Among gurus of human behavior there is no greater agreement for building one’s life well than to plan it. Plans are to be practical, based on the person’s talents, abilities, faith, energies, ideals, orientations, relationships, education and other features as well, including vision, resources, possibilities, and adaptations in the changing society in which one lives. The counsel of Scripture appears to be that devout persons also follow the processes of any prudent person projecting conduct and expectations for the future. There is, of course, a meaningful difference for the persons of faith, and that is they invoke, in faith’s mystery, God’s guidance and blessing in the planning. Not only do we communicate with God on projections, but with our families as well.
It is disappointing that some devout persons diminish planning processes. They may denigrate sensible evaluation of what is available, the circumstances, energies, resources, and related factors in planning. They may not make blanket denial of goal setting and its processes, but they take the force out of a proven and ordained way to achieve aspirations, faith and service. How does faith work if it is not attached to objectives? Is omission a cover for unbelief, perhaps laziness? Scripture urges us to plan, but reminds us that there ought to be the God factor in the planning. This is accented in both Proverbs and the Epistle of James. Like Luther, many seem to find James to be a right strawy epistle. Luther felt that it overly accented works. If the Epistle of James is a part of the inspired Scripture, and it is, it does not overly accent any doctrine. What does it have to say when one takes the whole structure, in life context, into account?
We return to the practical pattern of knowledge, understanding and wisdom. That recipe surely includes the laws of society and nature, as it does the spiritual laws and benefits of the faith provisions of God for eternity. Application of devout persons in history to gain good things in equitable governments, in church missions, in personal achievement, and other contexts testify firmly to the concept of planning for the future. We risk failure if planning is not comprehensive. We accept the benefits that accrue in finding specifics in orientations of goals, morals and purposes. Planning that does not include participation with other persons is likely incomplete.
Evidence supports the general concept. Note the country’s economy. When the economy flourishes, giving to charitable purposes also rises. When it languishes, such purposes as church ministries, missions, education are less supported. When society’s students go in large numbers to college, the Christian college gains more students. When fewer students go, Christian colleges gain fewer students. When the culture is refined, the Christians are refined. When the culture is less refined, Christian culture is less refined. We do not escape the world. It is with us. It may be too much, or too little, but it is with us. This relates to planning ministry goals. The only way we may adapt to the ups and downs, is to adapt ourselves to the inevitable context in which we not only survive through the cycles, but that we flourish, and gear ourselves to meet real life situations. We adapt, work, plan direction, and, with prayer and prudence. God guides us. He may dilute or enlarge our objectives. The process ought to begin with children when they are emerging to reality, which is to responsibility. This is one of the ways that a person learns how to Go with God. Vaya con dios. Some of these perceptions of accompaniment have been greatly diluted, even lost, in current times. The Christian may not fail divine grace by failing common grace, but failing common grace does misrepresent God’s purpose in it. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020