What Jobs Are Important?

As many around the nation saw, there has been a massive wildfire in Southern California. It seriously threatened my hometown, where my parents still live, so I watched it closely. Growing up in a mountain town, we had threatening fires almost annually. Although some were worse than others, this one was probably the worst (as many friends noted: never did we see the whole town evacuated).

During each of the fires, including this one, there was an outpouring of well-deserved appreciation for the fire fighters who saved the town. Their tireless efforts continue to impress us.

At the same time, working the public sector and having been involved in two national-headline-making disasters in the past year, I've also seen that there are MANY more people involved in disaster response than fire, police, and medical. There are a variety of departments, professions, and workers who are deployed 24/7 (often without the overtime and other well-deserved benefits of fire, police, and emergency medical personnel). These other individuals tirelessly help people put their lives back together, provide comfort and resources to those who need it, and help navigate bureaucracies. If you've never been in a disaster, these things may seem superfluous, but the aftermath of a disaster can actually be more traumatic than the disaster itself.

In some ways, I think we place importance on professions and work based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, as those who support the basic things are most critical. Is that really fair or accurate? Frankly, losses in some of the higher levels lead people to suicide, so I wouldn't minimize things beyond basic life needs. Those who support disasters in traditional first responder roles are often recognized because of placing their safety on the line. This is not to be minimized. However, the implication is that psychological safety and other parts of life from other first responders are minimized. Being on call actively 24/7 for months on end to survivors of traumas is dangerous work and changes lives forever. It's quiet work, though, and rarely acknowledged.

So let's generalize this. We have a hierarchy for careers. I went into psychology for the meaning. I do believe it is meaningful, and therefore important, work. But how many jobs do we dismiss as "menial," fundamentally limiting their sense of importance and then the workers' sense of meaning? A classic example is a trash truck driver, a job few people would want. What would happen if this profession disappeared? We'd suddenly consider it important. What about amusement park ride operators or ticket takers? Sure, entertainment isn't important in a traditional view of Maslow's hierarchy. However, what would life be without any entertainment? I think it helps us bring meaning, order, and balance to our lives. And without workers to support these things, our lives would be significantly affected.

So do some people really have more important jobs? If so, what should we base importance on?

Priorities

Having a toddler and infant can be... exasperating at times. But then you see the smiles, the hugs, and the kisses.

This weekend, the little ones reminded us of priorities in life.

We went to the LA Times Festival of Books, where a heavy downpour started. As everyone ran under tents, the toddler promptly ran into the middle of it, face to the sky, with the happiest look ever, tongue out, dancing in the rain (and puddles). Our first reaction was, ugh, he's going to be soaked, dirty (etc., etc.). But then we noticed his joy (and the joy he brought to others around him). Water dries, and clothes can be washed.

Sometimes it's worth getting wet to be able to dance in the rain.

And then on the way to church, it was a very overcast today. We were rushing (as usual) and got on the freeway. As we change freeways, the toddler exclaims, "Oh my gosh! There's clouds! Look at the clouds out your window! And there's clouds on my window, too!!"

Don't just stop to smell the roses. Clouds can be pretty cool, too.

At the Festival of Books, we got to hear a talk by Buzz Aldrin and then get a book signed by him (yeah, that was pretty cool). My toddler and I listened to 40 minutes from someone who walked on the moon, so lots of stories, right? Well, the interviewer at one point asked Aldrin how one pees in space, and he talks about a UCD (urine collection device), and how it's important to empty it. He tells how he sees Neil Armstrong successfully walking on the moon surface, not sinking or anything bad. So Aldrin decides before he goes down the ladder, it would probably be good to, um, empty his UCD. The interviewer says, "So while Neil is taking one giant leap for mankind..." Aldrin finished, "I peed in my pants." Everyone laughs, and Brendan looks up at me with a smile and says, "He peed in his pants?!"

Be careful what you say. Little ones (and adults) will not always remember what you want them to remember.

The kingdom of heaven truly belongs to the children...

Remembering My Grandpa, Part 1

Papa and Brendan

As many of you know, my grandpa, who turned 90 in August, died on Christmas night. It wasn't a surprise, but that didn't make easy, either. For those who don't know, I lived with him for a couple of years in graduate school until he was put on hospice the first time (7.5 years ago, after which he was kicked off because he was doing so well). This gave me the rare opportunity to really get to know my grandpa well, in a way that many people don't get to know their grandparents.

One of the ways I have long known he impacted me was by living according to his priorities. Those who know me know I'm pretty ambitious. I've long derived a lot of meaning from the things I've done and accomplished.

My grandpa (I named him "Papa") didn't have a prestigious career (he retired from a department store selling window dressings). He served in WWII, married my grandma, moved to California (both grew up on Ohio farms with numerous siblings), and went to art school. As Papa and I would go to weekly Biblical Archaeology Society meetings, he would sometimes talk about how he wished he had gotten a PhD in one of these fields. But he ended his higher education in order to make sure his family had enough money once kids came along.

He retired before I can remember him working. But how often does a grandkid really think about his grandfather's career and status? I have a good friend whose grandpa is well known and who I respect. I've sometimes thought about what it would be like to live under that shadow (and I've heard stories). Then I've compared that to my relationship with my grandpa. Would I have loved Papa more or respected him more if he had done all these amazing things? I can't imagine that I would. In fact, I probably would have loved him less because he would have been around less and therefore I wouldn't have known him as well.

As I hear more and more stories about the personal lives of the ambitious, "accomplished" people I respect, many of their marriages and relationships have fallen apart. Sometimes numerous times. But I remember my grandparents' 50th anniversary. I think priorities have something to do with that.

So a big lesson Papa taught me (just by living his life, never explicitly) was to live out your priorities. And family and faith are my priorities, far more than career. I hope I can live up to the standard Papa set. 

Church Mistakes

This is an incredibly good article, entitle Seven Mistakes Every Church Should Avoid. I could repeat what is in the article and say more, but the author does it quite nicely and succinctly.

I particularly appreciate #2: Misrepresenting the tithe, #4: Over-emphasizing the role of the pastor, and #7: Conversion-focus instead of disciple-making.

I agree whole-heartedly with all of those. What are your reactions?

Crazy Good Crazy Love

I recently finished listening to the audiobook version of Francis Chan's Crazy Love. It was not as part of one of the reviewer programs, although I did get it free through christianaudio's monthly free audiobook title (something I highly recommend everyone take advantage of if you don't already).

This is an absolutely wonderful book that I highly recommend (although I don't want to say too much and make people's expectations too high--that causes problems, too :) ).

One of the best parts of this audiobook is that Chan read it himself--a problem I noted in Piper's A Sweet and Bitter Providence. I've started listening to his next book, Forgotten God, and that starts with an interview with him, where he admits he is not a great reader. I have to agree--it sounds like he's reading most of the time. However, I would not want it any other way because you can hear his passion, and that's more important than other benefits of a professional narrator.

To the content of the book: This is one book that has made me remember to worship God. Those words sound so flat as I write them because they are overused and misused. But Chan does a phenomenal job of making this a bit of a devotional. Really, I think this book is best described as a devotional. You can get a sense of this from the videos on the Crazy Love website, which Chan integrates into the book creatively. As he says in the interview preceding the other book, one person introduced him at a speaking engagement by saying what he talks about is so simple. It's reminding us of the basic, fundamental things about life and God.

The premise of the book is that God is in love with us and wants us to love him. As I'm writing this, again, I'm finding my review sounds so lame and does not express the true beauty of Chan's words and God's creation.

Chan's argues that we need to respond to God with "crazy love," meaning actions that may seem "crazy" to the world because we are relying on God for everything. Not that we should be actively looking to be crazy, but that we should be willing to be radical. Honestly, some of Chan's examples of crazy love seem truly crazy (i.e. a missionary physician getting all of his teeth pulled so that he would never have to leave the mission front due to teeth problems again--I'm not sure God would actually ask us to do that). However, he also says that these are not prescriptions for what everyone has to do--we all have to listen to what God has called each of us individually to do. I appreciate and agree with that.

One of the points that I particularly appreciated from his book is that it helped me remember to act out my priorities. Many of us can say God and family is first, but what does that actually look like? It can have quite a few definitions, all of which can be good and valid. However, one of the things Chan reminds his readers is that all they do will basically be forgotten in 50 years. There's some exceptions, but at least for me, that helps my anxiety about feeling like I have to do something big, as I have discussed in an earlier post. Chan also states we should not be asking why God has allowed hunger and suffering in the world. Instead, God should be asking US why WE allow hunger and suffering in the world.

The way he approached this made me think of it in a new way that motivates me to act more and live out of love. It's hard to describe, maybe in part because I'm still processing. One of the ways I'm processing it will be in another post tomorrow.

Overall, this book does a great job of challenging our fundamental beliefs of how we act in response to God. Again, he does not necessarily say anything new that most of us haven't heard before, but for me, he says it in a way that feels quite new. Most of my posts focus on existential, cognitive beliefs related to faith, not necessarily how we live out our faith or believe we should live out our faith. This book tackles that in the best way I've ever seen.

Big & Important

As many people know, my wife and I just completed a run of It's a Wonderful Life. One of my lines as George that has hit home for me is, "I want to do something big, something important." This is something I've thought many a time.

The point of the story is that the little things really are the important things in life. You can make a huge difference in "a business of nickels and dimes."

As a therapist, I know I have the opportunity to do important things. Big things for some people. Yet I still have a longing to do something "big."

Obviously "something big" is a very relative idea. Yet in my mind, being a therapist is not something "big." It is something small, but important.

It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, which is at the top of every page on this blog. It is from Mother Teresa, saying, "We can do no great things; only small things with great love."

I'm finding that to be more and more true. In many ways, "big things" and "important things" are sometimes mutually exclusive. The big things I can think of are often considered important, but really aren't (take most of Hollywood for example). And most important things really aren't that big (like being a parent, a spouse, etc.).

Although this, too, depends on our definition of "important." For me, it's making a clear difference in someone's life--changing it. However, anything a person can do can be quite important (the world wouldn't operate if the "mundane" things weren't done).

I came into the field of psychology because it was more important for me to do something that would make an important difference in someone's life than do something "big." Yet the urge for the latter is still there. Perhaps because it seems as a society, we think big is important and small is unimportant. It's hard to challenge that idea.

Maybe what we need to do (me included) is challenge our definitions of both big and important...

Liturgical v. Contemporary Church

As my wife and I moved a few months ago, we have begun looking for a new church community closer to us. In the places we have visited, we went to one that is a pretty traditional contemporary service (nice oxymoron, huh?) and one that is a pretty traditional high church, liturgical service. Both Laci and I have had much more experience in the former, so that feels more comfortable.

However, we noticed some key distinctions between the communities, which led me to think about differences between liturgical and contemporary communities in general. The thing I noticed (which is not an amazing or new insight) is that liturgical communities tend to be more liberal politically and theologically, focusing on communal issues and social justice at large. In contrast, contemporary communities tend to be more conservative politically and theologically, focusing on individual experience and personal responsibility. Now there are obvious exceptions to these rules, but often they do characterize churches as a pattern, I believe.

That got me to wondering why this is the case. And here's my conclusion:

Liturgical churches are by their nature communal. They focus on the whole community, not individual's reactions. Liturgy by its nature is participative. It is also not focused on creating a conversion experience or a deeply moving personal experience. Again, it is focused on the group coming together. As a result, it would make sense that these churches would focus more on the whole community and larger social justice issues.

In contrast, contemporary churches developed out of the Protestant Reformation and a focus on personal relationship with Christ, personal conversion, and personal conviction. The service is therefore focused on moving each individual. Hence, you can get a more performance-driven service that is non-participative, but leads to touching, emotional experiences. As the emerging movement has emphasized, these services have usually lost the participative quality. When that is lost, then it makes sense that politically and theologically they would ignore the social justice issues and instead focus on personal morality and responsibility.

Interestingly, I saw these two blog posts with similar ideas. Maybe I just had my eyes out for these concepts. What do you think about these patterns? Have you seen them? Have you seen a successful mix of the two? That's one of the strengths of the emerging church, I believe: It attempts to merge the strengths of both while cutting out the weaknesses of each.

Priorities

So often in so many churches, we fight about little things. This post by Dan Kimball really emphasizes that we need to live out our priorities. What do you think the priorities of the church should be?

I am not always convinced we should pay attention to eternal lives while neglecting current lives, as I alluded to in an earlier post. However, life in any form is more important than carpet... :)