A photo I took at a retreat several months ago popped up on my newsfeed today because of a new comment. It depicted two guys for whom my deep respect is grossly disproportionate to the amount of time I have been given to get to know them. In looking into the eyes of those two crazy Jesus-lovers, I realized how many of my prominent thought processes this year were sparked in listening to their passions and frustrations that weekend. I was immediately saddened to recall that I did not document what was going on in my mind that weekend, and consequently, much of the origins of that part of who I am becoming has been lost to me. Such a sadness is insupportable when the means to prevent analogous future shortcomings are possessed yet unused. Thus my blogpost published in the wee-hours. Putting off to tomorrow is not acceptable four months past the due date.
I have read more books this year than I normally read, namely due to the twelve-novel English course I took at the beginning of the year. The course was a study of the decadent movement, a period when Victorian values were being rejected, moral tales were shunned as an oppressive and obsolete literary form, and all forms of self-gratification were glorified. Art combined obsurdism with overt sexuality, while the literary heros and heroines lead meaningless depressing lives or else killed themselves. You may think that such an extensive study of ideas so contrary to my worldview must have been tedious and disgusting. You would be right. While I very much enjoyed three of the works, the other nine range from unnecessarily disturbing to possibly qualifying for book burning.
Fortunately, I have found time throughout this year to suppliment my course readings with more nourishing pieces. The two books that have most profoundly shaped my thinking patterns this year are Why the Rest Hates the West by Meic Pearse and The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne. Both of these books were given to me by people I love and wish to emulate. Both of these books presented me with ideas that awoke in me a desire to live in a new and more God-glorifying way. And attempting to live my life according to both these books would approximate the experience of being tied to multiple horses running in separate directions (and may have the same effect).
Allow me to explain. I learned a lot from Meic Pearse. Why the Rest Hates the West gave me the solid foundation I needed in order to stand my ground in defending the validity of absolute truth claims against the moral pluralism and philosophical relativism which was so prevalent in my decadence course. It allowed me to be more intelligent in my criticism of western society by expanding my worldview. Most importantly, it taught me how to be more culturally sensitive with my international friends. I was also deeply inspired by Shane Claiborne. The Irresistible Revolution broke me for the poor and the outcast, and invited me to love them as Christ loved them. It called me back to my soldier's commitment to serve the lost, the last, and the least. Perhaps most significantly, it taught me how to intelligently criticize my own life before criticizing the society that surrounds me. Pearse and Claiborne are both committed Christians who fundamentally believe that life can and should be lived differently than the rest of us perceive.
But:
Meic Pearse is an elderly, conservative, established university professor and Shane Claiborne is a young, liberal, unconventional hippie. As my favourite author wrote, "How drearily alike are all the great tyrants... how gloriously different the saints!" I am continually amazed at how diverse Christian community can be, and how beautiful that diversity is. This recognition, however, does not help in my reconciliation of the two guidemaps for life provided by these two radicals. For Pearse's vision for my future would entail getting married in the near future in order to affirm the importance of family, having plenty of children in order to insure biological replacement of myself and my wife, attending university until I received my doctorate in order to be as educated as possible about the world around me, and taking up a high-paying job so that I can give as much money as possible to non-profit organizations that provide aid to the poor in third-world countries. Claiborne's vision for my future, however, would entail accepting life-long singleness so that I could be more totally devoted to the poor, dropping out of university because degrees are pretentious, giving away all my material possessions in order to free myself from worldly ties, and joining a poor inner-city community because what the poor need most is genuine relationships with people who love them. Essentially, Pearse believes that we should make the world a better place by shaping our culture and society in a way that glorifies God, while Claiborne says we're not charged with our society, and that individual relationships are what's really important. Pearse says do the things that will do the most good. Claiborne says do the things that will communicate the most love.
So which do I choose? I like Pearse's vision because I would really like to get married someday, and I would love to raise children of my own. I enjoy university, and would be content to keep studying until I received my doctorate, and finding a well-paying job would mean that I wouldn't have to move out of my financial comfort zone. Then again, I like Claiborne's vision because service to the poor rings true of my calling, and developping relationships with those in need seems like a more authentic expression of God's love than impersonal tithing from a fat wallet.
On the other hand, I don't like Pearse's vision, because endless study and middle-class life often seems too comfortable to be right and too mediocre to be Christ-like. But Claiborne's is no better. I have too much of a desire to have a romantic relationship and a family to proclaim myself celibate, and self-imposed poverty seems very difficult. Also, almost all of the Christians I know and trust live middle-class lives.
I honestly don't know what to do. The first book encouraged me in leading a life I'm comfortable with leading. The second book disturbed me too much to unquestioningly accept that life, and offered me another. Is there a middle ground that runs between the two? Would following such a middle path mean being only half-committed to God's will?
Happily, God has given me plenty more indicators of good choices than just confusing books and circular self-analysis. After His grace, forgiveness, and love, I believe the greatest gift God has given me is a wonderful supportive group of family and friends. When I switched from studying engineering to studying English, God's affirmation that it was the right choice was primarily communicated through my family and friends. I am convinced that if God wants me to make another radical change in my life, those who are close to me (and who are gifted with greater discernment than I) will make sure I make the right decision. For now, I'll just continue on with the information I have been given, straight ahead... until God decides to mess up my plans once again for His glory.
I have read more books this year than I normally read, namely due to the twelve-novel English course I took at the beginning of the year. The course was a study of the decadent movement, a period when Victorian values were being rejected, moral tales were shunned as an oppressive and obsolete literary form, and all forms of self-gratification were glorified. Art combined obsurdism with overt sexuality, while the literary heros and heroines lead meaningless depressing lives or else killed themselves. You may think that such an extensive study of ideas so contrary to my worldview must have been tedious and disgusting. You would be right. While I very much enjoyed three of the works, the other nine range from unnecessarily disturbing to possibly qualifying for book burning.
Fortunately, I have found time throughout this year to suppliment my course readings with more nourishing pieces. The two books that have most profoundly shaped my thinking patterns this year are Why the Rest Hates the West by Meic Pearse and The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne. Both of these books were given to me by people I love and wish to emulate. Both of these books presented me with ideas that awoke in me a desire to live in a new and more God-glorifying way. And attempting to live my life according to both these books would approximate the experience of being tied to multiple horses running in separate directions (and may have the same effect).
Allow me to explain. I learned a lot from Meic Pearse. Why the Rest Hates the West gave me the solid foundation I needed in order to stand my ground in defending the validity of absolute truth claims against the moral pluralism and philosophical relativism which was so prevalent in my decadence course. It allowed me to be more intelligent in my criticism of western society by expanding my worldview. Most importantly, it taught me how to be more culturally sensitive with my international friends. I was also deeply inspired by Shane Claiborne. The Irresistible Revolution broke me for the poor and the outcast, and invited me to love them as Christ loved them. It called me back to my soldier's commitment to serve the lost, the last, and the least. Perhaps most significantly, it taught me how to intelligently criticize my own life before criticizing the society that surrounds me. Pearse and Claiborne are both committed Christians who fundamentally believe that life can and should be lived differently than the rest of us perceive.
But:
Meic Pearse is an elderly, conservative, established university professor and Shane Claiborne is a young, liberal, unconventional hippie. As my favourite author wrote, "How drearily alike are all the great tyrants... how gloriously different the saints!" I am continually amazed at how diverse Christian community can be, and how beautiful that diversity is. This recognition, however, does not help in my reconciliation of the two guidemaps for life provided by these two radicals. For Pearse's vision for my future would entail getting married in the near future in order to affirm the importance of family, having plenty of children in order to insure biological replacement of myself and my wife, attending university until I received my doctorate in order to be as educated as possible about the world around me, and taking up a high-paying job so that I can give as much money as possible to non-profit organizations that provide aid to the poor in third-world countries. Claiborne's vision for my future, however, would entail accepting life-long singleness so that I could be more totally devoted to the poor, dropping out of university because degrees are pretentious, giving away all my material possessions in order to free myself from worldly ties, and joining a poor inner-city community because what the poor need most is genuine relationships with people who love them. Essentially, Pearse believes that we should make the world a better place by shaping our culture and society in a way that glorifies God, while Claiborne says we're not charged with our society, and that individual relationships are what's really important. Pearse says do the things that will do the most good. Claiborne says do the things that will communicate the most love.
So which do I choose? I like Pearse's vision because I would really like to get married someday, and I would love to raise children of my own. I enjoy university, and would be content to keep studying until I received my doctorate, and finding a well-paying job would mean that I wouldn't have to move out of my financial comfort zone. Then again, I like Claiborne's vision because service to the poor rings true of my calling, and developping relationships with those in need seems like a more authentic expression of God's love than impersonal tithing from a fat wallet.
On the other hand, I don't like Pearse's vision, because endless study and middle-class life often seems too comfortable to be right and too mediocre to be Christ-like. But Claiborne's is no better. I have too much of a desire to have a romantic relationship and a family to proclaim myself celibate, and self-imposed poverty seems very difficult. Also, almost all of the Christians I know and trust live middle-class lives.
I honestly don't know what to do. The first book encouraged me in leading a life I'm comfortable with leading. The second book disturbed me too much to unquestioningly accept that life, and offered me another. Is there a middle ground that runs between the two? Would following such a middle path mean being only half-committed to God's will?
Happily, God has given me plenty more indicators of good choices than just confusing books and circular self-analysis. After His grace, forgiveness, and love, I believe the greatest gift God has given me is a wonderful supportive group of family and friends. When I switched from studying engineering to studying English, God's affirmation that it was the right choice was primarily communicated through my family and friends. I am convinced that if God wants me to make another radical change in my life, those who are close to me (and who are gifted with greater discernment than I) will make sure I make the right decision. For now, I'll just continue on with the information I have been given, straight ahead... until God decides to mess up my plans once again for His glory.
David whispered at 7:50 p.m.
1 Comments:
I'm big into mediums. Some people would call me too conservative, and not committed enough to any cause. A fence-sitter, perhaps.
When it comes down to it, I just don't trust extremes in their entirety. Ultimately, I would try to hold on to truth wherever I found it; if there is truth to be found in the minimalism of an inner-city community, where relationship is king and little else matters in the end, then search for that passionately. If your position as a North American brings you great influence in this world, whether financial, political, literary, or otherwise, then you may have the privilege of building relationships over even greater distances than simply your own community or city.
Ultimately, the core of these worldviews do not oppose one another. Take what you find to be the greatest truths from each, and use them to make your world a better place. Use them to bring healing to all manner of quiet and loud desperation around you, as far as you are able. I believe that God will use your strongest desires to draw you in the ways He would have you go, and that discarding too many of them is discarding who you are now, perhaps unnecessarily. That's why I believe extremes are a poor fit for virtually everybody, because they eventually involve throwing away as much present goodness as is gained in the end.
I believe you'll find what you're searching for.
Peace,
Zach
Post a Comment
<< Home