Monthly Archives: January 2010

Can You Change Someone You Love?

Can you change someone you love?

A friend of mine on Facebook brought up that question recently.  He saw a book at the store that gave a resounding “yes” answer to that question, so he took a picture and posted it on FB in order to ridicule the concept.  His answer was that it is “simply not possible.”

I know my friend’s hesitancy, for many who get into co-dependant relationships tend to think they can change their significant others.  How many times have we shaken our heads at the girl who gets involved with the loser man-boy because she thinks she can change him into husband material?  It is obvious to us that she is making a losing bet, but not so obvious to her (or maybe it is obvious to her but she’s just in major denial because the sex is good.).

There is another side to the question, however, that my friend and the others who commented on his status missed.   His words that changing someone you love is “not possible” reflects an overly individualistic attitude that is harmful if taken to its logical conclusion.

I replied to his status by noting how my wife has changed me for the better.  She loves me, and has spoken much grace, truth, and love into me, and has made me a better man.  Just the other night I sat and reflected with her on how her giving me grace and bearing with my follies has made me more patient.

What if I really believed that “changing someone you love isn’t possible?”  Chances are, I wouldn’t be open to her influence in my life.  I’d just focus on me improving me and I’d be totally oblivious to how her love could change me, and vice  versa.  It would be a shame if my wife bought into the slogan in question; she then wouldn’t be open to me speaking into her life.  What’s more, she wouldn’t try to influence me for the better, thus depriving me of much goodness and beauty.  If one of us believed, it would deprive us both.

There are many other relationships like this; for example, one job a dad has is to mold his sons into men of character and his daughters into women with inner beauty…in other words, he’s supposed to change them.

The point here is that if either person in a love relationship (friends, spouses, brothers and sisters, etc) buys into the slogan, it deprives both of much joy.

Somewhat ironically, “changing loved ones” is one motivating factor of interventions.  When an addict is out of control and won’t stop binging on his addiction, his loved ones often gather together, with a professional counselor, and stage one last attempt at stopping the destruction.  They all agree to stop enabling the addict and draw a line.  If the addict doesn’t agree to stop the behavior and seek professional help, there are often big consequences such as certain family members cutting off contact.   What else is all this if not an attempt to change the person they love?

Changing loved ones is also a concept built into the 12 steps.  I used to be a part of a 12 step group.  One of the practices built into the group was accountability relationships.  From time to time, the members of the group would make phone calls to “check in” with each other.  If the other person was about to break sobriety and engage in their addiction, the job of the other person on the line would be to talk them out of it.  If one person was rationalizing or making excuses, the other was not supposed to just go along with that: s/he was supposed to hold the other accountable.   Both myself and other guys in the group even, at times, arranged for the other group members to administer certain consequences and boundaries if we couldn’t keep straight.  This was all done with the prior agreement of all involved, but suffice it to say, we were all agents of change in the lives of the others in the group.

In sum, I can recognize my friend’s hesitancy.  There comes a point that if the other is resistant, it is best to let dead dogs lie.  However, contrary to what he said, change is certainly possible and, at times, it is necessary to strive for.

Scary Clown

Now this is funny!

Quote of the Day

“Saying ‘Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words’ is like saying ‘tell me your phone number, and if necessary, use digits’ “~ J.D. Greear

I got into a bit of a row on Facebook about this one on Sunday.  St. Francis’ saying (“preach the gospel at all times.  If necessary, use words), is quite popular today.  Regardless of what St. Francis meant by it, many today use it to subtly drive a wedge between words and actions.  An undercurrent of the quote is that words aren’t necessary to “preach” the gospel.  Some pastors even use it to quietly discourage their congregation from sharing the gospel message with proclamation and discussion.  This, however, is neither biblical nor practical.

Think about it: did Jesus, the apostles, John the Baptist, the Church Fathers, or any New Testament or early church player live by this mantra?  One glance at the Bible and church history will tell you “no!”  They all used both in tandem, and they used them often.  What’s more, they took the initiative.  They didn’t keep silent for months and years and wait for someone to say “hey, there’s something different about you.”  They were up front and vocal about the saving message, in addition to doing good works.

Practically speaking, most folks, whether they go to church or not, aren’t going to “hear” the gospel just from your actions–if we define “action” as it is defined through the common modern-day interpretation of the St. Francis quote. If you just “live out the gospel with action” like that–say, you serve at a soup kitchen, do an AIDS walk, volunteer your time for troubled youth, etc–folks are more likely to think you are a Mormon than a Christian. Most Mormon folks I know are just that way–very nice, incredibly moral and loving, but not too keen on talking about Jesus/religion/spirituality with non-Mormons…they aren’t even that keen on talking about Joseph Smith (unless they are on their mission).

In short, “how will they *hear*, without someone *preaching* to them?” I know the word “preaching” is a 4 letter word today, but so what? Some might insist that you can preach or proclaim without words, but let’s get real.  Don’t even try to water down the meaning of that term to make it sound like doing social good works *alone* (key word…I’m not bashing on good works) is preaching.

Others will misconstrue my point by responding, “if you don’t back up your words with actions, your words are meaningless.”  This is true, but my point isn’t that actions aren’t necessary–they are. All those examples I gave above are excellent, God-honoring, and praiseworthy.  My point is that words are equally as necessary. One ought not split the two, and that’s what many try to do with St. Francis’ words.  Saying that words and actions are both important really shouldn’t be that controversial, but for some reason, it is so hard for many folks to simply admit.

Southern California Weather

There were some mighty big storms in Southern California this last week.  I know that the midwest and the southwest have a reputation of having the most severe weather, but folks miss the fact that So. Cal has its fair share of severe weather too.

I’ve included below a picture of some damage one particular storm caused last week to a home in San Diego.  It really makes you think and be thankful for what you have.

PS–the phote is quite graphic, so I’ve put some scrolling space in before the pic so you can hide the pics from any easily scared younguns.

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

Sanctimonious Blatherskeit

My pastor had a little ditty the other day that made me sit up and pay attention.

He was talking about the Pharisees and how they missed the Kingdom of God.  I’ve heard that so much over the years, so I had largely tuned out.  The Pharisees are our favorite punching bags in the 21st century American church; mention the Pharisees, how much they loved religion and how that’s bad, and you’ve got people nodding in fervent and solemn agreement.  I mean, we easy going California souls know soooo much better than that.  We’re all about relationship, not religion, dude!

Anyway, he was talking about the parable in the gospels where a sinner is remorseful over his sin (“beating his breast” before God and pleading for mercy), and the Pharisee prays “thank you Lord that I’m not like that guy!” then my pastor said:

You wanna know the best way to become a Pharisee?  Thank God that you’re not a Pharisee.

 

Nailed it, right there.  Smugness is sneaky like that, ain’t it?  Not that the Pharisees didn’t deserve some critique–they did miss the boat, big time–but we today love, love, love to subtly pat ourselves on the back by pointing the finger at them.  Many today pretend to be non-judgmental and open minded, but they’re not.  They judge the judging, moralize against moralizing, preach against preaching, proselytyze against proselytyzing. 

What a joke.  The “don’t judge lest ye be judged” crew is the most intolerant bunch you’ll find (according to their own definition).

I’m just waiting for the day when I hear someone say this:

Yeah, I was judging.  So what?

It is unavoidable. The question is: is it based upon truth and done in the spirit of love?

The Pharisees missed that, yes.  I just wish folks would admit that and cut out the sanctimonious blatherskeit about judging.

The Joy of Marriage

My wife was a superhero this past week.

Due to job busyness, the webmaster of my wrestling team’s website was unable to update the website often.  For several reasons, though, updates were important.  Things reached a bit of a crisis the night before our first home dual meet–no updates, no sponsors (who have paid good money to be on our site) up.  I jumped in and tried to ‘rassle the task down.  Needless to say, the website’s host is no wordpress blog, and I’m a techie neophyte.

But in jumps my wife.  I quit in a huff after about five minutes of useless effort, but she hung in there and figured it out.  Guess what: she’s my new webmaster!  I didn’t put her up to the task–she asked for it after she saw how important it was to the team.

What’s notable about all this is that both of us have about the same amount of technological know-how, but her persevearance now has put her head and shoulders above me in this department.  She didn’t know a darn thing.  However, while I was muttering somthing about bagels, crawled up in the corner in the fetal position, she rolled up her sleeves, tooled around on google, took a few tutorials online, and got the job done.

She has continued to show the same stick-to-itiveness since then.  We’ve had some other issues with the website, issues that I won’t even touch, but she’s figured them all out.  There are still some minor changes that need to be made, but with her behind the wheel, I can rest confident.

The way she has thrown herself into it (because she loves me) put a smile on my face. Not that others weren’t willing to do it (they were), it’s just that this is a nice demonstration of how man and woman were made to fit like hand in glove. What the other one half lacks, the other half gives, and vice versa.

This is why the ‘Ol book calls her a “help-mate.”

Existentialism’s Sawed Off Branch

I can understand why existentialism was popular at one point in time, and I can understand how it continues to have a grasp in culture today. It gives people the feeling of meaning in a meaningless universe, and it helps people act courageously and feel heroic and tough without having to actually make sense of the world.

I just can’t get into it though. Like I said yesterday, it—at least the atheistic brand peddled by Sartre and others (come to think of it, the theistic brand is pretty funky too)–presents a very conflicted view of the world. Sartre rejected essences. To him, existence precedes essence. There is no “what it means to be human” to Sartre, and there are no universals—just particulars. No “human nature,” just “men.”

He rails against “what-it-is-to-be-ness,” but then turns right back around and starts pontificating on…guess what…human nature. Humans are subjects, he thought, subjects with free wills. I know Sartre wouldn’t call that a universal, but it sounds to me like he held that subjectivity is a characteristic all humans possess. If that’s not nature-talk, I don’t know what is. This is beginning to sound like the vegetarian who ordered Inn and Out.

Existentialism fares no different in the area of morality. Sartre was a well known political activist and moral advocate: he acted as if humans actually have obligations to do certain good things in the world. His atheism, though, completely truncates all that. Not that he, as an atheist, couldn’t behave in ways we’d call moral…it’s that moral terms and things like obligation are meaningless in an atheistic universe.

Sartre readily admitted that the world lacked any universal meaning. He called man a “useless passion.” Yet, he acted *as if* his actions had incredible meaning, and acted and spoke *as if* his fellow humans should act in similar ways too. If the universe has no actual meaning to it, though, how does it acquire meaning just by us acting and speaking *as if*? Sure, such a way of living can help us emotionally get along, but it’s patently irrational. This shows existentialism to be an excercise in chair-stacking on the Titanic.

My point is that even Sartre could not live out the core base of existentialism. Actually living like the world was absurd and meaningless would lead to despair, so even Sartre, through his political activism, had to make an irrational leap of faith and act *as if* the world had meaning.

For me, all that’s for the birds. A worldview–like theism–that makes sense of things like morality and obligation without the irrational leap is much preferred.