So I’m watching House M.D. one night, right? House and Wilson are having an exchange, and House is defending his pervasive drug addiction. He makes a comment that goes along the lines of “Foolishness is trying to change when change is impossible”, to which Wilson responded “Cowardice is labeling what you don’t want to change as innate.” That phrase has been a clarion call for me personally. There’s a lot of debate between nature and nurture in the psychological and philosophical worlds right now, and the prevailing trend is that, because of our genetics, environments, or whatever, we’re pretty much stuck with what we have. Some theologies embrace that idea, as well. The question for me is, where’s the line between what I can and can’t change? And what’s the difference between the actual line and where I’ve drawn it for myself?
I, and others, I suspect, rationalize weakness. I get used to my deficiencies, I nurture them, I even celebrate them sometimes. Oh, I can’t do that because I have challenges I was born with. I can’t meet the requirements because of something outside of my control, so I don’t have to feel bad. I rationalize weakness and incompetence.
It seems to me right now, and I welcome your feedback about this, that if you don’t at least act like it’s all up to you, if you don’t act like you can achieve anything you want to, then you stagnate. I’ve heard it said that one ought to “Pray like it’s all up to God, and work like it’s all up to you.” I love that phrase for a number of reasons. It acknowledges God’s sovereignty over the events of the Earth, but it’s not a wholesale resignation to fatalism, which in my opinion is the inevitable logical conclusion of determinism.
The old cliché of “the courage to change what I can, the serenity to accept what I can’t, and the wisdom to know the difference” makes more and more sense the more I mature as a result of the myriad experiences I have day in and day out. There are such injustices in the world that could be righted if only people of talent and commitment would determine to fix them. The trend for my generation is to be outraged, and wear trendy, fashionable clothing that displays that outrage, like hemp fibers or catchy political slogans on tight t-shirts. The true believers join some group, volunteering and donating funds for demonstrations or protests or political action committees or what have you.
At the same time, something that struck me about the ‘Armor of God’ in the book of Ephesians is the fact that there’s no back armor. The obvious application is that one ought never to turn one’s back to the enemy, but it also means that you shouldn’t rush forward recklessly and allow yourself to be flanked. Adequate planning in any endeavor is key. “Fools rush in” comes to mind.
I guess the point of all this is a series of questions about how to use your life. When you encounter a situation, the first question is, can I change this? If not, then how can I work to accept it without complaint, and if yes, how can I go about changing it? What sort of relationships should I form? What sort of company should I keep? What should I read, write, listen to? How much time should go for leisure and how much for work? And, perhaps the most difficult for me personally, do I have the maturity to do this successfully right now? And, if not, what can I do in the meantime to prepare myself for the next big thing?
And, perhaps most applicable to yours truly, how can I keep from freezing up while all these questions are working themselves out?
