Pages

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Making light of a slight

This is in answer to a question I received. How should Christians react when someone says something that hurts their feelings? Mind you, I think we’re living in a culture where too many people are too easily offended. But I’m not talking about the hypersensitives.

There are people who say something cutting, and they succeed. How should we deal with that?

Quoting the usual prooftexts about love and forgiveness is not an answer. For that, of itself, doesn’t change how we feel. It may lay on us a sense of obligation, but it doesn’t show us how to inwardly comply.

The issue is not what we know, but what we feel. Even if we ought to feel a certain way, citing chapter and verse doesn’t make us feel that way.

1. It’s easy to make light of a slight if you’re happy. So it’s useful to remind yourself of all the things in life that make you happy.

If you’re already unhappy, then a slight will cut much deeper.

“Count your blessings,” as the old saying goes. That sounds trite, but it’s good advice.

Of course, there are times when we may not feel very blest. When life may seem more like a curse than a blessing.

That’s often due to our circumstances. Here I’d say that if you can change your circumstances, do so.

Don’t merely count your blessings, but add to your blessings. You can’t reap what you don’t sow. Sometimes we need to plant seeds which will yield a blessed crop.

Where possible, improve your situation so that you will have more blessings to count. Seedtime and harvest have a spiritual dimension.

Put another way, sometimes we shouldn’t focus on the slight. Rather, we should focus on our ordinary mood—which can either minimize or magnify the slight.

2. Apropos (1), we should make a practice of thanksgiving. Keep a record of the good times. Sit down and write down the many good things that have happened to you over the years.

It’s easy to forget. Easy to lose track. Life is so relentless. One thing after another.

There are lots of things to thank God for. Sometimes we need to slow down, look back, and do an inventory of our life. Fond memories. Divine deliverance. Answered prayer. Unexpected blessings.

Slights recede when we move out of the shade and stand in the sunlight.

Know what you care about, then care about what you know.

3. We should remind ourselves that the only person’s opinion which really matters is God’s opinion.

4. We should imagine what the person who slighted us would be like in heaven. It’s easier to pray for someone if you think about him, not as he is, but as he could be. If God brought out all his best qualities, added other good qualities, and eradicated the bad qualities.

5. We should put our feelings in perspective. It’s like a phobia. I know it’s irrational and involuntary. If I’m acrophobic, I can’t help how I feel about high places.

But that very recognition is liberating. I don’t blame myself for a phobia. It’s beyond my control. Feeling bad is not necessarily the same thing as having a morally bad feeling.

Maybe I have good reason to feel slighted. Maybe I was wronged. If that’s the case, then it’s all right to feel that way. My emotion is not a wicked emotion.

It would be wrong to nurse it. But it’s not wrong to have it.

Sometimes we have a right to be resentful. We were treated unjustly.

We don’t have a right to frame that emotion, hang it on the wall, and gaze at it day after day. But we no standing orders to be happy all the time. For everything there is a season. A time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to love and a time to hate (Eccl 3).

We can allow some feelings to fade away in due time. Feelings have their own seasons and lifecycles. Let nature take its course.

6. Apropos (5), if Richard Dawkins knew me, he would disapprove of me. He would disapprove of me because he is disapproving of each and every Christian. If he knew me, he’d tried to shame me into becoming an atheist.

But, of course, I don’t care what Richard Dawkins thinks of me, since he means nothing to me personally. He’s not someone I know or like or respect. He’s just a silly, pitiful old fool. He desperately needs people to agree with him.

But he can only look down on me if I look up to him. Since I don’t look up to him, his arched eyebrow has no effect.

Now, we’re more likely to be hurt an acquaintance than a stranger. Yet the disapproval may be the same. Just as baseless and unfair.

So we need to remind ourselves that if this came from a total stranger, it wouldn’t make a dent. That doesn’t make the feeling vanish on the spot, but it’s edifying to consider the slight with some detachment.

28 comments:

  1. Thanks, Steve, for this post. I appreciated this remark in particular:

    "But he can only look down on me if I look up to him. Since I don’t look up to him, his arched eyebrow has no effect."

    That's quite insightful. And liberating.

    I'm going to save your post for future reference and recall.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How are those of us who you deem to not be members of the elect supposed to "feel" about the many Christians apparently satisfied with the notion that God created us merely to be damned to Hell for all eternity merely for the sake of the elect?

    It doesn't give me warm fuzzies, I can assure you, especially since we haven't really done much to make your life miserable other than ask you irritating questions (which you should not take as a personal assault: I'm sure you're all quite decent in person).


    I guess it would be nice to at least attempt to try to see things from someone else's perspective, ya know?

    ReplyDelete
  3. James,

    I expect the damned bitterly resent their damnation, just as John Gotti resented his incarceration. Oh, the injustice of it all!

    There, I've tried to see things from John Gotti's perspective. Does that make you feel better?

    ReplyDelete
  4. James wrote:

    "I guess it would be nice to at least attempt to try to see things from someone else's perspective, ya know?"

    As if that's what you do. Like when you repeatedly misrepresent what Christians believe in such an obvious way, even after being corrected.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jason, what have I misrepresented exactly? I attempt to clarify my statements with "some" or "many" Christians and "not all". Frequently I'm just paraphrasing what others have written or stated, so I'm not sure where you see the slander. At worst, I oversimplify, but if these generalizations cast an unfavorable light on the truth of Christian beliefs, that's hardly my fault is it?

    Juxtaposing ugliness with poetry is fine for art, but I can't swallow it in theology.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve, I don't think you're suggesting that all of the "damned" are murderous thugs, are you? They also include all sorts of people who wouldn't harm a fly and have in fact done a great deal of good in their lives. They're often decent folks who just believe differently than you. They have families and friends and are not these two-dimensional flesh-bags that you seem to refer to as disposable trash.

    Why can't you own up to this?

    ReplyDelete
  7. oh, the irony of reading James's last two comments back-to-back...

    ReplyDelete
  8. JAMES SAID:

    “Jason, what have I misrepresented exactly?”

    You have a habit of attacking the most simplistic versions of Christian theology you can find (or contrive).

    You also have a habit of raising objections that I and others have already addressed, which is why I don’t always respond to you. Why should I have to repeat myself every time? You bring up hell, and original sin, and the fate of infants. I’ve been there, done that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. James said...

    “Steve, I don't think you're suggesting that all of the ‘damned’ are murderous thugs, are you? They also include all sorts of people who wouldn't harm a fly and have in fact done a great deal of good in their lives. They're often decent folks who just believe differently than you. They have families and friends and are not these two-dimensional flesh-bags that you seem to refer to as disposable trash.__Why can't you own up to this? “

    Even if I weren’t a Christian, I wouldn’t share your naïve, trusting view of human nature. You could say the same thing about Germans before WWII. But then along comes WWII and all these decent do-gooders who wouldn’t hurt a fly suddenly commit atrocities, or aid and support those who do.

    Then, after WWII, they revert to being decent do-gooders who wouldn’t hurt a fly. One could cite many historical examples to illustrate the same point.

    Let’s not forget that Gotti was a family man. The Mafia believes in family values. You can’t get more familial than la cosa nostra.

    Hell is where the mask comes off.

    ReplyDelete
  10. James said:

    "Jason, what have I misrepresented exactly?"

    When you're given documentation, you often leave the thread without any response, as you did here.

    You write:

    "At worst, I oversimplify, but if these generalizations cast an unfavorable light on the truth of Christian beliefs, that's hardly my fault is it?"

    It's not your fault when your oversimplifications make Christianity look bad? The oversimplification in question, the sort you've practiced so frequently, involves ignoring significant qualifications in the Christian position and ignoring Christian counterarguments that fundamentally undermine your argument, including counterarguments that have been presented directly to you in previous discussions.

    You write:

    "Juxtaposing ugliness with poetry is fine for art, but I can't swallow it in theology."

    Your oversimplifications are ugly, but what does that have to do with Christianity?

    I find your behavior ugly. Anybody who has read your posts for long should have noticed some things:

    - You avoid discussions of the evidence for Christianity, such as fulfilled prophecy or the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.

    - You look for opportunities to complain about Christianity in a simplistic manner, such as by objecting to a simplistic concept of Hell or objecting to infant damnation, even if you have to turn the discussion in a tangential direction to get there.

    - Your posts are usually short, with little or no supporting argumentation or documentation.

    - You frequently leave discussions without interacting with significant counterarguments.

    - You repeat claims that have already been refuted in your presence, even directly in response to you.

    - You often portray yourself as having taken the moral high ground in your rejection of Christianity and in your criticism of individual Christians, even though your behavior in these threads is far from the moral high ground.

    That's ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. -"Even if I weren’t a Christian, I wouldn’t share your naïve, trusting view of human nature"

    I'm no Pollyanna: I have no illusions about the potential for evil in many people, and I'm aware that amoral monsters do roam the world.

    -"Hell is where the mask comes off."

    That there are "bad" inclinations in most of us doesn't surprise me: that people choose not to act on them for reasons beyond social rejection seems to surprise you, however? Do you think that if fear of retribution or punishment (in this life or the next) was entirely removed that ALL people would be plunged into an amoral abyss? I'm not going argue whether God is imposing this self-restraint because it's not really "disprovable" in any coherent way (although I don't think it's even scriptural).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jason, why do you think I'm arguing against ALL of Christianity? There's much I can accept actually.

    There are some elements that strain credibility, however, as well as some that frankly are abhorrent to decency. What I think I'm arguing is that they're often internally inconsistent with the higher values that are purportedly extolled by the Christian moral vision.

    IOW: I don't see the "morality" of a theology that turns one into a selfish and heartless clod in the name of virtue.

    I again have to bring up Westboro because (having read much of their writings) I can honestly say they are a logical and coherent personification of the Calvinist universe in particular (and of SOME elements of Christianity in general). NO, most Christians don't act as they do. I'm not suggesting that.

    If you think I was, my apologies, and I'll try refrain from emotive posts and from writing at the end of a tiresome day when I may be less tactful.

    ReplyDelete
  13. JAMES SAID:

    "Do you think that if fear of retribution or punishment (in this life or the next) was entirely removed that ALL people would be plunged into an amoral abyss?"

    Just the reprobates.

    And there's a bit more to it than fear of consequences, or lack thereof. The evil has to be appealing. A reprobate won't commit adultery with a homely woman, but he will commit adultery with a comely woman.

    "I again have to bring up Westboro because (having read much of their writings) I can honestly say they are a logical and coherent personification of the Calvinist universe in particular (and of SOME elements of Christianity in general)."

    Of course, since Jason is not a Calvinist, that doesn't make a dent in his own theology.

    Anyway, how is picketing military funerals a logical and coherent expression of Reformed theology?

    How is picketing the memorial for the 2006 Sago Mine disaster a logical and coherent expression of Reformed theology?

    How are placards that say "God hates the Marine corps" a logical and coherent expression of Reformed theology?

    How is calling the female victims of the Amish school shooting "whores" a logical and coherent expression of Reformed theology?

    How is it a logical and coherent expression of Reformed theology to say, without any qualification, that "God hates fags" when, according to Calvinism, a certain percentage of homosexuals are elect homosexuals whom God will regenerate, justify, sanctify, and glorify?

    Homosexuals are not a class apart from other sinners.

    "If you think I was, my apologies, and I'll try refrain from emotive posts and from writing at the end of a tiresome day when I may be less tactful."

    Tactlessness is not the issue. The issue as that you always repair to the same tired old trope: "Your God is mean. How can you believe in such a mean God..."

    ReplyDelete
  14. James wrote:

    "Jason, why do you think I'm arguing against ALL of Christianity?"

    I didn't suggest that you disagree with Christianity about everything.

    You write:

    "IOW: I don't see the 'morality' of a theology that turns one into a selfish and heartless clod in the name of virtue. I again have to bring up Westboro because (having read much of their writings) I can honestly say they are a logical and coherent personification of the Calvinist universe in particular (and of SOME elements of Christianity in general). NO, most Christians don't act as they do. I'm not suggesting that. If you think I was, my apologies, and I'll try refrain from emotive posts and from writing at the end of a tiresome day when I may be less tactful."

    If you want to "refrain from emotive posts" and be more "tactful", then why did you just write such a tactless, emotive post? You characterize Calvinism and individual doctrines like Hell with comments such as the ones above, yet you ignore or misrepresent so many of the qualifications and justifications that have been provided by the advocates of those beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I again have to bring up Westboro because (having read much of their writings) I can honestly say they are a logical and coherent personification of the Calvinist universe in particular (and of SOME elements of Christianity in general)

    Jason, you're confusing Reformed Theology and Hyper-Calvinism here. Westboro BC is admittedly the latter, not the former. They affirm that they and ONLY they are elect. They and only they are the one true church.

    Reformed Theology does not affirm any of that whatsoever. We do not affirm the French/Dutch Reformed Churches, the Evangelical Presbyterians churches and Reformed Baptists are the elect and they alone. We affirm exactly the opposite of that.

    We do not affirm that God hates all homosexuals. We do not affirm that God hates the Amish. We do not affirm that we can know who is elect and nonelect when we preach to them. We do not sit around making judgments about the election of others as if we can peer into the mind of God. If this is what you think, James, they I don't think you understand Reformed Theology.

    I'd like you, if possible, to answer Steve's questions thoroughly so we can help you fill in the gaps in your understanding. A lot of folks don't understand Calvinism. A lot of them conflate hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism. A lot of them don't make the effort. I think you are, at least some of the time, trying to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Calvinism is Christianity and nothing else-Charles Spurgeon

    ReplyDelete
  17. Steve I emailed you about something just trying to get your insights about my personal problem. BTW if you are interested, can you write something about coping with loneliness as well. God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The normal solution to loneliness is marriage and kids. Of course, couples can be lonely in a bad marriage. Or lonely if their kids are alienated. Or their kids are grown ("empty nest syndrome").

    It's also important, where possible, to maintain a few friendships from childhood or school days. To have some age-mates of the same sex. A spouse can't supply all of our emotional needs, however good the marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  19. A certain amount of loneliness may also be inevitable in a fallen world.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Loneliness or friendlessness is to be expected in this world to some degree and is often downplayed by those more successful at building good relationships with others. I've often heard advice to Christians that if we don't have a godly friendship with another believer (outside of our marriage) we need to make such a friend. The frustrating part about such advice is that you can't force anyone to be your friend. Some Christians, especially men, don't socialize well. Some are just plain weird, and need a good friend to normalize a more social personality. This is an aspect of Christian fellowship, I think, that is severely overlooked in ministry within most, if not all, Western churches.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Steve, in terms of Westboro and Reformed theology, let me try to lay out my reasoning:

    We can safely say that God loves the elect by evidence of the fact that He chose them (without their asking or their consent) to be saved. Fair?

    It seems a rational corollary that God does not "love" the reprobate as evidenced by the fact that He wills they perish. If you suggest He does "love" them, does He just love them "less"? Just in a different form? This is where the gap comes in: perhaps someone needs to define the love of God for the reprobate, if it exists at all. I can't see how it can.

    If God does not love the reprobate, it stands to reason that He "hates" (or perhaps "abhors"?) them. Further, if all manifestations of "evil" (or destruction) are a result of God's direct and active (not merely "permissive") will, should those who believe themselves to be the elect not rejoice for His just decrees? In other words: thank Him for the sufferings He has willed befall humankind? What's the alternative but an impudent rejection of His will or questioning His mind?

    What I'm wondering is if the average Calvinist could share in God's "secret knowledge" in terms of who or who is not the elect, would their attitude towards the reprobate not mimic the attitudes of the Westboro clan? In a sense, Westboro's greatest flaw is merely that they are presumptuous in terms of knowing God's secretive will.

    Again, I'm not suggesting that Calvinists go around rejoicing in others' misfortune at all. It's just that given my understanding of their theology, I don't see why they don't.

    I'm completely willing to revise my ideas on this if you see some obvious hole in my logic that I'm apparently missing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. JAMES SAID:

    “I'm completely willing to revise my ideas on this if you see some obvious hole in my logic that I'm apparently missing.”

    Yes, there’s a hole in your logic.

    God loves elect Marines, but hates reprobate Marines.

    God loves elect miners, but hates reprobate miners.

    God loves elect Amish, but hates reprobate Amish.

    God loves elect homosexuals, but hates reprobate homosexuals.

    God loves elect adulterers, murderers, &c., but hates reprobate adulterers, murderers, &c.

    In short, God loves elect sinners, but hates reprobate sinners.

    Salvation isn’t limited to election, although salvation is limited by election.

    Those whom God elects, he also regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies (among other spiritual blessings).

    He doesn’t leave them in the same subjective condition they were in when they were in their unregenerate state.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think I agree with you Jim, like me I think I only have one genuine friend but we do not see very often and many acquaintances inside and outside the church.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "In short, God loves elect sinners, but hates reprobate sinners."

    So I would think then you should as well, no? If God "hates", why can't the elect? Certainly, they shouldn't be expected to extend charity towards those whom He hates (which would make them more charitable than God).

    Insofar as you can ascertain who is among the elect, what reason can you give for NOT protesting at the funerals of people whom you deem to be reprobates and telling them God hates them?

    It might take a little deduction, but clearly you make judgments in terms of who and who is not saved (and have done so in the past).

    So I'm not seeing where Westboro is out of line anywhere in terms of their actions based on their understanding of who and who is not saved. You may not "thank God for dead soldiers", but perhaps you might "thank God for a nightclub full of dead homos" or something like that?

    By the way, in terms of God's "hate", I think a more sound explanation for unifying God's love and His hate could be found here:
    http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

    Check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lonelyboy,
    There are more people than we know who are hurting relationally. One thing I've been pondering on lately is Proverbs 18:24 - A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother. Proverbs 18:24 (ESV)

    ReplyDelete
  26. JAMES SAID:

    “So I would think then you should as well, no? If God ‘hates’, why can't the elect?”

    Now you’re disregarding my qualifications. If you’re unwilling to honestly represent what people tell you, then it’s time for you to go away.

    “Insofar as you can ascertain who is among the elect, what reason can you give for NOT protesting at the funerals of people whom you deem to be reprobates and telling them God hates them?”

    I have no inkling about the spiritual status of most folks who die. They’re perfect strangers to me.

    And it’s not as if there’s a standing command in Scripture to picket funerals.

    “It might take a little deduction, but clearly you make judgments in terms of who and who is not saved (and have done so in the past).”

    I make categorical deductions about a class of people. Those who died outside of Christ are hellbound.

    Doesn’t mean I know who they are.

    I may make provisional judgments about someone I personally know, or some well-known individual. That’s wholly irrelevant to picketing the funerals of perfect strangers.

    “So I'm not seeing where Westboro is out of line anywhere in terms of their actions based on their understanding of who and who is not saved.”

    Calvinism doesn’t authorize their understanding of which individuals are saved or not.

    How do they know which Marines are saved or not? They don’t.

    Indeed, I expect that Christians are more highly represented in the armed services than the general population.

    Same thing with the Amish.

    “You may not ‘thank God for dead soldiers’, but perhaps you might ‘thank God for a nightclub full of dead homos’ or something like that?”

    It’s none of my business. God will sort it out.

    Maybe one of the fatalities was an ex-homosexual who went back to witness to his friends.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The primary posture of the church towards the homosexual community should be one of evangelistic outreach. To go out of one’s way to be offensive for its own sake is not a great evangelistic strategy.

    There are also times when some charitable outreach would not be out of place, either.

    Where we discover active homosexual church members, then church discipline is called for. Of course, that’s hardly limited to active homosexuals. In would also include adulterous church members, &c.

    All sinners should be welcome to attend our churches, as long as they’re respectful. They don’t have to be respectable, just respectful.

    Because many homosexuals are political activists, it’s necessary for Christians to oppose their agenda.

    Once again, that isn’t limited to the homosexual community, but to the liberal establishment in general.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I also have to point out something.

    James said:
    ---
    Certainly, they shouldn't be expected to extend charity towards those whom He hates (which would make them more charitable than God).
    ---

    Are you kidding? God extends ALL KINDS OF CHARITY to the reprobate as well as the elect. That He does so for the sake of the Elect, not the sake of the reprobate, in no way minimizes the fact that the reprobate are still blessed and still receive mercy on Earth that they are not entitled to.

    If God did not extend any mercy whatsoever to the reprobate, then every single one of them would be instantly cast into hell. The fact that this doesn't happen already shows your premise to be flawed. And even if I could give everything I have to a reprobate, knowing full well that that person is a reprobate, I could not even begin to touch the level that God has blessed that person with.

    God has provided a world where they can live, where they can experience pleasures, where they can create, where they can entertain themselves, where they can enact their dreams; He has given them years of life; He has restrained evil from being as bad as it could be; and not one of these things is deserved or owed. It is all due to God's charity that even the reprobate experience these things.

    So ditch your canned responses and actually start to think about the issues you pretend to abhor so much.

    ReplyDelete