My life keeps providing new opportunities to vent over here. Probably a better environment to do so than on facebook, no? I think so.
Anyhow, today is father's day. I should be writing some big tribute to my dad. However, I did not have a father, not really in the sense that people who write odes to someone who exerted a great influence on their life did, anyway. Oh, sure, he lived in our home until he died when I was ten. But I don't remember interacting with him much and some of the stories I have heard floating around from other family members (which may or may not be true) indicate that it is in the realm of possibility that that might be a very good thing. It's not like I have some horribly abusive memory to erase in the same way that mother's day leaves a bad taste in my mouth because of a lot of the very unloving things that my mother did in the name of "love". It's more like I draw a blank. I have no idea what it might be like to have had some male figure be there for me. Really, truthfully, I have no idea of what having an adult of either gender be there for me might have been like either.
I am not complaining in a way, because God has, indeed, provided some very unique ways of imparting the knowledge that a parent would have, once I opened myself up to that possibility. Of course that was after making a supreme mess of my life first.
So this brings me to one of my biggest frustrations with a message that I get from the church. That being the idea that mostly, God works through other people. Really? That brings some really unpleasant conclusions if taken to an extreme. I am not denying that God CAN work through others or that at times he DOES. So don't start emailing me stories about how God used this one and that one in your life, because I know it does indeed happen!!! It's just that I've had it presented to me on more than one occasion that this is the primary vehicle that God uses. Where does that leave the person who finds themselves isolated for a season of their life?
I remember when my daughter was a toddler reading her a book by Max Lucado (sorry Max. I really like you. But you missed the boat on this one. Big time.) designed to talk about God and families with young kids. In a nutshell, the sentiment was that "God loves you so much and that's why he provided us as your parents." Wow. Consider what that sounds like to a kid who has been repeatedly molested by his/her parents. Consider what that sounds like to a child languishing in the foster system who keeps getting sent from home to home. Clearly it would not be too very difficult by extension to assume that God does NOT love those children anywhere near as much as the child of Mr. and Mrs. Perfect Christian Family. Obviously, this is not true. The Bible says this is not true. Therefore, God's love is obviously distinct from whether or not we have other people pouring out their love on us.
Indeed, look at Joseph. Did God not love Joseph? Yeah, his dad loved him, but it was with such a dysfunctional love that it set his siblings up to ambush him and do horrible things to him. One of my favorite verses in the entire Bible is Genesis 50:20 which talks about what Satan intended to harm Joseph was actually used for good by God. I am not even going to pretend to know how this works. This is such a departure from our formulaic, linear solution oriented line of modern thinking. We want to know how to do X so that Y will happen and sometimes it just doesn't quite work that way.
If I am sounding frustrated, I am. The father's day issue isn't what is so much bugging me, as I long ago came to peace with that. What is bothering me, and I'm gonna come right out and say it, is the teaching that is practically a worship of the "small group". These are groups that are sold as providing instant intimacy and acting as a surrogate family. I've been in several and I'm gonna be honest: they have not worked out quite that way. I've heard other people say the same thing. It's like the dirty little secret that no one wants to admit. The truth of the matter is, the people I have really connected with are folks that I have met outside of these forced little settings. Or sometimes one does meet someone in one of these groups that becomes a lifelong friend, but the group is just a meeting point for a friendship that goes on long after the group has died a natural death. At best, I have heard of people who have a truly remarkable group for a season. But it's not that nonstop circle of support and trust that it is made out to be. I've sat through a presentation encouraging people to join a small group and I couldn't quite believe my ears at the testimony that I heard. There was very little mention of God. There was, however, much mention of how this girl had been loved on and supported by her group. Truthfully, she could have gotten the same thing in many other settings. Who needs God? You just go to church to meet people who will help you. This may not be what was intended, but this was what came across. I really really wanted to believe that I was imagining this, but no, I checked it out with a few other people and sadly, I wasn't. If she ever finds herself in a place in her Christian life where God does not put people in front of her to hold her hand, she'll either be forced to readjust her theology or, more sadly (and probably more likely) she will walk away from the faith because it never really was faith in the first place. It was just good psychology.
Some of the times of greatest growth in my life have been triggered by forced isolation. Ouch. Now how does that fit in with the particular theology discussed above? It does not.
Dare I even say it, but what I have seen is not just bordering on outright idolatry, it IS idolatry. Both of families and of relationships within the church. Whenever one begins to rely on something besides God, one is beginning to walk on very treacherous grounds.
I'm not saying that relationships are bad. I am saying they need to be kept in their proper place and that recognition needs to be given that being in relationship with people be used by God just as much as other variations on the theme.
This gives the same vaguely uncomfortable feeling that people approach having been born in the US as some special mark of God's love without pondering whether that they are implicitly saying that Christians in third world countries (who are often waaaaay more on fire for Jesus than those of us in the US) must not be loved quite as much. Really, health, children, a good family, friends just about any "blessing" is the frosting on the cake of God's love. Because even if you don't have those items, God still loves you. God is still working in your life even if you are in a season where those things seem in short supply. Sometimes those things are not provided so that you can grow. The near obsession in some circles with relationships can obliterate that to where church merely becomes just an exercise in good group psychology and nothing more.
I am not even going to pretend to know exactly how God uses all kinds of situations in our lives. Perhaps in the beginning, before Eve at the fruit, God did intend to use all to prove His love for us. Circumstances that would prevent those tangible things from showing their face had not yet come on the scene. But the church gravely does people a disservice when it points them towards ANYTHING except total reliance on God as necessary.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
And they'll know we are Christians by our...facebook pages????
Once again, a facebook posting has provided blog fodder. This time, the issue in question is if one can assess the level of another's spirituality by examining the content of that person's facebook page. I am not talking about drawing a reasonable conclusion that someone whose page is filled with drug references, salacious shots of themselves in various stages of undress and party tales is probably not walking very close to Jesus at that particular moment. Nor am I saying that one could not conclude that someone who repeatedly posts items mocking others has a bit of a ways to go in becoming more like Jesus. No, the whole underlying assumption is, if I got this right, that the more one's posts talk overtly about God, then the more spiritual that person probably is. Really??? I don't know about that. I don't know that God has a problem if we digress off onto interesting news items, silly plays on words, movie reviews, "guess the song lyrics" statuses (my personal fave) and other postings that don't necessarily scream "Jesus" in capital letters.
This whole thing is a takeoff on the oft heard mantra that you can tell a man/woman's priorities if you take a peek at their calendar or at their checkbook. Really, it sounds good, but I'm not sure that you can over simplify like that. Especially with the calendar. I do think that the checkbook might be more telling since Jesus speaks so pointedly in so many places about material goods and the value or lack thereof of them. But the calendar or the facebook page? Hmmmmm. Not quite so clear cut.
Is the person who reads nothing but Christian books; never anything just for the fun of it more "spiritual" than the person who considers that God created good things for our pleasure? Is the person who chit chats with one's Christian brothers and sisters about matters not directly pertaining to church less spiritual than the person who brings every conversation around to a Bible verse? Again: I'm not so sure. Now, I gotta say, speaking for myself, God is so interwoven into my life, that He is never very far from my mind and if I am talking about something good in my life, the gratitude or the story about how God worked in that is also probably not very far away. But I'm not trying to do so. And I don't feel like I'm neglecting God or making an idol of something else if a good ten or fifteen minutes of conversation pass about "trivial" matters.
I was actually just gonna put this in the string on this person's facebook page, but then I thought I had way more to say than would be right to hog up someone's feed with. I also felt kinda, well, intrusive. Maybe maybe not. Just needing to vent is all.
What do you think?
This whole thing is a takeoff on the oft heard mantra that you can tell a man/woman's priorities if you take a peek at their calendar or at their checkbook. Really, it sounds good, but I'm not sure that you can over simplify like that. Especially with the calendar. I do think that the checkbook might be more telling since Jesus speaks so pointedly in so many places about material goods and the value or lack thereof of them. But the calendar or the facebook page? Hmmmmm. Not quite so clear cut.
Is the person who reads nothing but Christian books; never anything just for the fun of it more "spiritual" than the person who considers that God created good things for our pleasure? Is the person who chit chats with one's Christian brothers and sisters about matters not directly pertaining to church less spiritual than the person who brings every conversation around to a Bible verse? Again: I'm not so sure. Now, I gotta say, speaking for myself, God is so interwoven into my life, that He is never very far from my mind and if I am talking about something good in my life, the gratitude or the story about how God worked in that is also probably not very far away. But I'm not trying to do so. And I don't feel like I'm neglecting God or making an idol of something else if a good ten or fifteen minutes of conversation pass about "trivial" matters.
I was actually just gonna put this in the string on this person's facebook page, but then I thought I had way more to say than would be right to hog up someone's feed with. I also felt kinda, well, intrusive. Maybe maybe not. Just needing to vent is all.
What do you think?
Friday, June 3, 2011
Hit the Road, Jack
Okay, maybe that was just a wee bit disrespectful to the dead, but I couldn't resist.
As most probably know, Jack Kevorkian died today. My first reaction was, let's be honest here, not exactly Christian. I was glad to see him no longer polluting the planet with his evil ideas.
I've already had a few folks on facebook tell me that he performs a valuable service, they want someone like him around for them, etc. Here's the thing: I think this is a relatively new issue because generations ago, people did not linger like they did today. If you were sick enough to be suffering that badly, you were also sick enough to be dying without any help at all in very short order. Once again, though, modern medicine is a double edged sword. The very things that extend our lives often work a little too well. There is such a thing as too much intervention.
I've worked in a hospital for a very brief time in my life when I thought that I was going to be a nurse (another story entirely). I have seen patients that yes, needed to stop being kept alive by medical science. I have heard patients such as those being used as an argument for assisted suicide.
Here's what I don't get: why do people insist on blurring the line between knowing when to let go and taking an active role in killing somebody? I'm not going to go down the "playing God" argument against euthanasia because frankly, we play God every single day by that same line of reasoning. Nonetheless, there is something that makes me very, very uncomfortable about a terminally ill person taking a fistful of pills in the same manner that one would take a dog to the vet to be put down. Can I totally narrow it down to a complete line of reasoning? Not entirely. I just think it is a very dangerous place to go. How, exactly do you define "terminally ill"? How many people also want to make it quick because of subtle pressure from the family? There is an awful lot of room for a slippery slope once you get into taking active steps to end somebody's life.
The truth is, I think that if we were honest about just how much an awful lot of doctors will do just about anything to prolong a patients life for just a few more miserable months, then a lot of this would cease to be an issue. There is a world of difference between acknowledging the cruelty of extending an eighty year old person's life with treatment after painful treatment and becoming comfortable with mixing that same person up a drug cocktail especially for the purpose of killing them.
Yeah, I know about the fact that a lot of times a dose of pain medication strong enough to knock out the pain in a terminally ill patient is also strong enough to kill that same patient. So be it. I'm talking about the intent here. If the goal is to make the patient comfortable and they die in the process, I think that is a very different matter from, again, mixing up that cocktail for the specific purpose of ending the person's life. Motive, people, motive.
It is, again, a very bad jump of logic to go from the fact that the above is a fairly regular occurance to the assumption that deliberately killing somebody is OK.
This stuff NEEDS to be talked about. People should not be afraid to discuss the specifics of the end of life and the ethics involved. If they do not, anything other than pulling out all the stops to keep a patient alive will get lumped into the same category for political purposes. Pro-life people are afraid to talk about some of it for fear of appearing to endorse euthanasia. And the pro-suicide camp finds blurring the lines to be very helpful to the cause of advancing their objectives.
As most probably know, Jack Kevorkian died today. My first reaction was, let's be honest here, not exactly Christian. I was glad to see him no longer polluting the planet with his evil ideas.
I've already had a few folks on facebook tell me that he performs a valuable service, they want someone like him around for them, etc. Here's the thing: I think this is a relatively new issue because generations ago, people did not linger like they did today. If you were sick enough to be suffering that badly, you were also sick enough to be dying without any help at all in very short order. Once again, though, modern medicine is a double edged sword. The very things that extend our lives often work a little too well. There is such a thing as too much intervention.
I've worked in a hospital for a very brief time in my life when I thought that I was going to be a nurse (another story entirely). I have seen patients that yes, needed to stop being kept alive by medical science. I have heard patients such as those being used as an argument for assisted suicide.
Here's what I don't get: why do people insist on blurring the line between knowing when to let go and taking an active role in killing somebody? I'm not going to go down the "playing God" argument against euthanasia because frankly, we play God every single day by that same line of reasoning. Nonetheless, there is something that makes me very, very uncomfortable about a terminally ill person taking a fistful of pills in the same manner that one would take a dog to the vet to be put down. Can I totally narrow it down to a complete line of reasoning? Not entirely. I just think it is a very dangerous place to go. How, exactly do you define "terminally ill"? How many people also want to make it quick because of subtle pressure from the family? There is an awful lot of room for a slippery slope once you get into taking active steps to end somebody's life.
The truth is, I think that if we were honest about just how much an awful lot of doctors will do just about anything to prolong a patients life for just a few more miserable months, then a lot of this would cease to be an issue. There is a world of difference between acknowledging the cruelty of extending an eighty year old person's life with treatment after painful treatment and becoming comfortable with mixing that same person up a drug cocktail especially for the purpose of killing them.
Yeah, I know about the fact that a lot of times a dose of pain medication strong enough to knock out the pain in a terminally ill patient is also strong enough to kill that same patient. So be it. I'm talking about the intent here. If the goal is to make the patient comfortable and they die in the process, I think that is a very different matter from, again, mixing up that cocktail for the specific purpose of ending the person's life. Motive, people, motive.
It is, again, a very bad jump of logic to go from the fact that the above is a fairly regular occurance to the assumption that deliberately killing somebody is OK.
This stuff NEEDS to be talked about. People should not be afraid to discuss the specifics of the end of life and the ethics involved. If they do not, anything other than pulling out all the stops to keep a patient alive will get lumped into the same category for political purposes. Pro-life people are afraid to talk about some of it for fear of appearing to endorse euthanasia. And the pro-suicide camp finds blurring the lines to be very helpful to the cause of advancing their objectives.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Positive Thinkers and Other Liars
Do you know any of those endlessly chirpy positive thinking types? You know, the ones that think that if you believe it, you will make it happen? And then they misappropriate a few Bible verses to make it all sound Godly? Sorta like Oprah. Yeah, me too. And I want to just slap them silly. Because you know what, while there is a kernel of truth within the lies, it is still a lie. And the very WORST lies, the ones that the enemy uses to hurt us the most, are almost always the ones that begin with a truth.
It is true that God does not make junk. I firmly believe that everyone has their niche. I do not disbelieve that as one seeks after God more and more, then God will reveal a plan perfectly tailored to that persons individual gifts. Here is where it breaks down though. Almost always these teachers are putting the cart before the horse. They are making the fruit of an honest walk with God into the object of desire itself. Scripture says that if we delight in the Lord, then He will give us the desires of our hearts. Psalm 37: 4. This is absolutely, positively one of my favorite Bible verses of all time. I take it to mean that as I seek after God, He will align MY will with HIS will. He will burn away the stuff that I want for all the wrong reasons and the stuff that I think that I really need, but actually would not if those things really came to pass. And, ultimately, in HIS time and in HIS way, HE will give us what He knows will bring us the most joy. It will not be a result of "believing in yourself" and "thinking positively". No, it will be the fruit of what the Westminster Catechism states is really our chief purpose during our stay on earth; that being to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.
Where this hurts people is when they go to some Christian pep rally or go to some self-appointed "life coach" who tells them that all they have to do is "think positively" and the big plan will unfold. What happens is that they put God in the position of doing our bidding instead of humbling ourselves before Him and being willing to (gulp!) die to self. God will not let us raise ourselves up as objects of our own ego. At least not for very long. He will especially not appreciate being used so that we can make the our own flesh sound far more spiritual than it actually is.
I was very cynical in my own life that God would ever give me anything that I wanted because I had fallen prey to this kind of thinking at one point in time and of course it hadn't worked. There is no "eight point plan" that will "help God's plan for your life unfold." There is only seeking after God's heart and asking Him questions as they arise and seeking truth. The devil, of course wanted me to think that it was because God wanted me to suffer. Not true. It is all a matter of motive.
"Seek Ye First the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness and All these things will be added unto You" (Matthew 6:33). This just about sums it up. It's not about "overcoming blockages to peak performance"; it's about seeking to be conformed to the mind of Christ. Which admittedly isn't all the rage among many Christians today. Many are far more interested in what God can do for them than in how they can humble themselves before God to be used by Him.
Yes, this is my vent for the day. How perfectly well timed for the same date as the end of the Oprah Winfrey Show.
It is true that God does not make junk. I firmly believe that everyone has their niche. I do not disbelieve that as one seeks after God more and more, then God will reveal a plan perfectly tailored to that persons individual gifts. Here is where it breaks down though. Almost always these teachers are putting the cart before the horse. They are making the fruit of an honest walk with God into the object of desire itself. Scripture says that if we delight in the Lord, then He will give us the desires of our hearts. Psalm 37: 4. This is absolutely, positively one of my favorite Bible verses of all time. I take it to mean that as I seek after God, He will align MY will with HIS will. He will burn away the stuff that I want for all the wrong reasons and the stuff that I think that I really need, but actually would not if those things really came to pass. And, ultimately, in HIS time and in HIS way, HE will give us what He knows will bring us the most joy. It will not be a result of "believing in yourself" and "thinking positively". No, it will be the fruit of what the Westminster Catechism states is really our chief purpose during our stay on earth; that being to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.
Where this hurts people is when they go to some Christian pep rally or go to some self-appointed "life coach" who tells them that all they have to do is "think positively" and the big plan will unfold. What happens is that they put God in the position of doing our bidding instead of humbling ourselves before Him and being willing to (gulp!) die to self. God will not let us raise ourselves up as objects of our own ego. At least not for very long. He will especially not appreciate being used so that we can make the our own flesh sound far more spiritual than it actually is.
I was very cynical in my own life that God would ever give me anything that I wanted because I had fallen prey to this kind of thinking at one point in time and of course it hadn't worked. There is no "eight point plan" that will "help God's plan for your life unfold." There is only seeking after God's heart and asking Him questions as they arise and seeking truth. The devil, of course wanted me to think that it was because God wanted me to suffer. Not true. It is all a matter of motive.
"Seek Ye First the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness and All these things will be added unto You" (Matthew 6:33). This just about sums it up. It's not about "overcoming blockages to peak performance"; it's about seeking to be conformed to the mind of Christ. Which admittedly isn't all the rage among many Christians today. Many are far more interested in what God can do for them than in how they can humble themselves before God to be used by Him.
Yes, this is my vent for the day. How perfectly well timed for the same date as the end of the Oprah Winfrey Show.
Monday, May 16, 2011
A Nice Healthy Discussion!!!!
I've already ranted on the public educational system in the US. Now it's time to take on health care. I can seriously feel the love already.
Now I want to start with several statements right on up from so that nobody can get angry with me and accuse me of things that I do not say. You know about that expression about "making an ass out of "you" and "me" when one assumes? Yeah, there's been a lot of that going on lately. Therefore, for your enjoyment and perusal, I present the following:
1) I do not hate poor people. I do not feel that "I've got mine, so screw everybody else" I simply do not feel that the solutions offered by those of a more liberal persuasion are going to do anything but replace one set of problems with another.
2) I also do not believe that everyone that is lacking brought it on themselves. That may be the case for some individuals, but I certainly do not believe it to be the case across the board.
There. Now that I've gotten this out of the way, may I just state how pathetic that I think that it is that I actually have to spell this out by way of a disclaimer? It's pretty darn sad that anyone who does not toe a certain party line has to defend themselves in this manner, ya know?
Now let's get on with it.
It's not a secret that the US has a major major health care crisis. Duh. Tell me something new and different, OK? What IS debatable is exactly why we have it. Most liberals will, of course, beat the tired old drum that it is because those who have do not care about those who have not. I think there is an element of that there, but not in the way that they think. More on that later.
Many conservatives do tend to blame the individual. "You were careless with your money, so why should I pick up your slack" is what they say in so many words. No doubt this is true in some cases. I'm not interested in a numerical analysis of exactly what percentage of folks without access to good health care have brought it on themselves. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that there are people whose own poor choices have brought them to this point.
At the same time, though, especially as time marches on, there are a great many people who find themselves high and dry thought no fault of their own. They lose a job. They get ill and are dropped like a hot potato and can no longer afford the "special" insurance that is all that is available to them. The list is endless as to the myriad of reasons why any one of us, save for the ridiculously wealthy, could find ourselves without access to decent health care. Do not get me going on Medicare, by the way. I know plenty of people on state aid and the whole system is rife with HUGE problems. This post isn't going to be about those problems. You can google it if you are so inclined. Or just talk to someone who relies on the government for their health care and ask yourself if that is what you would like to be the gold standard for all.
I have my own personal theory as to why we have arrived at this ridiculous dilemma that so many people find themselves in over health care. That theory is named "entitlement". No, I do not mean that I think that acting as if one deserves health care is acting entitled. However, people today, as a group, expect things to be handed them. "have it your way" "You deserve it all". Etc. When my generation was young (I am fifty, to put this in perspective) we had insurance for emergencies only. You wanted to be insured in case you were in a horrible car accident or you got cancer or your uncomplicated pregnancy turned into a very complicated labor and delivery. What you did NOT have insurance for was for the expectation that every shot, every trip for antibiotics and every well child visit would be covered. Those were budgeted for just as you would budget for food. And I don't really know that there were masses of people who had trouble paying for this. Sure, there were some people who could not afford doctors at all, just as there are people who cannot afford food. But they were not the vast numbers that there are today. And there were charities and social services to take care of these folks. The point is: it was not so widespread to be unable to afford basic health care as it today
Somewhere between then and now, some brainiac got the idea that health care plans should be all inclusive. And of course prices skyrocketed. Those who used doctors judiciously wound up paying into the same pool used by hypochondriacs that feel the need to check out every single sniffle. Hey, if you are paying for "all you can eat" healthcare, you may as well get your money's worth, right??? It has been documented that on average, people visit doctors for minor issues quite a bit more if they are not paying only for services consumed.
I don't think this is the worst of it though. The worst of it comes through the third party billing. I used to work in a hospital many moons ago. I have seen with my own two eyes thirty dollar urinalysis cups and twenty five dollar gauze squares. Now, you tell me how on earth can anyone get away with charging prices like that??? I'll tell you how. One word. And that word is greed. Remember my "let's get back to the corporate greed concept" statement above? This is what I was talking about. The restraint at ridiculously overcharging for products and services vanishes at the introduction of a faceless corporation to which these things are billed. Health care providers that wouldn't dream of jacking up the prices of things billed directly to the consumer have no qualms at all of doing just that to the insurance company. None at all. You and I both know what all this overcharging of insurance companies does in the long term to insurance rates, right? It drives them up. But you knew that, of course.
I am frankly amazed that this does not get more discussion. Or maybe it does and it's just smacked down by those who care more about pushing their agenda than about actually solving any problems. News flash: the lack of access to health care is NOT caused by a lack of a government health plan. The same entitlement that drove consumers to embrace the idea of a plan that covered every medical expense is now driving them to expect the government to provide a solution by way of national health care. Except, of course, really, its not free. We know that. Whether it's paid for by taxes or out of pocket, we are still paying for it. It is just that we like the illusion that we are being taken care of rather than having to fork over the bucks at the time of service. The same illusion, by the way, that those who are greedy have that "they aren't really hurting anybody" because the entity that they are cheating is the middle man and not the consumer. But of course it hurts the consumer. It's just not as direct. So it's way easier to rationalize for those who are so inclined to do so.
Just as this whole all-inclusive HMO produced a whole nest of unanticipated problems, I'm almost certain that a government administered health plan will do the same. Yes, everyone will have access to the same crappy level of health care. It will kind of mirror schools probably. There will be an illusion on the part of liberals that everything is "fair" because the government is providing it and in theory it is available to all. But just like in education, we will all be forced to pay for something substandard while those who can afford it will pony up for something better. Can we all say the word "inefficiency" together????
What I want to know is why the reasons that health care has skyrocketed are not being discussed so that a solution can be provided at that level instead of everyone being bullied into taking on a socialist health program or risk being labeled as a selfish, elitist pig????
Answer me that one!!!!!
Now I want to start with several statements right on up from so that nobody can get angry with me and accuse me of things that I do not say. You know about that expression about "making an ass out of "you" and "me" when one assumes? Yeah, there's been a lot of that going on lately. Therefore, for your enjoyment and perusal, I present the following:
1) I do not hate poor people. I do not feel that "I've got mine, so screw everybody else" I simply do not feel that the solutions offered by those of a more liberal persuasion are going to do anything but replace one set of problems with another.
2) I also do not believe that everyone that is lacking brought it on themselves. That may be the case for some individuals, but I certainly do not believe it to be the case across the board.
There. Now that I've gotten this out of the way, may I just state how pathetic that I think that it is that I actually have to spell this out by way of a disclaimer? It's pretty darn sad that anyone who does not toe a certain party line has to defend themselves in this manner, ya know?
Now let's get on with it.
It's not a secret that the US has a major major health care crisis. Duh. Tell me something new and different, OK? What IS debatable is exactly why we have it. Most liberals will, of course, beat the tired old drum that it is because those who have do not care about those who have not. I think there is an element of that there, but not in the way that they think. More on that later.
Many conservatives do tend to blame the individual. "You were careless with your money, so why should I pick up your slack" is what they say in so many words. No doubt this is true in some cases. I'm not interested in a numerical analysis of exactly what percentage of folks without access to good health care have brought it on themselves. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that there are people whose own poor choices have brought them to this point.
At the same time, though, especially as time marches on, there are a great many people who find themselves high and dry thought no fault of their own. They lose a job. They get ill and are dropped like a hot potato and can no longer afford the "special" insurance that is all that is available to them. The list is endless as to the myriad of reasons why any one of us, save for the ridiculously wealthy, could find ourselves without access to decent health care. Do not get me going on Medicare, by the way. I know plenty of people on state aid and the whole system is rife with HUGE problems. This post isn't going to be about those problems. You can google it if you are so inclined. Or just talk to someone who relies on the government for their health care and ask yourself if that is what you would like to be the gold standard for all.
I have my own personal theory as to why we have arrived at this ridiculous dilemma that so many people find themselves in over health care. That theory is named "entitlement". No, I do not mean that I think that acting as if one deserves health care is acting entitled. However, people today, as a group, expect things to be handed them. "have it your way" "You deserve it all". Etc. When my generation was young (I am fifty, to put this in perspective) we had insurance for emergencies only. You wanted to be insured in case you were in a horrible car accident or you got cancer or your uncomplicated pregnancy turned into a very complicated labor and delivery. What you did NOT have insurance for was for the expectation that every shot, every trip for antibiotics and every well child visit would be covered. Those were budgeted for just as you would budget for food. And I don't really know that there were masses of people who had trouble paying for this. Sure, there were some people who could not afford doctors at all, just as there are people who cannot afford food. But they were not the vast numbers that there are today. And there were charities and social services to take care of these folks. The point is: it was not so widespread to be unable to afford basic health care as it today
Somewhere between then and now, some brainiac got the idea that health care plans should be all inclusive. And of course prices skyrocketed. Those who used doctors judiciously wound up paying into the same pool used by hypochondriacs that feel the need to check out every single sniffle. Hey, if you are paying for "all you can eat" healthcare, you may as well get your money's worth, right??? It has been documented that on average, people visit doctors for minor issues quite a bit more if they are not paying only for services consumed.
I don't think this is the worst of it though. The worst of it comes through the third party billing. I used to work in a hospital many moons ago. I have seen with my own two eyes thirty dollar urinalysis cups and twenty five dollar gauze squares. Now, you tell me how on earth can anyone get away with charging prices like that??? I'll tell you how. One word. And that word is greed. Remember my "let's get back to the corporate greed concept" statement above? This is what I was talking about. The restraint at ridiculously overcharging for products and services vanishes at the introduction of a faceless corporation to which these things are billed. Health care providers that wouldn't dream of jacking up the prices of things billed directly to the consumer have no qualms at all of doing just that to the insurance company. None at all. You and I both know what all this overcharging of insurance companies does in the long term to insurance rates, right? It drives them up. But you knew that, of course.
I am frankly amazed that this does not get more discussion. Or maybe it does and it's just smacked down by those who care more about pushing their agenda than about actually solving any problems. News flash: the lack of access to health care is NOT caused by a lack of a government health plan. The same entitlement that drove consumers to embrace the idea of a plan that covered every medical expense is now driving them to expect the government to provide a solution by way of national health care. Except, of course, really, its not free. We know that. Whether it's paid for by taxes or out of pocket, we are still paying for it. It is just that we like the illusion that we are being taken care of rather than having to fork over the bucks at the time of service. The same illusion, by the way, that those who are greedy have that "they aren't really hurting anybody" because the entity that they are cheating is the middle man and not the consumer. But of course it hurts the consumer. It's just not as direct. So it's way easier to rationalize for those who are so inclined to do so.
Just as this whole all-inclusive HMO produced a whole nest of unanticipated problems, I'm almost certain that a government administered health plan will do the same. Yes, everyone will have access to the same crappy level of health care. It will kind of mirror schools probably. There will be an illusion on the part of liberals that everything is "fair" because the government is providing it and in theory it is available to all. But just like in education, we will all be forced to pay for something substandard while those who can afford it will pony up for something better. Can we all say the word "inefficiency" together????
What I want to know is why the reasons that health care has skyrocketed are not being discussed so that a solution can be provided at that level instead of everyone being bullied into taking on a socialist health program or risk being labeled as a selfish, elitist pig????
Answer me that one!!!!!
Sunday, May 8, 2011
"Mother" (the Pink Floyd version)
So today is Mother's Day. I am usually focused on being very glad that I am a mother to a couple of the most awesome kids EVAH. But then I start to see people posting about how their mothers left them a legacy and taught them this and that and I draw a blank. And then I start to feel guilty. The only mother themed musical tribute that struck an emotional chord for me was from The Wall. You know, the one where Roger Waters croons about how his mother turned him into a neurotic mess. That one.
See, I don't have these warm fuzzies for my mother. She was a very hard person to get to know. I can look back and feel a little empathy for her because I know a little bit about her past. I also was just too close to the situation and had been on the receiving end of too many of her underhanded vicious comments to back off and extend a little grace. Yeah, I feel guilty for that. I know of plenty of people whose mothers were far less than stellar and yet they have been able to pick out some of the good. Maybe they are better people than I am. Or maybe their mothers came to them and acknowledged some of the wrongs that they have done, unlike mine who persisted right on up until the very end that she'd been an excellent mother and I was just ungrateful. Denial runs deep. Sometimes very deep. I'd like to think that if my children came to me as adults and told me that x,y and z actions of mine had greatly contributed to some issues that they had had that I would be gracious and acknowledge that and beg their forgiveness without getting all huffy and defensive.
The problem is that anything that I wind up saying to myself to lessen the impact of my mother's actions feels like I am making an excuse. How can you spend your child's entire childhood expressing your disgust for just about every aspect of their personality while still proclaiming your love for said child? Is it any wonder that I grew up loathing myself?
Yet still, I know so many people whose parents did far, far worse. Beat them. Said things far more vicious than my mothers subtle hints of disapproval. Neglected them. What is wrong with me that I could just not muster it up to find some good in there like some of these other people have done. Maybe their mother's truly WERE a mixture of good and bad. Maybe their mother's did indeed do some very loving things amidst the dysfunction. I've known people like that in my lifetime. There may have been drinking and all manner of messed up things going on, but it was also clear that these family units loved each other. Aside from the usage of the word itself, I don't know that I ever felt that there was a whole lot of love in my family growing up. Love was something you wrote on cards or declared to bring things down a notch when you knew someone was getting ready to confront you. It was something used to deflect when a very real hurt was brought up. "But I love you, so drop it". It was used to justify an awful lot of manipulation "for your own good". In the end, I think "love" was more about the other persons feelings of attachment than it was about any real desire to see another person thrive. I always felt like my mother had just put a straw in me and was busily sucking the life out of me.
Did I also mention that she was a compulsive liar? I actually had begun to believe I was crazy after years of her denials and rewrites of past events, current events and indeed anything to get her off the hook. By the time I left home at the age of eighteen, the best analogy I can come up with is that of a dog chewing off it's own leg to escape an even worse fate. Yup, that's what it felt like.
But oh, the guilt. She was my mother after all and she supposedly wanted the best for me. So she said. My very last conversation with her only reaffirmed to me that no matter what I did, it would still not be OK. It has dawned on me gradually that even if I HAD been what I thought she wanted me to be, then she would have found something else. Because I know very very few people that my mother fully approved of. And you know what else? Her approval appeared to bear an inverse relationship with how emotionally healthy the other person was. My mother mistook pity for love. I believe that she enjoyed feeling sorry for people because then she could feel like that good person. I don't even know that it's my place to figure out my mother's psychopathology. I only know that being in the same vicinity as her for more than an hour or so began to make me crazy.
So really, I am trying so very hard to not feel guilty that I DON'T have some wonderful legacy to place up on facebook as a status in tribute to my now deceased mother today. I pretty much raised myself until I got it together enough to be in environments where I have indeed found nurturing relationships. I've got a lot to be grateful for, I could list the specifics or I could simply say that God has indeed sustained me when humans failed me miserably. That is a lot to be grateful for.
I want to be clear that I am not angry or bitter. I know that there are things that I was given out of the starting gate that many others didn't get. There are people who desperately want children. I have two. I have a husband who is a man of integrity. We have had our struggles and he is far from perfect, but I know he tries to do the right thing. A lot of women do not have that. I am relatively healthy. I'm not saying that I have always been at peace with this, because that would be a complete bald-faced lie. I spent many years living in the shadows of bitterness and yes, even rage that I was "cheated like this". But I have seen how we all have our different "stuff" to deal with and this is mine.
I am also not one of these people any more who is so self centered in my own issues that I begrudge other people the joy of celebrating what I did not have. See above for how I have come to peace with that.
I just thought, gee, if I posted what I'm REALLY thinking about my mother as a facebook status today, I'd probably come off looking like, yes, an angry, bitter b**ch. Hence the blog post. This just seems to be more the appropriate forum for it, that's all.
See, I don't have these warm fuzzies for my mother. She was a very hard person to get to know. I can look back and feel a little empathy for her because I know a little bit about her past. I also was just too close to the situation and had been on the receiving end of too many of her underhanded vicious comments to back off and extend a little grace. Yeah, I feel guilty for that. I know of plenty of people whose mothers were far less than stellar and yet they have been able to pick out some of the good. Maybe they are better people than I am. Or maybe their mothers came to them and acknowledged some of the wrongs that they have done, unlike mine who persisted right on up until the very end that she'd been an excellent mother and I was just ungrateful. Denial runs deep. Sometimes very deep. I'd like to think that if my children came to me as adults and told me that x,y and z actions of mine had greatly contributed to some issues that they had had that I would be gracious and acknowledge that and beg their forgiveness without getting all huffy and defensive.
The problem is that anything that I wind up saying to myself to lessen the impact of my mother's actions feels like I am making an excuse. How can you spend your child's entire childhood expressing your disgust for just about every aspect of their personality while still proclaiming your love for said child? Is it any wonder that I grew up loathing myself?
Yet still, I know so many people whose parents did far, far worse. Beat them. Said things far more vicious than my mothers subtle hints of disapproval. Neglected them. What is wrong with me that I could just not muster it up to find some good in there like some of these other people have done. Maybe their mother's truly WERE a mixture of good and bad. Maybe their mother's did indeed do some very loving things amidst the dysfunction. I've known people like that in my lifetime. There may have been drinking and all manner of messed up things going on, but it was also clear that these family units loved each other. Aside from the usage of the word itself, I don't know that I ever felt that there was a whole lot of love in my family growing up. Love was something you wrote on cards or declared to bring things down a notch when you knew someone was getting ready to confront you. It was something used to deflect when a very real hurt was brought up. "But I love you, so drop it". It was used to justify an awful lot of manipulation "for your own good". In the end, I think "love" was more about the other persons feelings of attachment than it was about any real desire to see another person thrive. I always felt like my mother had just put a straw in me and was busily sucking the life out of me.
Did I also mention that she was a compulsive liar? I actually had begun to believe I was crazy after years of her denials and rewrites of past events, current events and indeed anything to get her off the hook. By the time I left home at the age of eighteen, the best analogy I can come up with is that of a dog chewing off it's own leg to escape an even worse fate. Yup, that's what it felt like.
But oh, the guilt. She was my mother after all and she supposedly wanted the best for me. So she said. My very last conversation with her only reaffirmed to me that no matter what I did, it would still not be OK. It has dawned on me gradually that even if I HAD been what I thought she wanted me to be, then she would have found something else. Because I know very very few people that my mother fully approved of. And you know what else? Her approval appeared to bear an inverse relationship with how emotionally healthy the other person was. My mother mistook pity for love. I believe that she enjoyed feeling sorry for people because then she could feel like that good person. I don't even know that it's my place to figure out my mother's psychopathology. I only know that being in the same vicinity as her for more than an hour or so began to make me crazy.
So really, I am trying so very hard to not feel guilty that I DON'T have some wonderful legacy to place up on facebook as a status in tribute to my now deceased mother today. I pretty much raised myself until I got it together enough to be in environments where I have indeed found nurturing relationships. I've got a lot to be grateful for, I could list the specifics or I could simply say that God has indeed sustained me when humans failed me miserably. That is a lot to be grateful for.
I want to be clear that I am not angry or bitter. I know that there are things that I was given out of the starting gate that many others didn't get. There are people who desperately want children. I have two. I have a husband who is a man of integrity. We have had our struggles and he is far from perfect, but I know he tries to do the right thing. A lot of women do not have that. I am relatively healthy. I'm not saying that I have always been at peace with this, because that would be a complete bald-faced lie. I spent many years living in the shadows of bitterness and yes, even rage that I was "cheated like this". But I have seen how we all have our different "stuff" to deal with and this is mine.
I am also not one of these people any more who is so self centered in my own issues that I begrudge other people the joy of celebrating what I did not have. See above for how I have come to peace with that.
I just thought, gee, if I posted what I'm REALLY thinking about my mother as a facebook status today, I'd probably come off looking like, yes, an angry, bitter b**ch. Hence the blog post. This just seems to be more the appropriate forum for it, that's all.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Fun with conspiracy theories!!!
Is it really a surprise that the death of Osama Bin Laden has brought the conspiracy theorists out of the woodworks??? I'm not here to give off a blow by blow of specific conspiracy theories so much as to contemplate conspiracy theories in general.
It seems to me that it is just as foolish to assume that the government has your best interests at heart and that the media is all truth all the time as it is to unquestioningly suck up any conspiracy theory that hits the right spot emotionally.
I've read some attempts at explaining the psychology of conspiracy theories. These are usually from a liberal-ish point of view, and usually wanting to paint all who aren't drinking their particular brand of kool-aid as wild-eyed whackjobs. It may help to maintain one's own worldview to believe that those who aren't buying it are insecure or racist or scapegoating or whatever, but the fact remains, government and mainstream media both have given the American public an awful lot of reasons to feel suspicious over the years. I'm sure there ARE people who are just unbalanced and have paranoid tendencies anyhow who let their imaginations entirely get the best of them.
It's a gross misrepresentation to give us two choices: either suck up what you are told by the powers that be or float off into mere speculation and heresay.
See, this is where I think a lot of conspiracy theory types get it wrong. It's obvious there is something off. Let's take the whole birth certificate mess. Obama was not terribly forthcoming with information. He did not display an open willingness to put the American public at ease. Why that might be is mere speculation. I've seen theories that he was an illegitimate child and is in fact hiding that he was the product of an affair. This is plausible. Doesn't make it fact. It is also possible that Obama was just being cantankerous; and because his questioners were people at the diametric end of the political spectrum than himself, he thought that not dignifying their suspicions with what they wanted was a smooth move. Not so much. If people accuse you, you show them you have nothing to hide. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. So, as a result of Obama's unwillingness to be an open book on the matter of his official documentation, we've had a lot of theories floating around out there that go well beyond anything that can be proven. It is one thing to say "I do not trust him. He is hiding SOMETHING" and it is quite another to fill in the blanks with mere speculation (lets see how many times I can use the word "speculation" in this post, eh?). Look, I've read some of the articles that are based on statements of relatives and half-siblings that can't even get their facts straight. At the same time, it strikes me as kinda odd that Obama has an Indonesian half sister that he fails to mention in his book AT ALL. This lack of forthrightness is of course going to breed suspicion that the man is hiding something. Or lots of somethings. He may think he is being private, but that's not how an awful lot of folks, particularly those who don't like his politics already, are gonna perceive it. As for the privacy: I'm sorry, you choose to run for the president of the United States, any semblance of privacy flies out the window. If you are not prepared to answer touchy questions about yourself and your history to reassure people, inspire trust and put their minds at ease, then why don't you just find another profession?
This is what I think: conspiracy theories (note the word THEORY. If it were more than that, a different word would be used than THEORY) flourish where people have good reason to believe that they are not being told the truth through mainstream sources. When they believe that information is being withheld or even that they are being lied to outright, a certain number of people's imaginations run wild. Maybe it makes some of us feel more control to have a plausible explanation rather than just a lot of dangling loose ends. I don't know. But some of the explanations I've read in some of the self-congratulatory back-patting liberal publications out there (Huffington Post, I'm looking at you!!!) reek of just as much speculatory accusation as the so-called conspiracy theorists.
To reduce people who question Obamas birth to a bunch of racists who want to rid the country of its first African-American president is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard in my entire life. The man's father and stepfather both were foreigners. He spent a significant portion of his youth living not only in a foreign country, but a foreign country who's predominant religion is known to have large factions that have expressed their undying hatred of America. If that means people want a little more reassurance than they would from another candidate, then I don't think that makes them racists. Especially in this current political climate. That they take that lack of reassurance and spin fanciful stories is not really a surprise. I think most people feel more comfortable if they can explain stuff away instead of living with a big gaping hole of stuff-we-don't-know.
It seems to me that it is just as foolish to assume that the government has your best interests at heart and that the media is all truth all the time as it is to unquestioningly suck up any conspiracy theory that hits the right spot emotionally.
I've read some attempts at explaining the psychology of conspiracy theories. These are usually from a liberal-ish point of view, and usually wanting to paint all who aren't drinking their particular brand of kool-aid as wild-eyed whackjobs. It may help to maintain one's own worldview to believe that those who aren't buying it are insecure or racist or scapegoating or whatever, but the fact remains, government and mainstream media both have given the American public an awful lot of reasons to feel suspicious over the years. I'm sure there ARE people who are just unbalanced and have paranoid tendencies anyhow who let their imaginations entirely get the best of them.
It's a gross misrepresentation to give us two choices: either suck up what you are told by the powers that be or float off into mere speculation and heresay.
See, this is where I think a lot of conspiracy theory types get it wrong. It's obvious there is something off. Let's take the whole birth certificate mess. Obama was not terribly forthcoming with information. He did not display an open willingness to put the American public at ease. Why that might be is mere speculation. I've seen theories that he was an illegitimate child and is in fact hiding that he was the product of an affair. This is plausible. Doesn't make it fact. It is also possible that Obama was just being cantankerous; and because his questioners were people at the diametric end of the political spectrum than himself, he thought that not dignifying their suspicions with what they wanted was a smooth move. Not so much. If people accuse you, you show them you have nothing to hide. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. So, as a result of Obama's unwillingness to be an open book on the matter of his official documentation, we've had a lot of theories floating around out there that go well beyond anything that can be proven. It is one thing to say "I do not trust him. He is hiding SOMETHING" and it is quite another to fill in the blanks with mere speculation (lets see how many times I can use the word "speculation" in this post, eh?). Look, I've read some of the articles that are based on statements of relatives and half-siblings that can't even get their facts straight. At the same time, it strikes me as kinda odd that Obama has an Indonesian half sister that he fails to mention in his book AT ALL. This lack of forthrightness is of course going to breed suspicion that the man is hiding something. Or lots of somethings. He may think he is being private, but that's not how an awful lot of folks, particularly those who don't like his politics already, are gonna perceive it. As for the privacy: I'm sorry, you choose to run for the president of the United States, any semblance of privacy flies out the window. If you are not prepared to answer touchy questions about yourself and your history to reassure people, inspire trust and put their minds at ease, then why don't you just find another profession?
This is what I think: conspiracy theories (note the word THEORY. If it were more than that, a different word would be used than THEORY) flourish where people have good reason to believe that they are not being told the truth through mainstream sources. When they believe that information is being withheld or even that they are being lied to outright, a certain number of people's imaginations run wild. Maybe it makes some of us feel more control to have a plausible explanation rather than just a lot of dangling loose ends. I don't know. But some of the explanations I've read in some of the self-congratulatory back-patting liberal publications out there (Huffington Post, I'm looking at you!!!) reek of just as much speculatory accusation as the so-called conspiracy theorists.
To reduce people who question Obamas birth to a bunch of racists who want to rid the country of its first African-American president is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard in my entire life. The man's father and stepfather both were foreigners. He spent a significant portion of his youth living not only in a foreign country, but a foreign country who's predominant religion is known to have large factions that have expressed their undying hatred of America. If that means people want a little more reassurance than they would from another candidate, then I don't think that makes them racists. Especially in this current political climate. That they take that lack of reassurance and spin fanciful stories is not really a surprise. I think most people feel more comfortable if they can explain stuff away instead of living with a big gaping hole of stuff-we-don't-know.
Monday, April 25, 2011
An Easter Post
Here I sit on Easter evening, digesting my ham and deviled eggs (and might I add that they were very delicious!!! I'm no foodie, but by gosh, I love my own cooking!!! I suppose that is a very good thing!!) and thinking about the resurrection.
You know, I usually have some topic all mentally planned out before I write. Every so often, when I have been at some peak of emotional angst, I'll emotionally vomit on the page. It always winds up sounding the same though, so I try not to do it too much. Yeah, this is my personal space, but I also figure that if people are taking the time to read my stuff, then I should also at least try to not bore them.
Not tonight. I've had stuff rattling around in my head. I have also been keenly aware that it's been awhile since my last blog post. So I kinda thought to myself, "self, why don't you just blog about it and see where it goes?" Yeah. Good idea.
So here it be. I've been a Christian for a very long time. More than half my life at this point. Longer than that, if you count the years that I gave mental assent to Christian doctrine for the most part, but was simply unwilling to give up the lifestyle issues and commit to growing as a Christian. Those were years I floated in and out of churches after being out late partying the night before. I knew what I should be doing. I just wasn't quite willing to do it yet.
I am not sure that I fully grasped the "we are all sinners so Jesus had to die" thingie for quite awhile. I saw myself as a particular failure and I saw Jesus as the missing piece that might be able to fill in those holes that my own natural abilities did not. But I don't know that I saw this as universal. I had always neatly divided the world into "myself" and "all those confident people out there who have a clue"
I am now starting to get that it is possible to be a good person in the world's eyes and still totally be lacking in the things that are important to God. I've been privy to a somewhat nauseating exchange online in which several do-gooder types were patting each other on the back about how "compassionate" they are. I mean, really??? Yeah, I've been on the receiving end of a lot of people who fancy themselves as very loving and very kind and I have news for you: those are more often than not, the people who destroy your life while they are trying to "help" you. They just don't get it. I've been mulling over how this works on a larger political level lately. That is, of course, a topic for another day.
But back to the matter at hand. This is really nothing more than pride. More often than not, people in the world who fancy themselves as "good people" reek of pride. They judge other people in a far worse manner than the Christians who are so frequently accused of being "judgmental".
I don't even want to make this a liberal/conservative issue because I am fast starting to believe that Jesus just wouldn't be out there politicizing everything. He knew more than any of us that politics is, indeed, mostly the works of man. An attempt by man to fix what is wrong with the world by our own means instead of bowing to our Creator and realizing that only HE has the answers. Not saying that people should not ever get involved in the political process and certainly we should all vote, but the ability of manmade systems and institutions of any stripe to unravel the messes that we have made is severely limited. It is amazing to me how many Christians do not realize this.
It just sort of fries me that people can be so smug about what good people they think that they are. Especially when it is obvious to me that they probably are not. You know, there has been some near canonization of public school teachers in the media in the wake of all the goings on in Wisconsin. How they work so hard and spend their own money on school supplies. Etc. I'm sure that they do indeed do all that. Yet at the same time you have this. I am fully aware that every single public school teacher does not systematically enable bullying. But this recent incident in Minnesota happens everywhere. All over the country. Kids who are tormented who dare to fight back are expelled while the bullies go free. These people who practically self-canonize themselves are also at the same time driving kids to suicide. Um, yeah, not quite so saintly now, are they?
People in recovery know well the concept of "codependence". It's always the "good" person, the "hero" that is also the one making everybody else crazy and in fact undermining them with their very destructive "good intentions". What else is this but sin??? Lord, save us from ourselves.
If it were possible to be "good people", all we would have to do is follow a checklist. However, not only can one make oneself crazy trying to do just that, but it is more likely than not that mixed in with all that stuff that you are busily patting yourself on the back for, is an awful lot of destruction that you are completely unaware of. Ouch.
I'm really starting to get it. How it's not about my inabilities to quite get it together in the ways that I have imagined that other people do. It's about surrendering my motives and letting God purify those. And rid me of pride.
Speak of pride; I've been around this earth for over fifty years. This has given me ample opportunity to observe how people's actions very often do not match with their words. This may be a rehash of what I said way up there, but it merits being spelled out clearly. I've noticed that so often when people make a point of telling you how "good" they are, that's a pretty clear indication to start running for the hills. Because that is the person who will more than likely screw you over in more ways than you ever imagined. I don't even know that this is a conscious attempt to deceive, although I'm sure that sometimes the person does know exactly what they are doing. I've merely noticed that the folks that truly believe that they are "good people" are very often the one's who are extremely toxic. I suspect it's a function of our old friend "denial". They believe that they are such nice people. So when they do something that doesn't fit with that image that they have of themselves, they are forced to minimize that. Or they might have to deal with something unpleasant. Like facing the doctrine of sin. Oops.
I'm betting I get some negativity about this. And that's OK. Because I'm fast coming to the conclusion that NOTHING matters in life so much as my life in Christ and allowing it to be about Jesus and not about me.
Amen.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Letting it All Hang Out
I have at least two other blogger friends who are blogging about some really serious stuff that they are talking about for the first time. It's kinda given me the impetus to do likewise.
I struggle a lot with thinking that compared to other people, my "stuff" is really stupid. Of course, I know, objectively speaking, there were some major shitty episodes in my childhood. They may not be the stuff of which horror stories are made of, but no one would deny that things like the death of a parent are just minor blips. Since I never really had any clearly defined addictive problem as an adult, I also tend to discredit whether I am just magnifying things in my own head. There is no doubt that a lot of my adult behavior was dysfunctional and pockmarked with bad decisions, but when I hear what some people have endured, I feel awfully fortunate in comparison.
One of the biggest patterns in my life has been the belief that I am hopelessly screwed up, hopelessly incompetent and a real loser. I live in fear of someone finding this out. I've unfortunately been around recovery circles enough to know that you're only as sick as your secrets and the big key to healing is to just open up about it. Do I really feel ready to spill the details on a blog to countless anonymous readers? Well, no. I'm also afraid of sounding like a gigantic victim if I lay out the blow by blow that got me here. Maybe that's not really the point. The point being that somehow the combined message of my childhood was one of being "different" and ill equipped for life in the same way that other people are. As an adult, I continued to seek out relationships that reinforced that message. Where others would no doubt have put the lid on friendships based on putdowns and attempts to "fix" everything that was wrong with themselves, I ate it up. Why not? I figured that it was true.
I also picked up by osmosis the belief of my mother that resistance is futile. Accept your destiny. And in my case, my destiny appeared to be that of the crap on the bottom of everybody else's shoes.
So this brings me up to today. I really want to believe that I am made for something more. Every time I turn around, I seem to be picking something up that holds this out. Well, I have a few recent failures under my belt and that little voice of the devil whispers into my ear and tells me that this is more of the same and really, who am "I" to expect anything different.
I forget of course that God has worked major miracles in my marriage and my family, but I still feel like the perpetual screw up. Those old messages are really hard to kick to the curb. I can repeat all the scripture in the world, but I can also remind myself that God does not promise us anything but His undying love.
I am starting to get that my VALUE comes from God's love and not from my performance. It's not about me and it's not about my endless desire to "prove them wrong" which seems like it always ends in disaster.
It is still hard for me to believe that if I keep my eyes firmly focused on God that He will enable me to do things that I never thought I could be capable of doing.
I struggle a lot with thinking that compared to other people, my "stuff" is really stupid. Of course, I know, objectively speaking, there were some major shitty episodes in my childhood. They may not be the stuff of which horror stories are made of, but no one would deny that things like the death of a parent are just minor blips. Since I never really had any clearly defined addictive problem as an adult, I also tend to discredit whether I am just magnifying things in my own head. There is no doubt that a lot of my adult behavior was dysfunctional and pockmarked with bad decisions, but when I hear what some people have endured, I feel awfully fortunate in comparison.
One of the biggest patterns in my life has been the belief that I am hopelessly screwed up, hopelessly incompetent and a real loser. I live in fear of someone finding this out. I've unfortunately been around recovery circles enough to know that you're only as sick as your secrets and the big key to healing is to just open up about it. Do I really feel ready to spill the details on a blog to countless anonymous readers? Well, no. I'm also afraid of sounding like a gigantic victim if I lay out the blow by blow that got me here. Maybe that's not really the point. The point being that somehow the combined message of my childhood was one of being "different" and ill equipped for life in the same way that other people are. As an adult, I continued to seek out relationships that reinforced that message. Where others would no doubt have put the lid on friendships based on putdowns and attempts to "fix" everything that was wrong with themselves, I ate it up. Why not? I figured that it was true.
I also picked up by osmosis the belief of my mother that resistance is futile. Accept your destiny. And in my case, my destiny appeared to be that of the crap on the bottom of everybody else's shoes.
So this brings me up to today. I really want to believe that I am made for something more. Every time I turn around, I seem to be picking something up that holds this out. Well, I have a few recent failures under my belt and that little voice of the devil whispers into my ear and tells me that this is more of the same and really, who am "I" to expect anything different.
I forget of course that God has worked major miracles in my marriage and my family, but I still feel like the perpetual screw up. Those old messages are really hard to kick to the curb. I can repeat all the scripture in the world, but I can also remind myself that God does not promise us anything but His undying love.
I am starting to get that my VALUE comes from God's love and not from my performance. It's not about me and it's not about my endless desire to "prove them wrong" which seems like it always ends in disaster.
It is still hard for me to believe that if I keep my eyes firmly focused on God that He will enable me to do things that I never thought I could be capable of doing.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Some random thoughts a week after Japan
For the first time in months I actually have blog topics lined up in a neat little list, waiting for me to generate posts. Wow. I impress myself. Either that or maybe a lot of things have all lined up to give me good blog fodder all at the same right time.
Like most of the world, I've been glued to the situation in Japan. I don't think I even need to honor this with a link because if you don't know about the recent events over there, you must be cut off from the outside world or something.
I'll just zoom right in on one of my key thoughts about the whole mess right now and that would be that we humans sure think that we're hot stuff next to Mother Nature. I mean really, we just blithely go about our business and make our plans and then act all surprised when something comes along that is bigger than we are. We are also unprepared for when all our brave new technology winds up causing a lot of problems.
Really, I've been thinking about this stuff a lot. For most of human history, we have been decidedly low tech. Fire. A few mechanical doodads that make life easier. But that's been about it. Certainly nothing far reaching like electricity or engines or any of the other myriad inventions that have made life in the past hundred years remarkably more advanced than ever before. Think about it; there has been a sameness to life pretty much up until the industrial revolution. For all the cultural differences there might have been from era to era, most things remained the same. Transportation was by and large the result of animals whose only contribution to the environment has been some nice organic fertilizer. No carbon emissions polluting the air. Most definitely nothing like nuclear power. In fact, come to think of it, a really good portion of our modern issues have to do with energy sources, problems with energy sources and procuring energy sources.
That's not even touching the fact that there are any number of countries that are capable of anihilating us all if someone's trigger finger gets a little itchy. No, that is a very new phenomenon. Warfare was always ugly, but it didn't have the potential to do us all in until pretty recently.
Now all this is not to say that life before the industrial revolution was some kind of utopian paradise, because it was not, despite what some those back to the land types might like to think.
It's simply that it occurred to me the other day that there has been a huge escalation in the pollution of our world and in all manner of problems that pretty neatly coincides with much of this technology. In large measure, the very things that have changed life from backbreaking toil and survival into what it is today are also, most likely, some of the very same things that will prove to be our undoing.
I'm not sure this merits some huge long drawn out essay, but the above was just some random thoughts that I had in the wake of watching everything unfolding in Japan over the past week, coupled with endless discussions about nukes and energy sources and such.
Really, I've been thinking about this stuff a lot. For most of human history, we have been decidedly low tech. Fire. A few mechanical doodads that make life easier. But that's been about it. Certainly nothing far reaching like electricity or engines or any of the other myriad inventions that have made life in the past hundred years remarkably more advanced than ever before. Think about it; there has been a sameness to life pretty much up until the industrial revolution. For all the cultural differences there might have been from era to era, most things remained the same. Transportation was by and large the result of animals whose only contribution to the environment has been some nice organic fertilizer. No carbon emissions polluting the air. Most definitely nothing like nuclear power. In fact, come to think of it, a really good portion of our modern issues have to do with energy sources, problems with energy sources and procuring energy sources.
That's not even touching the fact that there are any number of countries that are capable of anihilating us all if someone's trigger finger gets a little itchy. No, that is a very new phenomenon. Warfare was always ugly, but it didn't have the potential to do us all in until pretty recently.
Now all this is not to say that life before the industrial revolution was some kind of utopian paradise, because it was not, despite what some those back to the land types might like to think.
It's simply that it occurred to me the other day that there has been a huge escalation in the pollution of our world and in all manner of problems that pretty neatly coincides with much of this technology. In large measure, the very things that have changed life from backbreaking toil and survival into what it is today are also, most likely, some of the very same things that will prove to be our undoing.
I'm not sure this merits some huge long drawn out essay, but the above was just some random thoughts that I had in the wake of watching everything unfolding in Japan over the past week, coupled with endless discussions about nukes and energy sources and such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)