The Crisis of Overcommitment

I have in my past and I have heard others lament what seems to be a "Crisis of Commitment" in our culture. The divorce rate in the United States consistently floats between half to two-thirds of marriages. The turnover in the labor market is huge. People used to work for 20, 30, 40 and even 50 years for the same company. Now, it seems in many places, if you've worked somewhere for 5 years, you're one of the senior employees. This is true of communities in which we live, too. My grandparents lived in the same community for over 60 years. My great-grandfather lived in the same community for 100 years (his whole life), and the same house for 70 years. According to a research study conducted by the National Association of Home Builders, about 33% of people will have moved from homes they purchased within 7 years of purchasing them. Only about 33% of people will still be in homes they purchased 25 years earlier. We are a mobile society, constantly on the move. All of this indicates that we are not a culture that engages in long term commitments.

I would agree with the perception of others that there is a general disregard for a "traditional" definition of commitment as something that is life-long, firm, unwavering. I have even heard of people "vowing" in their wedding ceremony that they will remain faithful "as long as their love shall last," which usually means the end of the honeymoon. "If we split up...", "If it doesn't work out...", and similar phrases are commonly heard in people planning their "long-term" relationships these days. I hear words like this all the time when doing couples' counseling.

I would argue, however, that the cultural disregard for a more traditional understanding of commitment has a different source. I think it has to do more with burnout.

I don't think we have a "Crisis of Commitment," but rather a "Crisis of Overcommitment."

As I walk down this path of married life with children, I can see it happening. Jacob has tee ball. Jacob and Caitlin have swimming lessons. During the school year, there's Cubbies (AWANAS children's bible study program for little ones). Lesley and I have commitments to Nathaniel's healthcare, of course. I have my MC and my participation on the board of the Pregnancy Help Center of Central Missouri. I also have a prayer group, which meets less and less frequently (a sign of overcommitment among its members). I also try to volunteer 1 time per month to help at the Samaritan Center, which has been happening less and less (a sign of overcommitment on my part). Oh yeah, I also have my wife and children and job. Lesley, God love her, is the only one who has no commitments to anything outside of us and her work, but those commitments seem to fill her time over-abundantly. Poor girl has barely any time to herself. I can only imagine at this point what it will be like for us when the children are committed to school, sports, extra-curricular activities and all sorts of other things. I hear about parents who don't see each other except for at night when they kiss good night and pass out from exhaustion. These people are not suffering from a lack of commitment, but from overcommitment. We get committed to so many different things that we end up doing everything with half a heart.

And then we get burned out.

I can see it happening to me now. Things I really used to enjoy, like riding my motorcycle, become tedious. I love the type of work I do, but these days, more days than not, I wake up and think, "Well, here we go again." I've lost the enthusiasm for the lives that I know I can touch. Even things that I know benefit me in the deepest levels spiritually, like meeting with a cursillo prayer group, become just another appointment on my calendar. Overcommitted and burned out. I recognize the signs.

But what to do?

I wonder if you can relate to this. It's not that your not committed. You are. As a matter of fact, you are so committed to so many things that you want to quit them all and be monk for a year or 10. The result of this pandemic of overcommitment: high divorce rates, low retention rates at work, half-hearted efforts at things that we say are important to us, and burn out, making us irritable with those we love the most.

What to do?

Maybe it is time to quit.

Oh, not everything.

When is the last time you sat down and really made a list of everything you have going on in your life, AND PRIORITIZED THEM? It's been a while for me. And by everything, I mean EVERYTHING. How much time do you spend on social media networks? Has that reached the level of commitment? You are committed to it because that is how you communicate with people now. How about your favorite television show that you just don't want to miss? Are you committed to watching America's Got Talent? What about time spent doing household stuff, like dishes, laundry, vacuuming, and budgeting? I'm pretty sure that most people don't budget, not because they don't care, but because they are not committed literally to sitting down and figuring it up, so they end up flying by the seat of their pants and hoping the paycheck hits before they have to transfer more money out of their savings to cover their bills that week.

Maybe it's time for a hard reset. Maybe it's time to look at our commitments in life and decide to which ones we really should be committed, and which ones we just need to let go.

Letting go of things to which we've said we're committed is never easy. After all, no one wants to break a commitment. I believe that everyone, even those who consistently break their promises, want to be considered as people who are good to their word. So it seems odd that I'm talking about keeping commitments by quitting things to which we are committed. Wouldn't it be better, though, to be committed to 2 or maybe 3 things, and do them well, than to be committed to 10 things and do them all poorly? A lot of times, we won't let go of our commitments because we've bought into the myth that if I don't do it, no one else will. The fact is, the Samaritan Center has existed for a long time before me, and will probably continue to flourish if I never darken their doorsteps again. I'm pretty confident about that, actually.

We can't be afraid of letting something go because we think it would stop functioning without us. That's an ego trip. Reality check: if whatever you're committed to would fall apart without you, you've already failed in your commitment. Commitments are not meant to create dependency, but to create interchange that lifts up both partners.

Some commitments we can just quit. As I said, if I decide not to give anymore time to the Samaritan Center, they're not going to miss me. Some commitments need planning, preparation and transition before we can give them up. If we do this responsibly, even though we're letting a thing go, we have fulfilled our commitment to it.

But to what should we be committed?

This is going to sound very selfish, but I think we should only be committed to those things that help us be the kind of people we want to be. Think about the kind of person you would like to be. What characteristics would you like to have? There's an exercise that the late Stephen Covey discussed in his work, "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People." Imagine you're at your own funeral, and as people walk by, they are talking about you. What kinds of things would you like to be said about you? At its essence, that's who you want to be. Be committed, then to those things that bring out those elements in you that you want. If you are committed to being a Christian, it seems you would value your commitment to a Church community more than your commitment to your golf buddies. If you don't care whether you're a Christian or not, being committed to a community of believers isn't really going to matter to you.

There's another question: How are we to be committed?

Many people make the mistake of thinking that every commitment is "jump in the deep-end" type. You're all in or your not. I can be committed to the shallow end very easily. But I need to understand and others need to understand that I'm not going to the deep end on this one. I will go in as far as my knees, and that's it. We don't have to give everything to every thing to which we are committed. I can commit this much time to this group, project, whatever. I commit 40 hours a week to my job. That's it. I commit a few hours a month to the Pregnancy Help Center. No more. I commit myself, "jump-in-the-deep-end," to my family.

Of course, all of this means that we have to become comfortable saying, "No." If we start pealing away all the extraneous commitments, people will begin to notice that the things to which we are truly committed flourish. They will, then, invite us to be committed to their cause. If we aren't comfortable saying, "No," then we will end up in the same situation that we are trying to escape, being overcommitted and burned out.

Research studies have proven that there is a direct relationship between having something to which you are totally committed, and your level of Authentic Happiness (see the book by that name by Martin Seligman, PhD). Research also proves, that the higher number of things we find ourselves half-heartedly involved in has a direct relationship with our level of unhappiness.

If you're like me, feeling overcommitted and on the edge of burnout, join me in this exercise.

1. Make a list of all the things to which you are committed. ALL OF THE THINGS.
2. Prioritize that list, using as a guide the idea that you should be committed to only those things that are consistent with who you want to be as a person. 
3. Recommit yourself to the top few that are consistent with who you want to be.
4. Review the rest and determine the ones you can walk away from with minimal impact on you and the others involved. Drop those immediately.
5. Determine which ones require planning, preparation, and transition. Discuss with others involved your intention to remove yourself from whatever it might be, and make a plan to prepare for the transition. Execute the plan.

Let me know what you think. I'd be interested in your feedback on if this exercise is helpful.

Christianity and Socialism

It is my goal to make both conservatives and liberals uncomfortable with this post. If you find yourself not liking what I’m writing here, I will consider this post a success.

In the second reading at Mass in the Catholic Church this past weekend, we heard these words from St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, “For you know the gracious act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich. Not that others should have relief while you are burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their needs, so that their abundance may also supply your needs, that there may be equality. As it is written: Whoever had much did not have more, and whoever had little did not have less.” (2 Corinthians 8: 9, 13-15)

We have numerous passages in the scriptures like this in both the New and Old Testaments; passages which exhort us to supply for the needs of those who do not have materially what they need. These passages are too numerous even to list, but anyone with an internet can look them up. In this passage specifically, St. Paul is encouraging the people of Corinth to take up an offering to supply another Christian community that is experiencing a famine with food and other necessary material goods. 

We have the example of the earliest Christian community: “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need.” (Acts 2: 42, 44-45)

If you can hear it, this foreshadows in an eerie way the words of Karl Marx, the philosophical founder of Socialism, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” The fundamental Christian teaching about how to provide for the poor is echoed in socialism’s fundamental principle of redistribution of wealth.

This mandate is a fundamental principle of Christian life. We help those who are in need. That means we have a Christian mandate to give. What are the basic principles of giving. As Christians, we give generously. As Christian’s we give cheerfully. As Christians, we give so that others have what they need.

If you’re conservative, I hope your beginning to feel uncomfortable, because you need to be liberal, at least as far as your offering of time, talent and treasure goes. The confusion between what we need and what we want is not just among the poor. Conservatives often complain that tax dollars are begin given to the poor so that they can have expensive cable plans and expensive smartphone plans. The poor don’t need cable or smartphones, the argument goes, so why should tax dollars go to support that. Why should our tax money go to support someone who owns a Cadillac? 

The fact is the rich don’t NEED cable either. And “back when we were kids,” there were a lot of rich people out there who didn’t have smartphones. They made and managed their money without “staying connected” to it 24/7. Why should someone who claims to be a Christian own an Escalade? Why shouldn’t he or she own a Ford Focus and give the rest of that money to charity? What we need and what we want are two different things.

For Christians who want to follow the example of Christ: “though he was rich, he became poor.” Are we willing to give up our luxuries in order to make sure others have necessities? How radical of a Christian are you willing to be?

Maybe if we were a little more radical in our Christianity, there would be no need for the government to provide for the poor.

I hope conservatives are squirming in their seats right now.

Liberals, it’s your turn.

I’ve just laid out that the fundamental Christian teaching about caring for the poor is echoed centuries later by the socialistic principles of redistribution of wealth, “From each according to his ability; to each according to their need.” This, however, cannot be used to justify a socialist governmental system in which the government taxes the rich so it can redistribute that wealth to the poor. 

First, our Lord’s command to care for the poor is meant to convert the heart, not open the wallet. 

I want to clear up a confusion that seems to occur often when conservatives and liberals argue. The liberal is arguing that everyone should “pay their fair share.” You are right. People should pay their fair share.

Conservatives, however, argue back that it is not the role of government to redistribute wealth, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. And conservatives are right. In the United States, under the constitution that governs our nation, it is not the government’s responsibility to do this.

Nor is it the government’s responsibility to do this under Christian teaching. Christ instructed us to pay our taxes. The apostles taught us to pray for, respect and obey the government authority. But early Christian teaching nowhere defines it as the role of government to take from some and give it to others. The sacrifice of redistribution of our wealth is to be made willingly, through conversion. I would challenge any Christian to find where Christianity teaches that it is the government’s role to force people into charitable giving. You won’t find it there.

We are called, undoubtedly, to give to the poor. I am not called, however, to make sure that you are giving what I consider to be your fair share. Public officials tax returns are open for anyone to see. Isn’t it interesting that the liberals in power, including President Obama and Vice-President Biden, on their tax returns, do not give charitably anywhere close to the amount that their conservative counterparts have donated. Why? When you shift responsibility to the government, you necessarily shift it away from yourself. President Obama and Vice-President Biden believe that it is the government’s responsibility to provide for the poor. If I believe that the government is taking care of the poor, then I don’t have to. The teachings of Jesus make it clear that giving is to be done from the heart. Our tithe is not to be institutionalized by the government.

I wish my liberal friends would hear this: the question is not about should we or should we not care for the poor. We have a mandate to do this in our faith. The question is about what role should (notice, “should,” not “does”) government play in our lives. The purpose of the experiment of the United States of America was formulated beautifully by Thomas Jefferson: “whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” It is fundamental to the American way of life that we believe that we are capable of governing ourselves, of using our freedom responsibly. This includes the way that we freely choose to give to take care of the needs of the poor around us.

Government intrusion into our freedom to give charitably violates what we believe as Americans and what we believe as Christians. The charitable offering is supposed to be freely given. While you can demonstrate that socialism and Christianity have the principle of redistribution in common, you cannot use Christian teaching to justify a Socialist state. 

Christianity teaches that our care for the poor is done freely as a response to the love God has for us. VeggieTales actually expresses this in their story about St. Nicholas. The song that runs throughout the show and eventually inspires Nicholas to become generous goes, “I can love because God loves me. I can give because God gave.” We cannot use that to justify a governmental mandate to redistribute our wealth. That violates the very essence of the meaning of Christian charity. If the government forces us to give to the poor through taxation to fund the entitlement programs, we no longer do it out of love for God and our neighbor, but out fear of prison for tax evasion.

I’ll repeat what I said earlier: maybe if we all were a little more radical in our Christianity, then there would be no need for the government to provide for the poor.