aldenswan.com

An interesting question, “what’s important?” So many things claim import in our lives: career, money, power, education, status, marriage, family, church - and they all have a claim on first place. But, to focus on one requires that the others are set aside, or at least relegated to some lower place.

It can drive you crazy. It can make you despondent. It - the “cares of the world” - can choke the life right out of you.

What really is important? We now live in the 21st Century, a concept that I haven’t fully grasped yet. We’re 22 years past 1984, we’ve survived 2001, we’re now well on our way into a Brave New World. Life has changed from the simple life that once existed: there are new demands - high speed, even instant, demands. There are gold-plated demands, high-tech demands, and demands that have raised the bar higher than you can possibly reach. Family farms are all but obsolete, craftsmen can no longer compete, and if you can’t make the cut, you’re out in the street. (That kind of rhymes…)

Wow, I’m stressed just writing this.

But, what’s really important? Is it the pursuit of happiness? Is it honor? Success? Fulfilling your destiny? Or, perhaps what is most important is simply whatever is needed at the moment. That’s a nice, pithy saying - but, how does this really help?

To help sort out those things that certainly do not require any worry, I go by the 10 Year Rule. I simply ask myself, “will this matter 10 years from now?” If not, then it’s clearly not worth stressing over. It works much of the time.

Jesus thought a bit further ahead, and recommended the Eternal Significance Rule. Does what you are doing have eternal significance? Are you laying up treasures in Heaven, or are you spending your time concerned with wood, hay & stubble, those items that will not survive the fire test?

Jesus, of course, lived in a much simpler time, before cell phones, WMDs and mortgages, car payments and cable TV bills. What was there really to worry about? It must have been easier to “not be anxious about tomorrow,” and “consider the lilies of the field” would actually have held meaning. What did these people spend their time doing? Most people didn’t even have books to read! (And, if they did, they probably weren’t novels.)

What’s really important? Do society and technology really change anything? Does your Palm Pilot tell you what’s important, or does it just provide a list of “the cares of this world” that choke the life out of you? I’ve said before that one of the great things about America is that we get to plant our own weeds; and, it seems that we often spend more time planting weeds than wheat.

Have you ever stopped and thought that even with such a simple life, Jesus still felt it important to talk about anxiety and priorities? Perhaps the issue is not what, or even how many things vie for our attention, but our ability to remain “centered” on what is important.

What’s really important? Do we even remember?

If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

This quote appeared today on one of those “Quote of the Day” things, that seem designed so that a relative non-thinker can pretend to have deep thoughts once a day. It’s just slightly more meaningful than the fortune cookie fortune I read this weekend (It said, “an important conversation about you is happening today” - like that wouldn’t apply every day?).

It’s second goal would seem to be to prove that seemingly great thinkers often said really stupid things.

“If a man is called to be a street sweeper…” is quite a phrase; it’s packed with all kinds of Jungian implications and underlying theological assumptions. I’ll ignore the Jungian aspect (although I am curious as to how a Jungian would analyze King’s speech title, “I have a dream”); the theological assumptions are more than enough for one little post.

The question of “calling” is worth considering. Can someone actually believe that they were called, compelled, destined, or predestined, to be a street sweeper? Or, to look at it from another angle, can you accept that someone is called or destined to greatness? It really is the same question. If you believe that some are “called” to be greater than you are, then logically, the assumption would have to be that some were called to be lower than you. Is that what you believe?

It makes you think, doesn’t it? Is the American Dream truth, or is it a giant lie? Can anyone grow up to be President (as long as you were born here)? Or, is there in fact a cosmic caste system, where all of us deal with “glass ceilings?” Could the dangling carrot of success just be a guarantee of frustration and defeat?

I have known people who have believed (by evidence of their lives) that they were “called” to a low station. Bettering themselves was, in their eyes, a waste of time. I have known others who have accepted that their destiny was to greatness, and by default, also accepted that others by necessity were called to be “lesser.”

There are Biblical implications that some are called to be greater than others. Or, are there? Perhaps “free will” does, in fact, come into play? Is “calling” a participatory thing? Are some pots destined for the trash heap because that was the potter’s intent at the wheel, or was it because they cracked? Do some get more talents because they were destined for greatness, or because they were willing to invest them?

But, here’s the real question: what is the real definition of greatness? Do those with the most talents, with the apparent guarantee of a great destiny, get the “high place” at the table?

Apparently not. Perhaps it is those who make the most of what they have, not that they accept street sweeping as their calling, but who make the most of that opportunity, who get asked to move up to a higher seat. “Blessed are those who are poor in spirit …” Do we know, exactly, what Jesus meant here? Many take this to mean it is actually good to be poor in spirit. I think not.

The Kingdom of God, the “Upside-down Kingdom,” comes to bring greatness - the riches and advantages of a Kingdom inheritance - to those who may appear (to us) to have a lowly calling. Does that mean being resigned to a life of the mundane? Not at all. We are, after all, encouraged to “invest” what we have been given.

Our calling, along with whatever else it may mean, is to have life, and to have that life abundantly. If, along the way, we are called to sweep the streets, certainly we should do it well, but not because that is our calling, our destiny. We do it as an investment - because we are called to the Kindgom. The truly great are those who indeed believe that they are destined for greatness, and that there is room for all to be great.

To give up the “high place,” to unselfishly assist others up the “ladder” before you - that is a life of greatness, and to these will indeed be given more.

That is our calling.

I gave into temptation and scanned today’s headlines, only to see this API piece on MSNBC, Ancient scroll may yield religious secrets. “Experts” (a more specific version of they), are working on a high-tech digital analysis of the Derveni papyrus, a mid-4th century BC scroll, believed to be Europe’s oldest surviving book. It was, as are most API articles, poorly researched and written. However, it proves excellent material for a post on critical analysis.

The papyrus in question is described as “a philosophical treatise on ancient religion,” and focuses on Orpheus, a mythical master musician, who is blamed for many things, including inspiring various mystical cults, including one who apparently believed in one creator god.

According to the API, some archeologists believe this “may hold a key to understanding early monotheistic beliefs,” as they believe that this cult inspired or influenced “later” religions like Judaism, Islam & Christianity.

Greek philosophy expert Apostolos Pierris is quoted as saying, “In a way, it was a precursor of Christianity; Orphism believed that man’s salvation depended on his knowledge of the truth.” Archaeologist Polyxeni Veleni said that it “will help show the influence of Orphism on later monotheistic religions.”

Now, if you’re like most people, you will immediately be impressed by these statements, especially since “experts” and “archeologists” say they’re true. Anyone who’s read popular fiction knows that archeologists are incredibly sound logicians. And, no doubt thousands of Evangelicals are now worried about what this could mean to their faith, and Dan Brown is planning a new novel.

So, here’s a quick “Intro to Critical Thinking” lesson to help interpret this ground-breaking bit of journalism:

These people - experts, archeologists & journalists alike - are making one of the most obvious and basic errors in logic imaginable. They should, if there is any justice in the world, be held up for public ridicule for making such utterly stupic statements.

The logical fallacy is known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc or more simply, “false cause,” and is simply this: you cannot assume, just because two things appear related, that one causes the other. For that matter, you can’t even claim that there is a common cause. The fact that one writing predates another doesn’t mean anything (just ask Dan Brown).

Here’s an alternative theory: Presuming that Genesis presents a fairly accurate historical record (and archeology has confirmed or at least supports many of the Biblical stories), the story of the One God was not unique to Abraham and his followers. Others at the Tower of Babel left with the same history. Some lost it, but occasionally - as there are creator and flood stories in many cultures - it remained, to some extent. I tend to buy that one, being the presuppositionalist thinker that I am.

One can also bring up what is known as the ontological argument, which says essentially that man could not concieve of a being greater than himself; therefore, any concept of a creator-god must be based on truth. Or, you could believe Paul in Romans 1, where he says that “what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.”

I buy that one, too.