Follow Your Passion?


I originally wrote this for my church's blog about 3 years ago. I was reading through some old things of mine and came across it. It really spoke to me. With all the troubles of 2020 I admit I get emotionally drawn into the anxiety. The word "passion" is one of many Latin words that we have adopted in English. It's primary meaning is suffering, but most commonly we use it today to mean deep desire or emotion, usually in a positive sense. We should remember its original meaning because ultimately following your passions (emotional desires) can lead to great passion (suffering).


Follow your passion! It is a common message you hear in 21st century US of A. Get excited and run after your dreams! It is exciting even to type that out. Find the thing you are good at today, the thing you really enjoy doing and make your life about that. I could never tell someone not to do that, but what if the thing I enjoy isn’t the thing I am good at? What if the thing I am good at, can’t provide clothes for my back, a roof over my head, and food on the table? A table! I have to get a table too?!

You see what I did right there? I mentally took a step back. I let myself transition from feeling to thinking. There is nothing wrong with emotion. It has its place, but this is the place for critical thinking. The Apostle Paul used a word to describe this, Sophron or the verb Sophronizo. It means to have a “sound mind”. It describes someone whose thinking is healthy, logical, rational, reasonable, beneficial, reliable, and authoritative.

We know this is an important spiritual characteristic because Paul uses these words to describe the ideal Church leader. The task of leading, guiding, and spiritually growing is impossible without clear thinking.

What does it look like practically to be sophron, have a sound mind? When planning about what to do with your life, it means thinking through the details. It doesn’t just matter what you are passionate about, necessarily. It doesn’t just matter with what you feel comfortable doing today. You need to think some questions through, “how much will that cost in time and money?” “Is that a reasonable cost for what I am getting in return?” “What skills will I need in the future to be able to do that job?” “Are there fears I need to face or personality traits I need to shape?” A clear thinking mind can answer those questions.

As plain as being “sensible” or “prudent” sounds, there are not many things that can have a greater effect on your life. Making career choices sets the tone for the rest of your life. Prudent thinking also helps you navigate all the voices in today’s media telling you what you should think about current events in the news.

Let’s face it. Those voices often lure us toward controversy. The culture is in flux. Values are shifting. How can you be sophron as you are confronted with ideas and people you really, really disagree with? First, you have to listen to the other person. The person you are talking to is not the article you read on Facebook that made you angry. It isn’t the group of people doing horrible things on the news. That person isn’t the political party or celebrity that has offended you deeply. The person you are talking to has a unique perspective and set of beliefs all his or her own. Get to know that person. Second, find common ground. As different as you think they are from you, if you take the time to listen and think, I am confident you will find much more in common with them than you could have guessed. Even when you find a disagreement or hurt feelings, ask them why they think that way. Ask them what is the ultimate goal they want to see carried out? As you get underneath the slogans and memes, like I said before, I think you will find that there is much you agree about.

No situation or subject matter can be properly understood by staying on the surface level. Many times an event or a person seems one way on the surface, but you shouldn’t stop there. Look at the issue from different perspectives to see how they reflect truth. Investigate the details. It is under the surface where the essence lies. The events and the issues of the day are always way more complicated than talking heads on TV screens are willing to admit. Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow both don’t get paid for nuance.

Whether you are thinking through a personal matter in your own life or are in a disagreement with a neighbor, coworker, or even your arch-enemy, remember the invitation God gives us all in Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” says the LORD”.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most Popular:

The Ethics Of Liberty - Knowledge, True And False

Image
  The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard Rothbard continues to analyze individual rights as property rights in order to explain what rights truly exist.  In this chapter he applies that framework to knowledge.  This isn't as straightforward as dealing with things that are basic physical property because even though knowledge, thoughts, lies, and slander are not physical things, they can still have physical consequences. He starts by analyzing the situation when someone lies about another person.  Does Smith have the right to lie about Jones?  Looking strictly at property gives a clear answer.  Smith owns his own mind, his mouth, and a smartphone.  Therefore he has the right to use his own property to lie.  He can speak, send out a letter, announce over a radio station he owns, etc.  Smith has done something immoral but his action should not illegal.  In general, it is legal to lie in our day and time, so Rothbard isn't saying anything controversial here. However, he applies
Read more

The Ethics Of Liberty - "Human Rights" As Property Rights

Image
  The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard                  "human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to                 be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights                 on behalf of 'public policy' or the 'public good.' " I expect you have heard a variety of criticisms anytime you have spoken up for freedom or individual rights.  Those criticisms usually consist of claims that no rights are absolute.  One common example is you don't have the right to swing your fists in the space taken up by someone else's face.  Or they claim you should give up some of your own rights so that others will feel free to do what they want.  I call this the, "if I want to go to a concert then everyone else there must wear a mask so I won't get a respiratory virus", example. Rothbard addresses these criticisms by framing all "human" rights as property rights.  By doing so he shows that natu
Read more

Human Life Straddles Two Realities

Image
  Human beings were created in the image of God.  Classical philosophers stated that the human ability to reason was the key to understanding what that meant.  After hundreds of years of searching the bounds of reason, philosophers became frustrated.  Following reason alone did not produce the solutions they sought.  As a result, during the 17th century some philosophers in the West started to emphasize emotion.  Our intellectual and political elites have walked us down this other path for another couple of hundred years.  Society in the 21 Century has reached the end of that journey.  It has lead us to a place of confusion, division, and despair. I propose that the problem is both efforts considered only one aspect of  the human soul and neglected the other.  God demonstrates both reason and emotion in the Bible.  As His image, both constitute our substance.  We live simultaneously in two worlds, the objective and subjective.  Therefore, in order to make right decisions, come to accur
Read more

The Church And State In Romans 13

The proper relationship of the Church to the State has been discussed for centuries. Reading through history you can see the actual relationship has evolved over time. When the Church first started, the Roman State was their adversary with chronic and acute persecutions. From the time Constantine made Christianity the official religion of his empire through the Reformation, the relationship could roughly be characterized as a series of alliances. By the time the United States of America was founded, the relationship was no longer an alliance. In theory, churches were free to conduct their business without disturbance by the State, but the State no longer supported a particular religion or denomination. The purpose of this situation was to promote peace between the increasing number of different groups within Christianity and between each of them and the State. However, through the 20th Century to today, the government and culture has become more and more secular. The safeg
Read more

The Ethics Of Liberty - State Relationships Internal & External

Image
  The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard Citizens' Relationship To The State In previous chapters Rothbard wrote about the illegitimacy of the state and inconsistencies found in the narratives supporting its existence.  However, the fact remains that states exist and will for the foreseeable future.  The next two chapters focus on how those ruled by the state should act and how states should interact with one another. To start, the state exists on the basis of aggression.  Not only does it set up a monopoly on the use of violence, placing limits on the natural right of self defense, it funds itself by taking money from the citizenry by force (i.e. taxation).  Therefore, as an illegitimate organization, individuals have no obligation to obey it.  In fact taking over government owned property, refusing to pay taxes, and lying to the state can be morally justified if you aren't committing a property crime against another private citizen.  Everything they own has been taken by f
Read more

The Ethics Of Liberty - Children And Rights

Image
  I have to admit up front, this chapter contains my biggest disagreement with Rothbard so far.  In "Children And Rights", he starts with discussing the rights of parents to abort and neglect their children before partially redeeming himself by focusing his searchlight back onto government's aggression against children and parents. He starts the chapter describing his philosophy on abortion.  I disagree out of the gate.  Uncharacteristically he provides no logical or natural law basis for his foundation.  Instead, he throws out an assertion and starts applying his normal deduction atop this faulty starting point.                 "[with] birth as the beginning of a live human being possessing natural rights...                     While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formation makes                    birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks sufficient rational groundwork                    in the theory of self ownership." Everythin
Read more