Saturday, December 17, 2011

Collin reads actual literature

The lovely Carol is pursuing a Master of Fine Arts degree in—no, not computer programming or mathematics (the latter especially being a very Fine Art)—Creative Writing. Consequently, new books appear on our shelves and in our travel bags. One of these books, a short story collection by Andre Dubus, caught my attention (actually, the lovely Carol may have asked my opinion about one of the stories) and WOW! I read every one of them.

Todd Field wrote the preface to this collection, named after his 2001 film In the Bedroom, which was based upon Dubus’s story Killings. Field’s title does not mean what you think; according to this wikipedia article, the rear compartment of a lobster trap is called the "bedroom," and if two males and one female are together in it, one male will kill the other. Killings, the first story in the collection, is superbly crafted, the story of a moral failure following a tragedy I hope never to experience; if it happens, I pray I have the strength to do what Jesus would have me do.

Yet the story drew me in, and convinced me of how a man might murder his son's killer and feel the inevitability of his own crime, and paradoxically also remorse.

Dubus’s writing is accessible; if literature must be abstruse, opaque, ponderous, difficult, painful reading, then this isn't it. But these stories are filled with deep insights expressed in beautiful language. Here's Dubus in Rose:

Rose and Jim... could not see a single act of renunciation or affirmation of a belief, a way of life. No. They had neither a religion nor a philosophy; like most people I know, their philosophies were simply their accumulated reactions to their daily circumstances, their lives as they lived them from one hour to the next. They were not driven, guided, by either passionate belief or strong resolve. And for that I pity them both, as I pity the others who move through life like scraps of paper in the wind.
Rose, from In the Bedroom, Andre Dubus
(Vintage Contemporaries, 2002), p. 65
Rose is also a tragedy. I do not like tragedies, but the insight Dubus brings to the tale makes it a gem—no, an X-ray, exposing the human condition with its faults: living without thought, without courage, without taking responsibility for our careless words and actions. There is an awakening and a repentance and a victory, and perhaps it isn't really a tragedy after all.

So what do I find so captivating? Besides the beauty of the language—the expertise he brings to the craft—is the deep thought behind the insight evident in these stories. Field writes in the preface that Dubus desired from a young age “to understand how my two sisters had to live in the world compared with the way I had to live as a boy.” (op. cit., page x)

The other thing is that I have come late in life to an understanding that just as "A gallon of good California red in the kitchen closet will do more for your cooking than all the books in the world" (The Supper of the Lamb, p.33) so this book of short stories will do more for a person's soul than all the math and computer science books in the world.

And there is the pleasure, particularly in the last story of the collection, titled All the Time in the World:

"I want a home with love in it, with a woman and children."

"My God," she said, and smiled, nearly laughing, her hands moving up from the table. "I don't think I've ever heard those words from the mouth of a man."

"I love the way you talk with your hands." (146)

and near the end of that story:
And this time love was taking her into pain, yes, quarrels and loneliness and burning rage; but this time there was no time, and love was taking her as far as she would go, as long as she would live, taking her strongly and bravely with this Ted Briggs holding his pretty cane; this man who was frightened by what had happened to him but was not frightened by the madness she knew he was feeling now. (148)
Why that story in particular? I guess I'm a sucker for a feel-good story, and as the father of daughters it pleases me to read about a young woman discovering the truth about herself (on p. 142 I read that "[s]he wanted love, but she did not want her search for it to begin in someone’s bed.") and then taking a step toward the life she actually does want.

Saturday, December 03, 2011

Keller talks on marriage at Google

It's at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9THu0PZwwk

Here are my unsanitized incomplete distracted inaccurate [etc] notes.

Preface: Presenting Christian views of marriage. Some of you think, "That's partisan." Well, whatever your view, it's partisan; it's religious or quasi-religious; it's not scientific.

Essence of marriage

You've heard it said, "I love you, why do I need a piece of paper to tell me I love you?" "Marriage is just a piece of paper" but what does the piece of paper do? What does the covenant relationship do?
  1. Adds security. There are two types of relationships:
    • consumer-type relationship. You buy stuff at the store, that's great, but if you find another store that provides same stuff at better prices, you'll go there, because your needs are much more important than your relationship with the grocer or whoever.
    • covenant relationship. If your kid cries and is selfish and bratty, you have responsibility; you can't just dump him somewhere with "you're not meeting my needs."
    If you're "dating" and not married, you don't have a covenant, you're in a consumer-type relationship where the other person could just leave at any time. So you have to continuously sell yourself; you can't just be yourself; the covenant creates the security within which you can be vulnerable and honest.
  2. Adds stability. 2/3 of "unhappy" marriages, if they stick it out, are happy 5 years later. What keeps you in there, through hard times, to something really great? Think Ulysses past the island of the sirens, tied to the mast.

    Auden, "Any marriage, happy or unhappy, is infinitely more interesting than any romance, however passionate" because it's the product of time and will, not just of fleeting emotion.

  3. It adds freedom. Kierkegaard: if you don't know the discipline of making a promise and sticking to it, you're not free; you're slave to your impulses, the moment, the circumstances, your feelings. Hannah Arin: without promises, no identity. Smedes, "when you make a promise you are most free."

"He loves me but doesn't want to marry me." Keller: "He probably means, ‘I don't love you enough to marry you, to lose my independence, to bind myself to you in a covenant relationship.’"

Mission of marriage

What's your marriage for? What do you hope to accomplish with it? To many people, it's passion and romance, maybe to combine your fortunes together to form a more comfortable life.

The Christian purpose is for deep character change through deep friendship. People want a compatible soul-mate... who will accept me the way I am and whom I can accept and appreciate just the way they are; someone who won't try to change me. If you want that, that's why you're not married yet. You want someone low-maintenance who won't change and won't try to change you. But no such person exists, and you're not that way either. You pose like someone who is, but you're not; you've got flaws. What might some flaws be?

  • fearful person with tendency to anxiety
  • proud person who tends to be selfish
  • inflexible person who tends to be demanding
  • undisciplined person who tends to be unreliable
  • perfectionistic person who tends to be too critical of others
  • impatient, irratible person who tends to hold grudges
  • a cowardly person who tends to twist the truth to look good
Everyone comes into marriage with these kinds of things. Your parents told you, your siblings told you, but you didn't really believe them. But you get married, and those issues that caused small problems now cause big problems. Marriage doesn't create flaws, it reveals them.

Hauerwas says, we assume there's someone out there who's just right for us, but this overlooks the fact that we always marry the wrong person.

Marriage is a huge thing and it changes us. So we change. Hence even if you could find someone compatible to marry, after you've been married awhile, they won't be any more! So what are the Christian responses to this?

  • First, not to be surprised, because the Christian view is we're all selfish. Think Kim Kardashian. Embrace the conflict.
  • Don't look for a finished statue, look for a great block of marble. You want to be in love with the person as they are, but you want to love the person they're becoming. Don't overdo what they look like, as that'll change. Don't focus too much on their character as it is today, but who they could become!
  • Look for someone who could be your best friend. Remember that great friendship doesn't come out of great sexual chemistry; it's other way around. The praise of the praiseworthy is its own reward.

    The feeling I got the first time I kissed her was shallow; it was all ego. It wasn't about her; I had no idea who she was. It was about me, the thrill that she liked me. Now it's like a deep river that makes no noise, vs a babbling brook one inch deep.

The secret of marriage

To be able to love your spouse for periods when you're getting very little back. They might be discouraged, sick, absorbed in their problems. Very important to keep on giving love. That takes a source of love from outside.

Seen this happen a lot of times: give to child, don't get much back, but you give and you sacrifice [etc] anyway for 18 years. These actions engender deep feelings of love. But your spouse -- if you don't love me the way I want, I won't love you the way you want, and at the end of 18 years, you love your kid, you don't love your spouse, and the marriage falls apart.

And it's your fault because what you did with your kid you didn't do with your spouse. "Love philanthropy." Financial philanthropy possible when you got a lotta money. Love philanthropy possible if you got a lotta love from God.

Christ loved us not because we were lovely but in order to make us lovely.

Q&A

  • On finding a spouse, not just physical; what criteria? 4 or 5?

    First, someone who really understands you, maybe better than you know yourself. Who isn't surprised by your reactions. Second, someone you can already solve problems with -- had a serious conflict, solved it in a way satisfactory to both people.

    btw if your faith is important to you, then for somebody to "get" you they have to share your faith.

  • I think we have a great marriage, my husband would say I have a lot of flaws and am not making real good progress. How can I change? I think I'm trying but it's harder than I thought.

    If you agree on what needs to be changed, then 2/3 of your problem's over; you just need a coach. You might want to get a 3rd party involved. You need add'l fellowship.

  • Love analogy of truck exposing stress fractures in a bridge; kids are like a 2nd truck. Your perspective on that?

    You spend more time together but you're not talking with each other as much as talking through the kids. Probably not so much disagreements about children, but time. You might travel less, work fewer hours, to get time with family -- but time with my wife very specific.

    Mothers get a lot of their "skin hunger" addressed with kids and don't have as much desire for physical intimacy as husbands have. Husbands' desire is less complex.

  • Criteria... sounds like it could take a long time to be sure about that.

    If you go to a film, have dinner, that's maybe an hour of conversation; doesn't have to take a whole lotta time.
    At other end, you describe the case of both spouses withdrawing, and it's been going on 18-20 years, what do you do?

    Too general a case. There are grounds for divorce so I don't know that you absolutely can work it out. Intervention.

  • About attraction -- ego rush vs real love?

    Ego rush is inevitably there. If the main thing that attracts you is physical (women disproportionately look at height and economics; men likewise disproportionatelylook at body and face)... you need something more.

  • Role of dating? Dating vs engagement etc?

    Nothing in Bible about dating. Lots about marriage in the Bible. All I can tell you is, get a picture of marriage and let that affect dating. As you get older, probably you shouldn't be dating if in your view there's no way you could get married to that person.

  • Advice for an engaged couple? Not premarital counseling.

    The book is basically about that. So don't get discouraged in the short term. The basic cancer is self-centeredness. It's not "I've got into conflict w/spouse; marriage has brought me into conflict with my self-centeredness." Mission of marriage: become best friends and figure out how that happens. Look at sex as a covenant renewal ceremony, or covenant cement.

    Sex outside marriage is no preparation for sex within marriage. They're completely different.

  • What you've said about marriage, most of that would apply to gay marriage. What role in society?

    Christian view of marriage is that it's between a man and a woman, because primary mission connected with bringing together people of diametrically opposed genders. We clash and mesh. It's intrinsic to the Christian idea of marriage. My wife teaches me things that I could not learn from another man.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

"Count it all joy" -- no, really

At this weekend's services at MPPC , USC philosophy professor Dallas Willard addressed several questions on the topic of pain and suffering. One was, "How do we find God in the midst of suffering?"

The answer was a call to something proactive: to be turned toward God before suffering comes, so that you're not in a position to have to go looking for him when it comes. This is also a clue to following James’s command to "Count it all joy" when you meet various trials (James 1:2 NKJV). Now the text says that since trials test our faith, and this produces perseverance and maturity, therefore we can rejoice in the trials. Paul also writes something similar but it seems to me that this perspective itself requires wisdom most of us lack. Perhaps this is why James tells us immediately afterward to pray: "But if any of you needs wisdom, you should ask God for it. He is generous to everyone and will give you wisdom without criticizing you." (James 1:5 NCV)

Dallas shared some of his wisdom: that if my life is oriented toward God, if I have faith in God—who's big enough to take care of things—then trials give me an opportunity to see him in action; I'll even greet them with anticipation! (I confess I'm not writing this from first-hand experience, but I can appreciate the theory.)

And what is joy? How can we have it in the midst of sorrow and pain? Joy, Dallas said, is a pervasive sense of well-being. It's like peace, not an action but something in the background.

Well-being in the midst of pain and suffering—how does that work? Dallas said we need to have a big vision of a big God. Two illustrations come to my mind: the first is from Anne Lamott's book Operating Instructions, where she writes about feeling vulnerable in a new way, shortly after her son is born. Before this, she says, she felt she could survive anything. She writes something like, "I could die, and somehow survive even that"—which is not logical, but it made emotional sense to me: a sense of strength and well-being beyond any circumstance.

Another example that came to mind is due to Larry Crabb, Jr., who talked about deep longings that we all have, and the wrong strategies we often use to fulfill them. Depending on our perspective, he said, painful events can be to us like a five-foot fall from a platform (something that will hurt, may cause injuries, but probably won't kill us), or a five-mile fall from an airplane (which probably will).

With that background, here's the example I was thinking of, which I think was presented in a 1987 lecture. There was a guy who often spoke of wanting to ride in a hot-air balloon; his wife bought him tickets for his birthday, and early one morning, she watched the balloon take off with her husband and I think one of their kids. But in a freak accident, the balloon met some power-lines; it literally crashed and burned, killing all aboard. Because she was deeply connected to Jesus, this tragedy was a five-foot fall; she had that pervasive sense of well-being in the midst of terrible tragedy.

Now there's an inner strength to admire—not an inner strength of the "self-made" tough-guy, but the strength of one who knows their own weakness and clings to Jesus. May the Lord so strengthen us, that we have the power to count it all joy when we meet various trials, and to rejoice in our tribulations.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

A useful exercise

This morning the lovely Carol and I talked briefly about thankfulness. Psalm 65 has some things, and I neglected a whole lot of things in the list below, but here are a few things I'm thankful for anyway...
  • that I can walk without straining, limping, or lurching
  • that the VTA stops close by the office
  • a car in case I need to drive to the office
  • a job (i.e., an office to go to)
    -- though I complain sometimes about having a day job,
  • the lovely Carol to come home to
  • a house with a roof and walls and locking doors
  • healthy parents -- not to be taken for granted at their age, or mine
  • loving children (though they're not kids any more)
  • the knowledge that I'm forgiven
  • the promise of eternal life
  • a place of worship
  • the freedom to worship there
    -- though I sometimes complain about meetings...
  • circuit breakers (rather than fuses) for the power in our house
  • Long's and Safeway at the Caltrain station
  • money to buy stuff there
  • Friday bagels
  • a great team at work
  • the ability to enjoy reading/writing code
  • big windows near my cubicle
  • enough clothes to protect me from the air chilled by those windows
  • a functioning clothes washer
  • the ability to fix it (again) when it overflows
  • hanging things to dry the laundry on
  • a working clothes dryer for when laundry can't (or shouldn't be) hung
  • a seat on the train
  • mobile wifi

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Collin writes a program*

(* Title borrowed from Ron Carlson Writes a Story)
A few times in the past months, someone's commented that they have no idea what it's like to write a computer program, so I've been thinking about a sort of gentle introduction to the fun ("joy" seems a bit overstated) of programming. Then it happened—the puzzler from Car Talk was announced, and I thought it was perfect. So in the next 45 minutes I want to write a program to solve last week's puzzler. It goes more or less like this:
Imagine a very long hall with 20,000 lights hanging from the ceiling, all off. These lights are controlled by a pull-chain: pull it once, the light turns on; pull it again and the light turns off.

Now someone comes through the hall and pulls every single chain. The lights are now all on. Person #2 comes through and pulls every 2nd chain, so that now lights 2, 4, 6, 8 and so on are now off. Person #3 comes through and pulls every 3rd chain, thus changing the state of lights 3, 6, 9, 12 and so on; they turn some lights on and some off. Person #4 comes through and flips lights 4, 8, 12, 16 and so on.

And so on, until person #20,000 comes through and only tugs on the chain of the 20,000th light.

Can you predict which lights will be on, and which will be off?

Now with a pencil and paper you might be able to figure this out in five or ten minutes, but like my first math professor, who spent ten minutes figuring out how to avoid a five-minute calculation, we'll go through the process of writing a little program to show how at least some programmers think.

We'll use the programming language Python here. I briefly considered using something like Ruby or OCaml, so we could go through the experience of learning a new programming language together, but I'm long-winded enough that...

Right. So Python. Here's what we're going to do: We'll create a list representing the state of each light fixture. And rather than forcing the program to do exactly 20,000 hanging lights, we'll provide a parameter to say how many lights there are. The pattern will be obvious with as few as 100 lights, so let's start with that. Here's a first partial whack at it.

# Adjust the following line to be however many lights you want
howevermanylights = 38

# "light_states" represents the states of howevermanylights
# Initialize it to have just some junk in element 0
light_states = ['junk']

# Add the states of however many lights
for a_light in range(howevermanylights):
    light_states.append(True)

# We'll add code here to manipulate the lights' states

# Now show the state of each light

for a_light in light_states[1:]:
    if a_light:
        print '*',
    else:
        print ' ',

print
for a_light in range(howevermanylights):
    # print last digit of a_light
    print (a_light % 10),

print
and if I run the program (which I imaginatively called "ceiling") it does this:
$ python ceiling
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$ 
(The bold blue text is what I typed in response to my computer's prompt.)

This shows that light #0 is, oops... do you see that? I wanted to show the state of light #1, #2, #3 etc., but for some reason the numbers are 0, 1, 2, etc. I need to fix the digit printed. That last part will now read:

for a_light in range(howevermanylights):
    # print last digit of a_light
    print (a_light+1) % 10,

print
OK, that worked. Why did I have that "bug", or error? (Programmers call their mistakes "bugs"; it sounds so much better to say "I had 5 bugs in my code" than "I made 5 mistakes (or more) in my code.")

Well, actually I put it in on purpose. No, really; I wanted to mention that Python, like Perl, starts its lists with index 0 rather than 1. This is why I wrote above

# Initialize it to have just some junk in element 0
light_states = ['junk']
if light_states has howevermanylights elements in it, they will be numbered 0 up to howevermanylights-1.

Why do Python and Perl (and C and java too) start numbering lists/arrays at 0 rather than 1? Well, it's for convenience. The first ten elements (or "decade" of elements) in an array are numbered 0-9; the second ten are numbered 10-19. So you can tell which "decade" we're in by looking at the tens digit.

This stands in contrast to our system of years, where the first century is years 1-100; the second century is years 101-200... the 20th century is 1901-2000, and so on. See how inconvenient this is? The 21st century started in 2001 (not 2000) so you can't tell just by looking at the top digit. A computer scientist didn't come up with this system for numbering years.

So a list of 5 elements (for example) has its elements numbered 0,1,2,3,4. Similarly range(5) gives 5 numbers -- also numbered 0,1,2,3,4. To wit:

$ python 
Python 2.6.5 (r265:79063, Jul  5 2010, 11:47:21) 
[GCC 4.5.0 20100604 [gcc-4_5-branch revision 160292]] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> range(5)
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
>>> 

Anyway, light_states starts at 0, and we number the ceiling lights starting at 1, so I put some junk into element 0 of the list so element 1 could correspond to ceiling light #1, etc.

OK, now let's put some more code in to deal with persons #2–howevermanylights.

# Adjust the following line to be however many lights you want
howevermanylights = 38

# "light_states" represents the states of howevermanylights
# Initialize it to have just some junk in element 0
light_states = ['junk']

# Add the states of however many lights
for a_light in range(howevermanylights):
    light_states.append(True)

# Code to manipulate the lights' states
# We have person#2 upto and including howevermanylights.

for a_person in range(2, howevermanylights+1):
    # Flip every "a_person"th light:
    for a_light in range(a_person, howevermanylights+1, a_person):
        light_states[a_light] = not light_states[a_light]


# Now show the state of each light

for a_light in light_states[1:]:
    if a_light:
        print '*',
    else:
        print ' ',

print
for a_light in range(howevermanylights):
    # print last digit of a_light
    print (a_light+1) % 10,

print
The new code is shown in this color and basically, um, does what it says -- assigns the variable "a_person" all values from 2 upto and including howevermanylights. And for each such person, flips every "a_person"th light.

When I run the program, it does this:

$ python ceiling
*     *         *             *                 *                     *    
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
$ 
Right, that's not 100 lights, and I've only printed the last digit of the light number, but lights #1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36 are left on. (If I make howevermanylights much bigger than 38, then you won't be able to see the result on a single line.)

Time's up and you got the basic idea

OK, the above was 45 minutes' worth, but let me take a little more time to do two things:
  • First, let's change this line to say 1000 instead:
    howevermanylights = 1000
  • And let's just list out which lights are on, rather than printing out the state of all the lights:
    # Now show the state of each light
    # Don't do that; just list out number of each light that's on
    for a_num in range(1, howevermanylights+1):
        if light_states[a_num]:
            print 'On:', a_num
And when we run it?
$ python ceiling 
On: 1
On: 4
On: 9
On: 16
On: 25
On: 36
On: 49
On: 64
On: 81
On: 100
On: 121
On: 144
On: 169
On: 196
On: 225
On: 256
On: 289
On: 324
On: 361
On: 400
On: 441
On: 484
On: 529
On: 576
On: 625
On: 676
On: 729
On: 784
On: 841
On: 900
On: 961
$ 
Do you see the pattern there? Every number that's a perfect square is left on, but composite numbers are off. Why perfect squares? That's an exercise left to the reader.

Anyway I hope that gives an idea of some of what it means to write a program. Most of what "real programmers" do is quite a bit more complicated, but that ought to give a flavor for at least some of the tasks. I hope that was fun reading for you; it certainly was enjoyable for me to write.

Finishing(??) touches

OK, it's now the next morning and I wanted to sort of finish the program off, and to give you the whole program in one snarf'n'barf-able blob so you can tweak it yourself, if you've got the interest.
#!/usr/bin/python -utt
'''Program to solve cartalk puzzler
http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/201144/index.html

Basically this:
    Imagine a very long hall with 20,000 lights hanging from the
    ceiling, all off.  These lights are controlled by a pull-chain:
    pull it once, the light turns on; pull it again and the light
    turns off.

    Now someone comes through the hall and pulls every single chain.
    The lights are now all on.  Person #2 comes through and pulls
    every 2nd chain, so that now lights 2, 4, 6, 8 and so on are
    now off.  Person #3 comes through and pulls every 3rd chain,
    thus changing the state of lights 3, 6, 9, 12 and so on; they
    turn some lights on and some off.  Person #4 comes through and
    flips lights 4, 8, 12, 16 and so on.

    And so on, until person #20,000 comes through and only tugs on
    the chain of the 20,000th light.

    Can you predict which lights will be on, and which will be off?

The program calculates (not predicts) which lights will be on.

Provide the number of lights in a parameter (default 100)'''

import sys

def main(howevermanylights):

    # "light_states" represents the states of howevermanylights
    # Initialize it to have just some junk in element 0
    light_states = ['junk']

    # Add the states of however many lights
    for a_light in range(howevermanylights):
        light_states.append(True)

    # Code to manipulate the lights' states
    # We have person#2 upto and including howevermanylights.

    for a_person in range(2, howevermanylights+1):
        # Flip every "a_person"th light:
        for a_light in range(a_person, howevermanylights+1, a_person):
            light_states[a_light] = not light_states[a_light]


    # Now show the state of each light
    # Don't do that; just list out number of each light that's on
    for a_num in range(1, howevermanylights+1):
        if light_states[a_num]:
            print 'On:', a_num
    sys.exit(0)

if __name__ == '__main__':
    try:
        num_lights = int(sys.argv[1])
    except:
        num_lights = 100
    main(num_lights)
So this does a few things beyond what I had last night:
  1. You can give a parameter and it'll do the calculation for the number of lights provided
    % ./ceiling.py 38
    On: 1
    On: 4
    On: 9
    On: 16
    On: 25
    On: 36
    % ./ceiling.py 100
    On: 1
    On: 4
    On: 9
    On: 16
    On: 25
    On: 36
    On: 49
    On: 64
    On: 81
    On: 100
  2. It's got documentation:
    % pydoc ceiling | cat
    Help on module ceiling:
    
    NAME
        ceiling
    
    FILE
        /Users/collin/to-mail/ceiling.py
    
    DESCRIPTION
        Program to solve cartalk puzzler
        http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzler/transcripts/201144/index.html
        
        Basically this:
            Imagine a very long hall with 20,000 lights hanging from the
            ceiling, all off.  These lights are controlled by a pull-chain:
    (etc.)
  3. It's easier to debug (google "python debugger" for more info).
  4. It returns a "success!" code so the system thinks the program worked.

Can I mess up God's plan for me?

Suppose someone says, "I know God has a good plan for me (Jeremiah 29:11), but what if I mess it up? Will it then become his plan for someone else?" How do we answer them?

I certainly understand this sort of thinking; it comes from the old performance mentality, the same old lies that say, "you're OK only until you mess up; then you're irredeemable." We think we can pass the audition but if we miss our cue or flub our lines, an understudy will take over and we'll be thrust out the backstage door into the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

But wait, you say, that's true, isn't it? If the star of the show shows up drunk or something and can't perform, the understudy takes over, yes?

Let's have a look at where this verse comes from to see why I think God's plan is not like a play or concert or opera performance. The passage is in Jeremiah 29; it's part of a letter to Israelites living in Babylon. These people are in Babylon because the nation has not obeyed the Lord -- Israel was full of violence and greed and idolatry. In other words, the plans to prosper the Israelites, to give them hope and a future, were announced after they disobeyed the Lord for generations—hundreds of years of disobedience! And yet he says, "I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:11-13)

Hundreds of years of disobedience by millions of Israelites didn't thwart God's plans for their nation, and yet we worry that a few decades of disobedience by one individual might lead him to break his promise. As if we could disappoint him so much in a way he didn't already know!

I mean, did God say "Before a word was on your tongue, I knew it completely (Psalm 139) but then you came out with that??" Or "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you (Jeremiah 1) but then you went and did something else." Or "I chose you in Christ before the foundation of the earth to be holy and blameless (Ephesians 1) but then you went and messed it all up."

I don't think so. As I wrote last month, God already knows (Isaiah 44:6-7, 46:10) what will happen; there is no way that we can surprise or disappoint him, and there is no way that he will change his mind about his plans. He doesn't do that.

And isn't that good news?

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Mistakes

I hate making mistakes, which is really a pain because I do it all the time. When I read the gospels, though, I don't feel so bad, because I see that the disciples made mistakes all the time, too. Peter was forever putting his foot in his mouth—In Mark 9:5 he's having this dazzling experience with Jesus, James, John, Moses and Elijah, and he has to blurt something out. Right afterward, a cloud appears and a voice tells Peter (and the rest) "This is my beloved Son; listen to him!"

In Mark 16, we see Mary and Mary and Salome going to visit Jesus’ tomb. They have no idea how they're going to get in there (Mark 16:3)—planning's not so good. Once they do get in, they receive instructions (Mark 16:7 "But go, tell his disciples..."). They don't obey the instructions (Mark 16:8)—execution's not so good.

There are lots more like this, and as I said, this gives me hope because... well, no need to go into details.

Today I also read some of Merton's words about mistakes, which mean so much more to me now that I know he struggled with these things himself. He is like one of the high priests spoken of in Hebrews 5:2, who "can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness."

As long as we are on Earth our vocation is precisely to be imperfect, incomplete, insufficient in ourselves, changing, hapless, destitute and weak, hastening toward the grave. But the power of God and His eternity and His peace and His completeness and His glory must somehow find their way into our lives, secretly, while we are here, in order that we may be found in Him eternally as He has meant us to be.

The relative perfection which we must attain to in this life if we are to live as sons of God is not the twenty-four-hour-a-day production of perfect acts of virtue, but a life from which practically all the obstacles to God's love have been removed or overcome.

No Man Is an Island 7.10 (pp. 129-130)
Doesn't that sound good? To know that mistakes are part of life, nothing to be surprised about, to have God's power and peace &c finding their way into our lives, and to have nothing between God's love and us... sign me up! What's stopping me from getting there? Merton tells us in the next sentence:
One of the chief obstacles to this perfection of selfless charity is the selfish anxiety to get the most out of everything, to be a brilliant success in our own eyes and in the eyes of other men.
I resemble this remark too! Thanks be to God; he knows all this and chose us and called us anyway. And that's good news.