Christopher Anderson

This past winter I had the privilege of joining the Concordia indoor track team. As an athlete in other sports this didn't seem like a terribly difficult task initially. My prior experience summed up to exactly one year of throwing shot put and discuss my sophomore year of high school so naturally that was what I tried to do in college now to stay in shape during the winter months. The coaches had other ideas in mind and told me right away the reality that trying to compete in throwing events at the division two level would be futile for a person of my size. After trying a few tests ranging across physical activities like standing long jump, short sprints, and high jumps I somehow ended up being the second competitor on the team alongside Colin Goligosky in the heptathlon. I had no idea what a heptathlon entailed or how much time commitment it would be but the goal was to stay in shape and it certainly did that.
 
At one particular track meet I had an interesting experience at my least favorite event. The heptathlon consists of seven different events, those being the sixty meter dash, sixty meter hurdles, high jump, long jump, shot put, pole vault, and to finish it all up a 1000 meter race. This is all done over the coarse of two days, four events the first day and three the next with a half hour of rest following the completion of each event. Most of these things were completely new to me and almost all involve skills that I would not say are strong personal attributes. The most problematic throughout the season however was the hurdles. In collegiate men's track the hurdles are forty two inches tall. This is an excellent height for my teammate who is six foot five inches tall but for a more vertically challenged competitor like myself trying the event for the first time, it was an interesting endeavor. The first run of hurdles went very well that day and I actually beat my personal record by over a second, but the timers were somehow thrown off and no official times could be taken so the race had to be run again.

On the second go around the race did not fair as well for me. In hurdles the goal is to take the same number of steps out to the first hurdle, then from one hurdle to the next all the way through the race. A skill I had not yet perfected the first hurdle was an accomplishment, and any hurdles after that I could three step between were a bonus. After such an encouraging first race this seemed like a good time to attempt taking only three steps between each hurdle. Unfortunately this is much more difficult to maintain a high enough speed between hurdles when form going over each hurdle is so poor, and after a fast first hurdle and successful second, I ducked straight under the third. To this day I cannot explain how it made sense in my mind but there was something threatening to separate my upper and lower body and what seemed logical at the time was to duck. This is not exactly a legal action and I was disqualified from the race. Moral of the story, never run hurdles.

If you would like to watch the video click here

Ever tried learning from a horse? Today in the knoll two horses and their handlers came in for anyone choosing to attend and taught a valuable lesson in priorities and balance. The two horses were split up, one for the students and one for the professors. Both groups worked as individuals leading the horse while carrying all of lifes' necessities with them to the next member of the team who would then take to horse and all pieces to the next and so on through the entire group, leading the horse from one cone to the next. The objects being held ranged from plastic rakes to giant foam puzzle pieces with different words printed on each such as spiritual life and exercise. Each of these items had to somehow be stuffed into the saddle bag for the horse to carry (although both teams ended up having members simply carry it all on their person. Also being brought along was an egg balanced on a spoon carried without the use of ones thumb. This was quite the spectacle all in all.

As entertaining as watching all of this take place was, the most valuable information came in the discussion after both teams had finished. New to me was the entire idea teaching through the use of horses so everything added was just an overload to me trying to make sense of the exercise. Participants discussed how they chose the items they did, what it was like trying to balance it all, and how the parts that were consistent among all who tried leading the horse  meant different things person to person. To some the egg represented having to maintain balance while paying attention to all sorts of different tasks. Some considered the egg to represent the fragile personal aspects of life that need to be held dearly and not dropped. The horse being brought along was also something discussed, and what really resonated with me was that rather than just tugging it along behind, what was most effective was talking calmly as that allowed for the balance of all the other objects and enticed the horse far better than brute force ever could.

Although I did not participate in the exercise personally, I felt very connected to the lessons being shown. Everyone needed to work as a group to determine what to bring along, just as I cannot choose every action in my life I need to work with those around me. The balancing of carrying eggs on a spoon while leading a horse fit almost exactly how my life has felt the last couple weeks because there is so much to balance, just as fragile as keeping an egg from breaking on the ground, and sometimes it feels like this giant muscle bound beast is following me around. The afternoon was very intriguing not only to start out learning from two horses but then to include the discussion after that really taught me a lot about how I look at what's important to me and what's worth spending my time doing.

                Monday evening the honors class had the privilege of going and attending a march focused on taking the hoods off Concordia. This was intended to highlight the side of this university where the student population is very diverse, but also in many ways very segregated. Even at the march the different groups of students associated in different activities with each other could be seen separated and talking with those same people. There's nothing wrong with talking to your friends, but the goal of this march was to bring this issue into the light and discourage everyone to look at the campus not as the people they do and don't associate with, but to look at everyone as fellow students and be comfortable with all of those around Concordia.

                This event was a very good step forward for the student body as a whole looking at what issues are arising within the campus. No matter how hard people try there is a certain tension associated with being as diverse a campus as Concordia is. It is not enough to simply not make racist jokes. In his book "redefining diversity", R. Thomas maps out eight ways diversity can be handled in the business world and makes the important distinction between the lower level attempts by a manager to simply tolerate diversity, and actively pursuing and fostering relationships within a diverse group. Although this is in the context of the business world and not a school, the concept is still very much analogous.

                The march was one of the better attended campus events I have seen on campus all year, which is a very positive thing. One aspect I found especially powerful was that everyone was asked to have a hood up over their head the entire march. The march, being at nine o clock Monday night, was entirely in the dark walking along the streets around Concordia. In the dark with hoods up one did not see the different clicks or segregated groups of Concordia students, an outsider observing would only be able to see the student body committed to a cause as a whole, and this is a goal necessary for everyone in attendance here to push toward for the future.

This weeks callings blog will have some difference from those previous. That main difference being that because of the percussion ensemble concert I was not able to attend the class discussion, so this description of the writings of Dorothy L. Sayers will be from a bit more personal perspective, rather than the results of a group discussion.  The reading, "vocation in work" was written by Dorothy L. Sayers in the early 1940's, Sayers was the first woman to get a degree from Oxford University. The reading starts off critiquing the ideals of communism and describing why they are clashing with Christian Ideals on vocation and work ethics. The basic premise of this argument is that communism requires labor and other such works and people really are not choosing a vocation and making it their life calling. She talks about how rather than going to work just to have this almighty leisure time of weekends and eventually retirement (which amount to little good) the value should rather be in working to live.

                This working to live concept was very well illustrated by an analogy going into the life of an artist. An artist does not say, "I shall paint in order to sell my work so I can go have fun this weekend". If artists were indeed only in it for the money, there would be far fewer artists in this world. Instead Sayers suggests the model everyone should view their personal vocation as how the artist truly views their craft more like, "I love to paint, so I will make a painting and sell it so that I can continue to live and make more paintings". This is an occupation, but it is also a way of life and an ideal situation where someone loves what they do, and is using the gifts God has given them.

                I very much agree with what Sayers is saying in this writing. Although I do not entirely believe these ideals portrayed as the communist way of life are accurate, she makes good points regarding what the Christian ideal of vocation should be. This critique is saying that the communist view states "Man is only man if productive". Does this necessarily have to be taken negatively, or could it also be tied back to Christian theology where the proverbs talk about the sluggard too lazy to bring his own hand back to his mouth to eat. In fighting lethargy the people should be doing work, but in a socialist society that work could be for the good of those fellow citizens around them; and though it is correct to criticize this form of defining a man by his work it is not far off from her own ideal of living to work just as the artist does.

Tuesday evening Concordia University had the privilege of hearing from two great minds teaching on our premise today, Drs. Dale and Thomas Trapp. This year marks the close of Toms teaching career here at Concordia making the Poehler lecture an excellent opportunity for everyone to hear him teach in a non-classroom setting. As an individual that has worked with Dale in the classroom but not Tom this was interesting to see. The two gave quite the presentation together flipping back and forth showing slides and talking about how science (taught by Dale) and religion (taught by Tom) can coincide. This lecture once again brought up the ever present concept of "the intersection of faith and learning". Some key points both talked about were the stress of their personal spiritual lives, and the necessity of Jesus Christ in everything. There were so many parallels to the Concordia mission statement and how each professor approaches teaching as well and core concepts constantly discussed in the honors program I thought the Drs. Shuler would end up on stage talking along with the lecturers.

                This discussion of how each approached his profession was quite fitting given our currents discussions in class of vocations both of the church and outside it. Tom not only teaches religion but is a pastor and upon leaving Concordia and the educational field (mostly) he will be taking a full time job as a pastor in a local congregation. What is considered by many to be the polar opposite, Dale is a science teacher, yet the two both saw God in everything pursued. Both attitudes fit along perfectly with the thoughts discussed in class that any profession can be a calling from God if sought to honor Christ and it is where a great need (which professors certainly fill) and a great passion (not even a question with these two) are meeting. Also very specifically aligned with our discussions in class were Toms' comments on teleological motivation versus ontological. Teleology almost verbatim summed up the discussion of how wages or threat of losing them should not be viewed as a motivator for someone, but is in fact the least effective means of motivating. Trapp brought this full circle by showing there is no teleological motivation in scripture, God uses ontological motivation, the motivation of asking God to help use what he has given, as a means of urging vocations that will make a difference. This is exactly how these men view teaching.

                The talk was inspiring to say the least. It is clear wages are not a question at all (obvious for Tom as it is doubtful anyone becomes a pastor for the excellent retirement package). What stuck with me most was how they both seemed at their best and truly alive up on a stage teaching whoever would listen this vast knowledge they had between two brothers. The summary given by one (not entirely sure who) was: teaching is saying, how do we take the information we have and share it with other people. This is such a refreshing approach and showed so much love and dedication to a craft it could only be a calling from God.

                Max Weber was out of the norm as far as callings authors have gone for most of the book now. That norm being he was not a preacher, an extreme monk living out in the desert, a head of the roman catholic church, or any other sort of theologian teaching about what God had to say. Max weber was a sociologist and in his reading took a critical look at protestants and spoke about issues arising from this protestant view of economics. Weber sees protestants as forming todays' capitalism through strict asceticism and the discouragement of anything considered luxurious or ostentatious.  This argument is backed up showing how frivolous it was to attempt defining a group economically by hard work and acceptance of any task regardless of enjoyment, when those participating in the system as a whole need more than just wages as a motivation to work hard or efficiently.

                Obviously being biased toward his own opinion, there is little shown here of the other side arguing that Puritanism promoted hard work or the people would have worked no harder having different incentives. Just as the fictional colonists of Walden two, there is a sense that just through a sheer sense of duty and dedication work will be completed and no one will try to play hooky. The fact is (which Weber does a great job arguing for) without a higher calling, without that deep love or passion humans are not driven. The threat of lost wages may spur a person to work hours a day in the dark depths of a coal mine or rising before the sun to pick up garbage, but that person will not work with the same level of commitment and enthusiasm unless they truly enjoy the task they are completing.

                Overall Weber had very good points to go off of, especially touching base on nearly every sound economic concept audiences today years later would understand with the quote from Ben Franklin to kick things off. This idea that puritans through these ideals started capitalism seems like a bit of a stretch or over generalizing but he does not take any great strides away from mere observation and safe reasoning. I will not say whether or not he was right about what work is and is not pleasing to God but I have no problem agreeing that just as there is a difference between a "job" and a "career" (thing fried food to fortune five hundred), there is certainly a difference between what one does because they must, and what one does by choice.

                This past week I had the privilege of participating with the Jubilate choir in the Concordia vespers service. The service gave family members, students, and Concordia faculty alike the opportunity to come partake in worship. What gave this service such a dynamic feel was the mixture of choral songs by the choir and hymns in which the whole congregation participated. With some amazing organ and piano playing, a chamber quartet of a cello, viola, violin, and oboe; and some kid who forgot to plug in his  bass before the amplifier was turned on (that was my fault), the entire night was filled with quality singing and instruments.

                This service is important for all those who attended because it gives a reprieve from what is almost certainly a hectic time here as school starts wrapping up. As I got to participate in the service, it was very enjoyable to get to work with the choir as well as attend the rest of the service. Personally, vespers services are an excellent time to reflect and look at what my focus is. Especially now having all sorts of papers and projects due and different classes asking for different commitments, taking the time to go work with a class I'm not in and attend the vespers service helped to re-focus on what should always be the center of my focus no matter what else is going on in my life.

                In contrast to vespers services involving just worship, the integration of many psalms and careful planning of song order makes a valuable and meaningful experience as a whole. This is not to say that worship services are only random songs, but simply highlight the care that went into creating an aura of reflection and focus through the reading of scripture matched up with applicable songs. A very powerful service indeed.

Continuing the honors class excursion into callings in the reformation era, this week's entry will discuss the writings of Richard Baxter. Similar to the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, Baxter wrote his Directions about Our Labor and Callings in a question and answer form, analogous to a modern frequently asked questions page on a website. With multiple questions regarding such categories as why labor is necessary, where religious vocations fit in, and what order possible outcomes of vocations should rank in personal decision making. The main ideals he highlighted were placing the community good above one's own, the soul above the body, and everything above the choice of income (yet not to say high income is unholy).

                This entire reading represents the transition in what was valued in sacred life. In the earlier former era of church history monastic life flourished and the ideal most valued was that of strict self-control, sacrificing everything worldly and therefore impure for that of spiritual and Godly growth. Once again held in least regard was money.  So opposed to the monastic period where profit was obscene and no self-respecting Christian would be taking part in trade or mercantilism (thus leading to the stereotype of Jews in banking), the reformation period informed to us, by such writings as Baxter's, that gaining a profit was just fine and in an honest setting a Christian could be a businessperson by vocation.

                In comparison to the extremist lives the monks of the Egyptian desert strived for, this writing by Baxter explaining the value in seeking to do what is best for the community but also look out for your own bodily and spiritual wellbeing is something I truly value as well. There is nothing wrong with the life of the monks, and I would certainly comment anyone attempting to emulate such practices. What seems so much more realistic in this reformation writing is that there is so much value in every vocation available in society, and as someone who picks up garbage every day seeing the value in every job is very important to give my waking up early value. I liken this to the ideal that every job, if viewed as doing so for the glory of God, has value no matter how big or small.

This past weekend the Concordia theater program put on the modern play "Arcadia". This play was based both in the present and in the setting of the year 1809.  Central to this entire plot was mathematics, thermodynamics, and chaos theory. Starting with a tutor teaching his pupil, and ranges all the way from love affairs to game books, to history, and back all based around a complicated group dynamic amidst character development and time shifts throughout the first and second act. Overall its' dialogue and plot material outside of general daily conversation required the viewer to pay very close attention and left many nuances to be picked up for the enjoyment of an earnest crowd.

                The intricacies of having so much change amongst characters while seeking answers and asserting new findings on such topics of algebra and physics made for quite a bit ones mind could digest. There is certainly a feeling of the main character, Septimus, being a sort of benevolent narrator within the story. This is not in the sense that he was omniscient of that he could control everything but that through his speech and teaching he was made out to be intellectually superior and almost bored with the petty talk and urges of his fellow humans. During the modern portions there is a more intense dimension of dissent and discover as characters seek in the same manner to learn and grow intellectually but involves more vein and central discussion of who will gain credit or be satisfied in their desires.

                As an audience member I completely enjoyed this play. The many shifts between past and present were somewhat distracting, but these ideas of how intricate the human brain works, and especially such a role often taken for granted that emotion takes. The line that most stuck with me was the young pupil Thomasina having such a great realization that everything could logically be put in an algorythem and determined infinitely into the future, if it were not for (put rather bluntly) sex. The vast intricacies within each human are what make the interactions of each human which one another come so alive. Just as people see Gods' greatness here on earth, one can plop down in a recliner and stare at their own hand without fathoming how intricate that pile of blood and bone and tendon is to come together and pick up their cup of coffee. Amazing.

The most recent honors Monday night class involved a discussion of middle age Christians, and specifically discussed at length monastic orders. Among the nights authors being read, were multiple leaders in the formal writing of monastic rules and in physically leading monastic communities. These leaders were striving to create an atmosphere where God came first. Painfully first, and anyone disagreeing or finding other life pursuits of value (such as caring for ones mother) was condemning their own soul to eternal damnation. This specific example came from the letters of Bernard of Clairvaux, and extreme as this case may be, shed a fair amount of light on how monastic leaders viewed their orders. Another reading spoke entirely on the life of St. Louis, and how as a king he chose to lead by example and epitomized, in the authors mind, what it truly meant to be a Christian king.

The two accounts coming from the same time period and each regarding religious figureheads lined up in outlining the ideals of Christian life at the time. That is where the similarities stop. Besides different points of view, Bernards' being First person and St. Louis' being first, the two take an entirely different approach to shepherding their flock. Bernard does not take lightly the choices of two young men in not participating in his own way of life. One fellow chose to stay home and care for his mother rather than joining the monastic order, which Bernard considered the most perfect contemplative lifestyle choice. Bernard chastises this man just as much as he does the recipient of his second letter who was pulled out of the process of making his monastic vows and returned to a secular life. In each letter it is quite obvious Bernards' piety has thoroughly snuffed out his sense of treating others as Jesus would have treated them. The accounts of King Louis also show how a leader of the church gave an example for his followers to live by. In this case however a servants heart drives this man to be a figurehead his people can look up to. Choosing as the king to live by the hours of prayer, electing to eat and clothe himself simple rather than the standard kingly practice of fine dining and an elaborate wardrobe. This man took very seriously his charge as leader to care for all his subjects, and deal in kindness and fairness to everyone; this all for the sake of leading a Gospel life modeled after that of Jesus.

As is alluded to in the previous descriptions, I prefer the ideals of leading by example over piously sending out messages of doom and judgment. As a vocation, these leaders have the difficult task of not balancing church and outside life, but constantly living in the church. Monastic vows were nothing to take lightly and I appreciate how serious they considered following a strict daily structure. The flip side of that is the ease piety may come, and the willingness to judge shown by Bernard of Clairvaux is neither biblical nor appropriate. I very much enjoyed the ideals St. Louis exemplified by living his faith, rather than using these monastic deeds and choices as some sort of magical scale dealing in "Jesus points" that will pile up and allow him to stand just a little closer to heaven. On that note, I will step right down off my little soap box and conclude with this; the monastic life is certainly one not to be entered lightly, and with great attention to scripture bore some of the greatest theologians this world has seen, and you will never catch me sporting that bowl cut.