I have spent the greater part of the morning trying to "discuss" (at least that was my thinking) a particular person's needs. She had called me, so I thought that this was a suggestion of her openness to me. But, unfortuately, one cannot demand a healthy living relationship.
Relationships have to be built on mutual trust, respect and a diligence to keep the communication lines open. Otherwise, the relationship become a one-sided attempt to keep alive what is really, dead.
This person doesn't seem to "give and take". And I find that if one doesn't agree with everything the person says, they feel defensive. Why the defenses? I'm not sure. But, what I do know is if one attempts to suggest another alternative interpretation about "what happened" or another's motivation, one will end up holding a phone that has gone dead. Or if I offer suggestions that might help a particular situation, there is a verbal attack. It is baffling and frustrating. But, I'm sure that the other's perspective could be similar, as to her preception of me! I just don't know!
When I attempt to make clear expectations, there is a justification and defensiveness that tells me, that this is more about "her" than "us". Maybe some people can't have relationships. Or maybe there is something that hasn't been expressed or shared that is the interpretive "frame" to everything that is said, or not said.
I have asked numerous people how to handle theis person and our relationship (or lack thereof) and most that know her seem to suggest that I really can't have a mutual relationship. I guess I just can't grasp that concept. Perhaps, I am the one that is co-dependent.
Demands upon another cannot offer real gifts of love, or sevice, but only demands of duty or obligation. This is what makes me so resistant to "requirements", such as duty, demands, commands, etc. I equate such terms with obligation, responsibility, and co-ercive and/or manipulative power.
Commitment must be a choice, but how does one commit to a relationship that isn't based on terms that define healthly relationship? can one commit to such a relationship and survive the deneigrating sense about onself? Can one have self-respect enough to overcome a bombardment of snide remarks, inuendo, and outright disrespect as to one's character or motivations or others that are mutually known? I am just at a stale-mate, as I don't know what to think or do or not do.
Why do I desire any relationship with this person? Whenever one begins to "enter" or think they enter the other's world, there is a slammed door, or so it seems. On the other hand, this person can have a overzealous conscientiousness about another relationship, to the extent of compulsion. I've been advised that one cannot have access to those that choose to not allow such access. And when I think about it, isn't this what I'd want? Respect for my boundaries and a honoring of my "right of denial"?
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Healthy Relationships
It irritates me when others take advantage of others. It doesn't matter if I am personally involved or not, because in principle, I believe that the individual is not to be presumed upon. Presumption depends on others without their input, or knowledge. While my husband trusts me, it would be disrepectful and unkind for me to not ask his opinion, advice, or permission, if I were to take on certain responsibilities that affected his life.
Just today I encountered a discussion with a believer, who adheres to "orthodox Christianity". He was raised a Pentecostal, but thinks that Pentecostals do not understand or believe in "real righteousness". While I agree that theological explaination cannot be separated from "real reality", neither can "real reality" in creating "real righteousness" be separated from one's personal history. I further questioned him on why he thought there was anything "special" about religious training, as training for character is done in secular environments and not just religious ones.
Relationship is built on trust, from the cradle to the grave. Trust is learned in the cradle when the infant's needs are met and the toddler's questions are patiently answered. Trust is built as the teen learns to expand their horizons and explore the world a little further from home. But, adults understand trust to be about living life within a context of social contract.
Social contract is an understanding that although we are individuals, we do not live alone and separated from the greater world. We live our lives within many contexts that underline "who we are". Our identities are written in the contexts we commit to. Adults do not have to be defined by the contexts of their upbringing.
This particular person is a highly educated and personable who believes in supernaturalism. I felt frustrated over his seeming inability to understand where I was coming from. He had stated that we all have dogmatics that we "live by". And he proceeded to talk about postmodernity and narrative.,the Church being the ultimate universal. He spoke of "community", that sounded uptopian to me. When I tried to point out that all social organizations "run" in similar ways, he kept holding to a "higher spiritual view". Definitions of boundary are what identifies the groups "form" and structures the organization's values. These are not universal, but specified and are committed to by individuals who want association with the group. This commitment is a commitment of choice and value. It is a commitment of faith, which is the "social contract". And the social contract must be built upon the foundation of 'good will" and "good intention".
But, what if there has been a history of "ill will" or a breaking of trust? What then? Is one called to just "take a leap" without understanding or reasonableness? I think this would be the height of naivete'. One must trust what one commits to, otherwise, it is an unhealthy relationship.
Just today I encountered a discussion with a believer, who adheres to "orthodox Christianity". He was raised a Pentecostal, but thinks that Pentecostals do not understand or believe in "real righteousness". While I agree that theological explaination cannot be separated from "real reality", neither can "real reality" in creating "real righteousness" be separated from one's personal history. I further questioned him on why he thought there was anything "special" about religious training, as training for character is done in secular environments and not just religious ones.
Relationship is built on trust, from the cradle to the grave. Trust is learned in the cradle when the infant's needs are met and the toddler's questions are patiently answered. Trust is built as the teen learns to expand their horizons and explore the world a little further from home. But, adults understand trust to be about living life within a context of social contract.
Social contract is an understanding that although we are individuals, we do not live alone and separated from the greater world. We live our lives within many contexts that underline "who we are". Our identities are written in the contexts we commit to. Adults do not have to be defined by the contexts of their upbringing.
This particular person is a highly educated and personable who believes in supernaturalism. I felt frustrated over his seeming inability to understand where I was coming from. He had stated that we all have dogmatics that we "live by". And he proceeded to talk about postmodernity and narrative.,the Church being the ultimate universal. He spoke of "community", that sounded uptopian to me. When I tried to point out that all social organizations "run" in similar ways, he kept holding to a "higher spiritual view". Definitions of boundary are what identifies the groups "form" and structures the organization's values. These are not universal, but specified and are committed to by individuals who want association with the group. This commitment is a commitment of choice and value. It is a commitment of faith, which is the "social contract". And the social contract must be built upon the foundation of 'good will" and "good intention".
But, what if there has been a history of "ill will" or a breaking of trust? What then? Is one called to just "take a leap" without understanding or reasonableness? I think this would be the height of naivete'. One must trust what one commits to, otherwise, it is an unhealthy relationship.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Questions About Trust
This morning while checking my e-mail, I had gotten a comment on the "A Few Good Men" entry. In responsing to the comment, I suggested that although support systems were important for the young lawyer to pursue justice, that trust was the foundation of receiving the support. That got me thinking...
Trust is earned by someone's belief in what you do, or who you are. Trust cannot be manipulated, as trust is about relationship. Trust is about understanding and accountability. One does not listen to those who have abused, misused, or disregarded the relationship. Relationship has to be mutually edifying for it to be healthy.
Mutuality in relationship is about allowing differences, respecting rights, supporting opportunities, and giving hope. It is the social contract, where there is equal respect and regard for another's life and values.
In all relationships, there is a give and take, at least if there is healthy mutuality. Hierarchal forms of relationship can be healthy as long as there is also respect and encouragement from "both ends", not a demand to rights, but a trust that there will be "a right". Respect is foremost in regards to trust in relationship.
I find that when workers felt their rights were being abused that they sought recourse in just compensation for their work. One wonders now, what just compensation means, when those in other countries will do the work for less. Cultural living standards differ, and the American worker is disadvantaged by his own culture's standard, which has become his own.
While the worker had sought rights and won "justice", the executive has used his power to exploit and use his position and power to maintain even a higher standard of living. There seemed to be an attitude of entitlement on both ends, which built resentment and a lack of mutual respect and trust. Outsourcing jobs was a means to make more profit for the executive to "look good" and to exploit the system he had created, and benefit the stock holders, while the worker's right to work was devalued and undermined., creating an esculating environment between the worker and the boss.
I do not know the solution, but I do know that our globalized economy has exasperated the problems in corporate and private interests. Now, the government gets involved, which compounds the problem and creates a quadmire of beauraucracy that is hard to hold accountable. The citizen cannot be informed because it takes a legal mind to understand. And sometimes I think this is a convienient way to enlarge one's pockets of interests.
There is not to be a separation between a public servant's job and the private citizen's right to know, which is what the "tea parties" have sought to "voice". This is a "voice" for public good and social justice, but there are other "voices" that do not need respect. These are the attitudes of the Taliban or the antagonist. One can have convictions or opinions without oppressing another or demanding that the other agree and behave accordingly. Sometimes when difference is too large to bridge, it is best to allow room, so disagreement and tension is dispelled.
In international relations, negotiation and diplomacy is a tedious job. Cultural divides become widened whenever religions dominant opinions, ideas and convictions. Religion can be dangerous because the religious believe that their view hold "ultimate truth or value" and to disregard it, is to disregard God. The fundamentally inclined do not trust those who do not regard God as the foremost object of desire and focus. It is difficult to negotiate with those whose opinions are underwritten by "god himself".
I find that the religious are the hardest and the most difficult to broaden and engage in "public ways", as the walls are built too high. They feel that the very definition of themselves as religious is threatened by engaging the "secular" world. Trust in life, itself, is not a value to these religious "idealists". They find their comfort in the "next world", where they are promised justice.
Justice should be sought in the here and now, as that is all we really know and have. And American government seeks justice in the here and now in seeking to establish democracy abroad.
Trust is earned by someone's belief in what you do, or who you are. Trust cannot be manipulated, as trust is about relationship. Trust is about understanding and accountability. One does not listen to those who have abused, misused, or disregarded the relationship. Relationship has to be mutually edifying for it to be healthy.
Mutuality in relationship is about allowing differences, respecting rights, supporting opportunities, and giving hope. It is the social contract, where there is equal respect and regard for another's life and values.
In all relationships, there is a give and take, at least if there is healthy mutuality. Hierarchal forms of relationship can be healthy as long as there is also respect and encouragement from "both ends", not a demand to rights, but a trust that there will be "a right". Respect is foremost in regards to trust in relationship.
I find that when workers felt their rights were being abused that they sought recourse in just compensation for their work. One wonders now, what just compensation means, when those in other countries will do the work for less. Cultural living standards differ, and the American worker is disadvantaged by his own culture's standard, which has become his own.
While the worker had sought rights and won "justice", the executive has used his power to exploit and use his position and power to maintain even a higher standard of living. There seemed to be an attitude of entitlement on both ends, which built resentment and a lack of mutual respect and trust. Outsourcing jobs was a means to make more profit for the executive to "look good" and to exploit the system he had created, and benefit the stock holders, while the worker's right to work was devalued and undermined., creating an esculating environment between the worker and the boss.
I do not know the solution, but I do know that our globalized economy has exasperated the problems in corporate and private interests. Now, the government gets involved, which compounds the problem and creates a quadmire of beauraucracy that is hard to hold accountable. The citizen cannot be informed because it takes a legal mind to understand. And sometimes I think this is a convienient way to enlarge one's pockets of interests.
There is not to be a separation between a public servant's job and the private citizen's right to know, which is what the "tea parties" have sought to "voice". This is a "voice" for public good and social justice, but there are other "voices" that do not need respect. These are the attitudes of the Taliban or the antagonist. One can have convictions or opinions without oppressing another or demanding that the other agree and behave accordingly. Sometimes when difference is too large to bridge, it is best to allow room, so disagreement and tension is dispelled.
In international relations, negotiation and diplomacy is a tedious job. Cultural divides become widened whenever religions dominant opinions, ideas and convictions. Religion can be dangerous because the religious believe that their view hold "ultimate truth or value" and to disregard it, is to disregard God. The fundamentally inclined do not trust those who do not regard God as the foremost object of desire and focus. It is difficult to negotiate with those whose opinions are underwritten by "god himself".
I find that the religious are the hardest and the most difficult to broaden and engage in "public ways", as the walls are built too high. They feel that the very definition of themselves as religious is threatened by engaging the "secular" world. Trust in life, itself, is not a value to these religious "idealists". They find their comfort in the "next world", where they are promised justice.
Justice should be sought in the here and now, as that is all we really know and have. And American government seeks justice in the here and now in seeking to establish democracy abroad.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Senator Judd Gregg Appears Tonight on TV
Senator Judd Gregg was on TV tonight. He has turned down Obama for the Secretary of Commerce. He said he turned down the position after he considered his commitment to fisical conservatism. He did not think that this administration was on the "same page" and he thought that he would not have much to offer because of these differences. Hurray for him, for having the integrity to stick by his convictions and not compromise his beliefs! And then, to state them so emphatically on TV.
The U.S. debt is to reach 1.7 trillion dollars, which will hinder our next generation and generations to come. I think that Sen. Gregg was acting responsibly because he remained true to his values and personal commitments. More politicians should do the same.
I wonder how the 'greater good" people would have seen or argued against his individual commitment to his own values at the expense of the adminstration's. Some in blogosphere have been writing against individualism and independence. I find that this thinking is very misguided, as it leads to brainlessness. Independence and individualism doesn't have to mean rebellion or revolution, but some suppose that those who resist, rather than submit are obviously rebellious. Perhaps so.
I am not arguing against social structures or our needs for them, as all of us need context, but I am arguing against depending on them to the extent of giving up one's own values or identity. Ethics is an evaluation of values. And those who argue against the individual are suggesting that "suspending the ethical" is what is for the "best" or the "greater good". How can this be?
These bloggers used Abraham as the suggested "model" of right behavior. These bloggers suggest that faith is "leaping against reason", in sacrificing Issac. Not only is this not reasonable, but it is presumptuous.
The sacrifice of Issac is understood theologically as symbolic representation of the redemption of Jesus. And it is suggested by some that it is a "model" to "test" for "absolute surrender", as Issac was the Promise of god to Abraham, and yet, Abrahma was willing the sacrifice his promised son to prove his obedience at all costs. This was a test for idolatry of heart, at least this is the theologian's interpretation.
The aforementioned theological interpretation is not written in the text, but is interpreted by the NT theologizing. It is not the ethical that God demands, but the outrageously "abnormal". This is considered true spirituality, going against reason, jumping in the dark, taking a leap of faith, etc.
This is not a realistic view of life. Take Senator Gregg, for instance, if he suspended his rational judgment and took a leap of faith, then he would have taken the position Obama offered him, irregardless of Obama's ideological differences. He would have understood that to "walk by faith" would be the "costs" of setting aside his fisical convictions, as these are reasoned, and in opposition to "faith" in taking a risk on his "leader's views". This is the major implication of the Abrahamic story, that the "Leader" is to be trusted. The leader spiritually is Jesus, but in reality, the leader is whoever is in power in the real world.
I would much rather do my business with people who are rational and reasonable, that do not ask for blind allegiance because, then you can understand and converse over the rationale of their propositions. People who do business based on "leaps of faith" have no rationale, as it is pure speculation and risk. And the Christian risk-taker calls it "God's will", even though there is no speicific plan. I think this is downright prsumptuous. Of course, this is my personal conviction....
The U.S. debt is to reach 1.7 trillion dollars, which will hinder our next generation and generations to come. I think that Sen. Gregg was acting responsibly because he remained true to his values and personal commitments. More politicians should do the same.
I wonder how the 'greater good" people would have seen or argued against his individual commitment to his own values at the expense of the adminstration's. Some in blogosphere have been writing against individualism and independence. I find that this thinking is very misguided, as it leads to brainlessness. Independence and individualism doesn't have to mean rebellion or revolution, but some suppose that those who resist, rather than submit are obviously rebellious. Perhaps so.
I am not arguing against social structures or our needs for them, as all of us need context, but I am arguing against depending on them to the extent of giving up one's own values or identity. Ethics is an evaluation of values. And those who argue against the individual are suggesting that "suspending the ethical" is what is for the "best" or the "greater good". How can this be?
These bloggers used Abraham as the suggested "model" of right behavior. These bloggers suggest that faith is "leaping against reason", in sacrificing Issac. Not only is this not reasonable, but it is presumptuous.
The sacrifice of Issac is understood theologically as symbolic representation of the redemption of Jesus. And it is suggested by some that it is a "model" to "test" for "absolute surrender", as Issac was the Promise of god to Abraham, and yet, Abrahma was willing the sacrifice his promised son to prove his obedience at all costs. This was a test for idolatry of heart, at least this is the theologian's interpretation.
The aforementioned theological interpretation is not written in the text, but is interpreted by the NT theologizing. It is not the ethical that God demands, but the outrageously "abnormal". This is considered true spirituality, going against reason, jumping in the dark, taking a leap of faith, etc.
This is not a realistic view of life. Take Senator Gregg, for instance, if he suspended his rational judgment and took a leap of faith, then he would have taken the position Obama offered him, irregardless of Obama's ideological differences. He would have understood that to "walk by faith" would be the "costs" of setting aside his fisical convictions, as these are reasoned, and in opposition to "faith" in taking a risk on his "leader's views". This is the major implication of the Abrahamic story, that the "Leader" is to be trusted. The leader spiritually is Jesus, but in reality, the leader is whoever is in power in the real world.
I would much rather do my business with people who are rational and reasonable, that do not ask for blind allegiance because, then you can understand and converse over the rationale of their propositions. People who do business based on "leaps of faith" have no rationale, as it is pure speculation and risk. And the Christian risk-taker calls it "God's will", even though there is no speicific plan. I think this is downright prsumptuous. Of course, this is my personal conviction....
Friday, February 6, 2009
My Hairdresser is an Episcopol Deputy!
This morning my hairdresser called. In our conversation, he mentioned that he has been chosen to be a deputy in the Episcopol Church! I was elated to hear his joy! And I was intrigued about this "Congressional role". He has been sharing a little all along with me, although I don't see him but ever couple of months. But, here he is, a hairdresser and a deputy along with a theologian from Notre Dame, a lawyer and others. What an exciting opportunity for him. And what an "ideal" of mine. Inclusion.
But, this is where I guess my own faith is too weak to believe that something so great would happen to me. I told him that whenever I have trusted, as if God intervened in this life, I had ended up "naked and alone". So, I have my reservations about that kind of trust, anymore. My husband believes that God deals with us differently. I just don't know. Risk seems to be in whatever I choose to do, so it is not about "character" in taking chances, and "leaping out into the dark". And maybe I have given up hope. I haven't given up on life, though, as I am grateful for life, and all that is "mine". And I am still thankful to God, as the Giver, although, I'm not quite sure I know how he has given. I am still in process as to understanding "theological" ways of seeing...I am just walking out my life with a heart of gratefulness.
But, this is where I guess my own faith is too weak to believe that something so great would happen to me. I told him that whenever I have trusted, as if God intervened in this life, I had ended up "naked and alone". So, I have my reservations about that kind of trust, anymore. My husband believes that God deals with us differently. I just don't know. Risk seems to be in whatever I choose to do, so it is not about "character" in taking chances, and "leaping out into the dark". And maybe I have given up hope. I haven't given up on life, though, as I am grateful for life, and all that is "mine". And I am still thankful to God, as the Giver, although, I'm not quite sure I know how he has given. I am still in process as to understanding "theological" ways of seeing...I am just walking out my life with a heart of gratefulness.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Today's Thoughts on Relationships and Character
Today, I went to a friend's house to care for a child. We had agreed that I would come to her house around 3pm. Before the time arrived, my son and his finace' came over to visit. As I had not seen them in awhile, I was busy engaging in all of the plans for their upcoming wedding, when I realized that it was a little past 3. I called my friend to explain what had happened and that the time had slipped up on me. I asked if it would be okay to come around 4, which she agreed to.
As I was driving to her house, I was thinking about keeping promises, being dependable, and other such things that make for trust, which drew my mind to character.
I mulled over what constitutes good character and whether or not I had met the "standard" by calling my friend and explaining myself and basically asking for "grace".
I was giving her grace by going to relieve her in the first place. But, that still did not negate my responsibility, as I had an agreement, not in writing, but in verbal form. Because we are friends, I knew she would understand and it would not impune my character. Extraneous circumstances and specific characteristics of people and situations always are elements that can make a simple verbal agreement, complicated. If one is looking for a certain response that is the measure of character, then it is not based on relationship, but on "standards" of expectation, which may or may not say anything about character. My friend fortunately did not think any less of me for calling and explaining, nor for asking for grace, as it concerned her need.
I find that this is what good relationships are about, while formal contracts are based not on personal relationship, but on legal terms to protect interests of the parties involved. The law is the law. The law breaks down the relationship to duty, responsibility, obligation, and such kind, while relationships are bound by strings of commitment out of love, desire, choice, and respect. The law demands, while the relationship does not.
Then, I started thinking about how these two ways of responding are different types of human response in the world. The law defines and protects boundaries, which protects the value and interest of the other party, while relationship cares about the person, as an individual. The law is a way to engage another, as a human, deserving of equal respect, as the person in the contractual relationship, while relationship is a way to engage another on a personal level.
The law defines where individual's or separate parties are divided and then seeks to rectify the differences. This is how divorce cases work. It cannot make the other person stay in the relationship. It is only when both parties agree that the contract can be made negotiating the interests of both parties. This is a legal relationship, which binds the parties together, but does not make the parties committed to each other in any way, other than obligation, or duty. This is not love, but it is respect from afar.
In moral development responding out of fear is the lowest level of moral development. It would have been absurd for me to abruptly leave my son and his fiance' because I feared what my friend might think or do. I would not have been in proper relationship to her, nor would it say much about the trust and respect she had earned in our relationship, either.
Fear means that trust is broken, and one who responds out of fear of punishment in spite of a lack of trust is acting inapropriately, as relationship is first and foremost about trust and character. Trust is about experience with a person, in knowing their dependable reactions, and responses to situations. It is knowing the character of another and knowing that the character can be trusted and will at least act in an ethical way.
Whenever there is a change in the actions or attitudes of another, then there is pause for trust. Questions concerning the other's change need evaluation. This is only common sense. A lack of trust is the only human and healthy thing to do. Otherwise, there will be abuse to oneself, and an enabling of another. Love would consider why, not just that, another has changed and seek to understand. The law would not care.
As I was driving to her house, I was thinking about keeping promises, being dependable, and other such things that make for trust, which drew my mind to character.
I mulled over what constitutes good character and whether or not I had met the "standard" by calling my friend and explaining myself and basically asking for "grace".
I was giving her grace by going to relieve her in the first place. But, that still did not negate my responsibility, as I had an agreement, not in writing, but in verbal form. Because we are friends, I knew she would understand and it would not impune my character. Extraneous circumstances and specific characteristics of people and situations always are elements that can make a simple verbal agreement, complicated. If one is looking for a certain response that is the measure of character, then it is not based on relationship, but on "standards" of expectation, which may or may not say anything about character. My friend fortunately did not think any less of me for calling and explaining, nor for asking for grace, as it concerned her need.
I find that this is what good relationships are about, while formal contracts are based not on personal relationship, but on legal terms to protect interests of the parties involved. The law is the law. The law breaks down the relationship to duty, responsibility, obligation, and such kind, while relationships are bound by strings of commitment out of love, desire, choice, and respect. The law demands, while the relationship does not.
Then, I started thinking about how these two ways of responding are different types of human response in the world. The law defines and protects boundaries, which protects the value and interest of the other party, while relationship cares about the person, as an individual. The law is a way to engage another, as a human, deserving of equal respect, as the person in the contractual relationship, while relationship is a way to engage another on a personal level.
The law defines where individual's or separate parties are divided and then seeks to rectify the differences. This is how divorce cases work. It cannot make the other person stay in the relationship. It is only when both parties agree that the contract can be made negotiating the interests of both parties. This is a legal relationship, which binds the parties together, but does not make the parties committed to each other in any way, other than obligation, or duty. This is not love, but it is respect from afar.
In moral development responding out of fear is the lowest level of moral development. It would have been absurd for me to abruptly leave my son and his fiance' because I feared what my friend might think or do. I would not have been in proper relationship to her, nor would it say much about the trust and respect she had earned in our relationship, either.
Fear means that trust is broken, and one who responds out of fear of punishment in spite of a lack of trust is acting inapropriately, as relationship is first and foremost about trust and character. Trust is about experience with a person, in knowing their dependable reactions, and responses to situations. It is knowing the character of another and knowing that the character can be trusted and will at least act in an ethical way.
Whenever there is a change in the actions or attitudes of another, then there is pause for trust. Questions concerning the other's change need evaluation. This is only common sense. A lack of trust is the only human and healthy thing to do. Otherwise, there will be abuse to oneself, and an enabling of another. Love would consider why, not just that, another has changed and seek to understand. The law would not care.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Trust is....
Trust is first and foremost to be built in any relationship. It should not be given with disregard for boundaries of self or other. The other may not want to hear your dirty laundry or how you really feel today. I haven't always understood this, as I had thought that the Church was a place where people were commanded to love you. That meant that I could be free and close to all. How much of a child I was!
Trust is the food that feeds the relationship. Someone who has shown over time their commitment to you and your value, is someone that is dependable. These friends will not use or abuse you. Communication can be open and honest and love can begin to grow.
Trust continues to grow as more is shared about one's life and the relationship deepens. Love continues also to deepen.
If trust is broken there has to be an avenue for trust to be re-gained. But, sometimes trust cannot be given, as the other is not dependable, respectful, or desirous of a mutuality in relationship.
I find that relationships that are built on a deep trust that is built over time are relationships that are a special blessing and a rare find. For those who have the blessing of having a relationship such as this, tell that person(s) today what they mean to you. And be thankful!
Trust is the food that feeds the relationship. Someone who has shown over time their commitment to you and your value, is someone that is dependable. These friends will not use or abuse you. Communication can be open and honest and love can begin to grow.
Trust continues to grow as more is shared about one's life and the relationship deepens. Love continues also to deepen.
If trust is broken there has to be an avenue for trust to be re-gained. But, sometimes trust cannot be given, as the other is not dependable, respectful, or desirous of a mutuality in relationship.
I find that relationships that are built on a deep trust that is built over time are relationships that are a special blessing and a rare find. For those who have the blessing of having a relationship such as this, tell that person(s) today what they mean to you. And be thankful!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
A Childish Faith Births a Faithful Skeptic
I used to believe in fairy tales that there was a prince that would come and take me away to a fairy land to live happily ever after. But, life is more tragic than a child's imaginings. We are not protected by God and there are no supernatural interventions, at least in my life. That does not mean that I don't believe that blessings are from God, as all things are blessings. But, to me, to assume in a supernatural intervention and presume upon that in plans is presumptuous. David prayed that God would keep him from presumptuous sins. Presumption is taking things into one's own hands. Faith is much more like my husband's life of quiet trust, a lack of worry, fear and anxiety. He believes that things will work out. Unfortunately, for me my grandmother used to tell me that all the time (usually during periods of tragedy). But, life did not work out as my heart desired. So, I don't believe that things work out. I used to.
When I came to faith, I understood it to be the best news on earth, because I didn't have to perform, because God loved me like I was. That meant that I was loveable, and since I'd neve felt loveable all my life, this was exciting for me. In fact, I thought that my identification with Christ's death was good news. Why? Because I hated myself so much that this was an easy emotional suicide of 'self". This way a better person could live, Christ. I practiced my faith and continued to believe irregardless of any trial that this was the way of learning how to be holy and like Christ. I was crucifying my flesh, so that Christ could live in me. But, what I came to experienc in the end was an annihlation of my very identity and self. This is not good news, as it leaves no person and no sense of personhood or boundaries, which are a healthy necessity for personal identity and a healthy sense of self. So, lately, whenever I hear of "dying to self", "being crucified with Christ", etc. It has connotations for me of an emotional pain that I cannot describe. This is not healthy Christian faith. And those who believe that I am only protecting myself are unfortunately, misguided, as whenever someone has no sense of "self' there is a tendency for others to trample boundaries that must be maintained. This is a healthy self-respect and regard. It is not selfhishness, as I had always thought and had practiced denying myself in this regard. Sometimes, those like me with little of no identity attach to a religious identity to bulwark a lack of development. Recently, I have come to recognize that boundary maintenance is a discipline that I must practice, just as much as those who are presumptuous must practice self-control.
Now, my faith is tattered, worn, faltering at times, wondering for a reason, and thinking about a faith that has died and birthed a critical doubt, sometimes skepticism,. The death of my previous faith breeds anger at those who propose a simplistic faith and trust, and a grief and self-recrimination over being so naive and gullible. This is a place of learning about myself, my values, my friends, my family, and my own sense of self identity. It is a place of growth and a place of faith, nonetheless.
When I came to faith, I understood it to be the best news on earth, because I didn't have to perform, because God loved me like I was. That meant that I was loveable, and since I'd neve felt loveable all my life, this was exciting for me. In fact, I thought that my identification with Christ's death was good news. Why? Because I hated myself so much that this was an easy emotional suicide of 'self". This way a better person could live, Christ. I practiced my faith and continued to believe irregardless of any trial that this was the way of learning how to be holy and like Christ. I was crucifying my flesh, so that Christ could live in me. But, what I came to experienc in the end was an annihlation of my very identity and self. This is not good news, as it leaves no person and no sense of personhood or boundaries, which are a healthy necessity for personal identity and a healthy sense of self. So, lately, whenever I hear of "dying to self", "being crucified with Christ", etc. It has connotations for me of an emotional pain that I cannot describe. This is not healthy Christian faith. And those who believe that I am only protecting myself are unfortunately, misguided, as whenever someone has no sense of "self' there is a tendency for others to trample boundaries that must be maintained. This is a healthy self-respect and regard. It is not selfhishness, as I had always thought and had practiced denying myself in this regard. Sometimes, those like me with little of no identity attach to a religious identity to bulwark a lack of development. Recently, I have come to recognize that boundary maintenance is a discipline that I must practice, just as much as those who are presumptuous must practice self-control.
Now, my faith is tattered, worn, faltering at times, wondering for a reason, and thinking about a faith that has died and birthed a critical doubt, sometimes skepticism,. The death of my previous faith breeds anger at those who propose a simplistic faith and trust, and a grief and self-recrimination over being so naive and gullible. This is a place of learning about myself, my values, my friends, my family, and my own sense of self identity. It is a place of growth and a place of faith, nonetheless.
Monday, October 13, 2008
The Trinity, God, and the Function of Roles
I found it a little irritating that there was a discussion at Trinity Evangelical about the roles of the Trinity. The discussion was about whether the Son eternally submits to the Father. This view is a complementarian view that would influence how one views male and female roles and functions. Don't people go to great extremes to give credence to what they believe and with not verifiability to boot?
Why do we find that it is necessary to have an authority behind our opinion? Why do we think that a rationale based on our own personal conviction and reasonable explaination is not enough? Who do we want to influence to see our side of the debate and for what reason? Do we really think that some things even matter? How important are the things that we are debating? Some, I'm sure, believe that the eternal destiny of the soul is at stake. I am sorry for them.
Practical matters such as public policy, economics, government, education, national security, international relations, etc. are much more important to be informed about and to discuss because they matter in this life. We don't know about the next life, we only have a belief, that is unprovable.
I remember a time when I was so certain that what I believed was truth for all people and without their coming to understand my way of thinking, people would perish and die without God. I was passionate and committed. But, itis is not a life of rest and peace, but one filled with the responsibility for the world's salvation. The most important aspect on anyone's life was the spiritual, to the extent of denying what the real world even meant. This frame of mind is unhealthy. If God is God, and we are responsible, then I find that being responsible within our own "worlds" is all that one needs to be concerned with. We are not called to take the whole world on, but be faithful in the little that is before us.
I am not interested in Christian faith, but faith, for I believe that God does not see the kind of faith, just the trust of faith. The trust of faith is not some "jump over the moon" to prove one's faith, but a quiet rest of "what is" and a "patient diligence" in the present about what is in front of you. Great visions are not necessary, for it is the widow's mite and the prostitute's worship that meant more to God than all the Pharisees and Sadducees did all together! I find that it is in being and affirming life for oneself and others that one finds life.
So, it is not about the Trinity, or God, or the functions and roles of male and female, but a response to the grace that is given in life in the present
Why do we find that it is necessary to have an authority behind our opinion? Why do we think that a rationale based on our own personal conviction and reasonable explaination is not enough? Who do we want to influence to see our side of the debate and for what reason? Do we really think that some things even matter? How important are the things that we are debating? Some, I'm sure, believe that the eternal destiny of the soul is at stake. I am sorry for them.
Practical matters such as public policy, economics, government, education, national security, international relations, etc. are much more important to be informed about and to discuss because they matter in this life. We don't know about the next life, we only have a belief, that is unprovable.
I remember a time when I was so certain that what I believed was truth for all people and without their coming to understand my way of thinking, people would perish and die without God. I was passionate and committed. But, itis is not a life of rest and peace, but one filled with the responsibility for the world's salvation. The most important aspect on anyone's life was the spiritual, to the extent of denying what the real world even meant. This frame of mind is unhealthy. If God is God, and we are responsible, then I find that being responsible within our own "worlds" is all that one needs to be concerned with. We are not called to take the whole world on, but be faithful in the little that is before us.
I am not interested in Christian faith, but faith, for I believe that God does not see the kind of faith, just the trust of faith. The trust of faith is not some "jump over the moon" to prove one's faith, but a quiet rest of "what is" and a "patient diligence" in the present about what is in front of you. Great visions are not necessary, for it is the widow's mite and the prostitute's worship that meant more to God than all the Pharisees and Sadducees did all together! I find that it is in being and affirming life for oneself and others that one finds life.
So, it is not about the Trinity, or God, or the functions and roles of male and female, but a response to the grace that is given in life in the present
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
