Recently, as I was walking across campus and enjoying the rebirth of spring, it occurred to me that one of the great challenges of relating to the opposite sex is the issue of confession, or telling secrets. I was thinking of a couple quotes by Rosemary Sullivan, which I got from Jeremy.
When you 'fess up' to someone that you harbor some desire to have them in your life, there is an implicit statement there about the state of your own loneliness. Whether it's a marriage proposal or simply admitting you enjoy their company is only a matter of degree. In either case, to confess a desire for relationship is, on some level, saying, "I find that there is a void in my life, and I like the way you fill it."
The intimacy of this statement is too much for most platonic friendships to bear, so once this confession is made, the only course of action is to let the romantic relationship run its course, eventually reaching one of two possible results: either an eventual unpleasant backtracking, or an ongoing reaffirmation of that need that grows in conviction with each confession.
Some of the same applies to relationships in general. When you look around at people with whom you interact, either by force or by choice, there is a tendency to lump them into two camps: either as obstacles to living well or as a means to doing so.
This first idea is some mutation of the idea that the purity of X-life-dimension is somehow polluted by their presence. "I could get a lot more done at work if Bob would leave me alone, " or "She's really not a good influence on me." Sometimes their crime is bringing nothing at all. I have some relationships that I don't value at all because there appears to be no benefit for either party. In these cases, I mostly view interaction as, at best, a waste of time. This perspective is also found in sweeping statements about the evils of men, or the church, or American culture, whatever: "Our society is really f---ed up. I want no part of it." It is an inability to see the value of people past the more visible flaws of people groups.
But there is another way to look at these faces in your field of vision. The other side of the coin is that they are perhaps meant to be a means--not an obstacle--to living well. And to view them this way also requires an admission. Not an audible proclamation, but an inner acknowledgement at some level of basic need for each other. To believe that these people may be able to help you with your marriage, or your behavior, or your vocation, or your knowledge of God, or your even general satisfaction in life, requires in itself a humble acknowledgement: "I'm better off with them." I suppose there is always a risk of using people for your own gain. Granted, people are not there to serve you, but in a sense, they are.
To see that requires at least a glimpse of humility. To continually reject the authority and possible benefit of others in your life is in itself an act of arrogant defiance that speaks louder than words: "I'm better off without them." This is denial. And we suffer for it, probably more than we realize.
i think friendships need the 'confessions' you mentioned to be articulated, despite the risks. that's the only way to have clarity or growth, it seems like.
Posted by: amy at May 10, 2005 04:48 PMabe, have you read the book?
Posted by: jeremy at May 10, 2005 05:51 PMamy: growth indeed. or else you remain stuck at a certain useless level of superficiality, which is why it tends to change things so drastically with the opposite sex. and you know what happens next.
jeremy: no. should i? i kinda thought it was written for women.
Posted by: abe at May 10, 2005 06:07 PMA profound thought. Convicting. I just posted something related here.
To take the thought a step further, shouldn't we view people, not as a means, but rather as an end in themselves? I.e., shouldn't we be thinking, not "what can this person do for me," but "how can I benefit this person?" I can't even get to step 2.
chris, that would be the ideal, i think. i was i think saying that even if you are thinking selfishly (i.e. what's best for me), you are served by people, whether you like it or not. but it requires some humility to get there.
Posted by: abe at May 11, 2005 11:44 AMabe, yes, exactly.
Posted by: jeremy at May 11, 2005 01:41 PMYour point is well taken. It seems to me there are 3 stages (this is a gross oversimplification): (1) don't need others (independence), (2) need others (humility), (3) care for others (love). I love the "Bob" soundbite. I hope that my neediness takes on a slightly less pathological form.
Posted by: chris at May 11, 2005 04:46 PMOk, I hit "Post" a little too quickly. I should add that in moving from (1) to (3), we never "graduate" from needing others any more than we would "graduate" from humility.
Posted by: chris at May 11, 2005 04:49 PMhey abe? i enjoy your company.
;o)