The other day, I came across an encouraging article in magazine called The Word for Today, which focused on James 4:8: "Draw near to God and he will draw near to you." (NJKV).
"The story's told of a bulldog and a poodle who were arguing one day. The bulldog was making fun of the poodle, calling him a weak little runt who couldn't do anything. The bulldog said, "I challenge yo to a contest. Let's see who can open the back door of their house the fastest and get inside." The bulldog was thinking that he would turn the doorknow with his powerful jaws, while the poodle was too small to even reach the knob of his back door. But the to bulldog's surprise the poodle said, " I can get inside my house faster than you can. I accept the challenge." So with the poodle watching, the bulldog rand to the back door of his house and jumped up on the doorknob. He got his teeth and paws around it and tried to turn it, but he couldn't get enough grip on the knob to do it, so he finally quit in exhaustion. Now it was the poodle's turn. he did just what he'd been doing every day for the last several years. He went up to the door and scratched a couple of times, then waited patiently. Within a few seconds, his master not only opened the door, but picked him up in his arms, patted him on the head affectionately and carried him inside.
The difference was in the relationship. some of us are bulldog Christians. It's all grunting, growling and trying to please God. Give it up! All God asks us to do is, "Draw near to Me and I will draw near to you." "
Now when I read that, I immediately looked at my life and thought, "Guilty as charged". I must admit that a lot of my Christian life had been "bulldogging"; habits of the past included forcefully reading my Bible, forcefully *praying*, and worst of all, thinking that I was not good enough because of my past wrongs, plus plenty more. Although I'm not as much of a "bulldog" as I was before, I still face this problem today. Some of my habits have diminished, while others still remain. Having said that, it's good to know, then, that God doesn't need us to be *perfect*, so to speak. All we need to do is to go ahead and draw near to Him. Now, in my life, I emphasise the *go ahead* part because usually, I find it hard to do, especially if I've sinned. When you feel guilty or your wrongs, it's hard to approach God, who hates wrong. But the question in my mind is: If I don't draw near to God, what can I draw near to to fix my sin?
I'm just thankful that God is willing, in fact, he deeply wants us to draw near to him. Also, I thank God for answering my past prayers to chip away this "bulldog" attitude of mine. It's been a long and painful journey, but I believe it's gonna be worth it.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Forgiveness
Hmmm...these past few weeks, I've been thinking about what it means to forgive someone. I think forgiveness is an important part of life and an essential element in our relationships with others. I've also been pondering about forgiveness in the eyes of our society and the media today. Now please forgive me if I offend anyone (no pun intended); this is purely what I believe. Furthermore, my study of psychology has nothing to do with this! Gah!
Now, when do we forgive? Is it because someone's been nice to us? No. We forgive because someone has done wrong to us. Duh! And we forgive them because we love them, yes? Well, we don't want to hate them, at least (It's complex, so I don't want to go too far). So why do we hate people when they do wrong to us? Because it hurts, that's why. (The reason may vary from person to person, but you get the main idea, I'm sure). And so when someone we love (or don't want to hate) has done wrong to us and hurt us, we forgive them in order to continue the relationship (or continue not knowing them in the case of random people) without resentment in the way. So now, I consider three main points of view on forgiveness: "forgiveness by force", "forgiveness by denial", and "forgiveness by acknowledgement".
The first view, "forgiveness by force", to me, means 'forgiving' someone out of your will. I think that when someone 'forgives by force', he or she still holds a grudge against that person, and is merely thinking that the 'forgiving' part is done. I believe it is done out of forced righteousness 'because it's right' and pride in oneself. One may supress one's hateful actions and thoughts towards the offender (for example, if I wanted to yell an insult at someone, I would stop myself by force), but deep down, the hate and resentment is still there. Therefore, forgiveness by force, in my opinion, is NOT true forgiveness.
The second view, forgiveness by denial, I define as denying that the offender did anything wrong. This one, I think, is used more in cases where the offender is someone we're close to eg. a friend, a family member, a partner, etc. It's not nice to think that a loved one hurt you, is it...? Of course not. So one denies the thought. The thought that replaces it? The the offence was not so bad, or that it was just a little slip up or something. Nothing major. But there are two problems with that way of thinking. Firstly, it doesn't address the resentment one feels (I'm talking about the people who ARE hurt) because the offence is perceived as not wrong, to put it simply. It is inconsistent. Here's the thing: if they didn't do anything wrong, why are you hurting? It can some to the point that some may even deny that they actually are hurt in order to remain consistent with their thoughts. Sad, I'm afraid. The second point is more a philosophical one. To 'forgive' in this way simply does not allow forgiveness to exist. As I mentioned before, you forgive someone when they've done something wrong. Now, to deny that someone ever did anything wrong...if there's nothing done wrong, there's nothing to forgive. So "forgiveness by denial" is not true forgiveness either. Firstly, the pain is not dealt with; secondly, denial of wrong and forgiveness, by logic, simply cannot co-exist in the same situation any more than a capital T can with an F.
So, finally, we have come to the third view on forgiveness. What do I think it means to forgive? Well, I call it "forgiveness by acknowledgment". It's different from denial. Instead of seeing the offender as blameless (when in fact, they DID offend) and lying to oneself, it involves acknowledging that the offender DID indeed offend, and also that the offender is imperfect, yet still loving (or at least not hating in the case of randoms) the offender DESPITE the undeniable wrong and damage done. It's based on unconditional love, which sees a person's weaknesses right there, but cares more about the person than what he or she does. This is the way God loves us, which leads to His forgiveness for our sins. In the same way, I believe we ought to do the same. So the verdict? Firstly, forgiveness by "acknowledgement" addresses our hurts truthfully by acknowledging that the action done was wrong. Secondly, it achieves the goal of making things right with the other person.
So then, I'd like to evaluate the three views and further explain "forgiveness by acknowledgament" with an analogy. Think of it this way: imagine the offender, the 'victim', and a high, spiky, barbed wire fence separating the two. Let the fence represent the wrong done by the offender. In the "force" case, the 'victim' sees the offender surrounded by the spiky fence. Since the fence is so close to the offender, they are seen as one. So...a spiky person, maybe. And one refuses to go near the spiky person. In the case of "denial", one either doesn't see the spiky fence, or refuses to look at it because it's so scary. And when one looks away from the fence, one looks away from the other person without realising. Similarly, by staying away from the fence, one stays away from the other person. This person lives on with the (possibly invisible) fence in the way. Now, in the final "acknowledgement" case, one looks straight at the fence; and also sees the other person behind the fence. This person sees the details of the fence: the jagged spikes on the sides of its poles - every single one; the dirty red rust that covers its poles and its mesh - disgusting; the endless coils of barbed wire on top - dense with star-shaped spurs. It's scary, to say the least, however, motivated by the desire for the person behind the fence, the 'victim' decides to climb. After sustaining several cuts and scratches, the victim reunites with the offender, and the fence is left to rust away as the two decide to walk far away from it, never to see it again. This is how I think forgiveness should be.
Now, when do we forgive? Is it because someone's been nice to us? No. We forgive because someone has done wrong to us. Duh! And we forgive them because we love them, yes? Well, we don't want to hate them, at least (It's complex, so I don't want to go too far). So why do we hate people when they do wrong to us? Because it hurts, that's why. (The reason may vary from person to person, but you get the main idea, I'm sure). And so when someone we love (or don't want to hate) has done wrong to us and hurt us, we forgive them in order to continue the relationship (or continue not knowing them in the case of random people) without resentment in the way. So now, I consider three main points of view on forgiveness: "forgiveness by force", "forgiveness by denial", and "forgiveness by acknowledgement".
The first view, "forgiveness by force", to me, means 'forgiving' someone out of your will. I think that when someone 'forgives by force', he or she still holds a grudge against that person, and is merely thinking that the 'forgiving' part is done. I believe it is done out of forced righteousness 'because it's right' and pride in oneself. One may supress one's hateful actions and thoughts towards the offender (for example, if I wanted to yell an insult at someone, I would stop myself by force), but deep down, the hate and resentment is still there. Therefore, forgiveness by force, in my opinion, is NOT true forgiveness.
The second view, forgiveness by denial, I define as denying that the offender did anything wrong. This one, I think, is used more in cases where the offender is someone we're close to eg. a friend, a family member, a partner, etc. It's not nice to think that a loved one hurt you, is it...? Of course not. So one denies the thought. The thought that replaces it? The the offence was not so bad, or that it was just a little slip up or something. Nothing major. But there are two problems with that way of thinking. Firstly, it doesn't address the resentment one feels (I'm talking about the people who ARE hurt) because the offence is perceived as not wrong, to put it simply. It is inconsistent. Here's the thing: if they didn't do anything wrong, why are you hurting? It can some to the point that some may even deny that they actually are hurt in order to remain consistent with their thoughts. Sad, I'm afraid. The second point is more a philosophical one. To 'forgive' in this way simply does not allow forgiveness to exist. As I mentioned before, you forgive someone when they've done something wrong. Now, to deny that someone ever did anything wrong...if there's nothing done wrong, there's nothing to forgive. So "forgiveness by denial" is not true forgiveness either. Firstly, the pain is not dealt with; secondly, denial of wrong and forgiveness, by logic, simply cannot co-exist in the same situation any more than a capital T can with an F.
So, finally, we have come to the third view on forgiveness. What do I think it means to forgive? Well, I call it "forgiveness by acknowledgment". It's different from denial. Instead of seeing the offender as blameless (when in fact, they DID offend) and lying to oneself, it involves acknowledging that the offender DID indeed offend, and also that the offender is imperfect, yet still loving (or at least not hating in the case of randoms) the offender DESPITE the undeniable wrong and damage done. It's based on unconditional love, which sees a person's weaknesses right there, but cares more about the person than what he or she does. This is the way God loves us, which leads to His forgiveness for our sins. In the same way, I believe we ought to do the same. So the verdict? Firstly, forgiveness by "acknowledgement" addresses our hurts truthfully by acknowledging that the action done was wrong. Secondly, it achieves the goal of making things right with the other person.
So then, I'd like to evaluate the three views and further explain "forgiveness by acknowledgament" with an analogy. Think of it this way: imagine the offender, the 'victim', and a high, spiky, barbed wire fence separating the two. Let the fence represent the wrong done by the offender. In the "force" case, the 'victim' sees the offender surrounded by the spiky fence. Since the fence is so close to the offender, they are seen as one. So...a spiky person, maybe. And one refuses to go near the spiky person. In the case of "denial", one either doesn't see the spiky fence, or refuses to look at it because it's so scary. And when one looks away from the fence, one looks away from the other person without realising. Similarly, by staying away from the fence, one stays away from the other person. This person lives on with the (possibly invisible) fence in the way. Now, in the final "acknowledgement" case, one looks straight at the fence; and also sees the other person behind the fence. This person sees the details of the fence: the jagged spikes on the sides of its poles - every single one; the dirty red rust that covers its poles and its mesh - disgusting; the endless coils of barbed wire on top - dense with star-shaped spurs. It's scary, to say the least, however, motivated by the desire for the person behind the fence, the 'victim' decides to climb. After sustaining several cuts and scratches, the victim reunites with the offender, and the fence is left to rust away as the two decide to walk far away from it, never to see it again. This is how I think forgiveness should be.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
When help goes bad...
Ha, haven't been posting for a while. To be honest, I haven't felt that great since I finished my assignments. I seem to be in a bad mood a lot. It sucks.
Anyways, I've been thinking about this thing on and off for the past few weeks. Something that really annoys me: when people try to fix your problems for you (especially personal ones).
Now, you should know that this is completely my own opinion - do not take it too seriously. Now, it's not bad to try and help people out when they've got a problem. For example, if I'm thirsty and you give me water; or if I don't know how to work a welder, and you teach me, then good. A practical solution for a practical problem - good. But what about the harder ones? The emotional ones. Let's say I'm stressing for exams, and you tell me to stop stressing. Am I gonna stop stressing? NO. Or what if you tell me all your relaxation strategies and study techniques? Will I stop stressing? It depends. At best, I might forcefully relax myself for a few seconds; at worst, I'll tell you you're an idiot.
My theory? Well, imagine the problems as holes and the solutions as blocks. Let's say a practical problem is a square hole, and an emotional problem is a different shape...hmmm...something complex...like a 10-pointed star. Now, if you put a square block in the square hole, it fits. Good. Now try putting a square block into a star-shaped hole. What happens? It won't work. It doesn't take long to realise that it doesn't work. But what if you persist? Then your energy is wasted. That's all. Nothing more. My theory is that purely practical solutions simply cannot fix emotional problems.
Another thing: advice. Just from my own perspecitve, if I'm sad and someone tells me to cheer up, this is what I think. Firstly, I acknowledge that he or she is trying to help. Secondly, however, I begin to think that he or she either doesn't understand, doesn't care, or both. It also gives me the impression that he/she thinks I'm stupid for being so sad and is telling me how to live my life because I'm too stupid to live it myself. Now, depending on the situation, the degree of unhappiness I feel varies.
The reason why I'm so annoyed with this is that I've had a lot of bad experiences where people have just given me advice and walked away, possibly thinking that it would fix everything. Well, more often than not, all it's done is made me angry. I understand that people are trying to help, and, most often, the solutions are good and logical. But solutions are not what I need. Solutions simply cannot fix emotions. For me, I would just prefer it if someone just listened to what I had to say without interrupting me with solutions; I need someone who is genuinely interested in ME and my feelings rather than my problems. I wonder if that's how others feel too...
The other day, I made a theory: Be quick to give hugs; be slow to give advice. I wonder what others think...
Anyways, I've been thinking about this thing on and off for the past few weeks. Something that really annoys me: when people try to fix your problems for you (especially personal ones).
Now, you should know that this is completely my own opinion - do not take it too seriously. Now, it's not bad to try and help people out when they've got a problem. For example, if I'm thirsty and you give me water; or if I don't know how to work a welder, and you teach me, then good. A practical solution for a practical problem - good. But what about the harder ones? The emotional ones. Let's say I'm stressing for exams, and you tell me to stop stressing. Am I gonna stop stressing? NO. Or what if you tell me all your relaxation strategies and study techniques? Will I stop stressing? It depends. At best, I might forcefully relax myself for a few seconds; at worst, I'll tell you you're an idiot.
My theory? Well, imagine the problems as holes and the solutions as blocks. Let's say a practical problem is a square hole, and an emotional problem is a different shape...hmmm...something complex...like a 10-pointed star. Now, if you put a square block in the square hole, it fits. Good. Now try putting a square block into a star-shaped hole. What happens? It won't work. It doesn't take long to realise that it doesn't work. But what if you persist? Then your energy is wasted. That's all. Nothing more. My theory is that purely practical solutions simply cannot fix emotional problems.
Another thing: advice. Just from my own perspecitve, if I'm sad and someone tells me to cheer up, this is what I think. Firstly, I acknowledge that he or she is trying to help. Secondly, however, I begin to think that he or she either doesn't understand, doesn't care, or both. It also gives me the impression that he/she thinks I'm stupid for being so sad and is telling me how to live my life because I'm too stupid to live it myself. Now, depending on the situation, the degree of unhappiness I feel varies.
The reason why I'm so annoyed with this is that I've had a lot of bad experiences where people have just given me advice and walked away, possibly thinking that it would fix everything. Well, more often than not, all it's done is made me angry. I understand that people are trying to help, and, most often, the solutions are good and logical. But solutions are not what I need. Solutions simply cannot fix emotions. For me, I would just prefer it if someone just listened to what I had to say without interrupting me with solutions; I need someone who is genuinely interested in ME and my feelings rather than my problems. I wonder if that's how others feel too...
The other day, I made a theory: Be quick to give hugs; be slow to give advice. I wonder what others think...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)