Ahh the “New Media makes you dumb” debate. The WSJ has it going, and Slashdot picked it up.

My spin agrees with both sides, in the context of actor-responsibility/meaningless-drone. That itself is a rough divide for humanity; I mean, how many of us are *fully* determined in our thought patterns? Most of us are in small ways, but not in all ways. Further, we are only as determined by what is available to us. If no one is ever forced to turn off the TV, read a book, or read a full webpage, they never will. Humanity is *that* fickle. We’ll live in the present, assuming the past isn’t consequential. The Internet has only “given the people what they want” in that regard.  To this end, Shirky did a wonderful job with the history of new media; theories are only good if they hold water across time & place.

But this consistently distracted state is in some ways my own life. I have trouble filtering out background conversations when in a restaurant, among other examples. I’m sure it’s giving rise to affective disorders (let’s not get beyond simple parole: dis-order = out of order). How can someone know what to love if there is no order or priority to in and out-flow of info, people, experience, etc.

The spiritual consequences are huge then. Jesus’ 2 commands of love God & fellow-man could be well-undermined by this novelty. That’s why I’m agreeing with a friend’s recent Facebook status: “Discipline is remembering what you love.” Discipline isn’t about saying “no,” so much as remembering, and remembering & reflecting is being killed off.

Reflection is a time-intensive activity, one which now-now-now-or-you’ll-miss-it-or-get-too-far-behind media won’t allow for, and as noted, is required:

“The researchers were surprised by the results. They had expected that the intensive multitaskers would have gained some unique mental advantages from all their on-screen juggling. But that wasn’t the case. In fact, the heavy multitaskers weren’t even good at multitasking. They were considerably less adept at switching between tasks than the more infrequent multitaskers. “Everything distracts them,” observed Clifford Nass, the professor who heads the Stanford lab.” — Nicholas Carr

This is exactly what the other side of the debate agrees with as well:

“Reading is an unnatural act; we are no more evolved to read books than we are to use computers.”–Clay Shirky

But what I like about Clay’s statement is the next line: “Literate societies become literate by investing extraordinary resources, every year, training children to read.” Resources maybe anything from mothers to educators, from $ for private tutoring to the publishing industry.. but it is always about time. My own time reading is only worth it if I spend the time to stop every other paragraph or so. Ideas need to sink in for any foundation to be placed. Who wants a skyscraper built on unset, wet concrete? That’s the best analogy I can give for what the Internet is doing: providing shortcuts for our memory, and keeping us from remembering anything. Even the act of scrolling a webpage is vague. Turning a page is much more definitive. I can’t glance-back as easily as I can scroll back & forth. (Ok, maybe not the best example..)

I suppose what this means for future information-design is clearspace. Data can also be held better when it is interacted with. Static graphs are visualization of too many numbers; interaction/overlays, compare-contrast is a beginning for too many graphs. Fickle “daily info-graphics” sent to my inbox or RSS reader only clog my mind, unless they spark interest  for further research (assuming I know where & how to research it!). I’d much rather have the data in contrast with something else, both of which are in connection with present values and personal states of knowledge. This way graphics could be delivered to my inbox for me, which overlap/redundant, and over-time help me learn and meat specified goals.

And finally for a sociological perspective. This little idea about remembering can be expanded further to include any binary-division, even gender-roles. While there’s a pressure from amongst egalitarians to “be equal” between/across genders, there is also a consequence of each gender doing everything, overburdening itself with too much. But that is still no “win” for anyone who would espouse a fascist (Modernist) sociology, where each person must fit the role assigned 100%. (I’m looking at you SB-preachers!)

Update: NYT picked this up too with their own spin that sounds like a good middle ground/awareness campaign.

Paul was a missionary. He went on missionary journeys. He wrote missionary letters; letters to those who needed to understand his mission, the gospel: Jesus.
Now, what can we say about the North American Evangelical church today? Need they hear more of first-generation “Christian living” (which to later generations sounds like moralism) or second-generation “Christian living”, which might actually be more “applicable”?

What is it a missionary does? Overtly, communicate Jesus. Secondarily, covertly, intentionally or unintentionally, they communicate “Judeo-Christian values”. Paul however, saw the *lack* of Judeo-Christian values & after preaching Christ, preached a moral system to clarify what behaviors are becoming of a Christian.
Directly, abstractly, do I agree with such procedure? Sure. I’d rather have Paul preaching morality after redemption than before, and that is what he did. Were I to sit him down and ask him if he was even preaching morality, he would never even agree to such a statement.

Now, bring in the Contemporary Evangelical context. First, the every-man has much of the Judeo-Christian ethic already (relative to the Corinithians, say), so simply: why the Pauline addiction by Evangelicals?

I suppose my question and concern is simpler: What books (generally) “apply” more to the later church than the early church? Oddly enough, how about those which were written to the 2nd generation of church-goers! Hebrews-Revelation. Such a question has already been answered, and few will doubt it.

So why then is there so much emphasis on preaching Pauline lit & not enough of the General Epistles? I admit, I love the General Epistles (potentially for their novel factor), and I’ve never heard enough from them. Practically, there is more content. And I’m not going to say a moralism cannot be found in the General Epistles; moralism exists whereever you seek for it. Likewise, “Human nature is evil: we will find something anywhere to become addicted to, to build our pride through.” True, and for that, perhaps a sufficiently changing terrain of call-and-response in preaching & personal study is necessary.

So why the divide between Jesus & Paul? And more to my concern, why the Pauline unacceptance by socially minded “liberals”, as opposed to a consistent reprimand of Christians for not being sufficiently Jesus-like (by “liberals”)?

I suppose my final stance of Paul, generally, is one of “how to be a missionary in a non-Judeo-Christian ethnos (society).” A fine missionary, showing the tenacity and patience needed, and surely we all face this in “preaching” to ourselves. Yet I suppose I find him to be an extension of the book of Acts (and for good reason!) — akin to the “Books of History” (Writings) in the Old Testament (for our example) than any pure, direct. But of course, this is way too general a statement to uphold for each and every verse; more a generic background tone for the genre than the guitar-solo in the foreground.

Warning, to those disinterested in the finer points of “Biblical Manhood & Womanhood”, 1 Corinithians 11, or hermeneutics in general, you may wish to skip to the last 2 paragraphs.

Aaaand, here’s yet another blog-post, this time, on church today.
I’m touchy on many topics about which I’ve heard only one side. Not that I’m against everything being said from that one side.  And I say I’m always attempting to hear the various things the audience could be hearing, through playing with each term through it’s domain.

Generically, the first concern I always have is with logical fallacies (from false-analogies to straw-men). The second (if not actually the first!) is context. Sadly, I tend to perceive people to be disinterested in either of these valuable items. A third concern is a new one for me, one which I’m trying to understand: content, form & function. The fourth concern is still only 3 weeks old: conflation of multiple-value-scales. This last one may of course be the same as ignoring contexts.

All this to say, when I come to a confusing or often misrepresented passage or idea, it’s important to look at whether the issue being discussed is in the arena of all of life (natural), personal/relational life, social-religious life (church), or spiritual (relationship to God). In particular to 1 Corinthians 11, these 4 contexts are “praying and prophesying” (in church), “in the Lord” (spiritual relationship), “woman” (nature, applying to all), “wife” (personal relationship). Notice a context which is missing (there may be more): non-spiritual, everyday, pragmatic life. (But wait! All life is spiritual! We can debate this later..)

I find this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 amusing and sadly confused by many — it’s not as hard as it is made out to be. It is the same genre as Ephesians 5, yet people seem to understand Eph 5 much easier. Perhaps it is the cultural concretes which people cannot see beyond in the analogy.

My thesis for this passage (which I’m stating more than supporting), simply put: the headcoverings (or lack) are only half the context/analogy: they are concrete, evidential markers of the state of a personal-spiritual relationship (See this compared with the “simple” explanation at the end of this article). Note the 2 halves: the spiritual relationship a each person has with Christ is not to be hindered (generically). Second, particular to Corinth, this relationship to Christ was being hindered by humanity’s interest in sinful things.

I say “each person” because (a) both men & women are called out for their generic interest in sinful stuff in the whole book, and (b) in this passage, men and women are equally united & related “in the Lord.” This is at least an egalitarian starting point; whether it is also the finishing point, we’ll concern ourselves with later.

Likewise the egalitarian semantics involved a “head-as-source” anthropology/theology. This is often derided with semantic and logical arguments, but it does offer an interesting point of unity: if this passage is in regards to men and women being out of fellowship with Christ (and the religious consequences), then there will be no supernatural glory, love, truth or life in one’s thoughts, affections or behaviors; only that weak kind which is naturally birthed. If this is the case, then this passage deepens before us again, speaking to those who are in a religious context, performing religious activities, but are without any spiritual connection, including any supernatural “spiritual authority” from God. But this topic is foundational, and Paul is stopping one step from this, instead, focusing on something between wives and their husbands.

Another point of contextual confusion is that of women praying publically vs. privately. This is not private, personal, silent, American prayer. This is corporate, out-loud, leadership-prayer (since, as so many are willing to remind us, this text is about leadership).  Further, and more precisely, this text is about church-order: prayer and prophesy are mentioned not just together, but more frequently than any other term (especially authority, leadership, submission or glory).

All these reasons lead me to understand verse 13 as “Judge for yourselves: Is it a disgrace for a woman to lead-in-prayer when she is in sin, disconnected from God in her personal spiritual life?”

Having a clarifying lens of “uncovering=disconnection” for wives & “covering=disconnection” for men, we can go through and check our understanding. The earlier text (verse 5) could be understood as simple-replacement: “Every woman who prays or prophesies without a covering dishonors her [head] husband.” Yup, that is more or less in-line. First, sociologically, my wife and I will reflect each other’s values and nature. If my wife is troubled in sin, and she is prophesying, doesn’t this disconnect reflect on me? Verse 7, likewise, can be read as “a man ought not be disconnected from God or hide his glory[relationship to Christ]“. The second half of verse 7, I tenatively logically consider that man is the glory of Christ (like Eph 5: church, body of Christ, glorious).

Still, there are admittedly many questions remaining: angels? “woman is the glory of man”?

All this to say there is a simplest explanation: “good Corinthian wives had head-coverings.” To be a good Christian wife in Corinth, you should actually follow the culture, so ppl don’t think you are able to be both a whore and a Christian.” In this scenario, a wife would dishonor her husband by calling public attention to herself praying/prophesying in front of people) and give them the impression she wasn’t married, or even worse, dressed up like a whore. I believe this is the simple interpretation and application I have heard growing up for general conservative dress amongst Christian wives. But the application was off: the analogy of all women’s clothing “in the world” as equal to “whoring” is hardly the case.

Finally, the worst crime I consistently see is not just a return to cultural norms after learning “Biblical” values, but an enforcement of cultural norms with the weight of God. Using God as your wrecking-ball/bull is never a good idea, and will only kill people. What do I mean by this? Here, I am attempting to counter the false-analogy of “women have children, and I don’t, so of course we’re different.” That’s not just a conflation of roles & scales.. That there are functions which my wife performs better than I do, and vice versa is not the question or concern. But what if she is better at (and enjoys more than I!) earning an income? More importantly, am I unwilling to learn and change to improve our situation, not just pragmatically, but even for the gospel? The worst example is “women should stay home with kids.” Really? For thousands of years men worked near the home, and the boys did their chores around the home, learning directly form the father. Most importantly, is there directly a verse which says “all men must not raise their children”? All that to say, 1 Corinthians 11 speaks much about culture and wives, but whether I am in any authority over her, Paul later addresses that we are each in authority over one another, to submit to one another, and where she excels, I would be just plain dumb (independent of unspiritual) to not let her live out who God has created her to be.

Am I treading a fine line between two heated sides? Yes, and I will continue to do so gladly, since few others seem willing to.

I think I’m confused about what I think is & isn’t faith.
There’s faith *concerning* something, faith *in* something. They must both exist to be of any ‘utility’. There are contexts in which faith is appropriate, and some where faith is not.

Yet I feel a strong compulsion to fideism, that all life is faith. Not in the sense that over-religious take it, but in a philosophical sense of pragmatism: that I’m not able to prove that you are real, but I have no real alternative than to act like you are, continuing in this world, despite my lack of “absolute” knowledge. This is a metaphysical faith — as to what is or is not reality. Yet, I am not comfortable calling all my perceptions of the observable world ‘reality’. I *believe* reality to be bigger, more inclusive of the spiritual (super-natural) (forces/personalities/plans/plots). Again, is this now outside the realm of metaphysics? This is precisely where Kant draws the line. And to some degree, rightly so. Our categories of time, space, personhood, etc are all learned (so says sociology) here from our experience/others, and there is no real reason for us to have direct ability to reason / apply direct ideas to them. Such is simply imagination. Most blog-readers will revolt, but seriously — this is precisely the consequences of Kant. This is directly what he was troubled about. Leibnitz’s Monadology-world was mostly imagination to Kant. But the best part? Kant wasn’t an atheist. He wasn’t trying to kill off religion, just, as I am, understand what faith is, what knowledge is, and where the looney-bins in the middle lie, and confuse the Truth for everyone else.

As an aside, I want to take on/clarify the nature/nurture thing. Christians of the conservative sort will often place man’s worth in being a human, using some confusing terminology of “direct creation” of God. This, oddly enough, is heretical. God is not continually creating, he stopped at day 7. He may be upholding & sustaining, but that’s not what they said. Nevertheless, an important philosophical question has been what is innate to man? The religious will say “a soul” (but that doesn’t answer the question of how much, and what kind of knowledge). The empiricist will say “nothing.” The rationalist will say “could be anything, likely plenty.” The Apostle Paul considered men to learn of God both ways, written on our hearts, and seen in creation. Sociology today will be more in-line with the empiricists of old, since we are born into a world already-started-and-on-its-way. There are cultural norms and symbols (called language) which has developed and progressed, and we merely pick it up (or are forced to learn it!). Notice how similar this is to God’s work: not creation, but sustaining. Notice also, how I don’t feel a great need to answer this question, just taking note of what is and is not readily knowable.

Returning to what is and is not faith, there is always the trouble of sociological data which tells of psychological projection: that Christians are those predisposed to “see” the world through religious eyes, like the artist predisposed to see through aesthetic eyes, and the musician, through orchestral, sonorous eyes and ears. This is a dandy position, but while writing this out, I realised, it is too dandy. It’s too easy, too simple, too comfortable. It has no prescription for change, no interest in cross-communication (of which I am entirely), and worst of all, it fearfully promotes individualism and group-ism which is always a tad too divisive for my likes. Such is the “wisdom” we hear all too often. No pre-disposition theories for me. Sad how inclusion theories rapidly turn exclusive.

So what can we say about faith? Is it “faith” for the young girl to believe Mr.Bear is drinking his tea? Is it “faith” for the dog to wait by the door, because you come home everyday at 6pm (and likewise the congregant who simply attends consistently every week)?
These two examples are often countered by what I shall hereby call the “duty of expectation.” The congregant is faithful, not just because he is *consistent* (methodological) but that he ‘expects’ ‘something’ (from God) to happen. Further (and even worse) this is meant to mean “right now.” See how this devolves rapidly to a prior position of “God is always doing something, and you need to keep watch, otherwise you’ll miss it/him!” I am fully aware that I am “missing” “the blessing” of God’s activity in this world. But understand the difference: they see God in the shadows, lurking. I see (believe) God in the forefront, maintaining all life at it’s deepest physiological/physical-chemical-particle-physics level. Christ *is* (I believe) the logos. (How’s that for a subject of an idealism/materialism debate!) Studying this world is studying Christ.. but not in a universe-as-God’s-body way. Upholding creation with One’s power & word is mightily different than essense.

Anyways, I feel like my personal-life-faith is macroscopic: I’m living out my large-scale plans which (I believe) will further God’s (Jesus’) life-work on this planet (were he still around). I also feel like my faith is at times empty and utterly blind, filled with nothing but hope. I doubt anything will happen, but I will act anyways.. or somethings I’ve given up on & don’t act anymore. If nothing happens, then so be it: resignation (and potentially bitterness). If something happens: enjoy it, run with it. This world *is* bitter. Christ tasted it’s effect (and likely affect), and did not keep himself from it.
Kierkegaard would call this resignation half-way to faith, and the truly faithful to be beyond resignation, enjoying life’s gifts even in their absense.

I’m stuck on the topic for now, but that’s the depth I’ve got so far.

Background Point #1: The 20 Statements Test
I was forced to do the 20 statements test last Monday in Socio Theory class, only to discover 2 things:
(a) a deep, anti-labeling drive/push (based surely in too many labels placed upon me through my life)..
(b) a natural reaction into the subjective.
Obviously this is an accusation that I’m self-focused..

But this sociology class is teaching me more about myself than any other class. It is showing me some distinct traits which are good & bad. Philosophy only gives me options. I like studying the human nature, and I like considering the philosophical options, however, I still enjoy some concrete things every now & then. But I’m not a scientist. I’d rather let someone else run the numbers, do the methods (is that what research assistents are for?). I’ve got plenty of ideas.

Background Point #2: Carmen’s Theory of Society.
I (like most people) value what’s in me too much; others read this in me, and find no ‘room’ in/nearby me for themselves to value me/attributes of/things in me. I have been actively stopping other ppl from valuing me. I should start letting other ppl value my qualities.. cuz that’s their job, not mine.  Society only works when other ppl value what’s in me, and I in them.

Background Point #3: NYT Depression Article. Just read it. (over & over again! )

Quick, Fake Responses to all this, in particular to Carmen’s Theory:
-Waaay too idealistic.
-That’ll never work
-That hasn’t worked
-That’s why I’m so self-consumed; others never valued me
-Ok, so maybe some ppl valued me, but I didn’t value them, cuz of an unequal distribution. That is, Older ppl might have valued me, and I might have valued them for their place in my life (being old ppl).. but a lack of peer-valuing has contributed to an uneasiness in me, and self-reflection. The “rumination” theory of the mind, that we get focused and obsessive about certain attributes we got picked-on by others long ago.

Perhaps a real response:
What I value is what I value; it is initially sourced in what I find outside myself (like everybody else). But because of various ruminations/imaginations/strong-mindedness, I create a world about me, fanciful, unique-to-me, and nearly impenetrable.

It all starts with something very small which I find amazing or appauling. Then, instead of  (a) “tempering” any next idea or thought regarding this against reality, or (b) perhaps as many others do: just leave it be, I continue on my mental jaunt, which to me is fun. It no longer seems imaginative but very, very real – more real than the external world in which the idea was sourced. This, of course is not simply my personal, willful “commitment” to rationalism; a free-willful choice is hardly what I feel! Rather, my mind has come to a near-enslavement of rumination by sheer habit. This enslavement is where I feel all/most of my determinism/anti-will ideology.

Consequences of all this:
I feel oddly confused, relieved and surprised by all this self-learning. Carmen noted how most of this information did not come from inside of me. (Read: I’m not that amazing after all.) Second, this is all certainly a relief, that there is a new platform from which I can actually live my life and take part in what actually is the external world.

Most importantly, for all those med-students who wish to be psychiatrists (which likely I should have seen a loooooooong time ago! ..but they’re all booked up in this city..) I have some words of advice:
1) You will not solve your patient’s problems unless you understand their context, and method of mental processes. Read: I hope you took your psychology & sociology classes seriously in undergrad!
2) You will not change the world with drugs. Hopefully you already know this. But hopefully you understand your role as a counselor more than as a doctor.
3) You will get more “data” on mental issues than anyone else ever will. You have the chance to be the best at what you do. Make sure you get the data & be a good mental scientist. (See #1).

So, who or what ever came up with the term “Deluxe”? And who ever decided that it was even more de-luxe to hyphenate it?

Dictionary.com to the rescue: “1810–20; < F[rench;] de luxe of luxury”

So this is where the guessing comes in. “Luxe.. like ‘light’”, right? Light is nice, pretty & good. Nope. Luxe: “Origin: 1550–60; < F < L luxus excess.” (Oddly enough, in 1810, Napolean was unmarried & remarried! )

“Luxurious” means “you don’t need it.”

In a tribute to Jessica Hagy‘s oh-too-obvious work (but we still love it!) I hereby present:

In the past 20 hours, I have heard of “snow-pocalypse” on FoxNews* & “Comcast/NBC mergepocalypse” / “Comcatastrophe” from the Consumerist**. Need I mention the “financial meltdown” from 2-4 months ago?? I’m not convinced.  Sure the snow is “record setting“, but that just means it’s rare, which means exciting. It’s fun, it’s February, it’s supposed to snow! And the more southerly it snows, the faster it will melt. My real concern is the general public (and news media’s) willingness to panic. Panic attacks don’t get anyone anywhere.

Enough already.

Notes:

* I do not watch FoxNews. Ever.
** I was pointed to this link by a friend, which was amusing.

Sure they don’t exist, but their role of theologian seems to be taken on in philosophy, especially the German Lutheran ones of the 1800′s.

While there were plenty of “actual” theologians after the Reformation, philosophers moved thought along in a distinct way. Grant their way was inaccessible to the average joe, and that void of practice was taken up by Wesley, and the other 1800′s preachers. This new arising piety along with some strange conclusions of the Philosopher-Theologians lead to the early 20th century backlash against philosophers & modern life & thought in general.

..well, at least, that’s what I woke up a few days ago thinking..

A Series of Questions:

A refresher: What are the 4 major areas of Philosophy?
* Metaphysics (with a subset in ontology)
* Epistemology
* Value-Theory: Ethics & Aesthetics

Of these, which “is” Christanity? Many would say in our time “ethics”. My parents generation certainly would. But doesn’t Christianity make claims regarding the nature of this world (as well as the next!)? Doesn’t it make claims as to what we can and do know? Certainly there are ethical statements as well. From a philosophic perspective, Christianity is, requires, and encompasses all areas of philosophy.

Take the 19th century philosopher Hegel. He was a believing Christian in his day. He made metaphysical claims as to “what was real.” His claims were so vast and ‘certain’ that they are and were a full *system* of thought. Those punk-kids of you who despise “organized religion” probably have more issues with this guy than with the Pope (ok, so maybe not, but close). Systematic thinking is good. It challenges us to make sure our ideas are *coherent*. Why that’s important I’ll hold off on. The trouble here is that no one today believes Hegel’s system of theology/Christianity is “true” or “what is”. Why? Because things change, and people realize the errors in others.

What I now propose is the 20th century Christianity produced another system of thought, though not one of metaphysics. Metaphysically, Christians started trusting science’s “If I see it, then it’s real” (naive realism/materialism) for their everyday, pragmatic view of the world. This foundation lead to a general belief that “The way things *are*, can not be changed, but the way you act can be.” Christians decided to trust science for their metaphysics, but they could not trust science for their guide into ethics, and rightly so, since it was only adding to the list of ethical questions with all its options.

This ethical entrance produced not just here-and-there spotty ethics, but a whole system of ethics amongst the more rational Christians. God, and/or the Bible could answer our questions, and so “Biblical” Christians sought to tease out all the ethics they could to serve out to the hungry masses, as well as unify the ethical system.

The question our new generation of Christians is now faced with: was the ethical system handed to us, taught to us every Sunday (often in place of theology), right? This skeptical stance will likely put the previous generation, who put their whole lives to understanding ethics, on edge! How can these kids question our logic!

The reflective process (which each generation undertakes) is often not one of reason, but one of affection. I do not deny that there are systematic, logical answers in ethics. What I deny is that objective ethics is Faith, not faith. Faith, as a System, is really just Enlightened Reason. There is trust, but trust in a logical system, not a person, and certainly not directly in a deity.

This is an age-old balance between objectivity and subjectivity. Where does truth lie? Many up front would say “In the Bible, in the creeds” or others “In reason”. I suppose I am claiming more like Kierkegaard: Truth is not in this physical world; I only trust that I have it.

Above all I believe that Christianity is about Jesus being Truth, whom we as individuals subjectively commune with through faith. To say that again: My daily actions are to be trusting Him. When I face an ethical dilemma, what am I to do? God has given me reason, history, His Word, friends and my wife. These are enough ‘priests’ already. We will figure out what to do, and do as we have decided. Our actions “in faith” are that of a stand-in: trust that we are enacting His will on this planet; trust that He would do the same; trust that I do not need another preist to keep me from directly communing with him in prayer and expression of concern.

But all the masses need direction! Without a system it will be mass-chaos! This is (by the way) the same logic which leads people to assume that anarchy=chaos. I am not opposed to organization, I am not opposed to communication. Nor am I opposed to structure. But Jesus has given us the structures we need: husband-and-wife, those with like-faith, rememberance of His death & resurrection. I believe we only *think* we need more. Otherwise, we become text-book, cookie-cutout people.

Is there a difference between me “following God/Jesus in faith” vs. me “following God/Jesus in reason”? The latter is what people have come to term “making God into your own image.” The alternative is a life of openness (or dependence, as Schleiermacher wrote, though I would say the Scriptures & creeds point to this idea!). But one cannot live in this world without decision-making amongst responsibilities, and for the young & without responsibilities (note: not necessarily “irresponsible”, just a more open & potential life) things get confusing and tough. God is The God of History, not just of our personal histories, but of world history. He can work with anything we throw at Him, but the question is always the opposite: can we handle what we throw at ourselves & can we handle what He would throw back at us?!

So to return to the question: most of us likely follow God passively in our own reason: we do as we think we are to do. The opposite option is to follow God actively in our faith: asking daily (dependently, openly) what am I to do/act/think/allow/follow through with today. The 2 middle roads are to follow actively in our reason: which is to make a mockery of Christianity, it is the least mature position. Or we are to follow passively in our faith: when something comes along, we take it. I’m in this last camp, I’ve came from the worst camp, and I’m yet to move forward toward active openness.