So, here's just some food for thought based on something my friend and I have been talking about this week: I'm tired of 20-somethings telling other 20-somethings what to do and couching it in terms of "life advice." And ok, I'm pretty sure I've probably been guilty of this a time or two even on this blog, so I admit it. But what I'm really talking about are the lists--the stress-inducing, judgmental lists that make readers feel like if they haven't reached certain milestones by 23, 25, 26, etc., they are failures. Maybe you know exactly what I'm talking about:
"25 Things You MUST Do Before You Turn 25."
"If You Haven't Done These Things by Your 30th Birthday, You'd Better Get Started!"
And the vague, "Things You Have to Do to Be an Adult."
Really? I must do a list of things compiled by a 25-year-old before I turn 25? I have to follow the advice of my peers (not older, wiser folks, mind you) if I want to consider myself to be a real adult? I need to be going through my twenties with a checklist in mind--made by people my age and younger? Now, I know you're probably thinking I'm reading way too much into this. Of course I don't have to follow those lists and of course I can ignore what people tell me I "have" to do. However, I think what I really find troubling is that articles like this, while new ones get published every day and blogged about and go viral on social media, are only scratching the surface of a deeper cultural epidemic among 20-somethings. That epidemic is a compulsion to one-up the life choices of everybody else with your own and then to act like you're superior to all your peers because of what you decided to do and that THEY NEED TO DO IT TOO. Like, right now:
"Why I Got Married at 22 and You Should Too"
"23 Things to Do Besides Getting Engaged When You're 23"
"Why You Should/ Shouldn't Go to Grad School"
"Why You Should Definitely Work in _____ (tech, the arts, etc.)"
So I need to do all those things because someone else my age has decided that that's the best way to live life? What happened to individual differences among people, different values, different goals, different hopes for the future, and different skills? I already know way too many of my peers who feel bad about their lives because they're struggling in this economy to find work and pay off debt, or they feel like they'll never be able to afford better than a studio apartment, or they feel discouraged and like failures because they're working so hard to make rent that they simply don't have the time or energy to be in a relationship right now. Or perhaps, they are married and have small children and a job and are doing their very best to keep up with a multitude of responsibilities, and the last thing they need is to get on the Internet and be told they shouldn't have gotten married yet, or should have waited to have kids, or their career is never going to advance because they're trying to have a family too. And really, at the core, isn't it arrogant to assume that others need to do exactly what you have done and to pursue the life you've pursued? Who are you to tell someone when/ if they should pursue a certain career, date, get married, buy a house, travel, have kids, etc.?
Let me put it to you this way: people my age have enough stress in our lives as it is, and enough expectations on us from 100 different sources. We don't need to keep reading about how we're not real adults or are doing life wrong because we haven't found a long-term "career" job yet or because we haven't had a serious relationship yet or because we decided to wait on/ skip grad school. Plus, I would rather take my serious life advice from people who have lived a lot more of it than me. I'm not saying 20-somethings can't have great insights on life, but if I'm really trying to make decisions for myself, I'd rather seek insights of people who are significantly older than me and have made certain choices and lived to tell about it.
And finally, I have enough expectations for myself as it is, and I don't need the added burden of tons of cultural expectations from people who don't even know me or know my life circumstances. I'm willing to bet this is also true for almost anyone my age. Here's what you MUST do before you turn 25: whatever you are good at and enjoy and feel called to do and want to do. No one else can make that decision for you. So, 20-somethings: Quit telling other 20-somethings what to do.
Showing posts with label today's culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label today's culture. Show all posts
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Is It Really Ignorance?
Do you want to know something that drives me really, really crazy? When people automatically assume that those who disagree with their opinions on hot-button social and political issues are ignorant and just need to "educate" themselves. Some typical examples are people who are absolutely convinced that anyone who disagrees with their political views, for any reason at all, not matter how deeply reasoned, is ignorant, and also people who believe that anyone who supports the death penalty just needs to "educate themselves on the realities" of capital punishment instead of "just blindly supporting it." Other examples are people who believe that anyone who thinks climate change is a real thing/ is not a real thing is "crazy" or those who send you endless links to websites or throw articles at you before a big election because you don't agree with their political views, and of course we know that all cases of disagreement are easily solved with a little education.
This post is not about these hot-button issues, and I believe people have the right to have their own opinions on these things, whatever they may be. But here's my thing. It is wrong to assume that because someone disagrees with your opinion on something that they disagree just because they haven't thought about the issues, or don't know about the issues, or don't know how to reason it out, or just need to get educated. I can't think of much in life that is more conceited than to believe that everyone who disagrees with you ONLY disagrees with you because they're ignorant, uneducated, or unable to reason--instead of considering the possibilities that they disagree with you because you're wrong, or because there are two or more very valid ways to look at the issue, or because they've thought about it even more than you have and still come down on the other side of the line because you don't have a monopoly on the "right" opinion. This is literally like saying to the world that everything you think is perfect and correct, and the only reason the whole world doesn't think so too is because they're not as smart as you or their analytical abilities aren't as good as yours. I mean, I know it's incredibly convenient to believe that the only thing standing between you and an entire world of people who see things exactly the way you do is a little education, a little more literature, and a few more debates--but it's flat-out wrong. And when phrased that way, doesn't it seem utterly ridiculous to act like education alone will do the trick, to act like everyone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with you is just ignorant (a politically correct term for stupid)? If it seems ridiculous, it's because it is. And I frankly don't want to debate with someone who thinks I'm stupid or who is too haughty to accept that my different opinion maybe--just maybe--is just as well-thought-out as their opinion.
We live in a culture that celebrates diversity more than we ever have before, and that is awesome, because people of all walks of life, races, and backgrounds are valuable and can teach us more about the world. But why is it that we can so easily celebrate diversity in people themselves, but not in their opinions? Wouldn't a true celebration of diversity necessarily include a celebration of diversity of opinion? But no, the more politically correct our world gets, the more we aggressively push out any opinions that differ from what we believe is the accepted majority and the so-called "right" opinion. And I, for one, am over it.
Here's my simple request. Quit hiding your opinion behind the guise of educational superiority, start assuming that there's a level playing field (because there almost always is), and dare to let your opinion out in the world on its own merits and not resting solely on your presumed superiority of reasoning. If it gets struck down, then it gets struck down. But I automatically distrust your opinion if you have to hide it behind claims that anyone who doesn't adhere to it just needs to study up on the issues and, well, stop being stupid. I mean, are you afraid to throw your opinion out in the ring with another well-thought-out opinion because you know it's going to lose? If so, maybe you need to re-think your viewpoint anyway. But that's not even the real problem I have. The real problem I have is that it seems like most people today believe that "another well-thought-out opinion" is something that, by definition, cannot exist--because, if it were well-reasoned and informed, it would be the same as theirs. Or so they think.
And while we're at it, maybe we should stop being so politically correct about this. If people really think that poor reasoning and ignorance lies behind anyone's disagreement with them, maybe they should just start calling a spade a spade and see how well that goes over. "I'm so conceited that I automatically assume that you don't agree with me just because you're stupid. Here's an article to read that might help." I would imagine that this sort of transparency might start eliminating this problem.
There's nothing wrong with thinking other people's opinions are wrong (or even with telling them so, if you can back it up and are polite about it). This is the essence of healthy debate. But give other people some CREDIT, y'all. They read too. They watch the news too. They know about the issues too. And maybe--gasp!--they still disagree with you. And the solution to that isn't education. It's respect.
This post is not about these hot-button issues, and I believe people have the right to have their own opinions on these things, whatever they may be. But here's my thing. It is wrong to assume that because someone disagrees with your opinion on something that they disagree just because they haven't thought about the issues, or don't know about the issues, or don't know how to reason it out, or just need to get educated. I can't think of much in life that is more conceited than to believe that everyone who disagrees with you ONLY disagrees with you because they're ignorant, uneducated, or unable to reason--instead of considering the possibilities that they disagree with you because you're wrong, or because there are two or more very valid ways to look at the issue, or because they've thought about it even more than you have and still come down on the other side of the line because you don't have a monopoly on the "right" opinion. This is literally like saying to the world that everything you think is perfect and correct, and the only reason the whole world doesn't think so too is because they're not as smart as you or their analytical abilities aren't as good as yours. I mean, I know it's incredibly convenient to believe that the only thing standing between you and an entire world of people who see things exactly the way you do is a little education, a little more literature, and a few more debates--but it's flat-out wrong. And when phrased that way, doesn't it seem utterly ridiculous to act like education alone will do the trick, to act like everyone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with you is just ignorant (a politically correct term for stupid)? If it seems ridiculous, it's because it is. And I frankly don't want to debate with someone who thinks I'm stupid or who is too haughty to accept that my different opinion maybe--just maybe--is just as well-thought-out as their opinion.
We live in a culture that celebrates diversity more than we ever have before, and that is awesome, because people of all walks of life, races, and backgrounds are valuable and can teach us more about the world. But why is it that we can so easily celebrate diversity in people themselves, but not in their opinions? Wouldn't a true celebration of diversity necessarily include a celebration of diversity of opinion? But no, the more politically correct our world gets, the more we aggressively push out any opinions that differ from what we believe is the accepted majority and the so-called "right" opinion. And I, for one, am over it.
Here's my simple request. Quit hiding your opinion behind the guise of educational superiority, start assuming that there's a level playing field (because there almost always is), and dare to let your opinion out in the world on its own merits and not resting solely on your presumed superiority of reasoning. If it gets struck down, then it gets struck down. But I automatically distrust your opinion if you have to hide it behind claims that anyone who doesn't adhere to it just needs to study up on the issues and, well, stop being stupid. I mean, are you afraid to throw your opinion out in the ring with another well-thought-out opinion because you know it's going to lose? If so, maybe you need to re-think your viewpoint anyway. But that's not even the real problem I have. The real problem I have is that it seems like most people today believe that "another well-thought-out opinion" is something that, by definition, cannot exist--because, if it were well-reasoned and informed, it would be the same as theirs. Or so they think.
And while we're at it, maybe we should stop being so politically correct about this. If people really think that poor reasoning and ignorance lies behind anyone's disagreement with them, maybe they should just start calling a spade a spade and see how well that goes over. "I'm so conceited that I automatically assume that you don't agree with me just because you're stupid. Here's an article to read that might help." I would imagine that this sort of transparency might start eliminating this problem.
There's nothing wrong with thinking other people's opinions are wrong (or even with telling them so, if you can back it up and are polite about it). This is the essence of healthy debate. But give other people some CREDIT, y'all. They read too. They watch the news too. They know about the issues too. And maybe--gasp!--they still disagree with you. And the solution to that isn't education. It's respect.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Is Our Social Media Addiction Infringing on Scripture's "Secret Place"?
We live in a world where we can literally be connected with individuals at nearly any place on the globe with the press of a button. Texting, Skype, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, email, and other resources are at our fingertips to communicate with almost anyone at any time, and we often, in very real ways, live our lives through these technological lenses . . .
Does the meal taste just as good if you don't take a picture of it and post it on Instagram first?
Is your life just as fun and exciting and filled with travel and accomplishments and good times with good friends as it appears on Facebook?
Have you ever done something just so you can tweet about it or update your status?
Why can't we talk about the tough stuff on social media too . . . like loneliness or depression or real struggles in real relationships?
Is it really possible for us to show our real selves on the Internet . . . #nofilter?
I have never thought about this before, but I've realized lately that we live out much of our spiritual lives entirely in the public eye because of social media and other technologies. We post about church and prayer and the Bible and charitable work and the ministries we support and what God's doing in our lives. We Instagram photos of megachurch services with thousands of people with their hands raised in praise--but only after choosing the perfect lighting, contrast, and cropping, of course. When we do something for God, my goodness, we let people know about it. Think pictures of college students surrounded by African children at an orphanage on their short-term mission trip, or statuses about what a great time you had volunteering for XYZ Christian humanitarian organization. I do it too, and I'm not condemning it in the slightest, but I think we need to stop and think about it just a little bit more.
Have we ever considered that maybe, by so much sharing and clicking and connecting and posting and tweeting, we're bringing the whole world into some areas of our lives that were meant to remain intimate--just us and the Lord? That we're cheapening sacred moments by turning them into statuses? Because some things are meant to be between you and God, in the secret place.
Consider Psalm 91: "He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty." Or Isaiah 45: "I will give you hidden treasures, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am the Lord, the God of Israel, who summons you by name." And even Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount commanded His listeners not to tell the world about everything they do for God: don't let everyone know when you're fasting, don't pray on the street corners where everyone can hear you, and when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. In other words, sometimes we need to shut up about it! I read that verse in Matthew last night and my first thought was, "Oh. I think I kind of forgot all about this." God cares about your heart, not what you tell the world online. It is far better to do something for God that only you and He know about it than to do something for Him primarily so that you can tell the world all about what you did. And maybe, at an even more basic level, we need to stop posting so we can start experiencing. Put down your iPhone so you can join others in worship. Forget the camera for a day so you can really look in those children's eyes and share with them how much God loves them. Don't live your life in retrospect through the photographic and social media-driven trail we can create--live it as it happens. It's a whole lot better that way.
I don't want to miss out on these secret moments with God. And I don't want you to miss out on them either. Moments where He whispers His grace and mercy to your heart, and yours alone. Where He reminds you of his promises, holds your tears in his hands, and sings songs of joy over you. Moments where you can laugh and cry with God. Those things aren't always meant to be shared. There is much to be said for the deep and heartfelt and passionate intimacy of the secret place, for life experiences we share with God and no one else, for dreams and secrets and stories and confessions that only He knows about. He desires intimacy with you, and I believe that intimacy can be affected in real ways by our obsession with sharing every detail of our lives with the world. Sometimes you shouldn't share it, because it is your treasure to keep. Don't bring Facebook or your Twitter account or your smartphone into the secret place. It's secret for a reason. Don't let technology compromise your ability to be alone with God; your ability to do things for God just because you love Him, not because you think they'll make you look good; and your ability to experience life with Christ as it unfolds, not later. Your relationship with God is not about showmanship or competition with others or being better than the next person.
May we not forego the blessings of the secret place because we feel compelled to share it with the world.
Does the meal taste just as good if you don't take a picture of it and post it on Instagram first?
Is your life just as fun and exciting and filled with travel and accomplishments and good times with good friends as it appears on Facebook?
Have you ever done something just so you can tweet about it or update your status?
Why can't we talk about the tough stuff on social media too . . . like loneliness or depression or real struggles in real relationships?
Is it really possible for us to show our real selves on the Internet . . . #nofilter?
I have never thought about this before, but I've realized lately that we live out much of our spiritual lives entirely in the public eye because of social media and other technologies. We post about church and prayer and the Bible and charitable work and the ministries we support and what God's doing in our lives. We Instagram photos of megachurch services with thousands of people with their hands raised in praise--but only after choosing the perfect lighting, contrast, and cropping, of course. When we do something for God, my goodness, we let people know about it. Think pictures of college students surrounded by African children at an orphanage on their short-term mission trip, or statuses about what a great time you had volunteering for XYZ Christian humanitarian organization. I do it too, and I'm not condemning it in the slightest, but I think we need to stop and think about it just a little bit more.
Have we ever considered that maybe, by so much sharing and clicking and connecting and posting and tweeting, we're bringing the whole world into some areas of our lives that were meant to remain intimate--just us and the Lord? That we're cheapening sacred moments by turning them into statuses? Because some things are meant to be between you and God, in the secret place.
Consider Psalm 91: "He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty." Or Isaiah 45: "I will give you hidden treasures, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am the Lord, the God of Israel, who summons you by name." And even Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount commanded His listeners not to tell the world about everything they do for God: don't let everyone know when you're fasting, don't pray on the street corners where everyone can hear you, and when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. In other words, sometimes we need to shut up about it! I read that verse in Matthew last night and my first thought was, "Oh. I think I kind of forgot all about this." God cares about your heart, not what you tell the world online. It is far better to do something for God that only you and He know about it than to do something for Him primarily so that you can tell the world all about what you did. And maybe, at an even more basic level, we need to stop posting so we can start experiencing. Put down your iPhone so you can join others in worship. Forget the camera for a day so you can really look in those children's eyes and share with them how much God loves them. Don't live your life in retrospect through the photographic and social media-driven trail we can create--live it as it happens. It's a whole lot better that way.
I don't want to miss out on these secret moments with God. And I don't want you to miss out on them either. Moments where He whispers His grace and mercy to your heart, and yours alone. Where He reminds you of his promises, holds your tears in his hands, and sings songs of joy over you. Moments where you can laugh and cry with God. Those things aren't always meant to be shared. There is much to be said for the deep and heartfelt and passionate intimacy of the secret place, for life experiences we share with God and no one else, for dreams and secrets and stories and confessions that only He knows about. He desires intimacy with you, and I believe that intimacy can be affected in real ways by our obsession with sharing every detail of our lives with the world. Sometimes you shouldn't share it, because it is your treasure to keep. Don't bring Facebook or your Twitter account or your smartphone into the secret place. It's secret for a reason. Don't let technology compromise your ability to be alone with God; your ability to do things for God just because you love Him, not because you think they'll make you look good; and your ability to experience life with Christ as it unfolds, not later. Your relationship with God is not about showmanship or competition with others or being better than the next person.
May we not forego the blessings of the secret place because we feel compelled to share it with the world.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
I Don't Want to Be in a Relationship.
I know that this puts me in a category with what seems like about 1% or less of people my age: Not only am I not in a relationship right now, but I have absolutely no desire to be in one. Not now, and not for a LONG time in the future.
I love being single. That's not sarcasm at all--I mean, I really love it. I love that I can make big plans for my future and be able to pursue what I feel led to pursue without being tied down by someone else's plans. I'm young, and I love that I don't have to fit my life into someone else's. I love that I can do what I want to do on Friday night, whether it's going out with friends or staying in and reading a book. I love being able to go where I want and do what I want without having to check in with anyone. I love that I can spend time with any friends that I want, male or female, without feeling guilty about it or worried that my significant other won't like my friends. And with no offense meant toward anyone, I guess I just don't want to spend every waking moment with one person right now. Most girls I know who are in relationships, for example, have dinner with their boyfriends EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. I just don't want to spend that much time with one person right now.
But my culture makes me feel very guilty about loving being single. I'm not supposed to love it. I'm supposed to hate it and be willing to do just about anything to be in a relationship. It is not assumed that single people have full, complete lives (but I would very much like to challenge that assumption). It is assumed that their lives are "unfinished," if you will, searching, and sometimes desperate. Just in terms of cultural norms, when people ask me if I'm dating someone, I'm not really allowed to say the truth: "No, I'm not dating anyone because I love being single." No, you're expected to give people very clear, logical reasons as to why exactly you aren't dating, and a clear timeline of when you expect to start dating in the future. Hence my classic excuse, aided by the fact that I went straight from college to law school: "I'm waiting until I finish school." And on top of making us single ladies feel like we can't possibly not be planning to date someone in the very clearly defined future, I know many people would dismiss every reason I just gave for loving singleness as being totally selfish. While I do understand how it could seem that way to some, at the heart of it, why is it selfish to pursue the lifestyle you want? Most of the single people I know still care deeply about others, are invested in their friendships, active in their communities, successful in their work, etc. They're giving and contributing and mentoring and investing and making a difference. They are not selfish simply because they're pursuing the life they want in terms of their relationships--just like it's not fair to tell people who are in relationships that they're selfish just because of that fact.
Just as people have the right to pursue a relationship if it makes them happy, they should also be able to not pursue a relationship if that's the lifestyle they want, without having other people wonder what's wrong with them and when they'll come around and realize that they need to Start Dating Right Now. And don't even get me started on the offensive articles out there about "why you're still single" that accuse single people of being weird, immature, unable to take care of themselves, and socially awkward. I mean, really? Moreover, I'm tired of the idea that single people aren't really "adults" yet, and I don't even know where this notion came from. It's not as if getting a boyfriend or girlfriend suddenly transforms you into an adult, or as if single people aren't paying their bills, working really hard, and taking care of themselves just like any other adults.
Don't get me wrong. I am delighted for my friends who are happily dating, engaged, and married (and a couple of my friends have really wonderful marriages and I think, someday, I probably will want a marriage like theirs). I am just as happy for my friends who, like me, are happily single. But here's a little secret: I'm not waiting to finish school before I start dating. That's an excuse because I know most people won't be ok with the real answer. I'm not dating because I don't want to be dating! (I'm laughing right now just imagining the responses I might get to that if I said that to people when I go home over Thanksgiving break!) I highly doubt that in 7 months when I graduate I'll suddenly want to start dating (or in a year, or a year and a half, etc., but that's neither here nor there). Of course I don't know what will happen in the future, but based on the fact that I've been very happily single for my entire adult life so far, I would definitely anticipate that I'll probably be perfectly happy working for a few years before I even want to think about dating. So what if I'm 27, or 30, or 32, and not in a relationship! If I'm happy and doing what I think God wants me to do, why does my personal relationship status even matter to anybody else?
I know that that's not acceptable to a lot of people. I know a lot of you all may be reading this and wondering who this weird girl is who just readily admitted that I've never even been in a real relationship and that's perfectly fine with me. But ultimately, we as a culture need to stop judging other people's choices to be, or not to be, in relationships, because it's offensive, and we need to just stop already. Anyway, that's my two cents. Thoughts?
I love being single. That's not sarcasm at all--I mean, I really love it. I love that I can make big plans for my future and be able to pursue what I feel led to pursue without being tied down by someone else's plans. I'm young, and I love that I don't have to fit my life into someone else's. I love that I can do what I want to do on Friday night, whether it's going out with friends or staying in and reading a book. I love being able to go where I want and do what I want without having to check in with anyone. I love that I can spend time with any friends that I want, male or female, without feeling guilty about it or worried that my significant other won't like my friends. And with no offense meant toward anyone, I guess I just don't want to spend every waking moment with one person right now. Most girls I know who are in relationships, for example, have dinner with their boyfriends EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. I just don't want to spend that much time with one person right now.
But my culture makes me feel very guilty about loving being single. I'm not supposed to love it. I'm supposed to hate it and be willing to do just about anything to be in a relationship. It is not assumed that single people have full, complete lives (but I would very much like to challenge that assumption). It is assumed that their lives are "unfinished," if you will, searching, and sometimes desperate. Just in terms of cultural norms, when people ask me if I'm dating someone, I'm not really allowed to say the truth: "No, I'm not dating anyone because I love being single." No, you're expected to give people very clear, logical reasons as to why exactly you aren't dating, and a clear timeline of when you expect to start dating in the future. Hence my classic excuse, aided by the fact that I went straight from college to law school: "I'm waiting until I finish school." And on top of making us single ladies feel like we can't possibly not be planning to date someone in the very clearly defined future, I know many people would dismiss every reason I just gave for loving singleness as being totally selfish. While I do understand how it could seem that way to some, at the heart of it, why is it selfish to pursue the lifestyle you want? Most of the single people I know still care deeply about others, are invested in their friendships, active in their communities, successful in their work, etc. They're giving and contributing and mentoring and investing and making a difference. They are not selfish simply because they're pursuing the life they want in terms of their relationships--just like it's not fair to tell people who are in relationships that they're selfish just because of that fact.
Just as people have the right to pursue a relationship if it makes them happy, they should also be able to not pursue a relationship if that's the lifestyle they want, without having other people wonder what's wrong with them and when they'll come around and realize that they need to Start Dating Right Now. And don't even get me started on the offensive articles out there about "why you're still single" that accuse single people of being weird, immature, unable to take care of themselves, and socially awkward. I mean, really? Moreover, I'm tired of the idea that single people aren't really "adults" yet, and I don't even know where this notion came from. It's not as if getting a boyfriend or girlfriend suddenly transforms you into an adult, or as if single people aren't paying their bills, working really hard, and taking care of themselves just like any other adults.
Don't get me wrong. I am delighted for my friends who are happily dating, engaged, and married (and a couple of my friends have really wonderful marriages and I think, someday, I probably will want a marriage like theirs). I am just as happy for my friends who, like me, are happily single. But here's a little secret: I'm not waiting to finish school before I start dating. That's an excuse because I know most people won't be ok with the real answer. I'm not dating because I don't want to be dating! (I'm laughing right now just imagining the responses I might get to that if I said that to people when I go home over Thanksgiving break!) I highly doubt that in 7 months when I graduate I'll suddenly want to start dating (or in a year, or a year and a half, etc., but that's neither here nor there). Of course I don't know what will happen in the future, but based on the fact that I've been very happily single for my entire adult life so far, I would definitely anticipate that I'll probably be perfectly happy working for a few years before I even want to think about dating. So what if I'm 27, or 30, or 32, and not in a relationship! If I'm happy and doing what I think God wants me to do, why does my personal relationship status even matter to anybody else?
I know that that's not acceptable to a lot of people. I know a lot of you all may be reading this and wondering who this weird girl is who just readily admitted that I've never even been in a real relationship and that's perfectly fine with me. But ultimately, we as a culture need to stop judging other people's choices to be, or not to be, in relationships, because it's offensive, and we need to just stop already. Anyway, that's my two cents. Thoughts?
Friday, April 12, 2013
Social Media: Desperately Seeking Influence
My generation is the generation of social media, and it's kind of amazing to me how some people seem to live more of their lives through these websites than they do in reality: constantly posting every little thing on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, you name it, and then scrambling to check and see if any more people "liked" or commented on or retweeted their latest pictures and updates. And I see people acting on Facebook in ways they probably wouldn't act in real life: yes, sometimes tearing people down and being jerks (but that's a topic for another post), but also bragging about their lives like no other, constantly updating the world on everything they've accomplished just to elicit praise from others. There's nothing wrong with posting your exciting news on Facebook or Twitter, and I'm not saying you should never share these things with others online, but I think there's a pretty clear line between sharing and oversharing. And some people post obviously boastful items so often that everyone more or less gets tired of liking them and commenting on them--leaving those people, metaphorically speaking, walking around with their hands raised for the high five that never comes. And it makes me think that part of becoming mature is learning to let others honor you first instead of always trying to honor yourself.
But why, then, do we act this way in our carefully crafted online worlds? Why is it so easy to become addicted to the rush of posting every tidbit of our lives for the obvious purpose of receiving more accolades--accolades we'd feel pretty silly about asking for in real life?
And the problem runs deeper than just having others thinking your ego's a little too big. You can receive the recognition you want at first, but eventually it fades away. Of course, this is true for all of life, not just the personas we forge on the Internet, but it's especially obvious in the online context, where people can so easily become absorbed in things that don't really have any lasting significance and can't really offer them any lasting fulfillment. The high inevitably fades, and then we rush to find more recognition, or success, or power, like an addict desperately seeking another fix, and then we race to tell the world about it online. This validation seeking, this online posturing for position and influence, points to a heartbreaking epidemic of chronic emptiness in our culture, one that leaves people clutching vices of all kinds just to escape their hollow dissatisfaction with life. These vices aren't limited to our desperate quest to find approval in the virtual world--they can really be anything we grasp in an attempt to escape, even for a little while, from the emptiness that pours out of a life that seems to lack an overarching purpose.
But you're just trying to escape, and then you realize that you're a great escape artist, but yet you're never free. And the reason you strive so hard to craft a venerable virtual identity is because, just like everybody else, you crave influence. No one wants their life to mimic the drop of rain that falls into the sea and is gone. We want our lives to be like the pebble that, though small and inconsequential when you hold it in your hand, leaves ever-widening ripples when it contacts the surface of the water. We all want our lives to have that ripple effect, to have a wide sphere of influence, but it is so easy to be fooled by mirages of purpose that soon disappear.
So how do we respond to an addiction born of emptiness and the ubiquitous craving for influence? How can we stop trying to escape but yet discover that we are truly free? I think it starts by realizing that each one of us has a unique role to fill and a unique purpose that God specifically designed with you and me in mind, and with knowing that He will fulfill that purpose for us. It starts by understanding that the identity we have in Christ--as beloved, as valuable, as righteous, as significant, as worthy--is worth far more than any other identity we could create for ourselves. And it starts by acknowledging that we are not working alone to have influence--we have God working through us, empowering us and giving us the grace and strength to carry out the callings He has placed on our lives. Once we start realizing who we really are--worthy, loved, valuable--the crazed pursuit of recognition, honor, and validation can fade into the background as we start to see that who we really are can free us from who others think we are.
But why, then, do we act this way in our carefully crafted online worlds? Why is it so easy to become addicted to the rush of posting every tidbit of our lives for the obvious purpose of receiving more accolades--accolades we'd feel pretty silly about asking for in real life?
And the problem runs deeper than just having others thinking your ego's a little too big. You can receive the recognition you want at first, but eventually it fades away. Of course, this is true for all of life, not just the personas we forge on the Internet, but it's especially obvious in the online context, where people can so easily become absorbed in things that don't really have any lasting significance and can't really offer them any lasting fulfillment. The high inevitably fades, and then we rush to find more recognition, or success, or power, like an addict desperately seeking another fix, and then we race to tell the world about it online. This validation seeking, this online posturing for position and influence, points to a heartbreaking epidemic of chronic emptiness in our culture, one that leaves people clutching vices of all kinds just to escape their hollow dissatisfaction with life. These vices aren't limited to our desperate quest to find approval in the virtual world--they can really be anything we grasp in an attempt to escape, even for a little while, from the emptiness that pours out of a life that seems to lack an overarching purpose.
But you're just trying to escape, and then you realize that you're a great escape artist, but yet you're never free. And the reason you strive so hard to craft a venerable virtual identity is because, just like everybody else, you crave influence. No one wants their life to mimic the drop of rain that falls into the sea and is gone. We want our lives to be like the pebble that, though small and inconsequential when you hold it in your hand, leaves ever-widening ripples when it contacts the surface of the water. We all want our lives to have that ripple effect, to have a wide sphere of influence, but it is so easy to be fooled by mirages of purpose that soon disappear.
So how do we respond to an addiction born of emptiness and the ubiquitous craving for influence? How can we stop trying to escape but yet discover that we are truly free? I think it starts by realizing that each one of us has a unique role to fill and a unique purpose that God specifically designed with you and me in mind, and with knowing that He will fulfill that purpose for us. It starts by understanding that the identity we have in Christ--as beloved, as valuable, as righteous, as significant, as worthy--is worth far more than any other identity we could create for ourselves. And it starts by acknowledging that we are not working alone to have influence--we have God working through us, empowering us and giving us the grace and strength to carry out the callings He has placed on our lives. Once we start realizing who we really are--worthy, loved, valuable--the crazed pursuit of recognition, honor, and validation can fade into the background as we start to see that who we really are can free us from who others think we are.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
What We Can Learn from Doomsday Preppers
I'm sure most of you are aware that many people are saying the world is going to end this Friday, and many more are simply saying that it will be "doomsday" or that life as we know it will never be the same after that date, even if human life does go on. Other people fear a more general "doomsday" taking place at some unspecified time, for any number of reasons, and have made it their mission in life to prepare for it--stocking up food and water, preparing shelter that will withstand crises, and more. (The popular TV show "Doomsday Preppers" will tell you more about these kinds of people and what they do to get ready for the end of the world).
Now, I know a lot of people write the "preppers" off as crazy. But the fact is, even if their methods are wrong, they ARE focused on always being ready for whatever comes. Because you know, we're all going to die someday. Sure, it could happen on December 21st. It could happen in 2064. Or it could happen today. The point is, we don't--and can't--know. But there is great value in doing the occasional assessment of your life to determine what kind of legacy YOU would leave if you died today. Bomb-proof bunkers and stockpiles of distilled water set aside, are you ready?
Do the people you love know that you love them? Do you have at least one friend who makes you laugh, one who lets you cry, and one who tells you the truth even when you don't want to hear it? Have you found something to pour your heart and energy into that will outlive you? Are you caring for the world and the people in it? Are there people you need to forgive? Regrets you need to release?
Is there a goal or passion you've always wanted to pursue and haven't? Are you living in yesterday or tomorrow more than today? Do you generally have time for the Really Important Stuff: like going to your daughter's dance recital, listening to your grandparents tell stories about their childhood, and being a shoulder to cry on for a friend? Are you learning, inspiring, and being kind? Taking risks?
Are you more concerned with doing well, or doing good?
What will be your legacy?
Just some food for thought.
Now, I know a lot of people write the "preppers" off as crazy. But the fact is, even if their methods are wrong, they ARE focused on always being ready for whatever comes. Because you know, we're all going to die someday. Sure, it could happen on December 21st. It could happen in 2064. Or it could happen today. The point is, we don't--and can't--know. But there is great value in doing the occasional assessment of your life to determine what kind of legacy YOU would leave if you died today. Bomb-proof bunkers and stockpiles of distilled water set aside, are you ready?
Do the people you love know that you love them? Do you have at least one friend who makes you laugh, one who lets you cry, and one who tells you the truth even when you don't want to hear it? Have you found something to pour your heart and energy into that will outlive you? Are you caring for the world and the people in it? Are there people you need to forgive? Regrets you need to release?
Is there a goal or passion you've always wanted to pursue and haven't? Are you living in yesterday or tomorrow more than today? Do you generally have time for the Really Important Stuff: like going to your daughter's dance recital, listening to your grandparents tell stories about their childhood, and being a shoulder to cry on for a friend? Are you learning, inspiring, and being kind? Taking risks?
Are you more concerned with doing well, or doing good?
What will be your legacy?
Just some food for thought.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
The Twilight/ Heaven Connection
With the recent release of the latest and last Twilight movie, Breaking Dawn Part 2, a whole slew of new articles have been cropping up that talk about the Twilight series and what it does to teenage girls. How it makes them feel about love. How it's similar to porn (I think that one's a long, long shot). All of its subtle and not-so-subtle implications about love, sex, marriage, and gender.
I watched all these movies, enjoyed the attractiveness of Taylor Lautner on screen, read most of the books, and really enjoyed them for what it's worth, but I do understand why many parents have chosen not to let their daughters get involved with this series. The movies' views of romance and sex are not always the best, and I'm not a huge fan of how Bella embraces the mindset of losing herself completely in a guy--that's an example adolescent girls could probably do without. However, I highly doubt that I'm the first to suggest this, but I see something different and much deeper in these movies. To me, they're one of the clearest representations we have in modern pop culture of the longing in the human heart for eternity.
Think about it. One of the major premises of the movies is that the vampires are (virtually) indestructible and ageless, and with the exception of the few who die over the course of the series, they basically live forever. They are impossibly strong, fast, powerful, and beautiful (and that's yet another social commentary right there--who doesn't long to be like that?) Because they live forever, Bella has to become like them, stopping her natural aging in its tracks so it won't hinder her relationship with Edward, forever seventeen.
I really think one of the reasons these movies are so popular is because they stir up and awaken the often-suppressed longing for immortality that nearly everyone has. They make you think, "What if I could live forever?" They invoke a deep craving for eternity, one of the most primal, unassailable parts of the human heart. As the Bible tells us, God Himself is the one who has planted eternity in the human heart. And He is the one who has made a way for us to embrace eternity and spend it with Him, truly living forever in the most fulfilling, exhilarating, joyful life imaginable.
I'm a big believer that any type of pop culture can become a forum for sharing the Gospel with others, and that there's some redemptive element in virtually all popular literature and movies, if you're willing to look for it. Have the Twilight movies awakened in you--or in someone you know--a longing for eternity that you didn't even know you had? Be inspired by them to find out more about that longing and the One who gave it to you. In so doing, you just may find that these films have that redemptive quality after all.
I watched all these movies, enjoyed the attractiveness of Taylor Lautner on screen, read most of the books, and really enjoyed them for what it's worth, but I do understand why many parents have chosen not to let their daughters get involved with this series. The movies' views of romance and sex are not always the best, and I'm not a huge fan of how Bella embraces the mindset of losing herself completely in a guy--that's an example adolescent girls could probably do without. However, I highly doubt that I'm the first to suggest this, but I see something different and much deeper in these movies. To me, they're one of the clearest representations we have in modern pop culture of the longing in the human heart for eternity.
Think about it. One of the major premises of the movies is that the vampires are (virtually) indestructible and ageless, and with the exception of the few who die over the course of the series, they basically live forever. They are impossibly strong, fast, powerful, and beautiful (and that's yet another social commentary right there--who doesn't long to be like that?) Because they live forever, Bella has to become like them, stopping her natural aging in its tracks so it won't hinder her relationship with Edward, forever seventeen.
I really think one of the reasons these movies are so popular is because they stir up and awaken the often-suppressed longing for immortality that nearly everyone has. They make you think, "What if I could live forever?" They invoke a deep craving for eternity, one of the most primal, unassailable parts of the human heart. As the Bible tells us, God Himself is the one who has planted eternity in the human heart. And He is the one who has made a way for us to embrace eternity and spend it with Him, truly living forever in the most fulfilling, exhilarating, joyful life imaginable.
I'm a big believer that any type of pop culture can become a forum for sharing the Gospel with others, and that there's some redemptive element in virtually all popular literature and movies, if you're willing to look for it. Have the Twilight movies awakened in you--or in someone you know--a longing for eternity that you didn't even know you had? Be inspired by them to find out more about that longing and the One who gave it to you. In so doing, you just may find that these films have that redemptive quality after all.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Reading for Today
I know I am *supposed to be working* on my two papers due on Wednesday and not posting anything on this blog till they are done . . . but please read this article called "The Real Evangelical Disaster." It's about the inexcusable conflation/ confusion of religion and politics in American culture. It is the best thing I've read in a long time, and it hits the nail on the head.
Happy Monday . . . and back to paper writing for me. More substantive updates coming soon, I promise!
Happy Monday . . . and back to paper writing for me. More substantive updates coming soon, I promise!
Sunday, July 22, 2012
The Great Chick-Fil-A Boycott
If you've been anywhere near social media this past week, you've probably heard about how Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-Fil-A, recently indicated his own, and his company's, support of the traditional family. He stated, “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business." In addition, Chick-Fil-A financially supports various organizations that bolster the traditional family unit. The CEO has previously said, "While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees.”
In response, thousands of people have boycotted his restaurant chain and are encouraging others, often vehemently, to follow suit. One disgusted individual proclaimed, "Their chicken is deep-fried in hate." Many others said that they would no longer patronize the restaurants, and several said, "And I will make sure that no one I know eats there either!" The Boston mayor is even attempting to ban Chick-Fil-A in the city.
But let's think about this for a minute. Chick-Fil-A didn't make a statement that they were going to start refusing to serve LGBT individuals in their restaurants. They didn't say that they were going to stop hiring these individuals, or that they were going to discriminate against them in promotions or selection for franchises. They simply give money to groups which support traditional family units, just as other organizations support gay marriage or gay- and lesbian-headed families. Neither are "hate groups." They just choose to offer support to different causes, as they have every right to do. An endorsement of one cause doesn't have to be an attack on another, nor can it automatically constitute discrimination. Just because your business funds a children's charity doesn't mean you "hate" the elderly. Just because I shop at Kroger doesn't mean I "hate" Publix.
No, the CEO of Chick-Fil-A simply made a public statement of his opinion, rooted in his understanding of family values and in his religious beliefs. Was it unpopular? Sure. Is he right to have that opinion? That's a conclusion each person has to reach on their own. But this is America, and Dan Cathy has as much of a right to state his opinion as you and I do. We may not like it or agree with it and we may even think it's wrong and inappropriate, but if we want to take away from others the right to state their opinions, then we had better be prepared for them to try to take that same right away from us. If the restaurant itself is not discriminating in any way, then the boycotters are boycotting because someone dared to share an unpopular opinion. They are really boycotting because someone exercised their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion. That is deeply unsettling to me, and it should be unsettling to you too, no matter where we stand in the debate.
Are we sure that we're ready to essentially start boycotting the exercise of fundamental freedoms? Are we sure that we're ready to start saying, "If your opinion isn't mine, you have no right to share it"? Because if we say it to others, then they get to say it to us too. A freedom of speech that applies only to popular opinions, and not to more controversial ones, is no freedom at all. Freedom of speech can't only extend to saying the "right" things. Freedom of religion can't only extend to believing the "right" things. For that matter, freedom of religion can't only extend to believing what I believe or what you believe.
I completely understand that many, if not most, people today disagree that traditional marriage is the only way to go. However, just as they have the right to share their opinion, so too does anyone who thinks differently. The right to an opinion cannot be one-sided, or it's not going to be a right for very long. Tolerance for the views of others cannot and should not only go one way. I want the next generation to grow up in a nation where they still have the right to disagree and to find respectful ways to present unpopular opinions--without automatically being labeled "hateful." Disagreeing with something in an appropriate way is not synonymous with hate (if you want to read more about that, check out this post I wrote a while ago). No matter what I think, I cannot ask to have a right to my own opinion while simultaneously trying to shut down others who express their own opinions. If I did that, I could--and should--be called a hypocrite. It's human nature to try to convert others to your way of thinking. But you can't trample on their rights to have an opinion as you do so.
I want future generations to grow up in an America where they can support and believe what they truly think is right, wholesome, good, and appropriate--whether they choose to verbally and financially support causes that promote gay marriage or causes that support the traditional family. Whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. Whatever their religion or political affiliation may be. Yes, I have firm opinions on these topics, just as most people do, and there's nothing wrong with respectfully and knowledgeably trying to help others see why you believe that certain causes or opinions are right. Nor do I think that people should just brazenly follow their own paths and think and do as they see fit without regard to what is morally right, compassionate, and just. But we cannot, in our pursuit to believe what we want to believe, take away the rights of others to believe what they think is right.
It's one thing to boycott a business for genuine discrimination. But to lash out at people or organizations for having an unpopular opinion? That makes me fear for the future of constitutional rights in this country. Trying to take away other people's rights to have an opinion is not a very effective way to inspire people to listen to your own. And that's true no matter where you stand in the great Chick-Fil-A debate.
In response, thousands of people have boycotted his restaurant chain and are encouraging others, often vehemently, to follow suit. One disgusted individual proclaimed, "Their chicken is deep-fried in hate." Many others said that they would no longer patronize the restaurants, and several said, "And I will make sure that no one I know eats there either!" The Boston mayor is even attempting to ban Chick-Fil-A in the city.
But let's think about this for a minute. Chick-Fil-A didn't make a statement that they were going to start refusing to serve LGBT individuals in their restaurants. They didn't say that they were going to stop hiring these individuals, or that they were going to discriminate against them in promotions or selection for franchises. They simply give money to groups which support traditional family units, just as other organizations support gay marriage or gay- and lesbian-headed families. Neither are "hate groups." They just choose to offer support to different causes, as they have every right to do. An endorsement of one cause doesn't have to be an attack on another, nor can it automatically constitute discrimination. Just because your business funds a children's charity doesn't mean you "hate" the elderly. Just because I shop at Kroger doesn't mean I "hate" Publix.
No, the CEO of Chick-Fil-A simply made a public statement of his opinion, rooted in his understanding of family values and in his religious beliefs. Was it unpopular? Sure. Is he right to have that opinion? That's a conclusion each person has to reach on their own. But this is America, and Dan Cathy has as much of a right to state his opinion as you and I do. We may not like it or agree with it and we may even think it's wrong and inappropriate, but if we want to take away from others the right to state their opinions, then we had better be prepared for them to try to take that same right away from us. If the restaurant itself is not discriminating in any way, then the boycotters are boycotting because someone dared to share an unpopular opinion. They are really boycotting because someone exercised their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion. That is deeply unsettling to me, and it should be unsettling to you too, no matter where we stand in the debate.
Are we sure that we're ready to essentially start boycotting the exercise of fundamental freedoms? Are we sure that we're ready to start saying, "If your opinion isn't mine, you have no right to share it"? Because if we say it to others, then they get to say it to us too. A freedom of speech that applies only to popular opinions, and not to more controversial ones, is no freedom at all. Freedom of speech can't only extend to saying the "right" things. Freedom of religion can't only extend to believing the "right" things. For that matter, freedom of religion can't only extend to believing what I believe or what you believe.
I completely understand that many, if not most, people today disagree that traditional marriage is the only way to go. However, just as they have the right to share their opinion, so too does anyone who thinks differently. The right to an opinion cannot be one-sided, or it's not going to be a right for very long. Tolerance for the views of others cannot and should not only go one way. I want the next generation to grow up in a nation where they still have the right to disagree and to find respectful ways to present unpopular opinions--without automatically being labeled "hateful." Disagreeing with something in an appropriate way is not synonymous with hate (if you want to read more about that, check out this post I wrote a while ago). No matter what I think, I cannot ask to have a right to my own opinion while simultaneously trying to shut down others who express their own opinions. If I did that, I could--and should--be called a hypocrite. It's human nature to try to convert others to your way of thinking. But you can't trample on their rights to have an opinion as you do so.
I want future generations to grow up in an America where they can support and believe what they truly think is right, wholesome, good, and appropriate--whether they choose to verbally and financially support causes that promote gay marriage or causes that support the traditional family. Whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. Whatever their religion or political affiliation may be. Yes, I have firm opinions on these topics, just as most people do, and there's nothing wrong with respectfully and knowledgeably trying to help others see why you believe that certain causes or opinions are right. Nor do I think that people should just brazenly follow their own paths and think and do as they see fit without regard to what is morally right, compassionate, and just. But we cannot, in our pursuit to believe what we want to believe, take away the rights of others to believe what they think is right.
It's one thing to boycott a business for genuine discrimination. But to lash out at people or organizations for having an unpopular opinion? That makes me fear for the future of constitutional rights in this country. Trying to take away other people's rights to have an opinion is not a very effective way to inspire people to listen to your own. And that's true no matter where you stand in the great Chick-Fil-A debate.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Validation Addiction
Hi, my name is Lauren and I'm addicted to validation and approval from others. There, I admit it. And I'm willing to bet you're addicted to it too, since most people are. Maybe I need a 12-step program . . . well, really, maybe we all do. We're addicted to approval and obsessed with what other people think about us. We love it when they like us and stroke our ego and affirm us, and we're crushed when they don't seem to like us, or simply when they say nothing about us. Silence has become equated with rejection. For far too many of us, we allow the opinions of others to hold us in bondage.
I believe that while this sort of addiction has been around in some form or another since cavemen roamed the earth, it has grown like wildfire because of technology--namely, social media. Don't get me wrong--I love social media and I use it daily. It's incredibly useful for keeping up with people and with events happening in the world, and I don't think it's necessarily harmful when people post about their successes and accomplishments as a way to keep friends in the know or to advance their careers. However, social media fuels our addiction because it's no longer enough to be liked and validated in the real world; you also have to be liked in the virtual world. It's no longer enough to simply succeed; you have to post news of your success on Facebook and have the requisite number of people "like" it. You have to get enough comments and pageviews on your blog. Enough visitors to your website. Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, blogs, Twitter . . . the opportunities for virtual validation are endless. People have to retweet you, follow you, share your work, comment on your posts, friend you, and connect with you. And counterintuitively, how others perceive you and interact with you in the virtual world has become a skewed sort of litmus test for how you're actually doing in the real world.
In addition to social media, the message in our culture that "reputation is everything" fuels this addiction to approval and to being perceived highly by others. And in a lot of careers, especially law, reputation is . . . well . . . everything. It can take years to build a good one, and mere seconds to destroy it. But I believe it can get to a point where we value our reputations more than our actual identity and more than our true character. And it's not the same thing. Your reputation is all about who others think you are, while your character deals with who you really are, even if no one else knows about it. And it's easy to get to the point where we care more about what other people think about us than who we really are.
The second commandment tells us that we are not to make for ourselves any graven image (an idol). But yet, when we are obsessed with what other people think about us and how they perceive us, we ARE constructing and worshipping an image: our own image, as seen through other people's eyes! What people think about us can be an idol. Reputation can be an idol. Validation from others can be an idol. Our validation addiction is a way of breaking and shattering the second commandment even in our own day, and a few months ago, the Lord deeply convicted me of my failings in this area. He gently, but somewhat painfully, reminded my heart that who I really am in Christ should matter much more to me than simply who others think I am and what they think about me. If your reputation and approval from others is more important than your true identity in Jesus, who bled to make you His, then that's an idol you need to smash at the foot of the cross, and walk away finally free.
I think the hopeful thing about all this is that our validation and approval addiction means that we're craving influence and starving for impact. And people who crave influence and impact can use that to tremendous advantage in pursuing Kingdom purposes. But will our spheres of influence be about us, or about God? How can our obsession with influence and approval be transformed into a vehicle of grace and compassion for a hurting world? Thoughts? (I feel like it would be totally ironic for me to solicit comments on this post, so I won't. Just some food for thought!)
I believe that while this sort of addiction has been around in some form or another since cavemen roamed the earth, it has grown like wildfire because of technology--namely, social media. Don't get me wrong--I love social media and I use it daily. It's incredibly useful for keeping up with people and with events happening in the world, and I don't think it's necessarily harmful when people post about their successes and accomplishments as a way to keep friends in the know or to advance their careers. However, social media fuels our addiction because it's no longer enough to be liked and validated in the real world; you also have to be liked in the virtual world. It's no longer enough to simply succeed; you have to post news of your success on Facebook and have the requisite number of people "like" it. You have to get enough comments and pageviews on your blog. Enough visitors to your website. Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, blogs, Twitter . . . the opportunities for virtual validation are endless. People have to retweet you, follow you, share your work, comment on your posts, friend you, and connect with you. And counterintuitively, how others perceive you and interact with you in the virtual world has become a skewed sort of litmus test for how you're actually doing in the real world.
In addition to social media, the message in our culture that "reputation is everything" fuels this addiction to approval and to being perceived highly by others. And in a lot of careers, especially law, reputation is . . . well . . . everything. It can take years to build a good one, and mere seconds to destroy it. But I believe it can get to a point where we value our reputations more than our actual identity and more than our true character. And it's not the same thing. Your reputation is all about who others think you are, while your character deals with who you really are, even if no one else knows about it. And it's easy to get to the point where we care more about what other people think about us than who we really are.
The second commandment tells us that we are not to make for ourselves any graven image (an idol). But yet, when we are obsessed with what other people think about us and how they perceive us, we ARE constructing and worshipping an image: our own image, as seen through other people's eyes! What people think about us can be an idol. Reputation can be an idol. Validation from others can be an idol. Our validation addiction is a way of breaking and shattering the second commandment even in our own day, and a few months ago, the Lord deeply convicted me of my failings in this area. He gently, but somewhat painfully, reminded my heart that who I really am in Christ should matter much more to me than simply who others think I am and what they think about me. If your reputation and approval from others is more important than your true identity in Jesus, who bled to make you His, then that's an idol you need to smash at the foot of the cross, and walk away finally free.
I think the hopeful thing about all this is that our validation and approval addiction means that we're craving influence and starving for impact. And people who crave influence and impact can use that to tremendous advantage in pursuing Kingdom purposes. But will our spheres of influence be about us, or about God? How can our obsession with influence and approval be transformed into a vehicle of grace and compassion for a hurting world? Thoughts? (I feel like it would be totally ironic for me to solicit comments on this post, so I won't. Just some food for thought!)
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Quarter-life Crisis
Stephen Marche first wrote an article called "The War Against Youth" in Esquire magazine about a month and a half ago, and it has ignited a tremendous amount of discussion since then. The basic premise of the article is that present-day America is now characterized by a "gerontocracy" of the older generation in power, who is crafting social policies that harm the young, especially people of my own generation. Marche cites a lot of different statistics, but he especially talks about how the gap in the wealth and net worth of younger and older Americans has skyrocketed in recent years. He also mentions that, while higher education is more necessary than ever, its ever-increasing cost has made it more out of reach than ever. This has resulted in more and more people around my age (I feel like the article addresses anyone between the ages of about 18 and 30) being unable to support themselves financially and unable to find work, all while "many claim that the young deserve their fate," according to Marche.
One of the statistics I found most interesting in this piece is about the exponential rise in the trend of expecting young people to render free labor through the ubiquitious unpaid "internship." Marche talks about how doing unpaid internships, which was virtually unheard of in the 1980s, has now become so common that young people often have no choice but to participate in them if they want to acquire any experience at all. Perhaps the most shocking information about this? Companies save about $2 billion dollars a year on this form of unpaid employment. This weighs in to part of the article's argument that our culture has become accustomed to expecting young people to work without pay--something which would never be expected of the older generations.
Marche's article doesn't mention the term, but what he is really talking about is what has been dubbed the "quarter-life crisis"--that period in the twenties to early thirties when young people are trying to become financially independent, gain the education they need, and establish their career prospects in a severely faltering economy. As a result, they are often unable to find work, forced to move home with their families, and compelled to put their adult lives on hold while they try to find their footing in a world that has become increasingly hostile to their interests. These struggles can, in turn, lead to depression, confusion, and indecisiveness in young people.
Marche's theory is that the "war on youth" is very systematic and methodological, and that older generations are actively seeking to disenfranchise the young and strip them of their power. This is where I disagree--I think that the issues confronting my generation are not intended by any one group, but are instead the results of economic policies that simply can't be sustained, along with a world that's changing so fast that education hasn't been able to keep up with it. For example, as he discusses, higher education has never been more important to stable employment than it is now, but it's also never been more expensive. Yes, some people can do very well without college degrees and beyond, especially if they are entrepreneurs, but this has become the exception, not the rule. College has now become almost as necessary as high school used to be in past generations--it's basically just an expected next step, and for most people, it's crucial. But yet the cost of education has spiked more than ever in recent years, even more than the rate of inflation. I don't think this is the result of policies of a "gerontocracy" aimed to harm my generation though--I think it's the inevitable result of a lagging economy.
We also live in a society where, in 10 years, there will be so many different kinds of jobs that don't even exist now. But I think that our system of education and employment hasn't yet caught up with all the structural changes taking place as technology revolutionizes the world we live in. For one thing, the sheer amount of job choices that exist nowadays can be so overwhelming that people have no idea of what to do. For example, research suggests that people are more likely to actually make a choice when they have 6 options versus 30 options--this is small-scale version of the indecision that can plague a generation faced with a staggering number of career choices. Also, 50 years ago, higher education was geared very specifically toward specific careers--law, medicine, etc. When people graduated, they knew exactly how to use their degrees to match a career. Now, colleges across the country offer more and more programs that are meant to be applied to any number of careers. Not that they aren't valuable; I studied liberal arts myself and think these educational paths are legitimate and important. However, the lack of specificity leaves a lot of graduates floundering and wondering, "Just what, exactly, are my marketable skills?" As education has tried to broaden its reach, young people have become more easily overwhelmed by choices and unsure of where to turn, especially in a crippled economy. Is this the fault of the older generations? Probably not. And, more importantly, it will take the various generations working together to solve some of these societal issues.
One of the statistics I found most interesting in this piece is about the exponential rise in the trend of expecting young people to render free labor through the ubiquitious unpaid "internship." Marche talks about how doing unpaid internships, which was virtually unheard of in the 1980s, has now become so common that young people often have no choice but to participate in them if they want to acquire any experience at all. Perhaps the most shocking information about this? Companies save about $2 billion dollars a year on this form of unpaid employment. This weighs in to part of the article's argument that our culture has become accustomed to expecting young people to work without pay--something which would never be expected of the older generations.
Marche's article doesn't mention the term, but what he is really talking about is what has been dubbed the "quarter-life crisis"--that period in the twenties to early thirties when young people are trying to become financially independent, gain the education they need, and establish their career prospects in a severely faltering economy. As a result, they are often unable to find work, forced to move home with their families, and compelled to put their adult lives on hold while they try to find their footing in a world that has become increasingly hostile to their interests. These struggles can, in turn, lead to depression, confusion, and indecisiveness in young people.
Marche's theory is that the "war on youth" is very systematic and methodological, and that older generations are actively seeking to disenfranchise the young and strip them of their power. This is where I disagree--I think that the issues confronting my generation are not intended by any one group, but are instead the results of economic policies that simply can't be sustained, along with a world that's changing so fast that education hasn't been able to keep up with it. For example, as he discusses, higher education has never been more important to stable employment than it is now, but it's also never been more expensive. Yes, some people can do very well without college degrees and beyond, especially if they are entrepreneurs, but this has become the exception, not the rule. College has now become almost as necessary as high school used to be in past generations--it's basically just an expected next step, and for most people, it's crucial. But yet the cost of education has spiked more than ever in recent years, even more than the rate of inflation. I don't think this is the result of policies of a "gerontocracy" aimed to harm my generation though--I think it's the inevitable result of a lagging economy.
We also live in a society where, in 10 years, there will be so many different kinds of jobs that don't even exist now. But I think that our system of education and employment hasn't yet caught up with all the structural changes taking place as technology revolutionizes the world we live in. For one thing, the sheer amount of job choices that exist nowadays can be so overwhelming that people have no idea of what to do. For example, research suggests that people are more likely to actually make a choice when they have 6 options versus 30 options--this is small-scale version of the indecision that can plague a generation faced with a staggering number of career choices. Also, 50 years ago, higher education was geared very specifically toward specific careers--law, medicine, etc. When people graduated, they knew exactly how to use their degrees to match a career. Now, colleges across the country offer more and more programs that are meant to be applied to any number of careers. Not that they aren't valuable; I studied liberal arts myself and think these educational paths are legitimate and important. However, the lack of specificity leaves a lot of graduates floundering and wondering, "Just what, exactly, are my marketable skills?" As education has tried to broaden its reach, young people have become more easily overwhelmed by choices and unsure of where to turn, especially in a crippled economy. Is this the fault of the older generations? Probably not. And, more importantly, it will take the various generations working together to solve some of these societal issues.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
On Disagreement, Tolerance, and Love
There's a Rick Warren quote that I read recently that really struck a chord with me. He said, "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."
I couldn't agree more with this statement. He really hit the nail on the head. This is something I've mentally been trying to articulate for a long time but have not known how to put it into words. I see the cultural lies that Rick Warren is talking about ALL the time. We live in a day and age where, in a very real sense, disagreeing with someone or stating that what they are doing is wrong is denounced as hateful and judgmental. To me, this is absolutely illogical. Some things don't present any moral controversy at all. For instance, I'm quite certain anyone would agree that murder is wrong. As such, I doubt anyone would call me hateful if I, given the opportunity to talk to a murderer, told them that what they had done was wrong. Other areas of life are much more controversial and people entertain a lot of different views about what is right and wrong with respect to them (for instance, about abortion, marriage, and parenting, to name a few things). It is in these and similar areas, and only these areas, that people can't disagree with others on a moral basis without risking being shot down as being hateful or fearful of the differing view. I do not believe that everyone must come to the SAME moral conclusions about these topics--after all, that's why they are so controversial. But I believe there is a lot more room in our society for people to respect others' rights to hold incredibly different views, without claiming that those who disagree are hateful or judgmental. Frankly, that's a victim mentality that doesn't get you anywhere. Moreover, it is immature to assume that others who disagree with you are out to get you simply because they think that what you believe or what you do is wrong.
At the same time, with the rise of political correctness and our ever-increasing cultural obsession with never offending anyone for any reason, American culture has embraced "tolerance" as the one be-all, end-all ideal. My ideas on this have been informed by books I've read on the subject, so this is not all just my own thinking, but here are some opinions I have regarding tolerance.
First, it is considered a terrible thing today to be "intolerant." I honestly think that our society would deem an accusation of intolerance to be one of the worst kinds of insults you could cast on an individual. Intolerance is anathema to a society that never wants to offend anyone--and intolerance, by and large, is equated with hate.
Here's where it breaks down for me, though. Isn't it true that in everyday language, we say we "tolerate" things that we DON'T like--not things that we readily love, endorse, and embrace? It would be weird for me to say, "I tolerate pizza," because I really like pizza. I wouldn't say, "I tolerate my family," because I LOVE them. Intolerance is equated with hate, but we dare not equate tolerance with love. We don't need to "tolerate" things we love, because we love them. In terms of the way we actually use language on a day-to-day basis, saying, "Oh yeah, I tolerate those people/ those views/ her politics/ his lifestyle" actually says to me, "You know, I really don't like or agree with so-and-so at all but I'm going to act ok with it because I don't want to rock the boat." In that sense, tolerating anyone and anything doesn't seem as honorable and desirable as our culture portrays it to be.
I think a lot of people in our society have chosen to tolerate everything but believe nothing. We've lost the willingness to stand up for what we believe is right, because we're scared of the cultural backlash. We've bought into the lie that tolerance, rather than genuine love, is one of the highest ideals we can express. And in so doing, we've really replaced love for our neighbor with tolerating our neighbor. If real love for other people is as powerful as I believe it is, it should be able to withstand a little bit--or a lot--of disagreement! Love doesn't mean never telling someone that they are wrong. Love doesn't mean there are no boundaries, and it doesn't mean "leave your opinions at the front door because they're not welcome inside." Loving others involves a genuine compassion and care for who they are as people, and it should never be traded for a weak, watered-down idea we call tolerance.
But that's just my two cents--feel free to disagree!
I couldn't agree more with this statement. He really hit the nail on the head. This is something I've mentally been trying to articulate for a long time but have not known how to put it into words. I see the cultural lies that Rick Warren is talking about ALL the time. We live in a day and age where, in a very real sense, disagreeing with someone or stating that what they are doing is wrong is denounced as hateful and judgmental. To me, this is absolutely illogical. Some things don't present any moral controversy at all. For instance, I'm quite certain anyone would agree that murder is wrong. As such, I doubt anyone would call me hateful if I, given the opportunity to talk to a murderer, told them that what they had done was wrong. Other areas of life are much more controversial and people entertain a lot of different views about what is right and wrong with respect to them (for instance, about abortion, marriage, and parenting, to name a few things). It is in these and similar areas, and only these areas, that people can't disagree with others on a moral basis without risking being shot down as being hateful or fearful of the differing view. I do not believe that everyone must come to the SAME moral conclusions about these topics--after all, that's why they are so controversial. But I believe there is a lot more room in our society for people to respect others' rights to hold incredibly different views, without claiming that those who disagree are hateful or judgmental. Frankly, that's a victim mentality that doesn't get you anywhere. Moreover, it is immature to assume that others who disagree with you are out to get you simply because they think that what you believe or what you do is wrong.
At the same time, with the rise of political correctness and our ever-increasing cultural obsession with never offending anyone for any reason, American culture has embraced "tolerance" as the one be-all, end-all ideal. My ideas on this have been informed by books I've read on the subject, so this is not all just my own thinking, but here are some opinions I have regarding tolerance.
First, it is considered a terrible thing today to be "intolerant." I honestly think that our society would deem an accusation of intolerance to be one of the worst kinds of insults you could cast on an individual. Intolerance is anathema to a society that never wants to offend anyone--and intolerance, by and large, is equated with hate.
Here's where it breaks down for me, though. Isn't it true that in everyday language, we say we "tolerate" things that we DON'T like--not things that we readily love, endorse, and embrace? It would be weird for me to say, "I tolerate pizza," because I really like pizza. I wouldn't say, "I tolerate my family," because I LOVE them. Intolerance is equated with hate, but we dare not equate tolerance with love. We don't need to "tolerate" things we love, because we love them. In terms of the way we actually use language on a day-to-day basis, saying, "Oh yeah, I tolerate those people/ those views/ her politics/ his lifestyle" actually says to me, "You know, I really don't like or agree with so-and-so at all but I'm going to act ok with it because I don't want to rock the boat." In that sense, tolerating anyone and anything doesn't seem as honorable and desirable as our culture portrays it to be.
I think a lot of people in our society have chosen to tolerate everything but believe nothing. We've lost the willingness to stand up for what we believe is right, because we're scared of the cultural backlash. We've bought into the lie that tolerance, rather than genuine love, is one of the highest ideals we can express. And in so doing, we've really replaced love for our neighbor with tolerating our neighbor. If real love for other people is as powerful as I believe it is, it should be able to withstand a little bit--or a lot--of disagreement! Love doesn't mean never telling someone that they are wrong. Love doesn't mean there are no boundaries, and it doesn't mean "leave your opinions at the front door because they're not welcome inside." Loving others involves a genuine compassion and care for who they are as people, and it should never be traded for a weak, watered-down idea we call tolerance.
But that's just my two cents--feel free to disagree!
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Knowing Nothing But Christ
I had an old blog that I started keeping during the summer of 2010, but I just wasn't consistent with it. I decided to go ahead and delete that one and get a fresh start with this blog and see if I can keep it up, but I did find some old posts I had written that I'd like to go ahead and share again here. I'll probably post some of these in the next week or so.
This is one of the posts I wrote in 2010. It's on an issue I still think is really important now:
I feel really concerned by people, particularly in my age group, who are Christians but when asked about their "religious views" (on Facebook or anywhere else!) they say/ write something like the following:
If you read 1 Corinthians 1, you'll find that without the cross and the resurrection of Christ, vague notions of "love" and "justice" would probably honestly fit into Paul's category of the "wisdom of this world" and the philosophy of the present age--a wisdom he says is made foolish by the message of Christ! Now don't get me wrong--I'm not trying to say anything bad about love, justice, peace, or anything else I referenced on that list above. But those ideas have NO power devoid or separated from the power of the crucified and resurrected Christ! The early apostles did not sit around talking or preaching about those things. No, they preached the message of Christ and --empowered by that message--went out and LIVED those things. They were out living love so powerfully that thousands of people were coming to Christ every day! We can't just speak about feel-good concepts that don't really have a lot of meaning without Christ. In fact, Paul writes that he determined to know and preach NOTHING but Christ and Him crucified and resurrected. Maybe that is offensive, but sometimes, the truth is offensive.
As Paul did, we as Christians need to recognize the message of Christ which literally ruptures the flaky "wisdom" of our world and has the power to make us overturn our ideologies, change our commitments, relinquish our privileges, and dismantle our hierarchies. All I'm asking is that we not water down Christ to some wishy-washy, vague notion of peace, love, tolerance, justice, etc. And no worries--I'm guilty of doing this too and need to be reminded of it too! We need a little more of Paul's language of the interruption, offense, and new creation found in Christ to enter into our modern Christian discourse. We need to be praying that God will raise up people in His church who are not afraid to speak the truth. Love and justice can and should stem from our lives as saved people--but they are not our salvation, Jesus is! We need a rupture in our philosophy, like 1 Corinthians 1 gives witness to. We need to speak of Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God.
So go. Be guilty of turning the world upside down. You won't be the first.
This is one of the posts I wrote in 2010. It's on an issue I still think is really important now:
I feel really concerned by people, particularly in my age group, who are Christians but when asked about their "religious views" (on Facebook or anywhere else!) they say/ write something like the following:
- LOVE
- peace
- Social justice is my religion.
- I have a broad and inclusive perspective.
- God is too big to fit into any one religion.
- It's all about love...
- And you get the idea.
If you read 1 Corinthians 1, you'll find that without the cross and the resurrection of Christ, vague notions of "love" and "justice" would probably honestly fit into Paul's category of the "wisdom of this world" and the philosophy of the present age--a wisdom he says is made foolish by the message of Christ! Now don't get me wrong--I'm not trying to say anything bad about love, justice, peace, or anything else I referenced on that list above. But those ideas have NO power devoid or separated from the power of the crucified and resurrected Christ! The early apostles did not sit around talking or preaching about those things. No, they preached the message of Christ and --empowered by that message--went out and LIVED those things. They were out living love so powerfully that thousands of people were coming to Christ every day! We can't just speak about feel-good concepts that don't really have a lot of meaning without Christ. In fact, Paul writes that he determined to know and preach NOTHING but Christ and Him crucified and resurrected. Maybe that is offensive, but sometimes, the truth is offensive.
As Paul did, we as Christians need to recognize the message of Christ which literally ruptures the flaky "wisdom" of our world and has the power to make us overturn our ideologies, change our commitments, relinquish our privileges, and dismantle our hierarchies. All I'm asking is that we not water down Christ to some wishy-washy, vague notion of peace, love, tolerance, justice, etc. And no worries--I'm guilty of doing this too and need to be reminded of it too! We need a little more of Paul's language of the interruption, offense, and new creation found in Christ to enter into our modern Christian discourse. We need to be praying that God will raise up people in His church who are not afraid to speak the truth. Love and justice can and should stem from our lives as saved people--but they are not our salvation, Jesus is! We need a rupture in our philosophy, like 1 Corinthians 1 gives witness to. We need to speak of Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God.
So go. Be guilty of turning the world upside down. You won't be the first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)