coming out in middle school: non-practicing homosexuals.

i had an interesting discussion at a youth pastor's network meeting on wednesday morning. the topic of the discussion: coming out in middle school.

a tough topic. we talked about how youth culture is drastically shifting, and how every kid in our youth ministry (that isn't home-sheltered/schooled) probably knows at least a couple homosexuals - or at least kids who they're pretty sure are gay. comparing that to just 12 years ago when i was in middle school - i knew 1 kid. comparing that to 25 years ago when many other youth pastors were in middle school: most didn't know any.

so the culture is changing - kids are talking about it more, and the world is telling them that sexuality (both homo and hetero) is certainly something that you should be curious about at an early age. they're thinking about it earlier, and middle schoolers who are already searching for their identity are suddenly determining that they are gay much more often than in previous years.

but we don't want to limit it to them simply searching for their identity. if you tell a kid who truly believes that they are gay that they're just going through a phase and that they'll be straight again in a few weeks...pretty sure that kid has a great chance of never making it back into the doors of your youth group. however, we don't want to make it a big hairy "revert from your sin" conversation.

my personal opinion is that we should treat them just like any heterosexual kid - "you're not ready for a serious relationship anyway - let alone sex - why don't you come talk to me about this when you're 16 and we'll discuss what it means for your life." cause it's true - ALL middle schoolers are not ready for sex, no matter what their sexual orientation. they're non-practicing sexual beings just like the straight kids are.

but then someone asked the question, "are non-practicing homosexuals sinning?"

i've been thinking quite a bit over the last 48 hours about that question. temptation is not a sin - Jesus was tempted in every way, yet he never sinned - but it is when individuals act on that temptation when it becomes sinful. if someone were to tell me, "adam, i'm an alcoholic, but i haven't had a drink in 3 years," i'd be celebrating, not worrying!

so when a middle schooler corners me and says, "adam, i'm gay," how do i respond? he's probably not dating and certainly isn't practicing at 11 or 12 years old, so is he sinning? how do i approach the situation - theologically, but more importantly individually with that kid? to what extent do i attribute it to an identity issue, and to what degree do i take the kid seriously and start unpacking his/her situation more in depth? i'm not sure i have answers for most of these.

these are questions i'll probably wrestle with for a long time in youth ministry. decades probably. and just when i feel like i've got it figured out, culture will probably change again and the church's approach will need to change again. but no matter what, everyone is welcome to enter the Kingdom. there will never be a day when a kid could say something that would shut them out of the doors of the Church.

-ap.

save the planet.

i'm leading a discussion throughout october with our middle schoolers called "save the planet". it could also be called "environmentalism from a biblical perspective: what it is and why it's supposed to be important to us as Christ-followers", but if i called it that, then none of them would want to hear my discussion. either way, it definitely has the potential to be a great topic for our middle schoolers to digest.

as youth workers, it is important for us to understand what society says is important and reexamine the image through a biblical lense: what doest the Bible say about this? where is this written? politics and society tells middle schoolers (and us) that environmentalism is important, but not really why it is important. but to be honest, i'm not seeing the importance of it to society either. i understand its importance to us as Christians, but the rest of the world doesn't really have a good reason to take care of it.

but anyway. i've been watching documentaries and reading articles about global warming, genesis, creation, and environmental everything this afternoon. going into this little research session i had the "God made us in his image so we're above the rest of creation, but we're supposed to take care of it and not abuse what is rightfully his" perspective. and i still chiefly hold this perspective, but there were two thoughts that i hadn't really considered yet.

many environmentalists hold the perspective that the world would be better off if humans didn't exist - that way, the world could run its own course and we wouldn't be here to destroy its beauty. but to God, we are a part of creation. sure, we are at the top of the creation pyramid - made in God's image (col 1:15-17), dominion over the earth (gen 2:15), etc. - but the claim that nature would be better off without us is strictly unbiblical.

the second thought isn't as perspective-altering, but a good insight for sure. when we're thinking about being environmentally friendly and going green and all that business, we need to remember that we are doing so as an act of worship to the Creator, not creation. it's important for Chrsitians to understand this distinction. plants and animals are a part of God's creation, but they are not the object of our worship - their (and our) Maker is.

just some insights into what i've been doing today. now it's time for me to go break into my girlfriend's car at rockhurst and leave her flowers in her cupholder.

awwwwww.

-ap.

love is the solution.

i'm becoming increasingly cynical and skeptical of the notion of change in this world. there's so much wrong with this country - this planet actually - that it seems like we'll never solve anything. i was talking with a friend of mine yesterday about how when i was in elementary school there wasn't a war going on overseas like there is now...so what was the problem back then? there's always something. i don't know what life without war and struggle. i don't know a world without race and class disparity. so when i read articles and have conversations with people about how messed up things are and how unfair this planet is i get pretty discouraged. and whats worse - i find myself shrugging my shoulders more so than ever in my life.

yes. i know that even the slightest bit helps, and that sometimes the smallest and most insignificant of things can create success and joy of immeasurable magnitude. but there are some days when i find it so discouraging. there will always be something wrong with this world and the more there is to save it, the more i find it failing, and the more i open my heart and mind to educate myself about the hurt and unfairness in this world the more i feel like i'm doing nothing to change anything and nothing to improve it. even when i actually take physical strides and formulate active plans to begin change i can't help but notice all the points where i could be doing more and where others could be doing more as well.

i can give some money, but money only goes so far in solving problems. i can give food, but its only a matter of time before hunger strikes again - i've only temporarily solved the problem. i can devise a new curriculum for a school or implement a new program to help solve the issues of injustice in communities that need my time and effort, but all ideas have flaws and who's to say that these new ideas are any better than the countless ideas that have been tried and failed before?

this is a pretty pessimistic and unhappy post thus far. if you hardly made it this far then i don't blame you. it's just so often that i find myself wondering if anything anyone does is good enough, and that's a discouraging thought for anyone to have.

of course, the thought that i eventually come to is that ultimately the answer is Jesus and that no matter how messed up this planet is - this is not the whole story and that eventually love wins.

the other question i find myself asking is that if people deny Christ and truly don't believe that love eventually wins...what do they live for? if i were a nonbeliever and i took into account this unfair and inhumane world...i'd be like, "eff that. i quit." obviously i don't use such harsh phrases as a believer (right), but in all seriousness, what would there be to live for? my own temporary success? why would i give a crap about anyone else on this planet if i didn't believe in the Gospel? what would be my purpose? i simply don't understand what the motivation behind thoughts and actions would be if Christ wasn't in the picture.

at the end of these dark and frustrating days i think what we as Christians need to realize is that there are people out there that don't have the same motivation to live as we do. and that while there is suffering and injustice and struggle in this world, the story isn't about making other people's lives easier or more fun or providing them with material needs, but that with those needs ought to come the love of Christ and an encouragement that goes beyond just solving their immediate problem.

"whatever you do - in word or deed - do for the name of Christ Jesus.*" i guess that's what i'm saying. every step we take toward making this planet a better place, we ought to step forward accompanied with Christ's love. no agenda, no budget, no framework for success - Christ's love ought to trump all.

so i guess our goal isn't to just provide. but to provide Christ. this world was messed up when i was born and it'll be messed up when i die. but Christ can grow on earth while i'm here. so that should be my goal. love is the solution.

funny how frustrated ramblings always end up being Scriptural. interesting.

-ap.

*colossians 3:17

the suspense of the hebrew bible.

imagine the excitement of all the people of the world when Jesus was born. they've got all these prophets piling up prophesies of how eventually David's genealogy would produce the 'prince of peace' who was going to pull all the people of the world out of exile. and then one day that fella just shows up. boom goes the dyno. woah.

christmas has come and gone. i know. but its still cool to think about Christ's* birth. they had the old testament - or i guess the hebrew bible beacuse it wasn't 'old' yet - it reads like a story, genesis to malachi, and it ends with SO MUCH SUSPENSE. i'd never realized the magnitude of the suspense the old testament holds without the new testament attached.

essentially all these people have been sitting around waiting for their savior to redeem them for years and years and years. the story reaches a climax in the hebrew bible with a cluster of prophets telling over and over and over about this dude that's gonna come and rule forever.

and then one day he comes. and there was much rejoicing. talk about awesome. and over the next 32ish years that savior who had been foretold about countless times is walking around on the earth creating the story that we've now been familiar with for the last 2000+ years.

sometimes i fail to realize the importance of historical events because...well...they've already happened. i don't think i'm the only one with this problem. but sometimes i have thoughts like this one where i realize the intensity and excitement involved in stories of the past - and in this case the most important story to ever take place.

this isn't monumental i suppose, but it was a cool reality for me. it's reminded me of the joy and meaining that should be associated with the name of Jesus** - his name and story ought to come with great rejoicing and a giant exhale of relief...the reaction that was felt 2000 years ago should still ring true.

just some thoughts.

-ap.

* - sometimes i intentionally avoid using the name "Jesus" in the posessive form cause i have no idea how to add the apostrophe. same with the name chris, the last name jones and the state of illinois. chris'? joneses? illinois's? ** - other times i avoid the apostrophe altogether by switching up the phrasing and utilizing the word "of".

erwin mcmanus.

“When interacting with unbelievers, we’re not, in a sense, trying to ‘close the sale.’ We’re trying to make meaningful friendships. Because the gospel is transmitted in the most healthy way through genuine care and concern.”
Erwin McManus

is doctrine biblical?

there have been occasions in my life when i've felt extremely limited in my doctrinal knowledge. i've played if off as an attempt to be moderate in the past, but in all honesty - it's usually because i don't know what i'm talking about. so i tend to feel like i blindly affirm all perspectives of doctrine because i never feel intelligent enough to adequately disprove a certain viewpoint.

i was inadvertantly accused of being a univeralist the other day because of this. i was shocked that i felt that i needed to defend the fact that i don't believe that everyone is going to heaven no matter what they do, but it got me considering whether i am too "open-minded" in terms of doctrine.

i concluded i was not. and these are some of my reasons:

1. i do not have the authority to condemn alternative interpretations. i'm convinced that none of us has a perfect understanding of who Jesus is - nor will we ever. if we fully understood Christ then why would we need to continue following him? so informing an individual that their personal viewpoint is wrong and that they must realign their perspective with my own is something i'm unable to do because who is to say that my understanding isn't false? i can disagree, but i can't show complete disapproval and force them to adopt my perspective. i don't have that authority.

2. doctrine is divisive. differing perspectives on scripture and in theology has been divisive since the first century church couldn't decide whether the gospel was for Jews or Gentiles. however, what the first century church was seemingly capable of doing was moving forward in Christ's name regardless. they were still on the same team - just preaching to different people. this mindset has been lost through 2000 years of revolution and reform. it seems like everyone who has a great idea ultimately splits people into "great idea followers" and "great idea haters". there is a greater reality that we can all serve. we ought to focus on the multitude of agreements. we need to remember that we serve christ - not luther, piper, bell, calvin, etc.

3. these disagreements are not of eternal significance. i do not know have the slightest idea how i stand in regards to predestination, double predestination, free will, etc. that whole arminian/calvinist argument is such a waste of time. why must we continue to try and explain the things that we simply do cannot know? we Christ-followers are trying to put God in a box. we try our best to know everything. and in doing so, i feel that we've strayed from our true callings: to love God, love others, and spread the gospel to the ends of the earth. but instead we feel compelled to explain God first, and then once we've got it figured out for ourselves then we'll move along and love others and tell the world about Jesus. the unfortunate thing is that since God is an inexhaustible expanse of knowledge steps two and three are never addressed.

4. truth through love. not love through truth. the gospel of Jesus is about love. it is our duty to go forth in love and proclaim the truth that we know in Christ. what i see happening in so many doctrinal disputes is the necessity to define what "truth" is first. this is the major flaw not only in doctrinal disputes, but also in the mindset of bullhorn evangelists and pamphlet distributors. there is truth, and they are fulfilling the great commission. but this truth tends to exclude the greatest commandment: love. without love we cannot successfully progress the truth we Christians are called to share. love comes first.

5. with understanding comes pride, and love is not proud. i have a history of pride. it is one thing that individuals as incredibly awesome as myself tend to struggle with. seeking for understanding and doctrinal wisdom is rarely in love, but typically self-seeking and boastful. this is the chief reason i feel bad about not having great doctrinal knowledge - because i'm jealous of the people who are smarter than i am, and in desiring to understand more i always find myself feeling more and more proud. love does not boast. it is not proud. i believe much doctrinal knowledge is the result of selfish motives. maybe someday i will have that maturity to discern from all sides of the argument, but if not - no sweat. i'm not certain it's an ability i could possess well.

there are probably more reasons, but my point is this: doctrinal knowledge is not something i find spiritually edifying. it is divisive, hateful, proud, and tries its best to put our Creator in a box. i can't help but scowl when we ignore the countless passages about serving the poor and focus on details in romans or revelation or acts or leviticus. who can say they're correct, and if they believe they can - who can tell the other that they're wrong strictly out of love? not me. that is for sure.

and as far as the "denomination tree" goes: i find the word "schism" fantastic, and i must notify the U.R.C. that trees do not grow in that fashion. however, at least they're bringing separations together. but most imporantly - i find this whole thing entirely unbiblical. i don't understand how so many people decided to start imitating the Pharisees instead of Jesus.

but it sure is a pretty color for an otherwise not-so-visually stimulating blog.

-ap.

voting Obama does not make me a Christian.

i'm nervous that my voting for Barack Obama is turning into a way for me to feel holy. do i believe that Obama's ideals are closer to that of Jesus than those of John McCain? yes. i've expressed those thoughts a number of times on this mug and those thoughts likely aren't going to diminish anytime soon.

my fear is this: am i substituting living like Christ with voting for Obama?

there's not much to voting really. i check a box. thats really all it is. i'm aware that my vote means very little and that i can't alone make a great difference in the election. perhaps thats why i've attempted to educate myself and share my thoughts with friends and family and on here on occasion. so that my vote is more than just me checking a box, but that it is me witnessing to others why i believe Obama to be the best choice.

but is that witnessing overriding the witnessing i ought to truly be doing? is my political agenda interrupting the agenda i ought to have for Christ?

rephrased: is my hope in Obama? or in Christ?

i'm subscribed to feeds from God's Politics and every day they have a "voice of the day." today's voice is St. Francis of Assisi:

Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.

i read this thinking, "how cool would it be if America looked like this?"

and then i stopped and thought, "no. how cool would it be if I actually looked like this too?"

voting for Obama does not make me a Christian. somewhere between august and october - so probably in september - my mindset slowly tweaked into one hoping to get America on the right track and away from questioning my own actions. i have tried my best to approach political decisions by asking, "where is it written?" however, in my haste to answer this question for today's worldwide issues i've managed to ignore answering that question in terms of my own life.

this is not to say that i've been dwelling in a pit of sin, but simply that i need to focus on the spirit of my own heart more than i do.

-ap.

also. everyone ought to go to karlie's blog and watch the video.

why i'm voting for Barack Obama...*

Brian McLaren has been doing a really terrific series on his reasons for supporting Barack Obama. his reasons are scarily similar to my own thoughts** - each of these posts is something that i've been passionate about before reading them and they've just fueled the fire - part three even rose a fist pump out of me.

i don't know if anyone even glances at my 'take a gander' section on the right side, but all three of these were posted on there (as well as shared on my google reader). i think everyone - especially Christians - should read them.

Why I'm voting for Barack Obama, and why I hope you will too - Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3

there will be more to come too, but these are all three great. especially part 3 (which is the number one reason i will be voting for BO on november 4th too). -

-ap.

* - this is the third and last post for today. i promise.
** - however, his thoughts seem to be slightly more level-headed than mine.

on multi-class ministry.

i love maps.

if you've been a frequenter of my blog for a while now you're aware of the fact that i have a very heavy heart for the upper class*. while they may not have material needs, they still have spiritual needs that are much less likely to be addressed than those of the lower class. what need do they see for Jesus amidst their lucrative lifestyle?

i understand the need for service and love toward the poor and needy, but in terms of evangelism i think it's the upper class that's needy/farther from Jesus. i have two goals then. to serve those in need and to point upper class hearts toward Christ.

so this idea just came to me. what if i aim to do the following...

step 1: live downtown and develop relationships with that community and the ministries aimed there.
step 2: take the students at hillcrest down to those ministries with two purposes: to serve those in need and to install a love for service in the hearts of upper-middle class kids.
step 3: invite students to bring their parents, hopefully installing the same desire to serve in their hearts.
step 4: encourage students and parents to take the message and attitude they've brought to service events back to their schools and offices, respectively.
step 5: repeat until death and look for opportunities to improve/extend the steps.

both goals are fulfilled and everyone's happy and Christ-like.
boom and boom.

obviously step-by-step processes aren't the most effective thing on earth, relationships and timing are crucial to every step. and at any moment it may be necessary to jump backward and review a previous step before proceeding to the next.

but this is what is on my heart today. please comment.

-ap.
* - more on this.

mormons.

i think my house has managed to work its way onto some sort of latter day saints' database in manhattan resulting in a fruitful friendship with the mormons over the last two years. we've met with them every couple weeks in streaks over that time asking questions, learning, and solidifying what i believe to be true versus what they do.

there are major discrepancies. huge ones:
different levels of Heaven.
they don't believe in the Trinity.
marriage/family is eternal.
women can only enter the highest realm of Heaven through marriage.
slight variation in text.
infinite grace from a God with no wrath.

on the outside mormons appear very similar to Christians, but the more i reasearch into it, the more i realized just how skewed and obscure what they believe truly is...and how different their Jesus truly is.

i've now had lengthy conversations with 6 different college-aged mormons regarding their faith and what they believe. they seem to be all about fulfilling a list of tasks in order to attain the highest level of heaven (a level that i'm not able to attain unless i accept the book of mormon and follow the ways of Joseph Smith - hereby denying a handful of truths i've believed and continue to believe now.

evidently, when Joseph Smith discovered the "Book of Mormon" he also discovered a list of passages in the original Canon that had been corrupted throughout the 1800 years after Christ - coincidentally it's all the passages that don't directly support the Church of the Latter Day Saints. hm.

their belief in Heaven really irks me. they believe that for all of us to even be on Earth, we've already found favor in God's eyes. we start as spirits with God, and God sends the deserving ones to Earth. Therefore we ALL GO TO HEAVEN once we've made it this far. there is no hell for those who come to Earth, just different levels of Paradise. the celestial (read: those who are mormon) get to be with God again, the terrestrial (where my current status is apparently) have a middle-ground Heaven awaiting us, and the telestial is for those of us who aren't the slightest bit righteous, but who God has infinite grace for and will save anyway*. we can deny Christ and still make it to Heaven. God has no wrath. no judgement. just infinite love and compassion and grace.

anyway. i could go on and on about their tactical antics. they avoid questions they dislike the answer to, and any Scripture that is presented that doesn't support their views is quickly refuted/dodged via Smith's Book o' Biblical Corrections.

i guess i'm just left with a sense of sadness now. that people with enough faith to believe this extensively absurd business aren't going to Heaven. that a lifestyle such as theirs can be utilized running in the wrong direction is disappointing. their hearts are so great too, but their faith is so off. i'm praying for their eyes to be opened to the lies they've believed. the Jesus they serve is not my Jesus. they simply can't be the same.

more info:
mormon.org
EDIT: or read the second comment to this post.

-ap.

* 1 Cor 15:40-41 (KJV) - i consider it a misinterpretation. i dont understand how one warped perspective of one verse can lead to an elaborate hierarchal system like that.

Cyrus 08.

the thing that really bums me out about politics and the church is that it seems like some people believe that if the person they're not voting for gets elected that God's plan is crap. as if God isn't able to work through the person you may or may not have wanted in office.

The first thing I want you to do is pray. Pray every way you know how, for everyone you know. Pray especially for rulers and their governments to rule well so we can be quietly about our business of living simply, in humble contemplation. This is the way our Savior God wants us to live. [1 Tim 2:1-3 MSG]

pretty self-explanatory really. pray for those in power so that they will rule well. thats what God wants.

so i think - why so much disdain toward elected officials? this country seems to be leaning toward electing Barack Obama for president in 08. as someone who grew up in an upper-middle-class predominately white church in the suburbs of kc, i realize that this decision (if Obama wins) is not necessarily going to be what the majority of the church would've considered the "best" choice*. but that's where we have to catch ourselves - is it our agenda that determine's the best man for the job? is it our opinion that matters?

this morning i listened to a sermon about Cyrus, king of the Persian Empire. a pagan king who did not have God in mind when he took the throne, yet he was God's instrument in liberating the Jews and rebuilding their temple in Israel. the pagan king of Persia was probably not who most expected to deliver the Jews; in fact, he was the only non-Jewish messiah to Israel. but did God use him anyway? you bet he did. [Ezra 1]

imagine if we truly lived by that verse in 1 timothy. what if we gathered together post-election and prayed for our new government leaders? what message would that send? a positive one? it's a thought that could cause a serious rift in a lot of congregations - mine included. its biblical though. it doesn't mean we're endorsing a particular candidate, or choosing party lines; it's simply a statement of faith in our God's ability to govern this nation. heck, while we're at it we ought to be praying for the leaders of nations around the world too. friends and foes. it's an idea i'd like to pursue in the near future (probably around mid- to late-november.)

grumbling post-election is a slap in God's face. it's limiting Him; as if the moment the 'other guy' is sworn into office, God says, "well. we're sure screwed now. way to vote for him guys. i'm stumped now." no way. we shouldn't sit around and bicker about how so-and-so doesn't deserve it or how much he** is going to ruin the country. we shouldn't just sit back and hope he blows it. instead, we pray.

that having been said - this is just way too funny to keep out of this post.

-ap.

* - i am not, however, claiming to be a part of that majority. in fact, i'll go ahead and say it publicly: the chance of me voting Obama in 08 is extremely high. almost certain.
** - or she, i suppose.

three books for thought.

my blog is tanking. i can't come up with anything spectacular to write about, and even when i can think of something great - it's gone by the time i think to actually write about it on here. which is unfortunate because i'm actually learning and growing a ton right now. i'm just not necessarily in the correct mindset to put it all into text form on here.

i will say though - i'm in the middle of three incredible books right now: dangerous wonder, jesus for president, and they like jesus but not the church. i'm not sure which one i like the most right now. i've read dangeroud wonder before, but it's always nice to have a good kick in the booty about what it looks like to have childlike faith and how we can see Christ for the 'dangerous wonder' that he is. the other two are new to me - the idea of individuals not liking the church/christians in comparison to Jesus isn't a new one to me, but its nice to have some words to those thoughts. jesus for pres is very interesting thus far as well. it's a look into what being a political christian can look like and the effects of living simply in life.

anyway. hopefully i'll have more to come on those. i reccommend them all three so far.

-ap.

STMs.

a while back i had a really lenghthy conversation about short term missions and just how successful they really are. are they effective? are they the popular thing to do? it's encouraging to hear that i'm not the only one thinking it. its even more encouraging to read a blog with thorough answers to these questions.

"Are short-term missions becoming faddish? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is: YES. I estimate that 75% of STMs are done poorly (that is, not meeting many of the standards of excellence referred to below). Robert Priest estimates that as many as four million a year go on STMs. You do the math on the waste there.

Those going are increasingly ill-prepared and what they do is of questionable value given the resources invested. Sadly, many participants are narcissistic, they have little cross-cultural perspective, and often their experience does little to advance the Kingdom." -- seth barnes

sometimes i get the vibe that people go on missions because they should. not because they're called to go or because they truly have a heart for the work they're doing there, but simply because they know its the right thing for Christians to do. especially teen and college Christian groups. this mindset boasts a lack of passion, prayer, effort, and ultimately a lack of change.

now this doesnt mean God still can't work through this, but is it worth the money we're spending? withthe list o' lacks above it's likely that just donating that money to something would perhaps be more effective? i don't know. i guess i'm alluding to the "waste" that barnes mentions in that quote.

a couple cool blogs regarding STMs:

are short term missions becoming faddish?
the case for short-term missions.
what does an excellent missions project look like?

i'm finding STMs more and more intriguing (both the pros and cons). they're definitely necessary. and they've definitely changed the world. i hope this continues to be the case more often than 25% of the time. i've been on both sides of the percentage - maybe you have too.

just thoughts. check those blogs and talk to me about them. maybe we can involve coffee too.

-ap.

oh last thing. i copped this picture of three guatemalan women from one of the other blogs. check the kid on the right. i laugh out loud every time i glance. the best. hahahah.

back from guatemala.

i've been putting this blog off for a couple weeks because i've been trying to figure out its meaning in my life as well as our benefit to those in san juan la laguna and elsewhere in guatemala. i was a little bit frustrated because i didnt think that it has worked substantially in MY life. it was fun. and i think our group did an incredible job showing Christ to the both the kids at the school we taught at, the homes we visited and to the community as a whole.

my direction in this post is unfocused and i'm anxious to see what becomes of this. hopefully i can move in enough of an organized manner so that you all will follow me. ready break.

so i went to guatemala. our group worked almost exclusively at an elementary/middle school teaching english classes, bible classes and physical education 'classes'; we also hauled cinder blocks and tied rebar at said school. our students were great - all went well - 200 kids showed up each day - most were cute.

the cuteness was unmistakable. you just wanted to ask every single one of the kids if you could throw them in your luggage and take them back to kc with you. however, due to the language barrier this was not possible. otherwise i'd still be hanging out with my buddy reyes. the sad thing - if i may be borderline ethnocentric and potentially the worst human on the planet - was at one point on the trip i turned to one of the 5 male hillcrest students and said the following:

"man. these kids are so adorable. too bad they grow up to be so ugly."

i wanted to slap myself in the face, and feel free to do so too. i felt an overwhelming amount of guilt and i couldn't help but dwell on that statement. guatemalans in san juan la laguna have rough lives. i met or observed or heard about individuals who did the following:

1. carried bundles of logs the size of their body up the aptly named "buns of steel hill" (left) over and over and over every day.
2. worked on the side of the volcano in the coffee fields for days at a time without returning home - 72 hour work 'shifts'.
3. preached in a city on the other side of the mountain and would hike 4 hours over the mountain to preach and then hike 4 hours back in the middle of the night.

these individuals look OLD. their bodies are dirty, their hands and feet are callused, their faces are wrinkled and oily. and you look at their offspring and it just rips your heart out to think that these adorable kids have this future awaiting them.

however, it didn't take more than about a day to realize what a beautiful thing this was. here i was in guatemala freaking out about the fact that i needed to make sure i had my bracket filled out and spending substantial time debating whether i should pick george mason to win a game (mistake). these individuals have next to nothing. they work day and night to provide for their families.

a small group of us visited a home together on tuesday night. we brought about a weeks worth of food for the family. we were led by a pair of 8 year-old twins - juan benito and noami - to their tiny little home about a mile away from our hotel on the lake. when we got there only their older sister (12) and older brother (17) were home. their mom had gone into town to buy candles because they were on their last one. the 17 year-old (whose name i can't remember) had just returned from 3 days in up on the mountain in the fields. their father had recently died.

that was enough to get individuals tearing up - you could see God working in their hearts and the cogs turning in their heads. no one could've showed up at that house and not have reconsidered their own life. however, this family went on and on about faith and Jesus and hope and love and i'm sitting there on the bed with juan benito in my lap thinking about how lucky these people were that they didnt have to care about the final four. they had reached such a level of total depravity that they had no choice but to set their sights on Christ alone. and while part of me thought how unfortunate they were another part envied them. no question that their father was in heaven loving life more than i every would on earth - even if portland state had beat ku first round - there is no happiness that could compare to the joy little juan benito's pop was feeling at that moment.

our group barely spoke all the way back to the hotel and when we got back it was clear that none of us really wanted to talk to anyone. God was speaking to the group and that was what we wanted to listen to.

and as we left, i thought about the amount of "good" we had done for that family. and i kinda had to shrug. we brought them food. cool. we'd talked to them about Jesus. sure. but WE were the blessed ones. WE were the ones that had been changed because WE were the ones who needed it more. americans are always the ones who end up crying and thinking and blogging about their experiences in poorer countries.

i realized that Guatemala has it figured out - we don't. sure they don't really have it figured out by choice, but it became evident that they were in a position in their lives where it was significantly simpler to connect with God. places like south america and africa are just exploding in Christ, and its not surprising why. they've got nothing in the way. they're stuck at the end of their rope and the only place they have left to put their trust is in Christ. they need nothing else to make them smile, and it was incredible to feel it myself and witness some of the students at hillcrest discover it too.when we left, all the kids helped us carry our luggage down the "buns of steel hill" to the boats that would take us across the lake to panajachel. they weren't asked and i tried to tell reyes that i didnt need his help. but he insisted and refused to let me carry it. that is love. God is love. the whole community was just exploding in God and that was so exciting to see. they may be poor and needy, but WE'RE the poor and needy ones when it comes to Christ.

anyway. i hope i have more thoughts to come. if not, adios.

-ap.

(props to laura roxberg and ian mcgregor for the pics.)

I-35: Highway of Holiness.

yeah its kinda bizarre. and i'm not sure i truly think Isaiah 35 intended to hint at a highway in an undiscovered land 2000 years later. and beyond that, what does it even MEAN that the unclean will not pass over it? because clearly non-christians have both driven on it and crossed it form one half of the US to the other.

its a coincidence and a misinterpretation.

however, praying for 35 days for I-35? or taking the Gospel to some of the not-so-couth establishments on the highway? what's wrong with that? yes, it may be radical, but its just a different approach to evangelism it seems. i guess sometimes what i fail to realize is that these people love Jesus too. and even though they may or may not have misinterpreted something, they're still bringing Christ to the unreached. That's great. admirable even.

and like it says in the video - not all of these people TRULY believe that I-35 = Isaiah 35. i would even venture to say that MOST of them don't. even the lady from dallas that they interview seems somewhat fun about it. i have no problems if thats the case. i think it could be a cool ministry.

but i think we always need to be careful about turning off individuals to Christianity, and i got extremely discouraged when the owner of the strip club in dallas came on and talked about how he doesnt like it when people are forcing their beliefs on others. and while it is admirable to march into a strip club and scream for Jesus, there is always a part of me that knows that yelling at people isn't necessarily the greatest. i dunno. there's a fine line between evangelism and yelling.

however, overall i think this actually has potential to be an effective ministry. misinterpretation? maybe. overly forceful at times? maybe. but if done right and with the right focus - absolutely.

its really difficult for me to support this too. i have a tendency to criticize ministries - try and find what i don't like about them rather than what i do. i think this somewhat relates to how some Christians view one another. even last week i decided i wasn't really comfortable being affiliated with the Catholic church. i think we have a tendency to view ministries unlike our own negatively. (my motivation for not wanting to be affiliated is based on the number of Catholic college students at the bars the night of ash wednesday - not because i think they're wrong - fasting is awesome.) i guess my point is that its important to be careful when we criticize. i like openmindedness.

"if you're too openminded your brains might fall out."

i have nothing to say to that rebuttal.

-ap.

ps - i think cameras make them look more ridiculous than they really are. if i was praying in public and i had a camera shoved i my face recording my thoughts to God - i bet i'd panic and end up looking ridiculous too. it'd be hard to focus i bet. but anyway.

86 coffee.

i've decided to give up drinking coffee until my birthday.
that's march 14.
that's 33 days*.
probably one of the most difficult things i've ever done.

i'm not doing it for lent. i've never observed lent in my life and i'm not really anxious to do so now. this might be a little bit of a controversial thought process - but i dont really want to be thought of as observing a Catholic tradition. not that i don't respect it and not that i dont believe it has some serious reverence. i simply want to be known as a "little Christ" and not a "Catholic". call me religiously stubborn or closeminded if you like - i'm just not comfortable being associated with Catholicism. this probably goes back to the extremely dense Catholic and/or nominal population in the area of kc i live. a glimpse of what i mean here.

but thats neither here nor there.

i'm doing it because i need some discipline in my life, and i think this is a terrific way to start that (and i think it has actually worked somewhat too - 8 days later i'm sitting in a coffee shop at 7:00 am with my Bible out and i'm throwing down a somewhat spiritual blog for the first time in who knows how long). i'm anxious to see what effect fasting from something so prominent in my life will have on my own spirit.

i wasn't really aware how much i relied on coffee until about day 3 when i randomly fell asleep in the evening for about 2.5 hours. i never do that. i also work in a coffee shop 4 days a week. talk about temptation. just the smell of coffee drives me crazy and this blog is making my mouth water.

i also cannot imagine the joy that will come when the 14th gets here. especially since i'm waking up insanely early that morning to head to GUATEMALA. holler back.

-ap.

* - fav number.

ash wednesday.

i was talking with my friend nick tonight briefly, and we decided that it is extremely interesting that all the Catholics come out of the woodwork on Ash Wednesday. individuals that you would swear have never been religious in their lives are suddenly the most devout Catholics on the planet. its really really interesting.

-ap.

get/give.

it's amazing how God manages to throw precisely the thing you need to hear into your face.*

tonight that thing was a sermon preached at Hillcrest a few weeks ago by my buddy Tim.
he posed a question to the congregation "Why are you here?"

backstory: just an hour earlier i was having a conversation with one of my dearest friends about whether or not i should go to Ichthus. for the last many months i've really struggled with whether i should continue attending Ichthus. It has been my community here for 3.5 years now, and some of the individuals i care about most in the world - for sure here in manhattan - are a part of that community. but i haven't gained much insight from the talks for such a long time. not to say that it isn't terrific - it is - but i struggle to connect with the teaching style basically. but i've been in this interesting situation where i love the people but i've felt like i've been drying up inside for a while.

so, now. why am i at ichthus?

Tim started listing the reasons people usually pick out churches (good worship, good youth programs, good sermons, its close by), but then he paused and asked another question.

are you here to GET or to GIVE?

the rest of the sermon was super quality, but that in itself was enough for me to realize what my mistake has been for so long. whether i get anything out of the talks or not - maybe that isn't my place in ichthus anymore, but the reason i still go isn't to GET. it is to GIVE.

Hillcrest, my church in KC, is a place where i have always felt hydrated. i've always felt like i left that church with more strength in Jesus than i had when i set foot in the building...and some mornings i wouldn't even listen to a sermon. i would go and help out with middle school and high school services and never even sit down to hear the sermon. however, my growth from those sundays was SO much greater because i went with the intention of GIVING to the MS and HS. and that is how i grow.

so anyway. here i am, finally understanding (i think) what needs to happen in order for me to appreciate Ichthus again. i need to give more of myself.

so i didn't go to Ichthus tonight, but that isn't going to become a trend.

-ap.

* - then again, it is also possible that i just need to hear about 900 different things so God really didnt have to dig too deep into his Bag O' Sermons to find one that worked in my ballpark. either way, He's good.

purpose-driven field.

NEW ORLEANS — Pastor and author Rick Warren has signed a deal to purchase the New Orleans Saints football franchise for $320 million from current owner Tom Benson, and has pledged to pour his time and energy into helping the city and team rebuild.
"This is the start of the Saints' turnaround," a Warren spokesman said. "America is going to see what a purpose-driven team can accomplish."
The Saints have desperately needed a home and a vision since Hurricane Katrina devastated their season. They were keenly disappointed with the NFL's response to their plight.
But Warren took an immediate interest in the team on visits to the damaged city, and he surprised his church in November when several Saints players joined him onstage. The church prayed for the team, which won its next game. Warren took this as confirmation of his plan to buy the franchise.
"I like the guy," says one player who met Warren at a practice in San Antonio. "I was skeptical about a minister owning a team, but he wants to win, just like us."
The centerpiece of Warren's purchase will be Purpose-Driven Field, to be located just north of New Orleans. Stadium construction will create thousands of jobs for the local economy, and will give Warren's ministry a foothold in the South, where he hopes to gain greater influence. During the week, Purpose-Driven Field will host conferences, outreaches and short-term missions groups stopping over on their way to Central America, or helping to rebuild New Orleans. Warren already refers to the New Orleans location as Saddleback South, friends say.
The Saints will now operate differently than most NFL teams. Players will be required to go through the 40 Days of Purpose program. Alcohol will not be served in the stadium, and every attendee will receive a copy of the Purpose-Driven Life. Halftime shows will offer "edgy, cool" evangelism and worship concerts, says a spokesman. Warren intends to be as visible as Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who often walks the sidelines during games.
"We're marching into New Orleans," Warren told partner churches recently to rousing applause.•

link to article.


i'll be looking forward to the "edgy, cool" worship concerts myself.
hopefully Chris Tomlin and his 3-day GQ scruff will show up.

-ap.

xmas eve service.

every year, just like relatively every other church in the world, my church does a christmas eve service. each year the sermon is essentially the same, albeit they may go around it a little differently each year.

this year Luke 2 came in skit form. i think it was an attempt at a 21st century take on the days leading up to Jesus' birth, but the word "righteous" was used to mean "awesome" and that usage is clearly a part of a late 20th century lexicon. apart from a few moments where laughter was expected but not recieved - it was well done and i was comfortable with it.

typically at my church we light the Christ Candle on the advent wreath on christmas eve, and that was indeed the case this year as well. we also typically all hold candles and my pastor lights his candle from the Christ Candle and then passes it to the congregation and Jesus spreads like wildfire to everyone. i really like to play with the wax on the candles as it drips down the side too. however, the candle was not spread to everyone this year. instead, all the new christians from the year 2007 were encouraged to come forward and light their candle as a symbol of their candle having been reached. i really liked the idea, and i was excited to see the individuals come forward - face beaming - celebrating their first christmas as a christian.

however, in my service, there were 5 individuals that came forward. one was 12; he went alone. the rest were accompanied by an adult.

this is exciting, yes, but i'm extremely wary of the idea that a 4 year old can dedicate his/her life to Christ. instead of seeing a kid on a mission for Jesus, i typically see a kid whose parents have decided that they'd like to raise their kid as a Christian. i see a child with a moldable heart hearing about jesus and santa and believing that both are equally true. yeah, it is probably a good thing for parents to decide that they are going to raise their child in a christian home, but is this really the right thing to do?

sometimes i wish i hadn't 'grown up in the church'. i only know my life as a Christian. i dont recall a converstion experience entirely - yes, many many many meaningful moments - but none that i believe truly converted me to my current faith. is it okay for parents to choose their child's faith for them? cause what i sometimes feel like i've done is take the beliefs that i've been given, and look at the world around me through those eyes. i've got a set of Christian goggles on my face that have never been taken off. i can't compare my life now to a life without Christ. i can't compare and i believe that somewhat limits me in my faith.

another point i'd like to make regarding this little candle exercise - there was no one over the age of 12 "converted". that worries me for two reasons:

1) how serious is the commitment of someone 12 or younger?
2) in a congregation of about 1,000 people - i think it is sad - regardless of age - that there were such a small number of individuals. what does that say for an extremely large and vastly growing church population?

i dunno. it concerns me somewhat that a church has so very little to show for itself in terms of evangelism. i know it isn't all about the numbers, but there weren't ANY people even high school aged who had their candles lit at the end of the service. perhaps there were other individuals in the other two services tat i did not attend - i sure hope so the 7 pm service was sparse.

-ap.

ps: hi kate.

EDIT: i've been notified with some "good news": there were a number of individuals in the OTHER two services that came forward. i guess i either attended the oldies service or just a service that happened to be populated with many children. so thats great.