Missions Conference

Yesterday there was an all-day mission conference at my church. There were good speakers speaking on timely topics.
A list of gleaned items (some of which are direct quotes):
"A missionary is one who never becomes accustomed to the tramp of Christless feet on the road to eternity."
"Train yourself to be godly."
Singles have more freedom to witness for God BALANCED with: a family does not get in the way of outreach. It can be very attractive to see respectful, modest children and a loving wife. (I don't suppose I agree with that all the way, but I definitely think that a family can be a very good witness.)
The primary place of mission work for a mother is in the home - if I was ever married, I'd feel pretty restricted by that focus - but it does seem to be true.
Prayer teaches us God's heart.
Be alert for opportunities to witness.
Take time for PEOPLE, of all sorts. You can't minister unless you've involved with people. [Yep, next to God, people are what it's all about.]
Hospitality is a powerful way to reach others.
Focus on heart needs (of the people you are trying to reach), not the results of the heart needs.
Remember the message you have - the stark reality of the separation of the sinner from God. Salvation doesn't make sense without an understanding of sin.
Be a debtor to the love of Christ.

The unexpected times (in foreign missions) are the times when we find out how much we've put on the new man.
--End gleaned items.--

If I ever went to a different culture, I'd have to really work on my brain to accept the ideas of eating out of the same pot with others and eating insects.

I appreciated the mixed focus on mission work at home, and mission work abroad.

Formulated Religion

I went to Campus Ambassadors last Thursday night - even though I had a test Friday morning. (Sometimes I am sort of stubborn and do things that could be potentially unwise.) They had a Mormon there to talk about difference(s) between Mormonism and Christianity and answer questions the students had. I think some of the students could have acted in a more respectful manner while the man was there. While I do not believe Mormonism is the truth, it does not give me any license to get riled up againt its adherents.

Why would someone (ie Joseph Smith) start a religion based on a book that they themselves wrote and know to be a lie? Such a person would either be really evil or very self-deceived.
Assuming "self-deceived" to be the case...it is difficult for me to understand people who manufacture their own religious beliefs and derive meaning from them. It seems that people should desire to know absolute truth.

I wonder what the writer(s) of the Urantia Book thought about it. Did he/they really believe it was the truth? Or was he/they just having fun/desiring power (definitely, it would have been fun to write - it is pretty imaginative from what I've seen - but I can't see deceiving others with it)?

It's been almost three weeks since I went to that debate between a Christian man and a feminist woman (Susan Shaw). The Christian was pretty fundamental in what he said - largely because of that I remember more of Susan's discussion than his.

Ms. Shaw was raised in a Southern Baptist home and went to a theological seminary. She began to view suffering as requiring a different view of God - if God was omnipotent, she would have expected him to not allow suffering. She has formulated a set of beliefs based on what makes sense to her. Where is the desire to know absolute truth?
Progress theology made more sense to her than a traditional Christian view of God. Progress theology states: that God is being but not a being; that God does not have the power to inhibit natural processes; that "evil" is when a person keeps someone from fulfilling their full potential. When asked how that definition of evil related to abortion (which obviously keeps someone from fulfilling their full potential), Susan skirted the issue and stated that she was not "pro-abortion" but rather "pro-choice" because she did not believe it was her right to state what another woman could do with her body.
She had a definite problem with a paternalistic view of the world as it focuses (by her definition) on suffering, war, etc. She rejects the story of Christ's resurrection and possibly crucifixion because they are related to death - and yet she still calls herself a Christian (she has retained some Christian sympathies because that is what she grew up with and is comfortable with).
She presented the idea that woman's first sin was self-sacrifice. I think self-sacrifice is a good thing - it perfects us. The world would be a much better place if everyone held everyone else in higher esteem than themselves.

Particulars

In "How should we then live?" Francis Schaeffer mentions that part of humanism involves people focusing on the particulars and losing a concept of the universal that gives meaning to the particulars. I think some Christians do something similar as they strive to obey God by obeying the commandments in the Bible. They get hung up on doctrinal details and lose track of the true essence of Christianity. Don't get me wrong - doctrine is important. But it is of little value standing alone. It must issue forth from a heart that is wholly for God. "Though I [basically anything] and have not charity, I am nothing." I Cor. 13

"If you can't major in both love and doctrine, then major in love and minor in doctrine."

It has been said that a focus on love is not entirely right in the Christian life. That may be so, if the only love included is love for man. But when love for God is included, all doctrine is encompassed.

A Tale of Two Weeks

Last week: a Bible study Tuesday night (Brownsville Mennonite Church youth girls); a Bible study Wednesday night (Christian veterinarian types), a sleep-over Thursday night (CS (a girl)'s house), a youth activity Friday night (as previously mentioned). No tests.

This week: Pharmacology test Wednesday morning, clinical pathology lab quiz Wednesday afternoon, clinical pathology exam Friday morning. (I was about to type "no socializing," but I am planning to go to prayer meeting tonight.)

(Comprehend the contrast and ignore the elements of complaint... Besides, I really wouldn't want school without tests - they provide a sense of accomplishment. And continuous social activities could get wearing.)

Five Notches Down

A couple weeks ago I stated jokingly to some girls at church that my brain had problems. Obviously, it doesn't work perfectly all the time, but I wasn't genuinely concerned at that time. Recently, however, it has seemed extra scattered.

A week and a half ago, I performed poorly on a quiz/exam (might have had something to do with my 3.5 hours of sleep).
Last Tuesday I almost missed one of my classes. The class is normally held on Mondays, but was moved because of MLKJr Day. Probably the first suggestion was that it be held last Wednesday from 8 - 10 am. That is what became cemented in my memory, and I even wrote it down in my planner when I was filling stuff in later on. Last Tuesday came along and I was on my way to the gym on campus when I heard my name called. I was informed that class was occuring right then (it had been going for almost 0.5 hours). Befuddled and thinking that my classmates had failed to tell me of the change, I went to class. After getting my papers out, I noticed an enscription: "Tuesday 1 pm." Fabulous. So to all appearances I had been told and it was completely my fault for forgetting. I hadn't done my assignment yet, but was granted mercy and allowed to do it later.
Last Friday I was at a youth meeting at my minister's house. There is a sort of joke that involves a glass pop bottle sitting on a table with a match book balanced on top. I was told to start across the living room with my arm extended and my right hand fingers prepared to flick the match book off the pop bottle. Upon reaching the table I was to perform a flicking action over the match book. I was to repeat the whole process twice, and on the second repeat I was to flick the book off. I completely forgot to actually try to flick the book off, but proceeded stupidly as on the previous two occasions. (The point of the joke is that many people misjudge the spatial relation between their fingers and the match book. Therefore, my failure was probably suspected but not for the reason it occured.)

And then there was the Spoonerism that issued from my mouth when we were asked what color the sheep were that Jacob stole from Laban: "spited and stropped" instead of "spotted and striped" (obviously those are not colors, anyway). That, however, I find to be amusing and not disturbing.

Pathology Intrusions

A couple days ago I found myself thinking of a thickened portion of a piece of bread as a lesion (like I would assess a raised area on a liver). Bear with me... morphologic diagnosis could be something like: chronic, moderate to severe, focal, hyperplasia of bread slice.

Ceasing to Seek

It still bothers me when people abandon Christianity after putting a lot of effort into being Christians. Some may have wrestled with inconsistencies in printed scripture and finally have given up on it. Lack of faith with continued honest search for truth is one thing - plain giving up is another and is sad. Why do people do it?

Tonight I plan to attend a Socratic Club debate: "Religion: Opiate of the Masses?" Expect a recap soon.

God is There

A month ago I was talking to my friend CS about bitterness. It clouds reasoning. It is really important that people not become bitter against God because of the tsunami disaster.

On the way to school last Thursday I was listening to 90.5 FM. A lady read an essay about the people who lost their lives in the tsunami. She seemed to think that such an occurrence is incompatible with belief in any God or maybe belief in a God who cares about humans. She thought that humans have more compassion than a God who allows such catastrophes.

If there is no God, where did the universe come from? How did life originate? From where arose our higher level of thinking that allows us to ponder the significance of the tsunami? Did the lady feel that she had answers to those questions, or did she face them at all?

I think that people have trouble thinking from God's perspective (and that is no wonder since God's thoughts are much higher than ours). They have trouble seeing world events with eternity in mind. If you think about it, the tsunami was really not that bad for the people who died. They experienced terror for a short period of time. Isn't that much easier, much less pain than the person who suffers with a terminal illness for years? Those who remain alive following the tsunami are deeply saddened by loss of family and possessions. But that is not without benefit - such loss may remind them of the fleeting quality of their own lives. It may remind them to search for meaning in life beyond the temporal, possibly leading them to a relationship with God. When we consider that what God most wants for an individual is for him to acknowledge Him, love Him, personally relate to Him - and when it may sometimes require some major disturbance in the individual's life to effect that end, or to effect it more perfectly - should we be very surprised that a loving and righteous God would cause or permit a tsunami?

Government and the Christian

It is right that Christians be "persecuted for righteousness' sake." It is to be expected when we are fulfilling the actions pertaining to God's kingdom. However, Peter (in the New Testament) mentions that supposed Christians may also be persecuted for evil doing - which is nothing to rejoice in. We are to be above board such that the world cannot nail us for incorrect actions.

We should never cease from actions just because the world does not look favorably on them. We should not refuse to take part in government just because the world would prefer that we not be involved. However, oppositions from the world to Christian involvement in government may suggest some valid reasons for Christians to not be involved. For instance, I don't think it is necessarily right for Christians to force non-Christians to conform to Christian moral standards. There is no eternal benefit to an individual who follows God's teachings without a changed heart.
Let's look at the gay marriage issue. If a Christian should not oppose the gay lifestyle for non-Christians based on Christian moral principles, and if the gay lifestyle is not deemed bad for a society based on secular values, he has no reason to vote 'no' on a gay marriage measure. (And yet, if a Christian is involved in government can he rightly vote "yes" on a gay marriage proposition, which would be in a way supporting it?)

The world would look more favorably on President Bush if he had not invaded Iraq. If he had followed Jesus teachings about not returning an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth, he would have left the Iraqis to themselves. However, (and I'm not saying Iraq should have been invaded based on even earthly values) I don't think an earthly government should be run on the principles of the heavenly kingdom. When God directed the Israelites in the establishment of an earthly kingdom, he commanded the use of force and revenge. Those are not appropriate for a Christian to execute. Therefore, it would seem to follow that Christians should not be US Presidents.

Even if the government was capable of performing its goals without harming a person, the goals of Christians and an earthly government are different. Eg, Christians are not to view the world selfishly. They are to turn the other cheek and give to those who ask of them. According to such principles, Christians would not turn anyone away at their borders. That, however, could result in an inappropriate population increase and would make it very easy for terrorists to enter.

A government cannot be run one hundred percent on Christian principles - but I guess we could pick and choose which parts of government we can be involved in - stay out of the army, stay out of the police force, stay out of the jury, don't vote on issues about which the Christian viewpoint could not work in government. But if we do not belong in those aspects of government, isn't it an unequal yoke for us to be involved in it at all? The goals of the Christian are heavenly, the goals of the worldling are earthly. Some principles can be used in both the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, but not all of them. Why be involved in something you cannot support in all aspects?

Return to the Grindstone

One thing about working boring jobs during break is that it helps make school a relief - helps me be glad to be back.
Overall, vacation was pretty good - ice skating, a slumber party, visiting people, reading. It ended with an A capella Harmony Quartet concert, which was rather enjoyable. I ran into someone (R) there whom I hadn't seen for 5.5 years - a very interesting person who heats her house with solar heat (when possible); has experimented with natural dyes for wool/maybe goat hair; trained two Arabians to pull a cart/something; et cetera. R sold me a Toggenburg goat when I was in highschool.
That brings me to the subject of friendship networks - they are fun even if not specifically arranged by God for the purposes of his kingdom. I learned to know R from a lady who went to my church; from R I learned to know a girl (GA) who went to the Mennonite church in Sheridan, and later I had GA in my home because of another, completely separate connection. When I went to vet school, I met CB, who knew GA because they were both in Campus Ambassadors. R was at the concert because of GA, whom I was also very happy to see.

This term I'm taking imaging, systemic pathology, clinical pathology, and pharmacology. For the first week of imaging we get to learn about radiation physics, which makes me happy. There's not nearly enough physics, chemistry or math in vet school! Sometimes I think I should have become an engineer - but maybe I've already copied my brother enough in life.