Are you the victim, the villain, or the hero?

"As fish are caught in a cruel net,
or birds are taken in a snare,
so men are trapped by evil times
that fall unexpectedly upon them."

Ecclesiastes 9:12

Hard times will come and trouble will find us all. It is never a question of whether or not we will go through trials. The question is: how are you going to deal with the trial?

My dad taught me that in every story there are three characters: the victim, the villain, and the hero. In life, he said, we can choose which character we play and our choice becomes apparent during times of trouble.

When the hard times come, those who take the victim role are inwardly focused and paralyzed by such thoughts as "Why did this happen to me?" "It's not my fault," and "When will this tragedy end?" They do nothing and let their surroundings determine the outcome of their situation.

The villain is self-centered but outwardly focused. He or she lashes out at others saying "This is your fault and I'm going to get back at you." He or she desires to cause the same pain that is caused to them, whether real or imagined. Consequently, they hurt other people, many of whom are in no way involved.

Those who have chosen the hero mentality, however, deal with the tragedy in a positive, constructive way. They think, "How can I overcome this?" "How can I learn and grow from this?" and "If others are hurting in the same way that I am, how can I help them?" The hero will take positive action. This is unlike the victim who takes no action and unlike the villain who takes negative action.

As it almost always works out in the stories, the hero will come out on top. However, this mentality must be developed in the small incidents in our lives so that when the big trouble comes we will automatically take the role of the hero. If we take the role of either the victim or the villain we will hurt either ourselves or others or both.

My dad is a wise man.

Questions for Kierdegaard

So I've been reading Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling. Kierkegaard argues that to find the greatest good, one needs to look no further than faith and he uses Abraham's test of faith to make his argument.

He argues that Abraham passed the test of faith not because he was willing to sacrifice Isaac, but because he fully intended to kill Isaac and at the same time, fully expected to keep Isaac (not a replacement heir, but Isaac himself).

He did not begrudgingly offer Isaac and thus lose his passion and he did not act like a madman to save Isaac's faith. Instead, he relied on the absurd idea that he could both sacrifice Isaac and still keep him.

My question to Kierkegaard is this: if we are to follow Abraham's example and have faith in the absurd, how can we tell which absurd we are to have faith in? There are many absurd ideas that we could put all our faith in that will not come to be. Granted, if there was something to tell us what absurd idea God wanted us to believe, then it would not take the same amount of faith.

What would happen if we spend our entire lives placing our faith in the absurd that never happens?

Is it because Abraham had faith that he would keep Isaac that he was allowed to keep him or did he just make a lucky guess when he decided to have faith in this absurd?

I haven't finished the book yet, so maybe these questions have yet to be answered.

Abraham and Job

Abraham and Job both had incredible faith. God either tested or allowed the faith of both men to be tested. Abraham was willing to give up the one thing he had been waiting for his entire life. He was willing, with his own hand, to destroy the very thing that God had promised him; the one person upon which he had placed all his hopes and dreams.

Job did not have a choice. Job was a godly man, who cared for his family more than anything else, excluding his relationship with God. God allowed this to be taken from him suddenly and without warning.

Which trial would be more difficult? For Abraham, he had to make the choice between God and God's promise, Isaac. This choice must have been excruciating to make, especially since he had a few days to think about it. After he made the choice, he had to kill Isaac with his own hand. Yet he still had a degree of control, he could have refused to sacrifice Isaac to God.

On the other hand, Job had no choice, he was a victim of circumstances and had absolutely no control over what happened to him. He was completely powerless and not only did he lose his family, he lost all his possessions and his health as well. Once one loses their health, it makes it infinitely more difficult to make right decisions.

Both men kept their faith and did not deny God what he asked for. Both men were rewarded similarly, but differently. Abraham was allowed to keep that which we was willing to give up. The ram appeared and Isaac lived. God gave Job his health back and another family.

It seems to me that Abraham's reward was greater than Job's. Abraham had surrendered Isaac to God but received him back. Abraham's joy must have been even greater than when he first received Isaac. Yes, Job received another family, but he still had to deal with the memories of his first family and the emotional scars of his trial. He did not receive that which he lost, but replacements. I wonder if Abraham's greater reward is an indication that his trial was greater?

More on Abraham's trial coming soon...