizzed in ACC Bible Quizzing for eight years as a Bible quizzer. For my first three years, I quizzed for Ark Bible Chapel in Oley, PA. When Ark Bible no longer had a team, I went to quiz for Spring City Fellowship in Spring City, PA for the last five years. Let me share my quizzing testimony, and how it has made me the person I am today, inside and outside of quizzing.

I am sad to say the picture does not start out pretty. If I were to give you an honest introduction to a 7th grade Graham, you would see a depressed 7th grade student. I was depressed because I felt like I didn’t have any friends. I was depressed because I felt like he is untalented and ungifted, not good at anything. I had taken a survey at my church to discover my spiritual gifts, and I learned that knowledge was one of my spiritual gifts, but did not know how to use it. Little did I know how much the Lord was moving in my life. At my church’s youth group, there was a girl who attended the youth group, but didn’t go to our church. She went to Ark Bible Chapel, and her father was the church’s quiz team coach. Our youth leader, who know about my Biblical knowledge and love for learning the Bible, suggested that I become a part of quizzing. I thought about it, fully debating the pros and cons of joining, and at the last minute decided to be a part of it. It was a good choice. I fell in love with quizzing. I loved the detail studying of the books of the Bible we were quizzing on, and how quizzing made it so much fun. I enjoyed the fast-paced buzzing and the competition between quizzers and teams. I liked the feeling of being needed on the team for my God-given talents. All these factors and more made me want to quiz again. I wanted to do better.

To check to see if I was doing better, I started becoming a statistician of my own performance. It first started with keeping track of how many points I scored on the year and my final placing. Then it become more specific, keeping track of right and wrong buzz ins, right and wrong bonuses, quiz outs and error outs. This helped me see improvement. Being able to see the improvement helped me improve even further. I was able to get more of the good things, like right answers and quiz outs, and less of the bad things, like incorrect bonuses. This also helped me set goals to strive for.

For me, quizzing was never contained to January to March. I was still quizzing in the off-season from April to January, on the material for the next quizzing season. I write very detailed questions for the chapters being studied next year. In fact, I write down every question possible. How many questions I write depends on how many verses and how much free time I have. The most I have written is over 300 questions for 140 verses. I also tried to memorize some passage. Once again, how much I memorize comes down to how much I time I have. I try to memorize whole chapters. The chapters I choose usually is something I believe is hard to remember or important to know, which will be beneficial outside of quizzing. I do believe the entire Bible is God’s inspired, inerrant Word and is all around important, but I also think that some can be more involved than others. Those verses are the one I strive to memorize. Even though I am a retired quizzer, I still find myself writing questions and memorizing verses. I believe as a coach, if I continue to do these things, I can become a better Christian and become a better quiz coach by still learning God’s Word in detail.

But even with the right reasons in mind, things can go wrong. It was good that I no longer saw myself as ungifted or untalented, but now I solely saw my gifts and talents in quizzing. My identity solely was in quizzing. I let my quizzing performance define who I was. If I did good, I became proud. If I did poorly, I would become depressed and not like myself. All I wanted to think and talk about was quizzing. Studying in the quizzing offseason was a way to keep my identity because if I ceased to prepare for quizzing or even stop thinking about quizzing, I would return to my depression state of feeling unwanted or untalented. But my new quiz coaches would not allow me to be that way. Spending my last five years of my quizzing career with my new team and my new coaches, God used them both to help further my process of sanctification. By the end of those five years and the end of my quizzing career, my coach was able to say about me, “When Graham began quizzing with us, his identity was in quizzing. Now I am glad to say Graham’s identity is now in Christ.” May his witness of my change be enough proof to say it’s true.

Ah, yes, my quiz coaches. While I was influenced by all my coaches, my last coaches, Dave & Vicki Deitrick, had the biggest impact on me. They wanted, almost demanded, a team that was united. My coaches were concerned about my spiritual growth helped me spiritually grow. They check up on how I am doing and help in any way. They pray for me and talk to me about my walk with the Lord. They always encouraged me. Every year coach Dave would always say a word that would stick out to me as prophetic. In 2005, the word was “favor” as in “seeking God’s favor.” I took it to heart and began putting my quizzing fate in God’s hands. Whatever happened was God’s will, so I prayed hard that the Lord would help me do my best. I recognize that every point, every quiz out, every win is the favor the Lord’s blessing. Therefore, I prayed to God every day about quizzing. I always prayed to God and ask Him to bless me with His favor. Whether I do good or bad, I thanked Him every day for whatever He is given me, good or bad. In 2006, Dave mentioned “leadership,” the word that stuck with me for the rest of the year I had to be a leader for my team. I was only one of three that returned. Of the three I was ranked the highest. I learned how to be a leader, and tried my best to do so. I led by example and tried to help with studying. From that year on, to the end of my career, I became a leader to every younger quizzer on the team. My coaches in those later years would describe as both an anchor and a pillar to the team. In 2007, two words from Dave stuck out this year: revival and wisdom. Whenever I got nervous in a quiz match, Dave would look at me and say, “Wisdom” and I was at a calm peace knowing if I was wise in my quizzing, I would do well. The other word, “revival,” made me realize that this church pendulum was swinging again, and the people were examining their practices and returning to God. It reminded me to give my generation a bit of hope. The last two years didn’t have a single word for each one, but had one word expand over those two years. That were was “character.” My coaches taught me that the better title that begins with a C is “character” over “champion.” Championships only last a year, but people remember one’s character forever. God seeks to use people with character in His kingdom. And through all those years combined, the coaches made me a humble quizzer, giving God the credit always.

I hope through this testimony you have seen how God has used quizzing to help me spiritually grow. But when I see this testimony of how God has used quizzing in my life, I see something more. I don’t think God intended me to be a quizzer for eight years, and have me drop off the face of the quizzing world. I see God preparing me and equipping me to be a quiz coach.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

It has been 5 days since I sent out all those applications. I'm expecting/hoping to get a lot of responses this week. After all, I did send out 50. I have already gotten a few responses, but nothing tugging at me. I'll have to wait and see. Please continue to pray for me being a quiz coach, that God will point my to a coaching job where I am needed, wanted and can do so much for the Kingdom of God.