It is my belief and my modus operandi that all ideas, thoughts, works, reflections what have you are open for discourse. What that means is that I might share something, you might disagree and share something else and I don't have to agree with you but we can both discuss what we think. Hopefully, it is an edifying process where I learn more about where you are coming from, but that doesn't necessarily change what I think and vice versa. I think more discourse, maybe i should add the quantifier constructive, more constructive discourse is needed in the world. More articulation of thoughts, more critical thinking about issues and less accepting of everything at face value. Hence, why I tend to be a critic and cynic, skeptical, contrary, devil's advocate, and what have you. Because I want issues pressed further and deeper. I want to think something is well thought out and that the pluses and minuses, the pros and cons have been taken into account and thought has been given to the consequences. And in my rationale, if I offer a little resistance to an idea, if it is a solid idea, it should hold. And it goes both ways. I completely expect people to dissect what I say and offer a different point of view, a challenge if you will, so that I too am pressed as to the depthness of which I have thought about what I've said. It's some type of learning and I think there is not enough of it in the world, especially with regards to christian and american culture.
All that said, I am going to enter into critic mode and pick apart the articles on the all saints blog, because I don't necessarily disagree with them, but find it promoting hyper-spirituality that while is great for monks and ascetics, isn't as loving of your neighbor in community as I think Christians in the real world need to be. Why? Because it focuses on self over community which makes it no different from yoga, other eastern meditative practices, Buddhism, and any other religion that elevates self awareness and the mystical self to a higher level. Let me explain.
My first year of college I read "utmost for his highest' everyday as a supplement to my devotions. Boy, did I love it. I lived in the hyper spiritual cloud that gave me so much inner peace and strength and awareness of the spiritual world. I zoomed through my first year, thinking I was so close to God, doing his will, oh everything is amazing. It was a great high. And then after most of the year had passed, I realized that the cloud took me out of reality too much and that I didn't have my feet on the ground. I wasn't embedded into community or relationships as much as I wanted to be. The disconnect was the barrier of hyper spirituality, where I would turn the other cheek, not let anything bother me, and just do my own thing and follow God. While great for emotional well being, it wasn't so great at the end when I realized I wasn't in the grit and grind with everybody else, and I wanted to be. Iron sharpening iron, confronting others in love and getting to know them on a real level, learning from them and vice versa. I needed to find balance to this hyper-spiritualism I devoted myself with some concrete reality/humanity. Moderation was the key and I ditched "utmost" knowing i would be a way more effective Christian, if I wasn't a "holier than thou" sort of person. I need to be more real, more ugly, more who I was, sin and all. Not an ascetic or a mystic.
Graduating and working, only confirmed my call to be in the physical concrete present- not the mystical spiritual realm. Courageous conversations where my colleagues called me out on stuff and I in turn shared what was going on with me, grievances or otherwise were influential and productive in my life. I experienced growth and matured through those confrontations. I also, weirdly enough, felt loved, important, cared for. The power of neighborly love in oh my goodness, a secular environment more than I had ever in a Christian environment as a result of people calling me out on things. And I really believe it is because courageous conversations, courageous confrontations where you address resentments, address issues are more loving and more effective and more the gospel than turning the other cheek when living in community.
Turning the other cheek is for non equal power structures where there is a strong dominant maybe oppressive authority wronging a weaker party. When the playing ground is equal, and should be equal for most of us Americans, in our neighborhoods, communities, church, friends, family (though maybe not), then I think the answer to "Don't resent, don't react, have inner stillness" is "share issues through a somewhat confrontation, but frank and honest and courageous conversation. Give the person the opportunity to speak up for themselves and apologize. Sharpen each other like iron sharpens iron." I think that builds community and love and peace way more than this inner mantra stuff.
Granted, I've done that inner mantra stuff and strove for inner stillness and peace and self examination. Now I am onto another step of loving your neighbor: confronting them in love. I am horrible at this step and will probably not reach nirvana or a satisfactory in it anytime soon, but I know that it has power and is more healing than this eastern 'let it go' stuff.
And here is why i think courageous conversations are more godly:
1. You are holding someone accountable and that someone most likely is yourself. By stepping out and saying, hey, what you did here at this specific time, did not sit well with me and I am upset about it. Here's why I am upset:... you respect yourself, hold yourself accountable for your feelings, level the playing field, stick up for yourself, and you are giving yourself the opportunity to sharpen someone else and be sharpened in return.
2. You give the other person a chance to correct the situation, apologize, and you make them aware of their actions. I feel like most conversations- when there isn't a highly defensive person on the receiving end- go something like : "Oh wow. I am so sorry. I apologize for blank blank. I didn't realize that I did that. Thank you for letting me know, I am going to work on that" or "You know you are right. I do do that. I apologize. Please pray for me as I work on that issue."
When there is a highly defensive person on the end, you need to work them through the steps and try to get them to see the fruit of the exercise and that they actually will be a better person for it if they do it (and hopefully, will help dispel some of the fear that causes their defensiveness). If someone starts attacking you, simply stick to the goal of the conversation: "Let's talk about what you are throwing at me later when you have thought it through. Right now, I want to get to the bottom of this conflict. Repeat, I felt this when you did this and I would like you to apologize and be aware of your actions and how they come across. I am asking you to apologize and I am letting you know how I feel about the situation. If you are not at a place to hear me okay. But I need to let you know so that I don't resent you and sin. " and leave it at that (and walk away). hopefully, they will grow up and accept the consequences of their actions, but they may need some time.
3. These types of conversations breed healthy intimacy, honesty, and trust within a community. A person knows where they stand. They have been given an opportunity to level the playing field and issues are out in the open. No breeding inner resentment, because you have addressed the problem head on. There might need to be multiple conversations, bringing in more and more people, like Jesus advised (in Matthew? scripture reference not coming to mind), but you are treating people with respect and dignity and holding people accountable, especially yourself. It gives people dignity and respect because when you share with someone how they've grieved you, you are demonstrating that the relationship you have with them is important and that you are willing to step out and do what it takes to repair it. There's dignity in letting people know the consequences of their actions and giving them a chance to respond to them. It is also an act of love. I love this person enough to hold them accountable for their actions. Who knows, the awkwardness and painfulness of such an interaction is probably a deterrent enough for people to get their act together and be more aware and better behaved.
4. The inner peace stuff holds no one accountable, especially the person with the potential resentment. If an unnecessary thorn in one's side is what is required, okay maybe then it works, but for the most part, I don't think it's good to not act on resentment in a positive way. Also, it does not give people dignity or respect or even neighborly love. It is a solo act that may or may not change the actor, but has no effect on the greater community with regards to building honesty and trust. Great for the person, awful for the community who will still have all the resentment issues to work out one day later in the future... there's a crazy story in some devotional book I have about the self-sacrifice of some sister in an abbey towards another sister that drove her crazy. The book said the first woman died without that other person never knowing how crazy she drove her. It was supposed to be an example of self control, but all I thought was gosh, was it really so hard to confront that person and learn to love them truly? Was it worth holding back honest conversation, continually having to overcome inner resentfulness and becoming a martyr that actually made it seem like you mocked this person? I didn't think so and that is what those posts on "Do not resent" recall to my mind.
In conclusion, I am not against the "do not resent" stuff. There are probably many occasions when it is useful, and it is always best to see for yourself what something does. But, I think when you really want to learn how to love people, learn to have courageous conversations. And see what bridges can be built to be reconciled to your fellow man.
No comments:
Post a Comment