February 28, 2011
-
Anti-
[From the archives]
What does it mean to be Anti-American, Anti-Christian, Anti-Muslim, Anti-Semitic? What must one do to merit the "anti-" prefix?
Actions I can understand. I would not hesitate to call one who does not allow Jewish people into his restaurant an anti-Semite. I would not hesitate to call one who spits on Tibetan monks anti-Buddhist.
But what of words? How much does it take? Is a single use of a negative appellation enough? What about a single off-color joke? How much does it take to earn one the label?
I'll use an example. [A few years ago] Barack Obama made a joke about most Americans being Anglophonic monoglots. "It's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup!'" For this (and possibly for the ongoing flag-pin thing) some are calling him "anti-American." Others are saying that the joke (but not the person) was anti-American.
Was it? Is he?
The joke is an observation. An observation that Europeans tend to be polyglottal, whereas most Americans don't even know their own language. It's an observation with an implicit criticism. I, as an English teacher, have shared both that observation and that criticism on various occasions. And I, as a traveler, have made that observation about Europeans as well. I've met Brits who spoke German and Italian better than I speak English; I've met Italians who spoke Greek and French and Belgian; I've been greeted in strange countries in my native tongue; and those Swiss speak just about every damn language there is.
In sharing this observation, and this criticism, is my criticism anti-American? Do I myself BECOME an anti-American?
For some it seems to be. For some you are not allowed to criticize their [country, faith, ethnicity] without becoming an anti-. Others, perhaps, have thicker skins...
But I will disagree. I will say that criticism might mean that I am a pro-. I might criticize Americans because I love America and wish to see her improve. I might criticize Christianity because I am a Christian and love Jesus and wish to see Jesus' people represent him well. In fact, such motivations might drive me to criticize MORE. (Is it "anti-American" to dissent? Myself, I'm with James Baldwin on this one--that dissension is, if anything, the most patriotic act, because it shows that we care enough about our nation to speak out when we believe she is wrong.)
But if not criticism, where is the line at which one becomes an anti-? Is it insult? If I call someone a "nappy-headed ho", does that make me [anti-black/anti-women] (depending on who you ask)?
And thus I ask you, Xangans: what makes someone an anti-? Criticism, insult, action, or somewhere in between?
Comments (43)
Action, and action alone, can show what our beliefs and bigotries for what they truly are. Criticism is a sign of love and commitment. For a critique to become an insult requires additional actions which show it to be an insult. And jokes... really? We have to excuse jokes now? Screw that and everyone who believes that. Screw 'em to the wall!
I always thought anti specifically means against. If criticism is all it takes be labeled as against someone, then what are parents? Should parents who correct their children be considered unloving towards them? I don't think so.
In our efforts to be tolerant we, as a nation, have become intolerant of anyone who might disagree on any single point with us. To disagree, to correct, to hold a different view is considered total anarchy. And I see this on both sides of the political deck. If you disagree with something, you're phobic. You're a bigot.
The reaction is stupid, really - and a sure path to an unenlightened future for all of us. We cry wolf on so many things that we've stripped ourselves of a voice entirely.
I'm with you.
Calling Barack Obama "Anti American" for speaking a truth even if it's critical (and not wearing a flag pin, give me a break) is absolutely ridiculous. It takes far more than that to be "anti". By that standard, my parents are "anti-me" whenever they point out something I am doing wrong or quality where I fall short.
@Cymrugirl -
Well said.
its not always bad to be Anti.
Why can't the English learn to speak?
BTW I am not sure if insult is the line, but it is definitely on the side of Anti. If you call someone a nappy headed ho, you are conceivably making an anti-Black and anti-woman statement... of course in our free society there is even a place for such hateful speech, but that also means society, upon hearing it, has the freedom to label you Anti.
Criticism and insult, to me, are both different things. Insult is with a mean spirit; criticism in a correcting spirit, but of course criticism can be taken badly by the person being criticised.
Being anti... I'm anti-abortion, for example, so it means that I'm against abortion. For Obama - I don't think he's anti-American with that statement. Heck, if that's the case, that means everyone in the country is anti-America, because I'm sure you all have said things like what Obama said!
Oh yeah, about being polyglots in Europe? So are Asians.
Just thought I'd point that out.
Too bad I can't edit. I meant to add, "Great post".
I think one becomes "anti-" when they insult for things others can't change. To be Anti-Semitic, people harass others because they choose to follow their own religion.
Simply, "anti-" is in oppostion to something. In today's society, "anti-"whatever means in opposition to whatever everyone else believes. Sad really
You made a good post and highlighted a good point
In the Chicago Manual of style, the term for people for many years was "pro choice" and those against were "anti-abortion." Go figure.
If Barack Obama were anti-america then why the hell would he want to be president of America?
There's an Anti-Drak site (I kid you not) run by this loser who tries to package insults to me off as philisophical dissection, which in and of itself is funny. I suppose it's just because he's so self-righteous and clueless no one takes him seriously, though.
good stuff chris ... i think the thing about our education system is that it's poor in fostering love for the languages. I wish it was better myself ... I'd like to know something other than English.
( I was going to blog about this and now I'm going to have to copy/paste this whole comment. Arg.)
I think it was Rushdie who somewhat recently said that people need to get thicker skins. It was a paragraph (or more? If anyone has a link, I'd be grateful as I can't find it) revolving around the concept of being offended. I rolled it over a bit and came to the conclusion that to be offended is essentially criticizing someone for not thinking/being like yourself. Someone could tell me that I am a tree-hugging Jesus freak and while that could be categorically true, it is not personally true as it doesn't speak at all to my nature, and it may not even be generally true of Christians who hold strong environmental interests. I could be offended, but what does that prove? That I am right and they are wrong? In what aspect? What does asking for an apology prove? An apology doesn't change the mind or heart of the person that said it. Only time, true conversation and experience will. So instead of asking for an apology, wouldn't it be smarter to become engaged with that person to share and discuss the topic?
There is a large, or maybe just outspoken, segment of our society that has managed to make apologies vogue, demanding them at every turn. You have offended me. The very idea of it is a conceit, and it's become the social norm. Sure, someone may have said or acted in a way that is offensive, but what most fail to recognize is that one has to choose to be offended. Its a state of mind that requires will, and, to be quite opinionated here, it a lazy act that requires the least thinking or responsibility. It heaps all the accountability in the other person's court and leaves none for yourself.
@Cymrugirl -
I recently had a discussion with a student who told me that I am intolerant because my faith claims to be the only way to God. He didn't actually say the word "intolerant," though. What he said (and here I nearly dropped to my knees to thank God for his creation of irony) was that I was "wrong for telling other people their believes are wrong."
I have to leave for work soon, so I won't spell out the idiotic hypocrisy of this statement, instead leaving it to your brilliant minds. I will point out, however, that it is exactly this kind of illogical argument sprinkled with the fairy dust of good PR onto which many people are so ready to latch.
@hEwHosHallpReach -
The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The person who says it's wrong for you to tell others that their beliefs are wrong, thinks that your belief is wrong and is telling you so. By his own standard, he is himself wrong.
Not only that: what does this person mean by "wrong"? Does he mean "illegal"? If so, we have the First Amendment as much as anyone else. Does he mean "immoral"? If so, to what standard of morality does he appeal? If he cannot identify one, then it comes from within himself. Essentially, he would be saying that his own insights into morality are more profound than anyone who has come before him ... more profound than Jesus or Bhudda or (insert dozens of names of people who founded a school of religious or philosophical thought).
I don't think the difference between criticism and being "anti-" is the difference between actions and words. Why not? Because words are a form of action. Words are spoken or written, and the act of speaking and the act of writing are themselves actions. So the difference between words and (other) actions is one of degree, not of type.
Similarly, the difference between criticism and being "anti-" is a difference of degree and not of type. To criticize something is to be anti-"the-way-things-are".
The difference is a difference of intent, between those who seek reform or improvement in something they generally love (or at least respect), and those who seek to tear down or obliterate something because its very existence is abhorrent to them.
I agree with the person who pointed out that it isn't always bad to be "anti-". There are things in this world that are abhorrent and need tearing down. Only when society is perfect will there be nothing to be "anti-" about. (Besides, if somebody believes that being "anti-anything" is inherently bad, then that person is being "anti-anti".)
@Cymrugirl -
anti specifically means (in Greek, at least) "opposite." So antiphonal singers stand on opposite sides of a room, and the Antarctic is on the opposite side of the world from the Arctic.
So really, to be anti-American doesn't necessarily mean that you hate America. If Americans love Mom and apple pie, then an anti-American would love Dad and key lime pie. Or else being anti-American means that you live on the opposite side of the world over in the Indian Ocean.
But that's just a silly etymological argument. I think the best thing to do is just ignore such pointless namecalling. I don't care whether folks call a candidate pro this or anti that, it has nothing to do with, would they be a good leader?
Are words not actions? Both you and I believe in the inherent power of words.
@BloodTypo - I applaud you. Absolutely.
Y'know, I think being "anti" is more of an attitude than anything else. That's what makes it hard to define from the outside-looking-in perspective because only God can truly see our hearts. It's difficult, at times, to judge when someone is definitely "anti" towards something/someone based only on their outward actions because we don't know their heart. Sometimes it's more obvious (KKK or Apartheid would definitely fall under anti-black, I'd say). I guess when someone has repeatedly over the course of time shown a passionate hatred towards something/someone, you could call it an anti- type of sentiment. Goofy example: my husband hates mushrooms and always has. He really despises everything about them. He consistently picks them out of his food at restaurants and mushrooms enter our house probably twice a year (because I happen to like them). He hates the texture, the taste, the way the end up shrivelled on pizza...everything. He refuses to eat them. I would definitely call him anti-mushroom.
~V
@hEwHosHallpReach - I would agree with the statement that Christianity is intolerant of any other religion's claim to God. There is one God and one way. In that way, we could be called intolerant. The thing that gets me is how people think that tolerance is some kind of peacemaker. Not true. Tolerating something does not equate love nor does it equate peaceful living. Tolerance, in the USA as far as I can tell, has a lot more to do with sugar-coating self-centeredness and not caring about other people. Not to mention it's often steeped in hypocrisy.
~V
You ask a good question but there is a fundamental problem associated with most any answer. Intent. What makes someone anti, in criticism, insult or action is their intent. Intent is fine as a concept, but it's lousy as a criterion because we can never truly know someone else's intent. And so we jump to conclusions which may or may not be valid. For example, we have adopted legislation through-out this country which categorize certain crimes, based on the perpetrator's intent, as hate crimes, and then we impose stiffer penalties on those hate crimes. But we never truly know the perpetrator's intent. And really, is it worse to beat the crap out of somebody because of their race, or their religion, or some other group identification, as opposed to beating the crap out of them for any other reason?
@doahsdeer -
good points.
one of my friends rec. this post and i am glad they did! thanks for the thought provoking reading.
Every time I make an observation like the one Obama made, my dad will get really angry and stop talking to me for a while. Apparently he didn't raise me to be an "anti-American hippy bitch"
It's been a while since i've been on xanga. I totally agree with you. I am sick of people who are so called tolerant that they can't stand to hear someone point out an error or weakness in some one or something. I think people are looking for things to point out against Obama. I'm not saying he's perfect but America, stop being so petty!
i can't add anything to the wealth of intelligence displayed in the comments above. that is one reason i love your blog - it promotes intelligent, and insightful dialogue, because of your clarity of writing and ability to discuss potentially inflammatory topics in a sophisticated and non-volatile manner. bravo. great post, as always.
I spent a summer in Europe. I didn't know any French, but I got along fine in Spain because of my Spanish, and many Dutch seemed to speak English. I absorbed a fair amount of German listening to my great-aunt and great-uncle telling their stories to my dad. I met a couple of interpreters who seemed to speak all the major languages of Europe and even some lesser ones like Lang d'Oc, the French form of Catalán, or Alsatian, the German dialect spoken in eastern France. I learned no French that I can recall except the grunt that means 'one' and possibly that 'fromage' means 'cheese,' although I may have already known that.
Criticism is the essence of democracy. "Of the people, by the people, for the people" means both me and that bozo who completely disagrees with my position (curse his red nose and oversize shoes).
Criticism in want or need to better change the cause is not "anti" anything ... but I agree with you...
Good points...
"Anti" anything would be actions of hate towards a specific group, and that would be when, I think, you would be classified as "anti" whatever it may be...
Hope this made sense...lol
I think in the case of that comment by the president, people need to realize that there's a difference between praising someone else and criticizing the opposite. If I say, "Oh, the Swiss speak so many languages so well," that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm anti-American. If I say, "Oh, the Buddhists have a peaceful philosophy," that doesn't mean I'm against Christians or Muslims or anything else. And just because you criticize your country, your language, or your religion, doesn't mean you're against it.
Good question. If someone claims to be anti- something, generally I take them at the word. I don't call people anti- something based on things I've heard them say or things people tell me they say because I tend to be a "benefit of the doubt" kind of person. I would agree with the actions idea, I think.
Will have to ponder this. Such a good question.
~V
Criticism, as you point out, can be good. Insult is petty and vulgar, but does little harm for the most part. Action is what counts. If a person's actions might lead to harming America, and the way of life that America stands for, then and only then should you be considered "anti-American".
I think a comment can only be classified as "anti-something" if it is mean spirited. Criticism, and questioning of the status quo is not anti-American. One could argue, in fact, that is the epitome of being American. I think when the intent is to degrade or cause shame, then it changes the comment. So sometimes we can't know if someone is "anti" unless we know where they are coming from.
Accusing your fellow Americans of being Anti-American is the most Anti-American thing I can think of.
Certainly an interesting concept. Personally, I believe that right now America is in the politics of "labels" - that everything is and can be neatly cut up and placed into boxes with labels, as if that label encapsulates everything and is the last word on the issue. I'm guilty of it myself.
There are so many assumptions and assertions flying around that it's no surprise that if we find something/someone in disagreement with us that we automatically label them "anti-" as if that's the only response without further thought/analysis required.
It's lazy, it's pathetic and it's not conducive to a strong society.
Great post!!!! I don't think someone is anti-something because of a remark they make, but in the way they carry on their everyday lives, purposes, motives, etc. If someone hates on Jews and believes that the holocaust either didn't happen or was a GOOD thing, I'd definitely call that anti-semitic, however if someone makes a joke about a jew, a christian and a buddhist, I'd doubt that'd be anti-anything.
People need thicker skins.
Aside, I would love to speak more than one language. Even in Canada we aren't required to learn THAT much french to be fluent, I wish I had been forced.
@Cymrugirl - Well said.
I certainly don't see a negative opinion as anti. As an example I have studied many different religious beliefs and in all of them I find excellence but I also find things that I strongly disagree with, however I am not against any of them. I am not particularly fond of Mr. Obama, I think he is pompous and arrogant but I don't think he is anti American nor do I believe any action he has taken up to this point is anti American. I believe when an action is taken is when the Anti comes into play. My personal observation is that many people let their emotions rule their judgment. I thought his statement could have been phrased better and was somewhat insulting but he is entitled to his opinion and ultimately what he thinks of me as an individual is of no consequence. No, I don't speak another language, I took German in high school but have long since lost that for lack of use. Does it make me a lesser person? I don't think so. Would I like to be able to speak German again? Absolutely! Will it make me a better person? I doubt it, maybe smarter but not necessarily better. This is a great post and very thought provoking. I would imagine some of those folks who react out of emotion would this post very ANTI.
Hey there - I finally got here and enjoyed this post. (I haven't read the previous comments, so if I say something already addressed there, please don't think I'm being denser than normal.)
To me the bottom line is that "anti-" just means against. Does criticizing something indicate that you're against it - or in the case of criticizing a few traits that are the norm in a diverse body, are you somehow against the whole? I think any of us (doing the criticizing) would agree that's ridiculous - and yet it can certainly feel that way to the one being criticized. I know my heart sinks when my boss points out something I've screwed up. Getting pulled over for speeding can make you feel defensive, angry, hurt - like a bad person in some way. So you're right - it's a complex and weighty little tag to slap on the front of a word.
Nonetheless just because a word (or prefix) is powerful or often misused, that doesn't mean it is never correct. As you point out in your examples, some actions reveal clearly "anti-" sentiment, even if the act of bigotry is done out of peer pressure of some kind rather than being a true expression of one's feelings (say a restaurant owner in 1940's Alabama who refuses to serve African Americans, not out of her own dislike for them but because she's more afraid of what her white neighbors will do to her). Similarly preaching, teaching, writing and speaking are actions - and the content of what someone says may also be "anti-" Deciding that someone is "anti-" could be knee-jerk and spiteful, revealing a (sometimes a real and valid) sense of injury on the party doing the labeling. But, naming something as "anti-" might in fact be truth-telling - especially with enough evidence. It can be really helpful to call a spade a spade. That restaurant owner I imagined earlier might never have seen herself as racist until called out as one.
You asked: "Is there no room for a person, organization or assembly to disagree regarding the sanctity of gay Christian relationships without becoming an "anti-" and being seen as hateful?"
This might need some clarification, but let me blunder in and you can correct me if I'm mishearing the question. Maybe there are a few questions here. First and easiest - is calling someone "anti-" seeing them as hateful? Again, this may be in the eye of the beholder. Do I think someone who is "anti-" something is a hateful person - or do I just think they hate a certain thing? It may feel, when you're being called out as being against something, like people must think you hate everything - but that seems a bit extreme. So I'm going to focus on the first part of the question, which I hear to ask, "can an organization or individual challenge the sanctity of gay Christian relationships without being "anti-"?"
I want to pause a moment, because this response isn't in the context of the original post http://sirnickdon.xanga.com/754103367/starbucks-homosexuality-and-forgiveness/ to say that Willow Creek Community Church wasn't criticized here for failing to recognize the sacredness of gay Christian relationships but rather for teaching gay people to live lives of sexual abstinence.
So, I believe that WCCC was quite correctly deemed, "anti-gay" - in that gay, meaning homosexual/homosexuality, refers to sexuality - and telling someone that expressing their sexuality is wrong is pretty much objectively "anti-" that sexuality. If they speak, teach and preach against it, that seems like solid evidence to me that they are "anti-"it.
You expand the question considerably, in I think an interesting way. But I think this is enough for now. I welcome your thoughts and maybe I can find some time to blog about the broader question.
@gayXianmom - Hi! I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I like the idea of boiling down "anti-" to being "against," and I think that might help to clarify both my own position and how I interpreted (whether correctly or not) Bill Hybels' position.
I'll modify what I was saying on SirNickDon's post: I don't think that being an "anti-" is automatically hateful. I think we are all anti- something, and sometimes being pro- anything means you are anti- its antithesis. But I think the association between anti- and hatefulness becomes much stronger when the thing one is against is a person rather than an idea.
You said, "telling someone that expressing their sexuality is wrong is pretty much objectively "anti-" that sexuality." Fair enough. But when we say something/someone is anti-gay, specifically, what does the "gay" in the term refer to--gay people, or the idea of being gay, or gay actions, or what? I have to say, and I don't know if this is fair, but the first thing that popped into my head is that an "anti-gay" person is against gay people, rather than just against... gayness, for lack of a better term. Maybe it's because of the complex associations of the "anti-" prefix?
I think that's how Hybels was interpreting the term as well: notice that in the video he said that Willow Creek is not anti-gay because "we're not anti- anybody." I took that to mean that he thinks "anti-gay" means "against gay people" rather than "against the idea of gay people expressing their sexuality." Based on his later statements I would agree that he is anti- the latter idea.
And I do think you can disagree with a person on an issue--thus being against their stance on the issue--without being against that person. Within Christianity, for instance, I am not a fan of how Calvinism is expressed, so I suppose you could call me anti-Calvinism, but I am far from anti-Calvinist--some of my best friends (unfortunately) are TULIPers. Or I am anti-alcoholism but not anti-alcoholic, if you get my meaning: I am against the idea of repeatedly getting drunk, but I still love my family members who are alcoholic.
Anyway, enough of that--I want to head to your site to see what you wrote.
@OutOfTheAshes - First off can I just say how refreshing I find this discussion with you? It's so nice to meet someone truly willing to talk and listen. I appreciate that a lot and I'm enjoying this conversation.
Your questions about the word "gay" are so astute. I do think situations like the Hybels/Starbucks one might be a lot clearer if folks could just check that they were on the same page linguistically. For me, although I don't begin to claim to be able to speak on behalf of gay folks everywhere, "gay" is always an adjective never a noun. Many people happily refer to themselves as gay - but I have never once heard one call him or herself "a gay." That usage, I have to say, strikes me as offensive - on the order of calling someone "a _______" fill in the blank derogatory term. Think about it, I don't need to type them - you can comfortably hyphenate or otherwise massage certain words into acceptability but many times, with borderline-acceptible words especially, to label someone "a _____" objectifies them. So no, a gay person would never call someone "a gay" or talk about "the gays." In fact I'm a little repulsed just typing it. Just before opening xanga I read an essay in which a friend's son spoke about "the gays" - the friend is straight (not "a straight" lol) and was emailing me this essay out of pride. Honestly, she didn't think it was a problem. So we have a communication gap right there. Simply on a grammatical grounds, it's pretty unlikely that a gay-rights group would use "anti-gay" meaning "anti-people-who-happen-to-have-same-sex-attraction" which seems to be what Hybels thinks it means. Anyway, that's how he responds - which misses the point, imo. And I was assuming he was smart enough to be missing it deliberately. Maybe that's an unfair assumption.
BTW here's a nice little article that talks about some folks actually conversing about the issue at Hybel's church: http://www.soulforce.org/article/1393
And I totally agree with you about being "anti-" things and still truly loving people who do those things. Of course! This would be a very dull world if that weren't true across a broad spectrum.
Something else interesting to consider along those lines are times when what we don't love is somehow essential to who a person is. Cultural norms spring to mind. Could you ever non-offensively say something like, "we totally welcome Italian people, as long as they don't act Italian when they're here." "I have no problem with Jewish people, just as long as they celebrate the Sabbath on Sundays." Really? At some point this begins to feel pretty ridiculous, if not delusional. Hmmm, this begins to feel like blog fodder
@gayXianmom - Thank you! I love conversations like these.
It's amazing how much terminology can trip us up. I remember right around when Prop 8 was in the news for the first time, I blogged on the subject and referred to the "homosexual community." A commenter had to ask me to use a different term, as "homosexual" struck him as insulting. I had no idea--me, I figured that I'd heard "gay" used as an insult and "homosexual" sounded more technical, so I thought I was using the polite term. I had to go back and re-write the post.
It's always better, I find, to let the other side of a debate or conversation define my terms for me. Otherwise, we run into the trap of talking past each other, neither understanding what the other really means.
The question of whether what we don't love in a loved one is essential to their identity is an interesting one. It's also a huge question, because it is wrapped up in the deeper question of what makes us love people to begin with. Let's say I have a nephew who is very much a junkie, has made being a junkie his self-identification and personal culture, and I don't love his drug use. But if it is, indeed, so central to his identity, or at least what he perceives as his own identity, then what of HIM do I love that makes me dislove his self-harm? Is it merely because he's my nephew? Is it because of memories of who he used to be, memories of his childhood? The first seems more obligation, and the second more self-delusion, than real love. So what is it, who is it, that I love, if I love a junkie but not this essential part of his identity?
I'm not sure. For that matter, what is it or who is it that I love when I love my mother/friend/wife? Do I love my wife simply because of how she acts, what she's like, how she makes me feel? I don't want to say yes: that strikes me as so shallow. Is it some essential quality of her personality or identity that makes me love her? If it is, what? Greater scholars than myself have teased apart the various types of love--affection, family-love, friendship-love, erotic love, unconditional love--and that last one makes me wonder. Does love even have anything to do with who the loved-one is?
Like I said, huge questions.
@OutOfTheAshes - I love this practice of yours, to let the other define your terms. Particularly when you're talking about that person. It makes sense - and is respectful. I will try to emulate that. Thank you.
These ponderings about love and identity remind me of a post I wrote awhile back http://gayxianmom.xanga.com/747141599/a-test-for-true-love/ (in case you want to read it. One thing I'd edit about that post is that I make reference to a book that I neither link to nor really explain, oops. It's a memoir written after the author's husband has a massive stroke and loses, among other functions, language. He can not speak or understand at all - for a time, but slowly he regains some ability to communicate. It sounds really bad, how I'm describing it, but it's really wonderfully written. These are people who adore language and it's like all her wordiness gets funneled onto the page.) Not that I come to any answers either for these big crazy questions. Which doesn't make them any less important to ask, I think.
And of course the really important thing is the loving. The other stuff is extra. At work today I was sort of idly gazing out the window and this really difficult person in our building walked by (outside) so I was looking down on her. And my first reaction was something like, "Oh
her"
and I wondered, as I often do, why she's so mean to folks. But it was really fleeting. What came next was this huge wave of loving. Like whatever it was about her, whatever her unkindnesses, whatever. It just didn't matter. It was like I could see her - I don't know, as if she were a child - I'm not describing this well - but just somehow
she was
. And that alone was enough. It's not that I tried to like her or reminded myself that she was a child of God - I just was graced - like all of God's love for her (ok not
all
, just a tiny portion) poured through me. And what a gift to me that was. I can't imagine she'll ever know. But maybe next time I see her that will be my first reaction - to remember that out-of-nowhere love - and not to think she's such a PITA. Loving. It transforms us.
Comments are closed.