Part V – Spiritual Formation of Higher Education Students

A Paradigm: Revisiting Transformed, Transcend and Transformational

My essay so far has been an attempt at arguing the necessity of getting at the real Spiritual Formation issues in the life of Christian Higher Education Students; and the wonderful possibilities that can come from unleashing young men and women who are spiritually in the process of vigorously becoming inwardly whole and complete; so that they might be outwardly competent by authentically demonstrating the life of Christ. The essential point being that what the world needs most are men and women who go at life as a genuine as Christ Himself would, in wherever circumstances they are called and find themselves in. This is the only way that they can become the dynamic transformational force in all of society and culture.

A Hero of Mine: William Wilberforce

In fact and actuality, this is not without significant precedent. One of the most inspiring examples that I can think of is the life and work of William Wilberforce -- one of the primary leaders of the Clapham Sect in the late 18^th and early 19^th century England. Clearly, England as a nation and culture at the time had much in the way of our problems, and perhaps even more. It has been argued by some historians for example, that Great Britan managed to dodge the phenomena of the "French Revolution" that swept across Europe at the time; largely because of the exhausting and dedicated work of men and women like William Wilberforce, Charles Simeon and John Thorton. It is truly astounding that a few people could affect that much change within a culture that was incredible in its moral decadence, corrupt political system, and an elitist snobby aristocracy still living out the last vestiges of the Divine Right of Kings.

Shortly after his conversion experience, the very wealthy and socially popular Wilberforce thought of resigning from his position in the House of Commons and going into the professional ministry. Seeking council from a pastor friend John Newton and author of the hymn: Amazing Grace; as well as a career as a former slave trader; Newton encouraged Wilberforce to remain in the House of Commons and affect change for the Kingdom through his political office. Over the course of his life time, Wilberforce was able to achieve the following: 1. The abolishment of slavery in England (a monumental battle!). 2. Later the complete abolishment of slavery throughout her colonies (The Empire upon which the sun never set!) 3. The invention of Sunday School – to provide educational opportunities for the poor and homeless children. 4. The radical development of Missionary Societies – a hugely successful work, that recruited, trained and supported professional missionaries – they not only shared Christ, but also penetrated some of the most remote regions of the world – taking with them many things like medication and scientific advancements. 5. They created and lobbied for the first ever child-labor laws to protect the abuse of children from cruel employers. Those same employers who worked children as young as eight years old, 12 hours a day in Coal Mines and as Chimney Sweeps . Undeniably, Wilberforce and the rest of the Clapham Sect were able to put things into motion that not only changed their culture, but the entire world around them.

Wilberforce's efforts were possible because to him, it was crucial that his heart life reflect Christ… His capacity to be inwardly transformed enabled him to transcend the pervasive and alluring cultural temptations of social popularity and a stultified and corrupt political tradition that resisted any manner of change – the result of which enabled him to become one of the great, world transformational figures in the history of the world – for Christ and His Kingdom! For Wilberforce, there was no "compartmentalization" and/or a life in Christ as a form of "individualism."

When We Are Not Inwardly Transformed, Outwardly Transcendent and Capable of Being Transformational Agents

By way of providing a dramatic opposite example, the lack of inner transformation, transcendence and transformational ability always bodes ill, particularly in the Church and her leaders. In my studies on genocide for example, I was initially startled to discover that within virtually every genocidal context, uniformly the Church as well as individual Christians tend to respond very poorly. Why is this?

Genocide, which is a political and cultural attitude of virulent anti-relationship, aimed at a people group that have been deemed no longer worthy of life, is antithetically and diametrically opposite of the Jesus' teaching on the Kingdom. If anybody ought to know about relationships, forgiveness, grace and healing, it ought to be the Church and her followers. But this was not the case, in the most recent example of mass genocide practiced in Rwanda. Within 100 days 800,000 to 1,000,000 members of the Tutsi tribe were either largely bludgeoned death with clubs and/or hacked to pieces by machetes, by members of the Huitu tribe. 

Statistically, I was startled to find that there was virtually no difference in the behavior from the churched and self-proclaimed Christians and the non-Churched and non-Christians – across denominational lines and faith traditions. Hutu Christians simply didn't have the ability to overcome their cultural prejudices and systematically murdered their national and Christian brothers and sisters.

In a more recent example of genocide pertaining to Rwanda, an Editor's article from Commonweal Magazine notes the following of individual Christian and Church behavior:

(In June of 2002) "two Benedictine nuns were convicted in a Belgian court of collaborating in the murder of thousands during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Sister Gertrude Mukangango and Sister Maria Kisito were sentenced to fifteen and twelve years' imprisonment, respectively for their roles in turning over to their Hutu killers seven thousand Tutsi who had sought asylum in the nun's monastery, the sisters willingly provided the gasoline used by Hutu militiamen to burn down a garage in which five hundred Tutsi men, women, and children were hiding… There appears to be little doubt about the women's guilt. Crucial to the prosecution was the willingness of other Benedictine
sisters to testify against them."

…Catholic bishops, priests, and sisters suffered martyrdom at the hands of the militias, and ordinary Hutu Catholics were killed trying to protect Tutsi neighbors. It is equally true, however, that other clerics and nuns supported the Hutu genocide or stood by silently as it unfolded. Catholics were found on both sides of this enormous crime, and it is sobering that the pervasive Catholic institutional and cultural presence in Rwanda proved little impediment to such mind-numbing savagery."

Andre Sibomana, a Rwandan Catholic priest, journalist, and human-rights activist records in his book: Hope for Rwanda, details the following in his conversations with Two French journalists Laure Guibert and Herve Deguine, about the role of the Catholic Church during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

           The church did nothing to prevent tragedies which could have been prevented. When 
           the bishops were informed that a genocide was about to happen, when they saw the 
           increase in killings in the period leading up to the genocide-on average five every 
           night- their attitude didn't change. The leaders of the church stood by the 
           government, particularly the bishops of Kigali and Byumba. They failed to react in an 
           appropriate way toward the role of the government in the preparation of the       
           genocide. They should have broken away[….] […]The fact that society was unable to 
           prevent the catastrophe shows that there was a fundamental breakdown. Christians 
           shouldn't suffer a situation; they have a responsibility to take control."

Later in his book Sibomana offers this brief exchange of one of his church member's behavior:

          Some believers were weak and irresponsible: They did not weigh the consequences of 
          their actions. I asked one of my parishioners who carried a grenade, 'What are you 
          doing?' He replied, 'Don't you understand the situation we're in? We'll think about 
          religion later."

Stephen R. Haynes, associate professor of Religious Studies at Rhodes College and a member of the Church Relations Committee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council shares his thoughts on a slightly different take than Sibomana, but similar non-the-less (I quote at length):

Like Nazi Germany, genocidal Rwanda is an exceedingly unattractive venue for Christian self-examination. Much of the evidence indicates that "blood" proved thicker than baptismal water, that faith was powerless to overcome the interests of class or ethnicity. And Rwanda has provided few stories designed to restore our trust in humankind or the role of faith in confronting evil. So far, we know of no Rwandan Bonhoeffers with whom mainline Protestants can identify; no Hutu Corrie ten Booms to sustain evangelical's belief that God protects the righteous; no Catholic bishops who risked their lives to speak out against the violence; no Le Chambon-sur-Lignons where the persecuted were sheltered by simple Christians in a "conspiracy of goodness."

YET PRECISELY BECAUSE so little good news can be gleaned from the Rwandan genocide, Christians must not ignore it. One pressing issue raised by Rwanda is human nature, what theologians have traditionally called anthropology. Although scholars of the genocide assiduously avoid theological questions, Christians must ask what this and other episodes of mass killing reveal about the essence and extent of our falleness. Reinhold Neibuhr reportedly said that the doctrine of original sin is the only doctrine for which Christians have any empirical evidence...

These are disturbing words of indictment and at the heart of it, many people died horrible, senseless and tragic deaths in Rwanda, by the hands of their fellow Christians and Church members, because as participators in genocide, they lacked the inward transformation of Christ and were not capable of transcending their cultural conditioning and circumstances, this left them as non entities as transformational agents. In short, they simply not able to do the things that Jesus would do, if He were they, in the here and now…. Kierkegaard is problematic for many of us:

But genuine religion has an inverse relationship to the finite. Its aim is to raise human beings up so as to transcend what is earthly. It is a matter of either/or. Either prime quality, or no quality at all; either with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength, or not at all. Either all God and all you, or nothing at all."

Spiritually Formed = Leadership

In our Principles of Leadership class we provide for the class a definition of what we consider genuine leadership to be:

Leadership is the passionate, faithful commitment to one's

giftedness and calling.

(rsg)

One of the significant outcomes hoped for those who participate in Christian Liberal Arts Higher Education, is that in their faith and vocational integration, that they might exert Christian Leadership within the culture and change the world for Christ around them. I believe this Christian leadership is truly impossible in a pervasive sort of way, unless their leadership is a result of a determined response to imitate Christ, know what He desires of their life and are able to employ their giftedness to that particular end. In other words, we are obligated to imitate the ultimate leader, Jesus Christ, by being made over in His image and having Him ignite all of our potential for His cause.

Conclusion:

The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wants me to do; the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die."

                                                          Kierkegaard from his: Journal

Killologist, David Grossman tells of the following story, observed and recorded by a Reporter who observed the following events. Immediately after the battle of Normandy, and the Allies steady advance over German territory, Hitler desperate to regain momentum responded with a full-scale and vicious counterattack. Throwing all of his reserves and material that he could muster at the Allied advance, it consequentially stalled; and then began to slowly fall back. Allied command responded in part by flying and dropping the infamous 101^st Airborned Division to blunt the counter attack by the Germans. We know this as the Battle of the Bulge.

One reporter, who was walking down the dirt and gravel road, noted with interest a soldier from the 101^st emerge silently from the hedgerows and walk down onto the road. Several days of beard growth covered his face and he was dirty and worn from days of fighting. Over his back he carried a rifle. In his hands, he held a bazooka. He started walking towards the Northwest – towards Germany – towards the fighting. Up the road, in the direction to which he was heading, they could both hear the roar of a Tank engine, moving towards them at a high speed, retreating before the German advance. The soldier stopped… Soon the Tank, an American Sherman tank, came into view and continued its advance towards them. The soldier now stood in the middle of the road and did not move. The Sherman tank stopped in front of him, its engine idling. The hatch on the front of the tank popped open and a man peered out, his face clearly masked with fear… "Are you looking for a safe place" said the 101^st Airborne Soldier? "Yes," said the tank soldier… "Then stand behind me." Said the soldier from the 101^st.

I love that story, because I think that it parallels so much of our current circumstances within the Church and in the world… We have many of our Christian brothers and sisters who are quickly retreating before the advancing evil of our day. And we desperately need Christian soldiers who are clear about their mission and determined to make it happen. We must be "soldiers" who are willing to engage the enemy on his turf, at great cost.

German Scholar and Nazi Resister, Dietich Boneffer is noted for saying: When Christ calls a man He bids him to come and to die." Jesus' admonition to us is that in order to truly follow Him, we must "die to ourselves." This is God's expectation of all who claim to know Him as Savior and Lord. But we can't give our life to Him and in service to this world ultimately, unless we are willing to have Christ in us, in the world, with His marching orders in hand. Perhaps more than anything it takes determined obedience. In light of this I am reminded of Thomas R. Kelley's comments in his A Testament of Devotion:

We are torn loose from earthy attachments and ambitions – contemptus mundi. And we are quickened to a divine but painful concern for this world – amor mundi. He plucks the world out of our hearts, loosening the chains of attachment. And He hurls the world into our hearts, where we and He together carry it in infinitely tender love.

For every Student that finds a way to become inwardly transformed, so that they might transcend personal and cultural inhibitors, in order that they might like Christ "amor mundi" and transform the world… They become like that soldier from the 101^st Airborne Division… Trained, skilled, Obedient, Focused on the Mission at hand and ultimately successful against the enemy. They provide the "safe place" for others through their calling, giftedness and vocation. They are in fact the kind of young men and women who know authentically how to be Inwardly Transformed, so that they can Outwardly Transcend; in order that they become overtly Transformational Agents in obedience and love for Christ and the Kingdom of God!

Part IV Spiritual Formation and The Integration of Faith and Vocation

An Example: "Respectable Businesses"

Without A Redemptive Christian Approach

I am mindful of C.S. Lewis' book: The Screwtape Letters, in which he is often noted for his comments on evil with the following statement:

"The greatest evil is not done those sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice."

Lewis' point is well taken if we were to examine the origin and promotion of Pornography in our culture. For example, in a fascinating article in the Sunday, October 29, 2000 Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette an article in its Commentary section featuring the following:

General Motor Corp., the world's largest company, now sells more graphic sex films every year than does Larry Flint owner of the Hustler Empire. The 8.7 million Americans who subscribe to DirecTV, A GM subsidiary, buy nearly $200 million a year in pay-per-view sex films from satilite…"

EchoStar Communications Corp., the number 2 satellite provider, whose chief financial backers include Murdoch (chairman of News Corp.,), makes more money selling graphic adult films through its satellite subsidiary than Playboy…"

AT&T Corp., the nations biggest communications company… also owns a company that sells sex videos to nearly a million hotel rooms

The article goes on to say: " For all the money being made on sex – legally – by mainstream corporations, the topic remains taboo outside the boardroom. The major satellite and cable companies do very little marketing of the X-rated products, and they are not mentioned in annual reports except in the vaguest of euphemisms… None of the corporate leaders of AT&T, Time Warner, General Motors, EchoStar, Liberty Media, Marriott International, the Hilton, On Command, LodgeNet Entertainment or News Corp. – all companies that have a big financial stake in adult films and are held by millions of shareholders – were willing to speak publicly about the sex side of their businesses."

To the astonishment of Flynt… his competitors in the 10 billion annual adult market are mainstream corporations whose board members are among the American elite."

Clearly these large "respectable" corporations described above have great need of a redemptive Christian influence. But, where was it? At the risk of appearing to moralize, are there not Christians associated with those corporations who have voting and policy power? Were there no influential Christians in management or on the Board of Directors, who would govern with the mind of Christ? If so, did any of those Christians have a faith and vocation integration perspective and commitment, or is their worldview compartmentalized? Or perhaps there simply are not enough of them and they are simply too outnumbered to make that much of a substantive difference… Of those who might be there, did any of them come from a strong Christian background and/or Christian Liberal Arts Colleges like Geneva College? If so, what was their approach to procuring their various positions? More specifically, did they get their position with the idea that they would keep the toxic parts of the job from infecting them; or did they take the job with the idea of infecting it for Christ?

Could it be possible that there were no Christians there, who intentionally chose that kind of work, that career path because they felt called by God to penetrate it as a Mission Field and use their calling and gifts to create a "good infection" that C.S. Lewis discusses in yet another book Mere Christianity? And because they did so, what they have, is not really a job but rather, a "vocation" that they are committed to? A powerful sense of God's design and purpose for them; a passionate calling, desire and commitment to transform this part of society for Christ, that the Apostle Paul encourages us with from Ephesians 2:10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Higher Education Students and the Practice of "Individualism" by Default…

Recalling that many young Christians choose their perspective majors for: First, not out of a sense of "calling," but because it will meet their lifestyle wants and "needs;" and secondly because those same students often engage in the subtle interplay of vacillating between "vocation" and "livelihood." In other words, they choose their livelihood predicated on wants and needs and then declare it their vocation!
Third, perhaps, even before Christian students come to Colleges and/or Universities, they really haven't been given the necessary experiences or diagnostic tools to be able to ascertain their vocational calling. Therefore the "individualism" practiced here is the kind that comes by default. They default and do, and act, on only what they know and have experienced.

As a Youth Minister involved in numerous churches and communities, it was no secret that most students spend the lion's share of their time and energy doing those activities that reap the most rewards socially; and through which their parents cold live vicariously. Over time this often resulted in emphasizing the development of secondary gifts and talents and not so much their innate and primary ones… In High School, a student can function reasonably well with this approach. But when they go to College or University, they discover that their secondary gifts are not weighty enough to allow them to perform at the next level. Conversely, their primary gifts, the ones that are directly related to their vocation and calling, withered, became truncated and are often grossly underdeveloped. This condition as well, will not permit them to perform at the next level… As a result they are often lost and confused about how their faith can work with their vocation - whatever that may be… The resulting primary objective becomes social and financial "survival."

This situation is exacerbated all the more, when they receive pressure from family members about choosing a particular major that will enable them to pursue a specific and narrow career path for the rest of their lives! I recall reading a number of years ago, that of those students who graduate from a college or university, only half go into a field of their particular major; and of that half, another half of them move out of that field altogether within five years. In addition, the average person changes, not their job, but their career 3-5 times in their life-time.

My thought is that those of us who do Youth Ministry, as well as those of us who are involved in Christian Higher Education, have a significant if not vital role to play in guiding students in this thought process. Clearly, what we have been doing so far is not working. As of today, there is not one major institution in our culture in which the Christian community has any significant influence. We are indeed in a Post-Christian Culture. This despite the fact that Christianity and those who embraced it are either responsible for and/or shaped significantly things like: Hospitals, Schools and Universities, Democracy/Politics, Business, Non-Profits etc. etc. We have lost our way from the faith and vocational integration principle - because over time, like the proverbial frog in the kettle, we were wooed into a highly privatized, intellectualized and compartmentalized expression of our faith. How odd it is that what we fail to recognize that what we build in life, is actually what we live in. Soren Kierkegaard once said:

"Most systematizers stand in the same relation to their systems as the man who builds
a great castle and lives in an adjoining shack; they do not live in their great systematic
structure. Metaphorically speaking, a person's ideas must be the building he lives in ---
otherwise there is something terribly wrong

We always do what we always are, because we can only do what we only are….

Part III Spiritual Formation In Higher Education

The Origin of Individualization = Self-Idolization

My former Sociology professor at Geneva College, Russell Heddendorf was fond of saying repeatedly in class: "There is always a reality beyond the one that you perceive." The truth of this statement, in itself alone, was almost worth the price of my tuition. Wisdom, it would seem, demands that we make it our life's work to discover and comprehend those realities that always lay beyond the immediate ones that we currently perceive; in order that we might grow and become everything that Jesus would have us be, so that in turn we can do everything Jesus would have us do…
Certainly one of the crucial things that we should all discover is the culturally affirmed, multiphasic and elusive reality of "self-idolization" and how it plays itself out in our lives; and that we have come to know culturally as "Individualism." It is no secret that within the Christian tradition, self-idolization finds its rootedness all the way back to the narrative in Genesis 3 that details Eve's encounter with Satan.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" 2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Clearly, Eve's decision, and eventually Adam's, had much to do with the fact that they desired to "be like God." Their Fall away from God, rewired the spiritual genetic code with the same kind of pattern and corruption of our ancient Enemy. Rejecting God, they chose instead to enter into a life where they would be forever tempted to love and serve only themselves. And so we have the primary struggle within all of mankind – an unholy trinity of the co-mingled sins of Pride, Power and Selfishness to get what we want. It is in fact impossible to practice one of them (primarily), without the other two being present in a supporting role as well.

One of the Greatest Evils:
The Individualization of Calling and Gifts

Self-Idolization in the form of Individualism has been studied astutely by more than just the Christian community. Noted Swarthmore College professor of Psychology, Kenneth Gergen, in his classic work: The Saturated Self comments on the self and community:
Still, the development of relatedness as a fundamental reality will proceed slowly, for as we have seen, the Western vocabulary of understanding persons is robustly individualistic. The culture has long been committed to the idea of the single, conscious self as the critical unity of society. Decartes' dictum "I think therefore I am" is emblematic."

Throughout the entire work, Gergen argues persuasively that one of the most compelling distinctives of people in Western Culture is that they live lives that are thoroughly turned in on themselves. The outlets for our growth and development in our Individualism - as a worldview are myriad. None are more compelling and pervasive than our unwitting absorption of it at the feet of our parents throughout the course of childhood and adolescence.
In the fall of 1979, just before attending Geneva College, I discussed with my father which academic degree that I intended to major in order to better facilitate my calling to ministry. His encouragement to me was to avoid the ministry because: "it doesn't pay enough money." When I countered that obedience to God with my life was more important than money, he parried with statements like: "it's nice when you are young to have those kinds of ideals. But when you get older, marry, have children and have to provide a roof over your head and food for your family, the ability to make money, in the end, is all that counts."
And then, he was quick to follow up with a well known admonition that he was well known for saying:
The number one thing in life is to look out for yourself and to, learn not to depend on anyone else! Just take care of your own needs and wants because nobody out there will ever do it for you! Don't worry about anyone else – let them take care of themselves - always take care of number one first!

I really can't blame my father too much, he was only parroting a dominant worldview that saturates every level and corner of our own culture. My interviews of prospective students and their parents, done in the past; as well as all of the advising that I've done, convinces me that I my experience was not unique. Rather, in varying degrees and intensities an "individualistic – self-idolizing" approach to life is disturbingly normative… This despite Jesus' pointed, total-life-surrendering-admonitions, given to us by Him in His Sermon on the Mount as service to Himself and to our neighbors.
The normative practice of individualization means that we imbibe inadvertently in one of the greatest evils that can be practiced in our world: "Individualization of Calling and Gifts." In epidemic proportions Christians take what God has ordained as a unique and special particularity in us, as-a-means-of-grace-for-others – and for His glory; and instead use it instead to advance our livelihoods, social status and the insatiable search for pleasure. They have transmorphed the difference between "needs" and "wants." Contravailingly, what God calls us to unswervingly is the sacrificial and loving "Communalization of Calling and Gifts." Our calling and gifts are not our own, they do not belong to us only… They have been uniquely distributed to each one of us as a means to fulfill the plan and providence of God.
It is crucial that creative and insightful dialogue be created to help arrest the thought and practice in the lives of Christian Higher Education Students. When discovered, complicity on the part of those professionals in Higher Education should be acknowledged as well. We can't expect our students to follow what we say, unless we are willing to walk before them and demonstrate it in spades by what we do. "Individualism" should be treated as one of the primary barriers between the authentic practice of one's faith and vocation, and it works powerfully among us in the following ways:

Three Manifestations of "Individualism" in the Life of

Christian Higher Education Students

Higher Education Degrees as Means for Life-Style & Social Status:

First, it comes as no surprise to those of us in Christian Higher Education that many Christian students often make choices about their majors, based not on calling and giftedness; but on their belief which degree will best facilitate their wants i.e. read "lifestyle" and emotional needs, perhaps as it relates especially for things like social prestige. It doesn't help when the college or university reinforces this kind of thinking in virtually all of their marketing materials. In addition, pressure from family and friends can be enormous in sorting out of these issues. Counter conditioning our Students to live differently and not embrace these kinds of values can be challenging at best. The net affect however, for those Students who choose to misapply their lives over and against their calling and giftedness can be analogous to the following: They become hammers that drive in screws, wood saws that cut paper and monkey wrenches that pound in nails. The work gets done, but the end affect usually isn't very pretty and/or ultimately very fulfilling. The damage takes its toll if not on the people around them, then on the core of their emotional and spiritual lives. They live hard for the means that produces only a feeble end.
One of the primary effects of this kind of "individualism" practiced here is the commitment to a kind of emotional security buoyed by the belief that they can do that kind of job and still be "nice" like a Christian should be… They are living the respectable life and maybe even pleasing their family members by making them proud. But in the end, this cannot be vocation, because their mentality associated with it will never permit them to "risk" it all… the kinds of risks often demanded to advance the Kingdom of God.

Confusion Between "Livelihood" and Vocational "Calling…"

Second, many Christian students in Higher Education vacillate between the subtle attitudinal shifts of vocation as "calling" to vocation as merely "livelihood." They often see them as one and the same. But clearly the biblical concept of vocational "calling" has to do with a specific manner or way of life, directed by God, that always works through things like (although not exhaustively) a particular vocation/profession, a particular marriage and a particular locality or place to live. When God created us as individuals He had also in mind very clear and desired outcomes. Those outcomes are designed not only to please and glorify Him, but are included in the overall redemptive process for the world as a whole.
Os Guisnness, in his wonderful book, The Call, offers these falling comments on the subject of "Calling."

Calling is the truth that God calls us to Himself so decisively that everything we are, everything we do, and everything we have is invested with a special devotion, dynamism, and direction out as a response to His summons and service.

Our primary calling as followers of Christ is by Him, to Him, and for Him. First and foremost we are called to Someone (God), not to something (such as motherhood, politics, or teaching) or to somewhere (such as the inner city or Outer Mongolia.

Our secondary calling, considering who God is as sovereign, is that everyone, everywhere, and in everything should think, speak, live and act entirely for him. We can therefore properly say as a matter of secondary calling that we are called to homemaking or to the practice of law or to art history…

In addition, it's also important to note that God gives us particular spiritual gifts and talents with which to fulfill our callings. In other words, if God desires certain outcomes without lives, to which He calls us, then it makes sense that He would gives us the tools necessary to complete them. But this is where the problem for many of our students lies because they are often given every opportunity and excuse to use their particular giftedness to enhance their livelihood only.
One of my favorite passages to speak from is I Peter 4:7-10:

(7)The end of all things in near. Therefore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray. (8)Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers a multitude of sins. (9)Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. (10)Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms."

Often I conclude the reading with this hypothetical question: "How would anyone here, upon their death and ascension, like to stand before God for their final judgment and part of what they would hear would be the following statement from God."

"I am pleased that you are here, but this one thing I have against you… you regularly withheld my grace from people that I loved… because you misused your calling
and the gifts that I gave you to serve yourself mostly, and did not bless those to whom I providentially intended them be for… who needed them more."

One of the very important realities for all of us to face is that our calling and gifts do not belong to us. It's important to re-emphasize that they were given to us, as a means of grace for the world around us. It's crucial that we and our students integrate this vital truth otherwise we are in danger of risking a life-time of merely patronizing God. In other words, calling and gifts are a priori and should never be used to answer only the reductionistic question of "what kind of 'job' should I get?" Rather, certain and confident knowledge of calling and gifts should shape one's redemptive approach to life, out of which one of the many primary issues is: "How can this profession, job, employment opportunity enhance what I have been called and gifted by God to do with my life?"

The steady application of this kind of non-creative, unimaginative, reductionistic assessment of one's personal calling and gifts is what propagates the limited impact the Christian community has within the major institutions within our culture. It would seem appropriate for the Christian student, after gaining a strong sense of calling and skilled knowledge of gifts, to intentionally and confidently "target" a particular area of culture e.g. Business World, The Arts, Higher Education etc., as their vocation/profession. It's only when they do this that it becomes a "vocation" in the truest sense of the word. I am reminded of Eugene Peterson's haunting words:

"The place that God calls you to, is the place where the world's great hunger and your deep gladness meet."

The Camel In The Tent

By Donald J. Boudreaux Wednesday, February 11, 2009

About the writer

Donald J. Boudreaux is chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column runs twice monthly. He can be reached via e-mail.

The Obama administration announced that no executive salary at any firm that accepts federal bailout funds can exceed $500,000 annually. To many people, this idea seems sound. To me, it seems sadly suggestive of a bleak future for America.

Before we discuss the problems with this salary cap -- the object of my next column -- it's useful to point out some general noxious aspects of the goings-on inside the Beltway that make this salary cap acceptable to many Americans.

First, and most obviously, firms that accept bailout funds from Uncle Sam have little cause to complain about whatever restrictions he slaps on them. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And although Uncle Sam is not really the piper's payer -- taxpayers are -- the decision to pay or not to pay in this case is Uncle Sam's. It's inevitable that he will demand that the piper play only tunes that set toes on Pennsylvania Avenue tapping.

Any business executive surprised by such restrictions should be demoted to the rank of bicycle messenger.

But the most egregious problem with this salary cap, as with all other restrictions and requirements that are attached to bailout funds, is that it sets a frightening precedent. Government is now increasingly in the business of determining salaries and deciding whether firms can have private jets. These matters -- salaries and jets -- are lightning rods for public attention. So they are, ipso facto, lightning rods for politicians' attention.

You can bet your grandchildren's share of the national debt, however, that other corporate matters will become lightning rods of attention -- and, hence, objects of self-righteously imposed government restrictions.

Is Bank of America spending oodles of money on advertising? Horrors! Make it stop. Is General Motors planning to install machinery that will displace some workers? Never! Make it stop. Is Chrysler appointing yet another middle-aged straight white male as its president? Racist homophobic chauvinists! Make them appoint a handicapped lesbian of color.

Whatever the political fear or fad du jour, be sure that it will be revealed in gaudy orders given by Washington to whatever firms feasted on its bailout bounty.

Which raises the question: Which are the firms that feasted on Washington's bailout bounty? This question is not as easy to answer as you might think. Sure, it's clear that, say, Chrysler got bailout funds. But what about Chrysler's suppliers that, while none received any direct handout of taxpayer funds, enjoyed higher profits as a result of Chrysler remaining in operation?

Indeed, what about every firm in America? After all, the financial and auto-producer bailouts, and the more general "stimulus" packages, are meant to assist the entire economy. Funds spent on the bailouts and on the stimuli eventually wend their way throughout the whole economy, benefiting everyone. That's government's stated goal.

Because (the presumption is) without these bailouts and stimuli the U.S. economy would have collapsed into ruins, it stands to reason that every firm -- every American, even -- received government largess. And because this largess was bestowed, either directly or indirectly, upon every firm, no firm deserves to be excused from having to follow detailed marching orders from Washington.

I hope I'm wrong. But I genuinely fear that the extensive and massive "economic rescue" spending pouring today from Washington will combine with the newfound enthusiasm for hyperactive government to quickly create a culture of government direction of the economy as this country has never before known.

The camel's nose is under the tent. It will be followed shortly by his filthy rear. When that happens, the entire tent that is the American economy will be not only foul, but so crowded with a stupid and clumsy animal that very few of us will have enough elbow room to pursue our own peaceful goals as we choose.

The camel will, of course, assure us that his hulking presence within the tent is necessary. He'll snort that if he were to leave the tent -- indeed, even if he were to remove from the tent merely one paw -- the tent itself would crash down in a heap, smothering all us good Americans.

As time passes with the camel fully in the tent, fewer and fewer Americans will remember how spacious and full of opportunities the tent was before the camel made himself at home within it.

And those of us who continue to demand that the camel leave will be increasingly viewed as utopian dreamers -- delirious fools who actually believe that the tent can remain standing without the camel parked inside and leaving us ordinary folks scant private space.

Addendum From Rich Grassel

Make no mistake... CEO's who abused their responsibilities with their pursuit of unmitigated greed; and who danced lightly away to some exotic Caribbean Island with other people's millions, deserve nothing less than life in prison. For people like Bernie Madoff, I am tempted to think that prison is too good for them... Their maleficence has and will continue to cause much in the way of suffering and angst. In addition, they have enabled those who privilege "socialism" to take the high ground, at least temporarily, in the discussion about the role of Government, Social Issues and the Free Market.

However, the latter two thirds of Mr. Boudreaux's article genuinely terrifies me... Particularly, to expand this thought even more, do we really want government intrusion into the private business sphere when it comes to religious activity and expression? Will those businesses that received Federal bailout monies now be subjected to Federal Government policies that involve Lunch-Time Prayer meetings and Bible Studies? Will employee's be able to decorate their offices and work areas with a Nativity Scene at Christmas; have a open Bible on their desk, or have A Crucifix on the wall? How are those things, for example regarded in most public schools or government offices? Broadly speaking, the precedent for this has already been set by the Grove City Court case in 1983 and Title IX. Followed by the Discrimination Restoration Act passed by Congress in 1987. Bottom line, those entities that receive Federal Dollars and public funds are subject and expected to abide by all Federal Mandates. Do we really want this?

Socialism

The Only Problem With Socialism

Is That You Eventually Run Out

Of Someone Else's Money

Margaret Thatcher -
Great Britain's Former Prime Minister

This Bears Repeating...

Socialism Works Well Only For The Many
Who Have Lost Their "Will"

AND For The "Will," of The Few, Who Need To Control The Many
In The End It Allows Only For "Victims" To "Survive"
And Those Who Had "Survived" To Become "Victims"

There Is A Crucial Difference Between
Helping Those In Need...

And Needing, To Need, To "Help" The "Needy"

For Whatever Reason...
r.s.g. 10/12/08

GREATNESS

In The Seeking of Personal Greatness...

There Are Compromises To Be Made...

In Allowing Greatness To Find You

There Are Personal Sacrifices To Be Embraced

r.s.g. 02/05/2009

Somethings to Consider

The Thought Has Occurred To Me That...
Often, When We Pray,

Perhaps The Terrifying Truth Is:...

That Our Prayer Can Be More For WHAT We Believe To Be TRUE In Our Mind...

Rather Than WHO Exists In Our HEART...

Have We Mistakenly Prayed To Our Ideology?

Consider Carefully In Sober Fashion Who Our God, At This Juncture, Could Really Be...

A Dogmatic, Brittle and Dead Orthodoxy...

Or Unwitting Passionate Form of Self-Idolization...



Maybe This Is Why Our Prayers Are Always Answered... Just Not Like We Thought They Should Be...

r.s.g 02/03/2009

..................................................

Any Time An Ideology Moves Towards Some Form of Human INSTITUTIONALIZATION

It Necessarily Means A Decisive Move Towards CORRUPTION

Because At That Point, The Ideological Issue Almost Always Morphs Over Into The Use of "POWER" - Who Gets It And The Manner By Which They Wield It

Committed Relationships, Collectively Committed To A Common Idea, Need Not Always Be Formally Organized. If They Do, The Issue Inevitably Morphs From One Of Potentially Redemptive Ideals For The Whole, To One Of Self-Serving Power For The Individual.

r.s.g. 1/20/2009