Less blueprint and more game plan

It is common for Christians to talk about God's plan for our lives. Part of this theological statement is rooted in the truth that human existence is not without purpose and direction. This life is not aimless and that each individual life is a part of a much larger movement. 

What is often forgotten in the statement "God has a plan for your life" is that this statement is a metaphor. And like all metaphors there is room for interpretation. And like many metaphors, there are dominate understandings of the metaphor, which solidify and become the implicit understanding of the metaphor. For instance, when we think of unplugging our first thought might be that we are talking about getting away from stressors in our life. However, in a music setting, if we talk about unplugging we are not talking about stress but about going acoustic. 

And so in a world that is dominate by economic thinking, business models and five year plans, we tend to think of God's plan for our lives much in these regards: preset, rigid and unchanging. Put another way, we might think of God's plan for our lives as God is an architect and God has drawn up blueprints for our lives and it is out job to 'fit' our lives into that preset plan.

View fullsize

I suppose that works for some people. However I have seen this create more stress and worry in people than I have seen it help. I am asked questions like, "What is God's plan for my life?" or I hear college students try to 'find' God's plan. It seems like this cat and mouse game is never ending and full of frustration. 

Rather than thinking of God's plan as an architect with a blueprint, might I suggest God's plan is more like a game plan a coach would have for a team. 

God's plan for our lives is more rooted in hope, dream and desire rather than specific, directed, and concrete. It is the hope of the coach the team would play well, score points, keep the other team off from controlling the tempo, work together, have fun and enjoy the game. The coach might even have a general direction that can help achieve these hopes - run up the middle or pass the ball to the outsides or focus on good base running - but the coach does not have overly specific set of instructions. The coach does not dictate each pass or every serve. 

The coach understands that as the game happens things have to change and in fact the original tactics may have to change in order to achieve the game plan. The coach may see the team is not running well and so in order to live into the game plan, the team has to switch from a running game to a passing game. The other team may be overwhelming and so the team needs to change from a physical style to a finesse style. And everyone on the team is fine with changing tactics because they all know the game plan. 

Which is way a coach has a game plan not a blueprint.  

God's plan is less blueprint and more game plan. 

Limited supply of altruism?

Recently I read the book What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, and while not the greatest critique of the moral limits of market values, it was a good read that I would recommend to someone who has never been exposed to this subject matter.

The bottom line in this book is that when we introduce money into the equation, then we push out other values. For instance, when we pay children for cleaning a room, then the market value of gaining money for hard work can push out the value of cleanliness. Over time the child learns that the only things worth doing are those things that give you money. 

I also saw this in my friends in college. They were angry when they had to take a class that was not in their major and they would "never use again" in their lives. The assumption is why should we be forced to take a class that will not at some point in time get me more money? The value of a democracy - having an educated population - was being pushed out for the values of a market - to gain money. 

It is a very interesting book to say the least. 

One of the interesting things that came across in the reading is the thought by some economists that just as there is a limited supply of say, oil or gold, there is a limited supply of altruism. And so since this precious commodity can run out in people, it is best to create systems so that we can be selfish and greedy so that we do not waste altruism in areas where altruism is not valued. Here is the excerpt from the book:

He concluded with a reply to those who criticize markets for relying on selfishness and greed: “We all have only so much altruism in us. Economists like me think of altruism as a valuable and rare good that needs conserving. Far better to conserve it by designing a system in which people’s wants will be satisfied by individuals being selfish, and saving that altruism for our families, our friends, and the many social problems in this world that markets cannot solve."

View fullsize

This post is not intended to be a full blown critique of the idea of a limed supply of altruism, I am not that smart. What troubles me is the theological implications of this idea. That is to say, how do the parables Jesus, such as the generous landlord, come in conflict with the idea of limited altruism?

Did this Frenchman predict the decline of the Church?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau once wrote the following in his work on the Social Contract:

"As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall."

As a social organization, the Church is very much in the same boat of the state of Rousseau's thought. As soon as we would rather give money than sweat to a situation or problem, then we are surely headed for decline. 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau once wrote the following in his work on the Social Contract:

"As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall."

As a social organization, the Church is very much in the same boat of the state of Rousseau's thought. As soon as we would rather give money than sweat to a situation or problem, then we are surely headed for decline. 

Could it be that in the efforts to professionalize ministry and have "specialized" ministry areas in our churches we have actually worked ourselves into decline. Put another way, does having a children's minister, youth minister, senior adults minister, small groups minister, etc. actually decrees congregational investment and participation in those areas. 

When I was in youth ministry I heard this sort of thing a lot. Most folk have a reason as to why they are not able to assist with youth ministry as a sponsor or just a presence in the youth ministry. 

• People with no children would say, I don't have children, but this is why we hired you.
• People with young children would say, when my kids are in youth I will volunteer, but until then this is why we hired you.
• People with youth aged kids would say, my child does not want me helping lead their group, which is why we hired you.
• People with grown children would say, my kids are grown and I have had my turn, which is why we hired you.
• Retirees would say the youth don't connect with people my age which is why we hired you.

There are always exceptions, and for those people I give thanks to God for your ministry and willingness to serve, however on the whole finding youth ministry volunteers is a full time job in of itself. 

Could it be that Rousseau's thought is playing itself out in the decline of the church numbers and influence? Could it be part of the solution (hire professional and specialized staff) is actually part of our problem?