Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens.
There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power of our will.
It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.
People are not disturbed by things, but by the view they take of them.
What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think things are
If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.
If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.
God has entrusted me with myself.
You are a little soul carrying around a corpse.
It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows.
It is not death or pain that is to be dreaded, but the fear of pain or death.
Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well
We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.
The key is to keep company only with people who uplift you, whose presence calls forth your best.
Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants.
If thy brother wrongs thee, remember not so much his wrong-doing, but more than ever that he is thy brother.
The world turns aside to let any man pass who knows where he is going.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
My favorite Epictetus quotes
Epictetus had a lot figured out a few thousand years ago... Here are a few of my favorite quotes from his writings...
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Quantum Sacrifice
I have a bunch of ideas floating around in my head, so please be patient as I add them all to the big accelerator and then crash them together to see what we discover... ;)
Idea One: My desires need to be transformed - go back and read my post on "me, them, and the Other" for a refresher on our desires, our nature, and our need for transformation.
Idea Two: When Paul talks about being a living sacrifice, my buddy Bruce tells me the original Greek text has this concept of the perpetual present. That sounds like a great description of abiding.
Idea Three: The indeterminate choice is harder that it seems. Take a few minutes to watch this very user friendly video of how thought affects reality. It's about 5 minutes long - but the good stuff is at the end. Worth the watch. Observing collapses the wave form.
So what happens when all three of these ideas collide together?
Abiding is leaving a choice in the indeterminate state of trust. It is to place your hope in God, without expectations of God for any certain outcome. It is the assignment of choice to God, allowing him to observe/realize that choice which will transform my nature.
When I first articulated that thought to myself, my first reaction was "Why does God need my choice? Isn't he omniscient and omnipresent?" But then I realized I was looking at this from a contractual, zero-sum perspective. God has no interest in 50/50 contracts, he is in the business (pun intended) of unilateral, open-ended, mutually convenantal relationships - each giving 100%. By abiding, by allowing God to choose, I am not lessening my sense of choice: I am, perhaps for the first time, entering into community with God. Jesus was the living sacrifice when he said, "not my will, but yours be done".
When I choose to exercise my will, I pre-determine the outcome - and when it comes to the transformation of my nature and my desires, my choices are ineffectual. But the act of my choosing blocks God from having the freedom to make his choices -- I collapse the wave form of trust (to borrow from the world of quantum physics), and thereby remove the potential for God to do greater things than I can ask or image.
Idea One: My desires need to be transformed - go back and read my post on "me, them, and the Other" for a refresher on our desires, our nature, and our need for transformation.
Idea Two: When Paul talks about being a living sacrifice, my buddy Bruce tells me the original Greek text has this concept of the perpetual present. That sounds like a great description of abiding.
Idea Three: The indeterminate choice is harder that it seems. Take a few minutes to watch this very user friendly video of how thought affects reality. It's about 5 minutes long - but the good stuff is at the end. Worth the watch. Observing collapses the wave form.
So what happens when all three of these ideas collide together?
Abiding is leaving a choice in the indeterminate state of trust. It is to place your hope in God, without expectations of God for any certain outcome. It is the assignment of choice to God, allowing him to observe/realize that choice which will transform my nature.
When I first articulated that thought to myself, my first reaction was "Why does God need my choice? Isn't he omniscient and omnipresent?" But then I realized I was looking at this from a contractual, zero-sum perspective. God has no interest in 50/50 contracts, he is in the business (pun intended) of unilateral, open-ended, mutually convenantal relationships - each giving 100%. By abiding, by allowing God to choose, I am not lessening my sense of choice: I am, perhaps for the first time, entering into community with God. Jesus was the living sacrifice when he said, "not my will, but yours be done".
When I choose to exercise my will, I pre-determine the outcome - and when it comes to the transformation of my nature and my desires, my choices are ineffectual. But the act of my choosing blocks God from having the freedom to make his choices -- I collapse the wave form of trust (to borrow from the world of quantum physics), and thereby remove the potential for God to do greater things than I can ask or image.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Hope vs Expectations
The other day I had breakfast with a smart person. He talked about the four things I should be able to expect from attending church. The four ideas were that:
The second response was an epiphany. I have never been able to figure out the difference between expectations and hope. If you know me at all, you know my minimalist view of life is that everything comes down to trust vs control, and that in turn, trust is expressed in relationships through covenental, unilateral bestowments of goodness, and that control is expressed in relationship through contractual, 50/50 expectations. My epiphany was that expectations are contractual (I knew that before), but that hope is covenental (that was the light going on for me).
When I was at my nephews engagement party later that same day, people were giving marriage advice. I wasn't able to articulate what I really wanted to say until later, but what I should have said was: Live without expectations of your spouse, but live with hopes for your spouse.
Expectations will always try to subtly control the other person. Hope wants the best for another, without desire for reciprocity.
- I should be able to be in community with those around. That is, if there are any conflicts, you are confident that either party will go and make it right.
- I should be lead in worship without being manipulated.
- I should hear the Word preached with accuracy and authenticity.
- I should be able to participate in the Lord's supper.
The second response was an epiphany. I have never been able to figure out the difference between expectations and hope. If you know me at all, you know my minimalist view of life is that everything comes down to trust vs control, and that in turn, trust is expressed in relationships through covenental, unilateral bestowments of goodness, and that control is expressed in relationship through contractual, 50/50 expectations. My epiphany was that expectations are contractual (I knew that before), but that hope is covenental (that was the light going on for me).
When I was at my nephews engagement party later that same day, people were giving marriage advice. I wasn't able to articulate what I really wanted to say until later, but what I should have said was: Live without expectations of your spouse, but live with hopes for your spouse.
Expectations will always try to subtly control the other person. Hope wants the best for another, without desire for reciprocity.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
He who has ears
Self-awareness is perhaps one of the most important traits we can cultivate in our lives.
C.S. Lewis said that Jesus either was God as he said he was, or he was evil, or he was stupid. That may be a bit of a simplification, but it catches the gist of it. I find that when I am dealing with people who are so obviously mis-treating others, that this same set of choices comes in handy. I'm pretty sure they are not God, so that leaves evil or stupid. What is the difference? I think self-awareness is the difference. To be "stupid" is to be unaware or ignorant of how your actions are affecting those around you. But if you are aware of how your actions will impact others, and still do it, I'm not sure there is any option left other than evil.
So how do you foster and encourage self-awareness in yourself and those around so that you make healthy, non-evil, un-stupid choices?
I don't know.
And I think Jesus knew you couldn't force someone to see something they weren't ready to see. When he told parables, he would often say, "He who has ears, let him hear". Maybe he was saying, those of you who are self-aware enough to hear this will get it, for the others, it will just be a confusing story for now.
Perhaps just like the changing of the desires of your nature is the fruit of the Spirit transforming your life, self-awareness is another evidence of transformation and renewal in your life.
As we become more self-aware, I believe we become less certain of most things, and more certain of a few things. My father put it well: "There are very few important things in life, but those few things are very important". We become less inclined to judge and condemn the actions of others. Why? Because we are aware of our own depravity. When we withhold forgiveness, remain bitter, or judge others, we think we are entitled to some "settling of the score" where we are recompensed for the pain someone else has caused us. We think we want justice. But really, if we are self-aware of our own depravity, we fear justice for we know what we deserve ourselves from true justice. What we really crave is mercy, and we are more than willing for that mercy to extend to others.
He who has ears, let him hear.
C.S. Lewis said that Jesus either was God as he said he was, or he was evil, or he was stupid. That may be a bit of a simplification, but it catches the gist of it. I find that when I am dealing with people who are so obviously mis-treating others, that this same set of choices comes in handy. I'm pretty sure they are not God, so that leaves evil or stupid. What is the difference? I think self-awareness is the difference. To be "stupid" is to be unaware or ignorant of how your actions are affecting those around you. But if you are aware of how your actions will impact others, and still do it, I'm not sure there is any option left other than evil.
So how do you foster and encourage self-awareness in yourself and those around so that you make healthy, non-evil, un-stupid choices?
I don't know.
And I think Jesus knew you couldn't force someone to see something they weren't ready to see. When he told parables, he would often say, "He who has ears, let him hear". Maybe he was saying, those of you who are self-aware enough to hear this will get it, for the others, it will just be a confusing story for now.
Perhaps just like the changing of the desires of your nature is the fruit of the Spirit transforming your life, self-awareness is another evidence of transformation and renewal in your life.
As we become more self-aware, I believe we become less certain of most things, and more certain of a few things. My father put it well: "There are very few important things in life, but those few things are very important". We become less inclined to judge and condemn the actions of others. Why? Because we are aware of our own depravity. When we withhold forgiveness, remain bitter, or judge others, we think we are entitled to some "settling of the score" where we are recompensed for the pain someone else has caused us. We think we want justice. But really, if we are self-aware of our own depravity, we fear justice for we know what we deserve ourselves from true justice. What we really crave is mercy, and we are more than willing for that mercy to extend to others.
He who has ears, let him hear.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Trust and Forgiveness
The other day, someone asked me "how do you restore trust after you've been wronged?" Two ideas came out of our conversation:
1) Forgiveness is something the wronged person does for themselves, not for the offender. While the offender may want forgiveness to assuage their sense of guilt, it is the person wronged who benefits the most from forgiveness. It releases us from bitterness, it releases us from our sense of entitlement to retribution, it releases us from our false sense of superiority that we would not have done the same thing in the others shoes. Forgiveness reminds us that we are all fallen. Perhaps this is why Jesus said that we will not be forgiven if we do not forgive others.
2) Trust is something unilaterally given by the the wronged person, not something earned back by the works of the offender. Trust is granted as an act of grace by the one offended, not something negotiated back as a contractual settlement. God is the greatest example of this - constantly trying to restore trust to us by his acts of grace. If it was something we could earn back, we would still be stuck under the Law. Further, it is the choice of the one offended to grant trust. You choose. You are not a victim when you are wronged again - you make a choice and you own the consequences of choosing to bestow grace, even if you do so seventy seven times.
Forgiveness should never make us feel superior - it should always remind us of our own depravity and dependence on the grace of God.
1) Forgiveness is something the wronged person does for themselves, not for the offender. While the offender may want forgiveness to assuage their sense of guilt, it is the person wronged who benefits the most from forgiveness. It releases us from bitterness, it releases us from our sense of entitlement to retribution, it releases us from our false sense of superiority that we would not have done the same thing in the others shoes. Forgiveness reminds us that we are all fallen. Perhaps this is why Jesus said that we will not be forgiven if we do not forgive others.
2) Trust is something unilaterally given by the the wronged person, not something earned back by the works of the offender. Trust is granted as an act of grace by the one offended, not something negotiated back as a contractual settlement. God is the greatest example of this - constantly trying to restore trust to us by his acts of grace. If it was something we could earn back, we would still be stuck under the Law. Further, it is the choice of the one offended to grant trust. You choose. You are not a victim when you are wronged again - you make a choice and you own the consequences of choosing to bestow grace, even if you do so seventy seven times.
Forgiveness should never make us feel superior - it should always remind us of our own depravity and dependence on the grace of God.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Both/And not Either/Or
In my last post, I said that had been confused about the relationship between the flesh and the law. I just realized today that I was also confused about the relationship between the law and the Spirit.
I had always seen it as an Either/Or relationship between the law and the Spirit. You are either under the Law or you are under the Spirit. But I think it is a Both/And. We are freed from the condemnation of the Law, and then we have the opportunity to trust/abide/live by the Spirit.
Imagine you have an enormous debt -- something like a personal mortgage of a trillion trillions - it is inconceivable that you, let alone any country, could ever pay it off. Someone comes and pays the debt. You are debt free. In Paul's words in Romans 8:1, therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. But now that you are free of the debt, you are also free to choose. You can choose to make healthy choices, or you can be an idiot and go to Las Vegas and gamble yourself back into a pit of debt. Just because you are free of condemnation under the law, does not mean you are automatically living in the Spirit.
Or another word picture: you are born with a terminal medical condition. You are condemned to death by the "Medicine". The doctor's didn't make you sick any more than the Law made you sin. The doctor's simply diagnosed your condition but are unable to do anything to change your condition. Paul says that the law was powerless. As an interesting aside, there are a whole group of people who worship Medicine thinking it will make them live forever - they don't realize that it is powerless to truly heal them. As you deal with the mess and despair of your life you find new ways to self-medicate and try to mask the symptoms and the despair of your condition. Then someone else dies, and you are given a transplant. There is therefor now no diagnosis of death. As you walk out of the hospital, you now have a choice: to live like an idiot and become a heroin addict (or whatever other way you choose to abuse your body - the flesh), or you choose to live with healthy choices. The challenge is, after years of dealing with your diagnosis you have no idea how to live and make healthy choices. Your nature, your flesh, only knows how to meet it's own desires. All the patterns that helped you survive and cope with your diagnosis are no longer applicable. You don't know how to live with your new freedom. Getting a transplant may have freed you from a medical diagnosis, but you are still a jerk. The interesting thing is that the same person who died so that you might live also left instructions for their best friend to offer their services as your life coach. They know you are a mess, but they offer their friendship, their wisdom and their love. This Helper is a gentleman, and will not force his help upon you. In his wisdom, he will not bail you out of the consequences of the dysfunctional choices you make. But he offers to meet with you every day, to help you learn to make healthy choices.
As I write this, I always thought that transformation was radical not incremental, that it was just the death of Christ that was transformative. But reading this again, I see that this is another Both/And. Christ offers radical transformation by freeing us from the condemnation of the law, AND the Spirit offers us incremental transformation through the renewing of our nature. Legalisim gets this backwards - hoping that an incremental approach to the law will result in a radical change of our nature -- but that approach is doomed to failure. Transformation is about radical death, and then incremental resurrection, with the hope some day of radical resurrection.
I had always seen it as an Either/Or relationship between the law and the Spirit. You are either under the Law or you are under the Spirit. But I think it is a Both/And. We are freed from the condemnation of the Law, and then we have the opportunity to trust/abide/live by the Spirit.
Imagine you have an enormous debt -- something like a personal mortgage of a trillion trillions - it is inconceivable that you, let alone any country, could ever pay it off. Someone comes and pays the debt. You are debt free. In Paul's words in Romans 8:1, therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. But now that you are free of the debt, you are also free to choose. You can choose to make healthy choices, or you can be an idiot and go to Las Vegas and gamble yourself back into a pit of debt. Just because you are free of condemnation under the law, does not mean you are automatically living in the Spirit.
Or another word picture: you are born with a terminal medical condition. You are condemned to death by the "Medicine". The doctor's didn't make you sick any more than the Law made you sin. The doctor's simply diagnosed your condition but are unable to do anything to change your condition. Paul says that the law was powerless. As an interesting aside, there are a whole group of people who worship Medicine thinking it will make them live forever - they don't realize that it is powerless to truly heal them. As you deal with the mess and despair of your life you find new ways to self-medicate and try to mask the symptoms and the despair of your condition. Then someone else dies, and you are given a transplant. There is therefor now no diagnosis of death. As you walk out of the hospital, you now have a choice: to live like an idiot and become a heroin addict (or whatever other way you choose to abuse your body - the flesh), or you choose to live with healthy choices. The challenge is, after years of dealing with your diagnosis you have no idea how to live and make healthy choices. Your nature, your flesh, only knows how to meet it's own desires. All the patterns that helped you survive and cope with your diagnosis are no longer applicable. You don't know how to live with your new freedom. Getting a transplant may have freed you from a medical diagnosis, but you are still a jerk. The interesting thing is that the same person who died so that you might live also left instructions for their best friend to offer their services as your life coach. They know you are a mess, but they offer their friendship, their wisdom and their love. This Helper is a gentleman, and will not force his help upon you. In his wisdom, he will not bail you out of the consequences of the dysfunctional choices you make. But he offers to meet with you every day, to help you learn to make healthy choices.
As I write this, I always thought that transformation was radical not incremental, that it was just the death of Christ that was transformative. But reading this again, I see that this is another Both/And. Christ offers radical transformation by freeing us from the condemnation of the law, AND the Spirit offers us incremental transformation through the renewing of our nature. Legalisim gets this backwards - hoping that an incremental approach to the law will result in a radical change of our nature -- but that approach is doomed to failure. Transformation is about radical death, and then incremental resurrection, with the hope some day of radical resurrection.
Friday, January 9, 2009
me, them, and the Other
Usually when I am confused about something, it is because there are multiple issues blurred together into a single confusing mess. Trying to understand physics without separating out Newtonian physics, Relativity and Quantum mechanics makes the whole thing a contradictory mess. Seeing each one as it's own entity allows me to start to see how they interact, and start to see the whole.
In the same way, I've been reading Romans 6, 7 and 8 recently. Paul talks about the flesh, the Law and the Spirit. I think of them as me, the expectations of others (them), and Him who is Other. But how do they interact?
First, I'm realizing that I have often confused the flesh and the law. I have confused my desire to sin (Romans 7:5) with my failure to meet an unattainable standard. The Law has no redeeming value other than to show me that I sin and that I am unable to change by my own will power (Romans 7:18).
As many of us move into a season of post-moralism (where the behavioral code of conduct from our childhood no longer brings success in adulthood) we find that we are indeed dead to the law (Romans 7:4), but still very much alive to the flesh (Romans 7:21-24). How should we then live?
There is a part of me that lives in this world (the flesh), but there is a part of me that is created in the image of God and exists in the Other. I can try to change my flesh, but I will never directly change that part of me that exists outside of time and space. So how do my desires change, and therefor my behavior as an outflow?
I can't change my nature directly, but I can choose to trust the Other, allowing the Spirit to live in me, and thereby change my nature:
I think the irony is that the call to abide, to trust, to live by the Spirit is far harder than living by an external code of conduct and behavior like the law or moralism. Being a legalist is so much more tangible and appealing to that part of me that craves control like a drug. The posture of trust only lasts for the fleeting moment of the present. You can't pay a trust deficit of trust from the past, and you can't bank up trust for the future. Trust only exists in the now. It is a constant, conscious choice to trust, to abide, to live in the Spirit.
In the same way, I've been reading Romans 6, 7 and 8 recently. Paul talks about the flesh, the Law and the Spirit. I think of them as me, the expectations of others (them), and Him who is Other. But how do they interact?
First, I'm realizing that I have often confused the flesh and the law. I have confused my desire to sin (Romans 7:5) with my failure to meet an unattainable standard. The Law has no redeeming value other than to show me that I sin and that I am unable to change by my own will power (Romans 7:18).
As many of us move into a season of post-moralism (where the behavioral code of conduct from our childhood no longer brings success in adulthood) we find that we are indeed dead to the law (Romans 7:4), but still very much alive to the flesh (Romans 7:21-24). How should we then live?
There is a part of me that lives in this world (the flesh), but there is a part of me that is created in the image of God and exists in the Other. I can try to change my flesh, but I will never directly change that part of me that exists outside of time and space. So how do my desires change, and therefor my behavior as an outflow?
A catalyst is something that changes something else without changing itself.
Trust is a catalyst that allows the Spirit to live in me.
The Spirit is a catalyst that changes my nature.
Trust is a catalyst that allows the Spirit to live in me.
The Spirit is a catalyst that changes my nature.
I can't change my nature directly, but I can choose to trust the Other, allowing the Spirit to live in me, and thereby change my nature:
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.Notice the language of death? This is radical transformation - not compromise and incremental change. So how do we live in the Spirit and not in the flesh? We don't do - we abide.The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.Galatians 5:16-25
Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. John 15: 4Remaining in Christ (or abiding) is a posture of trust. We can't directly change ourselves, we must trust, and then the Spirit bears fruit. Just like seeing a dim star in the corner of your eye, it is fleeting and does not bear direct scrutiny well. Like most of the important lessons in my life, it is subtle and indirect. Perhaps this is why Paul always left the transition from the despair at the end of Romans 7 to the hope of Romans 8 so vague -- there is nothing we can do or control - we must submit and die:
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1).The Spirit is the one who transforms - not by our will power.
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. (Romans 8:5)
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. (Romans 8:9-11)
For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. (Romans 8:13)Notice he says that we must put to death the misdeeds of the body - but most importantly, he says to do so "by the Spirit" - not by the law, not by will power, not by moral behavior modification, but by the Spirit.
For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. (Romans 8:15)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
