"I love you." It's a strange sentence. Why is it so awkward to say? Or is it just me?
I find it awkward saying it to even my own family and closest friends. It's also a little awkward to hear, isn't it? As children, it seems to come easier. Perhaps it's because our view of love as children is so much simpler. You're nice, you make my life good and I enjoy spending time with you. That's the child's view of love. So as long as you meet those criteria, after a short time, you can probably hear a small child saying that he or she loves you. All that the dictionary defines it as are:
1.) a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.) a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
(Those are the top two definitions)
Our view of love seems to be more complicated though. Or is it? Forgive my backpedaling, I'm writing as I'm thinking (which is the way to blog, I think.) Is love as an adult actually more complicated than that, or just the conditions that we allow ourselves to admit that we love?
I can't think of much more to add to love than that. I mean, there is SO much more to love than that. There's selflessness for the other, there's a desire to serve and give to and live for that person with all that you have. There's being completely comfortable around that person and being able to be yourself and expect them to do the same. There's a lot to loving someone. But at the core, isn't it really just, you make my life good and I enjoy spending time with you? If those things really are true about that person, isn't there some feeling of like involved? Now, there needs to be a profound or intense degree of those things for it to be love, and not just like, but if I think of it, I love the people I love because they are amazing people who I love spending time with them and they make my life (and my self) better with their presence. I love people for who they are. If I think of someone in particular that I love, and ask myself why I love them, I start to think of all their amazing attributes and all the amazing things they've done for me in my life.
So, in the end, I don't think it's actually the word love that makes it awkward to say, I think it's the implications. Which is back to the point I was originally going to make, it's not love that's actually complicated, it's our experiences and feelings and beliefs about love that make it complicated, and then make it awkward to say or hear.
It's awkward for me to say to even my closest guy friends, "I love you buddy." Now, my friends will tell you I'm lying, because I do say it, and it seems to come quite easily, but it actually doesn't. It seems like it comes quite easy because it's not that awkward. I push past the awkwardness quite easily, actually. There's still just that little bit of awkwardness though.
I'm not lying when I say it. I'm not implying anything more than that I think they're awesome and I enjoy spending time with them and that they make my life great. They know that. They know these things, and they hear me say, "I love you," often. So they probably would wonder why I'd say I find it awkward. It simply has to do with my past with that word. Both with what has been associated with it and what hasn't.
I think this is what makes love hard to face for all of us. With the greatest affection for someone else comes the greatest risk of hurt. With the greatest affection for someone else comes the most selflessness and self-sacrificing thoughts and feelings and actions. With the greatest affection for someone else comes the most vulnerability and openness. These can be scary things. Often we've had bad experiences or experienced bad things on others' behalf on the topic of love. Sometimes we trust in our fear of these things more than the person we love, or in love itself. I think that that is where the fear of love, especially of admitting it, comes from. Once we deal with our fears and false expectations of self, others, and ultimately, love, we can move on and really allow ourselves to love and be loved, and to go forth saying and hearing in perfect confidence, "I love you."
I'm working on it. God is helping. Friends are helping. I'm working on it, are you? Would you like to?
-Matt
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
'Christian'
I just bought C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity.' I've only made it to the end of the first chapter, and already, I'm loving it. Expect many more blogs with quotes from this book and on the topics it discusses.
On this, the first of such blogs, I want to post on the topic of the word Christian.
From Lewis' preface:
Far deeper objections may be felt-and have been expressed-against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: 'Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?' or 'May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?' Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot , without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
The word gentlemen originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone 'a gentleman' you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not 'a gentleman' you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-'Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in the sense Edward if far more truly a gentleman than John?' They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the s ame thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man 'a gentleman' in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is 'a gentleman' becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentlean is now a uselss word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of CHrist. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As or the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refind sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they wil mean that they think of him a good man. But that way of using the word wll be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to 'the disciples', to those who accpeted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we an all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian that to say he is not a Christian.
As my good friend Mark would say, "How good's that?"
I've had a debate or two on this topic, usually where the other person in the discussion is the "objector" that Lewis references. Words need to really mean something. In our culture of political correctness and the need of not merely tolerating and accepting other beliefs and point of views, but embracing and trying to somehow adopt them into our own while still maintaining just a shred of the original(s), we have stumbled upon a great predicament. How does one actually communicate what he is trying to say without saying all that he is not trying to say? In order to properly expalin or describe things, we are coming to a place of having to explain ourselves to the 'n'th degree. Things that could have easily been said in a few sentences now require entire paragraphs with prefaces and conclusions so as to be clear and polite and "charitable, spiritual, sensitive." I sometimes find this frustrating, and actually have a mixed stance on the issue. I'm one who wants everyone to feel acknowledged, heard, and understood. Part of doing that is speaking in a way that works for everyone and is clear and precise about what you are and aren't intending to communicate. While I believe in doing this, I've found I only need to because so many people don't think about the communicator's intentions, but of the words themselves alone.
This being said, I think it's up to each of us to examine what it means to us. What it means between you and God. You can use whatever term(s) you like to describe yourself and your faith to yourself, but let's keep the use of words accurate and proper, as Lewis implores.
Specifically on the point of the word Christian, this excerpt of preface has helped to give me some peace and sense on the use of it. I hope that you benefit from reading it here, and reading my thoughts on it.
On this, the first of such blogs, I want to post on the topic of the word Christian.
From Lewis' preface:
Far deeper objections may be felt-and have been expressed-against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: 'Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?' or 'May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?' Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot , without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
The word gentlemen originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone 'a gentleman' you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not 'a gentleman' you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-'Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in the sense Edward if far more truly a gentleman than John?' They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the s ame thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man 'a gentleman' in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is 'a gentleman' becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentlean is now a uselss word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of CHrist. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As or the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refind sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they wil mean that they think of him a good man. But that way of using the word wll be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to 'the disciples', to those who accpeted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we an all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian that to say he is not a Christian.
As my good friend Mark would say, "How good's that?"
I've had a debate or two on this topic, usually where the other person in the discussion is the "objector" that Lewis references. Words need to really mean something. In our culture of political correctness and the need of not merely tolerating and accepting other beliefs and point of views, but embracing and trying to somehow adopt them into our own while still maintaining just a shred of the original(s), we have stumbled upon a great predicament. How does one actually communicate what he is trying to say without saying all that he is not trying to say? In order to properly expalin or describe things, we are coming to a place of having to explain ourselves to the 'n'th degree. Things that could have easily been said in a few sentences now require entire paragraphs with prefaces and conclusions so as to be clear and polite and "charitable, spiritual, sensitive." I sometimes find this frustrating, and actually have a mixed stance on the issue. I'm one who wants everyone to feel acknowledged, heard, and understood. Part of doing that is speaking in a way that works for everyone and is clear and precise about what you are and aren't intending to communicate. While I believe in doing this, I've found I only need to because so many people don't think about the communicator's intentions, but of the words themselves alone.
This being said, I think it's up to each of us to examine what it means to us. What it means between you and God. You can use whatever term(s) you like to describe yourself and your faith to yourself, but let's keep the use of words accurate and proper, as Lewis implores.
Specifically on the point of the word Christian, this excerpt of preface has helped to give me some peace and sense on the use of it. I hope that you benefit from reading it here, and reading my thoughts on it.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Merry Christmas
Not "Happy Holidays," but Merry Christmas.
I hope it finds you blessed, happy, and healthy.
If you don't know it yet, Jesus came to earth to be born for us and to live for us and to die for us; for our sins. And he was resurrected after three days, breaking the power of sin and death.
Because he loves us. He loves you.
Merry Christmas.
-Matt Mitchell
I hope it finds you blessed, happy, and healthy.
If you don't know it yet, Jesus came to earth to be born for us and to live for us and to die for us; for our sins. And he was resurrected after three days, breaking the power of sin and death.
Because he loves us. He loves you.
Merry Christmas.
-Matt Mitchell
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Doing some thinking about doing and doing what I've been thinking.
I had a bit of a "revelation" recently. Why just think about and plan
what you want to do when you can actually do it? I've made some
decisions recently to do some of the things that I've wanted to do for
a little while. I've also set some timelines on some other things. A
while ago I talked to the guys in my cell group about goals and dreams
and about just going for it in life. So I've made some decisions to
start doing some things for next year. I'd like to start playing live
in coffee shops and stuff. So I'm writing more songs and practicing
more. I'm going to be taking voice lessons again shortly too. I've
started practicing some design skills on the computer again. I've made
some new spiritual commitments with some friends. I'm trying to take
better care of my health. I'm trying to be the man I want to be and do
the things I want to do.
I recently lost my last grandparent, my mom'e father. He wasn't a
Christian, but he lived his life the way he wanted. On his terms. He
did what he wanted when he wanted to do it.
It's time for me to really seize life. Another thing I really want to
do more of is talk to people about Jesus. It's fun and so important,
and is definitely something I need to do more.
Jesus never lived a hesitant life, he just went and did all the he
knew he was supposed to do. That's how I want to live. And that's
how I'm going go live. Won't you join me?
what you want to do when you can actually do it? I've made some
decisions recently to do some of the things that I've wanted to do for
a little while. I've also set some timelines on some other things. A
while ago I talked to the guys in my cell group about goals and dreams
and about just going for it in life. So I've made some decisions to
start doing some things for next year. I'd like to start playing live
in coffee shops and stuff. So I'm writing more songs and practicing
more. I'm going to be taking voice lessons again shortly too. I've
started practicing some design skills on the computer again. I've made
some new spiritual commitments with some friends. I'm trying to take
better care of my health. I'm trying to be the man I want to be and do
the things I want to do.
I recently lost my last grandparent, my mom'e father. He wasn't a
Christian, but he lived his life the way he wanted. On his terms. He
did what he wanted when he wanted to do it.
It's time for me to really seize life. Another thing I really want to
do more of is talk to people about Jesus. It's fun and so important,
and is definitely something I need to do more.
Jesus never lived a hesitant life, he just went and did all the he
knew he was supposed to do. That's how I want to live. And that's
how I'm going go live. Won't you join me?
Matt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)