Part of the nation of Isreal's history is their shift from a "theocracy" - a rule by God, to a "monarchy" - a rule by a king. The long and short of it is this. All the ruling people of the nation come to Samuel their leader, the last of their judges who was also a prophet, and say to him, "Give us a king, one to rule over us and fight in our battles!" Samuel is very displeased by this request because he feels as though it is a rejection not only of Yahweh (who has been their ruler to this point), but also of him. Yahweh assures him that it is just a rejection of Himself, and tells Samuel to give the people what they want, of course knowing that this is NOT a good idea. So Samuel then returns to the people to tell them what to expect from this king. In his own words...
"He said, "This is the way the kind of king you're talking about operates. He'll take your sons and make soldiers of them—chariotry, cavalry, infantry, regimented in battalions and squadrons. He'll put some to forced labor on his farms, plowing and harvesting, and others to making either weapons of war or chariots in which he can ride in luxury. He'll put your daughters to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He'll conscript your best fields, vineyards, and orchards and hand them over to his special friends. He'll tax your harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. Your prize workers and best animals he'll take for his own use. He'll lay a tax on your flocks and you'll end up no better than slaves. The day will come when you will cry in desperation because of this king you so much want for yourselves. But don't expect God to answer."
Sounds pretty appealing right??? And we continue...
"But the people wouldn't listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We will have a king to rule us! Then we'll be just like all the other nations. Our king will rule us and lead us and fight our battles.""
To this I reply "Excuse me sir, but your subtext is showing."
You see...
The people of Isreal really didn't want a KING...they wanted to be like the nations that surrounded them...
I have been thinking alot recently about teen dating. And before you think that I have accidentally collapsed two blog posts into one, please allow me a moment to explain.
Being a youth director, you have to deal with teen dating on a pretty regular basis. Most of these "dating relationships" do not end well. For some reason teens (and maybe even those of us in our 20's and 30's??) believe that it is possible to make a smooth transition from a dating relationship to a friendship when things go awry. Why we havent realized that this is HARDLY possible is beyond me. I mean, honestly, how many instances of this actually working out have you witnessed? This, to me, is especially problematic when the teens that are giving this strategy a go are members of youth group. Because when these relationships crash and burn, it usually ends up that one, or maybe even BOTH, of the parties end up not coming back to youth group to avoid the other.
So I am left to ponder...What are the alternatives? I am certainly not in the "I kissed dating goodbye" camp. I have seen the emotional disaster that ensues. However, I am disenfranchised with the "date everyone and see who works out" camp, as well. I think that teens are apt to latch on a little too tightly to the first female or male peer that shows them affection either physically or emotionally. Granted, there are those "highschool sweetheart" stories out there, but that is surely the exception to any kind of real life experience of teen dating...thus the "oooo's" and "aaahhh's" from the crowd when these stories are told. So I am inclined to pull a I Samuel 8 kind of move.
You want a girlfriend or boyfriend? Really? Why? Because you feel attracted to a certain individual and all the people around you tell you that attaching that title to that individual is just what people do?
Well this is what I have to say to you...
"This is the way the kind of relationship you're talking about operates. The boy will take your emotional stability and play around with it like an Nintendo Wii. He'll make you feel good about yourself as long as you are making him feel better about himself. He may even take your virginity. He'll take your time. Time you'll wish you never gave him in 4 months when you're upset that he dumped you, O so easily. Boys...she'll take your money. Money you'll wished you never spent 4 months from now when your well thought out plans take a dive. She'll take your time. Time that could have been spent playing your Nintendo Wii or taking over universe in World of Warcraft. The day will come when you will cry in desperation because of this boyfriend or girlfriend you so much want for yourselves. But don't expect God to answer."
OK...maybe the last part was a little harsh...
But seriously, why can't we just get rid of the titles? It seems that things would be much less complicated that way. I don't care if you "accidentally" "make-out" every once and a while. Just dont put any extra pressure on yourself because of some stupid cultural norm.
