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

Best Laid Plans of Mice & Men

The plans of the heart belong to man,
But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord

I've been thinking about this saying lately. Actually, I've been thinking of a conversation I had with a mentor friend of mine a long, long time ago when I asked him "Of whose tongue is the saying speaking?"

We ended up in a discussion about initiative verses success, and some of the many arenas where we're highly dependent on others: Education, jobs, friendship, romance, etc.

I can answer a test, but grading rest in the professor's hands.
I can hunt for a job, but hiring is not my decision.
I can ask my boss for a raise, but he controls the purse strings.
I can invite others to be my friend, but friendship requires their acceptance.
I can ask for a woman's heart, but the relationship is based on her reply.

I'm sobered to think about how much of my daily life is dependent, in part or totally, on the replies of others. We strive so hard to make our lives independent - automated banking, twenty-four hour grocery stores, fast-food, and online shopping. But most major decisions - and many minor ones, are still heavily dependent on other's will: My social life, home purchasing and living arrangements leap to mind.

I'm not sure I like this scheme where God answers my plans through others. I'm not sure at all.

Quality Roots

So I finally re-potted my big plant (right) yesterday. And I tried to make it reproduce (baby plant, left). The big plant was in the white plastic pot that the baby plant was in. The root to soil ratio was probably 4:1, suggesting that it was long overdue for a re-potting. I'm not quite sure it will survive as I wrecked it's root system to untangle them from a tight ball, although my mom should be proud of me for remembering to break up the roots.

Then baby plant was the tiny offshoot from big plant which I broke off and stuck in some moist soil. I'm not quite sure it will survive other. I'm a bit rusty on my plant biology, but I vaguely recall no roots is very bad for plants. On the other hand, my friends assure me that spider plants are indestructible. So maybe this is a "What happens when the unstoppable force of my ability to kill plants meets the immovable force of spider plants?" question.

Now above is a genuine Yucca plant. These live in the forsaken deserts of New Mexico. They are basically a growing half-sphere of spikes. Unfortunately, the non-sphere portion is the against the ground, which tends to be comprised of granite or other rock. Since spikes are generally considered undesirable in one's lawn, I spent a fair amount of time growing up to rid the lawn of these nuisances.

The simple approach was to take a pick mattock, place a well aimed blow at the point where the Yucca and the ground connected, and sever the spikes from the root. Unfortunately, this approach doesn't work so well because the Yucca has an amazing tap root which goes deep into the ground and will simply regrow. So shortly one simply has a smaller, harder to see protruding ball of spikes. The proper approach was to first sever the ball, then dig/hack/smash about six inches into the rock and take out about six inches of the tap root.

Re-potting my plants has gotten me thinking about the Yucca, and what it means to be deeply rooted. I don't work much with plants, and I tend to forget how tenacious and intertwining root systems are, even interfering with drain pipes.

Spirals: Inward, Downward, Onward

I've recently created a hypothesis: Life is a set of spirals, or at least, self-fulfilling prophecies. Or, in physics terms, an object in motion will continue in motion unless acted upon by another force.

School/Jobs: There's a self-momentum to education. Good grades in high school makes good grades in college easier, which makes good jobs easier.

Friendships: Friendships are rarely static. They tend continue moving closer, moving rapidly apart, or reinforcing the distance that exists. Yes, momentum can shift (and periodically does), but the past is a remarkably good predictor of the future.

Group Efforts: Getting a new group going is an amazingly challenging task. But once the group gets going, it tends to have a culture which is incredibly difficult to change. Eventually the momentum will shift toward decline.

Hurricanes: And tornados. Enough said.

Maybe I'm confusing spirals with entropy: Everything moves toward decay unless energy is put into the system. Or maybe life isn't about spirals. Maybe it is circles.

X-men, Magicians, Someone

So lately I've been watching reruns of the X-Men cartoons (which, yes, I used to watch in my childhood), as well as having caught the third movie. Fundamentally, I decided recently, the X-men are really sorcerers. There's a thin "genetic" explanation for their mutant powers which might work for a few such as Wolverine or, say, Xavier. But for most mutants, science can't begin to fathom a genetic explanation:

Cyclops: Solar energy is converted into a concentrated laser beam. Now we're pretty good at our energy science, and last I checked, energy is conserved. Remember those solar lamps which if you are lucky and live in a sunny state can absorb energy during the day and power a garden lamp at night? Cyclops' energy intake to expenditure ratio is, well, energy creative.

Iceman: Ice is another one of those very well understood sciences. To make ice, one needs water...and low temperature. Cooling happens to be another very well understood science. And the suggestion that with a little genetic alteration, the human body can act as a Zamboni machine...is well, magic.

Pyro: Manipulating fire is a cool talent. Unfortunately, fire requires fuel (wood, gas, oil) as well as oxygen. So for Pyro to be manipulating fire, he basically needs to be fueling by materializing an unknown fuel to feed the fire. By the time we're at matter creation, we're either at magic or godhood.

Colossus: Do I even want to start with the ability to generate a metal skin from...um...no where?

I'm fascinated, though, by how much the control of the supernatural captivates us. One friend once observed that he thought we have an almost intuitive understanding that there ought be a way to shape reality other than physically - it's almost like we're reaching for a lost ability. Here's a few other thoughts I have:

- We want to be someone chosen. Magicians and mutants are called - often self-called - to a greater purpose, whether for good or evil. They live above the humdrums of every day lives, pursuing deeper, fuller meanings of life that effect everyone around them.

- We want to be special. We don't want just to be chosen randomly, but we want to be someone who is truly one in a billion. We resent the "Remember, you're unique...just like everyone else" sentiment. Magic is reserved for the few, the chosen, the handful.

- We identify with the theme of being outcast because of our specialness. It's not very flattering to have been ostracized because one was a jerk, or just happened to be the weak kid. But to be downtrodden because I am one of the chosen, someone truly unique, with special gifts - to be a martyr of sorts - resonates with us.

I know if those inclinations are all bad. But I do think our tendency to view specialness and chosenness based upon our abilities and position is a psychological minefield for both us and those around us.

Blog? Blog?

So I've been very, very bad about blogging recently. Probably because I've either been stressed and/or dealing with stuff that doesn't blog well. I've also been thinking about 1st Samuel (Bible book) recently, but will restrain myself from actually blogging on it for a few more days.

I was reading a book on money this weekend and it was talking about the idea that our financial decisions fall into two categories: Short-term (taxes, debt payments, giving, life style, and savings), and long-term (investment, major life purchases, charity, children's education, etc.) The author was talking about the idea that the longer term our perspective was, the better our financial decisions were likely to be.

It wasn't terribly revolutionary for me, but the short/long-term breakdown was very helpful. I tend to feel pressured to make too much happen too fast, and it was helpful to see goals broken down into short and long-term. I think I've also been a bit too influenced by the "If you were to die in a year, how would you spend your money/time/life?" questions.

The reality is that if I knew that I'd die in a year, I could afford to do things that I couldn't do if I knew I'd live twenty. I could probably deprive myself of sleep and vacation for a year. For twenty...not such a good idea. I'm realizing that I see the "If you were..." questions are really cool for emphasizing reflection priorities, but not so helpful for actually formulating a plan. It's the same thing with "What if Jesus was coming back next week?"

I also don't like an entirely long-term strategy such as "I'm going to invest my money and when I die, give it and all its interest to my church instead of giving regularly now". I'm not sure that my church could pay it's bills via this stratgy.)

Another point that the book made was about people: Financial planning and wisdom is a means to an end. Financial displine and wisdom is not unique to Christians. What makes Christians unique is the ends toward which they spend their money. Well, what ought to make Christians unique. Statistics are a little frightening about both the ends and means of how Christians actually spend their money.

Sigh. Now I'm thinking of some financial habits I should really change. Time to quit musing deep insights and go apply them.

'Till Death Do Us Part

I periodically stumble across a obituary that catches my attention. Usually I'm struck by how people are portrayed after their death. The CEO of Michelin (the tire maker) died recently in a boating accident. Here's some sy what is mentioned about him:

He was charming
He one of France's finest business men
He was passionate about business, and inspired that passion in others
He was brilliant, dynamic, and humane.

As fine and admirable as those qualities are, I don't think they are what I'd want my friends or co-workers mentioning if they were given a single quote to describe my life.

On the other side of life, I have the honor of being in the wedding of a couple good friends this weekend. I'm sure I'll have many more reflections after the wedding (not to mention that I really should write my 'Why geishas are more relaxing than going to church' reflection after last night. But here's one I've been thinking about tonight: The custom of the father giving the bride to the groom, symbolizing the transfer of responsibility for protecting her from the father to the husband (among other symbols).

What about women makes protection appropriate? Does offering protection imply that the protectee is weaker? Is genuine protection ever offered without implying value? What does it mean for a husband to protect his wife? His daughter?

A Penny Saved...is Worthless

A friend introduced me a while ago to Dave Ramsey. The site, once you get through all the glitz, has some very good advice. Essentially Dave deals with the question "How do I wisely deal with my money?" One of the sections that makes me wince is the "Stupid Tax" section, where people share stories of ways they've been taxed on their stupidity. I think I just hate the fact that many life lessons have to cost money...in some cases, lots and lots of money.

I just started poking around the site recently, and so I've been thinking about how much our money handling skills impact our lives; about why it is one of the top five sources of marital conflict; about why Jesus talked so much about money. Here's a few thoughts to ponder with me...

Is it really true that my heart goes where I spend my money?
What does it mean to be content?
What does it mean to be grateful with great wealth?
What does it mean to be wise with great wealth?

Do I believe that contentment is related to wealth? (Corollary: Do I feel guilty of the poor because I believe they are incapable of contentment without wealth?)

Why do I work? What benefits and goals am I pursuing?

Ramsey has a quote to the effect of "The purpose of job benefits is to be a benefit to us. There's no point in pursuing benefits that don't benefit our interests, nor of paying a higher cost than the benefit's worth."

One More Thought

I came across this movie just after finishing my blog entry. It seemed...appropriate. Enjoy.

Labor Surplus

In my last post, someone asked me "So what would your economy tend to produce instead?" Here's a few thoughts...

Missionaries: It's easy to claim that God is easily one's greatest treasure. It's also pretty easy to claim that others should equally prize God. But how we spend our money often speaks loudly to whether we truly value others knowing God or not. Without getting into a mission philosophy discourse, here's a few observations:

Besides missionaries, there's a significant infrastructure needed to provide training, support, and materials for missionaries. There's also an underlying consideration of when sending American missionaries is the wisest use of resources. In many parts of the world, native missionaries can work without the cultural or language barriers for far less money.

Rational Aid: Money means power, and that means that our economy is capable of supporting a far more significant effort to help people, whether foreign or domestic. For this aid to be helpful in many cases, though, requires more than simply throwing resources at a problem. It also requires shrewdness about human nature and how to encourage growth and responsibility; compassion and mercy mingled with wisdom. It's far easier to give a lazy man a fish day after day than to actually convince him to learn to fish.

Art: I'm not sure this industry would prosper more than it does not, but I think it would prosper differently. There's something about the creative expressive nature of art that is valuable to promote and maintain.

Relaxation: Not so much an industry, but rather a use of time. Americans are very good at living hurried busy anxious lives filled with entertainment, but generally bad at pacing ourselves in a way that includes genuine relaxation.

Technology (& Education): Technology is the ability to do more with less. Or perhaps more with more. It's also a reflection of God's creation. So research and development flourishes...or perhaps doesn't decline. Depends a little bit on how one sees today's technology situation.

Macro Economics 101

As I mentioned in my last post, sometimes I contemplate the economic future my values would tend to create in America. I'm not a master economist - or even a minor one, but let me start with one observation: Fundamentally, we pay money for one of two 'goods':

Labor: We pay for someone else's time, expertise, and energy.

Resource: We pay for 'ownership' of non-manufactured resources (land, gold, sand, oil, water, etc.).

So how do I think industries would fair? Here's a few thoughts...

Clothing: Very badly. The whole designer name brand bit would do very badly. I'm a big fan of inexpensive quality clothing. Something like * * = constant. So a very expensive coat that kept me really warm and lasted really long would be worth it. The inexpensive clothing industry might do okay as part of helping people in foreign countries as well.

Automobiles: Another industry that I fear would fair badly with an emphasis on longevity and economy rather than financial gimmicks for new cars. However, truck rentals might boom as a more economical way to have an occasional truck than to own one every day of the year.

Hollywood: I'm afraid I'd be taking huge chunks out of the movie and music industry. I just don't see entertainment as justifying huge multi-million dollar salaries. And don't get me started on professional sports or television...

Credit Cards: Visa and company would be reduced to handlers for debit cards. I'm not a big fan of debt, and even less for credit cards as a means of borrowing money in most circumstances.

Fast Food: I like restaurants. But in their current cost niche, I find it too expensive to use them as a replacement for my local kitchen. Sadly, I don't think America could support nearly the number of restaurants it has on my frequency of eating out.

Just Less: In general, I tend to stretch out purchases and get by with less...a few less toys, a few less electronics, a few less music CDs, and so forth.

Hospitality (or micro-economics)

I've been contemplating economics lately - as in, what would happen to America's economy if a significant percentage of people followed my values? Hopefully I'll get around to that line of thought soon, but I've also been contemplating the virtue of hospitality (in part in relationship to my musings in my last post about community).

I've been thinking about the legacy of a long-time friend of mine is leaving the pastorate. One of the first characteristics that pops into my mind is how hospitable he and his wife were. Despite the busyness that was always around them, they loved to have people over, to make them feel welcome, to share their food.

It's strange how my perspective has changed: I remember puzzling over why such the Bible placed an emphasis on hospitality. Surely having people over wasn't such a difficult thing to do, was it? As far as commands go, it seems almost trivial compared to some of the other instructions (love your neighbor as yourself, don't lust, be content).

But gradually, I'm seeing hospitality as about more than simply having people over and letting them plop on the couch. Here's a few ideas...

Hospitality doesn't just spontaneously happen - people don't just lurk outside my door waiting for me say "You know what? I feel hospitable right now...come on in." In fact, hospitality is often down right inconvenient. Guests are unpredictable - sometimes they need to talk, sometimes they need food, sometimes they disrupt the "sacred social norms". Hospitality is more on our turf - people see us a bit more as we are as we deal with the unexpected parental visit or drunk friend.

Hospitality requires initiative and planning. People don't invite themselves over - and once over, they take attention. Plan on feeding them? Better have made time for an appropriate grocery trip - or keep one's pantry properly stocked. Want to have a crowd for the Superbowl? Better have gotten an appropriately sized place with plenty of seating.

Hospitality is an aspect of community: There's a nice feel to being able to be a welcome guest - to knowing that others want to have me around, want me to be comfortable, want to get to know me, are willing to have their space and convenience infringed upon.

I'm tempted to also go into why hospitality seems so difficult, and why I appreciate the examples of others in this area...but creative juices are draining rapidly...

Reading Test

Today's blog entry celebrates two events: Finals week, and several of my friends' upcoming marriages.

The topic? This essay on marriage by John Yoder, a Mennonite theologian. His name rings vaguely familiar, so he may be quite well known.

What can I say? It is long, and a bit challenging to read. (Actually, the first three-fourths were the best; the last 'Parallel Reasoning' part didn't resonate.)

It's a hard article to do justice to, but here's a few points of interest. First, he defines three different views on marriage:
Ontological: A marriage is permanent as long as its 'essence' is maintained, but if the essence is broken, then the marriage is invalid. For example, a marriage is valid as long as both spouses do not commit adultery.
Realist-objective: Marriage is fundamentally determined by powers beyond human control...and the call to live up to the ideal is present regardless of the current state of the marriage.

(As a sidenote to this definition, but a theme throughout the article is the notion that sexual union is a sufficient condition for a marriage relationship. For readers going 'madness!', read the article, it isn't as crazy as I just made it sound. He also argues that while sexual union is sufficient, not all 'marriages' are viable...very fascinating.)

Realist-legal: Essentially argues that the essence of the first marriage always holds, and therefore any additional marriages (or remarriage without a spouse dying) are sinful.

I like what the author does in arguing for the second perspective, trying to stay well away from legalism ("What must my spouse do before I can divorce her?") and calling Christians to a higher vision of marriage. I also like the way the ideas of grace and mercy are woven in regarding remarriage. I don't know if I entirely agree, but it's thought provoking.

Here's another excerpt regarding community that got me thinking.

Most discussion of this issue [marriage] neglects the support which church and community owe to single people. The modern idea that a single person is somehow unfulfilled, unbalanced, unwanted needs to be attacked as an idea and undermined in practice. There should be patterns of community relations in which single persons (whether divorced or never married) would be "at home" as part of a wider "family," and would be recognized for their special contribution. If such resources were available to single persons, there would be fewer "bad marriages," and the divorced would be helped to live without overwhelming pressures toward remarriage.

Attacking the unfulfilled single idea in idea is fairly easy. Undermining it in practice, however, strikes me as exceedingly difficult. I'm tempted to do a brief poll of my peers and see whether they would describe themselves as 'recognized for their special contribution in a wider church family in which they consider at home.'

I need to think more about what it actually takes to undermine the unwanted/unbalanced/unfulfilled single concept is practice. Cheaper gas, perhaps. Fortunately, electrons are plentiful (and thus, cheap) so I can blog on the thought again.

The Type of Motivation

Related to gender differences in sin, I came across this Slate article today. Interesting, with a healthy dose of salt...I'm a bit skeptical of statistics in the hands of people.

So related to my last post, I've been thinking about different types of change we under go...and my motivation for different types. For example, I wear different clothes at my current job than my previous one. It is a change, but a fairly meaningless one. I didn't loose sleep over the matter, consider not taking the job, or even really consider the cost. For all intents and purposes, my work dress style (or lack thereof?) is a cosmetic change.

Now some cosmetic changes are harder. I have friends who have finally seen the light and are forsaking their loyalty to the University of Michigan and becoming die-hard Michigan State Spartan fans. Well, at least fair-weather Spartan fans. At some level, this change is purely cosmetic - new clothes, new cheers, new bumper stickers. But it's a harder change...they have attachments that go with being Wolverines and it's hard to abandon those. If I was writing a self-help book, I would come up with a witty and clever name like connection changes to describe this category.

And then there are character changes. (See, I'd make an author because I can make all three of my points start with the same letter, which supposed to help memory or something...or else just makes editors happy so that books get published.) Character changes have to do with forsaking parts of our own identity. I don't want to be less witty in order to be empathetic; funny is part of who I am. I don't want to take risks and looking irresponsible; organized and together is part of who I am. I don't want to complain less; being open is part of who I am. Even when I think the character change is completely a good way, it's uncertain and nebulous...and that's not part of who I want to be.

Usually I find the cosmetic, connectional, and character changes all blending together. But usually when I'm really struggling with change, it's because I'm stuck on the character portion of change. I'll spare the "can character change occur without Christ" theology post for another time, but often when I'm stuck, I'm drawn back to the question of motivation: How motivated am I really? What I am willing to pay? How much pain am I willing to endure for this change?

The Price of Motivation

Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

I visited the bookstore yesterday - a very dangerous exercise for me, as I am reminded of how many books there are, and how many of them I want to read (all of them), and my reading speed just isn't up to the task. I need to be more content with dabbling, but it's hard for me to be content with reading just a few books. (I did end up reading Brian McLaren's The Secret Message of Jesus, so I can now authoritative talk about my perceptions rather than passing along assorted rumors. (For anyone who cares, McLaren is a "big name" figure in the "Emerging Church" movement.)

Frequently when I visit bookstores, I'm stunned by the self-help section. It's huge. Apparently we need lots of help. But I also find myself wondering about what motivates me to change. Generally my current lifestyle is, more or less, comfortable. If there were easy, safe, clear options for improving it, I'd make them in a flash. But most change is hard, uncertain, tentative. At a minimum, it's the devil we know (now) verses the devil we don't - who might be a lot bigger, scarier, and more frightening. So what motivates me to change?

Pain: Duh. At some point, I simply decide that change can't be any worse than the current situation, and, being a somewhat rational creature, I gravitate toward the option that might lead to pain reduction.

I wonder how much of my change can be categorized in those terms. The pain of a guilty conscience verses the pain of paying my taxes. The pain of grieving God verses the pain of being scorned by one's friends. (Hrm, I begin to sound like my evolutionary biologist friends.)

The more whimsical mathematical part of me now wants to define joy = (alpha/pain) where alpha is constant, and then all change can be expressed as a function of pain.

I don't entirely like the simplification, but it makes for great character questions...

How much relational conflict is honesty worth to me?
How much contempt from others is pursuing God worth?
Is it worth sacrificially caring for people who scorn and reject me?
How much loneliness is holiness worth?
Is the level of pain the basis for leaving a church or getting a divorce?

Digging the Hole Deeper (Part III)

If I were constructing my list of sins that Christians struggle with the most, here's where I would start. (What follows is very broad strokes; it would take theological volumes to do complete justice to these questions.)

Idolatry: We replace God with something else (power, fame, security, money), someone else, or our own "happier" idea of God.

Disbelief: We don't believe what God tells us...in fact, we openly scorn it.

Distrust: We don't trust in God's character, especially his goodness. (Yes, closely linked to disbelief; disbelief emphasizes God's honesty; distrust, God's intentions.)

Pride: We think too highly of ourselves.

Rebellious: We don't let God be God...we want to run the show. While definitely interwoven with the previous four issues, I don't think rebellion is either completely derived from the others or the root of the others, except in the most general sense.

Often, I think many other struggles are a combination of the above sins interacting with a natural (good) desire. For example, I want to avoid pain (natural, good desire), but I don't believe God that stopping the pain right now is not his will; I don't trust him to get me through the circumstance, I think that I'm too valuable to suffer this way, so I turn to alcohol or video games or a significant other to try and soothe the ache.

I don't particularly think that men and women vary significantly at this root level of sin. I lean toward the thinking that men and women differ strongly in many manifestations of these core issues. I'm not nearly convinced that the typical differences are independent of culture - and my thoughts are pretty limited to the American culture. I think some of my ideas can be traced Biblically and thus universally, but I see this area as an easy one to exceed the authority of scripture on. Also, while I think the struggles are different, I think the common roots keep struggles from being entirely incomprehensible.

Identity: Generally, I see women more tempted to get their value from relationships, where as men are more likely to get their value from accomplishment.

Church: Someone (Tina?) commented on this quote:

On the other hand, women have always been the backbone of the church and I agree with Ken Shneck, they often are the more passionate followers of Christ.

There's definitely an interesting trend toward women being more involved with church. Percentage-wise, I believe most churches have significantly more women than men involved (reference for those who think evidence matters). I've heard a number of interesting thoughts on this phenomenon. Answers range from 'women are more spiritual' to 'God shows greater grace to the oppressed' (discussion of the long-term historical trend) to 'church is too feminine'. Another thought I've heard is that men are harder to get to attend, but are more committed once involved; women easily buy into the community/attending portion of church, but less easily buy into the sacrificial following of Christ bit.

I'm not sure of the actual answer, but I suspect the trend does reflect gender differences in sin.

Here's a few other ideas I've played around with, but with no deep conclusions
Violence: Are men more prone to physical violence/aggression? Why are roughly thirteen times as many men in jail as women?

Modesty: Part of the previous thought, Paul's letter to Timothy contrasts his desire for men to live with holy hands, without anger and disputing while women are to dress modestly (and do good).

Gossip: I toyed around with this one, but wasn't terribly convinced in the end that gossip is a core gender issue...the overarching issue (speech?) seems gender-neutral.

As for the sins drawn up by the class...a few closing thoughts:
Anger: Not sure I see this one as very gender specific (I've known plenty of angry women). I might buy that men tend to express to anger in certain ways - see my violence mutters - that are more blatant.

Pride: It made my top 5 list for both genders. 'enough said.

Self-esteem: See here.

Resentment/bitterness: I have a hard time buying this one as women specific. Perhaps partly because I think resentment and bitterness go hand and hand with anger and pride...and men have plenty of both.

Lack of Trust: Ah yes, the many men I know who trust God to lead them through seeking counsel from others, from serving their bosses wholeheartedly, from listening to their pastors, from obeying their government, and from being obedient to God's word.</sarcasm> Distrust did make my top 5 list.