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