Assent

It has recently been brought to my attention that I am a modernist in post-modern clothing.
The illuminator did not intend to undress me as such, but instead was critiquing the skin of somebody else. Suddenly, I looked down and noticed that underneath my clothing, I looked much like that man.
It went down like this:
Perhaps you've heard of the book Wild at Heart by John Eldredge. I, also have heard of this book, but have never read it. I read a review of it, though, and thought very highly of the review - less so of the book.
You can catch the review here: http://www.perspectivesjournal.org/2004/10/review.php
Since I respect the views of some of those who have (at least I thought had) read the book, I sent them the link asking them if it was an accurate critique of the book. Following are some of their responses.

Mike:
"Sorry ken, I couldn’t even make it through their first point of refutation. That article helps me understand just how anti-modern I am. My stomach turned as whoever wrote the article said that much of what eldridge wrote was WRONG.And while I’m sure that they have good points of refutation, I just can’t read articles that come across with such a closed, concrete agenda. The truth is, I haven’t even read the book :-) However, this article makes me want to read the book, love it like a girl, play it like a guitar, and then go out to dinner with dean bob. And all I did was read the first couple of paragraphs. It is good to know that I still have a ton of maturing to do. One day I hope that I will stop reacting so strongly to the modernism of academia."

Bill:
"I have read the reviews and have seen differing opions. I highly recommend you read this book. As with all books you might not agree with all that is said. The overall content is good. You will enjoy in light of your theme in your read-thru."

Jeremy:
"I pretty much have the whole wild at heart thing nailed...I mean look at me. 100% adrenaline all the time. It's all go, go, go. I mean...that's what being a man is all about. What??? You haven't ridden a horse...pansy. Never braved the white waters with nothin between you and the jagged rocks than inflated rubber[Actually, that's what I do all summer, Jeremy. In your face girly-man!]? There's something inherently wrong with you then.
Seriously, I can say that I pretty much despise those kinds of books. Something seems totally forced about them. They don't speak to me at all...but hey, that's just me. We're starting the "Wild at Heart" Bible study...I dunno, something smells like the cheese I ate in France, but like I said...that's just me."

After reading Mike's reply, I was pretty downtrodden in my realization that I was, as I had with fear suspected, more modern than many of my peers and even those older than me. Still, after reading Bill's and my brother's evaluation of the book (to his credit, Bill is the only one of us who actually has read it), I'm now having doubts that one's acceptance of Wild at Heart is a reliable determiner of one's philosophical/cultural leanings. Bill, seemingly, should be steeped in modernism, but this, as in many other instances, is a clue as to his inability to be solidly labeled despite his age or place in life. He's more flexible, gracious, understanding, and accepting of cultural trends/developments at 59 years old than I am at 26. My brother tends to lean somewhere between modernity and post-modernity, tending to surprise me in both facets at times. But, Mike, well, let's just call Mike the pomo poster child.
At the end of all this, I'm not sure what makes a person modern or post-modern or anywhere in between.

I'm fairly certain of the tenets and oppositions of each philosophical stance. Epistemologically, it seems that post-moderns give much more value to experience than do modernists. Also, post-moderns seem to be much less trustworthy of "the" answer to anything, whereas "the" answer seems to be the modernists' holy grail. Ontologically, I believe a post-modernist would define being as determined by oneself and one's choices as one exists while being self-aware to the point of irony; conversely, the modernist may be more apt to define self and being in more concrete, static, and objective terms. This is the extent that I'm willing to stick my neck out, as I'm not even certain of what I've already typed. I'm pretty certain that no post-modernist would attempt a concrete definition of their paradigm, though, if you gather what I'm saying.

So, in my opinion, this blog could define me as either pomo or mo(?): I'm trying to define myself (modern?) while being unsure and looking for communal interaction coupled with an attempt to be more self-aware (pomo?). Ugh, defining myself is wearing me out.

The original point I was trying to make is that, at the very least, I don't think I am who I thought I was. This is both a scary and comforting thought all at once. It's scary because losing an idea of oneself when one is obsessed with knowing (statically) who one's self is (again, statically) confusing and often revealing to the point of disturbance. It's exciting because I'm tired of trying to hold on to false realities and photographs of some abstract personality while my true self sits just underneath. I also believe my uncovering, or derobing as it's been called, allows me to more genuinely interact with my Lord. So, like my friend Eric Keck alluded to, I do pray that more and more of my false layers will be peeled off as the Lord leads my friends to help me in those ways.

So, my conclusion at the end of my assessment of my post-or-not-modernity is: "I have less of a clue than when I began." Still, it (conscious incompetence) is a far better place to be than where I was (unconscious incompetence).

Steps to take:
Understand what modernism and post-modernism really are.
Understand not just what I do, but what I prefer.
Continue to be honest and open about those preferences.

That's all for now.

Moses

Careers.
These are tricky things, these choices.
For some of us, they are "downright" scary.

I'm not a terribly confident man, neither in my abilities nor my identity. The last year has done much to affirm and confirm that which always existed but I could not recognize, but there is much to be learned. Some would call this a strength, that I am teachable, always desiring to grow and learn from others' advice and actions - that I'm not content with being where I am, ever... Others, on the flip side, do not see my pursuit of "wholeness" as the main source of value; rather, they simply value wholeness for what it is. In that sense, I imagine I have little value in their eyes.

This would be a much easier statement to make if "they" were others and not myself, too. I tend to value the product rather more than the process, which, as all mature people tell me, is a bit backwards. This makes sense and lines up with Robert Kegan's (and Brian McLaren's, as I understand it) view of personal development in his book The Evolving Self. Kegan states that we are human beings and emphasizes "being" as a verb. In a sense, we are humans as we "be" and "become" human. We are always in a process of being, and growth never stops. Products, then, in the perspective of human development, are temporal and passing - less substantive, even, than processes. In addition, people are better defined as processes than products. We are always becoming, being, shifting - rarely ever is, am, or are.

In light of this reality, my self-evaluations based on the "am's," "is's," and "are's," are structurally inaccurate - answers stemming from the wrong questions: "Where am I?" "What do I stand for?" "What do I believe?" "What do I value?" and so on. Perhaps I should be asking, "Where am I going?" "What am I standing for?" "What am I believing?" "What am I valuing?" etc. These questions more accurately acknowledge the process rather than the product, and so line up more closely with the reality that is my experience.

I also believe that this is not only my experience, but God's view of me. I don't think I've ever read a biblical story where God or Jesus ask a person to be something concrete. This, perhaps, is one of the least understood truths in today's church. God asks Adam and Eve to not eat from a tree; he does not ask them to model spiritual perfection. God asks Abraham, the father of our faith, to leave his family and follow him; he does not ask him to change and be holy and then follow. God calls David a man after his own heart: he does not change his mind once he commits adultery. Jesus calls the disciples to "come and see" while following him; he never requires them to believe he is the Christ. God calls Paul and tells him go to the city; he tells Ananias that he "will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of [his] name" (ESV), but he does not tell him to be an genius apostle and model perfection.

This is not to say that God did not require things and "behaviors" from people, but he did it in the context of their ongoing relationship with him - in the midst of a process. Adam and Eve made the wrong choice and God provided a means for further relationship and growth: process. Abraham lied to kings about his wife, and God continued to bless him. David sinned against Bathsheba and Uriah, and God tells him how he will be punished and restored: process. Jesus' disciples spend three years with him and do not fully understand who he is and follow him until he is gone (I know, debatable about Peter's confession...) and God sends his Holy Spirit on them: process. God says Paul "will suffer," but God promises that he will show Paul the suffering instead of telling him to "be a sufferer."

For me, the only part of my life that is a product is what God has made me to be. Even then, God only relates to me as a "product" in how he positionally sees me, not in how he relates to me. I suppose the practical application of this is (sheesh, I feel like I need 3 alliterated bullet points now..."Pastor" Ken) how I see myself as I live in front of God. Today I saw a guy I know act rudely towards an incompetent staff person and I immediately judged him to be a jerk and a hypocrite as a Christian. About five minutes later, though, as he was explaining himself to me and why he had no patience for lying salespeople, I thought, "At least he's genuine when he's rude. Even if he is a screwed up human being, at least he's not posturing or feigning holiness and goodness (like I so often do)." What was frustrating to me turned into a refreshing time of insight and conviction as I longed to be as genuine- even in my sin. What might be a random story I think details how seeing ourselves as processes, humans who are being, can set us free from being tied to a mentality that tells us to be (statically, not dynamically) someone, instead of become someone. My friend, while not displaying total Christlike behavior, is not a slave in his mind to the fact that he did not model who he "ought to have been." Instead, I believe he sees his actions as a stream of being where the Lord will continue to interact with him and perfect him in His time.

I long to live like all these men and women did and do. They understood, and understand, God's "expectations," that they must live with him and in him, not be him. God is he who makes us like Him - our job is to respond and love, fail and submit, live and become. Our confidence, since there isn't much of a product, must be in the process. Still, I'm becoming aware that my processes are mostly orchestrated by God, so, ideally, confidence resides in the Great Processor (GOD, not AMD...*ugh* lame)

Well, what does this have to do with careers?
I began this post out of a fear I felt while being presented with an opportunity to be (statically or dynamically?) a youth pastor in LaCenter, WA. I have been planning pretty firmly on pursuing a Master of Arts in Education while procuring a Secondary Teaching certificate with an emphasis on English and Literature. Then, out of the blue, my supervisor at the TimeZone youth center, Bill Trenckmann - a youth pastor himself, calls and tells me his friend who pastors a church in WA is going to be looking for a youth pastor. The opportunity, according to Bill, is ideal, and he recommends that I look into it if I'm interested. Immediately, my walls go up and I dismiss the idea out of disgust. I want to be a youth pastor like I want to sit on sharp sticks or punch myself in the crotch. No way. Still, after I hang up the phone and tell Bill I'll think about it, I can't stop daydreaming about the potential of the position: rural town, smaller church, a staff that has a heart for unity and true community, and a pastor that is focused on equipping and harmony rather than expectations and performance. I (well, my heart, really) can't stop thinking about this and getting excited about it - even as I get into bed. The next day, my heart still wants this, or at least the ideal of it.

A week later I talk to the pastor on the phone and once hanging up, get the feeling that I just talked to the genuine article - you know, the guy who is a pastor because he loves people and has vision for them vs. the guy who pastors because he loves progress and has a vision for results. I heard humility on the phone, as he expressed his willingness and desire to step down soon as churches don't grow (maturity-wise, not just number-wise) with pastors over 60. I heard his expectations, and they were only about the good of his people and their maturity and harmony. I heard his tough love for his people and how they needed to be without a youth pastor for a few months to find their own identity. I also heard myself screaming with fear as I tried to be honest with him while trying to make sure he knew I was incompetent.

I went home from that conversation full of fear and hoping that God would not ask me to be this youth pastor, because I did not have the character, wisdom, or fruits of the Spirit that it required. I told him, as I walked down the stairs to my bedroom, that he needed to change me before I would go to this job.
Right about then, I stopped walking and remembered Moses when God was in the "burning" bush. I remembered how God has always been asking us to follow him and do what he says while we are still incompetent. I remembered that God never makes us competent before he asks us to follow him. I remembered that I would only become as I followed.
My heart was set on being, in the static sense, ready to do the career I set out to do - be that a youth pastor or high school English teacher. God's heart, however, was set on me simply being as he asked me to follow him.

I think I'm ready to follow him even though I'm not ready. I think I'm finally ready to start being.

The Power of Pain

Piaget says, "Disequilibration is the engine of growth." I fully beleive him. I think the Lord does, too. How often does he use pain to get my attention when he would prefer pleasure. It's an irony that God's desire for us is to find pleasure in him, and when we cease finding pleasure in him, he allows us to find pain in "not him." It is just, but it is odd.
Some of us require different kinds of disequilibration to grow. I think of my friends as I write this. My desire (and most psychologists' philosophy of practice) is for them to not experience pain, but I find myself often knowing that I may have to watch them endure the pain for the sake of their growth. This is easier when I know they're seeking the Lord, because I have confidence that they will respond in time (his or theirs, however that works). I know for other of my friends, the pain will endure for longer. The pain for me is watching them go through the pain without the growth. I say this because our Lord is persistent and desires for us to find pleasure in him; he will not give up. He did not with the first Israel, and he does with the current Israel.