Well, it's been a rather long time since I've written. I'm not so good at this whole blog thing. But I've been inspired again, so here goes!
As I'm quite sure you're aware, it's election season here in the United States. You've seen the advertisements. You've read the articles. You've gotten the phone calls. And you've read the political opinions of everyone you're connected to all over your social media website of choice. But how much variety have you seen on your Facebook homepage or Twitter screen? Do all your friends agree with you?
I have seen a startling number of statuses on Facebook recently about intentionally surrounding oneself with people of the same political viewpoint. "I just unfriended someone who said they support Romney." "I'm not going to talk to anyone I know who supports Obama till after the election." "I can't believe I just found a ________ supporter on my newsfeed!" Is it a badge of honor to not associate with anyone different from you? Do you actually believe that everyone of the opposite political persuasion is someone not worth knowing?
This election season (and every one in my memory) has been filled with hatred. Attack ads are prevalent, each candidate calls in to question the character of the other, and things generally get pretty ugly. But what I've started to notice recently is that the questions about character are not just limited to the candidates. It would seem that people from both sides have a way of believing that the opposing viewpoint is not one that a good and/or rational person could legitimately hold. The way opinions are stated and arguments are made frequently indicates a belief that anyone in opposition must be either stupid or evil, or perhaps some combination of the two. People throw about criticisms of the other party seemingly with no consideration of the fact that its proponents are actually real people.
Why do we do this? How are we so comfortable with throwing approximately half of the population under the bus? I'm sure the reasons are manifold, but I'm quite convinced that a major aspect is the fact that we tend to surround ourselves with others who think the same way we do. Part of that is simply due to our situations--certain locations, schools, and occupations tend to breed or attract people of a certain ideology, so knowing only people of one viewpoint can be quite natural. I have been quite blessed to have been in a great variety of different situations and as such have had the benefit of getting to know people with a variety of beliefs. I see myself as lucky in that sense. But it is also often a self-inflicted problem. As can be seen from the statuses of my Facebook friends, it seems desirable to surround yourself with people who agree with you. It is uncomfortable to face the fact that real people disagree with you, not just a faceless mass. If real people disagree with us, there is a chance we're wrong, and we don't like to be wrong.
But it is so dangerous to only be friends with people who agree with you, partially because of what I stated above. It is so easy to vilify someone you've never met. If you don't know anyone who is from the opposing party, it remains plausible that every member of that party holds a certain set of undesirable characteristics. But if you actually befriend somebody who disagrees with you, you will likely find that they are not the way you imagined. And if we all understand people who are different from us have a lot of great qualities, we can hopefully begin to share our viewpoints in a more respectful and kind manner.
The danger doesn't stop there, however. If you only associate with people who agree with you, then your viewpoints are never challenged. It is comfortable to discuss things with those who agree with you, but it is beneficial to discuss things with those who disagree. We can learn so much from people of different beliefs even if we don't change our viewpoint at all. The ability to understand what drives opposing viewpoints and to work toward compromise could absolutely reform the political process. At the very least, we become better people when we learn to challenge ourselves. And we can do that so much better when we talk to people who disagree with us.
So go, meet somebody new who disagrees with you. And for heaven's sake, don't unfriend your friends who support the opposing candidate. Learn something new. Grow.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Together
These past few weeks, Cru (formerly Campus Crusade) at Northwestern has been running an evangelistic campaign entitled "I Agree With Markwell". From what I've gathered from afar, the campaign included some pretty major advertising (posters, sidewalk chalk, and t-shirts) giving only the name of the campaign and directing people to the website iagreewithmarkwell.com. The advertising was meant to create interest, and the website informed people who Markwell is (a senior member of the organization) and what it is that these people agree with him about (a blurb describing the Christian gospel). An article on the school's online magazine about the campaign included an interview with Mr. Markwell himself, and this seems to be what broke open the major debate that followed. Thanks to the internet, I've been following the backlash from this campaign for the majority of the week.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of the methods used in this campaign, but nonetheless the extraordinary nature of the backlash was somewhat shocking to me. I was deeply saddened to see people saying hateful things about Markwell, all of Cru, and evangelical Christians in general. Much of the tone of the commenting was reprehensible, and the whole experience of following this has been something of a sad one for me. However, amid these voices there have come out some very reasonable and well-thought out ones, that have given me something interesting to think about.
The main argument against the I Agree With Markwell campaign (and evangelism in general) is that it is offensive and wrong to try to change a person's religious beliefs. It is fine, they say, to express your belief, buy only if it applies to you, not if it is attempting to be coercive to someone else. The idea is that religious beliefs are a personal thing and nobody's business but your own.
And in some sense, it would seem that the people on the other side of the issue would agree that religion is a personal thing. The headline on the campaigns website talks about your ability to have a personal relationship with Jesus. The responses that have been given to the above critique center around the fact that your personal decision about Jesus affects you in an eternal way, so their attempt to change your personal decision is in fact loving and for your own good. I have seen no attempt anywhere to discredit the idea that religion is simply personal.
But what if religion isn't simply personal? What if my religious beliefs affect you, and your beliefs affect me? What if Christianity isn't only about your personal relationship with Jesus?
I believe that the Bible tells us that when Jesus died on the cross it wasn't just about getting us into heaven. It was about so much more! When Jesus died on the cross, He accomplished victory over sin and death so that someday when He returns, this whole created world will be made right again. Our bodies will be healed, our relationships will be mended, our sorrows will be gone. All things will be as they should be; they will be as God created them to be.
And not only that, but as we wait for that final completion, we catch glimpses of the glory that is to come. Most of those glimpses come from the body of Christ we call the Church. Not only that, but we as believers in Christ, as we are being sanctified through the Holy Spirit, are invited to participate in working toward the restoration of this earth. We are called to heal relationships, alleviate poverty, and work for the good of the city. We are allowed to be instruments of healing in the world!
So yes, I believe that my religious belief affects others. I believe that the more people touched by Christ's healing, the better this world will be. I believe that your participation in my community called the Church will bring benefit to me and the others around me.
The modern spirit of individuality that is so prevalent in our culture has seeped its way into Christianity, and in many ways has been to our detriment. To think in terms of so much more than our own personal salvation would be beneficial to us in so many ways. I am so blessed to be part of a wonderful Christian community here in Lincoln, and I am being struck by the way that God can work through the fellowship of believers. I desire to live my life together with those around me, so that what was once personal is no longer personal. I pray that we as Christians may continue to grow together, not losing our individuality but combining our unique personalities and gifts to make a body that thrives.
1 Corinthians 12
Now, I'm not a huge fan of the methods used in this campaign, but nonetheless the extraordinary nature of the backlash was somewhat shocking to me. I was deeply saddened to see people saying hateful things about Markwell, all of Cru, and evangelical Christians in general. Much of the tone of the commenting was reprehensible, and the whole experience of following this has been something of a sad one for me. However, amid these voices there have come out some very reasonable and well-thought out ones, that have given me something interesting to think about.
The main argument against the I Agree With Markwell campaign (and evangelism in general) is that it is offensive and wrong to try to change a person's religious beliefs. It is fine, they say, to express your belief, buy only if it applies to you, not if it is attempting to be coercive to someone else. The idea is that religious beliefs are a personal thing and nobody's business but your own.
And in some sense, it would seem that the people on the other side of the issue would agree that religion is a personal thing. The headline on the campaigns website talks about your ability to have a personal relationship with Jesus. The responses that have been given to the above critique center around the fact that your personal decision about Jesus affects you in an eternal way, so their attempt to change your personal decision is in fact loving and for your own good. I have seen no attempt anywhere to discredit the idea that religion is simply personal.
But what if religion isn't simply personal? What if my religious beliefs affect you, and your beliefs affect me? What if Christianity isn't only about your personal relationship with Jesus?
I believe that the Bible tells us that when Jesus died on the cross it wasn't just about getting us into heaven. It was about so much more! When Jesus died on the cross, He accomplished victory over sin and death so that someday when He returns, this whole created world will be made right again. Our bodies will be healed, our relationships will be mended, our sorrows will be gone. All things will be as they should be; they will be as God created them to be.
And not only that, but as we wait for that final completion, we catch glimpses of the glory that is to come. Most of those glimpses come from the body of Christ we call the Church. Not only that, but we as believers in Christ, as we are being sanctified through the Holy Spirit, are invited to participate in working toward the restoration of this earth. We are called to heal relationships, alleviate poverty, and work for the good of the city. We are allowed to be instruments of healing in the world!
So yes, I believe that my religious belief affects others. I believe that the more people touched by Christ's healing, the better this world will be. I believe that your participation in my community called the Church will bring benefit to me and the others around me.
The modern spirit of individuality that is so prevalent in our culture has seeped its way into Christianity, and in many ways has been to our detriment. To think in terms of so much more than our own personal salvation would be beneficial to us in so many ways. I am so blessed to be part of a wonderful Christian community here in Lincoln, and I am being struck by the way that God can work through the fellowship of believers. I desire to live my life together with those around me, so that what was once personal is no longer personal. I pray that we as Christians may continue to grow together, not losing our individuality but combining our unique personalities and gifts to make a body that thrives.
1 Corinthians 12
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Discourse
Half of me really wants to write about the whole Kony 2012 business that is taking the internet by storm. I watched the video yesterday morning and have since read dozens of articles and blog posts. Not a single one has said exactly what I want to say about it. I have so many complex thoughts jumbling around in my head on the topic, and I feel like writing about it would help me clarify in my head.
The other half of me really does not want to write about Kony 2012. The flurry of responses has been overwhelming and messy, and I don't want to add to all the noise. So I think I'm going to compromise and write about something related to the Kony 2012 sensation that has been bothering me for some time.
For those of you who have somehow avoided hearing about Kony 2012 or simply haven't gotten around to watching the video yet, there is a video absolutely exploding on Facebook and all around the internet about Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and, more recently, Sudan and South Sudan. Kony is the number one war criminal indicted by the International Criminal Court but has managed to evade capture for many years. Invisible Children, the charity that made the Kony 2012 video, has been working to stop Kony since 2003, and this video is the push to finish it this year by increasing awareness and therefore keeping the US military involved. Clearly the increasing awareness part has worked, as it is all over Facebook. The results remain to be seen.
There has been a lot of positive response to the video and Invisible Children as a whole, but I have also seen a good deal of negative response. People are criticizing Invisible Children's lack of transparency in terms of how they use their donations and the fact that what we do know shows that a distressingly small portion of their income goes directly to their charitable efforts. People are claiming (though I haven't seen any evidence given) that Invisible Children exaggerates the facts in order to elevate the emotional response. And people are worried that the method the video puts forth (having the US military support the Ugandan military as they try to catch Kony) is flawed since first, the LRA has largely moved out of Uganda and second, the Ugandan military has been accused of committing many of the same atrocities that Kony has. On top of this there are the usual criticisms of internet activism and of diverting attention from other groups in similar positions. So many articles. So many opinions. So much noise.
Don't get me wrong, much of all of this encourages me. I am encouraged by young people's ability to be stirred by injustice in the world. I am encouraged by people's willingness to stand up for something they believe in. I am also encouraged by the fact that people are thinking critically about this and not simply jumping on an emotional bandwagon. It is extremely important to make sure you are supporting a group that will not do more harm than good. I feel unqualified to make that judgment call on Invisible Children, but I very much appreciate the fact that people are making their best effort to figure that out.
But there are several things that bother me, the top one being one that has been on my mind for a while. It is the fact that we seem unable to have a polite discourse in our society, most especially on the internet. Now, I'm no internet-hater. I think that the internet has done wonders for many people in terms of staying informed, ease of long-distance communication, and so many other ways. But, like nearly everything on this earth, it has its upsides and downsides, one of the major downsides being the way we argue on the internet.
So many times recently, including in these responses to the Kony 2012 video, I have seen deeply inflammatory articles and posts that brutally attack the opinion and character of those they disagree with. And almost invariably there are responses that agree without reservation and others that respond in an equally incendiary manner against the writer of the article. There is no humility in these posts, no openness to other viewpoints. Any disagreement at all is going to be viewed as an attack, so they must attack in return. It makes discourse on a subject absolutely futile.
I don't know what causes so many people to write this way. It could be the anonymity of the internet. It could be that on the internet you can find hundreds of people who agree with you no matter what you say. It could be that people think that this is the best way to argue.
Factually, though, it is not. It does not work. If you want to change someone's opinion, you do not attack them. If you do, their posture is automatically going to be defensive. Their only desire will be to prove you wrong and retain their good name. They will have to interest in listening to your actual opinion.
If, on the other hand, you approach the subject with humility, a willingness to agree on certain points, and ultimately a willingness to hear their side of the story, there is a far greater chance they will listen. Of course it won't work invariably. There will still be those who will immediately discount you because you disagree. But those who are open to discourse may learn something from what you have to say, and you may learn something from them. And you will both be the better for it.
I am glad that we argue. I am glad that we have access to people with different viewpoints from us who can challenge our status quo. I am glad that there are people who think critically and can open my mind to new and different opinions. But I think the world would be a better place if we could learn to love a little more in our arguments. Not only would this take away some of the bitterness, but it could actually make our arguments worthwhile.
The other half of me really does not want to write about Kony 2012. The flurry of responses has been overwhelming and messy, and I don't want to add to all the noise. So I think I'm going to compromise and write about something related to the Kony 2012 sensation that has been bothering me for some time.
For those of you who have somehow avoided hearing about Kony 2012 or simply haven't gotten around to watching the video yet, there is a video absolutely exploding on Facebook and all around the internet about Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and, more recently, Sudan and South Sudan. Kony is the number one war criminal indicted by the International Criminal Court but has managed to evade capture for many years. Invisible Children, the charity that made the Kony 2012 video, has been working to stop Kony since 2003, and this video is the push to finish it this year by increasing awareness and therefore keeping the US military involved. Clearly the increasing awareness part has worked, as it is all over Facebook. The results remain to be seen.
There has been a lot of positive response to the video and Invisible Children as a whole, but I have also seen a good deal of negative response. People are criticizing Invisible Children's lack of transparency in terms of how they use their donations and the fact that what we do know shows that a distressingly small portion of their income goes directly to their charitable efforts. People are claiming (though I haven't seen any evidence given) that Invisible Children exaggerates the facts in order to elevate the emotional response. And people are worried that the method the video puts forth (having the US military support the Ugandan military as they try to catch Kony) is flawed since first, the LRA has largely moved out of Uganda and second, the Ugandan military has been accused of committing many of the same atrocities that Kony has. On top of this there are the usual criticisms of internet activism and of diverting attention from other groups in similar positions. So many articles. So many opinions. So much noise.
Don't get me wrong, much of all of this encourages me. I am encouraged by young people's ability to be stirred by injustice in the world. I am encouraged by people's willingness to stand up for something they believe in. I am also encouraged by the fact that people are thinking critically about this and not simply jumping on an emotional bandwagon. It is extremely important to make sure you are supporting a group that will not do more harm than good. I feel unqualified to make that judgment call on Invisible Children, but I very much appreciate the fact that people are making their best effort to figure that out.
But there are several things that bother me, the top one being one that has been on my mind for a while. It is the fact that we seem unable to have a polite discourse in our society, most especially on the internet. Now, I'm no internet-hater. I think that the internet has done wonders for many people in terms of staying informed, ease of long-distance communication, and so many other ways. But, like nearly everything on this earth, it has its upsides and downsides, one of the major downsides being the way we argue on the internet.
So many times recently, including in these responses to the Kony 2012 video, I have seen deeply inflammatory articles and posts that brutally attack the opinion and character of those they disagree with. And almost invariably there are responses that agree without reservation and others that respond in an equally incendiary manner against the writer of the article. There is no humility in these posts, no openness to other viewpoints. Any disagreement at all is going to be viewed as an attack, so they must attack in return. It makes discourse on a subject absolutely futile.
I don't know what causes so many people to write this way. It could be the anonymity of the internet. It could be that on the internet you can find hundreds of people who agree with you no matter what you say. It could be that people think that this is the best way to argue.
Factually, though, it is not. It does not work. If you want to change someone's opinion, you do not attack them. If you do, their posture is automatically going to be defensive. Their only desire will be to prove you wrong and retain their good name. They will have to interest in listening to your actual opinion.
If, on the other hand, you approach the subject with humility, a willingness to agree on certain points, and ultimately a willingness to hear their side of the story, there is a far greater chance they will listen. Of course it won't work invariably. There will still be those who will immediately discount you because you disagree. But those who are open to discourse may learn something from what you have to say, and you may learn something from them. And you will both be the better for it.
I am glad that we argue. I am glad that we have access to people with different viewpoints from us who can challenge our status quo. I am glad that there are people who think critically and can open my mind to new and different opinions. But I think the world would be a better place if we could learn to love a little more in our arguments. Not only would this take away some of the bitterness, but it could actually make our arguments worthwhile.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Democracy
Recently, a quote from an Obama speech has been floating around the internet. I'm not sure why it has become so popular all of a sudden since the speech was made in 2006, but I've seen it posted on Facebook multiple times in the last few days. Here is the text of the quote:
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."-Barack Obama
Now, there is a sense in which I agree with President Obama. We will never be able to discuss issues effectively if my only reason for believing something is that the Bible says so and you don't believe that the Bible is truth. But that is about where my agreement ends, and in fact, this view that we hold in common leads me to a rather opposite view.
What I think Obama is missing here is what it means to be "religiously motivated". His speech assumes that my religion is a part of my life, a portion of my beliefs, that I can pay attention to or ignore as I will. But that is not the case, because in fact, my belief in the God of the Bible is the foundation for all my beliefs, and ideally every belief I hold stems from this underlying truth. Therefore, either my belief in the God of the Bible will be (explicitly or implicitly) involved in all of my political discourse, or I must recuse myself from politics entirely.
The real problem is this idea of "universal values". There simply is not such a thing. I suspect if there were, we would eventually be able to come to some sort of political consensus. But this is not possible, because my values are inherently "religiously motivated". I know no others. Similarly you, if you are not "religiously motivated", have a basic set of beliefs that your values come from that may not make sense to me. I suspect that even if we were able to find a set of values that every person in the United States could agree on, a person from Bangladesh would find them completely foreign. The idea of "universal values" as Obama means it here is a farce. We all have different assumptions that form our beliefs, and when we talk around them it makes it even harder for us to see eye to eye.
This is why I think that our discourse would be much more civil if we instead acknowledged these underlying assumptions. You will never understand my arguments unless you understand what belief system they flow out of; similarly, I will never understand your arguments unless I understand your underlying worldview. Instead of fleeing from any mention of religious beliefs in political discourse, I think that we should welcome the opportunity to understand more fully what is behind the beliefs of those with whom we disagree. It may not allow us to come to a consensus, but democracy requires no such thing. It will simply allow us to make sense to each other in a way that is quite impossible otherwise.
There are two other problems that I have with this quote, which I will deal with much more briefly. The first is this: I take great issue with the implication that religiously motivated concerns are not amenable to reason. With the assumptions that I hold, my belief system is rationally sound, and reasonable discourse can certainly be achieved within it. A claim to the contrary would imply lack of knowledge of the underlying assumptions, a problem which can be solved by allowing the underlying assumptions into political discourse, as I proposed above.
Lastly, the claim that removal of religious discourse is demanded by democracy seems to go against what the founding fathers of our country intended our democracy to be. From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." If the very foundation of our democracy required a reference to the Creator, I find it odd to believe that our democracy demands that we avoid making any such reference. I like to believe that our democracy welcomes such discourse as a way of including each individual in the political process of this excellent nation.
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."-Barack Obama
Now, there is a sense in which I agree with President Obama. We will never be able to discuss issues effectively if my only reason for believing something is that the Bible says so and you don't believe that the Bible is truth. But that is about where my agreement ends, and in fact, this view that we hold in common leads me to a rather opposite view.
What I think Obama is missing here is what it means to be "religiously motivated". His speech assumes that my religion is a part of my life, a portion of my beliefs, that I can pay attention to or ignore as I will. But that is not the case, because in fact, my belief in the God of the Bible is the foundation for all my beliefs, and ideally every belief I hold stems from this underlying truth. Therefore, either my belief in the God of the Bible will be (explicitly or implicitly) involved in all of my political discourse, or I must recuse myself from politics entirely.
The real problem is this idea of "universal values". There simply is not such a thing. I suspect if there were, we would eventually be able to come to some sort of political consensus. But this is not possible, because my values are inherently "religiously motivated". I know no others. Similarly you, if you are not "religiously motivated", have a basic set of beliefs that your values come from that may not make sense to me. I suspect that even if we were able to find a set of values that every person in the United States could agree on, a person from Bangladesh would find them completely foreign. The idea of "universal values" as Obama means it here is a farce. We all have different assumptions that form our beliefs, and when we talk around them it makes it even harder for us to see eye to eye.
This is why I think that our discourse would be much more civil if we instead acknowledged these underlying assumptions. You will never understand my arguments unless you understand what belief system they flow out of; similarly, I will never understand your arguments unless I understand your underlying worldview. Instead of fleeing from any mention of religious beliefs in political discourse, I think that we should welcome the opportunity to understand more fully what is behind the beliefs of those with whom we disagree. It may not allow us to come to a consensus, but democracy requires no such thing. It will simply allow us to make sense to each other in a way that is quite impossible otherwise.
There are two other problems that I have with this quote, which I will deal with much more briefly. The first is this: I take great issue with the implication that religiously motivated concerns are not amenable to reason. With the assumptions that I hold, my belief system is rationally sound, and reasonable discourse can certainly be achieved within it. A claim to the contrary would imply lack of knowledge of the underlying assumptions, a problem which can be solved by allowing the underlying assumptions into political discourse, as I proposed above.
Lastly, the claim that removal of religious discourse is demanded by democracy seems to go against what the founding fathers of our country intended our democracy to be. From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." If the very foundation of our democracy required a reference to the Creator, I find it odd to believe that our democracy demands that we avoid making any such reference. I like to believe that our democracy welcomes such discourse as a way of including each individual in the political process of this excellent nation.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Crazy, Stupid... ?
It seems like every three days there's a new story about another celebrity marriage falling apart. In Hollywood a 5-year marriage is an incredible accomplishment; 10 years is a lifetime. None of them actually seem to last forever. And while the lives of movie stars are far from being representative of the general population, we certainly are not immune from the culture of divorce. It's everywhere.
I will go ahead and admit from the start: I'm not married. I have no idea what it's like to be married; I cannot speak to this from experience. But I get that it's hard. I understand that there are many things that cause marriages to fail, and I know that there is much pain involved in these situations. That is not something I want to make light of at all.
That said, I was watching the movie Crazy, Stupid, Love the other day, and as I thought about it there was something that began to bother me. (Aside from the title's ridiculous punctuation.) At first glance the main point of the film seems rather inspiring: the two main characters have a marriage that is falling apart and decide to get a divorce, but by the end of the movie they come to believe their marriage is worth fighting for. It's honest about the difficulty of marriage but hopeful about the possibility of working it out. How nice; let's all go home and have some ice cream.
But what their change in outlook comes from is the rather creepier storyline involving their son. He's a thirteen year-old boy who is "in love" with his seventeen year-old babysitter. She does not return his affections because, well, he's a thirteen year-old boy, but also because she's "in love" with his father. Creeped out yet? Yeah, me too. Creepy details aside, however, at one point our little thirteen year-old boy tells his father that said babysitter is his soul mate, and when it's your soul mate, you don't give up. Adorable, right? Oh, except that babysitter has asked him to stop bothering her, and she doesn't seen to be appreciating his repeated advances. More creepy.
Of course, in the end, thirteen year-old boy gets worn out by endless rejection and is about to give up, when his dad gets up at his 8th grade graduation ceremony (creepy?) and reaffirms that when you find "the one" you don't give up. Nice for him to say, because he's married to his "the one", less nice for his son. But of course, babysitter comes around--not just yet, but she'll reconsider when they're older. Adorable.
But why do dad and son keep trying to work out their relationships with their respective women? What is the driving force? The fact that they've found their soul mate. And how do they know that they've found their soul mate? It's unclear. What do they do in their given situations if they decide that the woman is not their soul mate?
And that's where we have the problem. We seem to have an idea as a culture that if you find the right person, your marriage will work out, and that if you're unhappy then you married the wrong person, and there's a right one out there that you missed. And usually, if you get a divorce to try to find that right person, the next one isn't going to be the right one either.
That's because there isn't one right person who will magically make a good marriage. In a sense there is a "the one" because I believe that God has prescribed who each of us will marry, but from our limited perspective that's not how it works. We are not being asked to search until we find that one person. We are being asked to find a person and make a commitment. That doesn't mean that there aren't "wrong" people and that we shouldn't be wise in choosing who to marry, but it does mean that you don't have to fret over whether or not you've found your right person. That can only lead to unhappiness, because it turns out, there's no such thing as a perfectly happy marriage. The only way to be close is to fully and completely commit yourself to the one you're with and work at it with all you've got.
This is not intended to be a critique on individual marriages, but I want us to really reconsider the idea that our culture promotes of a "soul mate", a "the one", a "happily ever after". There is no happily ever after, but I think there's something better. Let's call it "love".
I will go ahead and admit from the start: I'm not married. I have no idea what it's like to be married; I cannot speak to this from experience. But I get that it's hard. I understand that there are many things that cause marriages to fail, and I know that there is much pain involved in these situations. That is not something I want to make light of at all.
That said, I was watching the movie Crazy, Stupid, Love the other day, and as I thought about it there was something that began to bother me. (Aside from the title's ridiculous punctuation.) At first glance the main point of the film seems rather inspiring: the two main characters have a marriage that is falling apart and decide to get a divorce, but by the end of the movie they come to believe their marriage is worth fighting for. It's honest about the difficulty of marriage but hopeful about the possibility of working it out. How nice; let's all go home and have some ice cream.
But what their change in outlook comes from is the rather creepier storyline involving their son. He's a thirteen year-old boy who is "in love" with his seventeen year-old babysitter. She does not return his affections because, well, he's a thirteen year-old boy, but also because she's "in love" with his father. Creeped out yet? Yeah, me too. Creepy details aside, however, at one point our little thirteen year-old boy tells his father that said babysitter is his soul mate, and when it's your soul mate, you don't give up. Adorable, right? Oh, except that babysitter has asked him to stop bothering her, and she doesn't seen to be appreciating his repeated advances. More creepy.
Of course, in the end, thirteen year-old boy gets worn out by endless rejection and is about to give up, when his dad gets up at his 8th grade graduation ceremony (creepy?) and reaffirms that when you find "the one" you don't give up. Nice for him to say, because he's married to his "the one", less nice for his son. But of course, babysitter comes around--not just yet, but she'll reconsider when they're older. Adorable.
But why do dad and son keep trying to work out their relationships with their respective women? What is the driving force? The fact that they've found their soul mate. And how do they know that they've found their soul mate? It's unclear. What do they do in their given situations if they decide that the woman is not their soul mate?
And that's where we have the problem. We seem to have an idea as a culture that if you find the right person, your marriage will work out, and that if you're unhappy then you married the wrong person, and there's a right one out there that you missed. And usually, if you get a divorce to try to find that right person, the next one isn't going to be the right one either.
That's because there isn't one right person who will magically make a good marriage. In a sense there is a "the one" because I believe that God has prescribed who each of us will marry, but from our limited perspective that's not how it works. We are not being asked to search until we find that one person. We are being asked to find a person and make a commitment. That doesn't mean that there aren't "wrong" people and that we shouldn't be wise in choosing who to marry, but it does mean that you don't have to fret over whether or not you've found your right person. That can only lead to unhappiness, because it turns out, there's no such thing as a perfectly happy marriage. The only way to be close is to fully and completely commit yourself to the one you're with and work at it with all you've got.
This is not intended to be a critique on individual marriages, but I want us to really reconsider the idea that our culture promotes of a "soul mate", a "the one", a "happily ever after". There is no happily ever after, but I think there's something better. Let's call it "love".
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Work
As someone who has spent much of my life finding value in my intelligence and my successes, there have been some rather difficult things about being an intern with RUF. It is nearly impossible to measure success in this job, and when I try, I often evaluate myself as not being terribly successful. Somehow I have found myself called to a job that very rarely uses my primary set of talents, so there are moments when I struggle to find validation that I am doing well. In this, however, I am seeing great growth in myself; I am learning to believe that I am not my successes. I am doing well if I am working for the kingdom of God and living in light of his calling.
That growth is still trying fairly unsuccessfully to permeate another area of my life--the area where I find great validation in the way others view my successes. That, too, has been a great struggle as I have worked as an RUF intern. As it's not exactly a common job, I find myself quite regularly explaining to people what my job entails, and it is unbelievably disheartening when a person's followup comments or facial expression make it clear that they don't see what I'm doing as a viable job. My need for approval and the value that I place on success clearly make this worse, but it's hard to imagine that there is anyone for whom that would not be a blow to their confidence.
I was talking about this with my lovely roommate Ashley last night, and she revealed to me that she often feels the same way. She graduated in psychology with honors and is now working at the county court. And when people ask her what she does for a living, she always feels like people are disappointed in her. Another blow to the confidence.
Our other roommate Meredith didn't get to participate in said conversation as she is out of town currently, so I can't speak to her feelings on the subject, but she is a college graduate with an animal science degree who is working as a dog groomer. And here is the thing that I admire about dear Meredith: she is not working her dream job, but when she talks about work, it is so clear that she is doing everything she can to make sure that her dogs are groomed excellently. It hurts her when her co-workers do not put in the same effort that she does. She sees her job as important, and she does it to the very best of her ability.
I know the same is true of Ashley. She works very hard, and does her job well. And I believe that says far more about their success and their character than their actual job title does.
None of the three of us is doing what we expected we'd be doing after we graduated from college. None of us has a high-paying, glamorous, respected job. But each of us is serving God's Kingdom through our jobs that are undeniably important, if not glamorous; through the relationships that we have in our workplaces; and through the way they (and I pray I) do our work to the best of our ability.
I have certainly been guilty of making a judgment of someone based on their job title, but I would like to challenge myself along with you, dear reader. Take care that you respect people working in all fields. Their work is important, and if they are working an uncomfortable, low-paying job, they likely deserve your respect all the more. God doesn't bless doctors over McDonald's employees, professors over garbage men, pastors over janitors, or janitors over pastors. Let's take care that we don't either.
Meredith, Ashley, and I will all change jobs someday. None of us plan to do what we're doing permanently. But I pray with all my heart that when we look to our next job, we won't choose based on money or glamor or respect. I pray that we will go where God is calling us to serve his kingdom, and that we will do that work excellently.
That growth is still trying fairly unsuccessfully to permeate another area of my life--the area where I find great validation in the way others view my successes. That, too, has been a great struggle as I have worked as an RUF intern. As it's not exactly a common job, I find myself quite regularly explaining to people what my job entails, and it is unbelievably disheartening when a person's followup comments or facial expression make it clear that they don't see what I'm doing as a viable job. My need for approval and the value that I place on success clearly make this worse, but it's hard to imagine that there is anyone for whom that would not be a blow to their confidence.
I was talking about this with my lovely roommate Ashley last night, and she revealed to me that she often feels the same way. She graduated in psychology with honors and is now working at the county court. And when people ask her what she does for a living, she always feels like people are disappointed in her. Another blow to the confidence.
Our other roommate Meredith didn't get to participate in said conversation as she is out of town currently, so I can't speak to her feelings on the subject, but she is a college graduate with an animal science degree who is working as a dog groomer. And here is the thing that I admire about dear Meredith: she is not working her dream job, but when she talks about work, it is so clear that she is doing everything she can to make sure that her dogs are groomed excellently. It hurts her when her co-workers do not put in the same effort that she does. She sees her job as important, and she does it to the very best of her ability.
I know the same is true of Ashley. She works very hard, and does her job well. And I believe that says far more about their success and their character than their actual job title does.
None of the three of us is doing what we expected we'd be doing after we graduated from college. None of us has a high-paying, glamorous, respected job. But each of us is serving God's Kingdom through our jobs that are undeniably important, if not glamorous; through the relationships that we have in our workplaces; and through the way they (and I pray I) do our work to the best of our ability.
I have certainly been guilty of making a judgment of someone based on their job title, but I would like to challenge myself along with you, dear reader. Take care that you respect people working in all fields. Their work is important, and if they are working an uncomfortable, low-paying job, they likely deserve your respect all the more. God doesn't bless doctors over McDonald's employees, professors over garbage men, pastors over janitors, or janitors over pastors. Let's take care that we don't either.
Meredith, Ashley, and I will all change jobs someday. None of us plan to do what we're doing permanently. But I pray with all my heart that when we look to our next job, we won't choose based on money or glamor or respect. I pray that we will go where God is calling us to serve his kingdom, and that we will do that work excellently.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Life
Joe Paterno passed away today. This strikes me as a terribly tragic end to a terribly tragic story. It makes me so sad. Partially, of course, because I'm a big football fan, Big Ten football to be precise. But it's so much more than that. It's because a man who was for so long looked up to by so many has gone out on such a sour note. It's because an unparalleled career was tainted by one enormous mistake. It's because this could happen to any of us.
It's very revealing to me that Coach Paterno died so soon after he was fired. Yes, he was ill; yes, he was very old; no, it's not at all surprising that someone in his condition would pass away. But he said it himself; he said that he thought football was keeping him alive. It is so clear that football was his life. Almost 62 years as a coach at Penn State, 46 of those as head coach. A record number of wins, dozens of awards, multiple conference and national championships--these are successes most of us will never dream of. Football, to JoePa, was not just a job and an impressive income. It was his success, his love, his family, his significance. It was, perhaps literally in this case, what gave him life.
And then, in 2002, Mr. Paterno was faced with something that threatened this life. A former member of his coaching staff and a personal friend of his was accused of a terrible wrongdoing. And he was informed. The responsibility to do something about it was put in his hands. And he was left with a terrible decision: would he do what was right, possibly prevent further wrongdoing, and work to bring about justice? Or would he shrink from this in order to protect his job, his career, his life? I have no idea what Mr. Paterno's thoughts were at this time or how he made his decision. All I know is that he went with the bare minimum; he told his supervisor and washed his hands of the situation. He protected himself and the thing that gave him life.
Of course, we know the ending. This decision was instead what ended his career. He lost his integrity in trying to save his world and lost it in the process. It's a tragedy of storybook proportions, all the more so because I get it. There are things in my life that I look to for meaning, and I know with certainty that I have compromised my integrity to keep those things alive. If we're honest, we all have. For me it's usually other people's approval that I seek, at other times it's success, it's relationships, it's personal comfort. It's any host of things that give our lives meaning. And by the grace of God I've never had to deal with such an enormous choice as Coach Paterno faced, but I know without a doubt that I've made mistakes in the name of the things that I love. My goal is not for a second to rationalize what Mr. Paterno did; instead, it is to condemn myself along with him.
Joe Paterno's career took some effort to uphold, and so does my approval from others. But the thing that actually gives me life doesn't ask me to uphold it. It will never require me to compromise my integrity. It will never fail me. And that is my identity as a child of God, bought with the precious blood of Christ. I may continue to make mistakes in the name of my personal comforts, but I pray that every day I'll continue to focus more and more on the true giver of life who will never ever leave me. Amen.
It's very revealing to me that Coach Paterno died so soon after he was fired. Yes, he was ill; yes, he was very old; no, it's not at all surprising that someone in his condition would pass away. But he said it himself; he said that he thought football was keeping him alive. It is so clear that football was his life. Almost 62 years as a coach at Penn State, 46 of those as head coach. A record number of wins, dozens of awards, multiple conference and national championships--these are successes most of us will never dream of. Football, to JoePa, was not just a job and an impressive income. It was his success, his love, his family, his significance. It was, perhaps literally in this case, what gave him life.
And then, in 2002, Mr. Paterno was faced with something that threatened this life. A former member of his coaching staff and a personal friend of his was accused of a terrible wrongdoing. And he was informed. The responsibility to do something about it was put in his hands. And he was left with a terrible decision: would he do what was right, possibly prevent further wrongdoing, and work to bring about justice? Or would he shrink from this in order to protect his job, his career, his life? I have no idea what Mr. Paterno's thoughts were at this time or how he made his decision. All I know is that he went with the bare minimum; he told his supervisor and washed his hands of the situation. He protected himself and the thing that gave him life.
Of course, we know the ending. This decision was instead what ended his career. He lost his integrity in trying to save his world and lost it in the process. It's a tragedy of storybook proportions, all the more so because I get it. There are things in my life that I look to for meaning, and I know with certainty that I have compromised my integrity to keep those things alive. If we're honest, we all have. For me it's usually other people's approval that I seek, at other times it's success, it's relationships, it's personal comfort. It's any host of things that give our lives meaning. And by the grace of God I've never had to deal with such an enormous choice as Coach Paterno faced, but I know without a doubt that I've made mistakes in the name of the things that I love. My goal is not for a second to rationalize what Mr. Paterno did; instead, it is to condemn myself along with him.
Joe Paterno's career took some effort to uphold, and so does my approval from others. But the thing that actually gives me life doesn't ask me to uphold it. It will never require me to compromise my integrity. It will never fail me. And that is my identity as a child of God, bought with the precious blood of Christ. I may continue to make mistakes in the name of my personal comforts, but I pray that every day I'll continue to focus more and more on the true giver of life who will never ever leave me. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)