The Loop; Introvert Power; Last Night’s Desperate Housewives Episode

I have two good quotes for today, as well as some thoughts on last night’s Desperate Housewives:

1.  Rachel Held Evans had some good Sunday Superlatives yesterday.  One of them was Brett McCracken’s In Praise of Being Out of the Loop.  McCracken says:

“I desire to be more out of the loop. I want to go a day without knowing what the Twitterverse is talking about. I want to let trending topics come and go without ever knowing they happened. I want to be like Marilyn Hagerty, who didn’t know (or care) that for the rest of the world, Olive Garden was ‘old news.’ I don’t want to care about something just because it’s hot right now and everyone is talking about it; I want to care about something because it is interesting, important, worth thinking about. I don’t want to blog, tweet, or talk about things I haven’t mulled over or wrestled with first. I want to resist the idol of quick-to-the-draw commentary.”

I love Olive Garden myself: the salad, the breadsticks, the pasta, the breadsticks!

2.  In the comments section under Rachel’s post, Dan from Georgia linked to a CNN article about introverts, which states:

“Our culture is biased against quiet and reserved people, but introverts are responsible for some of humanity’s greatest achievements — from Steve Wozniak’s invention of the Apple computer to J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter. And these introverts did what they did not in spite of their temperaments — but because of them.”

3.  Last night on Desperate Housewives, there was Mike Delfino’s funeral.  I was reminded of reasons why I (and probably so many other Desperate Housewives viewers) like Mike.  There’s his down-to-earth quality, the fact that he tried to help people, and how the mistakes he made in his life (i.e., drug addiction) made him into a fairly non-judgmental person.  As Julie (Susan’s daughter) noted, Mike wasn’t much of a reader.  But I loved Mike’s description of heaven to his son, M.J.: eating delicious hamburgers with the people you love more than anything in the world, fishing, cheering at a ballgame, etc.

Something else that I appreciated about last night’s episode was that I got to see some old faces, by which I mean, not faces that looked elderly, but rather past characters who were killed off: Carlos’ Ma-MA Solis and Rex Van der Kamp.

I am confused by one thing: Where did Tom meet Lynette?  I remember an episode from a while back that said that they met at work, and it showed a flashback of Lynette getting into an elevator where Tom was.  Last night’s episode coincided with that story—-though Tom and Lynette looked different in last night’s episode from how they looked in the flashback of Tom and Lynette meeting at work, for, in the flashback I’m thinking of, they look like they always look, whereas, in last night’s episode, they looked more 70′s-ish.

But I also got the impression that there was a version of the story that said that Tom and Lynette dated in college.  Does anyone else remember anything to that effect?

Providence? Self-Esteem?

1. I’m studying for my rabbinics comp, which I’ll be taking tomorrow, and, lo and behold, James McGrath has a link by Simon Holloway on “The Development of the Halakha.” Coincidence, or divine providence?

2. I’m listening to Joel Osteen right now, and he’s talking about how we should carry ourselves with confidence. I do this better now than I did in the past. My voice doesn’t tremble as much when I’m in people’s presence, and I look people in the eye more often. But I still tend to mumble, rather than speaking to others in a clear, audible voice. People still say “What?” after I speak. Also, there are some groups in which I am comfortable, and some groups in which I’m not, and I tend not to manifest confidence in the latter situations. My twelve-step group helps me to have more confidence than I used to have. Because I go to a meeting most mornings, I feel a little more confidence around people in the afternoon. It’s like I’ve been gently eased into the day through my meeting. And the meetings are positive. I generally leave them with hope rather than despair.

Joel is speaking against the attitude of apologizing for one’s existence. I often have this sort of attitude. But I don’t know how I can believe that I’m fun to be around, when there have been people who have disliked me. I don’t know how I can believe that I’m competent in job situations, when there are job situations in which I wasn’t competent. Something I really like about my library job is that I do most things right, however. But the battle to have self-esteem is still a challenge.

Insecurity and Self-Acceptance

Latin mass was interesting this morning, for the tone of the bulletin seemed to contradict the tone of the homily.

The bulletin had passages like these:

Don’t be so sure that you know who is and who isn’t, who will and won’t be joining you in the kingdom of God.  Don’t be smug in your assumption that you’re going to be on the inside; you might be mistaken.

We must keep striving through the narrow way that leads to heaven.  We cannot merely assume that because we have the Lord in our midst on a regular basis we can be lazy, thinking that our earthly lives are merely a “waiting room” until we enter the reign of God. 

How are others transformed when they see how you have accepted and grown from your sufferings?

When I read these passages—which are based on Luke 13:23-30—I feel insecure.  Entering the kingdom of God looks like an arduous task, as if I need to give up things that I enjoy and consciously do good deeds in order to get in.  I feel as if I’m not all right, and I wonder if I am or ever shall be good enough.  I may have given to the poor months ago, but I haven’t lately, since I can’t afford it.  Have I disqualified myself from the kingdom of God?  I may have reached out to others lately because I feel personally and inter-personally integrated and am in a fairly good mood, but what will happen when I feel isolated, alienated, bitter, and timid about reaching out to others?  Will I then be outside of God’s graces? 

I have enough difficulty being responsible for myself, but then this bulletin tells me that I’m also responsible for the transformation of others!  The bulletin asks if others are transformed when they see how I’ve accepted and grown from my sufferings.  Look, there are times when I have accepted my sufferings, and there are times when I have not.  It depends on my mood.  There are areas in which I’ve grown, and there are areas in which I’ve not grown.  How do I know that I’ve not grown?  Because I still complain about the same stuff that I’ve complained about for many years!

There are people who remark that I appear to be calm and collected during times of crisis.  And I guess that, good Christian boy scout that I am, I should attribute that to the peace of God, which surpasseth all understanding, right before asking them to accept Jesus into their hearts so that they, too, can experience inner peace.  Then I’d be a good witness and get brownie points from God and the Christian community!  But it would be a false advertisement, for, while I may appear to be calm on the outside (due perhaps to my Asperger’s, which makes me appear emotionless), inside, I may be full of nervous fear!  

Then there are times, when, on the inside, I may feel at peace, but, on the outside, I appear to be angry (since there are people with Asperger’s who look angrier than they really are, or so I’ve read).  In that case, I may have arrived at a state of peace—through prayer, or watching a good show, or reading, or attending a meeting, or whatever.  But I’m not transforming others because they may be getting a different impression of me, an impression that isn’t entirely accurate.  That’s why I hate the idea that I must be a walking advertisement for Jesus Christ, someone who brings transformation into the lives of others.  Others can so easily misread or misunderstand me.

I think that the bulletin is trying to promote in readers an attitude of humility: we shouldn’t smugly look down on others, while assuming that we have everything together in our own lives.  Paul in Romans 11 exhorts the Gentiles not to get cocky just because they are now part of God’s people, whereas many Jews have been broken off due to unbelief.  Paul warns that the Gentiles, too, can be broken off, if they do not continue in God’s kindness.  But why must we be insecure about our standing before God to feel humble?  Can’t we feel humbled by the idea that God loves all of us, whatever our flaws?  Couldn’t that improve how we view and treat other people?

The homily was more about God’s grace, and how we should be thankful for it.  I appreciated the reading of Galatians 3:17, which states that the law cannot make the promises of none effect.  I’m not a Galatians scholar, but what that text says to me is that our poor performance of the law cannot nullify God’s grace.  I’m far from perfect.  I do good things and I do bad things.  But God’s love for me does not depend on my performance, for God’s love just is.

I wonder if self-acceptance is somehow linked with one’s relationship with God.  I’ve been reading Steven Greenberg’s Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition.  Greenberg is an orthodox Jew and a homosexual, and his book is an attempt to justify homosexuality halakhically (or so is my impression thus far).  Greenberg states that homosexuals feel more comfortable with God once they accept their homosexuality as the way God hard-wired them.  When they reject themselves, they have a hard time praying.  But when they accept themselves, they can open themselves up to God.

Many evangelicals have said that the opposite is the case: that sin makes us feel guilty, as if we can’t look God in the eye.  If my memory is correct, one of the authors of Every Man’s Battle said that: that when he was promiscuous, he did not feel comfortable with God.  A Bible study leader once told me of homosexuals he met who found prayer to be difficult.  “Why should prayer be difficult?  It’s talking to God!”, he said.  His answer was that the homosexuals’ sin (homosexuality) is hindering their relationship with God—creating a situation in which they can’t look God in the eye.

But do I believe that our sins shouldn’t matter?  I have a hard time accepting that sort of idea.  People can swap wives in churches without even blinking, and then comfort themselves with the notion that God loves them unconditionally?  I have a problem with that.

Then there’s something that Russell Miller said in his post, The Fall and Salvation:

And if we are living in the moment, in the now, there is no way that we should feel any guilt or shame for how we are. Because we are as we are, no more, and no less. And it is only by surrendering to that, that we can go forward.  It is the ultimate paradox that only by fully accepting our “carnal” nature that we can move out of it.

For Russell, self-acceptance does not imply “anything goes” in the area of morality.  Rather, it’s a path for us to become moral people.

I’m not sure what exactly I’m reaching for in this post.  Do I want God to love me as me, not in spite of me?  Partly.  Do I want to have a relationship with God while maintaining a healthy self-esteem?  Yes, and yet I realize that I have great flaws, something even pro-self-esteem people (i.e., therapists) could point out to me. 

Evil

What is the source of evil acts? I’ve been thinking about this today–basing my thoughts on things I’ve read and seen on television.

I recently resumed my reading of Joan of Arcadia, Season 3. As many of you know, Joan of Arcadia only lasted for two seasons, and the second season had a huge cliffhanger. Consequently, excellent writers have decided to continue the series online, with a virtual Season 3.  For the two versions, see here and here.

At the end of Season 2, we meet Ryan Hunter, a rich guy who (like Joan) has encountered God. His main difference from Joan is that he hates the Almighty.

How did he get to be this way? In the first version, God gave Ryan assignments to help people when he was younger, and the assignments interfered with his life and relationships. Ryan didn’t feel he could tell his friends about his experiences with God, since even his religious friend deemed such a scenario to be evidence of mental illness. As a result, Ryan became bitter and turned against God.

In the second version, God gives Ryan assignments in his youth, but Ryan turns against God when his girlfriend decides to become a nun. Ryan concludes that God has stolen his girl, and he resolves from that point on to undermine the Almighty. Ryan still has good in him, but he does bad things (i.e., destroying houses of worship).

I didn’t see the first scenario as significant enough by itself to turn Ryan against God. After all, Ryan had free will. He didn’t have to do the assignments that God gave him. He could have simply stopped carrying them out, without becoming bitter against God.

At first, the second scenario didn’t appeal to me either. “Why do writers today have to root everything in romance?,” I thought. But, as I contemplated the matter further, I realized that there may be a profound insight about evil here. A Christian thinker once said that evil is making something or someone other than God the object of our worship, and that something or someone may be good.

Take Revenge of the Sith, which is Episode III of Star Wars. Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader in an attempt to prevent his wife’s death. His evil began as a pursuit of good.

I was also thinking about evil as I watched Desperate Housewives last night. Orson Hodge has been stealing because he feels emasculated by the success of his millionaire wife, Bree. Here, pride and a low self-image (which can actually co-exist) is the cause of Orson’s evil.

Eedie’s husband Dave is mad at Mike Delfino because he killed Dave’s family in an automobile accident. So Dave pretends to be Mike’s best friend and lures him and Mike’s girlfriend, Katherine, into the woods. Dave’s goal is to kill Katherine and put Mike through the same grief that he has endured. Here, a sense of justice is the root of Dave’s evil.

Carlos’ ex-girlfriend is the vice-president of his company, and she treats the employees pretty shabbily. She makes them work long hours, and she yells at Carlos’ kids, thinking they belong to a Latino cleaning lady. She feels she has to be ruthless to make the company compete. Here, ambition and stress are the causes of her evil.

What can lead to goodness? I’m not sure. In another sub-plot of last night’s episode, Susan has compassion on her lawyer ex-husband as he experiences what he put her through years earlier: his wife left him to raise a child on his own. Susan could have been happy at this “justice,” but she had moved on years before, plus she didn’t want anyone to have to endure that kind of pain. She saw her husband as human, so she felt bad for him. Moving on. Letting time heal. Using pain as a means to become compassionate. Take from this what you will!

In the case of Ryan Hunter, I can understand why he is upset–in both versions of Season 3! Perhaps he should’ve focused on the fact that his assignments from God were helping people.

Christians Can Be Jealous?

I’m still working my way through Dale Buss’s Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson. The following quote is interesting:

“One of the early by-products of Dobson’s fame…was that some friends had difficulty handling their pal’s rather sudden and clearly inexorable success. Actually, that was commonly the case in Southern California in the seventies and eighties as Dobson’s career and reputation flourished.

“‘When we graduated from college and we were in one another’s weddings and had our babies together and started out in life, we were all kind of at the same level financially and socially and in every way,’ Shirley [Dobson, Jim's wife] says. ‘But when things started happening to Jim, with Dare to Discipline and being on talk shows and the radio, the gap began widening a bit, and some of our friends had difficulty with that. I’m not sure if it was jealousy; I’m not sure what it was. I would tell them to tune in because Jim was on The Dinah Shore Show or something, and I could tell from their body language and demeanor that there was resentment there. Jim didn’t see it, but I did. We found that it was easier for friends to be there in moments of pain, but in moments of exploding success, they can start resenting you. So we just started being very sensitive about that. If anyone wanted to know anything, we’d wait for them to ask us. Since then, many of our friends have gone on to be successful in their own ways, so that has gone away now‘” (239-240, Emphasis mine).

I know all about jealousy, because I’ve felt it a lot in my life. I once had a friend who was meeting all these Republican big-shots (e.g., Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Armstrong Williams), speaking to Republican events, and appearing on TV, and I felt jealous. I am jealous of people with popularity and attractive women. Not to mention accomplishments. Recently, when I went to the library, I saw that someone with whom I’d graduated from Harvard Divinity School had written a book that got published. And this was a real-life book too, with her picture on the back flap of the cover! How many books have I written?

Jealousy is human, and the way that we often overcome it is by becoming successes in our own right. We do things that bring about our own money, friends, and recognition. We pat ourselves on the back when we see we have a talent that others can appreciate. We possess and project confidence when we have a reason to do so: accomplishments that other people acknowledge.

And, yet, evangelicalism often tells us that this is wrong. According to evangelicalism, we shouldn’t feel jealousy towards people, nor should we seek our security or self-esteem in accomplishments and recognition. Rather, our feelings of self-worth should be grounded in God’s unconditional love for us, and nothing more.

But Dobson’s friends were most likely evangelical. After all, you know the old saying. “Birds of a feather flock together.” And, yet, notwithstanding their faith in Christ, they could still be jealous. And the cure did not come from them looking to Jesus for their satisfaction. It came when they had achieved successes in their own right.

It is so easy for Christians to act like the world. Why? Is belief in Jesus really enough to satisfy our hunger for recognition? When we have a concrete accomplishment that others recognize as valuable, that tends to go a lot farther in boosting our self-esteem than trusting in a Sky Buddy, whom some believe in, and some do not.

Plus, how can God’s unconditional love provide us with self-esteem? If God loves everyone, how’s his love for me make me special? Part of me wants to be liked because of qualities that I have.

At the same time, I can understand evangelicalism’s point: basing our self-worth on our accomplishments is not very reliable. There are people out there who are better than me at a whole lot of things. Can I only feel good about myself when I am the top dog? That can change really fast! Situations in general can change by the day. One reason that some paraplegics may feel worthless is that they based their self-esteem on certain abilities, which they lost.

I think it’s important to lean on God’s unconditional love, and yet I’d like a little elaboration on that. In my opinion, God does not just love me because he’s God and he has to love everyone. Rather, God made me with certain qualities. I am his unique creation. He must have some purpose for my existence, for I am here, and God takes pride in the people and things he has made. He said “It is good” when he created the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them (Genesis 1). And the Psalmist says, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). God not only loves me, as important as that may be. God also likes me. But that shouldn’t lead me to self-worship, since he’s the one who gave me my qualities in the first place.

Here’s another issue: We know Christians can be jealous. But doesn’t Paul say that envy is a work of the flesh that can bar a person from the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:21)? What do Christians do with that? What should they do with it?

I can understand that jealousy is not the best emotion to have, since it’s best to be glad for people in their successes. But, seriously, it does exist. Even if I were to pretend that I’m genuinely happy for people, my jealousy would still be there. Working through it can be a process. I can’t always just wish it away on the spot. Can’t Paul give people some space to be human, without basing salvation on being perfect?

It’s because of this that, if I were to approach Dobson’s friends in their jealous days, they’d probably deny being jealous. I can picture it! Or, if I were to tell them of my jealousy, they’d give me a lecture on why envy is wrong. It just seems to me that Christians cannot be honest with one another, since there’s so much pressure on them to be perfect.

But that’s just my opinion.

Christmas Musings 2007

Today is Christmas, 2007. What am I doing today? Yesterday, I was privileged to receive my video of It’s a Wonderful Life. This was fortuitous. I could have gotten it after Christmas, but It’s a Wonderful Life is Christmas fare, or, more accurately, Christmas Eve fare. As I watched it, I really felt bad for George Bailey. Here was a person who continually helped others, but he never had an opportunity to do what he wanted to do, which was to see the world. I know that the story is fictional, but I’d like to think that George and Mary Bailey got to visit Europe, Asia, and South America at some point in their lives. Of course, the problem is that they would have to leave the Building and Loan to Uncle Billy during their absence, and I can imagine Uncle Billy running the company into the ground. Maybe one of George and Mary’s boys (or girls) grew up and helped run the company, allowing the couple to have some vacation time. But where would the Baileys get the money for travel? Well, at the end, George got more than the $8,000 that he needed. Maybe his neighbors wouldn’t mind if George and Mary used it to see the world. George did earn this privilege, after all.

Today, I watched a Christmas episode of Highway to Heaven, in which Richard Mulligan (Empty Nest) plays a newspaper columnist who finds the Christmas spirit. I’ll watch another episode later this evening, one that reflects Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. At the moment, I am taping A Christmas Story. I’ve never seen it before, and it is a renowned Christmas classic. I’ll also watch that this evening. At 3:00, I saw one of my favorite episodes of All in the Family, the one in which a draft dodger spends Christmas with someone who lost his son in Vietnam. It is a tear-jerker!

While watching television, I’ve been reading two books by Madeleine L’Engle: A Wrinkle in Time and Wind in the Door. I finished Wrinkle last night. I appreciate the books, but I have a hard time experiencing pleasure when I read them, and I don’t exactly know why. I appreciate them because they are about God using socially marginalized people for his righteous purposes, and I also like the way that the socially awkward Meg becomes friends with the popular jock Calvin, whose life is not as rosy as we might expect. There is also a character who speaks in quotations, since she cannot come up with words of her own in social situations. I identify with her problem here! Too bad my Latin is not good enough for me to quote Cicero in daily conversation. The books also have jewels of wisdom. For example, in Wrinkle, one of the eccentric characters likens life to a sonnet: a sonnet needs a specific number of beats to be a sonnet, but it can still contain a variety of possible words. I interpret this to mean that there is one righteous path, which can encompass a variety of possible choices.

I went to church this morning. Drawing on Aquinas, the priest talked about the different ways that Christ is united with humanity. He said that a person who has faith yet lives a sinful life is in danger of becoming eternally lost. At the same time, he affirmed that God can still work with such a person, since there is a connection between him and the divine. The priest urged us to develop a deeper relationship with God. His specific steps for doing this included: (1.) Become a Catholic, if you are not one already, (2.) Go to confession, and (3.) Read about the saints. I usually don’t feel “fed” by this priest’s sermons, since they are rather philosophical and often promote ritualism as a spiritual solution. But they do intellectually stimulate me, which is more than I can say for evangelical and mainline Protestant churches (BORING).

As I was thinking about a topic for today’s blog entry, a question entered my mind: Why did Christ come to earth? I remember reading a book by John Shelby Spong, This Hebrew Lord, in which Spong was stumped by someone who asked about Jesus’ significance. Evangelicals and other Christians would probably deem this an easy question: they would say that Jesus came to reveal God’s will, bring forgiveness of sins, and inaugurate a kingdom of justice for the poor. But these things existed before Jesus came. People already knew that they were supposed to love God and neighbor. God already forgave sins (though evangelicals will probably argue that the blood of Christ was the basis for atonement in pre-Christian times). And people already knew that they should help the poor. What did Jesus bring that was new? Well, he did make God’s rules stricter. Now, we can’t get a divorce or lust after women. I’m sorry, but I have a hard time getting enthusiastic about a stricter law.

Another topic that came into my mind was Christmas’ pagan origin. I grew up in an offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God, which did not observe Christmas. Many argue that Christians transformed a pagan festival (Saturnalia) into the “Christian” holiday of Christmas. Others contend that the pagans were the ones who stole Christmas–from the Christians (see The Celebration of CHRISTMAS ). If Christmas has pagan origins, should it be observed? On one hand, Deuteronomy 12:30 seems to prohibit the use of pagan customs in the worship of God. It says: “Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following [the Canaanites], after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.” On the other hand, the Bible does describe the God of the Hebrews through pagan imagery (e.g., a god who slays a chaos monster), and there is also overlap between biblical and pagan customs (e.g., temples, animal sacrifices, etc.).

I guess that the way I approach this issue is as follows: I myself don’t really keep Christmas, since I am usually alone on that day. But I don’t have a big problem when others observe it (not that their actions are my business in the first place). God dislikes pagan customs that compromise his character, such as child sacrifice or orgies in worship. But I don’t think he stresses out when people set aside a day to fellowship and honor Christ’s birth, assuming that they are indeed doing that in their celebration of Christmas (rather than being materialistic). Christmas is a time to think about certain virtues, such as generosity. But we should be generous throughout the year, not only on Christmas.

So these are my Christmas reflections. Maybe I’ll have more after watching A Christmas Story–I will have to see. Happy holidays!

The African-American Racist

My dad told me about the Dr. Phil House yesterday, so I decided to watch the show. Every Monday (I think), Dr. Phil shows how things are going in the Dr. Phil House, in which you have the most judgmental people on the face of the earth living under the same roof. There is a male chauvinist pig, a man-hating feminist, a woman who thinks everyone should be hip, an alternative type, and a self-righteous Christian fanatic who gets on everyone’s nerves.

Then, there is a pleasant African-American woman whom everyone in the house likes. Her problem is that she hates her own race. She wishes she were white. She thinks that African-Americans are lazy, uneducated, drug dealers with illegitimate children. She married a white man who treats her like a queen, and she doesn’t like her kids hanging around with other African-Americans.

Until yesterday, that is. On yesterday’s show, she met an older African-American woman who used to hate whites, as well as the African-American judge from Divorce Court. Both of them told her about the heroic and remarkable achievements of blacks, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, and Condi Rice. The judge said that she is not lazy because she put herself through Harvard, and she pointed out that they were eating in a black-owned restaurant. The African-American racist learned that she had no right to feel superior to others of her race. And Dr. Phil told her that she didn’t need to put others down to feel good about herself.

This is a hard issue. On some level, I can identify with the woman because there are problems within the African-American community. She probably knows a lot of African-Americans who indeed are unemployed criminals or single parents. And all sorts of people acknowledge that these problems exist. Many liberals blame them on racism and the lack of available opportunities, whereas conservatives tend to blame the African-Americans themselves. And even this description is too simplistic. Some conservatives, such as Jack Kemp, favor setting up enterprise zones in poor African-American neighborhoods to create more opportunities. And then you have liberals like Jesse Jackson confess that even they cross the street at nights whenever they see a young black man.

But the judge and the older African-American woman are also right. There are many African-Americans who have done heroic and remarkable things. Many inventions that we take for granted (e.g., the lawn mower, the pencil sharpener, pieces of the internal combustion engine) are the ideas of African-Americans. We should judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

So who is to blame for the problems within the African-American community? I don’t deny that institutional racism plays a role, but I don’t think that it bears sole responsibity. Institutional racism existed in full force during the 1950′s and 1960′s, and yet you did not see the levels of African-American promiscuity or crime that you see today. I think that there are many within today’s generation of African-Americans who want everything now, and they cope with the relative lack of opportunity differently than their parents and grandparents. I once read a quote by a middle-aged African-American cab driver, who said that he tries to encourage his son to follow in his footsteps, since driving a cab pays good money. But the son prefers the immediate wealth and glamour that he gets through dealing drugs. Through movies and television, society ascribes status to men who can get the most women into bed, and so there are African-American males today who seek status through sex. Society in general is impatient. We don’t like to work or wait for good things. We want them now. We want status, and we think primarily of ourselves (unlike the African-American inventors, who wanted to make others’ lives easier). And this mindset is only exasperating the situation of the African-American community.

So we should try to create more opportunities, and yet our national character also needs to change.

Americans Flunk Self-Assessment

I was listening to NPR last night and came across an interesting story entitled “Americans Flunk Self-Assessment.” I’m not in the mood to type numbers and slashes this morning, so I’ll paste the link from Google in case you want to hear it: NPR : Americans Flunk Self-Assessment. Here is the summary of the story:

“Research has shown that Americans are bad at assessing their performance and skills. Apparently, part of our national character — optimism — keeps us from interpreting feedback accurately. And our overconfidence results in errors that are sometimes critical.”

Essentially, the story critiqued the West’s obsession with self-esteem. We feel that we are good at something, with the result is that we may not be as careful in doing the task or open to further learning. Our overconfidence is our weakness. The story also compared the West with Japan on self-esteem. According to a study, people in Japan are less likely than Westerners to say that they are good at something, but they often do better than Westerners despite their lower self-esteem. For example, when given a puzzle, Westerners tend to give up if they cannot figure out how to do it. “This just isn’t my talent,” they think. But the Japanese are willing to keep trying and to learn from their mistakes, until they finally finish the puzzle. They are more open to learning the task, without allowing ego to get in the way. And they are eager to improve.

The story has a point. There is so much emphasis on self-esteem in American culture. When teaching kids math, why should teachers have to continually tell them that they are good at the subject? Why not just teach them math? The focus should be the subject, not how good a person is. If we want to bring self-esteem into the discussion, then we should encourage
the kids that they are able to learn the subject, meaning that they are not stupid. But we should not tell them that they have already arrived. Everyone has room for improvement.

One problem I have with the article, however, is that different people have different talents. If my talent is art rather than doing puzzles, then why should I spend all my time trying to learn puzzles (unless my art is not selling and I need a puzzle job on the side)? And my concern is biblical. In Romans 12:6-8 and I Corinthians 12:29-30, Paul points out that not everyone has the same gift but should serve the body in his or her unique way. So there is little reason for me to practice singing if I have no interest or talent in that area. I should try to enhance the talents that I do have. And, of course, even people with a talent should be open to improvement rather than idolize themselves.

I’m thinking about this issue in terms of my writing. First, there is the subtopic of writing and self-esteem. I consider myself a fairly decent writer. Writing is one of my few talents. A lot of people have told me that I am good at it, but every now and then there is someone who tells me that I am not so good. And my reaction is often defensive. I feel like I need to be a good writer to justify my existence on this earth. After all, if I cannot make a contribution to this world, then what is the point of being on it? Whenever I feel this way, I need to remind myself that my value as a person does not depend on my talents or lack thereof. I am a child of God. He made me, so my existence is not superfluous or unnecessary. So there is a place for self-esteem, but it should not be based on what one can do.

Second, there is the subtopic of self-improvement. A professor once told my class that people should never fall in love with their own writing. They should be open to improvement. And, indeed, I should listen to suggestions that people make. My problem is that people may try to make me into something I’m not. I want to write well, but I have to write as I write. Trying to force me into another mold of writing is like making me write with my left hand (I’m right-handed). So I want to improve, but I want to become a better me.

Any thoughts?

Self-Hatred in Ezekiel

Immediately after my high school graduation, I read John MacArthur’s The Vanishing Conscience. I always found his prose engaging, so I gave the book a shot. In that book, MacArthur argues against pop psychology’s emphasis on self-esteem. To support his position, he cites Ezekiel 20:43: “There you shall remember your ways and all the deeds by which you have polluted yourselves; and you shall loathe yourselves for all the evils that you have committed.” MacArthur states, “In other words, when we truly see what sin is, far from achieving self-esteem, we will despise ourselves” (p. 108).

I’m not going to discuss self-esteem in this post. I will say, however, that MacArthur probably doesn’t want people to be down on themselves for the rest of their lives. He has affirmed that human beings are valuable to God and that Christians can find a sense of worth in Christ’s love. He’s just saying that repentance is necessary for salvation. For him, the modern emphasis on self-esteem runs counter to the doctrine that all have sinned, which is the first principle of the Gospel.

I want to relate Ezekiel 20:43 to my recent discussion on Ezekiel and monergism. This has been a series that has included my last three posts. I am wrestling with such issues as free will and regeneration in the Book of Ezekiel. My conclusion so far is that an unregenerate person can repent and recognize his need for God, but only in a short term sense. After the exile, the Israelites who acknowledge their sinfulness and cry out to God will receive a new heart and enter the holy land. The new heart will permanently incline them to God’s commandments so that they can stay in the land forever. By contrast, those who stubbornly continue their rebellion against God will not enter the Promised Land, for God will destroy them. This is my interpretation of Ezekiel 20:33-38.

God’s judgment on the rebels seems fair. I mean, what kind of people in their right mind would continue to defy God after experiencing what they had? Let’s look at what God has already done when the Israelites are in the wilderness, about to enter the Promised Land (after the exile). God has confirmed the words of his prophets. He has demonstrated that he is God and that the other deities are not. He has shown his power to redeem Israel. He has manifested his continued commitment to his people. The logical reaction to all this is for the Israelites to bang themselves on the head and exclaim, “I’ve been so stupid! Look where my actions have led me.” I think that is partly what Ezekiel means when he says that many Israelites will loathe themselves.

He also means that they will hate their sinful deeds. Some analogies come to mind. There is a scene in the Every Man’s Battle where one of the authors talks about a fight he had with his wife. His wife was making beans, and he deliberately knocked over the pot. After his wife left the room and he came to his senses, he resolved to treat his wife with love and respect from that point on. I think about an alcoholic who gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone. He was content with his selfishness and alcoholism, until it led to a horrible outcome. After the exile, many Israelites get a good look in the mirror. They recognize what the prophets told them all along: that they have betrayed the God who loves them and have hurt defenseless human beings. They see themselves as the whores and monsters that they are. They loathe themselves. That is the prerequisite for a new beginning.

But not all of the Israelites take this route. And what can God do? Will he let them back into the land so they can make it a moral cesspool once more? If they haven’t responded to him up to that point, is there much hope that they will ever respond to him? As his last resort, God judges them.

Was Mr. Rogers Evil?

I had a hard time sleeping early one morning, so I turned on the TV to flip through the channels. I saw that Mr. Rogers was about to come on. I haven’t watched Mr. Rogers that often. For some reason, my family did not have public television when I was growing up, so I missed out on Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood. I decided to see what I had missed.

I really enjoyed the show! Mr. Rogers had a soothing, friendly personality. I probably won’t get up early on a regular basis just to watch him (I love to sleep), but I think that his program is good therapy. He’s the type of person who can provide me with the solace I need before I go out into the jungle. Well, Mr. Rogers plus extra prayer.

As I read about him on the Internet, I came across a Fox News story entitled, “You’re Not Special and Mr. Rogers Was an Evil Man.” I never thought of putting “Mr. Rogers” and “evil” in the same sentence, so I checked the story out. The anchors argued that Mr. Rogers gave an entire generation of kids a sense of entitlement. By telling them they were special just the way they are, Mr. Rogers implied that they did not have to work to become special. As a result, there are people who expect good things (e.g., grades, money, recognition, etc.) without working for them. The ultimate result is disappointment, since the world doesn’t give people goodies that they don’t deserve.

The Fox News story is probably accurate in its characterization of many young people—or so teachers have told me. But was Mr. Rogers evil? The program that I watched emphasized self-discipline. Mr. Rogers said that he once tried to learn the clarinet, but he did not practice. He thought that he could become a master clarinet player through osmosis, but he found that the world doesn’t work that way. That convicted me somewhat. I hope to get a flat stomach, but I don’t want to do the daily sit-ups that can bring me to my goal. I want to ace my comps, but I will not do so if I do not study. Like many people, I seek short-cuts that do not exist. Mr. Rogers definitely taught kids (and me) that if they want something, they have to work for it.

But our value does not depend on our accomplishments. That’s what Mr. Rogers meant when he told kids they are special just the way they are. What bothers me about the Fox News story is that it links people’s value with how hard they work and what they achieve. But our value is intrinsic. God made each of us in his image. None of us is unnecessary or superfluous in this world. We all have a purpose and a unique contribution that we can make.

The problem is that the world does not see things that way. We judge people according to the impression that they make on us. To make our mark on the world, we have to impress people. In that, the Fox News story is right. But, fortunately, God is not the world. God loves us even though we do not impress him. His love is unconditional.