- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Had a question…as I keep saying *(perhaps too much) — I’ve gotten involved in service outside the LDS Church. One thing I feel a bit of guilt about, is that part of my motive for serving outside the church is that it will also help my career. That is only about 15% of the reason I am doing it, and it only dawned on me after I started serving for instrinsic reasons only – when I had to submit a resume to someone at work and found I could put this industry experience on it. For years, a theme I’ve heard in the church is that you serve without worrying about any self-interest. As Brad Wilcox said “service in the church is a train track, not a ladder”. BKP says we don’t say “no” to callings, or ask to be released. All these things deny the individual’s desire to serve in ways that help you develop in areas you find personally engaging and rewarding.
i disagree with this — co-missioned volunteer assignments (that help the volunteer achieve personal goals and the organization’s mission simultaneously) create a lot of engagement.
What do you think? Should service be totally selfless with little or no consideration for whether the service will help you grow and progress in areas you feel are important in your life (as I feel the church talks will often lead us to believe)?
I just did a post that was loosely about this concept earlier this week: is all altruism selfish? Psychologists and sociologists would state that at heart all altruism is motivated by selfish interest. Of course, the conundrum is that anytime we behave anti-socially, it is considered selfish, but again, according to psychologists and sociologists, all pro-social behavior is ALSO selfishly motivated. We are wired to operate in our self interest. I suppose pro-social behavior is more like saving for the future vs. the immediate gratification of anti-social behavior. http://www.wheatandtares.org/12348/selfish-altruism/ My short answer is that I think with all altruism, we have our reward here on earth. Sometimes that’s to be seen of men. Sometimes we are seeking the approval of the church. Sometimes we gain skills or even just habits that make us a better person. Sometimes we want to feel like a good person or see the fruits of our labors, and other times it’s just an idea of a society that is good and connected. One of Ayn Rand’s books is called the Virtue of Selfishness. I think it’s a great title. We only hear about selfishness being bad, but all people are wired to care for the self.
I’m fine with it – as long as people also are wiling to give pure service with no hope of any return. That makes me feel better — I only thought of the benefit of resume-building after I got into it and had to submit a resume somewhere. Old-Timer wrote:I’m fine with it – as long as people also are wiling to give pure service with no hope of any return.
:thumbup: this. I think I would word it different though. “Without expectations of a return”. I think hope is good in the sense that one hope they are appreciated for thee service and the kindness returned. But expectation losing the meaning and power of the service to others that truly transform us.That is better wording, FC. Thank you! If you were hungry and someone offered you food would it matter if they did it out of pure charity or to fulfill some obligation? It wouldn’t matter. I think I was asking the question out of the cultural norm we have in the church that you aren’t there for your own growth or ambitions, you are there to serve where called. I don’t think I agree. I like what Max Dupree said — that non-profits are places of “realized potential” and that truly enlightened organizations help people grow and progress while achieving their own goals at the same time.
Rarely, if ever, has a priesthood leaders ever asked me what MY goals are for my service. It’s always been about “inspiration” and “what the church needs” or “what the Lord wants me to do”…etcetera.
Brad Wilcox’s talk that church service is not a ladder, but a train track is another case in point.
I disagree. It’s about meeting both of our goals — the individuals’ and the organization’s. Then you get real passion.
And if the leaders’ stop trying to co-mission with the goals of the members, they get low commitment, non-functioning members in callings, etcetera.
I remember being told in YM that being an eagle scout would be a good thing to put on a resume. In my adult life I was called as a Scout Master, I put that on my resume under other interests. I figure that the Boy Scouts is still a well respected organization and my affiliation with them rightly paints me as a family/community centered man. The returns on church service is not usually resume based but it still can meet an individuals internal needs. I know that when DW and I where both in auxiliary presidencies we felt very connected to the ward. Many of our social needs were being met through church involvement.
That was true for me at times as well, but now, the callings available to me don’t leverage my talents, which have grown (probably a lot more slowly than most folks) So, for me, at this time in my life, the social aspect is not met in the church any longer.
And as I’ve been in the same job for 20 years, having some resume-building is a nice bi-product of serving with passion. And I can’t get that in the church.
The other thing — I have a group of people for whom I’m responsible for leading now outside of the church. I always try to co-mission the work of the group I’m involved with, with each individuals’ work and passions. The work of the group is customized to the skills and passions of the people on the team. I learned the hard way as HPGL that when the leadership decides, and assigns, initiatives don’t complete. So, it cuts both ways — as a follower, and as a leader.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.