"God isn't Fixing This"

Does God Care? 

After yet another grievous shooting, the NY Daily News is releasing a controversial cover, proclaiming in plus-sized font "God isn't fixing this." Clearly this is meant as a rebuke to those who claim "their prayers are with the victims" yet don't do the things the NY Daily News feels they should in order to reduce gun crime. I'm not interested in the politics here, let alone the grandstanding. "He who sits in the heaven laughs," not at the plight of humanity, but at those who would mock Him or set themselves against His authority. More interesting is that scripture clearly both states that the wicked will receive what they deserve, and has the Psalmist crying out asking God why that doesn't seem to be happening.

For the issue at hand, it suffices to say that as Christians we know men are sinful by nature, and are not corrupted by the tools around them. Perhaps we should investigate the breakdown of the family, the increasingly nihilistic worldview poured into the minds of our children, and a society become so antagonistic to human nature that mass percentages of people feel it necessary to be on antidepressants, before we start blaming tubes of metal for magically corrupting humans that secular society supposes are inherently neutral or even inherently good.

But what I'm interested in here is their intentionally provocative claim. Is God really doing nothing? Is He indifferent to humans killing each other, or is He powerless to interfere in our free will? This is often posed as an unanswerable question (Does God lack the will to stop evil, in which case He is not good, or the ability to stop it, in which case He is not great), but actually there is a perfectly good answer, that can be expressed in various ways.

So then, if God does care, and He is powerful enough to act, then...

Why God Doesn't Stop Evil or Fix the World (My personal analogy)

Ancient Chinese weaponry: one iron and two bronze swords

A Bit about Bronze

In Taipei, there is a fascinating museum of Chinese antiquities. Called the "National Palace Museum," some of China's great cultural treasures are stored there, brought by the nationalists both to hang on to them and ostensibly to keep them from being destroyed by the communists, for whom desecrating symbols of class oppression was a popular pastime and sometimes required symbolic act of allegiance.

In this museum you can see everything from very ancient jade wheels to the gold and pearl finial topping an Emperor's crown, to a piece of stone shaped exactly like a piece of pork and the most famous of all, the jade cabbage. (The food culture here goes back a very long way)

Another thing you can see are ancient bronze weaponry: swords, spear points, etc.

Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin. A game-changing discovery of antiquity, it afforded its users an advantage over those using merely copper weapons, and remained popular even well after iron weapons were developed.

Among the various reasons that iron weapons -initially inferior to their well-developed bronze counterparts- superseded them, was due to cost issues. Once iron-working was developed, the abundant iron ore meant iron weapons were cheaper than bronze, which required the importation of tin.

Why couldn't you just get tin from used bronze weapons? Because it doesn't work that way. To separate metals once they have been alloyed is an expensive and complicated process, and at least to my knowledge there was no way to do this on a large scale (possibly at all).

Even today, with complicated procedures that can do it, it's obvious that to remove the tin from a bronze weapon destroys the weapon for all practical purposes.

Alloyed with Sin

This world was made good. Humans, in choosing to sin and step outside of God's will for them, not only destroyed their own spiritual life, but wrecked up the world too, meant as a beautiful home for people living in harmony with God and each other. Sin is not evil varnish, it is a flaw that goes to the core of people and the world. To remove it, you cannot strip it off, you cannot cut it off like a frostbitten finger; to get rid of the sin, the thing once pure and now an alloy of itself and sin must be unmade.

This is true of both of us and the world. To be made new, as Christ makes all things new, we must first be Unmade. Dying that we shall live; baptism is the earthly acting out of this truth, but then for the rest of our lives we must be melted down, put into the fiery furnace so that God may skim off the dross, and coming out each time more pure. This is sanctification.

While Christians are typically aware of this, I find that many are unaware that the world is in an analogous situation. We aren't fallen people in an unfallen world, we brought the world down with us. It too must be unmade and cleansed from the corruption of sin, but that will be the end.

"Fixing" the alloy of sin. True gold fears no fire; don't be dross.

One Day

When tin is removed from the bronze sword, the sword is no more. When sin is removed from this world, the world will be no more. Suffering and injustice will be judged and come to an end, but so will everything else.

I think what people are really asking is more like: "Why doesn't God take all the bad parts out of the world and leave the good parts?" That question is easy:
1) He made the world without any bad parts, but free will meant we could screw that up, and we did
2) Outside of Christ, you are a bad part that would be taken out.
3) He's giving everyone a chance to choose His side before he does exactly what you are suggesting

The fiery end that Peter speaks of (2 Peter 3) will happen, and a new heaven and new earth will be made including all that was pure from the last one. There's a reason that day is spoken of both with hope and with respectful fear; when it happens, it is final. The beginning spoken of in Genesis has its ending in Revelation, and what happens after that is part of the next book.  Hope your name is in it, or rejoice if you know it is.

Until then, as Peter speaks of in that same passages, that God is delaying in destroying the world to burn the sin out is a mercy to those who still have a chance to choose Him, and neither weakness nor toleration of sin on His part. If the end came now, there would be no more suffering, but no longer any opportunity to repent while there is still time.

So we pray: Come Lord Jesus. But increasingly I find myself saying "but not just yet"--I have too many friends who may yet choose God before the end, and I still hope to see it. Ending the suffering in the world today means denying them of that chance, forever.

An INTP on the Mission Field: Another look at "Teamwork"

I remember engineering school quite distinctly (despite seeming in some ways like a previous life, I suppose it wasn't actually that many years ago). They were fond of giving us "group projects," ostensibly to teach us ornery engineers (real engineers are born, not graduated) how to play well with others. The most important lesson we learned through these was perhaps unintentional on the part of the school:

Observable Principle 1. Teamwork is the enemy of productivity
Observable Principle 2. Teamwork is the enemy of efficiency
Observable Principle 3. Teamwork is the enemy of adaptability
Observable Principle 4. Coordinating schedules with others is like herding cats
Conclusion for the maintenance of sanity: Avoid group projects whenever possible

My experience of team work until graduating college was pretty much this.

Thankfully, workplace experience demonstrated to me that this may not always be the case; it largely depends on the people on your team. It can be both worse (a team in which certain members are literally destroying the project through a combination of incompetency and obliviousness and harming your career prospects), or, in the rare case you get a bunch of qualified and competent people on your team, it can be a pretty amazing thing that results in stuff like, you know, getting a satellite to rendezvous with a comet after 10 years and dropping a lander on it. Of course in that kind of situation, teamwork gets a boost from the endeavor that unites them. More on that anon.

A Task Too Immense for Solo Work

Not being a people person, I definitely spent some time in prayer before deciding to become a missionary. "God, if I'm going to do this, if my job is going to be 100% people focused, you're going to have to change my heart towards people." I was pretty happy as a computer programmer; I had a few friends I trusted and family members that I loved, and didn't bother with people much outside of that.

(Contrary to what most people think, computers are quite simple. It's all 1's and 0's, they never get their feelings hurt, and they do what you tell them unless something is broken. And if so, it's usually easy to tell what's broken. People are tremendously complicated, get hurt from all sorts of accidental issues, let alone intentional ones, and actively hide their broken parts from you.)

God answered that prayer, and though at times I long for a nice, simple, straightforward task like several dozen pages of broken source code to debug, I have changed very greatly in how I relate to other people, not to mention in how I come across to them.

In missions, working with a team of one sort or another is basically necessary. Being a "lone wolf" missionary might sound attractive to a lot of INTP's and others too, but practically speaking it tends to not work out very well at all. If anyone could have worked alone (in the human sense), it would have been Christ, but He instead chose to surround himself with men to disciple, who would go forth and build the church after His departure. So at very least, if one is so competent that they do not to be taught or trained by anyone, they should work together with other people, to disciple them. But Jesus is obviously a unique example. What if we want a merely mortal example, the kind of person who is competent enough to rely on themselves?

We could then look at Paul, a stubborn genius who quickly got impatient with those less motivated than he. He seems like a good candidate for a lone wolf type, but it turns out he hated working alone, and always went out with a team when possible (my next blog post will mention this more). Later we see him sending his team members away to address issues in other areas only reluctantly, even when there was no one else who could go, and pleading with others to come join him.

The nature of modern cross-cultural missions work is typically such that one has a team to send you, and a team on the field. For new arrivals, one of the first things a team does (or should do! I've heard horror stories...) is help them get settled in. One is often not capable of surviving (let alone thriving) on one's own in the new language and cultural environment, and at very least requires help in getting started.

Settling in is not really the main issue, however. One could theoretically hire locals or expats to help you do all that, and some people are nice enough to do it for free. So my point is not that you couldn't survive the settling in process without a team; perhaps you could. That's a personal challenge that leads stubborn and/or confident people to think "hmm, I'll bet I could manage it."That kind of confidence or even stubbornness can be a useful character trait on the mission field, helping you "stick it out," though of course overconfidence or false expectations can torpedo the whole thing.

But the point of a team and the cruciality of teamwork is related to what I mentioned about great endeavors. That is, you need a team because the Great Commission is too massive a task for any one person to pursue alone, even in a local context. The team is not for you, the team is united for a common purpose, a gospel vision. Now, you've probably heard something like this before. In the secular sense, one could say "fine, that's not my vision," and walk away. For believers in Christ, the overarching goal, the meta-vision, has been provided for us, in the command from and example of our King. We are to make disciples of all nations, and though that responsibility extends to each of us individually, it's not a task any individual can tackle alone, at least not in any long-term sense; for something like planting a church, or taking the gospel into new territory, if Paul needed a team, you do too.

A Team Not of Your Choosing

Missionaries cannot typically choose their coworkers. A new missionary might arrive on the field and find, in the words of C.S.Lewis, "just that selection of his neighbours whom he has hitherto avoided." (from The Screwtape Letters) The guy with the annoying laugh who tries to joke about everything; the old guy who can't see why everything can't just be done the way they did it back in the day, when people were sincere and hard-working; the lady who feels the need to play devil's advocate in every discussion... (Note: these are "archetypal" examples and don't describe any past or present coworkers)
So the challenge then becomes working for the most important cause of all, with people who you would never choose as coworkers. Thrust into similar circumstances with a different task, perhaps it would be more manageable. But when your goal is to do something highly complicated and difficult- bring the gospel across cultural and other divides, plant reproducing churches, etc.- and there is no clear-cut way of achieving your goals, meaning you might have to "fail" a few times before seeing progress, then you have a recipe for teamwork disaster. (And if your team is multicultural, there are even more potential pitfalls to avoid.)

Add to this the INTP propensity for critical thinking and quickly seeing flaws in a strategy, and team discussions can be minefields for us. We feel very strongly that not pointing out flaws in the plan early on (obvious to us, who constantly run scenarios in our minds to see how they'd play out, and also file away any real-life experiences to improve the accuracy of this ability) out would mean failure of the plan is our fault; something many people don't realize... we are not attacking you! We are trying to help your plan succeed. This is our oft misunderstood attempt to prosper everyone and bless our efforts by making our plan foolproof. It just gets taken the wrong way when people begin to feel they're the fool we're trying to proof it against.

And please do not say, good missionaries wouldn't or shouldn't struggle with this kind of thing. There are no "good missionaries," there are only redeemed sinners learning to walk with God and how to obey His commands. (among them the Great Commission) Sinners argue, hold grudges, sometimes fight. At very least, they disagree about proper approaches to problems. Those differences of opinion are hard to let go of when you feel strongly that the wrong approach might not only cause this effort to fail, but make subsequent efforts more difficult. If it was a new marketing strategy for hybrid cars, that would be bad enough, but this is the gospel.

Example: What is the balance between a gradual and long-term approach that seems quite slow to bear any fruit but allows the cultivation of deeper relationships with local people and respect in the community, versus a bold and active approach that is willing to let a few people be offended and possibly wear out your welcome but results in more people hearing the gospel with the possibility of a breakthrough?

There is no right answer to this question! But everyone will have an opinion on it. We trust God, but we observe from scripture that He's given all believers work to do, and we've got to figure out how to do it, one way or another.

So under stress from living in a culture that is not our own, speaking a language that is not our own, making decisions we often don't have enough information to make (an especially stressful factor for INTPs, who might prefer to balk in those situations and wait for more data before making a decision), working with people we might not always respect or see eye-to-eye with, teamwork is a tenuous thing, easily fractured. And that's not even going into how the enemy is constantly trying to fragment our fellowship and set us against each other; discord is one of his works. So much intentional effort must be put into maintaining "one heart and one mind."

Substitute satan for management (no doubt easy for some of you), and this is pretty much
what is always happening on this mission field. This is one reason we need prayer!

One of the best ways to build and maintain a strong team is praying together! Coming together into God's presence not to talk to each other, but to Him, lets the Spirit do some direct work on people's hearts. This is something my team does intentionally, and I think it's incredibly important.

Summary: INTPs and Teamwork on the Mission Field

Basically, as INTPs we must be wise to avoid the following scenario:

Strategy Discussion for a Particular Ministry:

Person A: Maybe we could try [plan that was tried last year and failed]
INTP: I think we've seen that doesn't work well, unless you think the situation has changed in a fundamental way since we tried it last that would make it a good plan now?
Person A: Uh.. I'm just throwing out ideas!
INTP: *thinks* "Why waste time by talking about obviously useless plans?"

Person B: How about [plan that flies in the face of how local culture does things]
Team Leader: (Fully intending to discard this idea): Ok, maybe that's something we can think about.
Person B: (Feels appreciated, doesn't care if the plan is not actually used because their goal was to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way)
INTP: (Doesn't understand this^) "But what about [x] culture factor? Wouldn't they have [a] and [b] objections?"
Team Leader: (trying to salvage Person B's having contributed) "Not necessarily, maybe it's worth trying to see what happens."
INTP: (Feels slightly embarrassed that the team leader has rejected their assessment, and thus defensive:) Presents a 5-min, airtight logical case, with multiple failing scenarios, demonstrating that this approach is totally at odds with the local culture and could cause any number of problems. Provides an unlikely scenario in which it might succeed, wanting to be diplomatic. Some people nod in agreement or chime in, wanting to demonstrate they also have been culturally observant and understand this issue. 
Team Leader: *Sighs* Cannot disagree because the statement was clearly accurate.
Person B: (Feels foolish and under attack) Strikes back defensively insisting it could work.
INTP: (Unfortunately B's statement, born out of hurt feelings, is more an emotional expression than a rational counter) Warming to the debate, has no trouble picking B's defense apart. Noticing that B is flustered, they reassure him that they are not taking any of this personally. The INTP is confused when this only makes things worse.
Team Leader: (Resigning to the inevitable) Well, INTP, what would you suggest?
INTP: Provides a very long and well-thought out plan, taking into account both abstract methodology and practical and cultural considerations. Talks too long because they answer all questions about the plan as if the person is suggesting they didn't think through a particular issue, which they did, and feel compelled to make sure that person is aware, not wanting to appear incompetent for having missed such an obvious point.
Person B: (Upset, criticizes the INTP's plan because if theirs got criticized it's only fair that the INTP's plan gets criticized too)
INTP: Explains why their criticism of B's plan was valid, whereas B's criticism of their plan was invalid. It's not about getting equal time, it's about the validity of one's thought processes.
Team Leader: Uh, let's wrap this up and move on to the next subject.

As they leave the meeting:

INTP - Thinks the meeting went well, though B is too sensitive. Talks animatedly with a few people about the cultural issues that got raised during the meeting. Later, goes back and reflects on B's comments, making sure any potentially valid criticism is taken into account so the INTP's own arguments can be that much more solid next time.

A - Thinks INTP was a little mean to B, needs to lighten up

B - Feels upset, and possibly has begun to regard the INTP as an opponent. Concludes they can't actively oppose the INTP in a meeting without being made to look stupid; begins to think of ways to counter their influence. The beginnings of a crack in the team are possible. If they struggle with self-confidence, they may be less inclined to strike back, but hesitate to share in future meetings, for fear of their ideas being shot down.

Team Leader - Tired. Wishes INTP would not subvert his attempts to keep the team happy, through probably is aware that it isn't on purpose, and may just feel the INTP has an overbearing personality without realizing why he acted as he did. (Doing a meeting with personality tests to understand where each person on your team is coming from might be helpful. Sometimes it doesn't matter that you understand why someone could think that way, so long as you know it's a personality difference and not intentionally directed at you)

An INTP can bring extremely useful skills to a team, if they will learn and always keep in mind those rules which don't come with our personality, as I mentioned in a previous INTP post. You must take into account that most people won't have your motives, or dwell so entirely in the world of ideas, or think that the person with the most logical or well-tested thoughts should be the one to talk the most. It also helps to be self-aware, and explain your own motives for speaking up if you have a comment on what someone else is saying. They might still not appreciate it, but at least you can move from being "that INTP" to "our INTP."
As I mentioned earlier, prayer is a key here. It's harder to criticize your teammates in a potentially abrasive way when one has been praying for them! Prayer will shift one's thinking away from only their ideas or contributions and towards them as people, sons and daughters of God, which is always important for us.

Finally, a truly servant-hearted INTP who has learned when not to speak, may find people are quite willing to listen when he does. We yearn for people to benefit from our insight; to communicate that insight we must first clearly communicate the love of Christ.

An INTP on the Mission Field: The INTP Struggle Is Real (...And Needs to be Sanctified)

We return to the topic of being a (Myers-Briggs) INTP on the mission field (More posts here, and here), and the unique challenges and opportunities that presents. If you're not an INTP, don't leave just yet! I will attempt to explain why being right for us is not simply a matter of pride but part of a deadly struggle against nihilistic chaos, and how seeing part of the bigger picture is necessary for our growth in godliness. If it doesn't apply to you, it may help you understand that odd person in your life.

(Note: I am aware that a recent viral article attacked the validity of the Myers-Briggs system. I proceed on the basis that this way of roughly describing people's personalities corresponds to observable reality, is known to many people, and is in my experience a very useful heuristic.)

People often misunderstand INTPs. We tend to come across as know-it-alls, and as people who "just can't admit that you're wrong." The problem is that we typically aren't wrong, at least factually and logically, which is what we mean when we talk about being right or wrong. (Therein lies much of the problem, which we'll get to a little later on)

Typically, though, the person making that accusation has just presented a half-concocted premise riddled with logical errors and not even communicated using the most effective language. Then (we perceive) they are asking us to agree with them that not only is this a good and reasonable assertion, but it is superior to the one we've spent weeks both consciously and unconsciously formulating, testing, attacking to find weaknesses, etc.

Imagine that INTPs think of all ideas as cages for truth, and our brains are full of hypothetical velociraptors who systematically attack the cages trying to devour the tasty truth inside. Now along comes someone with a less carnivorous idea filter, and attempts to disagree with us using an idea that just occurred to them. Our mind-velociraptors simply laugh hungrily, imagining the helpless truth on which they would feast were that idea offered up to them, and wonder what sort of pathetic mental dinosaurs test your idea-cages.

Your obliviously incessant non sequiturs... smell delicious

(If, on the other hand, your truth-cage looks strong enough to hold up, we joyfully release our velociraptors to have a go at it. We -want- to find people who have solid ideas and can defend them well. It's hard not to have wonderful multiple-hour conversations with those people. We don't mind that this makes us a bit strange, we're having too much fun)

Or, if Jurassic Park analogies aren't your thing, imagine hanging a picture at a bad slant, on a bent rusty nail, with a photo frame missing one of its four sides and the glass shattered inside, and then being sad or angry when we can't successfully cover our eye-twitch enough to lie that we agree it is indeed a beautiful picture, masterfully hung. We don't understand... why can't you see how obviously inadequate it is and yet how quickly it could be fixed? (Feelings? Hurt?... Huh? Weren't we just talking about how to hang a picture?)

I'm not saying that's an entirely fair assessment on our part. I am saying, that we usually play the game very expertly and very fairly by the rules by which we think the game is played. When you accuse us of breaking the rules of the game, we take that accusation very seriously. But the problem is not that we're wrong about those rules, they're important rules. The problem is that there are other rules too, which are sometimes missing from the rulebook which came with our personality.

For example, I discovered at some point in my 20's that people get into the-debate-sort-of-arguments (the kind that are about ideas, not something someone did that made someone else angry) for all kinds of reasons. Up until that point, I had not imagined there was any other reason to engage in this kind of discussion besides 1) clarify/strengthen your understanding of the topic and 2) refute someone who is making false statements.

The idea that one might do it to enjoy the sensations that accompany an intense discussion regardless of the topic had never occurred to me. Or, insanely, because one simply likes arguing and would just as soon switch sides because it's "not about who's right and who's wrong." (As far as I'm concerned, one might as well have said this about choosing sides in WWII; that statement communicates nothing to us except that you're possibly a menace to society and certainly should be permanently excommunicated from the world of ideas)

The issue of who is right/wrong (here meaning correct/incorrect to whatever degree those terms can be applied) is very, very important for INTPs, but for a different reason than you might think. It's certainly a matter of pride on one level, but not the most important level. Being right is critically important because we are involved in the very serious, Sisyphean endeavor of making sense of reality. We are born into this world and the mental wheels start turning. You can see it in our eyes before we can walk. We are systemizing and categorizing causes and effects, noticing patterns, building a model of how everything fits and works together.

To be right means to have staked out a small spot of order and comprehension in a chaotic and random series of events and circumstances. To be wrong means to let that potential victory slip back into the darkness. Being wrong is very valuable in but one way: it eliminates a false possibility, narrowing our options and bringing us closer to the truth. If our error is brought to our attention and we recognize it, we are highly unlikely to make it again. That would be giving ground to the enemy a second time. Ain't nobody got time for that.

So to be wrong is to lose a small battle, though it may be a strategic victory if it leads to new information. To not care that one is wrong, however... must be either wanton apathy or outright treachery, through carelessness or nihilistic evil opening the gates that Error may come in. And Error is followed by Malfunction, and Malfunction by Damage, and Damage by Suffering.

(I have been speaking tongue-in-cheek, but only slightly)

Now, you may be wondering how any of this applies to life on the mission field. It applies very deeply, every day. Because the mission field is fraught with being wrong. Nearly every day, at some point one is wrong about culture, one is wrong about language, sometimes one lacks even the communication tool to clarify one's error. Sometimes one lacks even the means to discover if one was right or wrong, and that can be the most frustrating thing of all. One can at least humbly admit one's error, as painful as it may be, when one is aware of it. One of the most difficult ideas to face on the missions field for me is that I've acted wrongly at various times and to various people and I don't even know. They might be struggling to forgive me for an insult or wondering how a missionary could be so negligent in some area and I have no idea that I've communicated an insult or neglected anything.

The Taiwanese varieties of Chinese culture can make this more difficult because here to be polite is to not provide error feedback. When you are making mistakes and people are pretending not to notice (but of course really noticing and sometimes discussing it freely among themselves), it takes longer to discover those mistakes and try to correct them. One may even feel somewhat betrayed: "Why didn't you just tell me?"
(Or very betrayed: "Why didn't you tell me... before the church split/ministry failed/coworkers quit/friendships were irreparably damaged ?") It's a particularly frustrating clash of cultures, given that it's caused by the very attempts of both sides to demonstrate appropriate behavior.

I have directly asked my coworker and his family to not be hesitant or polite about correcting my mistakes, either in language or culture, because being polite according to my culture is sparing me the embarrassment of making those mistakes repeatedly in the future by pointing them out to me directly now. (When I explain it in this way, I can often see the metaphorical lightbulb coming on over people's heads...)

Being wrong constantly is wearying to an INTP, and it adds stress for us in a special way that it may not for other people, although admittedly that's partly balanced by the ecstatic joy of having vast oceans of knowledge to absorb merely by living here, so long as we get adequate respite time to assimilate it all. (when denied that respite time to cool off and recalibrate, we overheat quickly and can shut down)

An INTP wanting to go on the missions field will need an extra dose of humility and teachability, the ability to keep one's mouth shut when helpful, and may need to develop thicker skin in general as we tend to see the criticism we offer as non-personal and objective, yet take it personally when on the receiving end. They will need to learn how to remain in a situation where you make mistakes repeatedly and are forgiven because of the depth of relationship that exists between you and another person, and not on your correcting your mistakes, which you may never discover. They may need to cultivate especially good people skills if they do not already possess them, since an INTP typically builds relationships by sharing ideas with others, and limited communication ability impedes this considerably, especially at the beginning. Being someone people enjoy being around apart from the content of information shared helps considerably. The temptation to withdraw into one's shell when communication isn't easy may otherwise be much more difficult to avoid.

An INTP on the mission field will need to rely heavily on God's grace, and learn to forgive themselves because God does, and not because they dealt with a mistake or sin properly after committing it. They will need accountability and loving support from brothers and sisters in Christ as appropriate in order to keep themselves from getting stuck in a rut of depression and/or discouragement.

The desire to be right is not wrong, but for us it can distract us from what right and wrong really mean. Not logical and factual correctness, but what pleases God vs. what does not please God. Taking someone to task for a foolish error may be done with 100% factual accuracy, and even without pride, but it may still not be done in a loving manner.

Certainly, the words of Paul in his letter to Ephesus are spoken to us as much as any other Christians:

"Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ..." (Eph 4:15)

Speaking the truth is a deep instinctive desire for INTPs... but only by doing so in/through/via/according to love will we truly grow in maturity in Christ. I'm still learning, but I rejoice to see how much God has already changed me in this way, and am confident that He will do the same for you.

Crucify Ambition

Though it doesn't always reveal itself due to my personality, I have always been an ambitious person. I set high goals for myself, and by default seek to constantly gain influence and respect and admiration in circumstances and social settings I deem appropriate. But the call to missions, and what is more, the call to follow Christ, requires that I surrender these ambitions. It is a kind of death. But no part of me is dying that can stand in the presence of God.

Nevertheless, a peculiar temptation began rearing its head a few years ago, one that I had not previously experienced.

It primarily revealed itself after certain invitations... to Singapore, to Hong Kong, to Los Angeles, to the World Cup next year in Brazil. Conversations with more than one person about touring Europe. I began to realize I had reached a certain traveling status and acquired a few of the sort of friends to whom these things are fairly normal. For a cash-strapped seminary student and then support-raising missionary, however, obviously none of these things were financially possible, and that fact began to weigh on me heavily. It has been observed that missionaries are a strange subculture in that they tend to be well-educated, well-traveled, yet poor. (Typically the latter precludes either one or both of the former.)

The temptation was never to abandon missions for a more lucrative career; I love Taiwan and am excited about my calling and future ministry there, and having started down the path of career missions I have never considered forsaking the call. But a strong sense of discouragement and discontentment began to steal my joy. Surely it was unfair somehow, that I had joined the crowd of those aware of the more interesting places in the world, the globally well-connected sort, and yet had to continually decline to join them on their trips, which for me would have been once-in-a-lifetime opportunities?

These invitations also tapped into a deep desire I have to move continually into more influential or relevant parts of the world. It's a little hard to explain, but basically I have realized that I have a default tendency to seek out, like a moth to a candle, those places from which culture and influence are generated. It's wanting to be in the middle of where "things are happening," in the global sense, and these opportunities I was starting to encounter were a ticket right into that world.

Additionally, in a way that C.S.Lewis has captured very accurately in the Screwtape Letters and his descriptions of the temptation of the "inner ring," these invitations fed my pride by demonstrating that I had "made it" into a higher social level. They didn't have to invite me. Clearly they wanted me along, which meant I was considered good company by the sort who could choose their own company easily enough. And for an introverted homeschooler from Tennessee/Alabama, being invited on fun trans-oceanic trips by traveled and moneyed people your own age does wonders for one's self-image and self-confidence.

Of course... the problem is that this is also the self that must be put to death.
As the great German martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer said:

"When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die. It may be a death like that of the first disciples who had to leave home and work to follow Him, or it may be a death like Luther’s, who had to leave the monastery and go out into the world. But it is the same death every time—death in Jesus Christ, the death of the old man at his call.” (The Cost of Discipleship)

There is simply no room in that call for self-centered ambition. My desire to travel around the world having entertaining experiences with friends is not wrong in and of itself, but it must be taken captive and laid at the foot of the cross. When it can steal my joy, it has not been made subject to Christ. When I occasionally feel a longing for that kind of life, it is a sign I am not finding my satisfaction in the One from whom all blessings come. God has indeed granted me the opportunity to visit many places thus far, and it seems likely I will visit many more. But on His terms, and in His time, and for His glory.

I'm thankful to be able to say that God one day graciously granted me the key to defeating this sort of temptation. One day, as I was struggling with negative thoughts about this whole situation and especially how my lack of resources was preventing me from accepting a traveling invitation from an attractive single friend, God quite suddenly reminded me that I wouldn't be as traveled, wouldn't have made the friends I've made, and would not only not have access to these kinds of opportunities but wouldn't even be aware of them, had it not been for His leading me to Taiwan over these past 8 years and the changes that has made in my life. That pretty much axed the whole temptation. It's very difficult to be depressed over perceived missed opportunities which are only possible because of God's blessings, once one is aware of that fact.

Your idea of self-fulfillment might not be traveling to influential places, and the "inner circle" you want to be a part of may not be the same as mine. But we all struggle with ambition and the desire to live the life we perceive as fulfilling and enjoyable, to live for ourselves instead of becoming the living sacrifices Paul talks about in Romans 12. Maybe the key I mentioned above will be helpful for you; don't forget that if you find yourself reaching for selfish goals, you can only see them because of the blessings you stand upon.

Self-actualization is at the top of Maslow's hierachy, but it must be laid at the foot of the cross. Our most basic identity is not forged by ourselves through life's experiences, but defined by our Creator. The more we recognize this, the less of an identity crisis we will experience as the call of Christ leads farther and farther from the worldly path so many others have chosen to follow.

There is a song by Jeff Johnson, "Ruin Me," which puts the decision we are faced with rather straightforwardly. If you're not already familiar with it, take a listen...