Forbes, five out of the ten "happiest jobs" are the five careers I've most seriously considered and will most likely find myself doing in the future - including the #1 job, which is probably the one I'm most likely to do.
I'm skeptical of the findings because I have no idea how they could possibly gather significant stats about something like this, but it's interesting nonetheless. The findings suggest that the biggest difference underlying the happiest jobs from the most hated jobs is a sense of meaning and purpose that transcends bringing home a paycheck. That certainly rings true for me.
The "Happiest" job are...
3. Physical Therapists
5. Special Education Teachers
9. Financial Service Sales Agents
10. Operating Engineers
Out of all the careers out there, #s 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are probably the ones I've thought about most seriously (depending on how broad the definition of #7 is).
Friday, June 29, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
The speaker acknowledged that this was the correct answer. I started laughing to myself, though, because I imagined the incident playing out differently with a ridiculous caricature I'll call Grumpy Calvinist. Grumpy Calvinist would reply, "I'm sorry, that's wrong. The correct answer is GOD, because God is sovereign over all things."
Grumpy Calvinist would continue to ask a series of Bible trivia questions, each one being answered "correctly" by the children but incorrectly as far as he is concerned. To each answer he would offer the same correction: "I'm sorry, but..."
Our speaker last night gave candy to the kids who answered correctly, but Grumpy Calvinist would never do that. He would want them to learn that good doctrine is its own reward.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Over the last two years or so, I've discovered the joy of listening to good podcasts - great content and totally free. It's awesome. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a huge fan of music, but some of the podcasts I've found are so enjoyable I've almost stopped listened to music in the car entirely.
Here are my top three people to listen to:
Tim Keller is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City and the author of the best selling book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. His church has been enormously successful with one of the least churched segments of the population - young, urban professionals - and I think I can guess why: Keller knows how to communicate. He is precisely the sort of preacher the Evangelical world needs more of: humble, engaging, Gospel-centered, wise, insightful, and capable of integrating Biblical study with a healthy awareness of history, philosophy, sociology, and pop culture. If anyone got into my car when I was listening to Tim Keller, I wouldn't feel the least bit awkward about allowing the podcast to continue - not because he compromises on communicating hard truths - but because he does and he's so good at it. You can find more than 60 of his sermons in iTunes if you search for the Timothy Keller Podcast.
When I listen to this man speak, it's as if liquid-joy is being poured into the cup of my soul. Kreeft is a 75-year-old professor of philosophy at Boston College and The King's College and the author of more than 35 books (I've read two, "The Journey" and "Love is Stronger Than Death." Both were excellent). He grew up in the Dutch Reformed tradition and received his undergraduate degree from Calvin College, but he converted to Roman Catholicism before he graduated.
There's so much I love about Kreeft. I love that he's a professor. I love that he's a charismatic. I love that he appreciates C.S. Lewis and Tolkein. I love that he's a surfer. Most of all, I love that his talks always manage to awaken my sleepy love for God.
Kreeft has a way of showing how Christianity makes sense and how it satisfies our deepest longings. He is, like Keller, incredibly insightful and a brilliant communicator. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a regularly updated podcast but he does have quite a few talks available for download on iTunes. His "Happiness" talk, an examination of the beatitudes, is one of my favorite messages of all-time, and his quirky lecture, "If Einstein Had Been a Surfer," is truly mind-blowing. I hope he stays healthy and active for awhile yet.
Brierley is the host of "Unbelievable?" on Premier Christian Radio in the UK, a program that seems tailored-made for people like me. Every week, Brierley raises an issue relevant to the Christian worldview and hosts a discussion on that issue. Usually the discussions are between Christians and non-Christians (i.e., "Where did the universe come from?," "Is it possible to have meaning without God?" "Do Angels Exist?," "Do Demons Exist?," etc), but sometimes the conversations focus on intra-church issues (i.e., "Women in Leadership?," "Was Jesus a Calvinist?," "Theistic Evolution?," etc). The show has been on for about five years and I only discovered it a couple months ago, but during that time I've listened to more than 40 episodes. Only about 200 more and I'll be all caught up.
Seriously, though, I think I will end up listening to all of them eventually. I spend enough time in the car and I enjoy them that much. The content itself is obviously a big reason, but Brierley deserves a lot of credit. He manages to keep order during potentially volatile discussions and he's aware and intelligent enough to ask consistently good questions. He's also unfailingly polite and kind, which is absolutely essential in this type of ministry. I'm so thankful for what he does.
One thing "Unbelievable?" has proven to me, though: British accents always make people sound more intelligent. You can even say wacky things with a British accent and sound reputable. I wonder if British people feel the same way about their own accents?
What do you guys like to listen to?
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Isn't it interesting the way Jesus is consistently misinterpreted because his words are taken literally? In addition to this example, there have been several others so far in John's Gospel:
(1) 2:18-21. When the Jews in the temple ask Jesus for a miraculous sign to prove his authority for flipping the moneychangers' tables, he says, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." Of course, the temple he is referring to is his body, but the Jews don't realize that (and who can blame them?). "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple" they say.
(2) 3:3-4. Jesus tells Nicodemus, a Pharisee, that "no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." Nicodemus replies, "How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus responds by clarifying that he is talking about spiritual birth, not physical ("water") birth.
(3) 4:10-14. When Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman at the well, he tells her that if she knew who she was talking to, she would ask him for "living water." The woman is confused: "Sir," she says, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?"
With these examples in mind, is it not ironic that many followers of Jesus today insist on interpreting Scripture with the same degree of wooden literalism as Jesus' original hearers? Jesus' words in all of these examples were in fact true, but not in the literal sense. If the Word-made-flesh was willing to speak this way, is it not possible that the Word of God speaks similarly in other parts of the Bible? I'm not trying to suggest that we should automatically assume that all the stories in the Old Testament are only true in a spiritual - rather than historical - sense, but I do think we need to be very careful about interpreting the original intent of the authors. In these examples, Jesus' intent was to communicate spiritual realities through physical terms. If we were to insist on a literal interpretation of his words, we would not only disrespect his original intent but we would also miss his point entirely. We need to be careful not to make the same mistake with other parts of the Bible.
But, going back to chapter 4 - Jesus said "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work." In other words, Jesus said that his sustenance, his life, was found in doing God's will. Doing God's will and completing his mission was more important to him than anything else, which is probably why he seemed so unconcerned about food after telling the Samaritan woman about the Kingdom.
The reason I bring this up is because chapter 6 seems to talk a lot about food. In the first part, Jesus feeds 5000+ people with two fish and five small barley loaves, and in the last part he refers to himself as the essential food that must be eaten in order to experience everlasting life.
In verse 5, Jesus looks at the huge crowd and he says to Philip, "Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?" Interestingly, verse 6 suggests that he was fishing for a specific answer, as it says, "he asked this only to test him."
What was the answer Jesus was looking for? Probably not the one Philip gave, which appears to demonstrate either (a) a lack of faith or (b) another example of someone taking Jesus too literally. I have to wonder if the answer Jesus was fishing for was something along the lines of, "We don't need to buy them bread, Lord, because the true food - the food of doing the will of God - you can offer in abundance." Such an answer would demonstrate that Philip had been paying attention in chapter 4, but instead he responds the way most of us would - and who can fault him? Feed all of them, Jesus? Are you kidding me?
But Jesus can feed all of them, and he does. He takes a boy's lunch pail and multiplies its meager contents, providing more than enough to go around. Everyone eats their fill and there's even twelve baskets of leftovers. Jesus provides more than enough.
I take several things from this story. The first and most obvious one is that Jesus is powerful. As has already been established in John's gospel, Jesus has the ability to override the normal laws of nature - the ability to do the miraculous. The second is that Jesus is capable of taking something small and multiplying it. As Jesus says in all three of the synoptic Gospels, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed...which indeed is smaller than all seeds. But when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches." This principle is true not only of the kingdom of heaven but also of our faith. As Jesus says, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed.."
There is something so beautiful to me about God using a little boy's lunch to feed thousands of people. It reminds me of what Jesus says in Luke 21 about the poor widow who offered two copper coins to the temple treasury. "This poor widow put in more than all the others," he said, "all these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." Jesus seems to like embarrassingly small offerings - particularly when they come at personal cost. Such small seeds seem prone to blossom and flourish.
Lastly, it's fascinating to think about what Jesus is saying about himself through this miracle. Surely its not just coincidence when Jesus says later in this chapter that he is the bread of life. The bread that Jesus offers in the feeding of the five thousand isn't just lunch - it's himself. Like the small basket of loaves and fish, Jesus' offering of himself is a humble one that provides in abundance.