This post is part of a series of posts. Be sure not to miss part 1, part 2, part 3, part4 and part 5.

People need God.

In order for people to encounter God, they must either go to him, or he must go to them.

Jesus came to us. So what does that mean?

We have this argument about that act all the time. Was it God’s way because he chose to come to us? Or was it man’s way because Jesus became a man and related to men?

Obviously it was God’s way, but the confusion comes when we try to imitate Jesus. Do we have to repackage the bible in order for people to read it? The Message is a repackaged version of the bible that some people celebrate, and others disdain. Some people quote scripture without saying it’s scripture. Is that bad? Just because we don’t say “John 3:16″ after reading it, does that mean it’s not scripture? Are we watering down the gospel? By repackaging the gospel in a way that is more relevant to today’s culture, are we repackaging God? Are we changing God so that he’ll be more palatable to humans? Is that what God did? Is Jesus a repackaged version of God that was more palatable to humans?

Which characteristic is inherently better? Obviously the “PC” answer is to say that neither is better or worse than the other, they’re just different. But I don’t want to give a PC answer.

So to solve this question, we gotta first answer the question of “how extroverted?” and “how introverted?” I think we can all agree that someone who is so extroverted that they don’t ever leave you alone, or that they’re afraid to be alone is too extroverted and is not desirable. I think we can also agree that someone who is so introverted that they are a hermit is also undesirable. Thus, rather than being a simple “Introvert vs. Extrovert” question, it is a question of degree.

The positives of being an introvert are that the person is more introspective and in tune with his or her feelings. They have more time to think and reflect and therefore they know themselves better. The problem is, with most introverts, they may know themselves better, but this is a factor of the fact that they love themselves better. Introvertism has a sense of cowardice and selfishness involved in it. I spend time with myself getting to know myself because I am the only one worth knowing. I don’t want to engage others because others are will sap my energy or worse yet, challenge me. Worse yet, introvertism has an element of elitism. I want to spend time with this one particular person and get to know this person because this person is special to me and others are not.

For an introvert to become extroverted requires much effort. Yes it may be unfair that some are created introverted when society loves the extrovert, but I believe most individuals have the capacity to overcome introvertedness and achieve some level of extrovertedness. I myself slept in the library during lunch when I was in high school so that I did not have to go out an interact with other people.

This isn’t to say that there is no danger in extrovertism. Extroverts must beware that their interactions with people are not selfish. Some extroverts like to hang out because it is fun for them rather than trying to minister to the people they are hanging out with. This too can lead to elitism. Yet I think the danger for introverts is greater. Take heart introverts. Introvertism can be overcome. Call someone up and ask them to hang out!

Hehehe i don’t really like having a lot of blogrings on my xanga to the point that it doesn’t really mean anything, but… I just joined this blogring “Christians who write..”  This is the description from the blogring site.

“This is a blogring for Christians who aspire to write prose and poetry: memoirs, science fiction, tragedy, fantasy—you name it—with genuine artistry. If you mention “Jesus” in every other line of your writing, this is not your blogring. This a blogring for the aspiring Federick Buechner, Annie Dillards and Anne Lamotts among you. I’m not so sure about aspiring John Stotts or J. I. Packers, but if you want to be a Philip Yancey or C. S. Lewis, you’re also quite welcome here!”

I think its funny how subtlety is a requirement for this blogring.  In order to be a Christian writer to non-Christian audiences, supposedly you need to be subtle.  Yet non-Christians aren’t dumb and they’re going to know when we try to convert them using our writing.  Another option is the Switchfoot option.  Talk about Christian truths without talking about Christ or Christianity.  While those truths may resonate with the public, will they ever acknowledge that those truths are from God?  Another question, is subtlety a cop-out/sell-out?  I’ve only vaguely heard of the authors mentioned, and it might be interesting to read them and see how they write.

On Pride Benjamin Franklin in “The Autobiography” writes these lines:

“Most people dislike vanity in others whatever share they have of it themselves, but I give it fair quarter wherever I meet with it, being persuaded that it is often productive of good to the posssessor and to others that are within his sphere of action.”

So Franklin thinks that vanity is a good thing.  I think that often the issue of pride is an interesting one.  In Christian thinking we believe that “pride comes before the fall.”  Yet in the eyes of many secular people, pride is an appropriate thing if it can be backed up. See Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice.  Neitzsche believed that pride was a positive quality, and only became a negative quality when those who had nothing to be proud of were resentful of those who did have something to be proud of.

So what about pride makes it a negative quality?  I suppose it comes from a definition of the word pride.  There are a few definitions of pride.

1. A sense of one’s own proper dignity or value; self-respect.
2. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association: parental pride. 
3. Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness.
4. An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit. 

The first definition of pride, I think nobody would object to.  As Christians, we are supposed to recognize our own value.  We are children of God.  That is our boast.

The second definition most seculars would not object to.  I think most Christians would not object to it either.  Should we however be “proud” of ourselves?  Christians are supposed to give credit to God for any of our accomplishments.  We are not supposed to take credit for it for ourselves.  What can we accomplish without God?

The third definition is the most troublesome.  Some non Christians may say that if a person IS better, they have the right to act better.  Again in Christianity nobody is better than anybody else.  God values us equally.  Someone may achieve something but it is not their achievement, it is God’s.  Actually some non-Christians may agree with this also. No achievement is actually due to inherent qualities that one person has over another. More on this in another entry.

The fourth definition, everyone agrees upon.  Nobody wants to have an excessively high opinion of oneself. We want to evaluate ourselves in a correct light.  However, I think this form of pride is the one that the bible talks about most often.  For a non-Christian it is probably very difficult to identify when we have crossed the line into excessive value of oneself.  It is difficult for Christians.  This is the most dangerous form of pride, and the one that I personally struggle with the most.