"The pursuit of what is true..."

Recently I embarked on a vendetta against the word “pursue” in the context of romance. I really hate it. It’s such an inappropriate word to describe true (i.e. real) love. Webster says, “pursue: 1) to follow with enmity 2) to follow usu. determinedly in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat… 4) to seek to follow, obtain, attain to or accomplish.” It’s very similar to “persuade” which is “1) to induce by argument, entreaty; to win over by an appeal to one’s reason and feelings; bring to belief, certainty or conviction; argue into an opinion or procedure...” etc etc.

“Pursuit” or “persuasion” should not be necessary because it presumes two things. First, I’m no animal and you’re no hunter. I won’t be a trophy; I won’t be conquered; not something passively surrendered. I, for one, will not be prevailed upon. (You could read gender roles into this whole vendetta, but I don't think that's necessary.) I will not be “convinced” of someone’s goodness or of the rightness of a certain relationship. It should be obvious. If I give myself up, I guarantee that my surrender will be active. I will initiate my own self-sacrifice. I will go willingly because it will be something that I deem worthy of my very LIFE.

I think what bugs me about part 1 of the problem comes out of a stereotype that culture perpetuates through chick flicks and all that nonsense that bugs me so much. The stereotype is that “women don’t know what they want.” In all the stories, men try to figure out what women want but are unsuccessful because not even women supposedly know what they want. So then the man just ends up sweeping this girl off her feet because she has no idea of what she’s really searching for.

This denies the first rule of philosophy: know thyself. Not only should we know our weaknesses, our strengths, our purpose, our passions, our origins, our values and our worth, but we should know what we want. It should come out of our whole “practical ontology,” as Jason Dorsey said in church yesterday. And though this may sound arrogant or presumptuous, I do believe that I know what I want. I want goodness.

That leads into the second presumption, which is that I need to be convinced of someone’s virtue. No, goodness does not hide itself. Like a city on a hill, goodness cannot be disguised or obscured and therefore does not need to be drawn out or revealed. I’ve consciously decided that I don’t seek friends or romance or some sort of secondary fulfillment. I seek goodness and goodness is apparent, clear, and straightforward.

Not to say that I’m lacking any of the former, however. Maybe my standard sounds too high, but I do know some who meet it. No, those people come more naturally and more wholly when it is part of the greater pursuit. The men and women whom I call my friends are people I’ve met along the way, even stumbled across inadvertently. Yet the common purpose that we share, the passion for something beyond ourselves is the ultimate objective, not one another. Pursue goodness.

I’ve struggled to find a good replacement word though. Whatever it is, it must be something that expresses mutuality as well as the context of the action as part of another bigger pursuit. I think the only word that is appropriate is “sacrifice.” There’s a sense of meeting in the middle, of each giving something—giving of oneself, giving of your own desires or self-interest in order to serve others. That is what love is, not a chase or a hunt or an unveiling. It’s consistency, willingness, action, and daily dying to the self.

Three posts in two days? I'm on a roll.

I guess a lot of things have been ruminating in the past two weeks. Here's another one.


I've composed a new phrase to live by. It might seem harsh, but I'll explain it.

"Be sure you're worth the words you use to say what's on your mind."

I've noticed that people are often extremely superfluous. We talk on and on about unnecessary things. Our words are fluffy and ultimately mean little in the grand scheme.

Of course, as Naomi Watts says in one of my favorite movies, "If we only spoke when there was something to say, the human race would soon lose all power of speech." But please--please, please, please--if you're going to say the superfluous things, say the important things, too.

People waste words. Perhaps words are (to borrow an economics term) "public goods" that cost us no money and are in endless supply. However, the consequences of ill-spent words can be more than we instinctively foresee.

Do we even know what we mean, who we are, the truth we think we try to communicate?

"Lightly men talk of saying what they mean...when the time comes to you at which you will be forced to utter the speech which has lain at the center of your soul for years which you have, all that time, idiot-like, been saying over and over, you'll not talk about the joy of words. I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they listen to the babble we think we mean?"

Liberty is natural and instinctive; but ethics are a rational restriction we impose on our own behavior for a greater ultimate good. Perhaps we say what comes to mind, break the ice, tell that story you happen to think of as a result of a funny coincidence...but what are we saying? Do we consider that speaking is an action, and one that requires ethical consideration?

My most compelling ethic lately has been Authenticity. It takes true courage and honesty to be authentic--to live as God made me, owning my own personality and passions, and to remember that it's His image that I bear. Yet we humans are hasty and thoughtless in our anger, but hesitant and shallow in our encouragement. To love is to value, to know truth. We take for granted our priceless proximity and depart alone, undiscovered, unfamiliar.

Consider the value, impact, and meaning of your words and your life. Live as the image-bearer and co-heir that God made you to be. Then tell me something that's worth the words you use to say it.

overcommitment = arrogance, cowardice, and exhaustion

When people ask what I'm involved in, I am always hesitant to rattle off the list.

Besides five classes, I have:

- spring break missions trip (now SIFE, too)
- IFC
- station manager for the media department
- Echo
- teaching assistant
- Randomly Famous (start-up business venture)
- small group leader
- Ethics Bowl competition
- applying for internships...

To be honest, the hours that I should put into all of these would maybe overflow the actual week, and at least knock virtually all sleep out of the equation.

But oh, I'm not proud of this list. At the moment, I'm thoroughly embarrassed by it. Are you kidding me?? Perhaps it's impressive and maybe I'm even being somewhat effective in all of these positions. But this campus is filled with students who can't say no, who are all supposedly suited to leadership roles, and who are too caught up in what could be to appreciate what's happening now. I'm just another one of those. And no one sees past my "dedication" and "enthusiasm" and "intelligence" and "discipline" to see what's really happening--

I'm too arrogant -- I think that the other people involved in each of these are too dependent on me and would be devastated if I quit.
I'm too cowardly -- I couldn't stand the embarrassment of actually admitting that I'm over-committed and perhaps didn't anticipate what I've got myself into.
I'm dead tired -- sleep for the last three nights has been 5 hours, 3 hours, 5 hours, and I'm probably looking at 4 hours tonight.

I suppose I do enjoy all of these things, for the most part. I can't pick any one item that I would want to give up right now. And some true satisfaction came last weekend when I was putting together my resume. Yeah, baby--show it off to the people who care.

But really, I eagerly look forward to the day when I can pour myself into a single project or plan or goal. Then I'll have free time. In my free time, I will love people. And that will be my life.


*oh, one good thing is that my attitude never gets down. Yeah, I'm being introspective right now and I'd rather be sleeping, most definitely; but the women on my wing all notice that I have joy and laughter even in my stress. The frustration radiates through my back and neck and shoulders, but fortunately doesn't affect my smile. Nice.

Paradox

(I regret that this is very jumbled... I could easily turn it into a book if I really developed all of these thoughts, but for the moment it is simply an explosion of thoughts.)

Sometimes the most obscure things bring everything else into perfect clarity.

I picked up Real Sex by Lauren Winner this weekend (since I don't have enough half-finished books to read). Along with the general commentary about chastity and sexual purity, one chapter specifically responded to the individualism that is so pervasive in our culture. Though Winner addressed it specifically as regards our attitudes towards sexuality, I began to understand a conflict in my own heart and mind.

It's the paradox of individual liberty and God-ordained community and I see it everywhere.

It's a paradox in the church. A Christian's spiritual life is not complete if he attends church services every week or even perhaps if he is heavily involved with the church body. It is a personal and individual relationship between him and God. However, neither is Christian's spiritual life complete if he is attentive in personal devotions and spiritual growth if he neglects the community around him and the body of believers. Both are entirely necessary, 100% and 100%.

It's a paradox in economics. God created man to have dominion over himself and his property. We are created to be stewards and it is wrong and unjust for the government to interfere with our natural rights and liberties regarding property. However, as stewards we must also look to satisfy the needs of others. We cannot neglect the poor and destitute in our neighborhoods and around the world merely because we have responsibility and rights to seek our own.

It's a paradox in family life. I am an individual with my own ambitions, my own friends, my own pursuits and interests. But I have four sisters and two parents who are committed and connected to me and I to them. I cannot make decisions about what I'll do on a given school break without considering how it might affect them.

And this paradox extends throughout every aspect of life, I think.

You could also say that the church has responded to an increasing sense of individualism in the United States by turning to more liberal economics. Our rationale goes something like, "if Christians aren't giving or helping the poor of their own choice, let the government intervene." Translation: if people aren't choosing to live in community with one another, let the government force us to live in community with one another.

And therein lies the irony-- the selflessness that creates the truly beloved community is sacrificed for artificial and forced community; indeed, true selflessness only comes when we have freedom to choose for ourselves.

I believe the solution or explanation for this paradox comes once again from God's crazy idea to give human beings the right, responsibility, and opportunity to CHOOSE for themselves. We choose whether or not to give to the poor. We CHOOSE whether or not to be wise in how we use our money. We CHOOSE our form of government. We CHOOSE whether to participate in the local church. We CHOOSE whether we study scripture and develop our individual relationships with Christ. CHOICE. It's all about CHOICE--the free will to choose to do what is best.

So in the end, we portion our lives, we decide how something affects us and those around us, we weigh the many factors that contribute to our decisions and evaluate which is most important. What affects me? What affects those around me? God created us individually. We are individuals. God also created us to live in community.

Bastiat said that liberty is faith in God and His works. I think one reason God gave us free will is for our own soul-making, as Dr. David Smith would say. If I, living in a free-market economy, choose to give my money to the poor, that not only benefits them as a socialist economy would (claim to) do, but it benefits me because I become more like Christ in my choice to give. Regarding my family, my parents could certainly demand that I return to Homewood, IL every time we have a school break; instead they allow me to be somewhat autonomous, knowing that should I choose to return home, the the time spent with them even more significant because I made the decision myself.

So this paradox--being created as individuals yet being called to live in community--is resolved by God's big picture purpose. With every opportunity to make an autonomous decision--in political economy, in the church, in one's family--we also have the opportunity to grow more like Christ by the decision we make. To have a decision forced upon us is short-sighted. It sees merely the end and neglects to consider the means. It regards the destination as more important than the journey. In so doing, it also takes for granted God's perfect judgment in how He created us and how He created us to live--individuals woven together in community.

A Study in Form and Qualitative Definition

I was recently speaking with a 21 year-old male friend who described his interactions with “women,” meaning other females on my college campus. My internal reaction was, “Oh. Does that include me now, too?” Have I reached that point where I’m now a woman? When the hell did that happen??

When I was little, I avoided calling myself a “woman” because I always thought it demonstrated immaturity to presume to be more mature than you are. I guess I still think that. But the problem with “woman” now is different and more significant.

If I’m going to call myself a woman, I’d like to know what that means. I would state the obvious to say that society offers us skewed examples and inadequate (and sometimes downright false) definitions of woman and man. So where does sexual definition come from?

Am I “feminine” because of my physical composition? Is it because I have ovaries instead of testicles? Is it based in appearance? Here I am, sitting in jeans and a hoodie with no makeup on. I don’t think I look “feminine” today. Yet I retain that quality somehow.

Is it mental then? Is it related to maternal instinct? What of the women for whom motherhood is not instinctive? If this quality is mental (inherent to the way a woman thinks), how does that fit into the assertion that women can behave and perform as well as a man?

Is this quality emotional? I’ve always feared that possibility. People often scoff at females for being overly emotional. I scoff at women for being overly emotional. I hate most chick flicks because they encourage the emotional roller coaster that many women put themselves on.

*If I may take a moment to rant, I have to say that Grey’s Anatomy is one example of the self-imposed emotional overload. Sex, love, affairs, infidelity, flings, drinking binges, putting people’s lives at risk because someone can’t put personal desires aside…

Anyway, if femininity is emotional quality, can something be overly feminine? If an object can be too much or too little of something, is the quality itself inherently neutral?
What about the etymology of the word? WoMan. Is femininity merely a complement to masculinity? (I confess, sometimes I’m nearly convinced of this and it frustrates me. It doesn’t bother me so much that my significance or some essential part of my soul is incomplete or unrealized without the presence of a man; the struggle is that I may be incomplete but he isn’t. If we are both incomplete without each other (here I speak of woman and man as general beings, not any two people specifically), I could see some bigger purpose in that, some design, equality, and intention.

Perhaps that brings me to my final option. I’ve left one possibility for last. What if femininity is spiritual? What if it is a quality of my soul and therefore, part of my ultimate purpose in life? The question that follows is, how does that impact my goals, relationships, role, and desires?

So I cannot define this thing that I am or soon will be: feminine and woman. Even so, I cannot help but desire it and admire it. Perhaps my desire is an element of my femininity. But I confess, when my friend--someone I indeed deem a man himself--spoke of "women," I felt pride. I was proud of this quality and entity that he holds in esteem, of this thing that I have spent my entire life coming into (to whatever degree I have attained it at this point in my life).

This is merely an introduction to the thoughts that concern me regarding my own identity as well as this thing/quality/characteristic that God designed but society has skewed to the point that I no longer understand it. I don't know if I can answer these questions. I don't know what "experts," other women, men, or God think about the answers to these proposals. I may have to content myself with non-answers; maybe I'll even come to the answer by simply discovering what femininity is not. Whatever my odds for success, this is an exploration that is worthy of my time and energy and I think I want to really invest myself in it.

More to come?

About a week ago, my sister and I were marveling the reluctance of many modern teenagers to become not involved, but even simply knowledgeable about American politics. Why wouldn’t they want to know how the government impacts them on a day-to-day basis? They proudly (and ignorantly) boast “the government doesn’t affect me so I don’t need to worry about it,” and “I stay as far as possible away from anything relating to politics.”

So Caroline and I wondered, why would someone be so proud of their disinterest and disconnection from the politics and government of their own country? Indeed, I think I’ve discovered the answer.

Unlike in past time of—well, I’ll not be naïve about it. I suppose “growing up” has always come with a certain amount of freedom and liberty. But I think in history, there has always been a certain amount of responsibility and obligation associated with growing up that our generation is unwilling to acknowledge. Of course, I might verily write a book on that, but the relevance is in how it applies to civics. For indeed, adolescents see that they gain legal equality with their parents and elders—driving privileges, status to drink legally or go to clubs, and so on. Yet in all this, they deny the responsibility that they have to their community, to their state, to their nation.

When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States and observed our democratic form of government, he rightly presumed that a greater sense of individualism and independence would follow equality under the law. The government protects our equal rights as individuals and asks only that we participate in election of the legislators and executives (well, in addition to up to 40% of our total income, but that’s another blog entry…) As long as no one impinges on our liberties, many people feel no desire or obligation to do the serious thinking about these issues; we would rather remain totally independent and committed only to our own aspirations, interests, and necessities.

So certainly, the Peter Pan Syndrome (or whatever sociologists are calling it) has a worse consequence than leaving 20-something men to live off their parents’ income and play video games all day. Abigail Adams warned her son, John Quincy, that character comes with difficult times; and indeed, times are no easier in the 21st century than they were in the 18th and her words are still applicable:
“The habits of a vigorous mind are formed in contending with difficulties. Great necessities call out great virtues. When a mind is raised, and animated by scenes that engage the heart, then those qualities which would otherwise lay dormant, wake into life and form the character of the hero and the statesman.”