locus of control

i have a bad habit of overanalyzing every situation i find myself in, especially the negative ones.

i've always seen this constant analysis of everything as a two-edged sword, but as definitely having its benefits. this same type of thought process is what helps me to find out what went wrong and avoid those results in the future, right?

wrong.

or--well, maybe. but the problem with that way of seeing the world is that life is not necessarily a series of if-then scenarios. i have control over my own choices, and those choices make certain events more or less likely to happen. but few things, if any, are certain--most situations have a lot more variables than just my own choices. i tend to think i have much more control over outcomes than i actually do.

there are a lot of offshoot topics from this conclusion, but the one i would like to focus on for now is the aftermath of something happening. for the sake of clarity, let's assume something unfavorable has happened. normally, i would go over (and over and over and over) in my head every single thing i did leading up to the thing happening, and try to figure out what i should have done differently, and what i should have realized at the time. i do it with the pretense of avoiding similar problems in the future, but i think subconsciously i'm trying to gain a sense of peace or closure by regaining a sense of control over my own life. and this is generally the wrong approach (at least for me, with the natural tendencies i have). why?

because it literally does not freaking matter at all what the situation is. (that's even assuming my perception of the situation is 100% accurate, which is highly unlikely.) it does not matter if my unpleasant reactions are justified or not. it does not matter if someone else is to blame. at this point, it doesn't even matter that much what caused the situation, unless something very obvious should not be repeated. it is in the past, and i do not have any control over the situation anymore. i can't go through life expecting the universe to baby me and cater to my natural skills and my biased sense of justice. my own internal journey is certainly shaped by my experiences, but it is not anyone's responsibility but mine.

so what do i do?

focus on changing what i can. present reality, not assumptions, myself, not others, internal, not external. there are a lot of events i cannot control, but i can learn to control my own reactions. for example: this is what i'm feeling right now. it is not reliant on the actions of other people or the variables in my circumstances. it may be healthy, or it may not be, but it is my internal reality, and i have to come to terms with that first. and then, how do i grow from this place?

that, detective, is the right question.

why do you dread teaching?

- i consistently do not do well with early mornings.

- i would prefer not to bring my work home with me.

- it's exhausting to have a job that is important and formative for other people.

- it's exhausting to have a job that requires the constant interaction with other people.

- it's exhausting to have a job that requires constantly coming up with new and creative ways to reach people.

- i don't know if i want a job that is traditionally done by enforcing perfectionistic tendencies on other people.

- students can be real butts.

- evenings and weekends largely don't exist, or even if they do, i will likely be too tired to enjoy them.

- parents can be even bigger butts.

- lots of administration doesn't support the arts or those who teach them.

- so. many. freaking. emails.

- just. classroom management.

- having to score study and practice conducting at home.

- lots of people in the music community are just so petty.

just a persistent thought

 i don't think i have ever stopped missing someone once they've gone.

a journey of suckitude

reckoning with your own insufficiencies is sort of like going through stages of grief. just think about it:

"you suck"---oh no! it's true! what ever am i going to do about it? my heart is broken.

"you suck"---that really hurts. and i wish you'd stop saying it.

"you suck"---oh yeah? well i have a thousand reasons why, and maybe if you didn't act the way you did, i would have an easier time not sucking.

"you suck"---who are you to criticize me anyway? you don't know me or what i'm dealing with.

"you suck"---again?

"you suck"---yeah, yeah, probably. what else is new? tell me something i don't know.

(it's worth noting that "you suck" is almost always my imagination of what other people think, not necessarily what they actually express.)

it's almost like i have to accept my insufficiencies and let go of the pressure to be perfect before i can actually grow past them.

take four

 so as it turns out, i don't like being defined by my worst traits.

defined: the relationships

so a while back, i came across a set of distinctions on the internet, noting a difference between types of attraction. i've thought about this quite a bit since then, and i've found it pretty helpful. i'm sure as i think more on it and experience more of life, these definitions will change and expand, but here's what i have so far, which is making it easier to categorize things in my head:

- friendly attraction--this is not necessarily strictly platonic, but it can be. i've written posts detailing this more in the past, so i'm gonna be lazy and not repeat myself, but this is just the draw you might have toward any other person. it's what makes you want to know them. i would include emotional attraction, mental attraction, and spiritual attraction as subcategories of this, though i might find that incorrect later. (perhaps those should be considered categories all by themselves, since they are different from each other in nature and occur in differing amounts, but i'm not worrying about that right now.) by itself, it might be called a friend crush.

- aesthetic attraction--this is simply the recognition that someone is good-looking. that's seriously all it is. and i think it's helpful to recognize that this can exist by itself, and it doesn't necessarily mean anything else. additionally, if someone has a "type," i think this is usually what they're referring to.

- sexual attraction--i don't know if this needs to be further defined, and if it does, i am CERTAINLY not the person for the job. if i really decide to go down this rabbit hole sometime, maybe i'll have a more qualified person whom i trust guest-post on this. next point.

- romantic attraction--this one is the most nebulous and confusing for me. every time in the past i've tried to define it, it eludes me because it seems to be some concoction of the other three types, unique to every situation. but the best definition i've come to is this: a desire for exclusive emotional intimacy (exclusive being what sets it apart from friendly attraction, emotional being what sets it apart from sexual attraction). or maybe another way of putting it would be a desire to occupy a position of unique importance in that person's life. also, this can exist to a lesser degree, where the desire might merely be for importance/intimacy, but not necessary to the exclusion of all others. but then again, that sounds basically kind of like friendly attraction, so i don't know (like maybe a mild crush that isn't jealousy-inducing?). i'm sure there's more to it than this, but when i discover it, i can write another post on it then. also, i'm sure that there are others who would define this very differently, but they're not the ones writing this, so there.

it's also worth noting that the order in which these occur is not universal. i think i am probably an outlier in this, but for me, it tends to go (1)-(4)-(2)-(3?), with only one exception i can think of. all this considered, it is understandable that this whole type of experience would be very confusing for me. still, categorizing it out like this is helpful.

vulnerability

what is it that makes you vulnerable? what does it mean to be vulnerable? it means someone has some kind of power over you, or some way that they are able to harm you, if they choose. so trusting someone means that you are choosing to give them that power, and you believe they won't use it.

now, as i get older, i keep finding more things that i assumed were universal human experiences that are not. so i don't know if this is universal, but i suspect it is: i'm surprised to find out that becoming vulnerable to someone is much less about what i give away than about what i take in from them. (so really, by reading this, you're the vulnerable one, not me. if this experience is universal, that is.) basically, it's how much they're woven into the fabric of my life and my core.

some significant ways to be vulnerable:

past:

- having a long history with someone integrates them into many more memories. therefore, the part they play in your life becomes more substantial over time. unless you plan to make a hermit of yourself, you can't avoid at least some degree of this.

- nostalgia is surprisingly powerful, and becomes more of a factor the longer/the more you know someone. related to the last point, but not exactly the same.

present:

- having someone who is part of your routine. this in and of itself doesn't make you vulnerable, but you have more opportunities to be vulnerable, and it makes the other vulnerabilities more powerful.

- integrating things they have shared with you, like music, movies, stories, hobbies, sayings, whatever. this can also include personal stories or facts they have told you.

- uncalculated emotions. insecurities, fears, and sadness might be some big ones, though those could be calculated too. but the point here is that they are allowed in to comfort and strengthen you in ways you can't do for yourself. this is also dictated by a lack of control over the situation, which is where the vulnerability comes in.

future:

- hopes and dreams. this one is really the heavy hitter for me, especially when the person in question was not only a part of them, but helped build them. this one is also one of the scarier and riskier ones in my opinion, because one of the risks in moving forward with your life is opening yourself up to the possibility of the best parts of that endeavor crumbling. and, you can't avoid some degree of this one either.

here's one last thought before i try again to sleep. choosing to become vulnerable to someone is always a huge risk, because you could end up seriously hurt. but here's another surprising thing: the risk is not always in how much you trust the person, so much as how much you trust the relationship. for example, i could have someone i trust very highly to act in the ways that they see as right and to respect what i entrust to them, but if there are factors that make the dynamics of our relationship less than stable, that is still a high risk.

some things that might make a relationship less stable:

- obviously, if the person themself is unstable, unpredictable, or untrustworthy (that's more of a person problem than a relationship problem, but for obvious reasons, it would create relationship problems too.)

- romance on either side, or the potential for it, or a history of it

- apathy or lack of commitment

- imbalance of investment

- high potential for big life changes that might upset or end the relationship

- rivalry

- other external forces that create opposition or obstacles for the relationship

- other stuff, i'm sure

this isn't necessarily meant to be prescriptive, only observational, so make of it what you will.

EDIT: so i've been thinking about my statement that it's the receiving and integrating of experiences from others, rather than giving of yourself, that makes you vulnerable. i'd like to qualify/explain that statement. i think there's vulnerability involved in both, but in different ways. when you tell someone things about yourself, you're giving out information (even if it's sharing music or movies or whatever--same idea). most of the time, if you're sharing this type of information, you most likely already trust the person not to abuse it (i.e. using it against you or intentionally hurting you). now, most people (or probably all) put their trust in the wrong person at least once in their life (or maybe many times), so obviously, this is still something that makes you vulnerable. but mostly, it's positional vulnerability--they hold something over you, especially if the information puts you in a bad light. this may involve emotional vulnerability, even a lot of it, but it doesn't always have to. i suppose it also depends on how open you are with information about yourself, or how secure you are with it, or something.

the kind of vulnerability you accept when you take in these things from others is the surprising one, because you're not positionally vulnerable. technically they have nothing over you. but in sharing part of themselves with you, they've put some degree of trust in you. it can be disarming, and very persuasive for you to let your own guard down against relational closeness. the more this becomes ingrained in your life, the more vulnerable you become. by becoming actually closer as people, you become more susceptible to getting hurt by the other person, even (or especially) unintentionally. it's emotional vulnerability, and it's less predictable and controllable than the other type.

yeah, i don't know if this view is universal after all.

tldr: the real vulnerability is in close relationship.

a purpose for jealousy

does jealousy really have a purpose, as ugly as it looks? actually, i think it does. at its core, jealousy says, "what is rightfully mine has been taken by someone else. therefore, i am the victim of injustice."

so, this is a good sign (kind of)! at its core, it means that we want justice, and for all to be right with the world (like the idea of shalom).

situations in which this is a proper response:

- someone is married and their spouse is cheating on them.

- possibly other things, which i can't think of.

also, this definition explains why God is sometimes described as a jealous God. that always rubbed me the wrong way because of the negative connotations of jealousy, but really, he's saying, "these people were made for relationship with me, but they are being deceived and rebelling themselves into situations that are far from me, and moreover, are full of all kinds of other injustices." (i might actually amend my definition here, at least for this purpose. i think God's jealousy would probably include, or maybe even be based in, a great deal of compassion, since we would ultimately be the victims of the injustice of deception, rather than him being wronged by his creation.)

now here's where it gets twisted. the problem is that very rarely (in my experience) is there an actual foundation for us to believe that something is rightfully ours. it becomes a lot less about, "that thing is rightfully mine," and quickly turns into, "i want that thing." of course, this mentality can take us down many rabbit holes, but i'll decline for today. philosophically, what's happening is "whoever wants the thing the most has the right to have it." and actually, many might not object. and since i can't know how much other people want something compared to how much i want it, it's easy for me to be convinced that i want it the most. the problem is that we're now basing right and wrong on desires that can be twisted and manipulated as easily as play doh, and additionally, those rights and wrongs are going to look different for every person.

"so where does that leave us? how do we know whether something is rightfully ours?”

well, this comes down to worldview. since i am a Christian, i will answer from what i believe, which is that what you think is rightfully yours probably isn't. everything you have, everything you do, every relationship, every bit of energy and time--you are simply a steward of it, and God is the one who has given it to you to care for. as long as you are in his service (and technically, even if you aren't, but that's another matter entirely), you have to recognize that everything is rightfully his, and you are contributing to the rightness of the world when you take care of what is his. and if it is taken away, it's no longer your responsibility.

"ok, but you just said that jealousy would be justified in a marriage situation."

so i did, because marriage is a lifelong, God-ordained covenant. you have committed yourselves to one another in holy matrimony. therefore, you rightfully belong to one another. (this also goes along with marriage being a model for Christ and the Church.)

other covenants and agreements might be situations in which something rightfully belongs to you, but in our culture, it's difficult for me to say. perhaps this doesn't need to be a comprehensive list of all the scenarios in which jealousy would be a just reaction. and anyway, this is primarily directed at myself, so for me, it comes down to this:

- ask yourself if what you are jealous over is rightfully yours.

- ask God if what you are jealous over is rightfully yours.

- ask God to improve your sense of rightness and justice.

slippery footholds

yesterday i alluded to the fact that it feels faithless to question the things i've always believed, and even God himself. today i would like to expand on that. because it is being drawn to my attention more and more that it is anything but faithless, and that, in an ideal usage for a Christian, these times of doubt and questioning are useful tools for growing one's faith, and from this worldview, are meant for that very purpose.

"hold up. are you saying God wants me to doubt and question him?"

yes!

"that's ridiculous."

you say it's ridiculous because 

a) you probably don't want me to doubt and question you--most humans prefer to be validated. God doesn't need my validation, so this wouldn't matter.

or

b) doubt and questioning appears to be the path of apostasy. and what i am saying is that if it is done right, it strengthens one's faith rather than weakening it, because you're no longer pretending to be satisfied by answers that don't match your life experience, and are instead replacing that pretending with experiential knowledge.

and i say this with confidence because God exemplifies for us how to question him.

i can't believe i've been a Christian for this long and not internalized this, but at least i'm starting to get it more now. you see this kind of attitude all over Scripture, especially in places like Ecclesiastes, Job, Lamentations, and many of the Psalms. lamentation seems to be, at least in some circles, kind of a lost art. which is desperately sad because in times of doubt or questioning, lamentation is the key to growth. but instead, we tend to withdraw--from God, from the Church, from anything that will actually help us work through the doubt--especially if we feel like we will be shamed for asking risky questions.

i would like to pause to draw a distinction. i've been saying "doubt and questioning" a lot, but it's important to recognize the difference. doubt is most effective as a catalyst. like a warning sign. it alerts you that something is off. it doesn't always tell you what is off, or why, or what the answer should be. like a check engine light. and like a check engine light, if you ignore it or don't pursue it, it stops being helpful. it's up to you to do the work and find out what's going on at the heart of this situation.

that's where questioning comes in. questioning is the active response to doubt, and though it sometimes carries a negative connotation, i'd say it's step one on the path to growth. it clarifies and specifies what doubt calls into question, and it makes it possible to pursue answers. (like that whole thing from Hitchhiker's Guide . . . "you can't know what the answer means until you know the question," and all that? anyway . . .)

saying, "i don't know if i really buy all of this," and then dropping your faith like a hot potato is pure doubt. saying, "i don't know if i really buy all of this," and then saying, ". . . because of all these reasons, what do you have to say now, God?" is starting with the questioning. doubt is stagnant, while questioning is active.

in other words, don't doubt your faith, or at least don't stay there. do question your faith, and pursue the answers.

(on an tangential note, i would question the effectiveness of a faith that is stagnant, even if it seems firm in what it believes.)

laments in the Bible are everything i knew i wanted, but didn't, for whatever reason, realize were there. i think i've always gotten caught up in the imagery of it. but when you follow the logic of what some of them were saying, it's a lot of what my own internal dialogue wrestles with every day. for example, Psalm 73 is basically "God, everyone says you're good, but then why is there so much injustice? i want to join the faithless--at least then i'd be having a good time. but instead i'm over here staying true to you, and am getting nothing for my trouble." (ok, so i paraphrased for my own optimal understanding.) 

but here's the trick. he's not just being snarky. he's legitimately asking these questions, and seeking an answer. and he gets it in the next section, where he's like, "ah. so i'm a jerk, and also i see that what i have in you is so much better."

conclusion: i'm convinced that every Christian experiences times of doubt in their faith. i think it might be common to just repeat what we've learned until we've re-convinced ourselves of it, but i don't actually think that exemplifies what faith is meant to be, nor do i think it's the best approach. i think questioning one's faith is not only not shameful, it's something we should all be doing. leaning into the doubt instead of avoiding it, honestly questioning, and laying your honesty before God for him to unravel? this is how faith becomes stronger. God is a big God--he can handle your questions.

mont blanc

"this is exciting," she said sarcastically. unlike most times when i write here, where the words are pouring out of my brain because i can't contain them, in this case, it feels like i've been trying to contain them for so long, and repeating them to myself to keep from forgetting, that they've become somewhat stale. mental constipation. the thoughts here are months, even years old. so we'll see how this goes!

basically, this is kind of a reiteration of an old post, but approached from a slightly different angle. it begins with questions, as so many of my posts do:

how would my life be different if i had been born as someone else? what kind of person would i be? what would i believe about the world? how would i approach other people? what biases and assumptions would i hold?

how much of my thinking and outlook is there simply because it's what i've grown up with?

this is not a strike against my upbringing--on the whole, i think it was a good one, and i've been remarkably fortunate. blessed, even, though the precise meaning of that word is a whole blog post all on its own. but everyone has blind spots. i don't want my entire outlook to be informed by habit.

i think i said this last time, but let's take religion as the most extreme and important example. i am a Christian. i have made this choice over and over again, as you do with any commitment to someone. and i am 100% convinced it's true. but. that Mormon who came to my door is 100% convinced his religion is true. that Jehovah's Witness who talked to me on the street is 100% convinced her religion is true. the Muslim i passed the other day is 100% convinced her religion is true. and the atheist i work with is 100% convinced it's all bogus. the crazy thing is, each of these people likely has as much reason behind their convictions as i have.

conviction does not mean truth. so that can't be what faith is, even though that seems to be what many of us cling to, if we're honest. that's where the expression "blind faith" comes from. believing that something is true just based on your own convictions is circular--i believe it because i believe it, therefore, it's true. that's not a virtue, it's just stupid. and probably no one would admit to that kind of logic when it's phrased that way, yet we blind ourselves with it, because even many (if not all) of the reasons behind our convictions are centered in that already-held worldview. 

le example:

a question like "why do you believe what you believe?" i think, is something one should have a ready answer for, no matter who you are. normally as Christians, we have answers like, "well here is what God has done in my life," which is something no one else can really deny. 

but. perhaps it's time to take this one or two steps deeper:

if you weren't a Christian already, how would you interpret this series of events? 

of course that would depend on what kind of worldview you were coming from. or here's another question: 

if you had no biases and did not have a pre-established worldview (which is technically impossible, thus the theoretical nature of this scenario--we're always trying to see past our biases), what worldview would you choose? if you still say you would choose Christianity, why?

i have never put these questions (at least, with this type of phrasing) to anyone, and i have no idea what anyone i know would say. i hope they wouldn't react badly to my even asking the questions. but i think this is important for me to do, but maybe also for other people to do too? 

i don't actually expect to come to a conclusive answer simply through research. i think if there were a clear and obvious belief system that were easy to accept, everyone would know it already. that's not to say that i don't think there is an ultimate truth. i think there is. but i don't think it's that simple. anyway, if i don't even try to investigate opposition to my own opinions and beliefs, i have no leg to stand on. why do people believe these things? why should i believe what i believe rather than what they believe? why should anyone believe what i believe?

if i've never seriously considered believing anything but what i currently believe, can i really claim to have chosen it, or did i just take the default option? who am i to assume that i among so many have been gifted with the complete truth among falsehoods?

my desperate hope is that God reveals himself as the author of truth. in the words of Reese Roper, "my only hope is that you cannot not be real." i want to believe that "the truth will out," and that a work of art always points back to its artist. if what i've been taught is true, i don't need to worry, because God will reveal himself to me or lead me back to him anyway, but even that is a stance which brings up a full plethora of other questions for me. maybe that's what faith actually is.

(i went back and compared this post with the other similar one, and it's interesting that i ended both with a speculation about what faith is. but last time, the conclusion was roughly, "maybe it's faith if i make a choice and trust that it's the right one." in this case, it's more, "maybe it's faith if i step out and go explore the back woods, trusting that the truth will lead me home again." similar but different.)

practical steps to take:

- learn as much about the depths and origins of my own worldview as possible (good job, you're already doing that.)

- learn as much as i can about as many other worldviews as i can.

- find out as much as i can about people who believe those things. maybe meet and talk with them.

- try viewing the world through those lenses, and compare with my own thoughts and experiences.

- talk to people who have converted to Christianity from other worldviews. and maybe also people who have converted from Christianity to other worldviews, and also, in general, from one worldview to another.

- other stuff

death and loss

i was talking with some friends recently about loss. death, of course, is the most concrete and final loss, but really there is some loss in every change, even if it's just the loss of the status quo. every new beginning and new chapter includes as a part of it the death of the last. so while change is often very good, there's always some difficulty in it, even if it's not obvious at first.

some struggles with the implications of predestination theology

they say that if we are saved, it is because God saved us, but if we are not saved, it's unbelief. but how can we believe without faith? and if it's God who gives us faith, how can you place responsibility on humans for this decision? by this reasoning, is it just an illusion that we make decisions? because it sounds to me like God decides who gets to know him and go to Heaven. and, by extension, who doesn't.

so how can i be expected to find comfort in his choosing me and not someone else? they say that it's faith to accept these paradoxes, but for me to accept them is to buy into a different God than i've always known, a God who is inconsistent, plays favorites, and didn't actually die for every person. a God who says he does not will that any should perish, yet condemns some to Hell for no discernible reason. no, i am not comforted. i cannot believe it.

but would it cease to be true just because i didn't believe it? let's pause for a second, to think of the ramifications. if this were true, God's will would still be inexorable. we still wouldn't stand a chance against him. so even if i didn't agree with his system of justice, what good would it do to disagree openly? people only oppose God because it doesn't suit them to believe in him, but it would be absolute folly to believe and still oppose him. even to believe and do nothing to further his purpose would be extremely self-centered, saving only yourself while knowing others were in danger. a better strategy would be to convince yourself that your cause was a just one, if only for the sake of being able to live with yourself. so Christianity would look exactly the same, but love would no longer enter into the equation; we would follow God solely out of fear. in fact, this is probably what it looks like to a critically-thinking outsider. in short, is it a given that an almighty God must always be a good one?

yet we are assured in Scripture that he is good.. that's, like, his main defining trait. so all of my conclusions must go through this filter if Scripture is to be believed (which, if it weren't, this would be a pointless and entirely different rant).

if there are multiple possible paths to orthodoxy, this question is not a particularly useful one. the main result of me rehashing this question is me questioning God's character. i am always trying to learn more about his character. but now i'm terrified i'll discover something about him that will contradict everything i've always believed. i suppose that's where faith comes in--believing in his goodness, even when i don't understand all the details.

at my core, i am deeply relational, and also deeply curious. i always want to know why. i especially want to discover why people do things and how they work. so i have to conclude that i'm this inquisitive out of love, not just skepticism. i may never be satisfied with an answer to this question. but i have to keep digging.

hard questions

if one is saved once, is he saved for all time, or can he reject that which he once believed? if that happened, would the Spirit then leave him?

how should we understand blessing? can i really say "i'm blessed in this way" when so many aren't? can i know that all things, good and bad, are for the purpose of furthering God's good plan? can i really say accurately "God will provide" or "God will protect?" how can i, as one person, even make global statements about something like this?

how can i say "God provided this" or "God will provide this" or "God will do this" with any degree of confidence when, for many, their basic needs are not provided for or granted? is it because they didn't pray? is it because they didn't trust in God? or is the provision more on a spiritual level? and if that's the case, can we really call any physical good thing "provision" or "a blessing?"

if faith is granted by God, what does that say for those who have none? why would God grant faith to some and not to others? do we all have faith which we must choose to act on at some point in our lives?

dancing

reasons i like dancing:

• it’s active, but also artistic
• physical closeness, but with clearly defined roles and boundaries
• teamwork and unity—you have each other’s back and are working together
• it can be romantic, but can also just be social (because of the physical closeness with boundaries)
• it makes me feel graceful and pretty!
• it can be very simple or very complex, and you have the freedom to decide, and to improvise
• music
• it’s a good opportunity to talk, but you don’t have to

i'm just going to start adding random irrelevant titles when i can't think of good ones.

it's hard to do something new when you know it probably won't be very good, especially when you know others who could do a much better job. but oftentimes, it's still important and worthwhile to try.

another lie

lie: sin and death of our souls is not the greatest issue and the greatest problem.

dftbabiycbatsfaatft

there's a saying i often remember: dftba (don't forget to be awesome)

it's fun to aspire to and maybe joke about. but in seriousness, sometimes being awesome is too overwhelming a burden to take on. so i want to allow myself this addition:

don't forget to be awesome . . . but if you can't be awesome, then strive for alright, and that's fine too.

two taboos

something i have never ever talked about here: politics.

politics (as a subject) is interesting because—no, wait. i shouldn’t say that. i actually find politics horribly boring and frustrating and depressing.


take 2.


the way we approach politics can be interesting—and, admittedly, frustrating—because it’s so polarizing. it seems like everyone has an opinion, and everyone urges everyone else to have an opinion, but only if it’s the same opinion. otherwise, you’re the “other”. but most discussions i’ve experienced on this have not been nuanced. most of them have been emotionally charged and combative, relying more on blame than on an exchange of information and ideas.

admittedly, politics is a subject of conversation i have mostly avoided, so my perception may be skewed. i know there are many who can, and actively do, pursue nuanced understanding of controversial topics.

i understand that this is probably an important thing. that being said, a few years ago, i gave myself permission to not have opinions about things on which i had little to no information. so the next step: to become better informed.


all this is not actually why i came here. instead, i want to point out to myself a similar approach i’ve seen on a different matter. this is helping me understand my instinctive approach to both topics.

shockingly, the other topic is religion. *gasp!*

religion is a bit different for me, because i have both opinions and information (at least, about my own religion. as i’ve stated in the past, my lack of a complete understanding of various worldviews is part of the problem here). but i still tend not to be very vocal about it in most situations, even though, according to my beliefs, the stakes are higher. this might boil down to cowardice, but i think it might also be because the stakes are higher. if i thought that potentially sacrificing a person’s opinion of me or even relationship with me, would surely result in their salvation, i would be much more likely to do it. (btw, isn’t there a verse about that? no seed falling in vain or something?)

the truth is, i’m not sure i truly believe that presentation is irrelevant. biblically this is false, right? it is the truth of God, through the power of Christ, that saves people. Paul even admits to not having eloquent speech, which is what makes the power of God even more evident.

but i also don’t think that forcing things down people’s throats is an effective strategy to having them listen to what you say.

actually, Pastor Mark has talked about this. “make sure that it is Christ they are really rejecting, not just you.” so how do i do this?

welp, i thought i knew where this post was going, but i was wrong. let’s just call it the scenic route.

on not being careless

note to self #176:

please stop saying “stupid” when you mean to say “careless” or “thoughtless” or some other word. a person’s actions or state of mind do not necessarily define that person as a whole, so it’s not fair to oversimplify their choices.

missed communication

so as it turns out, the reason i'm slow at responding to/communicating with people is largely due to perfectionism. you may be familiar: "if i can't (or don't know how to) do something perfectly, i won't do it at all (or at least until i can do it perfectly)." which of course is a ludicrous way of thinking, but more on that some other time.

so now that i've finally figured that much out, hopefully it'll be easier to combat. it's almost a relief, because instead of the all-too-common "whyyy am i like thiiiiis????", it's actually something with which i'm already familiar.

opinions?

like Hank and John Green, i'm starting to think possibly i have more opinions than i need about things that don't matter very much.


for example, i think i'm going to relinquish my opinions on other people's opinions of music. like this: instead of:

"you like this? clearly you have inferior taste,"

i'd like to try an attitude more like:

"this isn't really my style, but that doesn't make you tasteless or *ehm* "basic" (as the kids say) for liking it. by the way, what do you like about it? (because there's a good chance that we're appreciating entirely different goals of the music.)"


i want to be quicker to seek understanding than to judge.



p.s.: it may be unnecessary, but it's really fun to add "as the kids say" after colloquialisms that are more often used by generations just barely (or not even) younger than myself to make it seem like i'm being ironic, even though i'm actually not. especially if it is decidedly not something the kids say anymore.

p.p.s.: here is a video that contributed to inspiring this post. it is mildly thought-provoking and entertaining, and also mostly irrelevant and unnecessary for context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hkw1S0b6nI

random thoughts about joy

lie: the promises of God cannot possibly be better than the things i long for

lie: the joys i experience in life and the joy of God's kingdom are unrelated

the idea of seeking and longing for Christ's glory is not just a responsibility; it's an invitation to intimacy and unity. the same design for us to have with one another.

letter to a 17-year-old

my dearest Elisa,

here is a reply to your letter. you’ll probably be unsurprised to learn that i never got it. but, i remember much of the gist of it (i think).

i think you would probably be pleased with who i am now, even if i’m not exactly what you expected. i have a lot more questions than answers, as usual. the world seems less black and white now, with more nuances and complexities, but i’m mostly okay with that. but i’ve also grown in a lot of other ways. college is a humbling experience, and can even be kind of a scarring one. but on the other side of it, i’d say i’m probably healthier and more motivated than ever before. and i think possibly i’ve chilled out a little bit too, which is definitely a step in the right direction for me. i still feel things deeply, but perhaps not quite as turbulently or as often. and of course, i’m still deeply committed to Jesus, though maybe our dynamic now is slightly different than it used to be, which tends to happen as relationships age. the more i grow, the more i realize my insufficiencies and how much i need God. and so his grace increases. right now i’m working on discipline in a lot of areas, which as you know, i’ve desperately needed for a long time. but now it’s a more realistic expectation.

perhaps hearing this won’t mean much to you right now, but i mean it genuinely. i’m proud of you. of both your heart and your mind. the things you’re learning are formative and important—so much so that i still sometimes go back and learn from them. who you are has built a solid foundation for who i am now, and i’m grateful to you for building it so carefully and thoughtfully.

not that it’s perfect, of course—no one is. this is something you know well already, and it’s a concept you’ll only come to see more as you go on. but even in the areas where your understanding or experience or ability fall short, it’s not simply failure, but a place from which to grow. as a perfectionist, this is hard to accept, and harder to face. but it’s important to learn, and it will become a much healthier and more sustainable fuel source for everything you do.

there’s another thing, and this is the most important and urgent thing i have to say to you. you’ve been lonely for a long time. but it doesn’t last forever. it really does get better. the things you know about God providing, or about him fulfilling the desires he has created in you is absolutely true, so don’t forget it. it has been so worth the wait. i mentioned before that college has the potential to be kind of scarring. in some ways it’s kind of the worst because the stress, pressure, and criticism (constructive and otherwise) will be at unprecedented levels for you. but at the same time, it’s the absolute best because of the people you get to meet, befriend, and live with. you will learn so much from them—how to be a better friend, how to be a better disciple, how to love yourself better, who you are and can be, how to enjoy life more, how to understand people better . . . the list truly goes on and on. trust can indeed be a tricky thing. and you’ll have to get rid of a lot of assumptions you’ve held about people. but these are necessary and totally worthwhile ways to grow. the people you meet will show you how surprisingly awesome it can be to have friends who are very different from you—a lesson better learned late(?) than never. stick it out love, because the light at the end is not far off.

may God’s grace and peace be yours in great abundance! (wait, is that too self-serving to say? whatever, you’re gonna need it.)

sincerely,
me


p.s.: not all “adult” jobs have the luxury of being left at work when you clock out for the day. but for the ones that do, you were totally right. i can’t even describe the relief of getting home and you don’t have a thousand things you have to get done before you’re allowed to settle in. it’s unreal. so you also have that to look forward to.

more thought fragments on shame

is there a greater shame than seeing your goodness and still not wanting you?

what lie do i have to be buying into to think this way?

is my distress because my entire being truly yearns for you, or it it because i have always been instilled with the guilt of that desire not being there?

all i can do is trust in your power to save me from myself, and your mercy to forgive me my idolatry. until my heart can come to you, hopefully forced actions can be enough of a living sacrifice.

i don't feel worthy or even rightly positioned to call you "Abba"--it seems empty coming from me right now. but you have declared me "child," for better or for worse.

honestly, it feels like i'm faking Christianity, just deceiving everyone around me into thinking i'm better than i am. but it's just imposter syndrome. by seeking you even when i don't feel like it, i'm confirming my commitment and true love in a way enamorment never could.

1 cor 6

lie: sin is not something that enslaves

where the earth meets the sea

my dear friend,

there is so much i’ve never said. maybe it’s a bit late now. i’m mostly past it, and i have a confident hope that you are completely. good. i am almost positive our friendship will never be the same, and perhaps it shouldn’t be. and that’s okay. but in the name of our past friendship, here are some things that, whether or not you have ever needed to hear them, i have, at least at one point, needed to say.

first of all, thank you. you have been really as great of a friend as i ever could have asked for. and though i think talking about deserving is usually unproductive, i don’t believe i deserved your friendship. but still, you gave it fully and wholeheartedly, holding nothing back. you were there during some of my roughest times, when few others were, and defended me against threats, both concrete and abstract. you have consistently shown me grace and gentleness, while still challenging me to grow more and more like Christ. your role in my life has been a unique and irreplaceable one.

secondly, i’m sorry. that is, i’m sorry, but not for the reasons you probably think. possibly this is why i never told you any of this sooner. but i see i’ll have to rewind and explain more, so please understand that i’m not trying to defend my own conduct, only explain my thinking. when we parted, i knew it would be a hurdle, but i honestly thought it would come out all right in the end. (i suppose in a way it has, but not how i would have necessarily expected or hoped.) i was sad for the space between us, confused at how it had come to that, confounded by my own feelings (er . . . lack thereof), and confident that i was making the right choice . . . but also hopeful about the future of our friendship. (to be clear—which apparently is not always my strength—these are the feelings i wished to convey to you when you first brought up the subject of an expansion of our friendship. i was grateful and relieved that you were unwilling to sacrifice what we already had if a more romantic direction wouldn’t work, so i’m afraid i utterly failed to communicate my main points at that point.)

anyway, when i reached out to you i was somewhat surprised that you still needed more space from me. (please keep in mind that i had never been in love before, so my context for these types of feelings and injuries was sketchy at best.) and the longer you didn’t reach out, the more i grew frustrated and even a little bitter. i knew in my heart that you were the one with a right to be hurt, not me. but part of me was a little angry. i felt that i was forced to be the bad guy, which to be honest, is probably something no one actually thought. i thought that i had given you no false leads, though that was clearly not the case. and i was kind of hurt that a friendship in which i had equal investment was being intentionally atrophied, and there was nothing i could do about it. the security i had felt that our friendship would weather anything had failed, even though neither of us could have realized that this is how reality, rather than theory, would play out. it tore me apart, but given the perspective of things, i felt like i had no right to feel that way, which only made me more frustrated.

it is this for which i want to apologize. i’m sorry i held you responsible for things that weren’t your fault, and i’m sorry for the bitterness i had towards you. i allowed my pain and entitlement to turn into blame toward you, which wasn’t fair or representative of the love of one friend to another.

i don’t know if this will make anything better or if it will just come across as me being a jerk (again), but i have never regretted my decision itself. i’ve thought about it many times since then. “what if i had chosen differently? maybe those feelings would’ve come. maybe our relationship would be better than ever. or at least maybe we would still hang out. why wasn’t i able to feel that way anyway?” but to tell the truth, every time i’ve gone down that road, i’ve only come away more convinced that i spared you more pain than you went through. given the same set of circumstances today, i would make the same choice.

all this is not to say that we can’t, or won’t, or shouldn’t be friends. but friendships with married people are different than friendships with single people, and long-distance friendships are different than see-you-naturally-all-the-time friendships, and friendships that have been stopped and then started back up are VERY different from friendships that have been consistent. and from what i hear, friendships with someone that you used to like romantically can be both challenging and dangerous, even under the best of circumstances. this is not a dismissal, only a recognition of things that were never addressed once we were back on speaking terms. i feel like we’re out of practice. and that’s okay too.

shame

true shame is looking in the face of my temptations and being unsure if i can look away.

true shame is seeing just how much i can doubt that which has stood by my side faithfully.

true shame is thinking about what the right choice is and being tired of making it.

true shame is thinking about my past self and genuinely wondering if she would be proud of me.

premises on fear

so if:

• fear and desire tend to be related (Mendel), and
• fear is the result of belief in lies (Dostoevsky), and
• the devil cannot create desires in us (Donehey), and
• perfect love drives out fear (1 John 4:18), then

what is probably actually happening is that we are tricked into believing lies, which causes fear, which twists our desires to point away from God. but if we straighten out our understanding of the truth, then our fear is replaced with love, and our desires point us rightly toward God, who can actually fulfill them.


fascinating.

musings on the duration of relationships

how do you know when a relationship is over, or when you should stop trying to invest in it? mostly, friendships fulfill a specific role in one’s life, but it’s also about those specific people. so when the roles change, or those people stop being a part of one’s daily life, or the people themselves change, what is it that keeps a friendship going? for what purpose is it to be perpetuated, or at what point does it just become nostalgia? what is the point of friendship anyway?

we (especially Christians) talk about guarding our hearts when entering a relationship (especially romantic ones). this does make sense, since investing too much up front is risky if there is a high probability of the relationship breaking apart. and yet, it is impossible to have a genuine friendship without any emotional investment. such a thing would be fake, or at best just going through the motions of friendship without any of the purpose or fulfillment of one. like that C.S. Lewis quote. so how do you balance your emotional investment? how much do you risk to pursue something that may not last long?

(this is why the idea of “lasting friendships” is hard. a romantic relationship “lasting” implies that the couple ends up married and committed for a lifetime. but other friendships have no such covenant, and few are really expected to last for a lifetime (though that may be the hope), so how do you know if your investment has “paid off”? is that even a good way to look at it?)

the madness

honestly, having feelings for someone is just the dumbest thing. like, even if you know that the chances of it working out are very slim to none, you still can’t help thinking about them all the time, getting excited at even a short message from them, wanting to know all about them, wanting to share yourself, always wishing they were there with you. and always running through, a million times in your head, everything they said. how did they say it again? and what was the context? is this something a romantic interest would do, or could it also be something a platonic friend would do? what could be going through their head? what is the likelihood of each possible scenario? it’s a kind of madness. a disease which, even when you know it won’t last forever, you can’t imagine ever being cured of. and if you’re honest, you’re not sure you want to be. reason has left the building, and you’re suddenly left in the unpracticed hands of intuition.

words to barf by

i'm trying to rebuild and fortify my walls, but to be honest, you've come closer than anyone else has before.

how on earth did you do it? were you even trying?

i don't know what kind of feeling this is, but there is now almost no time when i don't think what i'm doing would be better with you there. i want to see you, talk to you, be around you. i want to see you in so many settings. there are so many things i want to share with you, and so many things i want you to be a part of. i want to see all your reactions to things, and know what you think about things. i want to listen to you talk about so many things, big and small. i want to look into your eyes and make you laugh, and listen to the sound of it. i want to hear you sing, out loud and to yourself. and as much as i enjoy your outer layer of humor, i want to know you so much more in earnest.

is there anything about you that won't charm me?

if you really are drawn to me, i can't think of why. but if i'm truly honest, i want to be known by you too.