What’s the Legend Behind the Candy Cane?

December 18, 2013 — Leave a comment

This was my message for Elevate Makati last Saturday. We’re doing a series called “Not Your Ordinary Christmas Series.” We talk about the usual objects normally seen during Christmas season. One is the candy cane.

One of the most common items during Christmastime is the candy cane. I did some research and found interesting facts about it.

When 17th century European Christians adopted the use of Christmas trees, they hung food decorations such as candies and cookies. Our candy cane finds its roots here. It was originally straight and all-white. The first curved-shaped cane can be traced back to 1670, when the choirmaster at the Cologne Cathedral in Germany gave them out to children during the nativity services (it was shaped like a shepherd’s staff to honor shepherds). These quieted the fidgety children. The red stripes were only added after 1900; no one is sure who invented them.

There are also lots of legends (more accurately, myths) surrounding the candy cane, adding religious symbolisms to it. I say legends or myths because there are no historical evidences to support them (and we now know of the origin of the candy cane). While I acknowledge this truth, I believe one story is worth telling. It’s about a candy maker in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution.1 During this time, Christians weren’t allowed to meet. So the candy maker made a way to encourage his friends without being caught. So he made a candy in which its elements have significant meanings. (Below is my slightly-edited version of the symbolisms.)

The candy was shaped like a shepherd’s staff, reminding us that Jesus is the Good Shepherd. John 10:11, 14 says, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep…I know my own and my own know me” (see also Psalm 23) As the Good Shepherd, he knows, feeds, leads, and protects His sheep.

The white color of the candy shows that Jesus is holy (see Hebrews 4:15). In contrast, humanity (we) is sinful. Romans 3:23 says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Because man has sinned, he faces spiritual death (Romans 6:23). We are doomed to hell (Revelation 21:8). We have been willfully rebelling against God, like a sheep that has gone astray from its shepherd (Isaiah 53:6).

But the red stripe is a reminder that Jesus died for sinners like you and me. Romans 5:8 says, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Likewise, Isaiah 53:5 says, “But he was pierced for our transgressions; / he was crushed for our iniquities; / upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, / and with his wounds we are healed.” He took mankind’s punishment and declared them righteous (see 2 Corinthians 5:21). He did this to “bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18).

Finally, when the candy is inverted, it looks like the letter “J”. It is a reminder of Jesus Himself. He is “the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through [Him]” (John 14:6). We can receive His forgiveness for our sins by repenting of them (Acts 3:19, 1 John 1:9) and placing our faith in Him (John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9). Aside from the promise of forgiveness, we are assured of other spiritual blessings in Christ (Ephesians 1:3), which includes eternal life (John 3:16, 17:3; Romans 6:23).

Will you place your faith in Jesus?

Sources:

http://inventors.about.com/od/foodrelatedinventions/a/candy_canes.htm, accessed 2012-12-10
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/candycane.asp, accessed 2012-12-10

1I’m still finding the source of this story. Keep in touch for updates.

In Uncategorized ,
permalink

Relationship Status: In a Dating Friendship (Part 2)

December 16, 2013 — Leave a comment

Hows Your Heart Banner Resized Relationship Status: In a Dating Friendship (Part 2)

Last week, I discussed about Sex, Dating, and Relationships (book review coming soon) authors Gerald Hiestand and Jay Thomas’ critique of traditional/contemporary dating relationships (see it here). They argue that dating relationships confuse sexual boundaries and give a false sense of security. Thus, they propose an alternative they call dating friendships.

WHAT EXACTLY IS A DATING FRIENDSHIP?

Hiestand and Thomas define a dating friendship as “two friends getting to know each other with a view toward marriage.” They write:

Think of a dating relationship as a precursor to a marriage proposal but without all the romantic, sexual overtones that so often accompany a typical dating relationship. A couple in a dating friendship, regardless of their attraction toward each other, doesn’t pretend there is more to the relationship than warranted. They consciously refrain from sexual and overtly romantic activity and don’t become naively optimistic about the commitment level of their friendship. Thus, the main goal of a dating friendship is to explore the viability of marriage while preserving the guidelines of sexual and romantic purity required by the neighbor relationship.1

The authors identify four distinctives of a dating friendship. First, it maintains the boundaries of the neighbor relationship. Dating friendships are committed to uphold the sexual purity guidelines of the neighbor relationship. Second, there is clear and forthright communication between both parties. Since the concept of dating friendships is new (indeed it is; many won’t understand it right away), it is important to communicate one’s purpose and intent from the outset. Third, dating friendships view dating as an activity rather than a category of a relationship. This truth reminds unmarried men and women to relate under the purity guidelines of the neighbor relationship. Lastly, exclusivity is voluntary.2 This is because there is no new category of relationship was established. Pre-engagement/pre-marital relationships simple don’t allow for true exclusivity.

TWO FREEDOMS

Aside from the distinctives, Hiestand and Thomas note the advantages of a dating friendship, in which two are worth emphasizing. First, it is free from distractions.

Many dating relationships are based almost solely upon the romantic and sexual attraction that exists between the couple. But strip this away and they will discover that they have almost nothing in common and really nothing to talk about…But a friendship that is free from the distractions of a sexual, romantic relationship has the opportunity to stand or fall on its own merit rather than being merely propped up by ebbing passion and desires.3

Second, it is freer from heartache.

This is not to say that feelings of disappointment can be eliminated entirely. Heartache may indeed arise for one party if the friendship never results in marriage. Disappointment and sorrow are legitimate feelings that should accompany the loss of any good thing. But all things being equal, the pain of loss within a dating friendship is considerably less than the pain that causes from traditional dating relationships, since a dating friendship consciously maintains both physical and romantic purity.4

Indeed, a bruised heart is better than a broken heart (credits again to Hiestand and Thomas for this phrase of wisdom; I once wrote a blog entry on this).

WHAT’S YOUR PERSONAL TAKE, ENZO?

I’ve been advocating dating friendships long before I learned that there is a term for it. I deeply agree with Hiestand and Thomas. But let me express a concern.

It appears that the authors are sharply advocating against dating relationships (boyfriend-girlfriend relationships). And it is understandable, since dating relationships (at least some if not most) confuse sexual boundaries and give a false sense of security. However, I believe they weren’t able to recognize that there are dating relationships that resemble the qualities or distinctives of a dating friendship. I’ve seen couples in dating relationships upheld the purity guidelines of the neighbor relationship. Then these couples progressed into God-honoring marriages.

Maybe it’s just an issue of semantics. Call it dating relationships or dating friendships, so long as it maintains sexual purity guidelines of the neighbor relationship and it doesn’t give a false sense of security. Or maybe it’s an issue of geographical context. Maybe the American dating/relationships scene is different from ours in the Philippines (though I have to admit that it’s becoming more and more similar, since our country is highly westernized.)

But again, I deeply agree with the authors. They made an excellent argument for dating friendships. As a single, I’m hoping that I’ll pursue dating friendships once I start “hunting” for a wife.

I have quoted a lot from Sex, Dating, and Relationships in this blog series. But do yourselves a favor: Grab a copy of the book. You’ll benefit greatly from it.

1Gerald Hiestand and Jay Thomas, Sex, Dating, and Relationships (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 92.
2I acknowledge that this will require further discussion and I simply do not have the time and space to expound on this. So grab a copy of the book to get a stronger grasp of this. For the meantime, it’s worth noting what Hiestand and Thomas write: “This does not mean that a man and a woman cannot voluntarily choose to limit their interaction with the opposite sex. Not only is this permissible, but also we recommend it. For example, if a young man is particularly interested in a specific woman, he will likely not want to spend time and energy developing significant relationships with other women. A woman, likewise, may choose to turn down dates from other men when she knows that her interests lie elsewhere.” Ibid, 98.
3Ibid, 99.
4Ibid, 100.

Recent blogs on How’s Your Heart?:

– Relationship Status: In a Dating Friendship (Part 1)
– Men Should Assume If…
– Do Not Awaken Love

In Courtship, Dating, & Relationships
permalink

Book Review Fridays: Church Planter by Darrin Patrick

December 13, 2013 — Leave a comment

The Reading Disciple Resized Book Review Fridays: Church Planter by Darrin Patrick

Starting today, I’m going to write simpler book reviews. I hope you still benefit greatly from them.

I’m particularly interested in church planting. That’s because I desire to be a church planter someday (but only the Lord knows what). In December 2011, I made a big move of moving to a church plant of my church. I also read Mike McKinley’s Church Planting is for Wimps (see my review here). I’ve been reading church planting blogs as well. Finally, I acquired a copy of Darrin Patrick’s Church Planter (Crossway, 2010). This is my second book on church planting. (How many times did I mention “church planting in that paragraph alone?)

Church Planter is readable, biblical, Gospel-centered, and practical. It is divided into three parts: The Man, the message, and the mission, which follows the subtitle of the book. I like how Patrick starts with the church planter himself first. He deals with the person first, before he moves on to other topics. He says that a church planter must be a rescued, called, qualified, dependent, skilled, shepherding, and determined man.

Then in the next section (The Message), Patrick proceeds in explaining the Gospel in detail. He devotes five chapters to it. Truly, this book is a Gospel-centered one.

Another interesting feature of this book is its preface entitled “Why Focus on Men?” Here, Patrick revealed his complementarian position, which is also the position of his church planting network, Acts 29. He believes that the position is the biblical one and that Scripture consistently teaches male leadership not just in the church but also at home. So men should serves as “first among equals” in the church (pastors and elders) and at home (husbands and fathers). Clearly, Patrick is advocating for male church planters.

What I’m missing in this book are real-life experiences and examples of church planting endeavors. Mike McKinley’s book does well on this. I hoped Patrick included some in the book, including his.

Overall, Church Planter is a great book. It gave me a better understanding of church planting. I believe that when I start planting a church Lord willing, I will use this book as a resource. I highly recommend this book.

Recent book reviews in The Reading Disciple:

- Just Do Something by Kevin DeYoung
- This Momentary Marriage by John Piper
- The Explicit Gospel by Matt Chandler (with Jared Wilson)

In Books, Reviews, & Quotes, Church & Ministry , ,
permalink

Leadership Can Be Lonely

December 11, 2013 — Leave a comment

In one of my previous posts, I talked about the challenges I face in full-time ministry and the discouragements that come along with it. I’ve been reflecting about my leadership and realized this: Leadership can be lonely.

Why is that? Well, in leadership, you will make hard decisions that some people won’t understand (and sometimes, they never will). In leadership, you will face people that are hard to deal with and are simply not with you and for you (and you can feel it even without them telling you). In leadership, you celebrate with your team in times of progress, but spare them in times of setbacks. In leadership, your sinfulness and weaknesses get more magnified, therefore alienating you from people (I’ll talk more about this in another blog entry). And so on and so forth.

Yes, leadership can feel lonely at many times. But we—leaders—need to remind ourselves that we are not alone. I remember the story of David and his men, when they returned to Ziklag and found it burning (1 Samuel 30:1-6). Furthermore, their wives and children were taken captive by the raiders. The people wept “until they had no more strength to weep.”

David was in great distress. Not only because his wives were captured, but also because “the people spoke of stoning him[!]” The reason? “[B]ecause all the people were bitter in soul, each for his sons and daughter.” Honestly, I really don’t understand why people wanted to stone him, as if he’s the reason for the captivity. (Or is there a deeper reason, which has something to do with his leadership?) I guess when you’re the leader, you just get to be blamed for things you didn’t do.

So what did David do? Well, he has no one to turn to except for one. He was alone, but at the same time he wasn’t. The last part of verse 6 tells us: “But David strengthened himself in the Lord his God.” He set us a wonderful example to follow.

I think the point is that when we feel lonely in leadership, it’s actually the time that we should realize we are not alone. With no one to turn to (humanly-speaking, at least), we have Someone to turn to. The Lord Jesus is with us, and we can find strength in Him.

In Church & Ministry, Leadership
permalink

Relationship Status: In a Dating Friendship (Part 1)

December 9, 2013 — Leave a comment

Hows Your Heart 1024x317 Relationship Status: In a Dating Friendship (Part 1)

To be clear, I’m not dating someone. (Sorry to disappoint you.) But now that you are hooked by this article, read on.

I got this idea from Gerald Hiestand and Jay Thomas’ excellent book, Sex, Dating, and Relationships (book review coming soon). The authors are advocating an idea which they call dating friendships. It is their proposed alternative to traditional dating relationships (boyfriend/girlfriend relationships). Before we discuss what a dating friendship is (keep in touch for the part 2), let’s describe what its counterpart look like.

Hiestand and Thomas do a good critique of dating relationships. They have two concerns: Sexual boundaries and commitment.

SEXUAL BOUNDARIES ARE CONFUSED

The authors suggest that there are three God-ordained male-female relationships: Family, neighbor, and marriage. Sexual relations are prohibited in the first two, but are commanded in the last one. But in the emergence of dating relationships, a fourth category is added. The authors write about this and their concern about it:

We have created, apart from Scripture, a fourth type of male-female relationship. And therein lies potential for great confusion, for when we invent our own category of male-female relationships, we are forced to invent our own purity guidelines for that category. But inventing our own moral guidelines has never gone well for humanity (think of what happened when Adam and Eve tried it, in Genesis 3, for instance).1 (Emphasis added)

So in a dating relationship, sexual boundaries are confused. However, “[a]s far as God is concerned, all unmarried people are bound to the standards of purity he has defined in the neighbor relationship.”2 Furthermore, “Christian singles need to understand that a dating relationship, if anything, is merely a subset of the neighbor relationship,”3 so “the guidelines of sexual propriety for two people romantically interested in each other are the same as the guidelines for two people not romantically interested in each other: they are to treat one another like blood relatives.”4

REAL COMMITMENT OR FALSE SECURITY?

On the surface, two people in a dating relationship look committed to one another. But Hiestand and Thomas believe that the commitment of a dating relationship is of no substance at all. Dating relationships can end at anytime. Therefore, it gives couples an illusion of security.

Here are some wise words from the authors:

Apart from marriage (or engagement), there can be no real promise, no assurance of mutual protection, and no real guarantee of abiding trust; neither party in a dating relationship has promised anything permanent.5

Ultimately there is no true security apart from the promise of marriage. Too many singles today are giving away their hearts without realizing the transient nature of contemporary dating relationships. Word such as security, commitment, and promise have no real place in romantic relationships apart from marriage. Neither party has promised to be exclusive forever but only for as long as it suits his or her individual desires. The insecure nature of dating relationships must not be hidden, for it can lead to misplaced trust and unnecessary heartache.6

CONCLUSION

Hiestand and Thomas point out two valid concerns with the contemporary dating relationships, and I deeply agree with them. With this, they propose an alternative called dating friendships. (Next week, we will discuss more on this. Keep in touch.)

1Gerald Hiestand and Jay Thomas, Sex, Dating, and Relationships (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 52.
2Ibid, 53.
3Ibid, 54.
4Ibid, 55.
5Ibid, 60.
6Ibid, 64.

Recent blogs on How’s Your Heart?:

– Men Should Assume If…
– Do Not Awaken Love
– A Bruised Heart is Better Than a Broken One

In Courtship, Dating, & Relationships
permalink