Oswald's seeming objective in this devotional was to expose and, seemingly, shame our tendency to attribute to God or prayer our "dejection." He used the example of how the disciples, knowing all the facts, had incorrect inferences from their knowledge and thus continued to doubt Christ's prophesy regarding his death/resurrection. Oswald repeatedly has blunt statements with the basic theme of "If you are dejected, or feel justified in your dejection because of what He has/hasn't done, it is your fault, not God's or anyone else's."
I would like to take this a step further and examine how we also commonly insert "others" into I am dejected b/c of what THEY have/haven't done. I appreciate Oswald's emphasis on dejection being "a sign of sickness," that he so sensitively states "we are always to blame for it." If I feel dejected in some thing, that thing should be examined because either way the cookie crumbles there is some spiritual truth that I am neglecting.
I've always been unsettled by others claims regarding their situation/condition being a result of God's will or prayer, whether answered or not. It seems we're inclined to not take personal responsibility and if God is to be held responsible, that looks a bit more 'realistic' in our eyes. I wonder if the other end of the spectrum here...one end being "God's will, answer to prayer, lack of personal responsibility" is "other people's actions/lack there of, victimization of self, also lack of personal responsibility." Where do we find room for "I made a choice, myself and others pay the piper, and I am responsible for me....and all the actions I entail." If we do not own our own, what does that say about the marginal value of what it is we really believe regarding the situation we're in? I think there is value in our examination of who it is that we find ourselves attributing responsibility to in our day to day. Why do I feel dejected by others?
3 comments:
So, for starters, I love that you used part of my poem as your new header. ;-) Granted, my purpose in writing it was to comfort a friend by letting him know it was okay to be sad about things but that he shouldn't give up... which leads me to the issue I take with this entry, and with the devotional that inspired it.
I have a big problem with this assertion that dejection is "always wrong" or "a sign of sickness." I looked up the devotional you were referencing. There's nothing wrong with what you said about owning your feelings -- dejected or otherwise.
However, that's not what he's talking about.
I also went to the passage he references at the beginning of the devotional, and context makes it clear that he uses "dejection" but means "doubt." "Dejection" is simply sadness, sorrow, feeling low. I'm sure this is because he conflates the meanings of the two, which is the root of his fallacy, but I'll stick with "dejection" for what it actually means.
It's another form of the prosperity fallacy, only instead of financial reward, the good Christian must expect... not to be sad? To hold himself to being not sorrowful? This is ridiculous. Particularly for followers of the Man of Sorrows. It's based in that archaic kind of thinking in which if you're sick or not prosperous, it's because you have sin in your life that you have to address. Only this time, it's "if you're sad it's because of lust." What? Seeking meaning in a difficult situation is one thing -- taking personal responsibility and finding the lesson in consequences of your actions is one thing -- but it's another, and illegitimate, thing to trivialize people's trials by dismissing them and resultant feelings as spiritual sickness or sin.
Does a person expect really to "work out [her] salvation with fear and trembling" without experiencing dejection? After all, "blessed are the poor in spirit... blessed are those who mourn..." It is not a sin for a person to be troubled; in fact, being troubled is often valuable as a necessary step to bring a person out of complacency and unquestioning acceptance, into thinking for oneself and "working out" one's salvation. Perspective is something we have to work to maintain, and to regain when we lose, not something we gain once and therefore have always. That's the nature of being finite beings.
Plenty of seemingly happy people have no perspective, having repressed the things that would both give them perspective and trouble them -- and probably make them sad. That is sickness. Dejection may also coincide with sickness, but to say that dejection is always wrong, always a result of sickness, is a lie by way of a gross oversimplification.
I really loved that poem :0).
I'm right there with you. In essence, "doubt" is not only more appropriate of a word, but more theologically sound. I appreciate your going that track as I was down a different path after reading that devotional. Sidebar: Oswald does a LOT of the generalizing/assuming/not helpful labeling, etc. But, he's good for big picture types of thoughts.
Anyways...I agree with you in that it certainly is not good doctrine to propagate a guaranteed life without sadness as a Christian. I agree that dejection is not always wrong and I apologize if my blog communicated that.
I also find myself commonly coming across a scenario in which dejection is considered an acceptable rationalization for actions. I'm not always sad because I'm a victim of things outside my control or its appropriate to my struggle. Sometimes I'm sad because I made a bad choice and continue to make bad choices. And that is sickness. And I think where we both strongly agree is the "prosperity fallacy," that 'a good Christian will not be sad' being a very big problem. But, I think that we not only go the route of denying our true feelings and becoming evangelical robots.. we also rationalize sin so as to remove the feelings entirely...and neither one is okay. When you're a robot, you aren't empathetic, you're unrealistic, you're rigid ;0), you deny emotion. When you're on the other end, you tend to be very empathetic, realistic, flexible, and embrace emotion. Neither one of those equates into loving people like Jesus. Both extremes are never about the other person, but rather about us.
Okay, I did not finish an important sentence....after the robot sentence...When you're on the other end you tend to be empathetic, realistic, flexible, embrace emotion, unwilling to draw harsh lines, and enabling.
Post a Comment