Self-Interest

[Ryan Plott]

I think I'm posting this in the correct theology forum, but if not ya'll just let me know.

What do you all think of self-interest? Is it inherently bad/inherently evil/neutral? Is it a problem for Christians, something we need to accept as part of ourselves, or a necessary evil?

The reason I ask is because in my own ministry plans, I'll be quickly moving from brainstorming to the action phase and this question is one that I've been working through and need to have an answer for. I've been thinking on it for awhile and I'd appreciate hearing some other perspectives.

If the question is unclear I'll try to clarify. I will be a bit slow in the replies though, just a heads up.

[Andy Mistak]

"Self-interest" is kind of a loaded term, and a bit of a buzz word in conservative/libertarian political circles, so I (for one) would feel better giving my opinion if you'd give us your definition.

[Todd Erickson]

If we're truly supposed to be self-sacrificial in our living, and we're supposed to love others as we love ourselves, shouldn't we demand, in love, that everybody sacrifice anything that they actually like or enjoy?

How can anybody pursue things that they like or enjoy and truly say that they are being self-sacrificing?

[Ryan Plott]

"Self-interest" is kind of a loaded term, and a bit of a buzz word in conservative/libertarian political circles,

Ah, forgot about that. My bad. Not interested in a political debate.


so I (for one) would feel better giving my opinion if you'd give us your definition.

Okay. How about, "a focus on the needs of ones self".

[Andy Mistak]

Okay. How about, "a focus on the needs of ones self".

I think as long as we're sure that we're talking about "needs" and not "wants" that it's absolutely vital. If we don't care for ourselves, we don't have anything in the tank when we're called on to help others. My stress does no good for the people that depend on me, and it certainly does me no good.

[Ryan Plott]

I think as long as we're sure that we're talking about "needs" and not "wants" that it's absolutely vital. If we don't care for ourselves, we don't have anything in the tank when we're called on to help others. My stress does no good for the people that depend on me, and it certainly does me no good.

Maybe self-care would be a better term than self-interest. Or maybe both. I'm concerned with both the mindset and the actions. I do agree that we need to take care of ourselves, but at least the way I see the golden rule, the way we understand how to love others is by the way we love ourselves and take care of ourselves. Some people take it to extremes, you could have extreme narcissism on the one hand or extreme people pleasing and codependency on the other. I'm looking for striking the balance.

Just curious, what would be some things you would define as wants?

Edited to add: I'm just interested because I've read on Naznet you're an member of the L'Arche community. I have some friends who are in similar situations and residences. I don't know if you know of JPUSA(Jesus People USA) or not but I have some friends in that commune in Chicago. Conversations with them about needs are generally pretty interesting.

[Andy Mistak]

Maybe self-care would be a better term than self-interest. Or maybe both. I'm concerned with both the mindset and the actions. I do agree that we need to take care of ourselves, but at least the way I see the golden rule, the way we understand how to love others is by the way we love ourselves and take care of ourselves. Some people take it to extremes, you could have extreme narcissism on the one hand or extreme people pleasing and codependency on the other. I'm looking for striking the balance.

Just curious, what would be some things you would define as wants?

Edited to add: I'm just interested because I've read on Naznet you're an member of the L'Arche community. I have some friends who are in similar situations and residences. I don't know if you know of JPUSA(Jesus People USA) or not but I have some friends in that commune in Chicago. Conversations with them about needs are generally pretty interesting.

That's a tough one. As it relates to L'Arche vs JPUSA, the way we live day-to-day is very different. I get free room and board, paid vacation, benefits, and an hourly wage. Some L'Arche communities pay their assistants a stipend and expect them to work much more than 40 hours a week. JPUSA, as I understand it, is a lot more spartan lifestyle than you'd likely experience in any L'Arche community (at least in Europe or North America).

When I think of needs and self-care, I don't go immediately to material things at all. For me, the main need that I need met is about free time. As a live-in assistant, it's very easy to feel responsible for what's happening in my house whether or not I'm on my scheduled "work time". I need to discipline myself to engage in recreation in my off hours, whether that's going to a movie, going to see some live music, or taking a few days off to visit friends in Chicago. When you're in a "helping" or "ministry" position, burnout comes easily, and it stops your effectiveness in it's tracks. It's a big help to be part of a community, because when I start to get a little burnt, someone else will notice, and encourage me to do what I need to get back to 100%.

[Steven Burton]

I think I'm posting this in the correct theology forum, but if not ya'll just let me know.

What do you all think of self-interest? Is it inherently bad/inherently evil/neutral? Is it a problem for Christians, something we need to accept as part of ourselves, or a necessary evil?

The reason I ask is because in my own ministry plans, I'll be quickly moving from brainstorming to the action phase and this question is one that I've been working through and need to have an answer for. I've been thinking on it for awhile and I'd appreciate hearing some other perspectives.

If the question is unclear I'll try to clarify. I will be a bit slow in the replies though, just a heads up.

I think a time of prayer would be good before you go rushing into it. For me if I am passionate about something I look it over a couple of times and make sure I am not going to do this just for myself but that it can be used to glorify God. I see to many people and I am guilty of it too. That sit there and wait for God to tell them to do something when they seem to have a passion for something already that could be used for God.

[Steven Martinez]

I think it is important to remember that the Greatest commandment is to Love God... and to love your neighbor as yourself. Pastors and others in the ministry have literally killed themselves by neglecting their own needs and many more have destroyed his/her families by not taking care of the needs of the family. The CoTN is quite clear in the Manual that a minister should take care of his/her families and his/her own well being as part of answering the call of God to serve. Part of the pastor's responsibilities is to meet with the board every year and make a written proposal that includes the direction of the ministry as well as the felt needs of the church and pastor.
Pastors need sabbaticals. Pastors need time to share and care with his/her family. Pastors need to be able to support his/her family financially. The Church should work to meet these needs just as much as the pastor/minister needs to work with the church on providing for their needs. If you do not love yourself to make sure you are being cared for than how much can you provide care for your neighbor?

[Ryan Scott]

I think self-interest is a necessary part of human identity. People are designed to be selfish. However, I also believe people are designed to only satisfy that self-interest by giving it up - that is we can only be satisfied by being self-sacrificing, which can only be done through the grace of God and the work of the Holy Spirit.

[Hans Deventer]

Self interest goes deep. And not all is bad. I find that in serving my wife, for instance, I get more in return! So where does self interest jump in? It often isn't so neatly distinguishable.

[Mike Schutz]

I think I see self-interest as being similar to pride - and use C.S. Lewis' analogy of the architect who takes pride in the beautiful building she has just built to the glory of God, but also takes pride in the beautiful building down the street designed and built by others also to the glory of God.

The denial of self-interest is a helpful and admirable trait when we take it on for ourselves, under the guidance of the Spirit (and within moderation, as suggested by others above), but can be a terrible hammer when used to force upon others. For example, folks who believe they can have every comfort in life, but want their pastor to deny self and family and live sacrificially.

[Ryan Plott]

I think a time of prayer would be good before you go rushing into it. For me if I am passionate about something I look it over a couple of times and make sure I am not going to do this just for myself but that it can be used to glorify God. I see to many people and I am guilty of it too. That sit there and wait for God to tell them to do something when they seem to have a passion for something already that could be used for God.

Thanks for the advice. This whole thing for me has been a result of 2 1/2 years of brainstorming about how to integrate church and social work/business. It's while I've been in Indy that the network has begun to come together to try make some ideas reality. One of my professors at Olivet is providing guidance to me also. I'm trying to surround myself with people smarter than me, it's not that hard. :-P

And then of course, I'm garnering the wisdom of Naznet. :)

[Ryan Plott]

Thanks for the responses everybody, a lot of helpful thoughts that have echoed some of my own.

[Thomas Oord]

Hank,

My own view is that love involves promoting overall well-being, otherwise known as the common good or interest of the whole. Given that you are one part of the whole, it makes sense that you will act at least sometimes with the primary goal of helping yourself. This may coincide with helping others near you. Sometimes, of course, love demands we sacrifice our own relative good for the relative good of others. But if God cares about all creation and we ought to care about what God cares about, we ought to care for ourselves.

Tom

[Billy Cox]

I think self-interest is a necessary part of human identity. People are designed to be selfish. However, I also believe people are designed to only satisfy that self-interest by giving it up - that is we can only be satisfied by being self-sacrificing, which can only be done through the grace of God and the work of the Holy Spirit.

This isn't what I expected you to say. :) But aside from that, what do you think about the idea that holiness is the transformation of our self interest to conform to God's interest - so a holy person can pursue either self interest or God's interest because they are one and the same?

[Ryan Plott]

This isn't what I expected you to say. :) But aside from that, what do you think about the idea that holiness is the transformation of our self interest to conform to God's interest - so a holy person can pursue either self interest or God's interest because they are one and the same?

I'm not Ryan, but I don't know if a holy person would ever claim that their interests and God's interests are one and the same. It seems to me that if a person was going to get that close to God, they'd begin to realize how big/wonderful/magnificent/awesome God truly is. Going from there to saying, "God's interests and mine are the same" seems to be a big leap.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'm not Ryan, but I don't know if a holy person would ever claim that their interests and God's interests are one and the same. It seems to me that if a person was going to get that close to God, they'd begin to realize how big/wonderful/magnificent/awesome God truly is. Going from there to saying, "God's interests and mine are the same" seems to be a big leap.

Maybe for the holy person there is a hope and desire that her interests and God's are the same, but also the realization and confession that this is rarely the case but that every so often there is a true alignment?

[Ryan Plott]

Maybe for the holy person there is a hope and desire that her interests and God's are the same, but also the realization and confession that this is rarely the case but that every so often there is a true alignment?

Yes, I think that would be the case for her in love made perfect. I don't know if I would want to make an alignment claim in anything besides love, and even then it's a very profound statement to say that she would love the world in the same way God loves the world. I think it'd be easier for someone else to see that in her than for her to see it in herself.

[Roland Hearn]

It was the words of AM Hills, that I have quoted before, that started me on a lifelong journey. He said the most selfish thing we can do is surrender to the love of God - or something like that. From that point my understanding of "self" shifted. Into that construct came the issues of worth and self worth and then the alignment of love and worth. Ultimately I hope to do a PHD thesis somewhere around this very issue. I think it is our misunderstand of "self" versus dysfunctional selfishness and how we address that struggle that has made us ineffective in communicating grace and holiness in the 21st century, and the 20th for that matter.

What I believe the holy life is all about is the promotion of self interest to the level where God heals the defense mechanism, to get a little Freudian, that we have developed, and are for the most part unaware of, against our own distorted perception of our self worth. Genuine love only flows effectively from the life of one that has come to accept love at the point of their self distortion. When we come to that place we are free indeed to love with perfect love. I think holiness is as much a psychological transformation as it is a spiritual one - It is certainly both whatever the weighting.

[Ryan Plott]

It was the words of AM Hills, that I have quoted before, that started me on a lifelong journey. He said the most selfish thing we can do is surrender to the love of God - or something like that. From that point my understanding of "self" shifted. Into that construct came the issues of worth and self worth and then the alignment of love and worth. Ultimately I hope to do a PHD thesis somewhere around this very issue. I think it is our misunderstand of "self" versus dysfunctional selfishness and how we address that struggle that has made us ineffective in communicating grace and holiness in the 21st century, and the 20th for that matter.

What I believe the holy life is all about is the promotion of self interest to the level where God heals the defense mechanism, to get a little Freudian, that we have developed, and are for the most part unaware of, against our own distorted perception of our self worth. Genuine love only flows effectively from the life of one that has come to accept love at the point of their self distortion. When we come to that place we are free indeed to love with perfect love. I think holiness is as much a psychological transformation as it is a spiritual one - It is certainly both whatever the weighting.

The defense mechanism in regards to what personality trait? I'm assuming the preservation of the self but I just want to be clear. And would this be at the id or the super-ego level?

[Roland Hearn]

The defense mechanism in regards to what personality trait? I'm assuming the preservation of the self but I just want to be clear. And would this be at the id or the super-ego level?

Sorry Hank it was a long sentence. If I take out the parentheses it may read a little easier. "....God heals the defense mechanism[s] against our own distorted perception of our self worth."

[Ryan Plott]

Sorry Hank it was a long sentence. If I take out the parentheses it may read a little easier. "....God heals the defense mechanism[s] against our own distorted perception of our self worth."

Thanks. If you ever get around to writing this as a dissertation I'd be interested in reading it. I don't particularly care much for Freud, but the different perspective would be challenging and informative.

[Billy Cox]

I'm not Ryan, but I don't know if a holy person would ever claim that their interests and God's interests are one and the same. It seems to me that if a person was going to get that close to God, they'd begin to realize how big/wonderful/magnificent/awesome God truly is. Going from there to saying, "God's interests and mine are the same" seems to be a big leap.

Ah, but that's not what I'm describing at all. I'm talking about personal piety, not playing the 'God card' to squash dissent and whip the flock into compliance.

What I'm talking about is not 'claims' but is an ethic informed by an intimate relationship, not behavioral codes and mandates.

[Ryan Plott]

Ah, but that's not what I'm describing at all. I'm talking about personal piety, not playing the 'God card' to squash dissent and whip the flock into compliance.

What I'm talking about is not 'claims' but is an ethic informed by an intimate relationship, not behavioral codes and mandates.

Yes, I think I understood you correctly, which hopefully my second sentence suggests. If my post was unclear I'll take responsibility for that, sorry.

[Roland Hearn]

Thanks. If you ever get around to writing this as a dissertation I'd be interested in reading it. I don't particularly care much for Freud, but the different perspective would be challenging and informative.

While psychoanalysis has, in my opinion - due respect to those who disagree, very little going for it apart from a complex system of absurdity and thus Freud has, again IMHO, not much to care for he did influence the language and "defense mechanisms" is one of his things - hence the reference. I doubt I would draw on Freud for much else. My referencing him was essentially a throw away line for a little levity. The main point being that our own sense of worthlessness causes us to develop "defense mechanisms" that are almost too innumerable to count and of which we are often unaware. It is allowing the Holy Spirit to transform us in that area, softening us, making us more aware of ourselves, helping us understand graciousness, to mention but a few, that is the genuine mark of holiness. A claim that I once had an encounter with the Holy Spirit that sanctified me and then the ongoing ignorance to our own self protection is one of the things that has not served us well as a movement. I see it in countless people and often in leadership at all levels of the church where the background motivation for what is often done is fear based rather than love based. Genuine self interest is the discovery of who God intended us to be and that can only be known in a "walls down" posture. And that is always a painful process, which is why we avoid it.

[Billy Cox]

Yes, I think I understood you correctly, which hopefully my second sentence suggests. If my post was unclear I'll take responsibility for that, sorry.

No problem. I think it is religion's domain to take personal piety, systematize it, mass-replicate it, and then shackle people to it. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't giving approval to the spiritual slave trade.

[Bob Carabbio]

"Self Interest", is essentially why EVERY HUMAN does anything. It's why we cried out to the Lord for Salvation when we recognized our need. And it is, in the final analysis why we're "obedient" to the Lord (if we are), and generally "Law abiding" citizens of our countries.

We may try to "Dress things up in religious overtones", and talk about "Loving the Lord" - but in the final anaysis, EVERYTHING we do is basically motivated by "Self interest" - i.e. it'll be GOOD FOR ME in the final analysis.

[David Graham]

While psychoanalysis has, in my opinion - due respect to those who disagree, very little going for it apart from a complex system of absurdity and thus Freud has, again IMHO, not much to care for he did influence the language and "defense mechanisms" is one of his things - hence the reference. I doubt I would draw on Freud for much else.

I know that this is off the point, but I see Freud's teaching as providing one level of defence against the excesses of individualised religion, and particularly of those who claim authority from dreams and visions. He gives us an objective point by which we can question their veracity.

[Ryan Plott]

I know that this is off the point, but I see Freud's teaching as providing one level of defence against the excesses of individualised religion, and particularly of those who claim authority from dreams and visions. He gives us an objective point by which we can question their veracity.

Could you expand a bit more on this David? I was of the understanding that Freud's teaching dismisses religion altogether.

[David Graham]

Could you expand a bit more on this David? I was of the understanding that Freud's teaching dismisses religion altogether.

Yes, you're right about Freud's views on religion, but I was thinking in terms of his views about the interpretations of dreams, as being reflective of the person's inner desires, and with regard to religious experience in general by seeing it in terms of a person's insecurities and their immature ability to face reality. This creates some sort of imaginary figure or wish fulfilment dream that creates that level of security for which they crave.

He certainly never set out to offer religion any support at all, but in his attack against the individual's religious experience he exposed what has become a possible reasonable explanation as to what lay behind that experience.

Now we as Christians don't need to go as far as he did, but we can use his deductions to provides us with a level of objective evaluation by which we can scrutinise a person's subjective religious experience in order to determine its legitimacy or the person's spiritual/emotional authenticity. This is particularly useful when that experience goes beyond that which is commonly experienced by ordinary Christians (or other religious devotees). Furthermore, it may be vital source of evaluation when the person (who has had the experience) is claiming some sort of authority as a result of the experience, or for the "message" received through the experience.

[Stu Weber]

I find that taking care of my needs and wants is good as long as I am not doing it in disobedience to God or I am not doing it at the expense of others. To clarify on the second point: I could take care of myself at the expense of others when 1) I am willfully forsaking loving others (by not helping them, praying for them, etc), 2) I am taking care of my needs and wants because I want to better myself in comparison to others.... both of these situations stimulate my selfish ambitions, self-preservation, etc (or like James puts it in chapter 4 - where do war and jealousy comes from?)

So.... I think we (Christians) ought to pursue what we desire, take care of ourselves (wants and needs), and not worry about it....having the mind of Christ, looking for the interest of others and not just my own, and doing everything cheerfully in response to the love of God.

[Billy Cox]

I find that taking care of my needs and wants is good as long as I am not doing it in disobedience to God or I am not doing it at the expense of others. To clarify on the second point: I could take care of myself at the expense of others when 1) I am willfully forsaking loving others (by not helping them, praying for them, etc), 2) I am taking care of my needs and wants because I want to better myself in comparison to others.... both of these situations stimulate my selfish ambitions, self-preservation, etc (or like James puts it in chapter 4 - where do war and jealousy comes from?)

So.... I think we (Christians) ought to pursue what we desire, take care of ourselves (wants and needs), and not worry about it....having the mind of Christ, looking for the interest of others and not just my own, and doing everything cheerfully in response to the love of God.

Yes, if we're serious about our doctrine of regeneration, why would our self-interest not also be redeemed?

[Carl Hueston]

"If any man follow me, he must first deny himself." Just a thought.

[Hans Deventer]

"If any man follow me, he must first deny himself." Just a thought.

Yeah. But it's hard to rid oneself of all the modern constructs of truth, that turned truth itself into an idol, to be manipulated and abused at will in order to advance one's own agenda., under the pious disguise of obedience.

[Carl Hueston]

Not sure of what you are saying Hans. Could you elaborate?

[Hans Deventer]

Not sure of what you are saying Hans. Could you elaborate?

Well, in order to deny yourself, you have to face the death of all that you've created in terms of self understanding and the concepts of truth you've been building on. The Lord of course continues the quote and says we have to take up our cross. Which in those days was not a pretty metaphor, but a harsh reality. The Kingdom requires us to give up everything, because it puts everything upside down. And that includes our constructs of truth to the extent that they do not lead us to Calvary and the very point where our Master cries "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" We're usually not so keen on that message.

Most often, truth is either used as a psychological crutch, or a means to determine who is in and who is out.

[Carl Hueston]

Ok thanks. It is difficult, but I've found that the truth (bible truth) has set me free in many areas. God bless.

[Hans Deventer]

Ok thanks. It is difficult, but I've found that the truth (bible truth) has set me free in many areas. God bless.

I've found the One to whom the Bible points to do that. For the truth that sets us free is Jesus. For the Bible doesn't love me, didn't die for me, wasn't resurrected, doesn't reign and won't return and won't create a new heaven and a new earth. Like John the Baptist, it points to the One whom it is all about.

[Dale Cozby]

I am of the belief that whatever is best for the Kingdom of God is also best for me and you and others. Therefore, in an effort to help others I will help myself. When others help me they also help themselves. Christ came and for the joy set before him endured the cross. Even what Jesus did on the cross was in his self interest, because he reconciled the world to himself. Kind of funny how this all works huh? If we love others as ourselves, we actually love ourselves properly.

[Billy Cox]

I am of the belief that whatever is best for the Kingdom of God is also best for me and you and others. Therefore, in an effort to help others I will help myself. When others help me they also help themselves. Christ came and for the joy set before him endured the cross. Even what Jesus did on the cross was in his self interest, because he reconciled the world to himself. Kind of funny how this all works huh? If we love others as ourselves, we actually love ourselves properly.

I have come to believe that the gospel of selflessness is a false gospel. I think it's in our best interest to follow Jesus, and that the rewards both present and eternal are quite attractive.

[Ryan Scott]

I have come to believe that the gospel of selflessness is a false gospel. I think it's in our best interest to follow Jesus, and that the rewards both present and eternal are quite attractive.

Still, I'm not sure if following Christ for selfish reasons counts as following Christ. I choose to live a certain way because I believe it is the way human being were designed to live. Certainly there is a benefit, but there are also less than ideal results as well.

I've been wondering lately if there is a difference between sheer selflessness (that is, in essence, self hatred) and selflessness in relation to others. I think the gospel is quite clear that we should think of others before ourselves, but are there instances where our actions effect only ourselves?

Do I decide to follow Christ because it's solely in my best interests, or also because it is the best way to be the most loving to others?

I continue to come back to Paul's statement that he'd give up his own salvation for the sake of his people. There is a stream of similar thought throughout Christian history. I have a hard time thinking of this as anything other than selflessness.

[Billy Cox]

Still, I'm not sure if following Christ for selfish reasons counts as following Christ. I choose to live a certain way because I believe it is the way human being were designed to live. Certainly there is a benefit, but there are also less than ideal results as well.

I've been wondering lately if there is a difference between sheer selflessness (that is, in essence, self hatred) and selflessness in relation to others. I think the gospel is quite clear that we should think of others before ourselves, but are there instances where our actions effect only ourselves?

I have heard it explained as the difference between self-centeredness and the centered-self. If our desires are re-oriented to parallel God's desires, then we can follow our desires to the nth degree without fear of condemnation.


Do I decide to follow Christ because it's solely in my best interests, or also because it is the best way to be the most loving to others?

I think there is a point in a Christian's life where one accepts that loving others is in one's best (self) interest.


I continue to come back to Paul's statement that he'd give up his own salvation for the sake of his people. There is a stream of similar thought throughout Christian history. I have a hard time thinking of this as anything other than selflessness.

Are you sure that's not just an illustration of a personality disorder? :)

[John Kennedy]

To attempt to sanitize motivations can lead to a kind of spiritual paralysis. I believe that following Christ is, ultimately, in my own best self interest. I can verbally attempt to relinquish that advantage, but i don't think it's possible. It's like a judge admonishing a jury to disregard a statement that should not have been made in the first place. It rapidly becomes the proverbial 800 lb gorilla.

The mind games one can become ensnared in while trying to approach God are infinite, at least from my point of view. Ultimately I have to fall back on the language of the BCP collect for holy communion - "Almighty God, to whom are all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid....."
and ask for the Spirit's cleansing of my thoughts (and motivations).

For me, the only way out of the 'motivations swamp' is the belief that God knows me as does no other and loves me as does no other.

I would probably be unable to echo Paul's supposed ability to relinquish his own salvation for the sake of the salvation of others. If the persuasive power of the Holy Spirit is insufficient, I have the feeling that my forfeiture would be of negligible effect. IMO only a monstrous deity would require one to even contemplate such a choice. I guess I remember too many sermons about the idea of God's unwillingness that any should perish.

Dealing with the issue of my motivations and God's detailed knowledge of them is a continuing struggle. I finally have to confess and ask for grace.

[Bob Carabbio]

Personally, I think that we have to face the simple truth that EVERYTHING we do in life, whether we're "Christian" or not, WILL BE for completely SELFISH REASONS. That's essentially the way Human Nature works, and becoming Christian DOESN'T "Remove" our "Human nature", nor does it change or "Reform" it in any way.

Christianity with the indwelling Holy Spirit ADDS a "Nature" - Jesus' Nature - which we can "Walk in" so that we don't fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

And we're called to habitually "Crucify" the "Old Nature" so that it progressively loses it's ability to direct our actions, but we will DO that for selfish reasons - crudely put, so that we can cultivate our fellowship/relationship with God - which is to our selfish interest.

Jesus said: "If you LOVE me - do what I tell you to do". That's not a "Special feeling", or "Warm Bubblies" - it's simple obedience.

SO if you DON'T know what God wants you to Do - then "abide in the calling in which ye were called" - i.e. keep on keeping on with whatever you're doing now. ONLY satan drives you to DO SOMETHING!!!!!! God communicates His desires peacably, understandably, and in his OWN time.

HE MAY lead you into something that "Tickles your fancy", or HE may lead you to be a first contact Missionary to Lower Oogabalooga.

Neither Jesus nor Paul had "Ministry plans" they depended on the Holy Spirit to direct. And when they KNEW what to do, then they did that. The Holy Spirit STILL leads and directs, and making plans WITHOUT that consciousness is dangerous.

[Billy Cox]

And we're called to habitually "Crucify" the "Old Nature" so that it progressively loses it's ability to direct our actions, but we will DO that for selfish reasons - crudely put, so that we can cultivate our fellowship/relationship with God - which is to our selfish interest.

In my experience, this is one of the most misunderstood and tragically misapplied verses in the Bible. Evangelicals especially have taken this to mean that misery is a spiritual virtue; or conversely, if it feels good, it must be from the devil.

A close second (or would it be first?) is the 'take up your cross' passage. Does it really mean that a person after regneration must still ignore the 'way that seems right' to them? If our mind has been renewed, it just seems like we shouldn't be so quick to disregard it.

[Bob Carabbio]

It's a lot simpler than that, I think. It simply means that WE (as purchased Bond-Slaves owned by Jesus) DO NOT HAVE independent self-determination.

What's missed is that JESUS - did what He saw Father doing - on an ongoing and constant basis.

We, on the other hand, tend to live on a "Show me a couple of times, and I'll take from there" basis. And WHEN we take it from there - "Religion", and "Theology" happen, and there's an inevitable descent into religious confusion.

Taking up your cross - essentially means that you NO LONGER HAVE autonomous self-determination. The Soldiers have come, and you've been forced OUT of your home, and your "Life" - which is now OVER. The one who "took up his cross" was a walking dead man - on the way to physical death, but already dead to himself for all practical purposes.

There IS a way that "Seems right to a man, but the end thereof - ain't very good.

[Billy Cox]

There IS a way that "Seems right to a man, but the end thereof - ain't very good.

...and when someone has the mind of Christ, the way that seems right to him/her IS right.

[Dale Cozby]

WE... DO NOT HAVE independent self-determination.

Taking up your cross - essentially means that you NO LONGER HAVE autonomous self-determination. The Soldiers have come, and you've been forced OUT of your home, and your "Life" - which is now OVER. The one who "took up his cross" was a walking dead man - on the way to physical death, but already dead to himself for all practical purposes. I think the true beauty of this story is that all the way to the end, Jesus did in fact have His own will very much there but His will and the Father's will were perfectly in sync. What the Father wanted was in fact what He wanted the most as well and He carried out.
When we come close to the Lord He comes close to us. We then can have the mind of Christ and as such do what we want...which is what He wants as well. Heaven will be filled with people that want the best for others and as a result, what is best for them as well.

All of this bringing us to one with the Spirit and Jesus and hence the Father when glorified. We never lose our will but merge it into the Trinity as they are one may we be one. This is what I want with my will.