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.