When is a risk worth taking?

Last week a nurse wrote about the top regrets that dying patients have about their life. Here they are:

1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

2. I wish I hadn’t worked so hard.

3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.

4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.

5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.

From PostSecret this week

Many of these are about taking risks or taking action. Risks to go against the expectations of others or the prevailing thinking of society, and an action which is a conscious choice – yes – even the choice to be happier.

Some risks are simply about taking control and making a step towards a new reality or a potential goal, yet it can still be daunting to take that step. For example, someone might have been dreaming of following a certain career, but has to retrain in order for that to happen. It is very easy to put off that phone-call – what if they reject you? What if it is too expensive? Because these things are unknown they involve moving from a place of safety to one of uncertainty. Even though the potential rewards might be greater, it can seem like a daunting course of action. Usually, in hindsight the regret is “Why didn’t I do that sooner?”

Some risks are about quality of life. For example the regret above “I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings” is simply about speaking the truth to others. Again the potential drawbacks, such as a rejection, can have a big effect. But people usually don’t regret saying what they feel. (If it’s bad news, however, people can regret how you say it!)

Others risks are simply for a thrill or a bit of fun. For example, I’ve been wanting to learn to snowboard ever since I saw the Snowboard-Cross event in the 2006 Winter Olympics. Yes, that’s a long time ago. Yet I never quite got around to it. I nearly did one Christmas in New England, but alas, that year, the snow came late and we had to go home before it came. Well I’m finally getting round to it at the indoor snow-dome near us. Nothing to lose but the possibility of a few bruises.

So when is a risk worth taking? In no particular order, this is what came to mind.

1. Does it fit into your life plan or help you towards where you want to go? If it doesn’t, the risk probably isn’t worth taking (unless it’s only a small side track). It may simply be a waste of time and energy. In this case, best to go back to basics and rethink what you really want and work towards that. (This can apply to relationships as well as job/career risks. Why waste time with a guy or girl who doesn’t treat you right or who doesn’t want to commit if you do? Might be best to cut your losses and hold out for someone whom you can plan a future with.)

If you don’t have a life plan it is worth finding out whom God has made you to by examining your passions, gifts and hopes. Finding a direction is usually a combination of these things.

2. Is it sensible? What do my trusted friends and family say? Sometimes the biggest sticking point in making a decision is wondering whether that decision is the right one. Talking about it to others and praying about it can help you work towards a solution. Some actions are obviously sensible but just require the discipline of a lifestyle change to get them sorted.

3. What are the potential consequences if the risk doesn’t pay off? Can I live with them if it doesn’t work?

For me, bungee jumping is a risk to far. The potential gain (a quick thrill) is not worth the potential risk (serious injury, death) if it doesn’t work. But if the risk is something more practical, like applying for a job in another part of the country, then assuming you want the job and don’t mind moving, it is probably worth the cost of a stamp to apply.

4. What is the likelihood of the risk failing? If the odds are too long and the cost is too high it might be worth holding back. If the likelihood of failure is high but the consequences of failure are minimal, it is probably worth the punt. Where there is a tricky middle ground, we need to go back to question 2.

5. Is is legal? Generally, what is illegal is not worth risking. There may be exceptions under regimes where human rights are not respected or religious freedom permitted

6. What are the consequences for others? Will they be hurt or impacted by the risk? There might be hardships for your family if you go ahead with something new. This will need to be taken into account. A few years on a lower salary might be worth it for long-term rewards, or if it means that you have more time to spend with them. Likewise, if a decision is going to take you away from them for large periods of time, however attractive or lucrative it might seem, it may not be worth it as their non-material quality of life may suffer from your absence. The impact of others needs to be carefully weighed up.

The Bible is full of examples of people who have taken great risks in order to serve God. In each case, they became aware of a call from God to do something particular. I would say that they discovered who God made them to be. It didn’t usually lead to a physically or materially better life – often they suffered hardship, imprisonment, they were chased out-of-town or persecuted because they went against the expectations of others. Yet in each case, they found their God-given selves and with that a peace and security to make the decisions they have to make.  I’m sure they would do it again.

Religion for Atheists results in a new moral certainty.

Alain de Botton has recently suggested a new kind of religion for atheists – one which takes all the best bits of religion such as community, generosity, creativity but leaves behind all the less desirable parts such as the rules and the actual beliefs. Ed West in today’s telegraph commented how this would always end up like an alcohol free lager – missing something crucial and something that doesn’t do much for anybody.

An interesting article – his last paragraph was this:

The real problem is that religion is always replaced by something else. The rise of fads such as homoeopathy is well documented, but more commonly people’s religious desires for certainty, morality and community are transferred to their politics; that is why there is this sense that those outside the communion of correct beliefs today are morally unclean, and new sins such as “racist” and “sexist” replace “heretic” and “sinner”. That is the real “religion for atheists”.

This struck a chord with something that we were discussing on Jon Marlow’s blog, about whether postmodernism was giving way to something else – a sense of ‘correct belief’ where everything outside of the prevailing view is not tolerated, shouted down or responded to with the refrain “You can’t say that!”. We called this ‘neo-conformity’. Interesting that this trend has been spotted by others and I wonder if it is really leading onto a change in era.

How much do you want a new pair of trainers?

This much?
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=11212

Fights Over Nike Air Jordan Concord Sneakers: MyFoxHOUSTON.com

Ridiculous scenes as a crowd turns to violence over purchasing newly released Nike Air Jordan trainers. BBC coverage here.

The solution to the riots

I’ve been thinking a lot, as have most of us, about the scenes we witnessed last week. As I sat eating dinner looking out window of the cottage we were staying in Worcestershire, over 10 miles of unspoilt countryside of the Severn Valley, I couldn’t help but think of the contrast between what we were experiencing on our family holiday and the violence in our major cities. A lot has been written on underlying causes, and I have sent off a letter to politicians giving my views on it too (which I’m not going to publish here).

However, I would recommend reading this, an open letter to David Cameron, and watching this, delivered six weeks ago before the riots. The problems aren’t new. They’ve been around for a long while but have only just been noticed.

Notes on Death: The Death of Ivan Ilyich

This short story is usually published alongside other short stories of Tolstoy’s that deal with issues of marriage, happiness, life and death. At about 70 pages (roughly the same length as some contemporary novels such as Ian McEwan’s On Chesil Beach), it is minute compared to Tolstoy’s other epics, but is certainly long enough to develop character and to lure you into it.

I’m going to give the game away. In the book, Ivan Ilyich dies. I was rather surprised to find that he actually died in the second paragraph, because it is the nature and significance of death that Tolstoy wants to discuss. The book begins with effect that Ivan’s death has on others. To two of his work colleagues, the death is an opportunity and an irritation. Someone will need to fill Ivan’s role and Pyotr Ivanavich thinks he might be the one. So the opportunity for promotion is there. At the same time there is the irritation of visiting the family, consoling the widow, and staying for the wake which only delays Pyotr’s preferred way of spending the evening, at poker with friends.

Only then does Tolstoy turn to to dealing, in retrospect, with the life and death of Ivan Ilyich. We are treated to a fairly leisurely description of Ivan’s life – of how he floated through life enjoying his position, taking the opportunity for work advancement when it was there, marrying well and fathering two children. The marriage is not described in glowing terms. The initial attraction wore off quickly and the marriage was simply a given – not particularly good or bad, just there. However familiarity bred irritation followed by annoyance and hate. In this time Ivan wanted to climb the rungs of government advocacy and he succeeds, resulting in a move to St. Petersburg.

Shortly afterwards he develops an illness. Although at first it did not seem like an illness. An uncomfortableness developed into an irritation. Doctors were summoned and consulted and second opinions were had. Diets were followed and medicine was prescribed. The ache got worse. Tolstoy describes it as a loose kidney. With the deterioration of his condition came the decline in Ivan’s mood. Only the kindness of Gerasim, one of his servants, gives him any comfort. This kindness is shown in the hope that someone might do the same for Gerasim when his time comes, and it affects Ivan. Lesson one: We Will All Die.

Ivan doesn’t do illness well. The realisation sets in that he will not recover and be becomes prone to depression, analysing his life. Looking back, Ivan couldn’t think of anything noteworthy nor much that was particularly bad in his life. Yet he cannot shake the uneasiness that something has been missed and that he has not lived as he should. Again he cannot think that he could have lived any other way. He remained upright in society and, well, only treated others as well as other of his class did. The story climaxes not with a great confession or conversion, just an acknowledgment that he has been living for the wrong thing – that his life has in some sense been inauthentic as he lived it for himself. At the moment of his realisation he experienced an end to his loathing for his family and a cessation of his pain as he embraced the joyous white light that was enveloping him.

There is a quote from the South American Missionary and martyr Jim Elliot who was killed at the hands of the people he went to serve in 1956:

“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”

It seems that this is the lesson that Ivan finally grasped in his final moments. As soon as he realised he could not hang onto life, onto himself, he was embraced by a love and joy that he had never known.

Update 28/07/11: Following a recent newly published edition of this story along with another of Tolstoy’s short stories The Devil, The Guardian have also published a review here.

Daily Mail: Premarital Abstinence leads to better marriages

Interesting article in the Daily Mail based on research done in the US – Couples who don’t have sex before marriage on average have more stable, satisfying relationships than those who don’t, and generally have better sex too.

In particular, relationship stability was rated 22 per cent higher, relationship satisfaction was 20 per cent higher, quality of sex was 15 per cent better and even communication between partners was 12 per cent better.

I guess the research was done through interviews of couples.

Mark Regnerus, author of Premarital Sex in America… said: ‘Couples who hit the honeymoon too early – that is, prioritise sex promptly at the outset of a relationship – often find their relationships underdeveloped when it comes to the qualities that make relationships stable and spouses reliable and trustworthy.’

Read the whole article – Want the secret to a happy marriage? Don’t have sex before the wedding | Mail Online.

It shouldn’t be surprising that those who wait put less emphasis on the physical side of the relationship at the beginning and more time learning how to communicate and making stable foundations for the marriage. Love is a verb and we have to learn how to do it well.

H/T Peter Ould

So that men are without excuse.

¹⁸The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom 1:18-20)

I’ve always had some difficulty with these verses, not at God’s wrath over sin, or that people had turned away from him, or that some suppress the truth, but with the final phrase – so that men are without excuse. Whenever I’ve been asked in an Alpha or Christianity Explored group a questions like ‘what about the lost tribe in the Amazon that has never heard of Jesus, ‘ I’ve tended to turn to this verse. God gives everyone enough knowledge so that they can turn to, or reject, him. However, I always felt I was fudging the issue a little.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ excellent expositions on Romans 1 opens up these verses well. He, of courses brings up the general revelation of God (as opposed to the special revelation given to 1st Century Jews and Christians through Jesus and the Holy Spirit). He claims that what can be known about God ‘from what has been made’ is not a saving knowledge of God, as this is only made through the Spirit (compare 1 Cor 2:6-16) but a general knowledge of what God is like – his majesty, glory, justice, dominion, greatness and even his divinity.

How can this be known? Paul tells us that is it from what has been made – from creation which is ‘the manifestation of the handiwork of God’. Lloyd-Jones argues that there are three elements to this. The first is wonder at the complexity of creation. We not only seen the beauty of the world and the order behind it but we can marvel at the mind that has put it all together. How is it, Lloyd-Jones asks, that something as complex and an eye can just spring (or evolve) out of a naturally occurring chance? how and why did it develop? We either say that all of it is just an accident (as many do) or we are forced to consider the mind and guiding hand behind it.

We also consider the providence of creation. Everything has it’s place, is provided for, and requires everything else around it to sustain it. He also argues from the history of creation – that is, even secular history seem the cycle through the events without really learning much. He claims that history cycles through the events and thoughts of Gen 1-11. I haven’t really looked into this last point yet.

He also mentions two other important things which point to a knowledge of God. First, the fact that everyone has a conscience – an innate sense of right or wrong and the desire to see justice served for those things that fail the conscience. Second, he mentions that every people-group everywhere, no matter how primitive or complex has an innate knowledge of some sort of supreme being. I’m sure he would see this as an argument from creation too – why would such an innate knowledge  be present (especially if the world was just an accident)

So Lloyd-Jones argues from Romans that God can be known from creation but not in any saving sense. If this is true, he goes on to say that this knowledge

it is not enough to save a man bit is enough to render a man inexcusable for his godlessness and sinfulness. (p374)

Man is without excuse because, although he has this knowledge, he suppresses it and rallies against it (v18). He fails to follow his own conscience and is therefore in breach of it. He fails to submit himself fully to the God who can be seen through all that has been made.

It is worth noting that Paul was writing these verses about the Pagans and Jews of the day. The pagans, he said are without excuse. How much more the Jews who had God’s special revelation, or those who had seen and talked with Jesus. How much more again are all those today who have the benefit of a Christian traditions, Christian teaching and the whole of the Old and New Testaments revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. All are without excuse and are stuck in their unrighteousness (state of living apart from God) and ungodliness (failure to  acknowledge God).

This is where Paul’s previous verses are so wonderful. Men are without excuse but..

¹⁷For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” (Rom 1:17)

The gospel offers hope to this man who rallies against God and is stuck in his unrighteousness and it is the hope which comes by faith in the gospel.

Of course, we know that all who turn to Jesus are brought by the Holy Spirit. So what about that question about our tribal friends in the Amazon. God does bring them enough knowledge of their sinfulness to be able to seek Him who is revealed in creation – enough knowledge not to ignore God. And the Holy Spirit will bring a softening of their hearts and willingness to turn to God.

How not to be judgemental

Randy Thomas has written a post about Jennifer Knapp, the Christian singer-songwriter who has recently come out as gay. What struck me about his post is this quote:

Later I thought about this person saying Jennifer was offending a Holy God. That irritated me at the time and didn’t quite know what to say without getting upset. So I was silent in the conversation but I wished I had said that instead of God manifesting in all His glowing glory and declaring how offended He is, He manifested as Jesus Christ. He didn’t cross His golden robed arms, roll His heavenly focused eyes and snarkily guffaw a lightning bolt out of His mouth to express his offense. A tortured, grieving Jesus willingly outstretched His arms and was nailed to a cross. As He died, He didn’t lament how badly His Bride, His Church, was treating Him. He asked the Father to forgive us for we know not what we have done.If anyone had a right to abandon everyone who offended him, Jesus was that person. But He didn’t. Instead He paid the highest price possible to forgive us in spite of us.

via Responding to Jennifer Knapp’s “Coming Out” — Exodus International Blog.

How easy it is in so many situations to have an ‘us and them’ mindset. I was picked up by someone just this week for unspoken assumptions I’d made which revealed an ‘us and them’ mindset. If we think about the people that Jesus’ condemned, we see that it is most often the Pharisees, those that would have considered themselves to be in the ‘us’ group. Yet, when we point at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at ourselves. Randy’s quote brings us back to the heart of Jesus’ message of love when we think about our interactions with others.

You can’t help who you fall in love with

BBC News are carrying an article about a former prison officer, Kelly-Anne McDade, who has just been sentenced to jail time for two things. She had a sexual relationship with a male inmate, resulting in her getting pregnant, and she also smuggled in mobile phones for use by inmates.

I’m not going to probe deeply into the case, but what struck me was the excuse/defense that her solicitor was trying to put forward.

Richard Germain, defending McDade, told the court: “There is no doubt it was an inappropriate relationship, but Ms McDade would say ‘You can’t help who you fall in love with’.”

via BBC NEWS | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Inmate-sex prison officer jailed.

This is a myth. You can help who you fall in love with. Perhaps you can’t help who you find attractive, but love is a completely different thing. Love is not an uncontrollable emotion.  Once the impulses of attraction come along, we choose whether to act on them. We choose whether to show love to someone else. There certainly are feelings associated with love, but these feelings themselves are not love. They are merely associated with it. Over all, love is a choice.

If we are attracted to somebody, it doesn’t mean we have to love them. For example, if a married man is attracted to another woman (this itself is not a crime) but he must choose what to do with that attraction. Hopefully he will put in boundaries to remove or reduce the temptation, for the benefit of his marriage. He may avoid that woman and make sure he is never alone with her. Or if he has to meet her and part of his job or something, he could always meet in a public place. He could also confide and be accountable to someone else. There are many ways to reduce the temptation that would inevitably destroy his marriage, and avoid the attraction turning into something else. Each little step is a choice.

We can help who we fall in love with and it is the result of hundreds of little choices.

Update 12/01/12: There is now a more detailed post on the subject here.

Fight for your love.

Celebrity gossip doesn’t usually interest me but I was listening to the radio a couple of days ago and became intrigued by the new song from Cheryl Cole. I’m not usually a fan of hers, I don’t have any of her singles or albums and haven’t really paid her that much attention. But I had picked up snippets from her life so far.

For example,  I knew that Cheryl was born and brought up not to far from where I was brought up… just outside Newcastle. But I also knew she lived in an area that had a lot of problems with high rates of crime, addictions, teenage pregnancy, poor school attendance, and a high proportion of single parents. I knew that Cheryl didn’t have a good start in life.

I also knew that she managed to get on a TV talent show – Pop-Stars:The Rivals in 2003, which she won with the group Girls Aloud which instantly had a number one hit with Sound of the Underground. She now has a solo career and has become a judge on the X-Factor.

I was also aware that Cheryl was married to another famous person, the Chelsea footballer Ashley Cole. He proposed in 2005 and they were married in a lavish wedding ceremony in 2006, with exclusive photos carried by OK! magazine.

I had also heard, unfortunately, that Ashley was not a nice boy. I didn’t really like him anyway because he played for Chelsea. But, it was reported, back in 2008, that Ashley had been unfaithful to Cheryl. He had allegedly had an affair with a hairdresser called Aimee and with a model. So, after that Cheryl and Ashley had a brief separation during which, apparently, Ashley apologised and supposedly grovelled to Cheryl to take him back…which she did. Ashley wronged Cheryl but she was willing to forgive him and they are now back together.

So, no, I don’t really follow her life, but this is what I’d picked up.

Now, what caught my attention was the song that was on the radio. It was a love song, but a love song with a difference. It’s called, Fight for this Love, and it’s as if all of Cheryl’s experiences of her life, and her relationship with Ashley Cole, have been rolled up into this song.

The song recognises that in relationships, things aren’t always rosy

“Now everyday aint gon´ be no picnic
Love aint no walk in the park“

It recognises that relationships are difficult, as in her case when her husband has wronged her. But even in relationships where there is no unfaithfulness, the song recognises that there’ll be good days when the feelings of love are wonderful, and there will be bad days when you have to muster up every ounce of energy that you have to forgive the other one.

Anything that´s worth having
Is sure enough worth fighting for
Quitting’s out of the question
When it gets tough gotta fight some more
We gotta fight fight fight fight fight for this love

Relationships are not easy, but they are worth sticking at and working at. Because it is in the forgiving, the discussing, the working together, and the thinking of the other person that the relationship is deepened. As each partner recognises their failings and comes to the other in humility, the sense of dependance and consequently, the marriage relationship is deepened. A deep long lasting relationship needs to be worked at.

When we think about it, that’s true of all the good things in life, why should marriage be ay different? If we want the best things from life, we need to commit to them and work at them. If we want to have a good career, we need to commit to that goal, and work towards it. If we want to play a musical instrument, we need to practice. Want to be good at sport, we  need to work at our skills. Apparently David Beckham used to stay back a long time after training was over just practising taking free kicks.

Likewise, if want a good, long-lasting, deep relationship we must be prepared to prioritise it and put into place good practices: spending quality time with each other, doing kind acts for each other, buying gifts that show appreciation every so often. And, most importantly, being prepared to forgive a when there is genuine repentance.

All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty. (Prov 14:23)