Saturday 22 March 2014

Setting our sights far too low

On the first occasion I visited Africa I was advised not to carry any expensive belongings, for example, not to wear an expensive watch in case it was stolen. My 30-year old Seiko didn't seem like an obvious target, but I did as I was told and instead wore a very cheap black rubber Casio watch, and I survived, unthreatened, unscathed; in fact I felt welcomed and accepted wherever I went.

But it set me thinking about what thieves steal. I remember when DVD players were first available, they were expensive and few people had one - and they were targeted by thieves; then mobile phones, then laptop computers, now smart phones and tablet computers are common targets.

But why do we set our sights on such minor things?

We probably only see the things that are just one or two steps beyond our reach, instead of those items which are beyond our comprehension entirely. While a thief looks at my watch or camera, I look at my neighbour's slightly newer car and slightly bigger house and think how nice it would be to have such things; however, I don’t pay any serious attention to a 'super-car' or a mansion, as these will clearly never be within my reach.

But there are things that are much, much more valuable than any such possessions and are readily within our reach and to which we pay little or no attention.

Perhaps we assume, wrongly, I am convinced, that being able to have an abiding sense of peace, to have good relationships, to have a sense of purpose and fulfilment in life, and to not worry about current circumstances - are all well beyond our reach? They may even be beyond our comprehension, as we perhaps assume 'life is stressful; that is just how it is'! So we grasp for the tiny things that appear to offer some momentary respite, a fleeting happiness; trinkets of little value, and are taken in by ‘jewels’ made of glass, which are worthless and easily shattered!

Yet we covet that bigger house, and plan and scheme for how we can earn a little more or save a little harder, or hope that we may win the lottery, or find out whether the building society will give us a mortgage based on a higher than usual multiple of earnings… And then we don’t know whether the mortgage rate will go up and make the payments impossibly high, or whether the price of houses will go down instead of up, leaving us trapped in negative equity. So, if we do acquire that desired house, we find ourselves worrying even more!

The disabled man in the Bible (Acts 3 v1-10) was not only unable to walk, but was an outcast from his society. But when Peter and John came along, all he asked for was money! But looking at him they saw his real needs - to be able to walk, to be accepted by God and to be restored into society. And that was what they gave him in the name of Jesus - not money! And he leapt to his feet, went into the Temple and praised God.

Why do we set our sights so low? Why covet one thing or another, when what we really need is peace and to be restored? These are available in Jesus name!

Wednesday 5 March 2014

The right to be myself

The current psychological orthodoxy is that we are most fulfilled when we are being most wholly 'true to ourselves’. The belief is that 'whatever I am is good and should be fully expressed’, and out of this comes one strand of the rights agenda.

Yet there seems to me to be an inherent flaw in this argument that I don’t hear expressed.

So how should we express and be ourselves? Should we express those inclinations that are clearly bad? For example, as we naturally covet the things that other people have, should we go ahead and just take them; if I am naturally a thief, then should I go ahead and be a thief?

Most people would recognise this a bad idea, for thieving is not just illegal but is immoral, unethical.

What about if I am naturally drawn to watch pornography? Should I go ahead and express this side of myself? This is a legal activity (where it involves adults), so the judgement is not about legality, but can be about morality or ethics, for those involved in the production of pornography may be coerced or indeed trafficked! It is also a question of whether this behaviour enhances or damages my own life and those around me.

Yet we use the argument about having a 'right to be myself' as if it is a self-evident truth and without any consideration of whether a behaviour is good or bad, ethical, moral, life-enhancing or harming.

So, how come it is acceptable, indeed good, to resist the temptation to be a thief or to act in other ways that are damaging, and yet we still claim our ‘right to be ourselves’?

For Christians, the matter is explained by the fact that we were made in God's image, yet are fallen beings living in a fallen world:
  • Christians know from Genesis that God made men and women in his image; alone of all creation, humankind is said to be made in God’s image (Gen 1v27). After all, if God made us good (Gen 1v31), it is incumbent upon us to be who God made us to be!
  • Yet we are all ‘fallen’ (see Gen 3), and in fact, not very much of what I am is actually good even by human standards, let alone by God's standard!
So we rely on the God the creator to distinguish what is good and to be expressed, and what is fallen and is to be rejected.

In fact, if I recognise that I am a fallen, sinful being, rather than harming my well-being or stunting my expression of myself, I am free to enjoy a fulfilling relationship with God, with others and to be fully the person God created me to be.

There is no ‘right to be myself’. In fact, be yourself at your peril!