I’ve had two interesting conversations lately with two different individuals. Ease drop with me.
Conversation A:
I have to be honest. The first conversationalist, I think, assumes much: to know more of me than they realize and where I’m at on the ‘journey’ of healing and hard inner work. It’s has if they got a peek, a momentary but revealing peek, and they know “understand” me, “get” me. But nevertheless they pointed out something that hints at a reflection of what’s inside. Perhaps, what’s inside comes outside and perhaps, what’s inside isn’t what should be. How do I really view myself and God’s grace? And maybe the question of importance isn’t so much how I view myself or the issue of God’s grace, but whether I’m even interacting with God’s grace in the deep recesses where myself says, “Self (as my friend Kelsey believes one must address oneself), you’ve gone so far, too far.”
Now I would never deny God’s grace or power. I believe and assert that God’s grace extends to anyone, anywhere, and in any situation. Name me a person, name me a place, name me a situation and I’ll hold irrevocably that God’s grace is there for the taking. The lights are working; you just got to turn them on. I worked with juvenile sex offenders and I believe God’s grace extends to them. I believe God can alter them, change them and shape them for his glory. In fact, I believe that hope for them does not exist in the tiniest of forms outside the grace of God. Yet, in my day to day life I wonder if I live, as someone I heard term it, as a practical atheist. I believe in the theory, the idea, and love to see it applied…in other’s lives. And I believe on paper his grace extends to me but when played out in reality I must admit I think his grace, while it might reach the deepest caverns, I imagine it to be a distant light that cast shadows on the wall rather than the all encompassing light that sheds the darkness like decaying moss and provides a tangible warmth to my soul.
Conversation B:
The second conversation was more intimate. Intimate because it discussed issues of vulnerability. You know the whole let’s expose my sin to the burning flames of another. That is, of course, my definition. Webster’s definition: capable of being physically or emotionally wounded, open to attack or damage, liable to increased penalties but entitled to increased bonuses after winning a game in contract bridge. It comes from the Latin word mean ‘to wound’ and is probably close to the Latin word which means to ‘pluck’.
Pluck describes it best. I’m tired of having people ‘pluck’ at me. Take from me what they need. Take from me what they want. Analyze me. Assume to know me. Criticize me. It has felt like lots of hands coming up and ‘plucking’ at my skin and my reaction has become to slap anything that comes within my parameter. But I am honestly at a loss at what to do as the heart is not an immortal object. It is not invincible. And survival kicks in. And I’m tried true fan of the “suck it up” philosophy. So what do you do when you crave the touch of another, the kindness of someone to speak comfort and balm to your wounds, to sit with you in the murky waters and have the biggest pity party (and while we’re at it let’s invite the neighbors), but hands keep flapping and your bootstraps are worn from being pulled up so much and you’re just tired. Sure, the obvious response is to “let it go and let god” (trite phrase #426, even Solomon found trite phrases nauseating – see Proverbs 25:20). But again reflexes are reflex. You can think all you want that the doctor’s mallet won’t make you knee move, but if he hits the right spot that legs coming up.
And somehow this all led to talk of living in a shell. And I who lusts after words went looking to good ole Webster. And here’s some interesting thoughts I’ve come from this little research:
- it can refer to a hard rigid covering that is calcareous. Now calcareous probably involves a whole other research project but it gives the image that this shell, this covering, is a part of whatever it is covering. It’s growing. It’s a mineral. It’s an element. It comes from somewhere.
- it can refer to a ‘framework or exterior structure, especially a building with an unfinished interior’. It may not even resemble what’s inside.
- it can refer to a ‘casing without substance” which the only response I can elicit is “ouch”.
- it can refer to ‘an impersonal attitude or manner that conceals the presence or absence of feeling’ which is funny to me because what I choose to conceal is so intense, so full of feeling. There is no absence of feeling.
- it can refer to ‘a projectile for cannon containing an explosive bursting charge’ which is how I feel most of the time.
- it can refer to ‘company or coproraiton that exists without assets or independinednt operations as a legal entity through which another company or corporation can conduct various dealing” and I wonder if I’m just existing to complete a task, perhaps even my calling and in existing just to fulfill my calling if I’ve missed why God gave the calling anyway.
The definition that gets me to thinking the most is ‘the hard or tough often thin outer covering of an egg (as of a bird or reptile)’. And what happens to those eggs, those shells. They break. They shed. They open. They serve a purpose. They protect. They allow something to grow but then they break. They aren’t meant to be permanent. They aren't meant to be lifelong. At some point they're meant to be split, to be shed, to be worked off.
Interestingly enough the word is akin to a Lithuanian word which means ‘to split’ and to a Greek word which means ‘to hoe'.
Conversation A:
I have to be honest. The first conversationalist, I think, assumes much: to know more of me than they realize and where I’m at on the ‘journey’ of healing and hard inner work. It’s has if they got a peek, a momentary but revealing peek, and they know “understand” me, “get” me. But nevertheless they pointed out something that hints at a reflection of what’s inside. Perhaps, what’s inside comes outside and perhaps, what’s inside isn’t what should be. How do I really view myself and God’s grace? And maybe the question of importance isn’t so much how I view myself or the issue of God’s grace, but whether I’m even interacting with God’s grace in the deep recesses where myself says, “Self (as my friend Kelsey believes one must address oneself), you’ve gone so far, too far.”
Now I would never deny God’s grace or power. I believe and assert that God’s grace extends to anyone, anywhere, and in any situation. Name me a person, name me a place, name me a situation and I’ll hold irrevocably that God’s grace is there for the taking. The lights are working; you just got to turn them on. I worked with juvenile sex offenders and I believe God’s grace extends to them. I believe God can alter them, change them and shape them for his glory. In fact, I believe that hope for them does not exist in the tiniest of forms outside the grace of God. Yet, in my day to day life I wonder if I live, as someone I heard term it, as a practical atheist. I believe in the theory, the idea, and love to see it applied…in other’s lives. And I believe on paper his grace extends to me but when played out in reality I must admit I think his grace, while it might reach the deepest caverns, I imagine it to be a distant light that cast shadows on the wall rather than the all encompassing light that sheds the darkness like decaying moss and provides a tangible warmth to my soul.
Conversation B:
The second conversation was more intimate. Intimate because it discussed issues of vulnerability. You know the whole let’s expose my sin to the burning flames of another. That is, of course, my definition. Webster’s definition: capable of being physically or emotionally wounded, open to attack or damage, liable to increased penalties but entitled to increased bonuses after winning a game in contract bridge. It comes from the Latin word mean ‘to wound’ and is probably close to the Latin word which means to ‘pluck’.
Pluck describes it best. I’m tired of having people ‘pluck’ at me. Take from me what they need. Take from me what they want. Analyze me. Assume to know me. Criticize me. It has felt like lots of hands coming up and ‘plucking’ at my skin and my reaction has become to slap anything that comes within my parameter. But I am honestly at a loss at what to do as the heart is not an immortal object. It is not invincible. And survival kicks in. And I’m tried true fan of the “suck it up” philosophy. So what do you do when you crave the touch of another, the kindness of someone to speak comfort and balm to your wounds, to sit with you in the murky waters and have the biggest pity party (and while we’re at it let’s invite the neighbors), but hands keep flapping and your bootstraps are worn from being pulled up so much and you’re just tired. Sure, the obvious response is to “let it go and let god” (trite phrase #426, even Solomon found trite phrases nauseating – see Proverbs 25:20). But again reflexes are reflex. You can think all you want that the doctor’s mallet won’t make you knee move, but if he hits the right spot that legs coming up.
And somehow this all led to talk of living in a shell. And I who lusts after words went looking to good ole Webster. And here’s some interesting thoughts I’ve come from this little research:
- it can refer to a hard rigid covering that is calcareous. Now calcareous probably involves a whole other research project but it gives the image that this shell, this covering, is a part of whatever it is covering. It’s growing. It’s a mineral. It’s an element. It comes from somewhere.
- it can refer to a ‘framework or exterior structure, especially a building with an unfinished interior’. It may not even resemble what’s inside.
- it can refer to a ‘casing without substance” which the only response I can elicit is “ouch”.
- it can refer to ‘an impersonal attitude or manner that conceals the presence or absence of feeling’ which is funny to me because what I choose to conceal is so intense, so full of feeling. There is no absence of feeling.
- it can refer to ‘a projectile for cannon containing an explosive bursting charge’ which is how I feel most of the time.
- it can refer to ‘company or coproraiton that exists without assets or independinednt operations as a legal entity through which another company or corporation can conduct various dealing” and I wonder if I’m just existing to complete a task, perhaps even my calling and in existing just to fulfill my calling if I’ve missed why God gave the calling anyway.
The definition that gets me to thinking the most is ‘the hard or tough often thin outer covering of an egg (as of a bird or reptile)’. And what happens to those eggs, those shells. They break. They shed. They open. They serve a purpose. They protect. They allow something to grow but then they break. They aren’t meant to be permanent. They aren't meant to be lifelong. At some point they're meant to be split, to be shed, to be worked off.
Interestingly enough the word is akin to a Lithuanian word which means ‘to split’ and to a Greek word which means ‘to hoe'.
1 comment:
Jessica, now you have been my best friend since February and I had no idea you could write like this. Your blogs always get me thinking or something else I cant put my finger on it though. Way to go, PARFAIT!
Post a Comment