MennoNet.com

Jesus had a heart for the broken-hearted. Perhaps we should do the same.

Bootstrap wrote:
Ever notice that some people have a hard time functioning if they don't get constant approval? How can we help them get past that?

Give me an example. Not sure I understand you.

ken_sylvania wrote:

MaxPC wrote:

ken_sylvania wrote: Exactly.

Just to pick a little bit of a bone with you - I believe that the definition of "penultimate" is "second-best" or "one less than ultimate." If a few more people held their own ideas as penultimate rather than the ultimate, maybe relationships would go easier.

I used penultimate because in our teachings, the church in heaven and the communion of saints is the ultimate church. So the church on earth is the "ultimate less one step" i.e. penultimate. I know: it's that confusing Catholic lingo again.

I guess I wouldn't make a good Catholic

Don't worry about it. Catholic lingo slips into my speech every now and again; there's a whole syntax of referring to spiritual matters and old language patterns are sometimes hard to break. I'm not offended and God has you where He wants you. It's all good.


Re

steve-in-kville wrote:Lots of great replies so far.

I think it all comes down to the fact that some people have thicker skin than others. I remember a situation in the workplace: I worked with a younger guy, he grew up as the only child. He was forever "offended" when other employees heckled him about anything. It was our culture at the time.... everyone gave everyone a hard time. It was all in good fun (most of the time). But this guy... you couldn't joke with him, He'd be in HR's office so fast it wasn't even funny.

Now that I have a more clear idea of the person I'll add another observation. Sometimes "only children" have so much expectation put on them, they fear disappointing others. They've been expected to function as the third adult in a family from an early age. It leaves no room for the social behaviors of adolescence.

I think RZehr is right: taking the time to know another individual and being kind to him instead of heckling him would have been the best response, the Christian response. Let's be honest: heckling is a form of aggression and even those who respond with heckling aren't completely comfortable with it: they're doing it to avoid being different from the others in the group. Down deep they know it's wrong to verbally attack others but they're afraid of taking the narrow road because they know they'll be targeted by the hecklers too.

I do see what you all mean about people having thinner skin sometimes. But some people are more sensitive than others and that doesn't make them weak. I treat my parents differently than I treat my classmates, and I treat my more sensitive friends more gently than I treat those who can take some joking around. While it's certainly the case that some folks just act offended to get their own way, I don't think it's good that so many people here think that we should dismiss sensitive people as "special snowflakes" because sometimes that's just how people are, and we should respect people even if we disagree or if we think they're making a big deal over something silly. It can be irritating, but some things we don't necessarily care about mean a lot to people.

I tend to have some issues understanding people at time and I've discovered that people misunderstand me... This come primarily because I talk and think in a similar sense and I don't think like most worldly people or like most anabaptist people. I'm in a culture of my own. One of the people that misunderstands me the most did do a read back once to insure he understood what I said, but there is still the problem of what words mean to people.

Uncut hair is a perfect example that has caused us grief. Firstly, people around here in the Mennonite circles can't relate for the most part with thick long hair. Most of them have thin short hair (short being shoulder length) Now we see uncut hair meaning that no scissor, razer, shears, or thinning cutter have been used. We also see the standards as a "do if you desire membership" Now the members view them as guidelines but depending on who you ask the "guidelines" are more exacting or not. From one church they have the stance "uncut" but some members cut their hair and just don't tell. After all, how could anyone tell? Some recognize the ridiculousness of trying to put up hair that you can stand on and would permit cutting in that thought. Some would view it as long as its "long" who cares? and then there are those that would permit split end trimming and maybe a little extra is cut... oops.
For my wife depending on which view we took, we could easily be "uncut" hair to some but not to others. The way we view the standards though is as a command. If we are expected to agree to uphold the standards to be members and then disobey them, is that not sin?
If it wasn't for headaches this would only be a mild issue of extra cost to get to covers as they get too small...

francis wrote:I do see what you all mean about people having thinner skin sometimes. But some people are more sensitive than others and that doesn't make them weak. I treat my parents differently than I treat my classmates, and I treat my more sensitive friends more gently than I treat those who can take some joking around.

Actually, I treat my more sensitive friends more gently too. That's different from what I meant by the "special snowflakes" - by that, I was thinking of people who insist that they be given a special status, and can't deal with having just the same level of respect all of us should show each other. The "special snowflake" video is talking about something that happens in American society where kids are told every one of us is particularly amazing - and it's hard to be just a normal human being and think that's normal and good. I think that leads to a lot of hurt. I vividly remember when I started my career and realized that I usually wasn't going to be the smartest person in the room. It took me a while to adjust to that.

I think we need to create spaces where you don't have to impress people or do anything amazing to be respected and accepted. And in those spaces we create, I think we should resist giving people special status, we need to learn to be OK with just being God's children.

francis wrote:While it's certainly the case that some folks just act offended to get their own way, I don't think it's good that so many people here think that we should dismiss sensitive people as "special snowflakes" because sometimes that's just how people are, and we should respect people even if we disagree or if we think they're making a big deal over something silly. It can be irritating, but some things we don't necessarily care about mean a lot to people.

I'm not sure what kinds of sensitivity you are thinking of. Can you say more?

To me, that depends a lot on what they are sensitive about, and how they express it. And a lot of that depends on whether there is room for mutual respect, and room to ask questions and think things out together. What I don't like is using hurt and offense as a way to manipulate people.

An example: sometimes someone will express a opinion with the expectation that everyone else will just agree with it, no questions asked. And if you disagree, they will be hurt and offended. The problem with this is that they are practically announcing that they have no respect for anyone who does not share their opinion, and they will express their disrespect by taking offense. This is very common in politics, but it happens even in sports (where I have few opinions because I know so little). I see this dividing lots of people, even people in the same family may have difficulty talking to each other if they do not have the same opinion. And I think this often makes it hard for us to look at facts together to try to figure out what is true.

Another example: have you noticed what happens when a politician is caught in a lie? So often, he takes offense and is astonished that anyone would believe such a thing. A few weeks or months or years later, the truth becomes undeniable, and that's a good time to go back and review the clips of them telling you how hurt and offended they were. I have encountered the same reaction from people who had false credentials - a programmer we had hired who claimed to have a university degree but did not, a pastor who was practicing psychotherapy but turned out to have neither a license nor a relevant degree.

I think it's really important to respect people and not dismiss them. But I also think it's important to separate that from some of these control issues.

Josh wrote:Jesus had a heart for the broken-hearted. Perhaps we should do the same.

I do think we should have a heart for the broken-hearted. But I also think that there are professional victims who try to take advantage of the things we really do owe the broken-hearted.

Your post reminded me to think again about the OP, though.

steve-in-kville wrote:Reason for the thread, seems now more than ever folks leave a conservative church, or throw it all away entirely, all from too many heartaches in church situations.

You know, I have seen some people leave churches for very good reasons - including some conservative Mennonite churches. I would not want to be quick to judge them unless I was extremely familiar with the situation. And I would really like to avoid taking sides on any such situation on a forum.

An extreme example: I was shocked when I was living in an intentional Christian community and a couple I respected left. Later, I found out that the head of the community had tried to use his position to get the wife to have sex with him. But most people in the community assumed that they just weren't willing to walk in true discipleship.

Most of the time the reasons people leave are not this extreme, but I think many of us can think of examples where people were right to leave a church - even a good church. I would still be very reluctant to judge people, especially if I were not thoroughly familiar with both sides of the story. When they leave, the church is left with only their side of the story, and everyone still in the church is probably going to side with the church. That can sometimes be unfair to the people who left. I have sometimes been in the church they came to afterward, where I heard the other side of the story, often with tears and much prayer.

francis wrote:I do see what you all mean about people having thinner skin sometimes. But some people are more sensitive than others and that doesn't make them weak. I treat my parents differently than I treat my classmates, and I treat my more sensitive friends more gently than I treat those who can take some joking around. While it's certainly the case that some folks just act offended to get their own way, I don't think it's good that so many people here think that we should dismiss sensitive people as "special snowflakes" because sometimes that's just how people are, and we should respect people even if we disagree or if we think they're making a big deal over something silly. It can be irritating, but some things we don't necessarily care about mean a lot to people.

I think that being prone to being hurt often comes after a long history of being abused. Let's be sensitive with sensitive people.

JimFoxvog wrote:I think that being prone to being hurt often comes after a long history of being abused. Let's be sensitive with sensitive people.

Yep. And these “hurt magnets” just get worse and worse overtime, and everyone else blames them for it.

How did Jesus approach people like this?