Losing a blessing... ever do this to yourself? This is a 'knowing what you're doing as you do it' scenario, not an after the fact awareness. In this instance, definitely my bad. I was asked for a last minute favor - to do something for someone else, asked by another person. I passed on being available. Could I have done the favor? Yes. Perhaps with some inconvenience, but I really could have. No, it wasn't 'my responsibility'... but it was my opportunity. In a very real way, this is a (Christianity) rubber meeting the road situation.
I am always harping on about how Christianity has to be active, alive, visible, engaged and I didn't even follow my own standard. Did I fail a test? Ummmm... Yes. It's not that I fear punishment, and I'm not even sure it's because I missed receiving a blessing, I think the biggest issue is that didn't follow my own standard. However, an argument could be made that what is at the core is that I disappointed God. Not that He was surprised at what I did, but I did sense disappointment. While I would like to say that I'll never do that again... I try not to use the word - never. My better me says to learn this lesson (yet again) and purpose not to repeat.
And perhaps this is the important point - purposing. Purposing has great value. We read about this 'quality' in Daniel and in 2 Corinthians. Daniel (1:8) tells us that Daniel purposed in his heart that we would follow the Lord and not do what wouldn't be pleasing to Him, regardless of the repercussions. I'm beginning to believe that without a stand to be purposeful, we won't do what we 'should'. The context in 2 Corinthians is talking about giving. The purposing in this case also reflects on attitude. We are to purpose - willingly, joyfully and not grudgingly. Another basis on how to develop our own stand(s) on being purposeful.
Purposing is an intentional mindset. You determine, prior to any visible challenge, that under no circumstance will you do or not do (fill in the blank). It is one of those lines in the sand that will never be crossed. Do you have any? Will you act strong, resolute, and confidently? No finger pointing... only the questions. I do recommend including in your arsenal of attitudes, purposing. It will strengthen you and provide your needed support to act based on your foundation.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
You... out of the equation
Why? Impossible! Seriously, is that even possible - taking ourselves out of the equation? Don't see how. Your filter is you because you, everyone, need to order the stimuli you are facing, ignoring, interacting with... in order to have a reasoned response. You will always be part of your equation, the challenge is how to make all that make sense, especially if you aren't the 'subject' or 'object' of the (fill in the blank). Then again, maybe self-awareness is the filter's filter.? Somehow we all need to put in proper perspective our needs, wants, desires, preferences, etc. with the focus.
When you think about this another moment... why would you even want to eliminate you from your equations? Putting aside the question of whether this would even be possible, why eliminate you? I think the issue really is to put ourselves in context, not as center. It's the 'center-ist' thinking that causes problems. And yes... we do need to consider how the stimuli effects us and then what we want to do with the information, BUT we don't need to place us as the center.
Whether or not we acknowledge and or like it... we all live in the box of our creation. First - that isn't necessarily bad because it gives us a starting point. However, if we reject everything and everyone that doesn't neatly fit into our box then we are doing a disservice to our own personal mindset as well as the object that caused us to disregard it. We all have a need to order our world so that we can make sense of all of the stimuli.
But if all we look at is ourselves then our world is extremely small. You are the filter, granted. But... since we are all fallible then we need to have an expanded view of life, discoveries, people, etc. or we fall into the trap of selfdom (and I realize I'm coining another new word). You are PART of the equation but you need to always look outside the box you've created, to allow yourself to be challenged and to expand the perimeters of your box.
When you think about this another moment... why would you even want to eliminate you from your equations? Putting aside the question of whether this would even be possible, why eliminate you? I think the issue really is to put ourselves in context, not as center. It's the 'center-ist' thinking that causes problems. And yes... we do need to consider how the stimuli effects us and then what we want to do with the information, BUT we don't need to place us as the center.
Whether or not we acknowledge and or like it... we all live in the box of our creation. First - that isn't necessarily bad because it gives us a starting point. However, if we reject everything and everyone that doesn't neatly fit into our box then we are doing a disservice to our own personal mindset as well as the object that caused us to disregard it. We all have a need to order our world so that we can make sense of all of the stimuli.
But if all we look at is ourselves then our world is extremely small. You are the filter, granted. But... since we are all fallible then we need to have an expanded view of life, discoveries, people, etc. or we fall into the trap of selfdom (and I realize I'm coining another new word). You are PART of the equation but you need to always look outside the box you've created, to allow yourself to be challenged and to expand the perimeters of your box.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Understanding... me
Does this look strange and sound ever weirder? Probably. When I heard those words coming out of my mouth, it arrested me too. 'Of course I understand me', was my initial response. 'If I didn't, who would?' I suspect this thinking was triggered by another post I was writing on - "Disappointing yourself". The question I asked me was, when this happens, am I ever surprised? If so, then maybe I really don't fully understand me. What about you?
Who cares? I think we all should be aware about a 'self-understanding'. If we don't then we act based on abandoned-ness. (And if that isn't a word, consider it coined.) Abandon, in this sense is defined as a form of 'wild' (abandon), a lack of knowledge which may or may not be harmful to self and/or others. In this state we really don't learn from our successes and mistakes... we simply spontaneously on. My point is that understanding is critically important - it is a pillar in who we are.
Granted that that last paragraph was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but contrary to what may be believed, understanding... me is something we all do by instinct. To me, instinct isn't enough - we need to be aware and alert. Everyone seems to want to do those (fill in the blank) that enhance who we are and not detract. Understanding... me is part and parcel to this, perhaps even the foundation for 'self-enhancement'.
I would argue that without an understanding of ourselves, we have no basis on which to refine, grow, and become who we are. To me, the first step is understanding - all the whys and whats, and how this is expressed - has to occur before we continue on our journey of self-enhancement. Yes, there are a number of self-defeating 'selves' but these need a context too or there's little chance that change and 'correction' can occur. As I always say... it's our choice, our decision but without understanding - we are doomed to repeating those words and acts that we don't want repeated. This is also a learning that should never be put off till... later.
Who cares? I think we all should be aware about a 'self-understanding'. If we don't then we act based on abandoned-ness. (And if that isn't a word, consider it coined.) Abandon, in this sense is defined as a form of 'wild' (abandon), a lack of knowledge which may or may not be harmful to self and/or others. In this state we really don't learn from our successes and mistakes... we simply spontaneously on. My point is that understanding is critically important - it is a pillar in who we are.
Granted that that last paragraph was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but contrary to what may be believed, understanding... me is something we all do by instinct. To me, instinct isn't enough - we need to be aware and alert. Everyone seems to want to do those (fill in the blank) that enhance who we are and not detract. Understanding... me is part and parcel to this, perhaps even the foundation for 'self-enhancement'.
I would argue that without an understanding of ourselves, we have no basis on which to refine, grow, and become who we are. To me, the first step is understanding - all the whys and whats, and how this is expressed - has to occur before we continue on our journey of self-enhancement. Yes, there are a number of self-defeating 'selves' but these need a context too or there's little chance that change and 'correction' can occur. As I always say... it's our choice, our decision but without understanding - we are doomed to repeating those words and acts that we don't want repeated. This is also a learning that should never be put off till... later.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Life... through the filter of Me
Actually, this is
true of everyone. We all see and react and interrelated with the world we live in through
the filter called - Me. Logically one could ask how else could we respond? The
following question could be - is that so bad? The answer to the last question
is - it depends. But before responding to this, you need a clear understanding
of what the ' Me filter' is.
I would suggest that our filter is a combination of our learnings, preferences that have been the result of our experience, what we have learned whether by book, trial and error, and/or 'life defining' moments and our subsequent personal application. All of those forces determine how we respond to whatever stimuli is presented. Often though, we fall back on experience as our primary filter - consciously and not. None of what I've said is condemning nor critical it just is our way of reacting or responding by ordering our world.
I can't speak for you but I find myself at life changing points of decisions every so often. These are the decisions I KNOW are life changing. Sometimes I recognize them at the moment and sometimes it's only after the fact that I can see the life change. There is a whole grist of decisions that occur but I'm only aware after the fact that they did have a significant and life changing impact. As to the 'speed' of decision-making, sometimes I had a bit of cogitating time and sometimes the decisions were 'on the fly'.
My point in all of this discussion is to help us all recognize that what we do and say IS always through the filter of who we are. And yes, that isn't earth-shattering news, 'everyone knows that'. True. But I'd like to suggest that if this was more of a conscious, critical thinking mindset that we'd all be more sensitive.
If you accept that you speak and act from this foundation and how that foundation was built - you'd have to do the same for the other person. Whether or not you agree isn't as much the point as accepting that what standard you apply to yourself, the other person is applying theirs. Filters are value-less. They are, however, powerful forces.
I would suggest that our filter is a combination of our learnings, preferences that have been the result of our experience, what we have learned whether by book, trial and error, and/or 'life defining' moments and our subsequent personal application. All of those forces determine how we respond to whatever stimuli is presented. Often though, we fall back on experience as our primary filter - consciously and not. None of what I've said is condemning nor critical it just is our way of reacting or responding by ordering our world.
I can't speak for you but I find myself at life changing points of decisions every so often. These are the decisions I KNOW are life changing. Sometimes I recognize them at the moment and sometimes it's only after the fact that I can see the life change. There is a whole grist of decisions that occur but I'm only aware after the fact that they did have a significant and life changing impact. As to the 'speed' of decision-making, sometimes I had a bit of cogitating time and sometimes the decisions were 'on the fly'.
My point in all of this discussion is to help us all recognize that what we do and say IS always through the filter of who we are. And yes, that isn't earth-shattering news, 'everyone knows that'. True. But I'd like to suggest that if this was more of a conscious, critical thinking mindset that we'd all be more sensitive.
If you accept that you speak and act from this foundation and how that foundation was built - you'd have to do the same for the other person. Whether or not you agree isn't as much the point as accepting that what standard you apply to yourself, the other person is applying theirs. Filters are value-less. They are, however, powerful forces.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Freedom of expression
I believe it was Phil Elmore who said:
"Liberals' hatred for freedom of speech, freedom of thought and
freedom of action always expresses itself as terrorism. It is not
enough that they disagree; they must force you to change your mind."
True? I think so. Perhaps it wasn't always, but it does seem to define people who espouse a 'my way or the highway' approach. And for some eerie reason their voices always seem to be the loudest and drown out any differing opinion. Personally, I've never appreciated a mindset that says that my way is the only way, unless it was the Lord's and since I trust Him I will always try to follow Him and then to understand. Actually, the loud voice may be 'right' but sometimes the ability to express a differing view will confirm this or provide a whole new way. It's the freedom of expression that's at issue.
I believe that the entrenched view never allows for discovery of the new or even of refinement. It's almost that intolerance becomes the norm. In the demand, tolerance for one view translates into an intolerance for a different belief. And now the minority opinion becomes the only opinion. Squelching freedom of speech, thought, and action does become the only option. The caveat in demanding YOUR freedom means that you cannot do so at the harm of the opposite view.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the
death your right to say it." Voltaire
I really have always believed that this was our standard in any disagreement or argument. Sadly, this no longer appears to be the method. If I can yell louder than you and continually interrupt what you say then my opinion is the prevailing one. "Come let us reason together..." is not the standard to determine 'truth'.
We all should be allowed not only the freedom but the opportunity to express our beliefs. It is not the 'politically correct' that should dictate what is said. Besides, who is the authority of politically correct? But we have passed into this minefield. Forcing others to accept only your view is definitely a form of terrorism and terrorism leads to anarchy. One of Webster's definitions of anarchy is: 'absence or denial of any authority or established order'. Without God being acknowledged as the Supreme Authority, we do head into anarchy. Man is still fallible.
"Liberals' hatred for freedom of speech, freedom of thought and
freedom of action always expresses itself as terrorism. It is not
enough that they disagree; they must force you to change your mind."
True? I think so. Perhaps it wasn't always, but it does seem to define people who espouse a 'my way or the highway' approach. And for some eerie reason their voices always seem to be the loudest and drown out any differing opinion. Personally, I've never appreciated a mindset that says that my way is the only way, unless it was the Lord's and since I trust Him I will always try to follow Him and then to understand. Actually, the loud voice may be 'right' but sometimes the ability to express a differing view will confirm this or provide a whole new way. It's the freedom of expression that's at issue.
I believe that the entrenched view never allows for discovery of the new or even of refinement. It's almost that intolerance becomes the norm. In the demand, tolerance for one view translates into an intolerance for a different belief. And now the minority opinion becomes the only opinion. Squelching freedom of speech, thought, and action does become the only option. The caveat in demanding YOUR freedom means that you cannot do so at the harm of the opposite view.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the
death your right to say it." Voltaire
I really have always believed that this was our standard in any disagreement or argument. Sadly, this no longer appears to be the method. If I can yell louder than you and continually interrupt what you say then my opinion is the prevailing one. "Come let us reason together..." is not the standard to determine 'truth'.
We all should be allowed not only the freedom but the opportunity to express our beliefs. It is not the 'politically correct' that should dictate what is said. Besides, who is the authority of politically correct? But we have passed into this minefield. Forcing others to accept only your view is definitely a form of terrorism and terrorism leads to anarchy. One of Webster's definitions of anarchy is: 'absence or denial of any authority or established order'. Without God being acknowledged as the Supreme Authority, we do head into anarchy. Man is still fallible.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Loyalty
On Facebook I recently read,
"Loyalty is a privilege, not a right. I don't owe you... but I do
stuff because I care not because I have to. Some people forget that."
Interestingly enough it was spoken by a 'Minion' and the purpose could be multiple reasons - probably humor, but maybe not. What it did for me was to allow me to reconsider 'loyalty'.
How do you define it? Is it an undefined word that means you are loyal to... those you are loyal to? Webster says loyalty is, "the quality or state of being loyal". Personally, I really dislike definitions that define a word by the word - it tells you nothing. So I looked up the root word. Again, Webster - "unswerving in allegiance: as faithful to one's lawful sovereign or government, faithful to a private person to whom fidelity is due, faithful to a cause, ideal, custom institution or product" and, oh yes - showing loyalty.
However it was the descriptive word, faithful, that caught my eye and thinking. And again we need definitions. Because faithful, to me, does not mean blindness and unswerving obedience (unless it is to the Lord, but that's a different subject). Quite honestly, I never believe we should leave common sense out of any equation and I categorically refuse to set my brain on the step before entering. Faithful is an extremely strong word and we really need to know how we define it.
Faithful, the underpinning of loyalty, means I have had sufficient experience with (whomever) that I know they are trustworthy. But people are fallible and don't always choose the best so we can't unilaterally accept everything without knowing what we believe. It may mean that I will give 'them' the benefit of the doubt if I personally don't know (fill in the blank). But I will also be alert especially if I sense a check in my spirit. Being loyal means you are also looking out for the best interest of (whomever) as well. That's why it is always a reasoned faithfulness.
According loyalty, which is what you really do, is a serious step and not to be extended lightly or rashly. I also would maintain that your loyalty is as much for the other person as it is to. This is why we need to be able to be honest as well as faithful. Truth should be our foundation not blanket approval.
"Loyalty is a privilege, not a right. I don't owe you... but I do
stuff because I care not because I have to. Some people forget that."
Interestingly enough it was spoken by a 'Minion' and the purpose could be multiple reasons - probably humor, but maybe not. What it did for me was to allow me to reconsider 'loyalty'.
How do you define it? Is it an undefined word that means you are loyal to... those you are loyal to? Webster says loyalty is, "the quality or state of being loyal". Personally, I really dislike definitions that define a word by the word - it tells you nothing. So I looked up the root word. Again, Webster - "unswerving in allegiance: as faithful to one's lawful sovereign or government, faithful to a private person to whom fidelity is due, faithful to a cause, ideal, custom institution or product" and, oh yes - showing loyalty.
However it was the descriptive word, faithful, that caught my eye and thinking. And again we need definitions. Because faithful, to me, does not mean blindness and unswerving obedience (unless it is to the Lord, but that's a different subject). Quite honestly, I never believe we should leave common sense out of any equation and I categorically refuse to set my brain on the step before entering. Faithful is an extremely strong word and we really need to know how we define it.
Faithful, the underpinning of loyalty, means I have had sufficient experience with (whomever) that I know they are trustworthy. But people are fallible and don't always choose the best so we can't unilaterally accept everything without knowing what we believe. It may mean that I will give 'them' the benefit of the doubt if I personally don't know (fill in the blank). But I will also be alert especially if I sense a check in my spirit. Being loyal means you are also looking out for the best interest of (whomever) as well. That's why it is always a reasoned faithfulness.
According loyalty, which is what you really do, is a serious step and not to be extended lightly or rashly. I also would maintain that your loyalty is as much for the other person as it is to. This is why we need to be able to be honest as well as faithful. Truth should be our foundation not blanket approval.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Complain
So tell me... get you anywhere? Get good results (for you) from complaining? I would suspect that even if we never received positive results from complaining that this wouldn't stop us. Everybody complains... about something, to someone, at some time. Talk about a 'given'! (Ever so slightly tongue-in-cheek.) But the reason we complain... simply self-serving?
Just to make certain we all have the same definition, Webster says: "to say or write that you are unhappy, sick, uncomfortable, etc., or that you do not like something; to say (something that expresses annoyance or unhappiness." One can easily infer from that definition that 'complain' is NOT quiet! It is said - out loud. And it most often is expressed in a voice of unhappiness and/or distress and perhaps a tad whiny. I suspect I could also add that it is typically expressed to whomever will listen whether or not they are directly or indirectly effected, affected, interested, and can do anything to change 'it'.
Why am I even writing about this? To ask you to look at your own behavior (a 'if I have been led to do this, then you should too' pout?) and to ask you to look at how often this marks your communication. Seriously, how often is our conversation marked by some complaint, legitimate or not? And is this the (only) reason we do so - to receive some commiseration? Perhaps. Sometimes it's the mere ability to voice our displeasure that eases the feeling. Not so much that we expect the listener to 'do' something as much as to just listen. I might also suggest that I somehow think that complaining's mate is worry. And what a combination those two are! Worry is distinctly, by definition, something we have absolutely no control over that situation. If we could do something then we would and wouldn't have to worry. Yes?
My point in this discussion is that we really should realize why we are complaining. There really may be a legitimate reason. But... what's our purpose and goal? If it's only 'to say out loud' then we really need to change the content of our communication. It might be a good idea to see if there is a different mode to let the proper people know why we are complaining and also to phrase our complaints in a way that those who do have an ability to effect a change can hear what we're saying. Just a thought...
Just to make certain we all have the same definition, Webster says: "to say or write that you are unhappy, sick, uncomfortable, etc., or that you do not like something; to say (something that expresses annoyance or unhappiness." One can easily infer from that definition that 'complain' is NOT quiet! It is said - out loud. And it most often is expressed in a voice of unhappiness and/or distress and perhaps a tad whiny. I suspect I could also add that it is typically expressed to whomever will listen whether or not they are directly or indirectly effected, affected, interested, and can do anything to change 'it'.
Why am I even writing about this? To ask you to look at your own behavior (a 'if I have been led to do this, then you should too' pout?) and to ask you to look at how often this marks your communication. Seriously, how often is our conversation marked by some complaint, legitimate or not? And is this the (only) reason we do so - to receive some commiseration? Perhaps. Sometimes it's the mere ability to voice our displeasure that eases the feeling. Not so much that we expect the listener to 'do' something as much as to just listen. I might also suggest that I somehow think that complaining's mate is worry. And what a combination those two are! Worry is distinctly, by definition, something we have absolutely no control over that situation. If we could do something then we would and wouldn't have to worry. Yes?
My point in this discussion is that we really should realize why we are complaining. There really may be a legitimate reason. But... what's our purpose and goal? If it's only 'to say out loud' then we really need to change the content of our communication. It might be a good idea to see if there is a different mode to let the proper people know why we are complaining and also to phrase our complaints in a way that those who do have an ability to effect a change can hear what we're saying. Just a thought...
Saturday, May 9, 2015
"I swear...
that the evidence I give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me God." That's what you attest to when you give evidence in a court of law. You give testimony to only what you know from what you've witnessed and heard. The opposing attorney will object if you are asked anything that is speculative or not from your own personal experience. Good standard. Actually, this is the same premise we should all use when we talk.
If what you are talking to another person about is not based on your own experience, does that define gossip? Even if you completely trust your source, does relaying the information about the person being spoken of constitute an 'objection' like the opposing attorney does when the 'evidence' is in question? Perhaps the question should be - what's your underlying purpose, your motivation for sharing the 'information'.
I suspect that if we had to swear to the truth before we made any comment that we'd think more judiciously about our words and their impacts. Or, we could give ourselves the excuse that we are only sharing what we have heard from an unimpeachable source or that we personally saw/heard. The only problem with this is that we all tend to add our impressions, conjectures, and thoughts about the situation. Besides what's our motivation for 'sharing'. We don't know the motivations or thoughts by the person in question. Because, unless we are sharing a praise report, we are making judgments - good, bad, and indifferent.
'It's only human nature' is not a good excuse. 'Everyone does it' doesn't work either. Simply because both of those statements are true, does this give you the license or authority to 'swear' to what happened and all the attending motivations? I doubt it. 'Think' or 'count to ten' is probably a good habit to get into to make us stop and consider what we do... before we do/say it.
Even a 'harmless' comment by us can add fuel to the fire if we speak before we consider. Since we've all been the subject in such cases, it should be warning enough not to engage in this behavior. However - since it is so 'natural', it takes personal strength and fortitude not to be sucked into it. If you can remember your feelings when you found others doing this to you, it may be a guard to keep you from perpetuating this type of behavior.
If what you are talking to another person about is not based on your own experience, does that define gossip? Even if you completely trust your source, does relaying the information about the person being spoken of constitute an 'objection' like the opposing attorney does when the 'evidence' is in question? Perhaps the question should be - what's your underlying purpose, your motivation for sharing the 'information'.
I suspect that if we had to swear to the truth before we made any comment that we'd think more judiciously about our words and their impacts. Or, we could give ourselves the excuse that we are only sharing what we have heard from an unimpeachable source or that we personally saw/heard. The only problem with this is that we all tend to add our impressions, conjectures, and thoughts about the situation. Besides what's our motivation for 'sharing'. We don't know the motivations or thoughts by the person in question. Because, unless we are sharing a praise report, we are making judgments - good, bad, and indifferent.
'It's only human nature' is not a good excuse. 'Everyone does it' doesn't work either. Simply because both of those statements are true, does this give you the license or authority to 'swear' to what happened and all the attending motivations? I doubt it. 'Think' or 'count to ten' is probably a good habit to get into to make us stop and consider what we do... before we do/say it.
Even a 'harmless' comment by us can add fuel to the fire if we speak before we consider. Since we've all been the subject in such cases, it should be warning enough not to engage in this behavior. However - since it is so 'natural', it takes personal strength and fortitude not to be sucked into it. If you can remember your feelings when you found others doing this to you, it may be a guard to keep you from perpetuating this type of behavior.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Starved for relevance
I sometimes believe that the church isn't aware that those eager faces sitting in the pews are starved for a relevant
Christianity. Whether anyone would admit it or not, unless and until we are
challenged as Christians we really are only a complacent christian - lip service people. Harsh
condemnation? Perhaps... not certain.
But if you compare the 1st century
church to today’s church – how would we stack up? What I’m trying to focus on
is Jesus’ question to us: “...when the Son of Man comes, will He really find
faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8b) Do we exhibit a standard that is not just
words but are actions? How does the world view His church? Does it see the church as an enticement for them
to learn more, or do they view it as irrelevant? I often wonder if Christ would be pleased
with His Bride, His church. Are we being who He would have us be in the world?
Are we doing those things that draw people to Him or only to our particular
church? If we can say ‘yes' we are doing those things, then HOW are we being
His hands to the world? How are we demonstrating faith?
If you were to look at the world today I
think you would be shaking your head at the ‘condition’ you see. Violence both
physical and psychological is prevalent, lack of respect for other people and
their possessions is rampant, and the church is doing...? This is not a blanket
condemnation of Christianity but it is a question about what our presence truly
is. And yes, there are those churches and individuals who do act Christ-like
but it would be my contention that if we ALL were truly being Christ's church then
we’d be more relevant.
Have you even considered why the young
people in the world are not attending our churches in droves? Why is this? And
yet we find them drawn to the more dramatic and militant sects. Again – why? Is
it because these other sects and ‘religions’ are demanding something from them?
That they feel a sense of belonging, personal commitment, and a relevancy seems to be
obvious. Sadly, these options are all wrong because they don't have Jesus as their center. Thus they don't have love and truth.
I would argue, though, that it isn't just the
young that are seeking a relevant Christianity. I sense, though it could just
be me, a restlessness throughout Christendom for meaning, for a Christianity
that transcends what passes for relevance. To quote me: Be forewarned...
in seeking relevancy for your life, you have to embrace accountability.
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Turning back
"There's never any turning back to what once was." (Charles Todd) Not unfamiliar words. We read similar statements to this thought, said mostly in a wistful voice. We all look at what once was and nostalgically think about all the good, all the positive that emanated from the 'then'. Slight problem in that we all tend to only remember the times, places, and people who populated 'then' in a rosy glow. The good parts are held up as a kind of panacea of positives as contrasted to what may be happening in the now.
Yet, all the then wasn't always all good. Just like now... it's life. It's just that we tend to want to remember the good rather then the bad, ugly, or painful. What can we learn from those times? Actually, quite a lot. We don't tend to like to learn those painful lessons, but do we learn the lessons from the good times as well? Probably not. The good is remember with a slight smile of happiness and the bad is remembered as a time not to be repeated. Neither immediately lend themselves to 'lessons'.
Maybe we just don't like to learn.?! Learning requires us to be attentive and remembering doesn't have the same level of intensity. Learning leads us into applying and increasing what we know. Remembering just allows us to vicariously experience. There's always responsibility associated with learning. I remember someone telling me that the reason they did not adhere to an attempted 'turning back' thinking is that when you turn around you just might be facing a hoard of people who are facing forward and could trample you. Tongue-in-cheek... somewhat but it does put a kind of period to the turning back thinking.
My father always adhered to a strict policy of not returning. If we missed 'it' the first time, then we missed it - he simply did not turn around... ever. This is both a good and not so good method and teaching because no one is always completely attentive. However, the positive is that we were more aware of what was going on around us because we knew he wouldn't turn around. While this does not directly relate to the title, the mindset does. Which is why, except for brief lapses into nostalgia-land, my focus has typically been on now and tomorrow.
Yet, all the then wasn't always all good. Just like now... it's life. It's just that we tend to want to remember the good rather then the bad, ugly, or painful. What can we learn from those times? Actually, quite a lot. We don't tend to like to learn those painful lessons, but do we learn the lessons from the good times as well? Probably not. The good is remember with a slight smile of happiness and the bad is remembered as a time not to be repeated. Neither immediately lend themselves to 'lessons'.
Maybe we just don't like to learn.?! Learning requires us to be attentive and remembering doesn't have the same level of intensity. Learning leads us into applying and increasing what we know. Remembering just allows us to vicariously experience. There's always responsibility associated with learning. I remember someone telling me that the reason they did not adhere to an attempted 'turning back' thinking is that when you turn around you just might be facing a hoard of people who are facing forward and could trample you. Tongue-in-cheek... somewhat but it does put a kind of period to the turning back thinking.
My father always adhered to a strict policy of not returning. If we missed 'it' the first time, then we missed it - he simply did not turn around... ever. This is both a good and not so good method and teaching because no one is always completely attentive. However, the positive is that we were more aware of what was going on around us because we knew he wouldn't turn around. While this does not directly relate to the title, the mindset does. Which is why, except for brief lapses into nostalgia-land, my focus has typically been on now and tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)