Resume Padding

I remember a discussion with a friend of mine who graduated top of his class in engineering. It was about all of the honor societies which had invited him to join. Pay $50, $75 or $100 bucks and you can become a lifetime member of this "prestigious" organization. A few of them actually did something during the year (meet, network, invite contacts), but often the invites felt more like a mass mailing scam where a Nigerian con-artist sent a "Congratulations. You are one of a select few invited to join this honorary society every year...." letter to every student.

Inevitable, one of the plugs for these societies was resume building. The implicit message: For only $60, you can put this prestigious title on your resume. Employers (who certainly have never been to college themselves) will be overwhelmed by your credibility and competence.

I've been thinking lately about this saying of Jesus:

Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

It's the opposite of resume building. Resume building is "Doing community service? Add it to your resume." Or "Have you been recognized by a few others? Flaunt the award to as many others as possible?"

At work recently, a co-worker complimented me for a piece of work that has drastically increased our visual presentation. He's right - it's a significant improvement. The only problem? Even though I'm usually the one who people see with the work (because of my job), my total contribution on this work is about 0.5%.

After some contemplation, I've decided I like credit and recognition from others. And when others don't recognize most of my 'acts of righteousness,' I'm not above helping their thinking along. After all, it's not good to let people be naive or oblivious.

Perhaps scarier is the hesitation - a bit grumbling - after my co-worker compliments me. "God, must I disillusion him about my contribution?" I'm not terribly serious about my complaint, but the thought definitely enters my mind on a very trivial matter.

If credit is so appealing in the little things, how am I going to fair in the larger matters? If being just with credit is a challenge, how will I do when it is unjustly given to others? Do I really believe that God sees?

Incidentally, my friend's solution to the prolific honor society invites? He simply added "Invited to join numerous honor societies" to his list of accomplishments which was then read during his graduation. Entirely free too.

I'm a little slow, but...

So I was reading this story recently about how Lutherans, Catholics, and Methodists signed a historic document, jointly agreeing on the doctrine of justification. Actually, the Catholics and Lutherans apparently signed it a few years ago, with the text here.

Now I'm a bit slow when it comes to doctrinal stuff, but a few questions sprang to mind reading through the document.

What has changed in the past 400 years? Is theology progressive, like science? Are we better at philosophy, theology, and ethics than we were 400 years ago? Are we smarter than the men (both sides) debating then? I'm not at all convinced that theology is like technology, which gets better with every generation.

The declaration has statements like

Our common way of listening to the word of God in Scripture has led to such new insights.

and

The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church have together listened to the good news proclaimed in Holy Scripture. This common listening, together with the theological conversations of recent years, has led to a shared understanding of justification.

What about each groups' understanding has changed? It's great that new insights and a shared understanding have been reached. What were they reach from? Whose understandings have changed in the last 400 years?

Out of curiosity, how did this issue get so misunderstood 400 years ago that doctrinal condemnations were issued? Is anyone the least bit apologetic for false condemning the other falsely? (Were those condemnations false?)

Could a document this important be written in a way that a common American could understand? I'm all for incomprehensible theology, but it'd be nice to have a "what we really mean is ..." version.

Could one finish the must statements with consequences?

But the justified must all through life constantly look to God's unconditional justifying grace [or else what?]

The justified also must ask God daily for forgiveness as in the Lord's Prayer (Mt. 6:12; 1 Jn 1:9), are ever again called to conversion and penance, and are ever again granted forgiveness. [Or else what?]

Is this Johnny must eat his peas or else he won't have desert? Johnny must eat his peas or else he will be spanked? Johnny must eat his peas or else he will be shipped to outer Mongolia?

The justified must ask God daily for forgiveness or else what...? They aren't forgiven for their sins? They suffer disconnection from God despite remaining his children? God smites them with lightning?

For A Few Pennies More

So I've been doing a poor job of blogging lately. I've been hoping that inspiration would hit for talking about geishas, but somehow I just haven't felt like the topic would be very interesting.

Instead I've been thinking about fundraising. Periodically I get fundraising letters from friends and acquaintances - even the occasional enemy. I've gotten a few recently, and they've reminded me of my middle school fundraisers. Boxes of chocolate bars were the method of choice. As I recall, the bigwigs had a big (read: hot, loud, large, uncomfortable) assembly where they dazzled us with all the prizes we could win based on the number of boxes chocolate we sold (36 bars/box). Every student was supposed to sell at least one box, asking anyone (and everyone) to buy a bar or two or ten. Parents were supposed to take boxes into co-workers, etc., etc.

Fundraising in American is a strange beast. Instead of simply asking people to donate, we entice them with a value of nominal value at an inflated price. Companies are glad to be seen as aiding charity by providing products for a small profit plus marketing. Sometimes rather than provide supporters with a token, we assure them that we'll adequately suffer to earn their dollars - walking/biking/swimming/crawling some distance is popular, although occasional more creative ordeals are created (e.g. going without food/sleep/water/caffeine for 24, 36, or 48+ hours).

Here's a few questions I've been thinking about:
Why do I give for incentive? If I think the cause is worthy, why don't I simply give the whole amount for it? If I want the item, why don't I go buy one and then give the difference toward the charity?

Why don't I give without being asked? Am I unaware of good causes until asked for my money? Are my priorities/budget in giving so unclear that I primarily only give when asked? Are the causes I'm asked to support better than the ones I find on my own?

Do I typically respond to requests from within my budget? Do my financial habits reflect that I expect to be regularly giving toward various causes?

Do I have a priority framework for unexpected requests? Do I budget for these occurrences? For example, students I know often go to a summer Christian training program called "Leadership Training." I appreciate the program, and while I usually don't know who exactly is going, I budget money with the expectation that I will be asked.

Am I primarily being a producer or a conduit? Do I produce money to give to others, or do I connect other people with places for them to give? In giving, am I a businessman (who makes money) or a lobbyist (who tries to convince others how to spend their money)? I've been thinking about a quote by St. Paul:

He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.

One of the purposes of my work is have something to give to others.

Don't get me wrong: I do not think being conduit-like is bad - even this blog entry is part conduit. And there's a difference between being a conduit and serving in a position that is supported by giving (e.g. missionary). But I easily make the mistake of urging others to give rather than developing financial habits and career skills that will enable me to give generously from what I make.

The Outsider

Lately I've been contemplating something Paul wrote about his missionary trip to Thessalonica (pronounced "City of Thes" when I can't remember the ending):

We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us

We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you our lives. Paul is about the people who became Christians during his first trip to Thes (Acts 17). These aren't people that he's known very long; these aren't long-time devoted Christ followers (although most of the initial followers were God-fearing people from the Jewish synagogue). I'm not even clear if all of these people were Christians at the time Paul was living with them.

And yet the result of his love was that he was delighted to not only share theological truth (the gospel), but his life as well. Sharing our lives makes us vulnerable...especially toward people who are mostly strangers, in a strange city, with strange customs. Paul certainly had enough skeletons to be more than a little uncomfortable with sharing himself.

"Me? How did God reach me? Well, I was the stiff-necked guy that he had to knock off a horse...What was I doing on the horse? Oh...well...I was going to try to go kill some Christians."

This story does a good job of putting Paul in perspective...and should be worth a laugh or two.

I remember when I first heard this verse placed in the context of community. I don't remember much about that teaching, but it has really stuck with me over the years as a reflection of Paul's heart toward people. (Much of 1 Thes 2 is very thought-provoking in that regard.)

I'm not very threatened by the question "Does my love for people lead me to delight in sharing truth with them?". But the question "Does my love of people lead me to delight in sharing life with them?" starts making me squirm a bit: Impersonal truth is far easier for me than open involvement. I'm not sure love can be love without both truth and openness.

Depraved, depraved I tell you

So here's a thought provoking article looking at the idea of innate goodness in people:
Freakonomics Depravity. What can I say...statistics and theology. What's not to like?

As a side note, I'm tracking interest in the Geisha vs church discussion. Here's a few stats:

Number of requests: 11
Average requests/person: <2
Average requests/person/week: <0.6
Average request/post: 2
# comments attempting flattery/manipulation/interest with thoughtful interactions with the post at hand prior to demand: 1