"Will you act on what you have and know?"

Once there was a wealthy man who went away for a long time. Before he left, he entrusted part of his wealth with three different servants. Without instruction but according to their ability, he gave to one servant 100 years worth of wages, to the second servant he gave 40 years and to the third servant he gave 20 years of wages.

Immediately the first servant went and invested his 100 years worth of wages. Likewise the second servant, who had only 40 years worth of wages, invested it all for his master. But the third servant saw things differently. He knew the master to be quite a harsh judge. he feared what the master might do if he failed so he simply hid what he had received to protect it from loss.

When the master returned and saw that the first and second servants had invested what they had been given and produced a 100% return, he was pleased. He promised them even greater job responsibility, as well as a joyful presence in his kingdom. His response to the third servant was not so positive. The master chastened the third servant calling him wicked and slothful. The master gave what the third servant had to the other servants and cast the third servant out away from any further provision of the master.

You have probably heard this story and maybe even heard experts ponder its meaning. The natural tendency for people is to hear stories of truth through ears that are tuned into reward and punishment. To claim that yes indeed the master is harsh in his punishment. The alternative way to listen to truth told in stories about the Master and His Kingdom is to hear what the Master is saying about his kingdom. A recent pondering I heard was quite penetrating and insightful.

Instead of focusing on the "punishment" given to the third servant for not behaving in a way pleasing to the master, maybe we should focus on what the master meant by "wicked and slothful." What was the real difference between the servants. After all, the third servant did not squander what the master gave him, The third servant did not spend it on vile activities. He did not lie to the master or cheat him in any way. So what was it that the Master saw that he claimed was "wicked"?

The difference between the servants could not be in the absolute amount of money returned to the master because the second servant returned less in absolute amount and was equally pleasing to the master. So what was "wicked" about the third servant? He did not lack ability since ability was understood by the master going in. He did not lack time since the master was gone a long time and the same amount time was available for all servants to invest. He did not lack knowledge of the master since he knew the master could be a "harsh judge".

The "wickedness" of the third servant was his faithlessness. He played it safe, avoided risks. His "carefulness" replaced faithfulness and was motivated by fear, He thought playing it safe with what the master had entrusted him would protect him from failure. Maybe what the Master wants from His servants is to be faithful with what they have been given. Maybe fear is at the heart of "wickedness"?

We each have a life to live. We each have been entrusted with something. Some more than others. There is always something more we wish we had before stepping out. There's always something we wish we knew before we had the confidence to step out. This story is reminding us that stepping out with what we have and what we know, in faith, is the life we have been asked to live. Nothing more ... Nothing less. Its the failure to act on what we have and what we know that makes us "wicked"!  Now that is worth pondering ....      

Is it good or bad to be "on the fence"?

You may have been told or felt the need to tell someone, "come on now, get off the fence, you gotta make a choice!" Well, are you right? Is ambivalence always bad? Is there ever a point where you want someone to see two options as equally viable?

The field of change is quite concerned with ambivalence toward the change. Most change scholars, including myself, see ambivalence as the major factor that keeps people stuck in status quo. Even when people admit they should change, like exercise more or spend more time reading than playing with their computer, they fail to "get off their duff", which is a more direct way to say, "get off the fence." Thus, ambivalence has received, and rightfully so in many instances, a bad name. It is a sign of lack of character to some. It certainly is an indicator that a person will not achieve their ultimate potential.

BUT, let me offer another perspective. Suppose someone is in a "dead wrong" position on something important? What if their idea of truth is just 180 degrees off target? What if they are going down the wrong path "lickety split"? Wouldn't a little dose of ambiguity slow them down from disaster? Wouldn't you want them to at least begin to question their fixation on something that is harmful to them?

I think you would. So, what do you do? You rarely get them from going left to going right in one moment. Most often transformation or directional change is not a turning on a dime. It occurs because the wrong path that a person is absolute about becomes ambivalent to them. They begin to question whether they are right or not. Their world gets a little shaken. Disequilibrium occurs first, then clarity.

So what's the point prof? I have been thinking a lot lately about transformation and the role I play in how other people make directional changes. I found myself thinking like the mainstream that ambivalence was my enemy, and my job is creating clarity of the new. But after further reflection, I am convinced I must also be able to create ambivalence in the "unambiguous wrong". Its a different process. There's tremendous value there. Something I can benefit from pondering, what about U????

"I am only human"

Back in October in the blog "The Story of a King" I told the parable of the landowner to illustrate a particular point about human nature. After telling the story I asked what the main point was, giving four options. Three of the options made reference to reward systems, assuming that most people would focus on some aspect of rewards as the point.

 This assumption is based on the study of human nature. It has been found that built into the human condition is the obsession with justice. At the core of justice is the reciprocity attached to action. We give something, we get something in return. We do something and we receive something back that is seen as equitable or deserving of what we gave or did.

However, there was one option that focused not on the reward system, but the reward giver. It is interesting that Scripture uses this and other stories like it to make this point. Life in the Kingdom of God is about the King, not the subjects' rewards. Why is this so interesting?

This would suggest that life in God's Kingdom requires that we think, feel, and act against our human nature. This poses questions that we may rarely consider, but are fundamental in how we make sense of almost everything.

Is life as a Christian requiring me to "not be human"?

Is being human and having a human nature the same thing?

John said Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us. Paul said Jesus emptied himself of the privilege to be God and took on the form of humans. Since Jesus' time, philosophers have tried to deny that Jesus could be both God (Spirit) and man (matter). Wars have been fought and heads have rolled over this issue. AND YET, we hardly think about it. We just casually reply, "I am only human" when we make a mistake.

Is this right? Are we only human? When God told Adam he 'would surely die', how did Adam die?What does "we are a new creation" mean? What does Paul mean when he says "in Christ we walk not according to the flesh (our human nature) but according to the Spirit (God's nature)"? Do we cease to be human when we are saved? It sure doesn't feel like it.

I'll leave it here for the time being because for you to ponder this is way more valuable to you than me telling you where my pondering has gotten me .....

Why we all need "strange"

Maybe you are the type that wonders why people post their life on facebook twitter, instagram, and such? It is a good question and does seem strange to a lot of people.

Let me ask these questions: if a author did not share his/her story, what would you read? If a writer didn't write a script and an actor play it out, what would you watch on TV or at the movie? If an athlete did not choose to perform in a contest, who would you root for?

When someone chooses to play out what is in them, that is only strange to someone who has another record playing in them. We need "strange" people. In fact we all are "strange" to someone.

If we hesitate, withdraw, and hold to ourselves what we have to express, this would be quite a dull world. If someone looks or feels strange to you, make it less risky, not more, for them to give you what they have. Everybody wins then!!!

Just something to ponder on a cold winter day...

what makes a virtue virtuous?

The central message of Social Exchange is that the force that holds two parties together in relationship is the value that passes between them. Specifically, social exchange claims that you give with an expectation of receiving and receive with an obligation to return the favor. Sometimes this is call “the norm of reciprocity”. What is given and received does not have to be in in the same form. For example, one could give money to another in return for time the receiver may spend with the giver. A wealthy person may give money to a charity in turn for a building being named after them.

Sociologists have found by studying primitive tribes that this behavior is not learned but instinctive. It is buried deep within the human condition governing all types of relationships. It’s as human as needing air to breathe and water to drink. So, without even being aware, social exchange is a powerful influence on what we decide to do as we go through life, especially as our behavior is selected to bring us more satisfaction. For example, you have heard the platitude or proverb that “it is more blessed to give than to receive”.

“Blessed” refers to joy. So the saying represents a truth that giving gives you more joy than receiving. If being happy occurs when my circumstances benefit me, we would view this truth as a promise that we will be happier when we do giving type behavior. The social exchange influence built into our nature is really telling us that giving is the best way to receive more. So while giving may seem to make us more virtuous, the exchange force in our nature creates an expectation that giving is self-serving. Is that virtuous?


Often social exchange is the theory of why people stay together in relationships. Social exchange is at work in our marriage and in our work. When someone says marriage is “50-50” they are simply saying that marriage works on exchange equilibrium. Even if we want to be virtuous and say marriage is 90-10, when the balance of exchange gets to a point that one is giving more than they are receiving, then the relationship resolves or the parties remain for reasons of some other exchange, such as moral duty or coercion from someone in power. 

The key point is that the exchange must satisfy each party’s expectations. Social exchange is a powerful bias on how you choose to respond to events in your life. Often you are not even aware of its influence. Since social exchange is built into human nature, you may ask the question is it possible for anyone to ever choose a behavior that is not influenced by exchange? That would be a good question.

Throughout the ages people have pondered this. Someone who believed that life beyond the influence of exchange is possible once told a story of a father whose relationship with his sons was not based on exchange. However, while the father was not influenced by exchange, his sons were. Because his sons were influenced by their human nature, they selected behavior based on exchange and failed to fully reap the benefits of their father’s unmerited love.

You are probably familiar with the story, its often called The Prodigal's Son, but the story is really about a father whose love was "inhuman", or we might say was absent the forces of exchange.

But exchange drove each son and here's how. The oldest brother was a really good son. Followed all the rules. Honored his father by his actions. So why was he angry? Is the influence of social exchange the answer? Was his goodness so to speak simply his way to get what he wanted? And when circumstances did not go as he expected, he got angry. So, how do we see the oldest son as virtuous?

What was the indication the youngest son is heavily influenced by exchange? Maybe we see his humility to come home and admit his mistakes as being virtuous. But what about his feeling of unworthiness? What really causes us to feel unworthy is when we fail, make mistakes and disappoint those we love and respect. That is, feeling unworthy is a sense that we have not held up our end of the exchange bargain. Is that virtue?

So what's your point prof? Yeah, I can see your eyes rolling by now. Here's my point for you to ponder

Virtue is not the actions taken by someone that meets the moral or cultural approval of society. Virtue is a worldview that rejects exchange as the value that drives how one chooses to act. The action is not what makes someone virtuous, but its their heart of grace.

Is your Golden Rule tarnished?

One of the most popular platitudes is The Golden Rule. Millions of people across several thousands of years have relied on the principle to guide them to a more abundant and virtuous life. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" has a great "ring" to it. A "golden" sound. A "measure" for humanity that brings a harmony with life that feels right and true.



There is one problem though we need to consider. Is it possible that you or others view this platitude in a bit of a warped way? Is there a bias "baked in" our human nature that influences us to interpret and apply it in a misguided way? Is it possible that the virtue of the truth gets contaminated in a way we do not even realize?

Here's my point. because human nature has an obsession with justice (a theme of many of my blogs), it is highly possible, if not likely, that what we really understand the Golden rule to say is

  "do unto others so they will do unto you"

In other words, what really motivates us to embrace this virtue is a desire to act on others behalf so they will act on ours. This is purely the effects of social exchange on our thinking, feeling, and acting. It is our human nature, our "flesh", our "carnal mind". In a sense it is self-serving, it is sin, not virtue. We do not need a "Golden Rule" to do what comes naturally, but what does not come naturally.

What does not come from our human nature is Grace. "As" means empathy not manipulation. The principle of grace that underwrites the Golden Rule does not focus on "doing to get" but "doing" as an act of unconditional favor. "as you would have them do unto you" is realizing the amazing grace that has become your experience and heart's desire. Maybe a clearer version of the Golden Rule, one that blocks the obsession of our nature for justice would be "give grace to others as you have been so truly blessed by it".

As you embrace the virtue of The Golden Rule, just keep in mind that it must be polished often or it becomes tarnished. Just something to ponder ....

War: Religion or Humanity?

Globalization has created cultural and economic benefits to many people around the world. Technology has been the key enabler for globalization in many ways, none more notable than in ways people communicate. Social media and travel have brought people together in a way that makes physical distance and location just a detail, not a constraint.

In contrast, globalization has made life more problematic in the way that war is waged. First, the actual way in which people assault people in conflict has moved from nation against nation to ideology against ideology. Second, the access to media and social networks has made war much more visible to everyone because the battlefield is everywhere.

Because warring factions are not bound by geographical borders, but along ideological lines, war is attributed to religious conflict more exclusively than the historical perspective of territorial motive. While religion as an influence on war is not new, its disassociation with nation boundaries makes it more obvious that it is the motivator versus the economic or political reasons that history has easily been able to attribute to war.

Due to the combination of growing cultural homogeneity and economic interdependence that has ridden the wave of globalization with the changing face of war, the under 40 generation is raising interesting questions:

Is war a result of religion or humanity? Is religion a perpetrator or a victim?

What do I mean by these questions exactly? Well, some are beginning to see religion as the cause for humanity acting as it does in such deviant and evil ways. But religion may have the argument that humanity behaves in such dysfunctional ways as warring against each other because it has not been effected or transformed by religion.

This became evident recently to me as I read a blog from a young, successful professional woman from India. Here are some of the statements she made:

Why is everyone trying to prove their religion supreme over other?

 It’s a proven fact that most of the unrest around the world is coz of some religious group.

The role of saints and prophets has been contradictory now days. Instead of spreading message of peace and love, they are involved in instigating ill feelings for the people of different community.

People are educated and grown-ups to understand what is right and wrong; no religion can stop anyone to indulge in a good or a bad act. There are criminals, terrorists and killers from every religion and these people might be the ones who were so thorough with their religious books that they could recite every verse of it. 

Religion has been paralyzed and deformed to an extent that people hardly understand what their religion teaches; they just rely on their religious leaders who would preach their own version. People have forgotten the basics and are inspired by the superficial things.
Everyone is born in a certain religion and he or she takes up that religion by the virtue of birth. But should this be the case?? 

 We need a new religious code called 'Humanity'.

Being human is far from complications and intricate religious sayings. Being human is just about being honest, not cheating anyone, respecting others, accommodating what others say and feel, not forcing anything on anyone, letting go, help, be at peace and not hurt any one physically and mentally by your act or words. This is what it takes to live peacefully and happily.

So this blogger and contemporary voice of many people, who are products of globalization, comes to this conclusion:

This world does not need religious messengers at this point of time, we need messengers of humanity far from religious bias

Interestingly, this is not a new point of view, just discovered by enlightened young people in our world today. The question of whether religion has warped humanity or warped humanity has been relatively unaffected by religion has been around as long as recorded history. Are humans more likely to live a more abundant and virtuous life by being more human or less? Is religion some dark cosmic force that has infiltrated human nature to give it reason and cause to be evil and self-serving?

What is religion anyway? Basically the word religion means "worship". Religion is the focus of someone's allegiance. Over the years religion has come more to mean the practice of religion, or the exercise of worship and allegiance. Maybe religion has been hijacked by humanity to become the warping influence on humanity? Maybe religion is the victim of flawed humanity and not the cause of flawed human action?

In the first century there was another blogger. His name was Paul. Of course, he did not have the benefit of technology and social media. He traveled and wrote letters and he had an impact on much his known world. His impact has continued to millions upon millions of people for 2000 years. What did he have to say about these questions?

He wrote his testimony to his friends in the ancient city of Philippi. He basically said this:

I worked hard all my life to become smart and powerful.

My humanity was considered by everyone as 'Prime A', plus I was highly motivated and very successful. Everyone knew that i was really good.

I found the abundant and virtuous life as plentiful as my humanity would allow. BTW, to demonstrate my virtue I killed hundreds of people of a particular religious sect that threatened my beliefs.

I was knocked off my horse one day when I was full of myself in living out my virtuous humanity. I was on my way to persecute those who believed in a ridiculous idea that God's Son had come to save humanity from its warpness. Afterall, this impostor, Jesus, was killed by the good people, who were protecting the virtues of God by exalting their humanity.

Did I mention that the Jesus I was killing over and over again through killing His followers is the one who knocked me off my horse. His love transformed me. His unmerited favor replaced my self-serving, prideful humanity.

Paul concluded his testimony by making this point:

I consider my humanity just rubbish compared to the faith I have in Jesus, God's Son, for my abundant and virtuous life. This Jesus, who by God's choice, not mine, rescued me from my humanity.           

Two testimonies, separated by 2000 years, blogged for all to see. 

If we look much closer at this we will see that the young Indian woman's perspective of the source of the abundant and virtuous life versus the source of war and conflict existed 2000 years ago also. The human flaw then, as it is now, is that humans believe that they are good and can live the abundant and virtuous life through their own efforts. Jesus' brother made a claim on behalf of the counter argument. He said, "From where does war and fighting come? Oh, yeah, from the pleasures of humanity."

Religion is man's response to God, not God's plan for man. Like Paul God wants humanity to be transformed by His Spirit to find abundant and virtuous life, not in their humanity and not in religion, but in relationship with His Son Jesus whom God sent to us. For that purpose man's religion, his worship and his allegiance, is to God. The purpose of creation is to glorify the Creator.

Lots to ponder here ....

"the answer is in the Stealth Self"

Whether I am listening to psychologists, anthropologists, epidemiologists. or apologists, I hear explanations of the forces that shape behavior. While experts in these fields do a good job of dealing with behavioral influences from their perspective, their arguments and theories are limited. Any one field of study does not subsume all others. For instance, most psychologists cannot include spiritual influences and most apologists start with assumptions about how people think that ignores individual trait differences and human nature. Here is a comprehensive model I have developed that integrates principles of behavior formation across several mainstream scholarly disciplines.

  
I do not intend to discuss all facets of this model in this blog, but I do want to address the most ignored part, called "the Stealth Self." All social sciences and the Bible make reference to "the self". Rarely does any one approach fully explore both the spiritual and human views of self in a comparative and useful manner.

Try this view of self. The notion of stealth means that these influences that others do not see about us. In fact, often they are usually not on our radar screen either. Yet, they are powerful determinants of what are our more visible top of mind sense of knowledge, truth and faith, which are focused on many topics that affect our life, such as family, work, government, community, religion, education, etc.

I will call these aspects of "the stealth self" core assumptions. These are beliefs that are so normal to us we don't question them and don't feel an urge to prove them to our self. I suggest there are several core assumptions that interact in ways to drive our more thoughtful, conscious activities around knowledge, truth and faith. First, there are core assumptions about our identity that include 3 views of self: natural, personal, and social. The chart below illustrates key ideas about each.

 Notice there are 2 columns representing a 3X2 matrix of identity. The columns denote the carnal mind and the Kingdom mind. I will get back to this in a minute.


The self wants to get feel good and contains what are called "needs" that it wants to satisfy. The self acts to meet its needs. Like scratching an itch, we often do it without thinking.

If you read through narratives in psychology, anthropology, theology, and philosophy you find these six needs as recurring themes. Every reference to needs usually doesn't refer to all six, but all six occur across the whole body of literature in these fields of scholarship. What these needs represent and how they are satisfied can also be viewed in two ways, resulting in the following 6X2 matrix:

Again column A denotes the carnal mind and column B the Kingdom mind. What is the difference common to both matrices that relate to the two columns? The first column, the carnal mind, is an assumption that I rely on interacting with my circumstances in some form of exchange. That is, my core assumption would be that the outcome associated with the particular identity or need occurs as I give my behavior to receive what I get to fulfill the identity or need. The carnal mind is a performance based core assumption.

Column B in contrast assumes that outcomes are bestowed on me by God through my relationship with Jesus. What I receive is an act of Grace and not an exchange. Of course, there is much to discuss to fully grasp what the 3 identity and the 6 needs means if my core assumption is carnal versus Kingdom. too much for this blog, so let me make this point for now.

There are 3 kinds of people. First, there is the person who is not saved, who has not professed Jesus as his or her Savior. It doesn't matter if this person believes God exists or not. It doesn't matter if he or she is a Muslim or a Jew or a cultural Christian, a Buddhist or Hindu, a humanist or a naturalist, their streams of consciousness on any topic is a derivative of the carnal mind. They have no choice. they cannot understand anything about them self and the world from column B.

Then there is the one who has professed Jesus, but has not had their core assumptions transformed. This person is saved, but lives beneath the provisions and privileges of the Heavenlies. This is why Romans 12 says to the believer, "Be not fashioned according to this world (carnal mind), but be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Kingdom mind)." This person is free to renew their mind, but just has not. This is one reason this believer doesn't look any different than the unbeliever. Both live from the core assumptions of the carnal mind. This may be the person many have written about called "the almost Christian." Paul asks, "why do you pursue the futile elementary principles of this world?"

Then there is the person who is saved and their core assumptions have moved from the carnal to the Kingdom. This person instinctively appropriates their spiritual nature versus their carnal nature. They see their identity as "Christ in me" and see their sense of belonging as "in Christ". Their needs are satisfied regardless of their circumstances, because all they need has been bestowed on them by God through Christ. This is what Paul means when he writes "Bless be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," This means I give my worship, my affection to God who gave me Jesus. "Who hath blessed us" means that this God has bestowed on me something, but what? Oh, he then says, "with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places." God has bestowed on me everything He has in his home. Jesus said it this way, "do not fear, you Father has chosen gladly to give you His Kingdom."

What does it take for self to appropriate the Kingdom mind? This gets me to the final core assumptions of "the stealth self", truth and faith. Instinctively we assume that truth is either relative or absolute. Then we have an instinct to rely on faith or visible proof. The carnal assumptions are that truth is relative and faith is a weakness we have when we do not have enough physical evidence.

You can decide for yourself. But you first must be intentional to get in touch with "the stealth self." Its a challenge because the carnal is normal to you until its not. The carnal mind is what you do not question until your mind is renewed. Transformation must occur in "the stealth self" before it occurs in your general topical streams of consciousness and ultimately into your specific actions. Any other attempt at self help is a band aid, and ultimately futile.

Ponder this if you will .....

    

leadership that is "out of this world"

Has there ever been anything more highly studied and valued than leadership? There are many experts, so to speak, but not that many areas everyone agrees is true about leadership. Most of the problem with coming to ONE TRUTH about leadership is that we do not really agree on what is a measure of effective leadership. We do not agree on whether the emergence of someone as a leader or the performance of the team is the best way to determine whether someone is an good leader or not. We do seem to agree that effectiveness of a leader is related to how motivated and committed the followers are to the leader's vision. 

Here is a story that one expert used to communicate a truth about leadership. Read this and then I will give you a test on it.

Many years ago there was this leader who had a dedicated group of followers. After a special dinner one night, the leader did a most extraordinary thing. He took a towel and began to wash the feet of his followers. When he came to serve his most trusted follower, the leader got pushback from this follower. Somewhat amazed and trying to show his loyalty, the follower responded to the leader, “you can never wash my feet.” The leader smiled and said, “if I cannot wash your feet, then you cannot be my follower.” The follower then said back to the leader, “in that case, wash my whole body.” After the leader washed everyone’s feet, he said to them, “you all now have experienced what I have done for you, you now ought to go out and do so for others.”

 Some have called this a story about servant leadership, but the story has a very interesting point to make about leadership that is sometime missed in lieu of focusing on other points. See what you think. 

Please select from the following statements which you believe to be the main point of this story.

A. Leaders need to create a sense of duty in their followers
B. A good leader always leads by example
C. The followers who are most committed to the mission must first receive the heart of their leader

The correct answer is C. The differences in the answers may be very subtle, but it is profound. Of course it is good practice for leaders to show examples to others on how to do their jobs. A sense of duty can also motivate followers.

But real power occurs when the response is not from duty, but from a compelling will of the follower to act on behalf of the mission. The follower’s desire is the strongest when he or she has actually taken on the heart of the leader by first receiving the leader’s heart. 

Being a follower always involves a sense of obligation to the leader. But there is more than one way to be obligated. The story teller believes that your worldview of obligation must recognize the difference. In the leader-follower relationship a follower can feel obligated to the leader because he or she desires to meet the expectation of the leader. Or the follower can feel obligated to the leader because the follower feels exactly about the mission as the leader does. A compelling will to do something is freeing and purposeful and provides a more abundant and virtuous life than a desire that comes from viewing obligation as a requirement or a duty. One type of obligation responds to your internal voice “I should do this” and the other responds to your internal voice that says “I want to do this.” Research has shown that when obligation is an act of duty, people feel the burden of their commitment. But, there is no stress or burnout when followers make the heart of the leader their own by first receiving the leader’s unmerited service to them.

The question is whether a human can be a leader like this from their own qualities? Can someone be trained to lead like this? OR must we accept that a leader who can really serve must be one who has received the heart of the one true leader, who happens to have a leadership quality that is "out of this world".

Certainly worth pondering ......

Darn it, at some point everyone must choose!

I have been blogging about the challenge of absolute truth versus the prevailing cultural winds of relativism, where truth is subjective and up to individual interpretation. Even if you believe truth is relative and open to individual interpretation, there remains the challenge when two paths produce outcomes that contradict each other. That is, if one is true, then the other cannot be. 

For example, if someone tells me I can make ice by freezing water and someone else says I can make ice by boiling water, both cannot be right. So even if you are a relativist and believe people can choose the worldview that best fits them, you would still have a significant challenge in evaluating competing worldviews to determine which one is true for you.

What makes selecting among multiple alternatives even more challenging is that sometimes the choice among options is preferential and sometimes is competing. The choices of turning water to ice compete because one is right and the other wrong. Suppose there are two routes you can take to town from your home and each takes the same amount of time. Then the route you pick is called your preference because both get the same outcome. When two alternatives produce the same result, then your choice is call preferential. When two alternatives cannot both produce the same outcome, then your alternatives compete. When choice is competitive, then you must select the only one that is true to get the outcome you desire.

As we have discussed it is often easier to determine what is true in the physical world, like using a compass to find north. Likewise, we can get closer to truth about the body because the body is observable. We can experiment with the body to find it needs air, water and certain kinds of nourishment. While there are many things we do not know that makes the body well, like cures for cancer, we have generally accepted scientific practices to find and agree on which approach is true and we can align our lives, like diet and exercise, to those truths.

It gets more difficult to know which competing worldviews is true when it comes to matters of the soul and spirit because we cant observe these with physical senses. Throughout history theologians, philosophers, anthropologists, and other experts have made little if any progress to settle on what is true about creation, life, death, and eternity. When these debates involve competing worldviews where the two sides of a debate cannot both be true, even the relativist must pick.

Often stories are used by those in authority to communicate to others what they believe is the truth about the soul and spirit. However, in stories we must rely on the story teller for their concept of truth, and all story tellers do not agree. Lets illustrate this worldview challenge with two stories where if you believe the truth of one, you cannot the other and vice versa. 

The first example is a story about how a young man found abundant and virtuous life through extraordinary personal effort based on wisdom he receives from the King. In these stories the King is a supernatural being with wisdom and power. The theme in each story is not only about how to become perfect or righteous but also what we believe about the nature of the King’s power in that process. 

“once there was a successful business man who had 2 grandsons. The oldest grandson had gained the highest level of perfection or the highest level of abundant and virtuous life by his righteous living. The younger grandson, however, had been cast out because his life was highly flawed. He had offenses against the righteous people of his community. The younger grandson was depressed because he desired to be considered a righteous one but had remained a common man because of his offenses. 

Hearing of this man’s desire to overcome his flawed status and become righteous, the King, who had supernatural wisdom and insight, told him to persist at doing a few rituals. First, he was to sit outside the place where the righteous people gathered, face the east, and rub himself continually with a cloth the King gave him. While performing this ritual he was also to continually repeat the phrase “taking off impurities.” Soon the cloth became soiled with the impurities coming out from within the man. Through his supernatural power, the King then appeared to the man in a vision and said, 'the piece of cloth is not dirty only from the dust of the ground, but from the dust within yourself. In you are the dust of passion, the dust of ill-will, and the dust of ignorance of truth. Only by removing these can you achieve your goal, become righteous, and attain the perfected state of an abundant and virtuous life.' The man understood the message and continued meditating and in a short while became perfect, gaining extraordinary knowledge and mental powers. The King was often found giving an account of this young man’s achievements to other righteous ones in his kingdom reminding them that whoever is diligent and steadfast in his striving will certainly attain perfection."

Lets contrast this popular story that many people in many lands across the years have accepted as truth about living a blessed life with another ageless story of a woman who also found the blessed life, but in a different and opposite way.

"There was a King who had supernatural powers but was not well known and trusted by His subjects. He decided to send His son into His kingdom so everyone could see what a kind and generous King He was. His plan was to use a virgin girl and impregnate her so His son could be born by her and live among the people as one of them. He would be human for a time like them but would possess the King’s virtues so the humans could see Him better. Hopefully this would make his subjects adore and trust Him more. So He selects a virgin of his choice and appears to her in a vision telling her of His plan. The girl was fearful and anxious at first, but felt privileged that the King had chosen her for this part of his plan. Her life became very difficult. She was engaged at the time and had to endure the scorn of being pregnant and not married. All through her son’s life he was both admired and despised. His claims to be the King’s son irritated, threatened, and angered earthly authorities. Ultimately the woman witnessed the unjust persecution of her son by the earthly authorities, even to the point of them executing her son just because he claimed to be the King’s son. She lived a life with difficult circumstances, yet she is known even today for the song in her heart about how blessed she was."

This woman’s song gave her testimony about the truth of her abundant and virtuous life. She was blessed not because of what she did, but because of what was bestowed on her willfully by King. She loved and trusted the King and so she was made righteous by receiving his actions on her behalf, not by her own efforts of striving to be perfect.

Here we have two stories, both about how someone became righteous or perfect through interaction with a supernatural power. The King came to each person in a vision, but the message was different. In the first story the message was wisdom the man needed on how he could attain perfection through his own efforts. The second was about how the woman was made righteous or gained perfection not by anything she could do for herself, but by an action of the King. Two stories, both convey a truth about attaining the abundant and virtuous life. Yet the truths are not preferential because they contradict each other. In one case, perfection comes from a person’s extraordinary effort based on wisdom received from a King that had supernatural wisdom, but no will or power to bestow righteousness on the man. In the other case, blessing came by receiving and trusting the extraordinary actions of a super natural being who had the will and power to make the woman righteous.

Finding truth in what someone tells us can be a challenge. Regardless of whether you believe truth is relative or absolute, you have to pick between two options when they contradict each other to get the outcome you want. Yet, you cannot rely on scientific experiment. Even the relativist must have faith in the story teller and ultimately must choose. Darn it!! 

"If you don't get me, you don't get me"

I don't know about you, but this has been my mantra for as long as I can remember (and dementia hasn't set in yet). I have always been one who didn't go where I wasn't invited. Usually, either someone would understand me and want me around or they didn't and then I didn't want to be around.

This is not the way I chose to be, it is just the way i was made. Its called my personality. I am a self-determined person, highly motivated by intrinsics (enjoyment and purpose) and not overly interested in ingratiating myself to others (social exchange). This has worked well for me for many years in that I could take risks and initiatives without regards of failure. Like all of us, when we are acting consistently with how we are designed, we feel normal and less stress. To protect the right to feel this way, its common to say to others, "its just the way I am, take me or leave me."

There is a lot of positives to being true to yourself. It is one form of integrity, which means "unbroken state". People value integrity, so with humility, we feel proud of being true to who we are. But there's just one problem.

By withholding or withdrawing from people and situations that do not accommodate and appreciate my "true self", I may miss opportunities to contribute in ways I am not comfortable with. Forcing myself to engage people and situations may be an opportunity for my own growth too. The particular situation or person that doesn't fit me may be strategically placed in my path to take me to a better place. Staying in my comfort zone of normal is not a life of faith.

The reluctance to act outside of our personality can be problematic to experiencing a more abundant and virtuous life. There is a faith required to do what is not normal. Our personality is neither right nor wrong, it is just the way we are. Yet, failing to exploit opportunities that we cannot see because they do not fit our personality may be the greatest constraint to the life we were made to live. Faith is trusting something beyond our self, maybe the Author of Life, for our life's satisfaction and not relying on our personality. This will push us out to people and situations that "do not get us", but will get us (receive) because we give our self unnaturally to them.

This is a tough lesson but one certainly worth pondering ...