21 March 2013

Decisions, decisions.


I recently decided to pass on a job offer from Judah1, and to keep pursuing a career with the MAF. The Judah1 offer was better in every measurable way, and I really wanted to take it, but I passed on it anyways. I'm going attempt to explain why, because folks who watched me spend a month debating the decision are saying they're confused, and arguing with my decision.

Job A (Judah1) would have been the better choice, but I don't really like doing things without knowing why I'm doing them, so I kept asking myself "Why should I take this job? I've been pursuing a career with the MAF for three years now, why should I leave them and go with this new group?"

After a week or so of asking myself that question, I noticed that the intonation started to change. "Why should I take this job?" was an easy question to answer, but I realized the question had become "why should *I* take this job?" I mean yeah, the benefits are obviously, but why should I be the one to take the job?

I mean, let's assume that I'm perfectly capable of performing all the required duties of both jobs after training, and will do an excellent job either way. MAF would spend less on training me (and I'd be at an acceptable level of proficiency faster) than Judah1 would have to, and Judah1 could find a qualified mechanic (for the MD82 they wanted me to shepherd) here in Tulsa inside a week, probably inside 24 hours. American Airlines has been fixing MD80-series aircraft in this town for decades, after all. 

So, training-wise, I'll be up to speed faster, and for less organizational cost, if I go with MAF.

But Afghanistan is a hard place to work, you say.

Well, let's examine my history. I've struggled with depression for all of my life, so regardless of which way I'll go, I will still struggle with depression. Since part of my depression is rooted in the unending struggle against nihilism, one thing I am very cautious about is losing a grip on the things that keep me going. Foreign missions (and the inherent challenge in them) provide a much better reason to keep going than staying in Tulsa, and making a decision based on financial benefits means that I'd be placing money at the center of my life. Chasing money instead of something with a bigger-than-me purpose would seriously jeopardize my existential wellbeing, because temporal pleasures like money and fun are meaningless.

So, if we call the depression a toss-up (better support network but less meaning in Tulsa versus less support but more existentially meaningful work with the MAF), then I have no reason to stay in Tulsa.

I don't really care for the acquisition of stuff, so that's a wash. Having more money would be nice, but I've lived with only what I can fit in my car for almost three years now, so it's not like I have a desire to balloon that into needing a moving van. I plan on maintaining an ascetic lifestyle until I'm married or otherwise tied down to a single location.

So that's a toss-up as well. As long as I eat well and sleep inside, money isn't very important to me.

Hmm, what else?

Family? Alright, speaking plainly, I'm looking for a lady of a certain quality, and those are rare, no matter where I go. Also speaking plainly, I'll find her when God brings her into my life. Finding the right lady is no more likely here in Tulsa than it is in Afghanistan. She could just as easily be a nurse working with Doctors Without Borders as a schoolteacher here in Tulsa. The odds don't really change either way, rare is still rare, and I don't meet a lot of ladies here anyways.

Terrain? I'm from Cascadia, and proudly so. I love mountains, pine trees, and winter snow every bit as much as I do hot summer days and thunderstorms. Staying in Tulsa would mean never having a proper winter, whilst going with the MAF would mean being based in Cascadia and spending time in Afghanistan. Terrain-wise, MAF wins by miles, and long miles at that.

Logistics? Let's say that you have two open jobs, (A and B), and two men who can work those jobs (C and D). Both men can work Job A, but Man C cannot work Job B, while Man D can work both. If you want to complete both jobs, you should assign man D to Job B, and Man C to Job A. This means both jobs get done, and both men work. Assigning Job A to Man D means Job B goes undone, and Man C doesn't have a job.

I have the logistical freedom to go anywhere in the world. I'm a trained aircraft mechanic, and I can cram my entire life into my car. I have no mortgage, no family, no debt, and the only cash flow I need to get by is what's required for insurance and a cell phone bill. The rest (fuel, food, shelter) could easily be earned through non-cash trades (labor for a bed, etc).

Very, very few people have that kind of freedom these days. Most folks my age are either locked into a job, or have a house to pay off, or perhaps a family that keeps them from moving. I'm one of the rare few that can go anywhere, and do anything, and until that comes to a close, why shouldn't I do just that?

Faith? Staying in Tulsa wouldn't require faith, going overseas with the MAF would require it in buckets.

The more I think about it, the more the MAF is the right choice. Will it bring me everything I want? No, but neither will any other job. The important thing is that it's the right job, and Judah1 isn't. Even if I had none of these reasons to back up my decision, I have faith that God will not abandon me just for staying on the path He opened up for me three years ago.

And honestly, even if it was a tie, ties go to the defender. Without a damn good reason, I'm not changing course just for a shiny object, because life isn't, and shouldn't ever be, about chasing shiny objects. Maybe someday I'll have a reason to leave the MAF, but until that day, I'll stay the course.

It's not about me anyways, it's about the people I can help. If a life of living in a mud hut (which the MAF doesn't ask of its missionaries) helps get the Gospel out to folks, isn't that worth it? If one person, one time, turns to Christ, wouldn't that be worth a lifetime to not living the high life? Of doing hard things instead of the easy things?

It seems so to me. The job must be done, and I can do it. In the end, it will be worth it to me to do this, even if in the short term, it isn't. Luxuries like families, a house, and money will be provided when God decides to, and rushing that (like Abraham and Hagar) is the wrong way to do it.

The more I took myself out of the equation, the more obvious the answer became, so I went with it. That's really all there is to it.