If

So,I am having a terrible week as the level of drama in my life right now well exceeds my capacity for dealing with drama. (Which I should note probably isn't saying a whole lot because I am an extremely low-drama person, but nonetheless...) With that said, I think this is an excellent opportunity to share one of my favorite poems because it sums up what I am striving to accomplish everyday, especially in times such as now when everything makes me feel inept and somewhat insane. I hope you all enjoy.

"If" by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

(Note: I'm hoping to be a woman...:P)

Mercy That Wears a Mask

“Man is most comforted by paradoxes.”

Back in May, I read The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare by G.K. Chesterton. The entire composition is one gigantic allegory and its meaning completely eluded me during my first read through. It’s one of those books in which it is possible to understand the plot perfectly and feel entirely lost at the same time because with every line you read, you know that there’s so much more going on behind the text that you don’t fully comprehend. You feel like you’re missing out on something wonderfully profound, something brilliant. And that feeling of loss and confusion propels you do something that people who do not love reading will never understand; it makes you read it again.

So last month, that’s what I did. And the message I acquired this second time through I believe is worth sharing. So here we go! I’ll try to keep this short as possible…

The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare is Chesterton’s response to the Book of Job, confronting Satan’s accusation that Job did not know suffering. Before we explore this nightmare, it is important to discuss a shorter piece Chesterton wrote on this book of the Bible, as it is essential to fully understanding his nightmare. (Note: Chesterton is about the most quotable author ever to exist, so a bulk of this is going to be quotes. He says things way better than I can anyway…)

In his essay Introduction to the Book of Job Chesterton writes of the philosophical riddle within the book, and essentially he argues that this riddle deals with humans’ response to God’s role in suffering. He writes that Job throughout the entire book is basically asking the following, “It is easy enough to wipe out our own paltry wills for the sake of a will that is grander and kinder. But is it grander and kinder? Let God use his tools; let God break His tools. But what is he doing, and what are they being broken for?” Job’s response to this question Chesterton declares is optimistic in nature while his comforters are pessimistic, a role reversal from what commonly is established. While Job even goes so far as to label the Almighty as his adversary, he never seems to doubt that his enemy has a case of which he cannot understand. He wants God to Justify Himself; this is optimistic. “He lashes the stars, but it is not to silence them; it is to make them speak.” His comforters on the other hand are pessimistic in the sense that they insist on everything fitting together in the world, leaving no room for the miraculousness of God. I believe the reason he claims this view to be pessimistic is that it is doesn’t give God the credit deserved for His creation; it’s far more complex than what it seems. “The mechanical optimist [which Chesterton views as pessimistic] endeavors to justify the universe avowedly upon the ground that it is a rational and consecutive pattern. He points out that the fine thing about the world is that it all can be explained. That is the one point, if I may put it so, on which God, in return, is explicit almost to the point of violence. He insists on the inexplicableness of everything.” This brings us to the point where God himself enters the dialogue, and we find that He has come to propound the riddle, not explain it. He answers Job’s questions with questions of his own, bigger and more perplexing. Job sees the impenetrability of God and is comforted, leading Chesterton to state, “The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man.”

Alright, so keeping this in mind and coming back to The Man Who Was Thursday, here’s a brief synopsis: Gabriel Syme, a poet, is taken to a secret anarchist meeting after denouncing a fellow poet’s (Gregory) claim of being an anarchist as insincere. What Gregory doesn’t know is that Syme is an undercover police detective. Within this meeting, Syme gets himself accidentally-on-purpose elected to the office of Thursday, a position on the Supreme Anarchist Council. (All seven members are named after a day of the week.) From here, he strives to stop the council and its leader Sunday from destroying the world without breaking his oath of secrecy to Gregory, and along the way, he discovers that he is not the only detective on the council. I will leave it there, in an attempt to spoil as little of the story as possible for those of you who have not read it.

While this book is FULL of amazing ideas, there are two main ones to which I will limit myself. The first is the concept of the two sides of God: his back and his face. Chesterton argues that his back is synonymous with nature, and as discussed in The Introduction to the Book of Job, nature is inexplicable. It is impossible to understand it, and it often appears to be terrible. However, through nature, God’s creation, we are able to catch glimpses of his face, and we see that it is almost too good to even comprehend. This paradox is what comforts us. Syme makes the following remark based upon his first glimpse of Sunday, the anarchist counsel leader and symbolization of God:

“I only saw his back; and when I saw his back I knew he was the worst man in the world. His neck and shoulders were brutal, like those of some apish god. His head had a stoop that was hardly human…I had seen his back from the street, as he sat in the balcony. Then I saw his face in the sunlight. His face frightened me, but not because it was brutal, not because it was evil. On the contrary, it frightened me because it was so beautiful, because it was so good.”

This leads up to right before the climax of the book, at which point one of Syme’s comrades asks the following, “Shall I tell you the secret of the whole world? It is that we have only known the back of the world.” We have only truly seen God’s back, and while we see his presence in creation, it is hard to justify the suffering and devastation that also occurs alongside the beauty. Where is God in what we have deemed to be the terrible parts of creation? We often trick ourselves into thinking that we can understand everything around us and come to a full understanding of who God really is, but we can’t. As Sunday tells Syme:

“Grub in the roots of those trees and find out the truth about them. Stare at those morning clouds. But I tell you this, that you will have found out the truth of the last tree and the topmost cloud before the truth about me. You will understand the sea, and I shall be still a riddle; you shall know what the stars are, and not know what I am.”

In other words, God will always be a riddle. All that matters is that He is good and is responsible for the orchestration of all humanity. As another character comments, “You know Nature plays tricks, but somehow that Spring day proves they are good natured tricks.”

The second idea, which Chesterton probably meant to be the main theme of his book, is the idea that our faith as Christians has been tested through suffering. In the Book of Job, Satan makes the accusation that Job only calls God good because he has never suffered. Chesterton, through this book, makes the claim that Christians do suffer for their faith on a regular basis because of the nature of life. Christianity is not an easy path. In the end of the nightmare, Gregory, who we find out is actually the Satan figure of the book as well as the true anarchist, makes the following accusation of the policemen who once made up the anarchist counsel. “You have never hated because you have never lived. Is there a free soul alive that does not long to break you, only because you have never been broken? Oh, I could forgive you everything, you that rule mankind, if I could feel for once that you had suffered for one hour a real agony such as I…” Syme, after experiencing what must have been the most trying week of his life, interrupts, basically summing up the whole of the theme:

“Why does each thing on the earth war against each other thing? Why does each small thing in the world have to fight against the world itself? Why does a fly have to fight the whole universe? For the same reason that I had to be alone in the dreadful Council of the Days. So that each thing that obeys the law may have the glory and isolation of the anarchist. So that each man fighting for order may be as brave and good a man as the dynamiter. So that the real lie of Satan may be flung back in the face of this blasphemer, so that by tears and torture we may earn the right to say to this man, “You lie!” No agonies can be too great to buy the right to say to this accuser, ‘We have also suffered.’”

And then, he wakes up from the nightmare…

Jeff Baldwin sums this theme up well when he says, “When man faces the universe alone, it seems like night is descending, but once he understands the gospel he knows he stands at dawn, with all things made new.” That is a lesson we all can take from The Man Who Was Thursday.

Well, I really don’t feel like I did Chesterton justice at all in this summary, firstly, because it is not possible, secondly, because it would so long no one would read it, and thirdly, to go in further depth would require spoiling the story more than I already did. I commend all of you who actually read all of this…I will mail you a gold star, for real….and I hope this makes sense to someone other than myself. :P

I would encourage everyone to read this book as it is amazing and thought provoking. Chesterton is an extremely witty author as well, so it is a very enjoyable read. By reading this novel, you can explore the depths of his allegory by answering questions such as, Why is God the head of the anarchist counsel? Why are all the policemen pretending to be anarchists? Why is digestion poetical? Why is it a nightmare anyway?

Bask in the inexplicableness, and let yourself be filled with wonder; see the mercy behind the mask. That is all.

The Weight of an Opinion

“The modern habit of saying, ‘This is my opinion, but I may be wrong’ is entirely irrational. If I say that it may be wrong, I say that is not my opinion. The modern habit of saying ‘Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me’-the habit of saying this is mere weak-mindedness. A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon.” --G.K. Chesterton, Introduction to the Book of Job

This remark, a mere side comment, made by Chesterton within his essay about the Book of Job (which will be discussed in full at a later date along with its relation to his “nightmare”-not a novel, mind you- The Man Who Was Thursday) brings an interesting question to view: How much weight should we place in our opinions? According to Chesterton, a heck of a lot, and I would tend to agree. A true opinion should not be formed easily; a healthy opinion requires research, critical thinking, and experience. It’s something you should develop, not just borrow from a news report or supposed expert. It’s so much more than how you “feel” about something, yet that is what often is represented as an opinion. We live in a world where mere impressions are masqueraded as opinions, leading us to discover the small percentage of people who have opinions they are willing to defend unapologetically.

It seems to me that people have the tendency to preface their ideas, especially controversial ones, with the phrase “This is my opinion, but I may be wrong.” The statements seems to be making a claim of humility, but really, it is more often a reflection of the person’s insecurity. When someone says that, the unspoken message is clear: “Yeah, this is just my opinion, so don’t be super critical or judge me if it’s stupid or you disagree. It’s just an opinion.” And it’s a great phrase to use to get out of thinking critically. “It’s just an opinion… so it’s not like I’ve thought about it that much.” Echoing Chesterton, if you haven’t thought about it that much, why is it your opinion?

One of the purposes of forming an opinion is to attain some level of truth; essentially, what we think is right. By definition, then, it would be irrational to go to the trouble of forming an opinion we thought might be wrong. It is irrational to believe something we don’t think is true. With that said, it is important to recognize the need for humility when we are dealing with opinions. While it is fine to believe your opinion is right, don’t get caught up in the lie that it is infallible. We must learn to exist in the paradoxical state of being humble and certain at the same time. It is an issue of plurality. We must be able to hold our own opinions loosely while still participating in the exchange of ideas that are different from our own. This absolutely must not be mistaken for universalism. Universalism essentially is the embracement of moral relativism and the idea that all “truths” are valid. Because of this movement, many people have somehow succumbed to the idea that people who think they are right and won’t compromise their principles are somehow bigoted. This is not the case. Bigotry is the sad phenomenon that occurs when people stop thinking about what they believe and have completely closed their minds to new ideas; when they stop questioning their certainty. As Chesterton also remarks in a different work, “It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.” Both bigotry and universalism are weak-mindedness in its finest form.

When looking at the initial quote, to the individual who says, “This is my opinion, but I may be wrong,” I can almost hear Chesterton yelling in between the lines, “Well, go find out!” We need to question ourselves, we need to doubt ourselves, we need to explore our options. We need to do all these things until we have found certainty in our opinions. Certainty enough to say, I believe this to be true, without having to apologize. And once you have come to a place of certainty, you still should continue to question, doubt, and explore. These things are essential to existing humbly and intelligently in a plural society.

But who really knows, that’s just my opinion…

;)

Leave a Legacy

Your daily dose of depressing: How much do you know about your great grandparents? How about your great-great grandparents? Or your great-great-great grandparents? Unless someone from your family tree has made its way into the history books somehow, chances are that you know next to nothing about the previous generations of your family, especially by the time you reach your great-great-great grandparents. Do you even know their names? I sure don’t…

So what? Well, unless you become famous, the same is going to be true for you in a couple generations down the road. No one is going to remember who you are, what you did, or why your life mattered. On earth, all that will be left proving your existence is a slab of rock with your name on it in a cemetery somewhere. Now, humor me for a moment, and imagine what else will be written on you gravestone. What is it that you want to be remembered for? But more importantly, what do those words represent?

They represent your legacy: Something that you will hand down that will impact generations to come, even though they’ll never know your name.

With that said, just because you leave behind a legacy doesn’t mean it will be a good legacy. You must make up your mind as to what kind of legacy you will form because it is something that you are building everyday of your life, whether you are aware of it or not.

So what kind of legacy should we build? The legacy of Christ. We must preserve the legacy he established while on earth. Just ask yourself, “Are people more like Christ because of me or in spite of me?” That is a question we should ask ourselves every day.

Leaving Christ’s legacy ultimately comes down to making disciples (followers/students) of others by teaching them to follow Christ (Matt. 28:19). If we invest in others in this way, we will impact the future. This is something you should be doing all the time and in all places. But before you can make disciples, you first must be a disciple. This means dying to yourself on a daily basis, spending time in God’s Word, having love for others, and abiding in Christ at all times. When it comes to making disciples, we should emulate Christ. How did he do it? He talked with people, he walked with them (had relationships), he challenged and corrected them (sharpened them), and most importantly, he loved them.

So, what does this mean for us? Pretend that you’re a bucket. Once your bucket has been filled and begins to overflow, find other buckets to pour into. Find someone in your town, church, school etc, ideally of the same gender (missionary dating/flirt to convert NOT ok :P) that you can disciple and empower with the wisdom and knowledge flowing out of your bucket. Discipleship is a relationship, a very powerful one at that. Ultimately, the buckets you pour into will begin to overflow and find other buckets to pour into, thus leading to a exponential increase of buckets being filled. That is how you build a legacy. Or, at least one worth passing along.

So really,since you’re a bucket, don’t waste your water.

Human Behavior: A Relfection of Belief

The following is an extremely abridged version of a paper I wrote back in December for a psychology class. The full version includes a much more in-depth discussion of worldviews, different religions and their impact upon behavior, as well as varying psychologists' views of religion, and to top all that off, a comparison between Freud and C.S. Lewis (!). If anyone wants to read the full text, let me know and I can e-mail you it in its entirety. NOTE: I included the explanation of Atheism at the bottom, as I mention it in this post and thought it needed more a bit more elaboration. Sorry if it seems a little out of place at the end...

Every day, it is extremely evident that what people believe has a significant impact upon their behavior. For instance, if a man earnestly believes, either rightly or wrongly, that his house is on fire, his actions are going to reflect his conceptions. This man will, if operating under good sense that is, leave his residence immediately upon the discovery and contact a fire department as soon as possible. Just as this hypothetical man’s actions reveal his belief that his house is aflame, a man’s behavior reflects his religious beliefs and worldview. Despite the varying opinions of psychologists, it is impossible to logically separate religious belief from human behavior without denying the intrinsic relationship of the thoughts and actions they produce. Ultimately, what a person believes and the assumptions lying behind those beliefs determine, to a large degree, an individual’s behavior.

To fully understand the implications of beliefs upon behavior, it is important to understand that everyone is religious. As defined in the eleventh edition of the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, religion is “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” This definition applies to every single human being, whether they recognize it or not. When it comes down to it, everyone has faith in some entity, whether it is nature, a god, or themselves. Even Atheists*, who are often portrayed as being faithless, really have just as much faith in their belief that there is no God as those who recognize the existence of a God. While perhaps unintentionally, everyone has developed principles and codes of morality through which they live life. Even though many of these compilations of assumptions are not established through a formal, recognized, or mainstream religion, they are essentially religious in nature.

This compilation of assumptions is also known as a worldview which is, as it implies, how a person views the world. It is through a personal worldview that people attempt to tackle questions concerning morality, their purpose in life, and how they relate to other people. The foundation for this framework of existence is formed upon two major assumptions which create entirely different motivations for behavior. In every person’s worldview, the two foundational items that must be addressed are the nature of man and the nature of God. It is upon these two columns that every single worldview is established.

It has often been said that ideas have consequences. If this is true, it is safe to conclude that beliefs, being the parents of ideas, have consequences as well. These consequences, good or bad, are often manifested through human behavior because they are direct results of the actions taken, or not taken for that matter, to fulfill one’s beliefs. Every time a person makes a decision, they are making a choice based upon what they believe their worldview tells them to be right.

In some instances, people’s actions are not consistent with their beliefs, and there are several reasons for these contradictions. Firstly, people may act differently than what they believe because they, in fact, do not fully know what they believe so naturally their actions do not completely reflect what their belief stipulates. Secondly, people might just not understand the implications of their beliefs. In the Christian faith, many people are apathetic about following Christ because they have not fully grasped who he was and the tremendousness of what he did. Finally, people’s actions might not fit their beliefs because they do not actually believe in their beliefs. Returning back to the Christian faith for sake of example, if a person truly believes in the power of prayer, they are going to pray. These are the reasons that account for the inconsistencies between actions and beliefs.

It cannot be denied how much of an impact religious beliefs, worldviews, and underlying life assumptions have upon behavior. The frame of existence these components create is utilized throughout every decision individuals make, and since these different beliefs produce different actions, it can be concluded that it does in fact matter what a person believes. As stated earlier, beliefs have consequences, both good and bad, and it is essential that individuals start to realize the role beliefs play in shaping actions. It is necessary to carefully examine one’s beliefs since those ideals will be reflected through behavior. For if one’s house is burning to the ground, it is the belief in flame that promises safety, not its denial. The belief in fire makes all the difference.

* As hinted at earlier, Atheists, although they are often anti-faith and anti-religion, make many assumptions that they accept by faith. Atheists must have faith that their doctrine against the existence of God is correct, just as one must have faith in the existence of God since neither can be quantifiably proven. The main assumption Atheists make is that there is no God. While this is the main tenant of their beliefs, there are many implications that follow this idea which also require faith. If they deny the existence of God, they must accept that there are no absolutes because morality shifts with the change in humans, society, and nature. They must accept that life has no meaning because humans are products of chance, not purpose. They also must accept that free will and dignity do not really exist because humans are just programmed to respond to a physical environment, thus leading to the conclusion that our minds and thoughts are not real. While some Atheists, such as B.F Skinner, have arrived at these logical extensions of their assumption, it is safe to say that many have not. If a person denies the existence of God and realizes the implications behind simply being biological machines, there is very little motivation to do anything extraordinary. As Freud suggested, if life has no meaning, then the main purpose of life is to discover happiness and to please oneself. As a result, if humans’ only purpose is to gratify themselves, it should not be surprising or worrisome when people act selfishly. In a true Atheistic worldview, people’s only motive for behavior is to please themselves, so if they do not want to or do not feel like doing a task, there is no reason for them to. These are several of the implications for behavior from an Atheistic perspective.

Patience: A reflection from fishing

For years, my family has spent one week each summer on Lake Vermilion in northern Minnesota, and naturally, being on a lake and all, fishing is part of the experience. As far back as I can remember my favorite kind of fishing has been pan fishing (that’s fishing for blue gills, sun fish, perch, etc.) The reason is quite simple: instant gratification! Seriously, if you know where the prime pan fishing locations are, you maybe have to wait 20-30 seconds before you have a bite, and on top of that, it doesn’t take much finesse to land a 5 inch (or less) fish into the boat. You’re practically guaranteed to catch a multitude of fish. But there’s a downside: You never really catch anything worth writing home about. The 100% chance of catching fish coincides with the other guarantee of pan fishing: Everything you catch is going to be shrimpy.

This past week, I have tried to broaden my fishing horizons by accompanying my brother and dad on their muskie fishing ventures, something that used to bore me out of my mind. As far as lake fishing goes, muskie fishing is what separates the boys from the men, or at least that is what my interpretation of the sport has led me to believe. These things are HUGE! 40-60+ inches, 20-30+ lbs, with big teeth, of course. The fishing lures used to catch these monsters are bigger than any pan fish ever in existence. There is nothing easy about muskie fishing; it’s hardcore. There is a well circulated adage among fisherman saying that you have to cast 1,000 times before you’ll even see a muskie, let alone catch one. This is far removed from the instant gratification of pan fishing. But when you finally catch a muskie, I’m sure all the casts are worth it.

So when we were trolling one day, at about the time I was starting to doubt the existence of fish, I began to compare pan fishing with this alternative fishing method. I decided that going hours/days without catching anything other than rocks and seaweed (my specialty) and then finally catching something remarkable would be far more gratifying than catching seven bazillion pan fish any day. Getting anything worth keeping requires patience.

Meanwhile, still no fish, I sat in the boat pondering how this concept from fishing applies to life in general. It seems like we’ve always been told the cliché that patience is a virtue, but I think we often fail to realize how important it really is. When we let impatience win, the results pale in comparison with what we could have accomplished and gained if we would have stuck it out. The big things in life aren’t instantaneous, and rather than settling for the cheap thrills of right now, taking the time demanded by many of life’s pursuits and challenges is so much sweeter in the end. Making educational decisions, dealing with suffering, friendships, waiting for answered prayers, finding a future spouse, etc. are all things that shouldn’t be rushed. Rather than being impatient and cutting yourself short, just wait; have patience. It’ll take discipline, perseverance, and commitment, and it’ll be hard, but it’s totally worth it in the end.

Whenever impatience is telling you to give up, just keep casting. One day, the big one is going to bite and you’ll sure be glad you waited.

Lessons From Spokane

I recently took a trip out to Spokane, Washington to visit some family (Uncle Tim and Aunt Leslie and my cousins, Margaret (and her husband Charlie), Joel, Spencer, and Eric). I had a terrific time, and everyone kept me really busy: Spencer’s baseball games, an afternoon at Loon Lake, Chemo w/ Aunt Les, an overnight at Priest Lake, cherry picking, bonfires on the beach, shopping, a wine and cheese party, live music at the Rocket Market with Joel, quality time at coffee shops, daily “revivifying” (that’s our word) swims with Aunt Les, and the list could go on. It was wonderful, to say the least. And did I mention that it’s absolutely gorgeous out there? And there isn’t humidity? Or bugs? I’m kind of in love with Washington.
In between and during all of our adventures, there were a few things I have taken away from my travels. (Most of these I probably gleaned from my chats with Aunt Les.)

1. We have a choice to make when we’re spending time with others. We can either spend time with people to seek assurance and gratify ourselves or we can spend time with others and seek to love and serve those we are with. The mindset you choose has a huge impact upon your attitude, actions, and of course, every single person you come in contact with.

2. Patient endurance is courageous. Patient endurance =Suffering through circumstances one would like to change but cannot. My aunt was saying how she didn’t feel brave to face her upcoming cancer-related surgeries, but she would patiently endure on a daily basis. I think that attitude is courageous…

3. You really should pray about everything. OK, so my Aunt and I were walking in downtown Spokane, gearing up for a shopping trip, and we had a mission. We were seeking jeans! Now, I have the hardest time finding jeans that fit, so this is always a challenge, but my Aunt wanted to find me a pair for a graduation present. So we prayed in the parking lot.
And we found a pair the first store we looked in. Amen!

4. So many of us are trying to be great when we only need to be good. We all (or most, I hope) have high standards and goals we aspire to, but when we discover we can't meet our own expecations, we find ourselves discouraged. We need to remember that merely being consistently “good” changes the world, too.

5. Look for evidences of God’s grace in the lives of those around you and then tell them.

6. You should pit cherries with a fork. (seriously, it’s so much faster :P)

7. Thank God for everything! And not just for the good things. Everything. Thank him for our sorrows and sufferings, because ultimately he has ordained them. (And he knows what he’s doing)

8. There needs to be boring, flat places like Iowa to make places like WA beautiful.

9. Another good coffee shop is always just around the corner…

Like I said, it was a great trip.