What does it mean to be passionate?

I spent a lot of time being debriefed after the India mission trip. One of the last things we did together as a group was to write on a piece of paper nice things about one another. It was supposed to be anonymous but I knew everyone’s handwriting by that stage. Anyway, the most frequent comment I received was: ‘passionate’. Up until now, I thought that was a great characteristic to have. It seemed the best way to describe my sometimes ‘extreme’ personality when it came down to things I really cared about. This week however, I’ve been challenged to think about whether I want to be described as this any longer. The thing is – passion is something that has the potential to get the better of you, and is often preceded with words like ‘unbridled’. The more I think about it and turn to Scripture for help in figuring it out, the more I’m being led to think that one shouldn’t be striving for this at all. Not when the Spirit demands self-control and a quick look at my concordance associates ‘passion’ only with corrupted flesh.

Perhaps it’s just semantics. Let’s say I’m convicted. Enthusiastic. That could work. The problem is, passionate is still the word that describes me best.

I finally stopped to think about what it means to be called passionate after a recent study of Matthew 5. We were discussing Jesus as the fulfilment of the law and his role in ‘clarifying’ the law for us – helping us to understand how sinful we are by highlighting that not only must we not murder, but we mustn’t even get angry – “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment...” Murder is the result of hate and anger and these things begin in the heart, therefore, don’t get angry.

I was convicted. I had been denying the influence of anger over me; indeed I hadn’t even stopped to think about the grievous sin that it is. I posted recently that I didn’t want to shake anger I felt at injustice. Is this righteous anger? Yet Wednesday night’s discussion concluded that sinful humans are incapable of righteous anger. I know perfectly well, however, that the anger I feel in other situations has no justification and I began to examine my heart. I followed it back to this idea of being passionate. I only associate myself with being passionate because it suggests that I care deeply, but it also suggests that one could be ignorant and headstrong and if it is not in check it will spill over into things like... anger.

References to anger in the New Testament are most often grouped with other desires and passions of the flesh. We are told this is how we once were but we are made new through Jesus and by the power of the Holy Spirit we are to put to death our earthly selves.

Galatians 5:16-24

But I say, walk by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do... Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatory, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you... those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God... And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Colossians 3:3

For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. Put to death therefore what is earthly in you... on account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath...

Does a passionate person have in mind the things of God, or themself? I think the latter. They’re swept away by their emotions and thoughts and these things define them. A passionate person thinks their cause is the most important. These are all preliminary thoughts, obviously. But I understand that passion is such a strong word; it implies many things. I never stopped to truly consider it before. Nothing like Scripture to turn you upside down.

Europe calling.

For the second week in a row I was part of a team at a trivia night to raise money for overseas mission. This week was much more successful in terms of being able to answer questions, we won corporate seats to see the Waratahs at ANZ Stadium (who the Waratahs are and what sport they play was lost on me but no matter).

This year Moore College is sending a mission team to Germany, and the couple I supported last night, Jason and Cindy, are going a little earlier to do a 'vision' tour with an organisation called European Christian Mission or ECM. We were given a quick overview of the state of Christianity in Germany and Europe in general and although I already had a fair idea that Europe was extremely secular the statistics really opened my eyes. In Germany, less than 5 per cent are evangelical Christians who regularly attend church. That's actually the good news. Only 2 per cent of the whole of Europe is Christian. I wonder if I heard that wrong, honestly, but I'm very keen to learn more about this mission field.

If we ever consider overseas mission, our first thoughts are the African/Asian hotspots. Well, admittedly, mine are. But perhaps I never should have dropped French. There are more Christians in Africa than in Europe! Somewhere over the last few hundred years Christianity seems to have become completely irrelevant. Perhaps two world wars have something to do with it? Yet Africa, ravaged by war, disease, famine and corruption constantly, has still managed to turn out Christians.

I wonder how Europe became this way.

*facepalm*

Why, Tony Abbott, why?

I just defended you, man. Now I feel stupid.

Learning to say no.

Must... close... tab...

Or else... will... apply...

For this.

Kind of disappointed that the core values mentioned don't specifically say "committed to the poor... because Jesus said so."

I guess if I were that keen to volunteer my time, I would rather it be with an organisation that was upfront about its Christian values as opposed to keeping them on the downlow so as not to offend.

Speaking of which, the Oaktree Foundation seems to have finally given up any pretensions to aiding the poor because the love of Christ compels us. Zero mention on the 'about' page of the Christian values that I once thought were integral to Hugh Evans' deciding to start up the organisation in the first place. Hugh has moved on, mind you. Still. Disappointed.

I can't even watch a DVD without thinking too much.

Due to my being technologically challenged and not realising that one needs to switch tabs to 'February' on Google calendar, I screwed up my work availability and as such, have lots of free time this week. Perhaps it's a nice reminder to calm down with all the working to earn all the money and once again learn to live with a little, hey?

Last night with Emma I was keen on a DVD. A period drama, perhaps. I quite like those. And not because I'm madly in love with Mr. Darcy and the like (so get off my case) but because I secretly think I was born in the wrong era and would love to be living in a society that observed strict etiquette and in which courtships were the norm. Although all this propriety would probably forbid my loud laugh and constant "rock on" hand gestures, but anyway. Becoming Jane, I suggested, a biopic starring Anne Hathaway about Jane Austen (of course). Instead we come home with... Inglourious Basterds. Sigh. She was paying.

Tarantino is a sick man and I am way too squeamish. I felt odd watching the movie, not just because my legs get all tingly at the mere thought of a person being scalped, but because I didn't know how I felt exactly about Nazi Germany being satirised. It wasn't overt, just little things, like the characterisation of Hitler and his burning red face. I'm about to spoil it, but the film ends at a theatre showing a Nazi film and the theatre is filled with all of the key players of the war and the owner of the theatre, a Jewess, locks them all in and burns them to a cinder. It's odd that one would watch this, almost with triumphant satisfaction: they got what they deserved. It was awful, just awful. I didn't care that it wasn't based on fact (obviously) but the Holocaust was real, people died and the thirst for revenge was and probably still is in some hearts, very real. I don't even know what I'm really trying to convey but I couldn't ignore the reality of WWII and see this film as a comedy or as the ending to the war that everyone wished could have happened.

I can't comment with any authority whatsoever, I've never lost family members in such an atrocity, but sometimes I find myself thinking, what would I do if I were in their situation? The Jewess in the film, her whole family was murdered before her eyes and she wanted retribution. Could you say that the man who hunted and executed her family did not deserve death? What would I say? I don't think about what I would do. I first think: this is what Jesus did for me. I trust Jesus. I am a Christian. I am different. How does this affect the way I will react to any given situation? Ok this situation is extreme and completely hypothetical but I still think it's worth examining. God doesn't say trust me until... this happens and you can get away with it: hating, hurting, murdering. There are no loopholes.

It makes me stop and think, ok God, how much do I really trust you? How far am I willing to die to myself to become more like Jesus? Because I know what he would do, I know it because of what he's already done. Jesus would forgive even the men responsible for the Holocaust if they came to him with a repentant heart. And if that thought sickens me, then do I understand the gravity of sin, my own sin and the incredible scope of God's forgiveness? It's enough to turn over in your mind for... years.

I have the next few days to get started, at least.

Thoughts that challenge me.

From Practical Theology for Women:

While God certainly set up a just system protective of human rights in His instructions on government to Moses, I don’t see God as overly preoccupied by individual civil rights as He calls His children to some pretty glorious roads of obedience through suffering...
Ladies, it’s ok to let go of your rights. You can trust the One who judges justly to perhaps defend you, but to most definitely use you as you are spent like Christ for the furtherance of His kingdom. And THAT is freedom, my friends.

Jean on submission in practice:

The details will be different in every marriage, but one thing is certain: submission is an attitude which affects everything - thoughts, feelings, words, actions - every moment of every day.

This post is quite challenging. It still amazes me just how radically different Christian women are. This list is sometimes hard for me to swallow. Makes me realise how selfless one has to be in marriage and that there's no way you could do it on your own strength. I expect that you'd have to be appealing to God quite often to fill you with grace and patience. But what would I know, really.

And I like this:

In my mind, I baked cookies, but what nobody told me was, I really hate baking: then, now, and forever, amen. In my mind, I like the idea of baking and wearing an apron, though. The truth is I don’t own a checkered apron that ties in the back and has a pocket full of pinecones.

And now I'm wondering whether there are any blogs by younger, unmarried women. I like these thoughts on marriage and whatnot because they are helpful but... you know... I'm not quite there yet.

Purity? What about it?

I am becoming more and more frustrated by each new article I read on the following quote from Tony Abbott concerning pre-marital sex which he 'let slip' during an interview with the Australian Women's Weekly: ''I think I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question . . . it is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly, that's what I would say.''

It has provoked such indignant responses and has once and for all convinced me that sex has almost zero meaning in our secular and liberal society:

But in its own way, the Opposition Leader's description of virginity as ''the greatest gift you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving'' was nauseating. The comment both fetishes a woman's virginity and reduces her value to the presence of a hymen, to the unpenetrated state of her vagina. Why is that the greatest gift a woman can give someone? What about her mind? Her actions? Dare I say it, her soul? If I were one of Abbott's daughters I would be furious to have my value reduced to the state of my hymen.

Worse is the suggestion that our "greatest gift" is still just a sexual one. Not our intelligence, professional contributions, support, capacity to love, laugh, or just suffer through an entire Boxing Day Test match, but the giving of sex.

These women are fuming because they believe Abbott to be sexist and old-fashioned. I'm fuming because they would obviously think me a naive and ridiculous prude. Oh and religious nut. I'm just amazed at the way in which they write about sex. According to this last woman, purity is to be valued AFTER intelligence, professional contributions, support, capacity to love (this one really, really annoys me because obviously this writer has absolutely no clue as to the real meaning of love), laugh or willingness to suffer through cricket. And what exactly does the first writer presume to be the soul? How could purity, emotional and physical, not totally encompass that notion? If you've had several partners and shared yourself with them so intimately before you finally find "the one" what are you going to have left to give? What soul have you? What, I ask you?!

Oh, Carolyn McCulley, how right you are when you say that being a biblical woman in this world is a radical act.