[This is one more entry on the way to a book with the tentative title, When to Say Yes. Let me know what you think.]
“Why
do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems?” he once said.
“They
do it because life wouldn’t have any meaning for them if they didn’t.
That’s why I draw
cartoons. It’s my life.”
Charles
Schulz
Our
calling engages our passions. When we come to the path that makes sense for us,
there is an inner Yes that resonates and energizes. Clearly this is not always
easy—because often the path has difficulties—but, at the same time, it’s not
toilsome because it’s the right path. And that rightness brings with it energy
and creativity. There’s an inner drive that leads us to change the world for
the better.
A brain knowing the yes |
The
well-known author and pastor, Frederick Buechner describes the right calling,
hearing our yeses, as a beautiful duet of voices.
The kind of work God usually calls you to is the kind of work (a) that you need most to do and (b) that the world most needs to have done…. Neither the hair shirt nor the soft berth will do. The place God calls you to is the place where your deep gladness and the world’s deep hunger meet.[1]
Buechner
uses the term “work,” but I will replace this with “calling,” and calling
arises at an amazing intersection of personal interest and external need.
With
Buechner in mind, I’m going to change this slightly and phrase it more succinctly:
Our yes is where passion meets mission.
It’s
where what we want most to do coincides with what God wants done in the world.
It’s that itch we have to scratch. What we “need most to do” in Buechner’s
definition reminds us that there is something (or perhaps a few things) that we
“most need to do,” that has in it an inner “yes.”
But
how do we know what we really care about? What does the experience of finding
your passion feel like?
This
brings me to a psychologist with a remarkable name, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
For what it’s worth, I once heard someone comment (though I can’t verify this)
that he prefers “Mike” and that his last name sounds something like
“Chick-sent-me-high.” In his book Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience,[2]
Csikszentmihalyi presented a key idea for grasping how we find our passion. In
the state of the mind he named “flow,” we experience deep enjoyment, challenge
matched by our skills, creativity, and sense that time is moving in a
different, and fuller way. How can “flow”—or “optimal experience” be described?
He writes that “‘Flow’ is the way people describe their state of mind when
consciousness is harmoniously ordered, and they want to pursue whatever they
are doing for its own sake.”[3]
One key example for Csikszentmihalyi is the work of a surgeon, who works within
certain limits (defined by keeping the patient alive), for a specific goal (the
improved health of the patient), with a task that's entirely demanding and
rewarding. Although paradigmatic, flow doesn't just happen for surgeons. It's
actually a reasonably universal experience. But how did he find this out? He
developed a new form of research, the Experience Sampling Method, in which
hundreds of subjects wore pagers that beeped at odd intervals throughout their
days. When paged, the participants had to quickly fill out a brief survey that
noted what activity they were engaged in and a series of questions of whether
they were more or less in the “flow.” Were they in “optimal experience”?
Csikszentmihalyi’s
research indicates some surprising results: for example, human beings more
often experience flow when they are working than when they are at leisure.”
Although television requires mental processing, very little else mentally, like
memory, is engaged. “Not surprisingly, people report some of the lowest levels
of concentration, use of skills, clarity of thought, and feelings of potency
when watching television.”[4]
Ultimately, he asserts, optimal experience makes life worth living. When we’re
in the flow, we want to do nothing else. And we don’t really care about much
else. “An activity that produces such experiences is so gratifying that people
are willing to do it for its own sake, with little concern for what they will
get out of it, even when it is difficult, or dangerous.”[5]
Doesn’t this first side, “finding your passion,”
and looking for "flow" seem just a little too selfish and therefore
illegitimate as a way of directing our lives? Not necessarily. I have learned
from a distinction the Christian writer and Oxford literary scholar, C.S.
Lewis. He delineated an important distinction: between being selfish and
self-centered. Finding what we are called to do is, in a certain sense, selfish—we love doing it and therefore we find great
joy—but entirely not self-centered—when
we do what we love, we forget ourselves as we delight in the activity itself.
Lewis writes,
One of the happiest men and most pleasant companions I have ever known was intensely selfish. On the other hand I have known people capable of real sacrifice whose lives were nevertheless a misery to themselves and to others, because self-concern and self-pity filled all their thoughts.[6]
So,
in a way, I’m asking us to be more directed toward what we like because there
we have the power to become self-forgetful and even other-directed. Here I’m
proposing a form of enlightened selfishness. With enlightened selfishness—or better, just doing
what we enjoy doing, where we find “flow”—we actually forget ourselves. We
simply cannot be self-centered.
The
point is not, as we often fear, that when we like to do something it will make
us less moral. Actually what we truly love helps us to turn our eyes off
ourselves and toward the activity, which is the beginning of right actions. In
other words, don’t stay selfish as an end, but learn to follow what you truly
enjoy and follow it toward something outside of us. And that leads to mission….
One
other suggestion here—often, as weird as this seems, it’s hard to know what we
really desire. “I don’t really know what I want”. But I believe the God who
created us can help us find what we truly desire. One of the most cited
passages in the psalms reads like this: “Take delight in the Lord, and he will
give you the desires of your heart” (Psalm 37:4, NRSV). Some construe this verse
to mean that God will give us the things we desire—a new BMW, a vacation in
Tahiti. That sounds nice, but if you look at the context of the psalm, it’s all
about doing what’s right and following God’s way.
So
here’s the bottom line: As we seek God, we actually find what we desire.
When
we look at God, we see a new set of priorities, a new vision of caring for
others. And so, on the (b) side of the Buechner quote, what “the world needs to
have done”—our environment, those outside of us—cannot be silenced. The list
here is immediately evident: providing education, caring for health, creating
beauty in the arts and culture. So it’s not just what we want to do—our passion has to meet some need. Here we
move away from the siren voice of our culture that prizes individual
self-expression above all else. Here’s the control on our selfishness. It is
not centered on what benefits us first, but on what is of greater need in the
world.
So
the first step of call—or our big Yes—is to listen: to obtain some sense of what direction that
resonates deep in us and out in the world.
Does
this happen at once? Not for most people. Hearing the call is gradual and that
each insight builds on the previous one. I’ve often thought this looks
something like a website coming gradually into view. It doesn’t happen all at
once, and even at first, it’s not clear what’s emerging. But at some point, it
begins to make sense.
I’ll
have more to say on mission in the following post.
1 comment:
I like the word "work," but I understand your use of "calling." It highlights a lost aspect of our word "work." The root of our word "work" is the Greek word "ergon"... a word used fittingly in the New Testament as well as by Aristotle to describe doing something you were "fitted" for..a kind of ergonomics of the soul...it is also the root of our word for "urge,"..connecting it to an inward working...
You've written a contemporary restating of a bit of Aristotle's seeking the "good-life" that leads to true happiness. The pursuit of happiness, IS the pursuit of virtue...and they meet in this place of "ergon" or a life that "works." Aristotle's speaks, as the Apostle Paul did later, about the importance of human "ergon" in "koinônia" with "the body"...We find our true happiness and therefor "humanness" expressed in our place in a community of virtue.
"[g]oodness does not consist in avoiding pleasure in the interests of some higher ideal but in being right about what is truly pleasant"-Aristotle
The "ergon" of the heart does not tire of beating. The ergon of the lungs do not tire of breathing. And God never tires of working. He IS life. We are human becomings.. infolding of our direction, and not merely unfolding a fixed state. Just as the full "logos" ("map") of the oak-tree may be in the acorn, and yet the fullness of the oak-tree Is truly "OUTSIDE" of it. There is no "being" for the tree (or us humans) until each finds it ergonomic "being "within the communal soil.
And as in your distinction between "selfish" and self-centered,
C.S. Lewis noted:
“When He talks of their losing their selves, He means only abandoning the clamour of self-will; once they have done that, He really gives them back all their personality, and boasts…that when they are wholly His they will be more themselves than ever.”
Scripture does speak of "death to self," but "death to sin." The bible hold each "self" as precious. Our life is not extinguished, but transferred. Christ does not invite us to nihilism. It is the “self” that is to be saved. He doesn't want a dead bride. -Bill Jackson, Oroville CA
Post a Comment