My wife is graduating in less than three weeks - she's felt a growing calling to work for the Coalition for Christian Outreach for years, but now she's faced with the possibilities of taking a pioneering new position a state away, an uninterestingly athletic-centered position an hour away, or a position a half-hour away for which she would have to raise her whole salary. My sister's boyfriend is graduating in less than three weeks - he's pursued a desire to go into music education and is now faced with the harshness of that job market for those without experience. My best man is graduating in about a month - he's done a great job getting a degree in accounting and history, but now wants to pursue ministry and is weighing going to seminary in state, going to seminary out of state, or working for the CCO somewhere in western Pennsylvania. All of these changes involve losing the safety and security involved with calling a place home for years and calling education work for almost an entire lifetime.
Faced with complete uncertainty about where to live and what to pursue, it's easy to worry. Worry. Worry is bad, sinful even. It shows a lack of trust in God, says the Christian. And the commonly verbalized solution is to give the situation to God. Just pray and trust. But as I consider this overly-simplistic description of the problem and proposed solution, I think that there are some important aspects of this process that are too-often glossed over: namely, the viewpoint from which we're truly able to give things over to God and what our lives should look like after we've given it over to God.
I don't think you can just be anywhere at anytime and offer something up to God so that, poof, it's no longer a worry. I'm not going to sugarcoat things - I've heard many other people describe the year after college as the hardest year in life, and so far, I would certainly agree with that. In college, you're still very protected from the financial and business worlds that say, "Give us what we want, and we'll give you everything you can imagine - don't give us what we want, and you're nothing." Obviously it's not quite extreme - there's a spectrum - but from the world's perspective, on one end you have no valuable skills and can't afford food or a place to live, and on the other you're everything anyone could ever hope to be and have anything you want. Home can be even that much more lonely, work that much more meaningless, and hope that much more scarce.
I started listening to a series on Ecclesiastes on the one28 podcast, which is free in case you'd like to check out a talk or two - I'd recommend the first two, I think they're about the best - and have felt very much more free in realizing that life isn't supposed to be simply happy and fulfilling. The Bible couldn't be more direct - everything is meaningless and nothing under the sun can fulfill you. We're not made for this life! We're not meant to feel great all the time! The things around us aren't meant to be our hope and our comfort and our security. There's a time for everything, including sadness, failure, and frustration. Encountering those doesn't mean that God loves you or that there's something wrong with you - everyone experiences those thing. As a wise elder told me recently, failure is probably one of the most undervalued things in life - it's meant to be a learning a tool, and often, the more you fail, the more you learn. Don't consider it out of place or unnatural or indicative that you're worthless, because those are all falacies.
So the place from which we're able to offer up things to God isn't the place where we just know that He'll get us the right job eventually - it's from the place that acknowledges that God is more to us than a job or money or status or worldly security. A lot of it's an identity issue: can you recognize that you are eternally beloved by the Lord of the Universe and rest in that or are you only comfortable with that so long as God gives you what you want? I'd encourage you to study Ecclesiastes to supplement this point.
Now that we've at least touched on a little bit of what place you should be in that will enable you to give something up to God, I want to discuss two changes that should happen in your life once you have put your faith in Him. The faith in a chair analogy is simple but relates so much: if you have faith that a chair can hold you up, you're willing to sit in it. These two changes show that you're sitting in God's chair.
The first one is fairly short and simple: replace your worry with something else. Many people throughout history have rejected the Bible because they saw it as a rule book that they didn't want to follow. And Christians' too often play right into that hand by not recognizing that, with everything in Scripture, it's not about avoiding this and not doing that, but it's about REPLACING fallenness and brokenness with what is right and true. To apply this more to you, you can't expect there to just be a vacuum in your mind; you can't go home after student teaching and just cook and watch TV and expect to not worry. The worrying needs to be replaced with something. And that something shouldn't be limited to looking for a job or working to enhance your future. Take time to think and pray about how God can use you to be a minister now. I recently taught a lesson on Psalm 1, so I've been thinking about the first word of that Psalm: blessed. This world says "blessed are those with respectable jobs who make a lot of money," and God's Word says, "blessed are the merciful, the peacemakers, the meek, the poor in spirit," and, in the instance of Psalm 1, those who meditate on the law of the Lord. Not blessed like some ethereal unnoticable dash of fairy dust, but blessed like joy/happyness because this is how we're meant to live. So I'd encourage you to be busy, not necessarily with planning for your future, but with whatever God is calling you to do or with whoever God is calling you to invest in.
And finally, but probably most importantly, the other change that should happen in your life is that you take steps forward and wait for God to provide a path. The place where I really learned this is from 1 Samuel 14, but you really have to read at least back to chapter 13 to get the point. Basically Israel's first new king got them into a big mess with the Philistines - by big mess, I mean three-thousand Israelites against three-thousand chariots, six thousand charioteers, and soldiers as numerous as the sand on the seashore. But instead of resting in God, waiting for Samuel to make the burnt offering to the Lord and then attacking in faith, Saul impatiently made the offering himself and then fearfully did not attack - exactly the opposite of what should've happened. But his son Jonathan, simply took a path forward step-by-step, waiting for God to show him His will.
14:6-10 is the key passage: "Jonathan said to his young armor-bearer, 'Come, let's go over to the outpost of those uncircumcised fellows. Perhaps the Lord will act in our behalf. Nothing can hinder the Lord from saving, whether by many or by few.' 'Do all that you have in mind,' his armoer-bearer said. 'Go ahead; I am with you heart and soul.' Jonathan said, 'Come then; we will cross over toward the men and let them see us. If they say to us, "Wait there until we come to you," we will stay where we are and not go up to them. But if they say, "Come up to us," we will climb up, because that will be our sign that the Lord has given them into our hands."
I realize that this is narrative and that we can't be too specific in applying it. But God often uses opportunities that we give Him when we explore, take steps forward, seek out what His will might be. And for job-searching, I can't emphasize enough that taking steps forward means meeting people (going to job fairs, visiting schools, etc.) and talking with people (making phone calls to several different places, not once, but several times). So much depends on who you know. And you can't be afraid to look into things that initially look unappealing or like they don't fit you or what you're looking for. God is a God who stretches and challenges, but in the midst of those things are love and care. It's not our job to protect ourselves - it's just our job to serve Him (reminds me of the end of Ecclesiastes).
So again, hopefully some food for thought. I'd really encourage you to take some time to pray through and digest Ecclesiastes 1-3 and 1 Samual 13-14, as well as thinking about what your mind should be filled with instead of worry.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
A First Foray into the Political Arena
Some of my fondest memories from my educational experience via liberal arts studies at Washington & Jefferson College are of reading and discussing collections of essays on issues central to life. As a part of my major in Information Technology Leadership, students were appropriately required to read several essays about leadership: what it is and what it's not from different people in different places at different times. One of the messages to which I've returned at several points over the past few years is that leadership is not administration: leaders will forever face the demands of daily details, but to continue to lead, they must free themselves of the urgent to pursue what is ultimately and ideally important.
It is with that understanding of leadership that I enter the political arena of 2008 - I seek a President who has the ability to overcome all of the fear and red tape in Washington in order to achieve radical change. I admit that I am a youthful idealist who is not well-read when it comes to politics - the majority of this story is based upon research of the Boston Herald's candidate profiles.
The profiles contain information about the candidates' stances on abortion, capital punishment, education, energy and the environment, experience, gay marriage, health care, immigration, Iraq, social security, stem cell research, and financial issues. We have some options for our approach:
1) The extreme cop-out: compare the parties and one-line issues - Republican or Democrat, pro-life or pro-choice, for or against capital punishment, for or against gay marriage - and choose according to your own stances. How you can assume that anyone agreeing with you on those four issues is qualified to lead the country, I have no idea.
2) The stance comparison: read information about the candidates' stances and vote for the candidate who wants the same things you do. This approach applied in a very general fashion tends toward the first approach (i.e. "he/she doesn't want to rely on foreign oil - neither do I; he/she doesn't want to raise taxes - neither do I; he/she doesn't like the way that the United States mishandled Iraq - neither do I; gee, since all of the candidates seem to say these things, I'll just choose by the stances on abortion and gay marriage"). This approach applied in a very specific fashion ignores the reality that, no matter what candidate is emphasizing, if he/she makes it into the White House, a number of things are going to be dropped in order for the new president to carry the weight of the administrative and other duties. It also doesn't take into account the necessary role of the president to lead the country through unexpectedly turbulent waters at certain points.
3) The leadership evaluation: read information about the candidates' stances and consider the candidates' approach to the issue. Look beyond what the candidates want to accomplish to how they want to reach their goals. Do they pick their battles and choose their paths wisely? When the unexpected happens, will you trust their decision-making? Will you trust them to represent America well amidst trial and tribulation?
After examining the profiles of the four top candidates - Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney - I give my support to Barack Obama. The following explains both what I like about Obama's stances and some concerns I have about those held by the others.
Education: The system doesn't need more regulation, it doesn't need more tests, it doesn't need more programs, and it certainly doesn't need more criticism. What it needs most is money, Obama's stance emphasizes that. Giving students a better learning environment with building improvements and people more motivation to become teachers by increasing pay rates is an important start. I don't believe that a standardized test can adequately evaluate student progress or teaching quality, so I like his lack of emphasis on them.
Energy/Environment: I appreciate Obama's goals in this area because they are realistic - they reflect that drastic change is necessary but that it won't be easy or quick. More important than immediate change is irreversible change.
Health Care: The place to begin health care reformation is with those who are not insured. If the federal government can effectively implement an affordable health care plan for the uninsured, the first step towards a national healthcare program will have been taken. Again, I appreciate the goal of radical reform but appropriate acknowledgement that it will not be immediate. Giving families control of their own health-care dollars is nonsensical - then it's no longer health insurance but a savings account.
Iraq: The United States has played an overly-important role in Iraq for long enough - as a part of transitioning out of Iraq and more fully allowing it to participate in the community of nations, a convention with the United Nations is entirely appropriate. I fail to see any way increasing troop strength and defense spending will have a positive impact.
Social Security: The "to each his own" philosophy permeating the attempts to privatize healthcare is not necessarily right - if well-organized, the federal government should be able to make Social Security and Medicare work.
Stem-Cell Research: I disagree that embryonic stem cell research should be legal.
Taxes: One of the most blatant problems with Obama is that his proposed reforms cost more than his tax and budget stances will bring in. I'm very much in favor of not further complicating tax law with additional credits and charges, though. I wish more politicians were in favor of drastically simplifying the ways in which the federal government receives funds.
Again, after looking at not only the goals but also the methods of Obama, I would choose to vote for him before any of the other main candidates at this time. Mostly it just feels good for me to take time to digest and conclude in the area of politics, something I haven't done before. I would encourage you to take time to do the same.
It is with that understanding of leadership that I enter the political arena of 2008 - I seek a President who has the ability to overcome all of the fear and red tape in Washington in order to achieve radical change. I admit that I am a youthful idealist who is not well-read when it comes to politics - the majority of this story is based upon research of the Boston Herald's candidate profiles.
The profiles contain information about the candidates' stances on abortion, capital punishment, education, energy and the environment, experience, gay marriage, health care, immigration, Iraq, social security, stem cell research, and financial issues. We have some options for our approach:
1) The extreme cop-out: compare the parties and one-line issues - Republican or Democrat, pro-life or pro-choice, for or against capital punishment, for or against gay marriage - and choose according to your own stances. How you can assume that anyone agreeing with you on those four issues is qualified to lead the country, I have no idea.
2) The stance comparison: read information about the candidates' stances and vote for the candidate who wants the same things you do. This approach applied in a very general fashion tends toward the first approach (i.e. "he/she doesn't want to rely on foreign oil - neither do I; he/she doesn't want to raise taxes - neither do I; he/she doesn't like the way that the United States mishandled Iraq - neither do I; gee, since all of the candidates seem to say these things, I'll just choose by the stances on abortion and gay marriage"). This approach applied in a very specific fashion ignores the reality that, no matter what candidate is emphasizing, if he/she makes it into the White House, a number of things are going to be dropped in order for the new president to carry the weight of the administrative and other duties. It also doesn't take into account the necessary role of the president to lead the country through unexpectedly turbulent waters at certain points.
3) The leadership evaluation: read information about the candidates' stances and consider the candidates' approach to the issue. Look beyond what the candidates want to accomplish to how they want to reach their goals. Do they pick their battles and choose their paths wisely? When the unexpected happens, will you trust their decision-making? Will you trust them to represent America well amidst trial and tribulation?
After examining the profiles of the four top candidates - Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney - I give my support to Barack Obama. The following explains both what I like about Obama's stances and some concerns I have about those held by the others.
Education: The system doesn't need more regulation, it doesn't need more tests, it doesn't need more programs, and it certainly doesn't need more criticism. What it needs most is money, Obama's stance emphasizes that. Giving students a better learning environment with building improvements and people more motivation to become teachers by increasing pay rates is an important start. I don't believe that a standardized test can adequately evaluate student progress or teaching quality, so I like his lack of emphasis on them.
Energy/Environment: I appreciate Obama's goals in this area because they are realistic - they reflect that drastic change is necessary but that it won't be easy or quick. More important than immediate change is irreversible change.
Health Care: The place to begin health care reformation is with those who are not insured. If the federal government can effectively implement an affordable health care plan for the uninsured, the first step towards a national healthcare program will have been taken. Again, I appreciate the goal of radical reform but appropriate acknowledgement that it will not be immediate. Giving families control of their own health-care dollars is nonsensical - then it's no longer health insurance but a savings account.
Iraq: The United States has played an overly-important role in Iraq for long enough - as a part of transitioning out of Iraq and more fully allowing it to participate in the community of nations, a convention with the United Nations is entirely appropriate. I fail to see any way increasing troop strength and defense spending will have a positive impact.
Social Security: The "to each his own" philosophy permeating the attempts to privatize healthcare is not necessarily right - if well-organized, the federal government should be able to make Social Security and Medicare work.
Stem-Cell Research: I disagree that embryonic stem cell research should be legal.
Taxes: One of the most blatant problems with Obama is that his proposed reforms cost more than his tax and budget stances will bring in. I'm very much in favor of not further complicating tax law with additional credits and charges, though. I wish more politicians were in favor of drastically simplifying the ways in which the federal government receives funds.
Again, after looking at not only the goals but also the methods of Obama, I would choose to vote for him before any of the other main candidates at this time. Mostly it just feels good for me to take time to digest and conclude in the area of politics, something I haven't done before. I would encourage you to take time to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)