What Is Motivation? Who Cares?

I have been thinking a lot about the meaning of motivation.  What prompts individuals to act, to be successful, to just get out of bed in the morning? Abraham Maslow provided one way to look at motivation in his article "A Theory of Motivation" in Psychological Review in 1943 and further explained it in his book TOWARD A PSYCHOLOGY OF BEING. Maslow described a pyramid of needs beginning with the life essentials like food, water, and air and continued to safety needs, social needs, esteem needs and finally abstract ideas like truth, justice, wisdom, and meaning at the top.  (See the link at the bottom for a picture.)

I am particularily concerned with things I am personally motivated by and the things that seem to motivate my grandchildren, or maybe I should say fail to motivate them.  It is obvious that not everyone is motiavated by the same goals.  Perhaps my mother's influence prompts some of my achievement oriented behavior.  She wanted me to do my best, look the cleanest, smile the brightest, and stand the straightest.

When I was in college, I took some psychological tests that gave me insight into what I find motivating.  I thought I would like to work with people.  I find them interesting, but the tests said I liked data more than people.  That's true.  I like to write at the computer a lot.  I do enjoy people, talking to them, working with them, but I am not a good person to put in charge.  I don't give good orders.   I can plan how it should be done, but choosing people to do it and prompting them to take action falls to others.

My motivations measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule were somewhat surprising.  I scored at the 99th percentile on achievement.  This is also why I have difficulty with my children and  grandchildren who don't value achievement.  My value system is so heavily weighted toward achievement that I want them to achieve too.  I guess that's putting my expectations on other people, and it's not fair. 

Maslow even agreed with my new understanding.  Not everyone is motivated by the same thing no matter how sparkling and shiny it looks.  The Mavericks won the trophy, but some people don't even know who they are.

I am old now, and I should be willing to allow others to flop or fail as they see fit, but I see people, my descendents included, who have potential and intelligence but aren't making the most of it.  What will motivate them?

.Related articles: Motivation and Emotion~ According to Maslow 

Read the Bible--Who? Me?

Image via Wikipedia

The Bible is not what might be called a "fun book" to read. It is often difficult to understand. It deals with challenging and, sometimes, depressing subjects like sin and doom. On the other hand, it also details a life of joy and ultimate peace in the presence of God.

If you just read the negative parts, you find all the things you shouldn't be doing and the consequences are disastrous. You can also read the joyous proclamations of victory and convince yourself that everything is O.K.

The Bible is like other things you may have experienced in life. There is more to be known than you can get in a one-time exposure. There are negative and positive aspects to pursue. The one-verse application is inadequate. If you really want to understand it, you need to make sure you are reading it with some insight into it's depths. 

I would venture to guess that you would not understand the finer aspects of a manuel on shoeing a horse if you began in the middle with one sentence. The same goes for building a skyscraper. You need to know how to interpret the book. Get some help. Read with someone who has some experience in it. Of course, if you have some experience, try to start at a place where you know what is going on. Learn a little about the history of the people you are reading about. What were their customs? What was the time frame?

There is more to this than you might have thought on first glance, but you not need be fearful or avoid the whole thing. Take it slow and get another opinion.

Adulthood Is Hard

Elliot Jaques came up with the term "midlife crisis" in the 1950s I think. The developmental theorists I have studied called it the most productive period of adult life, but it is also the most challenging. Statistically, the evidence shows that not a lot of people have the dramatic overturn of their lives that "midlife crisis" denotes.

According to Erik Erikson, Daniel Levinson, Lawrence Kohlberg, and James Fowler, the period from about 35 or 40 to 60 or 65 marks the time when people see some evidence of their success. Their children are growing up, moving out, and becoming independent. Their job or profession has proved their skill. Their marriage and home are solid and a source of security.

By this time they may have met and resolved some challenges. Many people find a second marriage by this time, perhaps resolving to do it better this time around. Some people have made changes in careers by the age of 40 and hope to have time to experience success in the new field. A change in location may offer a new start with a shift new set of friends and new opportunities.

Even for people who don't have these dramatic changes, some new appreciation of the place they find themselves at this time produces a sense of security and promise. They may shift their focus or establish a new personal goal. This stage in Erikson's theory is called Generativity vs. Stagnation. People often want to share what they have learned. They may seek to mentor yourger members of their profession or their sport.  According to Erikson, failure in this stage brings stagnation.  I like to teach people to make bread or build kites or write poetry. The most difficult thing is to find someone willing to learn the skills they want to teach.

James Fowler estimates that many people never achieve the stage he calls Conjunctive Faith. For those who do, the work is demanding. They have learned that some dreams are impossible. Maybe in the effort to teach someone else, they can extend their reach to achieve goals they did not master personally. There is a certain satisfaction in coming to terms with the hopes they never achieved. We might call it the paradox of sacrifice. Giving up the ideas and claiming the reality brings closure or at least resolution.

I think all the stages are places we revisit after we have "gone through them." We can revise our thoughts and attitudes and clean up our act. We still have places where we need to grow up.

How Will Technology Affect the Church?

In 2011 the Christian world celebrated the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. The publication of this volume made the Bible available to the common people who could read and gave everyone access to its instructions and judgments. They no longer needed a preacher or teacher to interpret it for them. The Roman Catholic Church looked at this as dangerous. If the people could read the Bible they may not need the preacher or the Church. That was not the way history records the following events. People still needed formal, congregational worship and the insistent reminder from the preacher that their sins were both formidable and forgivable.

On CNN’s Belief Blog roll, Lisa Miller, the former Christian writer for Newsweek, asked this question, “Will technology bring down the church as we know it today?” Andy Braner answered the question with, “No.” He stated that the access to the Bible on an iPod or Smart Phone did not replace the people who worship together and share in the blessings of the church congregation.

While it is true that you can get a sermon from almost any source, phone, TV, radio, video, etc., until you share that experience with other people in personal contact, you have not experienced the full measure of being part of the Body of Christ.

I doubt the football teams worried about the loss of an audience in the bleachers when their games were broadcast on TV. Well, maybe they did. For a while games were not broadcast within 100 or 150 miles of the stadium because they did not want to give people the option of staying home to watch. I don’t think they do that anymore. I think the true fan enjoys the hoopla and excitement of attending the game in person too much to let convenience steal the show.

This is true of the church too. Participation in the activity is so much more than watching TV or reading a text on the iPod or listening to a recording. It’s like the difference between seeing a picture of the Matterhorn and climbing its heights. Is it more fun to watch a snowball fight or get snow down your shirt?

I think Lisa Miller has missed the point, but most of the observers of church behavior miss it too. You don’t really understand until you join in the fun or challenge or struggle. Look for another post on this subject. I'm not through yet.

Read Lisa Miller's article here http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/15/my-take-how-technology-could-bring-down-the-church/

Read Andy Braner's response here
http://www.andybraner.com

My Problem with Reality

People, and I include Christians in this category, want to rationalize events and behaviors to make some kind of logical sense.  I think most of us use logic to mean something that makes sense to us.  It means we can justify the way we want to view the world. 

We often find people wanting to believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, but they want to base their belief on historical facts and physical realities.  I love to read history, and finding artifacts from biblical events thrills me.  Reading about excavations of ancient cities or battles is exciting.  Understanding the engineering of the water systems and the building of walls reveals technology I had never expected.  It makes those stories in the Bible real and present, but it is not the basis of my faith. 

The truths the Bible teaches do not depend on our understanding of history.  We make a severe error when we depend on the provable, physical reality to explain or prove a spiritual truth.  Some things cannot be proven in physical reality, but the spiritual significance cannot be jeopardized because we haven't found the DNA.

We claim to experience the presence of Jesus when we pray based on his promise in Matthew 18:20 that "where two or three are gathered" in his name he will be with them, but then we want to see a fluttering of the curtains to indicate his presence.  If this is a faith based event, then we must take it by faith that he is with us.  We don't need the curtains. 

I cannot explain miracles.  I believe they happen.  I don't know why.  Some people dedicate themselves to investigating events that defy explanation.  I don't even argue with that, but explaining the event does not make it miraculous or prevent it from being miraculous.

It seems counter-intuitive to expect a spiritual event to express itself in a physical form.  Those things that are spiritual have spiritual consequences in people.  Understanding the Holy Spirit means that he moves me to act in the physical plane, but I do not need to see physical actions to believe he is present.  It is true that the Bible records dramatic events like mighty winds and tongues of flame accompanied his descent.  I believe that, but I don't put that requirement on him.  He is free to act as he chooses, and I am obliged to believe in him however he comes.

How would your understanding of God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit change if it depended totally on physical realities?

The 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible

         May 2, 2011 marked the 400th anniversary of the delivery of the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible to the Puritan fathers who pled with James the first of England to give them a Bible in their language.  The work had taken the translators about six or seven years to complete, and it came at a critical time in the history of England.
         The Puritans were a group of reformers who sought to purify the practices of the Church of England.  The Bible translated from  Latin was one concession James was willing to make to pacify them.  Nine years later they took it with them to the New World. 
         The King James Version of the Bible made a profound and lasting mark on English-speaking nations.  Its words have echoed from pulpits around the world and from space: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.”
         In the middle of the 20th Century some clamor arose about the antique language and difficult passages.  I actually guess in my childish mind I agreed with the pastor who proudly proclaimed: “If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it’s good enough for me.”  I thought the Bible was the KJV and any changes would be sacrilege. 
          As I matured and grasped the enormous importance of having the Bible available in the common language, I simultaneously came to appreciate the grandeur of the King James English.  Now we have a huge variety of modern English translations with some adaptations to slang and vernacular speech.  I often use other versions when I study a difficult passage.  Sometimes I even like to go back to the Vulgate.  
           I return to the magnificant tones of the KJV for reading and for poetic emphasis.  KJV is largely metered in the easy iambic rhythm that lends itself to reading aloud.  Phrases like, “And so it was that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered…,” have become a staple in our language.Perhaps because the KJV was the Bible of my childhood, and that is the version I memorized, I enjoy reading about the impact it has had on the our society and the world at large. 

Homo Unius Libri

I have just come to a new understanding of a phrase I've been hearing and misapplying:  spiritual formation.  I have heard it for several years, but I never dug into the meaning or the practice until today.  I thought it was a good thing--people were seeking to become spiritual and to recognize God in daily life.  Well, maybe not.


Maybe they were seeking candles or aromas or things of nature to provide a peaceful and meditative mood.  To feel the sun on the skin and the cooling breeze does not make one spiritual.  It may make you sunburned or cool you off, but this is not a spiritual experience. I have read Thomas Merton who was a contemplative monk.  I valued his insights, but I don't intend to retire to a monastery or a convent and stare at the wall waiting for God to speak to me.  


God speaks to me through the words in the Bible.  Sometimes I get inspired by other people who read the Bible and express opinions and revelations.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer is one who inspires me a lot, and Andrew Murray, Mother Teresa; these and others I read speak of the Bible, not rituals or manufactured evidence of peace and harmony.  Their writing and their lives reveal God, not some vague concept of peace floating on a cloud.


Homo unius libre means "man of one book."  This is a phrase John Wesley used meaning that he sought inspiration and guidance from the Bible.  We may read other books, but they must align with the Bible and be judged by it.  


I think I have even done some of the "spiritual formation" in classes or speeches.  I have given the instruction to clear you mind of everything and wait for God to speak to you.  This is really dumb.  Better if we read a scripture and focus on it and memorize it so we can carry it with us.  Then God's word may become a "lamp for the feet and a light for the path."  


The next time someone tells you about "spiritual formation," be very cautious and question what kind of spirit they intend to form.  Seek the Bible's truths and God's path for you, and don't be lured to the nothingness of a vague filmy expanse of highway that leads nowhere.  Become a man or woman of one book.