The world is horribly unfair and I remember when I first stepped out of the black and whites of life of clear and "childlike" rights and wrongs to discover, that despite the obvious presence of simple rights and wrongs, "adults" wanted me to believe in grays. Lots and lots of grays. Many shades of "truth." (For the quick--you may have just noticed in a world of grays, shades of truth must mean they are all lies and many liars for shades of truth must also mean shades of lies. And there is not such thing as part truth without it being all lie.) What is perhaps the most difficult and yet inviting of all lies for many young people today? It is the one they, that you have been told, not the one they make up...unless they, you chose to buy into its "gray." It is that you "have" to be adults but not more than children. That you are to be only adolescents. You can be adult in expectations but not in abilities.
     If someone wanted to do a fruitful study on the idea of adolescence they would probably find that it is a fairly new idea made up in the Twentieth Century to explain away the bad behavior of young men and women who, prior to the industrial revolution, would have been busy learning the responsibilities of manhood and womanhood as a matter of necessity not nicety (agricultural life does tend to make one a little different than the Nintendo does.) Parents were upset with why their children were coming out "so bad." I mean, these young people were being given all the fruits of the "new modern age." They had everything they could have wanted.... In fact, many young people had the skills their parents didn't and the new economy wanted.  They were making their own expendable incomes for which they were responsible to no one but themselves--or where they?

     This little traipse down the history lane does matter, if you don't like to be lied to.  Bear with me, its worth it:  What is perhaps just as interesting is how many parents (and larger society as a whole) slowly began to deal with this problem in a different way-- rather than asserting that they had once "been there" and "new what it was like" and knew that their young children were searching for truths and meanings beyond the fruits of money, parents instead, agreed with their young'ins. They (sociologists and psychologist, rather new fields both) decided to pin the problem on society as a whole that was expecting something of these youngsters who, filled with the angst of the new industrial society, couldn't handle: Maturity. Of course, society had already begun to dabble seriously with denying that man was responsible to God and that the problems that were manifesting themselves in youth may be a result of a sin nature, theirs and their parents. That was already on the way out--the "educated" knew so much better. They new that the real reason was the nurturing that society had developed around the young and impressionable was insufficient, too overbearing and other sorts of things. Yup, the smart egg-heads invented something new called: "Excuses." No one had ever heard of these before! They must be true and best of all, it didn't require the parents to be responsible either! This was a must. So, parents, collaborated with the new wise men and they invented a really "big one" that has been thrown into the crib of many a growing young man and woman ever since.  They literally created a new type of person: the Adollllllllllessssssscent.  Whoaaaaaaooooo..... It even sounds smart.  The word has more than three (3) syllables.  I am not making this up! Adolescents DID NOT exist before. But it caught on.  And that's how we got to where we are today! 

     The term "adolescent" has become synonymous with teenager and it really means exactly what it is still used for: The excuse that "there is no right or wrong behavior for someone your age, you aren't an adult yet, you are still a child-ish and its okay!  We don't expect more from you and, frankly, neither should you." Is that what you like?  Does that sound right to any one? In fact, what does the truth say standing against such wisdom?   Does the Bible have any place for such distinction? Should Christians? Should you?     

     In a distinctly interesting development, some "teens" themselves are getting fed up with the lie and actually fighting off the low expectations of adolescence.  Perhaps we should step out and identify these intrepid rebels as "Young Adults" or, maybe, just adults.  ...If only we had a standard by which to judge if they were adults!  I mean, is adulthood judged by age?  18? 21? 45?  Watching some television shows I would be tempted to throw in 65, but that is getting silly--No, any young child grows up expecting adults to be adults. And when they aren't they are just silly.  And maybe sad.  We know adulthood is not measured by age, a drivers license or even a degree.   What makes a child feel angry and really lied to is when adults aren't.  (Tons of teens consistently answer surveys wishing their parents did more to stop them in their, well, adolescence.)  Warning!  Parents are adults to be sure, but you are supposed to be too.  That's the truth, not the lie! 

     This is what we are called to not only by nature--God made us to be adults after childhood, not something perpetually in between-- you are called to something more.  And, good news, the great difficulty of that passage between is supposed to happen with the help of "adults" who have gone before you!  That's why they deserve honor!  And if you obey, "it will go well with you!"  They are supposed to help, and can, but they are supposed to call you to something more: Maturity.  This is a reoccurring theme in our Christian lives too!  Stop acting as if there is some "other station" in life between childhood and adulthood and you may be struck by the sense it makes...almost like it was designed that way.  Scripture consistently knocks down the idea of adolescence both Spiritually and Physically.  Don't believe me, try to name one good spiritual adolescent.  Okay, now, ask yourself, what makes them mature...perhaps even in comparison to those older than them.  WARNING:  Only start that kind of Biblical study if you are willing to find out the truth.  Think I am alone in this call?  Here's an interesting pair that want you to start thinking the same way...  and they aren't as old as I am:


Oh, yeah, and they are coming to Birmingham, AL in August.  I guess I am going to encourage you to rebel!  And don't be lied to anymore.

     Have you ever asked yourself, "What would Chewy Do?"  (This question is often confused with "What would Chuck Norris do?  Rest assured they are different, slightly.)  This question could be posed to all sorts of problems: Intergalactic Warfare, Global Warming, Paper or Plastic?  All sorts of things.  What about Wikipedia?  Would Chewy use it?  I do use Wikis.  I do like Wookies.  They aren't related... I think.  They both share one thing in common though: both need a good bit of imagination if they are to be used academically.  To aid this understanding, for further proof that there is absolutely no reason to trust Wikipedia just take a look at the following image:



     The image speaks (ironically) more than a thousand words (but does it verify more than six thousand years?  A billion years?  Nope.  It verifies nothing--trick question!  It's Wikipedia not the Bible!)  Even a Wookie could tell there is something fishy about the reliability of Wikipedia.  Take note students!  Next time you think about what site you may use, ask "What Would Chewy Do?"  Would he use this site as a reliable source for research?  For study?  "RRRAAAAAWWWWGGGGGUHHHH!"  (That is "no" in Wookie)  No, no he most definitely would not.

(For link credit, know that I bounced to this through Nathan Williams over at the Pulpit Magazine and he bounced from Tim Challies.)

As has been stated by betters before:  Denying the historical accuracy of Scripture is not only complete foolishness but must leave those who will not acknowledge the plain truth in an agnostic limbo.  If one denies a record that is so overwhelmingly accurate and meets so many standards (in fact, makes them--it truly is in a league of its own) then what does one do with all of the historical records that fall beneath the standard Scripture carries?  To be consistent the (inconsistent) historian must deny the ability to even know that anything else is true.  This disturbing trend is exactly where much of history is going.  It is most lamentable in reference to the pulpits of our churches. The regular denial that one can even know history but, that it is just a manipulated record of biases and differing points of view condemns any historian, anyone to a total inability to say anything ever happened and moves us all towards a past of mythologies and guesses--a lost history. 

     This is the lost history that Francis Schaeffer (Bio)(L'Abri) used to warn against.  It is the history that does not expect to "rub the cross and get a splinter."  History must be "rubbed," it is real.  You would have received a splinter. You would need tweezers to get it out.  A Christian should not fall prey to relativism or the false agnosticism of the secular historian.  We have and know of the Primary Source:  God's Word!  Since it is true we can know truth!  In fact, once we have used tweezers with the cross, armed with these little tools we can extract the truth from other sources too.  Especially History.  History is true and can be trusted can be judged as anyone would judge empirical data.  It did happen and was recorded.  If it does not stand the test of the objective truth then it is not history, that is myth, that is guesses and manipulations.  The truthfulness of all accounts (aside from Scripture) can be measured and weighed, not because there isn't truthful history but because there is!  I would be interested in any historian or student explaining to me just how they would go about judging history that they themselves stand in at this very moment without first assuming it is really happening!  Or, trying to do it without some standard of real history by which to "mark twaine" by.  With that said, the tools are available, especially in a digital age far more than ever before to gather and compare sources to a Biblical World View of History. 

     The repositories of primary sources and reliable accounts are growing every day as the digital powers of the Borg, I mean Google, grow.  But Google isn't the only place I have gone before.  To encourage this scientific and reasonable endeavor, students should try looking places like the Internet History Sourcebook.  I would especially encourage this as a source for students concerned with European History and US History, although it is much broader!  Just be sure the finding begins with the right perspective on history!  Tweeze on!

     For the student that wants a little bit more on Hellenism the following video (follow the links that pop up when it finishes for more.)  Hellenism as a study of history is not unimportant.  In fact, the student that takes care to search out the different religions and philosophies popular during the time of Christ and the Apostles (the New Testament) will find that most of them spring in their common forms during the Age of Hellenism;  the numerous "gnostic religions" and the philosophies of the Epicureans and Stoics are a few examples.



History Channel - The fabulous centers of Hellenism 1/3

     Recently, some students did a project in which they interviewed some individuals in the public about history, metanarratives, biblical world views, etc. (Clips to be posted soon!) One of the most interesting responses the students received for whether history could be trusted or not was "no, because, look at the Bible." Implication: History can't be trusted and the Bible is a good example of that. I am surprised at how many Christians sacrifice the historicity of the Scriptures as well. Making the Bible a collection of Myths, allegories and fables flies into many of its own claims (2 Peter 1:16) thereby condemning all of it if it is false. Nevertheless, it is done from Evolution to Archaeology as if waiting for its confirmation is a matter of popularity. It seems to be popular with at least one person: Christ--making him a liar too, if he is wrong. (Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17) A while ago I ran into the following video segment that does a good job demonstrating just how trustworthy Scripture is compared to other "historical" records, I wonder what scientific method could be employed to find a source of greater dependability?

      I heard a while ago that someone smirked at the idea that young men and women would actually want to show up and gather for a conference that didn't involve anything but preaching (read: no "camp", no "camp games", definitely no broom hockey). Like Scripture changes people without dunk tanks. Come on. The Resolved conference in California is billed for just such a crowd. Does anyone show up?