September 26, 2003
Okay, here's my beef...
So I figured out what I've kind of been ranting about for the past two days. Here goes...
Everyone knows that what it's really all about is loving God and your neighbor in the context of the church. Fine. I agree. But question: how are you supposed to make a serious contribution to the community life of the church over time if you're always in transition? If you maintain a mindset that you're moving on in the indefinite near future, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? You don't seem to be taking your own contribution seriously. You're like tumbleweed, and can't really make the kind of commitments that will tie you down. I'm convinced that it's those kind of commitments that really matter. And if your mindset with vocation is that everything is always short-term and temporary, I'm having trouble seeing how that won't spill over into your integration with the church, not to mention the wider community. If you won't make major commitments in the mundane and ultimately insignificant area of economics, do you honestly expect to do so about things that are of eternal significance?
This is what I mean when I say that the churhc needs productive, career-oriented people. It needs people with the mindset that they're commited to not going anywhere, people who put down roots. And it's really hard to do that unless you bite the bullet and pick a job you can do for the next 40 years. You don't have to actually hold a single job your whole life - all but highly-trained professionals usually don't - but you do have to be willing to do so. You have to view your situation as being permenant. Not static or eternal, but you can't be always planning to leave, or at best not planning to stay.
Oh, and changing jobs does not necessarily equal changing careers. If a CEO from one company steps down and is hired by another, he's still in business administration. If a computer programmer is lured to another company, he's still in IT. These are job changes, not career changes. You don't necessarily need a five decade job - it would be nice, but most people don't get that anymore - but you should be willing to commit to a career.
I understand that most people "don't know what they want to do with their lives." I sympethize with this feeling. But you have to ask: what are you waiting for? What will you know next year that you don't this year? And will what you know next year actually bring you any closer to making a long-term decision? If not, what exactly is keeping you from doing so?
I am fully aware of and in strong support for an eschatological consciousness that this world is not our home. But though our home is in heaven, we happen to live here for the moment. And not just for the moment either, but for the next half-century or so. I think a truly serious desire to engage culture and community will involve getting a job/career and keeping it.
Okay, so much for the really important and eternally-significant stuff. There's also a whole lot of secondarily-important issues that are bothering me. I'm worried that in our generation's fear of being tied down that we aren't becoming the kind of people our society needs to operate. Why am I concerned about this? Because personally, I appreciate the benefits my father's decades of hard work and dedication have provided for me, and I want to pass those on to my (currently hypothetical) wife and children. I like my lifestyle, and want the same for my family. Though it has problems, I'm generally in support of what our society has going. I value prosperity. I value stability. And in just a few years here, the current caretakes of these things will start to retire and/or die. They're starting to think about passing on the torch, and I'm worried that we'll be so caught up in "fostering healthy communities and relationships" that there won't be anyone around to catch the torch when it falls.
Let's face it people: the only reason we even have the time to care about community is because we're rich enough to afford it, even though we aren't actually all that affluent. We're college educated, and will never really be anything but middle-to-upper class. I, for one, want my children to be able to worry about healthy relationships and communities and not have to spend all their time trying to make rent payments. And the fact that few people seem to spend much time on this scares me.
Yes, community and all that. But let's get down to brass tacks, shall we? We are a bunch of decently well-educated, young, urban/semi-urbanites. The reason that most of America is decently comfortable - not rich by any means, but most people aren't staving either - is because a lot of people have decided to settle down and be productive. And our little group of amateur sociologists is basically enjoying the fruits of a system that a lot of other people have worked hard and long to create and protect. Yet I'm really not detecting any great concern for this intricate, massive, systemic, and delicate economic machine, nor, it seems, any interest in keeping it running. Not long-term anyway. Sure, most of us are either currently in school or employed, but how many of us have committed to sticking with something long-term? Far from it: we spend most of our time enjoying the benefits of other people's labor. And all in the name of community.
So this in (not-so) short, is what's been bothering me. I'm afraid that the current environment that we enjoy and that has been so good to us will go away unless we decide that it's important enough to pass on to the next generation. Yet people seem to be delaying this activity as long as possible. We're so concerned with community that we may be precluding the possibility of truly healthy communities existing after we're done.
My initial off-the-cuff response is something like "right on."
Posted by: nick at September 26, 2003 02:47 PMSo who exactly are the "ameteur sociologists" you're frustrated with, Ryan?
Posted by: mesh at September 26, 2003 02:50 PMMoving from the particular to the general:
The ChattaCynics
Covenant college students
College students in general
You're argument sems to be experientially based, colored by your own personal background. To which I may then say, "Not necessarily," by offering my own experience. I grew up as an MK. During this time, we were actively involved in seven different communities along with their corresponding churches. The transitory nature of our lifestyle was of a piece with our commitment to the church. [Ironically, we didn't believe in the catholic church at the time; but that's beside the point.] I realize that our commitment to the life of the church existed by definition because we were a missionary family; but this does not mean that a transitory life cannot otherwise be conducive to such a commitment. Again, I turn to our own experience. After we left the mission field, we were involved in five more churches. I, personally, can add another five to that list.
You may wish to note that much of this commitment was defined by a single career. Point taken. However, the ability to make the necessary commitments to the church extended beyond the existence of a single career. I agree that for many people, their unwillingness to settle down in the temporal and secular arena translates into a lack of ecclesiological commitment. But this is the case, not because of a predilection toward temporal change, but because of a misunderstanding of the nature of the church. If we view the various local churches as arising from their surrounding communites, then your concerns follow. However (and I say this despite the irony of our own anti-universal church profession- we were saying one thing and acting out another), if we view the church as the church catholic, then there is no problem in entering into another local instantiation of that church and picking up with the same commitment given to the last one. [Final note to settle potential concerns: I am not condoning church hopping.]
Posted by: Kevin at September 26, 2003 03:24 PMI am perfectly aware that the demands of both modern life and even particular vocations (such as missionary work) almost necessarily entail a lot of moving around. That isn't the point I'm trying to make. It's a difference in mindset more than logistics. It's the difference between being willing to stay somewhere long-term even if you move around a lot, and always being about to leave even if you never actually do.
Moves happen. Job changes happen. Career changes happen. They may not be optimally healthy, but they're frequently necessary. The question is: do these things happen because we're unwilling to be tied down or because circumstances force us to change?
Posted by: ryan at September 26, 2003 03:53 PMThen I misunderstood your point. I thought that you were talking about a mindset geared to the short term and temporary even when this was the result of necessity. But, since you're talking about the flat out unwillingness to be tied down, then I hereby usurp Nick's off-the-cuff response.
Posted by: Kevin at September 26, 2003 04:11 PMI guess I'm still confused by who you're targeting here. It seems massively unfair to me to accuse people like Lang, Andy, Brent or Isaac of having chosen inherently transitional lives, just because none of them have, say, gone to grad school yet. I can't think of a single one of my Chattanooga friends whose main reason for being here is wanting to "keep their options open." They have long-term goals and ambitions (ask them about it), and they're working toward them. In the meantime, they are passionate about engaging eath other as brothers in Christ. This does not strike me as mere sociological pontificating, or abstraction in the face of practical failure. In fact, the only person I know who could be described as "still in Chattanooga because he wanted a break to look at options" is, well, me. And you know you can always come talk to me.
Posted by: mesh at September 26, 2003 04:21 PMAnd remember, though they aren't perfect, you shouldn't stick a finger in the eye of those who love you the most.
Posted by: JosiahQ at September 26, 2003 05:25 PM