Failing

I live in an environment where the idea of failing is brutally scary. Failing, specifically in an educational setting, carries both an individual and communal aspect to it.

In one sense, failing or not failing carries some dehumanizing effect of how you, as an individual, either are or are not "satisfactory" in the things you do.  On the other hand, failing is what separates you as unfit to remain a part of a community; failing means you don't belong.  This two-seamed meaning of what it is to fail in my current setting makes having "failed" be just about the last thing you want to be true of yourself.
...

There are, of course, other ideas and applications of the term failing.  In general, to fail at something means that not only did you not do something particularly well but whatever you did was so poor that it wasn't even acceptable.

However, interestingly enough, knowing the origin these standards of acceptability or otherwise is really important.  This is because it is important to differentiate between the standards we set for ourselves and the ones which are mandated to us by others.  Both have obvious weaknesses and, in effect, will claim something of us in an oversimplified way that is very problematic.  Even still, we are constantly being graded either by ourselves or by others.  Sometimes we pass, sometimes we fail.

Such is life.
...

What I think is most important is how we handle the situations we find ourselves in whenever we are on the brink of failing.

It is clear to me that I often have standards set for myself which are very unforgiving and offer little grace even in their existence.  I suspect others have a habit of setting up for themselves equally unfair standards and being substantially bothered when they "fail."  Sometimes it seems to point to a lack of self-dicipline and the inability to follow through with what we start.  But I don't think that is the whole story.

I think that if we are honest with ourselves we can say that a lot of us push ourselves too hard.  We bite off more than we can chew.  We accept responsibility for things to the extent that our responsibilities outweigh our abilities.  That isn't to say our abilities are poor or that we don't have anything to offer.  I would say that it has more to do with the fact that we are believing in an illusion that we must be these productive efficiency machines which need no rest and seem to run better with the more there is to do.

I don't think that is an accurate depiction of what people essentially are, and we become painfully aware of that when we look in the mirror or when we "fail."  Yet, that doesn't mean we compromise our expectations or standards, rather we just loathe the image in that mirror and whatever it represents: us.
...

Consider as well the standards that differentiate "failing" or not that are often instituted to us.  These standards divide us into two groups: satisfactory and unsatisfactory.  Such a separation suggests that whatever the task at hand, it has something to say about your worth to the community at hand.  Now, no doubt there are communities and environments where only those with a specific skill set are needed or useful, but those communities are fewer and further between than the majority of situations in which I think we find ourselves.  Instead of simply understanding that this moment of failing is more to do with overall circumstances and our ability to complete some very specific task, we take this assessment to extend to our worth as an overall individual.  And to be labeled as a failure, a blanket statement over all that we are, is more painful than we can necessarily comprehend outside of the experience.

It is beyond sad.
...

It is sad because it isn't true.  It is sad because the idea of failing has penetrated our understanding of who we are as people.

Failing is damaging because we allow whatever task at hand, whether assigned to us or a challenge of our choosing, to define us.  Our identity becomes wrapped up in what we can or cannot do; and specifically what others have to say about our abilities.

Allowing our identity to become wrapped up in what other people have to say of us is very risky.  Whatever affirmation we do receive from people is fleeting in much of its essence (which is why affirmation is consistently needed again and again).

And so it becomes necessary to define ourselves differently than we do or what people have to say about what we do.  We must have identity in something else.
...

This is a very difficult and very uncomfortable transition to go through.  But I do think it is a good transition.  It's a transition into a kind of identity that has longevity.  It's a transition into believing things about ourselves that dont have to adjust at the whims of others opinions.

And that is good because peoples opinions are fickle.

...

You can "fail" and it's okay.  People will still value you for the most part and the ones that don't aren't so important.  But the really big things that matter the most wont change.  Things that are bigger than you, things that define who you are because of the fact God created you and He only creates things that are good, won't shift or rattle.  They'll be consisent.  Even if you fail.

You can't fail out of God's love.
...

Peace.

Bad Reflections

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

Mark 12:31
...


I, probably like most of you, will have that phrase stuck in my head for (hopefully) the rest of my life.  And that isn't such a bad thing.  This statement has a lot to say about God and who He is and what He wants.

And there are two sides to that story.
...

Side one speaks to many people who fail to recognize the far reaching implications of the word "neighbor."  Neighbors, in this context, are not just your community, not just your friends, not just your family, and not just your country.

We are all neighbors.
...

The far-reaching potential of the implementation of this phrase is litterally life changing, then.  This kind of thing changes the world.  And although so many of us know this phrase and grasp this aspect of the story, the phrase goes unnoticed.  It is just as unappreciated as the man who originally spoke the words.  Unfortunately.

However, the implementation of this phrase doesn't end the debates of how love looks and what kind of actions can be considered appropriate in the difficult contexts.  Can't love look like many different things on the surface?  Yes, probably.  Can't love be unrealistic?  Yes, probably.  Won't we find ourselves in situations where loving one person means not loving another?  Yes, probably.  Isn't it difficult to decipher whether justice and love are one in the same or one is being neglected over the other?  Yes, probably.

That doesn't change the fact that after loving God, this is our primary command as people.

Period.
...

So stew on that, I suppose.  The questions above have been around and will be around for a long time, I imagine, because it's hard to answer them in an adequate way; a way that doesn't seem to compromise some other value deep within us that is a part of the way we were created.  Whether those are desires for justice or fairness or equality, they embody something true about the world, but they are subordinate to love.  Or at least should be.
...

And so we find ourselves on the other side of the conversation about this original statement.  The "as yourself" part.

Now what I see as inherently a part of this statement is the assumption that you, yourself, are valuable and deserving of love.  You are, after all, everyone else's neighbor just as they are all yours, aren't you?

If you aren't worth loving and it is acceptable to hate yourself, then this statement is basically asking you to do no more than to hate all your neighbors, and that doesn't seem to do much good.  Some people might argue that does some good and reflects how the world is, but I don't think those people are right.
...

I think I have seen people get to a place where what they see in the mirror isn't what they want to see.  And so they hate what it is a reflection of.

Them-self.
...

What becomes problematic about this is that this statement seems to carry some weight to these individuals, however, and so they desire to still treat others well.  They want to love their neighbors.  And that is good.  They should.

But what they fail to realize is that this statement also comments on the inherent value of people.  The inherent value of not only your neighbors, but of yourself.

They fail to see that no matter how bad that reflection gets and no matter how much our neighbors fail to love us the way they love themselves, God loves us.  God loves you.  He loves me.  And He loves our neighbors.  Which are again, you and me (among others, of course.).
...

God is love.  And to think that he is anything else first and foremost is a misunderstanding of the person of God which leads to numerous misunderstandings of who we are and who our neighbors are.  What a grave mistake that could be.

What damage that could do to the world.
...

There may be things to be mad about.  I won't doubt that.  There may be things to be sorry about.  I'm sure there are plenty.  There may be things to regret.  I'm positive that's also true.

But none of those facts affect whatsoever that you are loved and it is right and appropriate to accept that love for yourself.

Love yourself and know that is okay, because God loves you too.  And He only loves what is good.

You are good.
...

Peace.