Words of "Encouragement"

On the Inadequacies of Words
The world is complex. Any way we slice it, no matter how many pieces, we will never boil it down to any single piece. Human language, however, is our attempt to communicate an understanding of this complex world in the form of mere sounds and shapes that are much simpler than the world itself. Additionally, these sounds and shapes are arbitrarily chosen (the sounds and letters in “dog” were not chosen because of any inherent resemblance to an actual dog). We then take these arbitrary correlations and make them into a standard (such as the Dictionary) so that there can be some organization to the system (definitions are “right” and “wrong,” and we base words on other words), because without a standard we would not be able to use these correlations to communicate in any way, as they are arbitrary. This whole tool of language is a great concept, but when we forget these pieces of the nature of language, and begin to think that words themselves somehow correlate directly with the ideas they attempt to represent, we arrive at many dangers.

The system of words is, at its core, a form of simplification. It takes complex ideas in our heads and makes them simple so that they can be worked with. We often attempt to communicate, however, without remembering that words are not guidelines but simplifications. Thus, not only would a completely agreed upon system of language by every human be wholly inadequate (and probably impossible because the number of words required would be infinite), but we regularly do not agree on the meanings of words. Worst of all, we often assume we do, or that our definitions are the “correct” ones. Appealing to the Dictionary can help, but words change too, and thus there is really no standard of language possible.

On Using Words to Encourage
As Christians using words, we need to keep these weaknesses of language constantly in mind. What seems to happen often is that we have an incredible, real, important experience, and then we sum up that experience in words, and we proceed to use those words as if they were as powerful as the experience itself. This tends to do much more harm than good.

We may experience a great loss of which our current experience and understanding does not equip us to deal with through “pure joy” as James calls us to do. We sit in grief, and maybe even self pity, not comprehending that there is a bright future ahead. When we walk that journey of pain and weakness with God, He does his usual amazing works and pulls us into a place brighter than where we were before, and we find ourselves much stronger. As we are called to do, we share this story with excitement.

A problem arises when we encounter another person in the stages of deep grief and potentially self pity, and we share the simplest form of our story with them in an attempt to “encourage” them. We say something like “just trust God” or quote a Bible verse. Our intentions may be good, but the reality is that what it took to pull us out of our dark place is not conveyed to them simply by the sounds coming out of our mouths. Unless that experience is in them to be stirred, those words will not stir in them what it does in us, because we speak those words from an experience we have had. Worse, we often shame them for not responding to our words the way we did to the experience.

Scripture talks about how some people need “milk,” basic and easy information, and others can eat solid food that is more difficult to understand and process (I Cor.). Even God uses this same idea when He deals with us and brings pain, journeys, and joy to our lives, as the different ways of threshing represents in the book of Isaiah. Likewise, we must remember that each person is at an entirely different place in life, and even if what a person needs is exactly what we have, we may not be able to give it to them. If we can, it will not be through words, but through giving them an experience of ourselves, and more importantly an experience of Christ in us. If our words are involved, it will more likely be by the telling of our story, which at the very least expresses to the person an understanding that life is complicated.

Conclusion
Strive every day to remember that, though words are useful, they are not adequate to convey the deepest needs of the human being. That can only be done through relational, spiritual experiences. Patience is probably what we need to give others more often than the “right” words. If you want to encourage, try to "rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep” (Romans). That gives people the strongest possible experience of understanding that you can give. That’s the kind of thing that changes people’s lives.

Questioning God / Logic's Inadequacy / Beauty's Necessity

This started as a short single sentence in my journal on realizing that beauty clearly exists, and makes no sense without a higher power of some kind. It turned into a long essay that seemed slightly disconnected, and then became three essays that could likely be separated into their own articles, but I keep together as they follow the flow of my mind and then conclude together. I didn’t write this to be a public article, but later turned it into a blog post. There were also some changes I made to the beginning that I did for the sake of clarity that I didn't like, so you can read the original, more poetic version here.


The Questioning of God

Sometimes we doubt God. We aren't sure He's there. We cry out and feel like there's no response.

I won't say there’s no response from God, but I say if there is a response, I'm blind to it. Be that the fault of my own sin, so be it, and I firmly grasp that responsibility. Be it God’s choice, then it is the right one.

Still, this doubt happens. Long I have endured these struggles, and some days I find myself with answers of some sort; other times, not so much. By the fact that I am still here on Earth living, and living by this belief of God, I have endured. This, in itself, could be an answer or miracle.

Today, new thoughts approach. I watch the lead character of The Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman as he wrestles with the pain of vagueness from his Christianity, and the fear of meaninglessness without it, as he calls out to God over and over. He asks those tough questions of God I fear to ask, but I empathize with the begging for God to show himself in some way. "Why should He hide himself in a mist of half-spoken promises and unseen miracles?" He expresses the doubt I also feel. Will we be condemned for feeling this doubt, or that we spoke it out loud?

I think not. I recall the glory given in the ancient Church to St. Thomas's doubt. To ask for proof is not an immoral act. To question with the intent to defy God is wrong, but to question with the goal of true knowledge is noble, and judging by the fruit we see that the result was Thomas's declaration of the glorious and saving faith in Christ. I aspire to be a doubting Thomas! Glory to this saint and glory to God!

I would never say nor have I ever believed there is no evidence or little evidence for God. This would be a farce. However, while there are certainly strings of evidence holding the weight of difficulty in such belief, those strings can wear thin and push a person to let go as their arms no longer are strong enough to hold on. The man in the film, really, begs for those strings to be made ropes, and fears that they are not currently strong enough to hold the doubts, for should the doubts conquer and the strings break and the weights of belief drop, no alternative is left but nihilism. He barters with Death for more time, and then spends it on these questions. (This reminds me of an Orthodox answer to the miracle of a preserved life, that it is for more time to repent. Maybe, also, it is more time to come to our needed conclusions?)

The Inadequacy of Logic

I see in this world no plausible explanation for many concepts, such as beauty and love. Some deny that they even exist, or claim them to be mere issues of chemicals, but I have seen, time and time again, that our attempts to only do "reasonable" actions is futile, and am reminded of the necessity of there being innately valuable things in existence, things that don’t require logic to support their value.

We pretend that we have a logical standpoint simply because we can trace an action to something we label a necessity. For example, I eat to sustain my body, and I sustain my body to live. Look how logical eating is! Look at the great train of rationality that solidifies its value as an action! Look at the superiority and safeness in such solid logic! And yet, in this thinking a person relies solely on the presence of logic, without any thought of if logic is truly fulfilled. In this pattern of thinking, we are spiders that know we must have a strong web of logic on which to support us, but the problem is our web is attached to nothing but itself and floats on the wind. We glide along, taking pride in the strength of its fibers and its masterful connection to itself, until we are finally dashed against the rocks. Any person who claims to be rational knows that circular logic is not logical at all, and yet we persist to insist on pure logic, which is by nature circular.

In the example above of eating, and I would argue in most issues where you force a person to the final unconnected web by asking them "Why?" (a question that haunts us all by demanding complete logic), what we find is that we must question living itself. The necessity of living lies at the end of all of our human webs. Why live? As Protestants to Sola Scriptura, the Evolutionists have found many an explanation for their discoveries and desires when sourcing them back to Self Preservation. The problem lies in that foundation itself, for it demands logic as much as everything relying on it. Self Preservation has no explanation; it is assumed to be logical in itself. Something purely assumed to be logical with no support is the fundamental illogic. If it were the fundamental logic, any computer would automatically desire to continue existing. Yet, we must create that idea in a computer like any other. We must tell a computer that self preservation is valuable before it ever considers it important.

So the question is: who told us we were important? Why do certain things in existence pursue a continued existence, while other things do not? The naturalist will act as though there is a clear line, but there is none. All matter, really, should be indifferent to its sustained existence, and it certainly shouldn’t care what form it is in, whether a pile of dust or a human being.

In the cores of our being, though, we all know life has a purpose. We struggle and wrestle to find it, but we all suspect it is there. Even those who take their own lives admit that there is meaning of some kind, for the denial of some kind of meaning is usually what leads to a desire to escape; meaninglessness is at odds with our very being, and thus some cease to be. The real logical conclusion is indifference, and I’ll boldly claim that you’ll find no person who is anywhere near indifferent about their life. They may feel such at moments, but true rationality would be able to escape all sentiment, including that of one’s own existence.

Where does that trail lead us? I believe an important conclusion is that there must be things that are innately valuable. There must be ideas or concepts or principles that are valuable because they are valuable. This would place them outside of science or naturalism, thus being generally avoided by many modern philosophers. But many of the great philosophers knew how important this question of meaning was, and they regularly concluded there was something beyond nature in existence (they just often disagreed on what exactly it was).

Why are we more prone to disregard this topic today, though? A secular book called Education’s End by Anthony T. Kronman discusses this avoidance in our current age:

“The question of what living is for—of what one should care about and why—is the most important question a person can ask. Yet under the influence of the modern research ideal, our colleges and universities have expelled this question from their classrooms, judging it unfit for organized study.”

We have become more entrenched with equipping students to do whatever they so desire, with skills, rather than exploring the meaning of doing or desiring anything. Acting without thinking is just as dangerous as thinking without acting. I believe a large part of this situation lies in the fact that finding answers to these questions limits us, and in our current age we worship freedom, and seek to have it justified. What’s been found is that as soon as these questions are asked, people become limited, so the answer has become to stop asking them at all.

One of the best scientifically oriented movies ever made, Interstellar, discusses the inadequacy of science to explain everything by introducing a conflict between the idealistic scientist Dr. Brand and her skeptical colleagues.

Brand: Maybe we've spent too long trying to figure all this out with theory.
Cooper: You're a scientist Brand.
Brand: So listen to me, When I say that love isn't something we invented, it's observable, powerful. It has to mean something.
Cooper: Love has meaning, yes, social utility. Social bonding, child rearing...
Brand: We love people who have died, where's the social utility in that?
Cooper: None.
Brand: Maybe it means something more, something we can't yet understand. Maybe it's, some evidence, some artifact of a higher dimension that we can't consciously perceive. I'm drawn across the universe to someone I haven't seen in a decade who I know is probably dead. Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space.

We see portrayed, first of all, an assumption that science is no place for a discussion of love. More importantly, though, this scene appeals to something in all of us that can empathize with what she says, while conveying the absence of a completely scientific answer for the phenomena. This scene doesn’t prove anything, but it certainly asks good, challenging questions. I admire that a movie aspiring to being science fiction, with a large emphasis on science, would propose that there may be a higher state of being than simply what we can scientifically observe in this point in our existence.

One can create clever ways of fitting the universe into a box labelled “science” in theory, making themselves feel validated. In reality, though, even the elements that are purely scientific are infinitely beyond our grasp. If I understood Quantum Mechanics at all, I might give an example from it.

My point in all of this is that logic can only ever be fulfilled by admitting that something exists outside of it. This is not to say that we must be illogical, which I find loathsome as a person fond of logic, but that there must be a third option, nonlogic. Logic even connects with and interacts with nonlogic in a beautiful dance that they were designed to be in.

The Necessity of Beauty

I believe strongly that innately valuable things exist, things that are nonlogical and are impossible to be supported directly by logic (my essay on logic supports them indirectly using logic) yet are valuable. However, what those innately valuable things are is certainly not solidified. One innate value and nonlogic I propose here is beauty.

To define beauty, in my opinion, is one of the most futile quests that could ever be attempted. We can describe it, but a definition is a form of logic, and beauty I believe is nonlogic. The best way to describe beauty is, of course, by direct experience. It can only be understood empirically. Find one of your favorite artistic works, be it film or photo or symphony or fiction or even food, and stop to take it in. Stop a while to think and feel and maybe even describe for yourself the way it captivates you.

That’s beauty. That’s all I can say. I write as I listen to the musical work of Ludovico Einaudi to make sure I am experiencing beauty as I write, engulfed in the full effect.

It’s commonly said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would say the reality is that there is so much beauty to be admired, but each eye is often so limited to see it. I’ve had experiences that I once thought worthy of being ignored, finding them later to captivate me to breathtaking levels. The flaw lies not in the object, or in the subjectivism of beauty, but in us. Beauty itself requires a journey to truly see. Thus, to expand our sense of beauty requires many journeys.

Logic is something you can concoct yourself. You can be told it, written it, calculate and map it out. Beauty, on the other hand, cannot be given directly. It must be experienced. It can be conveyed only if the giver and receiver are both equipped for the process. It relies on something more than normal rational thought. I would suppose it relies on whatever a soul may be.

I am compulsed to clarify, as in my last essay, that beauty is not at odds with logic. In fact, they can contribute to each other. The expression of logic through a debate can be beautiful by its wit, its clarity, and its accuracy. Beauty can often be consistently pointed to by logic, such as listing the beautiful trait common in a series of films (a logical sequencing), thus assisting a new beauty being created in the interconnectedness of the films.

Upon many years of thought, I would say that art itself is the expression of beauty. Leo Tolstoy disagrees with me, saying art is not beauty but our uniting factor to each other. I would disagree, because even though art unites us, it would render the content pointless as long as it unites us in some way. The content of art is important. If Tolstoy is correct, then if a single piece of art connected us, all other art would lose it’s purpose. And pragmaticism, being a very logical function, seems at odds with beauty. Beauty must be, again, valuable in itself. It’s contribution to society must be itself, for if we look for a logical foundation, we will end up once again in illogical circles.

I could address many great thinkers, such as Oscar Wilde who says the exact opposite of Tolstoy, that art is our individualism’s strongest form. Still, I think beauty and art are so difficult to understand, so widely controversial, because they are unable to be placed under any microscope or be measured in any way. Beauty is outside of our control, and in that way among others, it is beautiful.

Conclusion

In all this, don’t misunderstand me. Beauty and the other nonlogical things are not independent. Beauty does not rely on logic, but it very likely relies on something else, a grander nonlogic, or something that is both logic, nonlogic, and incomprehensibly a step beyond that. What is it then? Or whom? Seeing as beauty seems much more tied with our identity as humans and the reality that we are relational beings, it would make sense that the contingent of beauty is a relational being.

All this writing was to say something to encourage myself, and I hope it may encourage you too. I wanted to say for myself that each day, happy or sad, hopeful or discouraged, that as I see beauty and passion and love around me, as I hear the tones and patterns of music that reach places in my being that I wouldn’t otherwise know exist, as I talk to and touch people who are a depth of being and uniqueness in and of themselves, and I remember how much more is in the world than this, it suggests… nay, it demands that there is someone out of which all of it flows. It was placed here for me to enjoy, for me to take care of, and for me to offer back to it’s source. If I can care so deeply about so much and with such richness as the broken being I am, how much more so does the Source care perfectly, and beyond my comprehension?

God and Our Daily Disciplines

Most of my life I've found it difficult to balance two extremes of thinking about God's role in our lives. On one end, we know that prayer, scripture, attending church, and many other practices of our faith are incredibly important in our walk with the Lord. However, it becomes unhealthy to think that God punishes us for not doing them, or that the cause of our problems and stresses is a direct result of us "not reading our Bible daily."

The simplest explanation I've arrived at is the following analogy: Suppose a friend designs and builds me a special computer that I use regularly. Like all technology, it tends to have it's quirks and bad moments. My friend recommends I stay in regular contact with him so that he can help me keep the computer working well. This doesn't mean that things will always run perfectly simply because of our regular communication with him. It also doesn't mean that this friend causes the problems with our computer because we are not in communication with him, as if to punish me. It's for my benefit! However, it is silly for me to be upset or disappointed when things go wrong with the computer if I'm not following his advice or communicating with him.

Likewise, when we aren't working on our relationship with the Lord, our trials are not punishment for the absence of scripture, prayer, or church. Still, it is silly for us to expect our lives, which are created by him, to be full of his clear presence when we are not seeking his presence.

God certainly works for our good even when we forsake him, which we do regularly. Still, scripture is clear that seeking him out has some correlation with his work in our lives. I'd prefer my sorrows to be validated in light of a current walk with the Lord, rather than realizing I'm expecting my best friend to be handling my problems when I don't attend to our friendship (which he'll still attend to regardless).

Ultimately, don't shame yourself for not involving yourselves in the Christian disciplines, but do them in response to the truths of God's love and works on our behalf. If you get things out of order, placing those acts (prayer/scripture/church/etc) before the blessings and works of Christ, you'll be living in a miserable, works-based faith, rather than one reliant on God's mercy. All your works and worship are meant to be nothing more than a response to God's love, glory, justice, and mercy.

Yet, he is your best friend. Where all others fail you, he never gives up. If you seek to truly love, you never will without his help. If you seek to return love to those who love you, you owe him infinitely times more love. Don't be ashamed of your failure, but you break his heart constantly and yet he still loves you. So respond to his love with obedience to his love.

God Cares About Everything

This will be a switch from the deep (and confusing logic) of my last post. Hopefully it comes a little more naturally.

Yesterday, I went to The LEGO Movie. I swear, I tried so incredibly hard not to cry. I really did try. By the end, however, I was unsuccessful. I cry at everything. I cry when I'm happy and when I'm sad. I cry with movies and with music. I used to try not to cry and I would be ashamed when I was younger, but now I embrace it and I encourage others to cry. The human body releases three kinds of tears, which each... Well, I'll stay on topic.

What I've realized though is that I cry much easier than I ever have, and as weird as it sounds, this has grown as my relationship with the Lord has grown. The more I feel that I understand and have conformed to God's heart, the more tears just come naturally. I cry at what seems like the silliest things, too. Heck, I cry at delicious foods, or watching a fan meet a famous person.

I asked myself "Why?" Why do I cry at everything? I realized it's because we live in a world that was created by God, and he cares about his creation. He didn't just create some basic things we like to say are most important, either, such as love and death. God created oak trees, the Mona Lisa, electro swing, skyscrapers, hamburgers, Breaking Bad, gymnastics, mathematics, accidental curly fries, supernovas, smiley faces, being double jointed, water fountains, the old west, kaleidoscopes, spaceships, and so much more.

I think that as Christians, we can sometimes forget this, especially those of us with a logical slant. I do think that we need to remember there are things to be priority in our emphasis, such as love, justice, mercy, and other values. However, we live in a universe created by God, and he cares about every single element of it.

I grew up watching movies and looking for the "normal" values (from how I was taught). You watched a movie for it's positive characters, for a good and happy ending, for interesting twists, and for clear moral lessons. Otherwise, a movie was considered pointless and stupid. As I've made new friends, however, I've seen a world beyond these oversimplifications of media. I've realized that you can watch a movie for a talented director, for beautiful music, for anti-heroes, for a genre that seems to effect our hearts just right. Movies can pique our passions for a variety of reasons, and maybe some deserve to be emphasized, but they all matter.

I think this is why I cry at everything. because God cares about everything. He even cares about a single actor portraying an emotion really well. He cares about what it feels to be in a cyberpunk dystopia. He cares about a director who can portray a variety of film genres well. In this way, we can say "everyone is special" and that man is made in God's image... and not be lying. Because when we play favorites with what counts as being important, we diagnose the people who care about what isn't "important" as being broken or less than special.

So I'll continue to cry at everything, because passions are important to God. I love seeing everything done in excellence. I even love watching a story of a character making bad choices and destroying their lives like in Breaking Bad, because I learn to do better, and I sympathize with people just like Jesus did when he suffered for our sins. I'll cry about the Peanut Butter Pickle Bacon burger at Killer Burger because it's so delicious. I'll cry at emotional piano covers of inappropriate songs like The Bad Touch by Tom Rosenthal. And I'll cry to see how happy my friends are at shows and movies I don't quite get just because I know how it effects them.

I'll keep trying to care about everything. Everything. Because God cares about everything, and if I love and grow to be more like him, I will too.

Do We Control Our Lives?

In this life, we can categorize happenings in two ways: controllables and uncontrollables. There are things we have the ability to control and things outside of our control. Our mindset about each of these is addressed in psychology as an internal locus of control or external locus of control, being whether we tend to blame controllable forces or uncontrollable forces, respectively. A strong internal locus of control means we take a lot of responsibility (but degrades into blaming and shaming ourselves), and a strong external locus of control means we understand there are things outside our control (but degrades into making excuses and playing the victim).

It seems that, by human nature, we default to a strong sense of external locus of control (things outside of my control are to blame for my situation). Most articles and guides on the two locuses of control are about developing a stronger internal locus of control, and thus helping a person take responsibility for their lives. Motivational speakers and success books emphasize this mindset that we can take control of our lives (which is common thinking for the Enneagram type Three). Likewise, the "happiness is a choice" mindset is a reaction to the default of an external locus of control by emphasizing an ability to control our thoughts and thus our emotions. Every self-help section of books is filled with titles such as Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives and Change Your Brain, Change Your Life. There is great value in these ideas of taking control of our lives, and I believe that we generally have a greater control over our lives than we tend to think. I often repeat the mantra, “If you really want it, you’ll make it happen. If not, you’ll make excuses.”

I believe, however, there are some very dangerous consequences of an overemphasis of controllables and an internal locus of control. The first is that a complete control of emotions makes them arbitrary and reduces their value. While it’s good to have an effect on our emotions and be able to healthily regulate them, if they become a simple switch that we turn on and off, we negate the purpose of negative (but not bad) emotions like sadness and anger, and the positive ones like happiness become the equivalent of a pleasure button to be pressed constantly and consequently devalued. Emotions tie strongly with the artistic side of our identity as humans, where we appreciate things that often have their beauty in being out of our control.

Another consequence of the extreme internal locus of control is a paradox of the will that is created. Suddenly, we can step back from our decisions to effect our own will that made them. This sounds simple enough, but the problem is that our will is required for us to desire to change itself. That same will cannot alter itself and exist at the same time, in the same way a snake cannot eat itself. You can work your way back altering your will and desire deeper and deeper, but never will you reach the end of it.

When we over emphasize the internal locus of control, we also degrade love. One of the most beautiful elements of love is that it is freely given to us, rather than taken. A belief that all things are controllable makes love a demand of ours rather than a gift. In a lesser version of this same error, we can see love as something to be earned, where we can receive it through the control of our own actions to thus make us worthy of love.

One of the worst consequences of an emphasis on controllables is that instead of an obedience to God, they can become our own way of not trusting him. While a Bible full of commands about how to live our life surely suggests we have responsibilities and should use our control, when we derive hope, meaning, relationships, purpose, and such out of our own actions, we devalue the need for God in our lives. If happiness really is a choice, then I don’t need Jesus anymore because I can just choose to be happy.

My last point, and in fact the main reason for which I wrote this article, is a twofold point of psychology and theology. When we de-emphasize uncontrollables, we deny our own needs as human beings which God gave us. In doing this, we are actually denying God’s created order and will. It would be insane to say that living without food is a choice, because we know that we begin to die physically without the nurturance that God designed us to have. Few people would say that a negative reaction from the deprivation of physical sustenance somehow suggests a lack of faith in God, or a lack of taking of personal responsibility. However, we often act as though a negative reaction from the deprivation of emotional sustenance (relationships, love languages, etc.) suggests a lack of trusting God and a shoving off of responsibility and playing the victim role. We don’t realize that this mentality makes things worse, as God designed us to break down emotionally without proper sustenance as he did on Earth, and we will actually create more emotional problems in the same way we would from starving ourselves.

God created a world of controllables and uncontrollables. A healthy person lives knowing both these realities. Trusting God does not mean denying his created order, and his created order includes having physical and emotional needs. If you deny that parts of the world, including internal parts of yourself, are out of control, you will harm yourself, distract yourself from God’s will, and devalue the beauty of his creation. Faith in God requires uncontrollables!



Bonus Points - Related to Motivation and Responsibility

• “There is no try, only do.” The famous quote from Master Yoda of the Star Wars universe. I strongly dislike this quote, because “trying” means putting your heart into something. You made a real effort, and while mankind judges by outside appearance, God says his priority is the heart. I’d rather the failed friend who put in their whole heart than those who accidentally do the right action. Success is a helpful hint at effort and a good heart, but is generally an unreliable guideline. The truth is, the best friends and achievers are the ones who consistently try and fail, not the ones who do well with ease. Nothing worth admiring was ever done without first trying to do it.
• Excuses. It’s bad to make excuses (suggesting a fabrication), but sometimes we have excuses regardless of our intention. A blind person makes a poor art critic, and I’ll gladly excuse them for it. The concept of “no excuses,” while generally helpful for a motivator, can degrade human beings for limitations God himself put into our world. If I want to judge when having excuses is a problem, I generally ask myself two questions: Is this person trying to change? Is the person taking responsibility? Personally, when someone let’s me down, I prefer an excuse (assuming they have one) because it helps me understand, and I can judge no one who I do not understand.

Learn - "Just Trust God"?

Christian cliche, brace yourself... YOU'RE GOIN' DOWN!

Odds are, if you clicked on this post, you've heard this phrase countless times. Heck, you've probably used it several times yourself. Chances are also that you've heard it used in ways that, at the very least, made you a tad uncomfortable.

"Just Trust God"

So am I about to argue against trusting God? Nope. The statement above would be agreeable if it wasn't for the way we add that "just" onto the idea of trusting God, which reveals how we abuse the truthful and Biblical concept of trusting God. It implies that there is nothing else, only a trust for God. This is often used to imply no sadness, or no action.

First off, it seems that Christians who use this phrase often imply no fear or sadness. Sadness doesn't imply a lack of trust for God. People who trust God are still emotionally distressed. Otherwise, Jesus probably wouldn't have been trusting in God (himself?) at all when his "sweat became like great drops of blood" from his anguish (Luke 22:44). Even God himself grieves according to scripture (Genesis 6:6). While sadness can spring out of not trusting God, it can also be very present in those who trust him. Be sure not to judge people's walk with God by their poorness or richness in spirit, like the Pharisees judged people by their financial poorness or richness.

Another way Christians seem to use "just trust God" is to imply a lack of action. People are treated as if them acting means they trust their action more than God, and truly trusting him would be sitting back and watching him work. Yet, we have a Bible full of stories about people who trusted God, but they didn't just trust God; they also acted. Scripture's heroes were men and women of action. They pray (an action in itself), and the they seek the results they (and God) desire.

We are even inconsistent in our use of this idea (based on whatever is the popular way to use the concept). We'll treat some things as worthy of trust with action ("Trust God to help you find food/a job."), yet other things are unacceptable all together ("Don't be sad! Just trust God!" and "Stop seeking people to fill your emotional needs! You just need to trust God!"). Why can't we trust God and still seek the things we desire and even need? Are our actions and trust truly incompatible? I don't think so.

There are people who act in the place of God because they don't trust him, which is where these ideas have rooted from, but trust and action are not incompatible. So then, what does a believer look like when trusting God? I think the lesson boils down to this:

Trusting God doesn't mean he does all the work. Trusting God means he's the boss.

When we trust God, we still act. In fact, trusting him often leads to action. However, we act how he desires us to, not out of a fear that we won't achieve our desired results if we don't act. Sometimes, too, trusting him does mean being still (Psalms 46:10). Yet the fact that our Bible, which commands us to trust God, also gives commands for action and tells stories of the faithful acting, gives us good reason to accept that trusting God usually includes an action. If you still aren't convinced that trust isn't accompanied by action, check out the book of James, which talks about how faith is accompanied by works.

Be sure to second-guess your use of "just trust God" the next time you talk with someone who's sad or seeking to meet a need of theirs. The faithful hurt and the faithful act.

Also...
...There's one other way we use this phrase, and it's much worse. We sometimes use it as an excuse not to help people. We see others in need, and we have the resources, but instead we tell them to "just trust God." If God will provide, why should we? You can read a bit more about my opinions on helping those in need here.

Response - "23 THINGS TO DO INSTEAD OF GETTING ENGAGED BEFORE YOU’RE 23"

It's been a while since I wrote a blog post (which is probable the most cliché way to start this post, haha). I figured after seeing this article several times, having several discussions, and even having my opinion sway, I'd just write about this post, which covers some of my favorite subjects: people, relationships, and wisdom.

This article on 23 things to do instead of getting engaged before 23 was not only fascinating and challenging in itself, but also brought up a lot of my own ideas I have never quite put together before, so I figured this was a great two-in-one. My points are both responses to her ideas and building on my own (and friends' responses I quote).

Here's a link to the article by Vanessa Elizabeth:
23 THINGS TO DO INSTEAD OF GETTING ENGAGED BEFORE YOU’RE 23

Here's the best as I can summarize it: Men and women under 23 are getting married because it is hip, they want its pleasures, and they can't deal with life on their own. Instead, people should wait to get married and take time to develop their own identity by enjoying many pleasures and experiences of their lives so that they know themselves and don't miss out.

The Negative
Adventure: Her premise seems to be that once you are married, having adventures is impossible. You could argue that traveling is hindered somewhat, but it is still entirely possible. As my friend John put it, "I didn't realize that now that I am married I can't grow, learn, travel, party, cuddle, read or explore anymore! What a mistake!"

Identity: "I have no idea who I am, what I’m doing, and who I’ll be doing it with for the next year… let alone for the rest of my life." That doesn't mean that no one else does. In fact, discovering yourself is very much enhanced by other people. Others often know us better than we know ourselves.

Age and maturity: While there is definitely validity in relating age/experience and wisdom/understanding, these things are not directly correlated. As my friend Amanda said, "Just because you're 10 years older doesn't mean you'll stick it out." If no one knows themselves enough to get married at 23, I doubt Elizabeth should even be writing marriage advice at that age.

Selfishness: My major problem with the article is the selfishness of it. Her 22nd point in the list blatantly says "Be selfish." The 11th says to "Date two people at once and see how long it takes to blow up in your face." This is completely inconsiderate of the two other human beings who's lives would be torn apart by such an action. Even the consequences of such action are only described by the consequences of the person doing the cheating.

However: She has said multiple times on her Twitter and Facebook that the list was actually satirical. Still, after reviewing the article several times, she doesn't make this very clear.

Originally, I really liked the article. She makes some very good points I've said many times myself. I was only swayed to a more neutral position as people pointed out the selfishness that underlies the motives and reasoning.

The Positive
The Divorce Rate: "The divorce rate for young couples is more than twice the national average." This is a very serious statistic that needs to be considered. The article she links too has some very relevant stories. We should be deeply challenged by these stories and statistics, and ask ourselves why this is happening.

Want vs Need: There seems to be a cultural assumption that we need to get married. Most of the time I hear a person arguing for marriage, they are arguing against reasons not to, but most seem to act as if it is an obvious necessity. I think this hinders us greatly from asking us why we really should get married. Most of the reasons such as personal growth and emotional support can be done without marriage, so we really need to think about what makes marriage special or different (because I'd like to think it is more than just sex, personally).

Identity: While I agree with most people that you can definitely develop your identity in marriage, it is not unwise to have a strong understanding of who you are before getting married. Our identities play a role in our marriage to someone, and also have a part in who we choose to marry. While "we can learn who we are while married" isn't an untrue reasoning, that's a poor reason not to take the time to learn about yourself significantly before you get married.

Co-dependency: This is probably one of the biggest subjects for me. I've seen too many "safety blanket" relationships where people who don't know how to be single get married out of despair. Too many people "hide behind a significant other" and hope to fill holes that parents, compliments, and even God should have filled. Books like "The Family" by Balswick & Balswick discuss this, and much research does, and yet most Christian and secular circles just treat it as if this is supposed to fill the hole (or God is the only other element at play). Our culture doesn't actually explore marriage, but rather just accepts it, and through this we open the doors to a lot of issues that I believe make marriages much less healthy. We are destroyed from lack of knowledge. As my friend Maggie said, "some people marry young simply because they don't know what else to do and they don't wanna be alone."

Love lasts: "If your love is truly eternal, what’s the rush? If it’s real, that person will continue to be committed to you 2 months from now, 2 years from now, and 2 decades from now." I'm not idealistic enough to think that there's this magical connection that makes it impossible to marry the wrong person; we have freedom to make our own decisions. However, I do think that both as a Christian, God has plans (like we say he does with nearly everything else), and also exactly as Elizabeth says, if someone really loves you it lasts.

Other's experiences: I can relate to hearing things like "my mom and dad got married young and X, Y and Z." The thinking that "it worked before so its a good idea" is a terrible line of reasoning, and yet I hear people use it all the time. (The Israelites use this same reasoning in Jeremiah 44 to justify worshiping false gods.) I don't feel like I should even have to elaborate on how bad this logic is. You can probably come up with a bunch of your own examples in your head.

Additionally
Commitment: I hear people say all the time that marriage is about commitment. If that were true, why wouldn't we just use the words interchangeably? Commitment is a huge part of marriage, assuredly, but it is not the whole of marriage. Communication, honesty, intimacy, sexuality, and many other elements go into what makes marriage. I think two committed people can work through issues together, but I don't think that it means every relationship where you can do that is wise.

The right person: I think the most important element in a marriage is the maturity of the two people ("maturity" being a large blanket term I use that covers commitment). However, I think the second most important element is who you choose to marry, and rather than just looking at age, I agree with my friend Rob that "you should probably base that around when you meet the right person." I think the real challenge, then, in figuring out how we determine who the "right person" is, and I'd direct you to not only ask some married couples, but ask people who have spent their lives studying and counseling marriages. (Check out Les & Leslie Parrot, Cloud & Townsend, and Neil Clark Warren.)

Wisdom vs mistakes: There is a difference between saying something is unwise and saying it is a mistake. There may be very good reason to say that young marriage is unwise or should at least be approached with strong caution (the divorce rate being one of those reasons). However, as my friend Collin says, "Assuming that all people married and younger than 23 are making grave life mistakes is an all-ism fallacy." I think the article could be construed both ways.

"No one is perfect": I hear this statement all the time and it bugs the heck out of me because of its misuse. Yes, no one is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't apply wisdom and grow some before we get married. No one will drive perfectly, but we still learn the rules of the road and do our best. We still have a standard of "that person is abusive" in comparison to people who are healthier. So it isn't unreasonable to discuss the standards of what will make a marriage stronger or when a person is ready.

Opinions: This is one final response to an objection I hear much too often. People will say "you're single and don't know anything." However, people can have comprehension and understanding without direct experience. People also have experienced hurt, relationships, betrayal, life, and a lot of other elements in marriage that do give them some insight. Even more important though, is that some people will have a single marriage experience, and others will take that as enough for thorough insight. I'd say I trust the advice of experienced marriage counselors more than a few married couple's experiences, just like I'd trust the zookeeper's opinions about animals more than the person who just loves to look at elephants. Marriages are all different.

Conclusion
I think one of the biggest issues in all of this is the necessity of marriage. People spend a lot of time defending things like marrying young, and yet don't give very good reasons to marry young. To figure this out, we need to push past the cultural defaults of just assuming marriage is normal and we don't need to have any reasons (which means our only reasons are purely emotion) and actually explore the rationality behind it as much as we do the emotions of it. Yes, we can marry young without grave consequences, but should we?

In all of this, though, we need to remember too that everyone has different experiences, and calling Vanessa Elizabeth an idiot or a hypocrite does nothing to encourage her or anyone else who reads her article. It actually makes us look like the unreasonable ones, in my opinion. As my friend Ryan said, we need to be "reading with the intention of loving." I appreciate her honesty to write down what she thinks, and I think it does offer some very wise insights for critical thought that should challenge us.

Consider - Disgruntled with Diversity

I wrote this as part of a paper, and I touched it up a bit and added to it because I've been wanting to write this stuff as a blog post anyways. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts (and I may, of course, have some responses).


This last year, I’ve been learning a lot about the dangers of extremes and the pendulum effect. I like to call it being reactionary (action based off of a negativity) versus being actionary (choosing to act based on it being right). I’ve started to realize that even our general human history over the last 2,000 years has reflected this in our philosophies. We went from pre-modernism, where we trusted authorities such as the church, to reacting with modernism where we trusted logic that we could distinguish and decipher ourselves, to reacting with post-modernism where truth became subjective entirely to what we feel or decide. I’ve started looking at much of what culture, philosophies, and even my own beliefs do in terms of this effect. I’ve realized how often we see something bad, wrong, or often just a perversion of a good thing, and we do the opposite of it as a solution, which often causes new problems, even going as far as contradicting the original purpose of the change.

In terms of diversity and discrimination, I think this has happened a lot. Racism and slavery in America is one of the best examples. We have had discrimination based on numbers (which is currently acknowledged almost as if it is the only kind) where white people kept black people as slaves, and then they were still segregated even after slavery was abolished. This is something terrible and wrong, but reactions have gone too far. The ways we have reacted have produced new forms of discrimination psychologically, where we have enabled culture to discriminate and oppress white people.

Not only do numbers discriminate, but financial power can too, where corrupt rich can use their money to oppress a poor majority. It really comes down to a mix of power and a heart that uses that power wrongly. The thing is, we have created social standards that oppress people, and these standards are often called “political correctness.” To discuss discrimination against whites or stereotypes of white people is considered “politically incorrect," and puts white people in positions they cannot escape because they feel ashamed for being white. Shame is another power that is held over the heads, and hurts people just like slavery and segregation. This is a psychological version of what so many fighting for social justice have wanted to fight against, and my opinion is that it is just as bad as any other version of discrimination. It doesn’t just apply to white people, but I’ve seen it applied to the rich, to men, and to many other social groups, and what’s even sadder is that we still have the original issues, such as racism against blacks, right alongside it.

I’ve begun referring to this issue as “pop diversity,” where people have seen the popular diversity issues and are reactionary. We see issues such as racism and sexism as popular and thus more and more people hop on the bandwagons to fight them. However, so many other groups such as introverts and physical touch people are discriminated against, but the subjects aren’t popular so many are fighting to have them even acknowledged.

I think having classes like my class Human Diversity here at Multnomah are an excellent idea. I think they are a great way to fight discrimination, and I’ve very much enjoyed the class. However, I feel like a lot of diversity movements in general are only half of what is necessary. We are teaching people blind passion without actually equipping them. Passion is important and powerful and really the only way we change the world for the better, but passion should be our fuel, not the decision maker.

It’s similar to if culture teaches our kids how important it is to drive cars, so they have the passion, and classes equip them with information on how to actually drive it, but no one teaches them about how to be safe, to obey safety rules of the road, and to be careful of other drivers. They’ll speed, drive recklessly, and cause more damage than driving cars does good! Movies like Five Minutes in Heaven illustrate how teens who were given passion without wisdom in Ireland were killing people and not even understanding the repercussions. They had focused so much on the discrimination that they had no way to realize they were doing the exact same things, until someone told them. Imagine if diversity classes came bundled with wisdom on how to not go too far and how to not contradict your own values.

I think we need more diversity classes, but I think each individual topic and the class as a whole needs to look at the risks of seeking diversity. In fact, the classes need to actually explore the philosophies behind diversity. Movements that don't consider their own weaknesses or potentials for extremism are some of the most dangerous forces in existence. Not only do we often enable the pendulum effect by not cautioning people when fighting discrimination, but we don’t spend enough time establishing why diversity is valuable so that we can build opinions on that foundation; at times, it can appear more of an assumption without clear reasons.

One additional area I’ve been challenged to think through is in regard to events like Black History Month and MLK day. I liked MLK day, but I didn’t like Black History Month very much, and it took me some time to figure out why. I think the problem is that there’s no balance between accepting and valuing a person's diversity, and being required to embrace them and be involved in their passions.

Black culture is an amazing thing, and I am glad people take time to celebrate it and keep history of it. However, what frustrates me is that many people shame white people for not celebrating it, even though those same people probably wouldn’t attend a “white history month” (I wouldn’t want to either). If I have a geek culture month, or a blonde culture month, I wont be offended if people outside of those interests don’t attend. I’m not petitioning for our government to celebrate those either, though I’d definitely attend a geek culture month (in fact, you could say these are what events like ComicCon are). I’m not going to attack anyone for not attending a nerd convention, even if nerd’s have brought about the amazing technology everyone uses.

Martin Luther King, Jr. day, on the other hand, I very much enjoy because we are celebrating MLK, and not just because of something subjective we relate to (such as body features or personal cultural preference), but because he stood for social justice, which we can all rally around. Luther both acted on social justice, which is worth celebrating, and he gave us ideas that apply to people everywhere. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Not only will I attend events like this, but I will be rather shocked when other people don’t seem interested in this topic or others like it.

Learn - Friendly Favoritism (Part 1)

It's been some time since I've written on my blog, but I figured this was the best place to put this passage and issue that's been on my heart. So much for homework, heh heh. Enjoy!


James 2:1-4
My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?


This passage has really stirred me up recently, making me aware of an issue in myself and also in people around me. Our Christian culture today is really reactionary to the "American Dream" (prosperity and freedom), and so we really love to embrace many passages frowning on aspects related to the rich (I'm not addressing this issue here, though). It's easy to breeze right over this passage in James with the same attitude, acknowledging the wrong many of us in my college would probably not struggle too much with, without seeing the broader applications.

Scripture talks about being "poor in spirit" (Matt. 5:3), showing us that the poor/rich dichotomy has more implications than simply financial and material wealth. Really, any way we can be blessed and have something of value can be applied to this passage.

Specifically, I'd like to address the emotionally and relationally poor. There's many people around us, even students on my campus, that are hurting and without significant support from those around them. While we are students going into ministry here at Multnomah University, talking about loving those around us and being missional, it seems that often times we are really choosing to invest time in those who are emotionally and relationally rich, and thus can give us the emotional and relational richness we enjoy.

How often do we walk into a room, and choose to sit with those sitting alone, instead of our close friend group?

How often do we look around and see if those in our immediate surrounding are in need, and ask how they are doing with sincere care?

How often do we give of ourselves relationally and emotionally when we know we won't be poured back into, which is real sacrifice?

Do we genuinely love those around us, or are we just "nice" to them?

We've got a great event every semester called Day of Outreach here at college. I think it is an awesome opportunity to bless people in surrounding communities, and I'm not saying anything bad about it. However, how much does it really cost us personally to get a day off of classes to laugh and joke with our friends while working on a project such as painting or raking leaves? How much do we actually sacrifice to show this "love?"

Jesus says in Luke 16 that it is important that we are trustable in the small things, otherwise we will not be trusted with larger things. "[I]f you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?" (v. 11). If we can't even love when it costs us to the immediately surrounding students and church members, what will earn God's trust with even bigger situations like entire churches, youth groups, and the mission field?

While I do believe having friend groups and "cliques" is natural and even healthy, I think too often they become the sole social element outside of passing conversations and official business. I want to challenge you (and myself) to be aware of those around you, whether in your family, at church, or at your school, to be considering of what their needs might be, and to be willing to love when it costs you, when it might make you a little uncomfortable or it might be a bit draining. Once you're actively doing this, that's when it's wise to retreat to the emotionally and relationally uplifting friend group God has blessed you with to be filled back up again, and to retreat to prayer and time with God most of all.

And if you are one of those people who don't have a friend group, and there's a lot of us, we should hang out some time :)


To Be Continued in Part 2

Learn - The Uplift: Happiness is a Gift

I've got a subject that has been on my mind a lot ever since I was fairly well depressed about two years ago. A lot of people talk about happiness, saying things like "happiness is a choice" and "I'm going to choose to be happy today." I'm here to express my view on happiness, and explain why I think my view is not only true, but extremely important to understand.

The best place to start would be with my depression. During my depression, I wrote a paper on the subject itself, and read a lot of depression related books. There was a large spectrum of views on the subject. Here are some of the notable ones at their most extremes. (Many people who believe these have less extreme versions. These are my summaries.)

The Pamper View: This is the view that says you have absolutely no control or responsibility over your depression. You need people to pat you on the back and remind you it isn't your fault. You'll need to get on some medications, either until it goes away, or for life.

The Choice View: This is the view that says you are in complete control of if you are depressed pr not. It is likely something you did or are doing that is causing the depression, and you need to simply stop doing whatever it is to get over the depression. Medication is an excuse to not make the decision.

The Christianese View: This is similar to the choice view, but says that the problem is that you are not trusting Jesus enough or reminding yourself of His promises and reality, and that the solution is to trust Jesus more and remind yourself of His truth and reality. (Often times people don't know where the depression comes from, but say this is the solution.)

Now let's apply these specifically to happiness (depression is a slightly different issue) because the views are close enough. Some people think when we are sad we need to be pampered, and we have no control over it. They whine a lot when they are sad. Others on the opposite end say happiness is a choice. They hide when they are sad no matter what in hopes they can be happy by focusing on it enough. One book I read on depression was titled Happiness is a Choice and specifically said that everyone who followed the process in the book with their whole heart had found success, and that the process had to do with affirming truths of Jesus. (How convenient to label those it doesn't work for as simply doing it wrong!)

The Pamper View: The problem with the Pamper view is that we DO see a choice. We see that decisions we make effect our happiness, and we (obviously) have control over those decisions. There is more than enough experience in everyday life that we have a level of control over our mood.

The Choice View: The problem with the choice view is that sadness is an indicator for us that something is wrong! Pushing things aside that make us sad is dangerous, because sadness doesn't require just "choosing" to be happy, it often requires resolution. (Plus, from a Christian view, this doesn't make sense because we wouldn't need Jesus to be happy. We would simply choose happiness and then be happy with life.)

The Christianese View: This is the harder one to tackle, because Christianese is based on scripture (but not  always its teachings, just legalism of its wordings). I could tackle this view in many ways, like showing where people in scripture are sad or called to mourn, but I think the best response is John 35:11 when "Jesus wept." Why didn't he choose to be happy? Doesn't he know His own truths? Isn't he perfect? It sounds like happiness isn't something to just be so quickly turned to.

Now, after quickly touching on these views, I present my own view, which I feel is a compromise of the truths of them all, while avoiding the discrepancies.

The Gift View: This is the idea that happiness is not found in a choice, but from realities. Happiness is drawn out of things that are true: we got a bonus check, we are just feeling naturally good, we are in love, a friend graduated, Jesus loves us, and more. Happiness is a gift that certain things gives us. Sometimes there are times when we just are overwhelmed with negative feelings, and we don't have room or ability to draw happiness out of the things around us.

It's rather like being a sponge underwater. We have good and bad water all around us, and we can focus on absorbing the good water (happiness) or the bad (sadness). Sometimes we are so surrounded by bad water that it is reasonable to be absorbing some of it (or much of it). Wringing ourselves out over and over with self talk is not going to make the bad water go away.

More often than not, we do have things to draw happiness out of, so in that way, we do have a choice. There are people who reject the gift of happiness. Still, to simply slap a label on every sadness as an issue of choice, I believe, is foolish. Like I said in response to the "choice" view, sadness is often an indicator that something is wrong! It is a gift to be sad, because we know something is bad (whether it is the situation itself, or the way we feel about it). It causes us to stop and look at a situation, and determine what is making us sad about it.

So when people say "I'm going to choose to be happy today," it usually informs me they have something to be sad about, and let's me know they are going to make an effort to ignore it. This can be like driving a car around that's breaking down, and choosing to continue driving it around, instead of stopping somewhere and getting it fixed. Driving it without fixing it will make the car worse!

Now, in clarification, I need to point out that there ARE times when simply changing our thought patters is the solution to sadness. How do we tell the difference? My answer is to figure out what the cause is. (I say often, "If the opposite of _____ is not the cause, then _____ is not the solution.") Some people are simply in a habit of dwelling on the negative things in their life, and they really need to just practice dwelling on good things instead of always looking to the bad. With relationship pains, there is often nothing to do about the painful emotions, and all that needs to happen is a person needs to work on moving past it and focusing on the good things they have.

Whatever must be done, we DO need Jesus! It's just that many times, what should be done is begun with him, but needs to be followed by more. If you don't have Him, your plans with fail. But if you only sit around "trusting" Him but not acting... I'd go as far to say you don't understand Him much at all. (Read the book of James.)

In conclusion, I think we need to spend more time thinking about why we are sad or happy, and less time "deciding" to be happy. If your friend was hurting, you wouldn't want them to fake a smile and keep damaging themselves (hopefully you don't, at least I wouldn't). So don't lie to yourself and say that your friends would rather you just smile and choose to be happy. If they do want a fake smile, they aren't your friends at all. Jesus designed us to work this way. Listen to Him and you'll succeed!

(And yes... although I think it's hilarious, I hate when people use the quote "When I get sad, I stop being sad and get awesome instead" in a serious manner.)


That's it! I hope you enjoyed it, and if you have any thoughts (agreements, additions, or disagreements), I would love to hear them! I love talking about important life topics :)

Music
And for today's music sampler, two very different songs!
Joshua Radin - Sunny Days (Sesame Street Theme)

Cryptex - The Glitch Anthem