"She's such a bitch, but yet I'm strangely attracted to her." Some people enter life recognizing their divine right to authority and power. Others recognize their subservient status to their
People innately subscribe to, while not always conscientiously, a social hierarchy that guides social behavior. Humanity's social hierarchy can be broken down into two categories on the basis of perceived concept. The clichéd haves and have-nots denote distinct differences in self-concept levels.
The perceived haves' attain preferable status because in those people there is a perceived sense of differentiation (the quality of being complete without regards to other stimuli) that draws others to them. Most people recognize a deficiency in their existence so they seek out those who portray no such problem. The haves' typically have confidence which allows them to continue during an otherwise problematic task.
The perceived have-nots' are lowered because they require the assistance of others to fulfill themselves. They see the haves' and desire the haves' confidence. To attain this, they will do whatever is necessary to stay the the presence of the haves even if this means humiliation on the have-nots' part.
From a fundamentalist standpoint, a person ought to be the perceived differentiated individual. This person does not need anyone, yet they only "rely on Jesus" resulting in a possible completion. This often leads to arrogance. From a more contemporary standpoint, a person ought to be the have-not. This person recognizes their own brokenness and constantly seeks the community for support. This often leads to the cheap grace mentality which Bonhoeffer spoke about.
Can there be a fusion between the two? A follower of Christ should recognize that they need community and the person of Christ to reach out to the world, but are capable of so much more. Can we be the haves' and the have-nots' simultaneously? We must hold those in tension because in either extreme the gospel is lost.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
That's who I am.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
I'm not sure if it was intentional, but your quote at the beginning made me read the rest of the reflection in terms of the social interactions that occur between people in our demographic, in both sexualized and non-sexualized relationships (or relationship considerations). The way you have approcached the application of the gospel to those relational systems is a new one for me. I think it's neat. It definately caused me to think about the reasons behind my own social interactions. I do think we need to hold the two directions in tension. For myself, I would guess that I tend to think that powerlessness is a greater ideal, but I nevertheless (because of my own insecurity) am more likely to act as though I have/wield power.
also: saw that you called, and saw the note on my blog. let's hang out. I'll try calling you in the next couple days.
Post a Comment