The Jesuit Guide To (Almost) Everything - James Martin [148]
Now, you might say that the First Method is an obvious way of making a Third Time decision. “Big deal—a list of pros and cons!”
But Ignatius highlights a few steps that we normally ignore when making a choice.
First, he reminds us of the value of indifference. Many times we enter into a decision with our minds already made up, or too concerned about how others will judge our decision. Try to avoid both traps.
Second, the First Method is more concerned with reason than emotion. This helps to remove the tremendous anxiety that normally surrounds a major decision. Emotions are critical when making a decision. But often we are so emotional about a big decision that while we know that making a list is the sensible thing to do, because of all the emotional stress we never do it! The First Method reminds us of the value of reason.
Third, Ignatius reminds us that each course of action will be imperfect. Every solution has positive and negative aspects. As a Jesuit friend likes to say, “There are pros and cons on both sides.” This helps us avoid the trap of seeking the “perfect” outcome.
Using lists in decision-making is common. What Ignatius adds to this approach is indifference, praying over the list, seeking confirmation, and trusting that God is part of the process, because God desires your happiness and peace.
Sometimes the First Method can be difficult. One man told me that with all these lists, he found this too analytical, too much like “processing data,” as he put it. That’s okay, I told him, because Ignatius has another method for you.
The Second Method relies less on reason and more on imagination. It employs some creative techniques to help us think about the decision in a fresh way. Remember, Ignatius was flexible. Here he offers a variety of ways for making a decision, depending on a person’s psychological makeup—some rely on prayer, some on reason, some on the imagination. Once again Ignatius shows us his keen understanding of human nature.
First, he suggests you “imagine a person whom I have never seen or known,” and imagine what advice you would give to this person regarding the same decision you are facing. This can help free you from excessive focus on yourself.
A few years ago, for example, I felt obliged to speak out about a controversial issue in the church. The only problem was that my Jesuit superior told me that he didn’t want me speaking out. It was a difficult situation: my integrity pulled one way, and my vow of obedience another. If I went with my integrity, I would have to disobey my superior. If I obeyed my superior, I would have to compromise my integrity.
Coming to a good decision seemed impossible. In prayer I was drawn to the figure of Jesus courageously preaching the truth. At other times I imagined Jesus reminding me about my vow of obedience. My emotions failed to lead me to a clear answer: on the one hand, I felt the desire to speak out; on the other the desire to be a good Jesuit. My reason also failed to lead me to a clear answer: on the one hand, you should speak the truth. On the other hand, you should keep your vows.
In the midst of my confusion I remembered the Second Method. So I imagined someone in my situation: a Jesuit who felt obliged to speak out, but wanted to follow his vow of obedience. Instantly it became clear what I would say to him, as I was freed from focusing on myself.
In my imagination, I advised this hypothetical person that he needed to seek the approval of his superiors, even though it might take years. In this way he would be honest, trying to say what his conscience impelled and also faithful to his vows as a Jesuit. After I had finished