And as I waded through various articles on What Women Want (and lots of grinning Mel Gibson pics), I came across this very interesting article:
What About Just Being Me?It sounds like an excellent piece of advice. It probably is.
Ah. “What about just being me?” The words of a wussy who doesn’t want to leave his comfort zone.
“Just be your natural self” is another piece of awful advice dating and communication teachers tell people. In fact, being your natural self in many areas of life will get you into trouble. I know people don’t like hearing that, but regardless, we must always fight our natural tendencies to progress forward and become who we want to be. If you were always just yourself, then you wouldn’t grow to become anyone greater. You’d be stuck in your old bad habits.
By practicing these skills, you internalize them and only then does it become your natural self.
By developing my “attraction skills” and learning to trigger attraction in women that I wouldn’t have otherwise done, I’m not being my natural self. By practicing these skills, you internalize them and only then does it become your natural self. The difference is, now your natural self is what women want.
Being yourself is not a right. You do not have the right to be yourself. Being yourself is a privledge you must earn by constantly working on yourself and becoming a better man.
Do you remember the debate about Courtship versus Dating?
One key argument for courtship is that dating is highly superficial, where both parties seek to impress one another, with brilliant peacock-like displays of hair, bling-bling and fine clothes. But courtship is much more realistic, because both the guy and the girl would have opportunities to see one another in real-life ministry settings.
Therein lies the problem within. One benefit of dating is that the guy is obliged to put on his best-looking appearances. Whereas in normal church settings, the brothers are called to be real and genuine with one another. So it seems to me that the sisters will see the not-so-pleasant sides of us too.
Do you see the dilemma here in which the brothers are placed in? On one hand, the sisters want to see the brothers more chivalrous, and on the other hand, it seems that our BGR framework calls for both sides to see the real (and potentially ugly) side of each other.
Now, just to clarify - I'm in favour of our church's BGR framework. It's just that our BGR framework is not perfect, since we are humans. All Scripture is God-breathed and perfect, but as we humans try our best to obey and apply the principles, we are bound to have weaknesses in our frameworks.
The above example is meant to illustrate a potential weak point of the BGR framework - since the brothers are not to try to put on good looking impressions for the sisters, they may tend to slack off...
But... I realise again, the key point is that it's not about being chivalrous or whatever to a particular sister. It's about being chivalrous to all the sisters around us. And that spells a socially-mature man.
Thus, I think for this weakness in our framework, it can be compensated for by exhorting the brothers in church to rise up above the world's standards and outshine the non-Christians by not only having the right actions, but also the right heart behind the actions.
Back to the article I mentioned. I'd take it with a hefty pinch of salt. Because it's humanistic. All self-help books are humanistic in nature. Yes, they are useful. But... they do it with the focus of self-actualization and self this and self that.
While such articles are helpful for the non-Christian, we Christians are called to a totally different world-view.
We are to train ourselves to realign all our actions and values to that of the very person of Jesus Christ, meaning, to be godly.
We are not called merely to do the right things.
We are called to an even better standard.
We are called to glorify God in all that we do.
We are called to be holy, because He is holy.
Therefore, let's consider: How would Christ behave towards women? And yes, Christ indeed is considerate and gentle to the women - no wonder the women wept for Jesus when He was carrying His cross... and yet even then, He graciously thought of them even in His pain and compassionately told them, "Women of Jerusalem, weep not for me... weep for yourself... [for terrible things will happen to you...]"
7 comments:
I don't think that getting people to be real is a weakness of the framework.
If we're talking about the brothers' attractiveness in the eyes of the sisters, there are 2 factors:
1. The _real_ quality of the brothers. We should be real, and should be observed in our day-to-day realness. If we are real and appear sub-par, then we really are sub-par, and really ought to do something about it. They shouldn't try to impress, but impress for real.
2. The standards by which the sisters evaluate. I know this process is certainly not a cerebral, clinical one with international standards on a scorecard. Still, I think that if the brothers are being real in their interactions, they should be assessed as such. Some calibration and zeroing before the measuring should be expected.
I suppose the above should be said conversely as well.
All in all, in a community where everyone is being real, people should be in a better position to consider their life partners.
I think you answered excellently, bro! :)
But... "If we are real and appear sub-par, then we really are sub-par, and really ought to do something about it."
I don't really agree with this aspect. The conclusion isn't correct. One may choose to look sub-par, because he's confused as to what it means to be real. Perhaps he knows the right biblical value, but due to ignorance, he doesn't know the right behaviour.
I'm sharing from my own example. There was a time when I felt disappointed by something that the other brothers had unintentionally done. But I knew the right biblical attitude was to forgive them. Then, another brother asked me how I was. So I was thinking: should I share with him my feelings, or do I speak what I know is true?
I decided to share with him my feelings. He then messaged me back, "Brother, it takes the greater man to let go and forgive."
I knew these words are true, and he had good intentions. But, let's put it this way - it's not really the right medicine for that time, you know what I mean?
So, I think we cannot make the conclusion so quickly that just because someone appears sub-par, therefore means that he must be sub-par. Perhaps simple ignorance or a wrong teaching is a factor in affecting the appearance.
"2. The standards by which the sisters evaluate. I know this process is certainly not a cerebral, clinical one with international standards on a scorecard. Still, I think that if the brothers are being real in their interactions, they should be assessed as such. Some calibration and zeroing before the measuring should be expected."
I think you nailed it on the head. Gosh. How do you say so compactly what I've been trying to say all along... haha, thank God for you bro.
"we cannot make the conclusion so quickly that just because someone appears sub-par, therefore means that he must be sub-par"
That's a great point, bro! And I agree. And this is the problem on the evaluation side of things. I don't think one "chooses to look sub-par", but rather chooses to be real. If another person wrongly evaluate him as sub-par, then the evaluation process must be improved!
See, point 2 of what I said is as important or more important than point 1. Of course, the process of evaluating a person's character is far more complex and subtle than my words could express.
By the way, I think being real doesn't imply right behavior. Being real, I think, means speaking your mind, sharing your thoughts and feelings. One can be wrong and thinks he is right, he can be right and think he is wrong, right and knows he is right, or wrong and knows he is wrong. In all these, he can be real.
So, it also means that the (hopefully) discerning judgment of those around us will not always be favourable, but will be fair. If we are wrong, we are deemed wrong, right if right.
And yes, it's not perfect. People won't be 100% real, and they won't be 100% discerning (plus gracious).
But I believe it's better than having people put on appearances, and everyone having to second-guess everyone.
Amen, bro. =) *pause*
It's not easy being real and open, for there'll be times that one'll get misunderstood... or you know very well that you're sub-par - but you think/know that the others can't/won't accept the sub-par part of you.
But thank God we have God who knows all things. =) Hee!
That's so true, isn't it?
This discussion is making me think... shifting away from thinking about it in theoretical idealistic terms to thinking about it in realistic real-world terms.
It really is hard to be 100% real. I doubt any of us are.. I think it would be good enough (as a start) to move towards progressive realness in the community.
The need to feel accepted, the fear of being rejected.. makes us say only the 'right' things, or try to anyway.
When people are open and real, we say that they are willing to be 'vulnerable'. Vulnerable means that we could more easily hurt them in such a state. The creation of a safe environment is key. A community or a small group where the members know that they can trust the rest not to hurt them when they are vulnerable.
" The creation of a safe environment is key. A community or a small group where the members know that they can trust the rest not to hurt them when they are vulnerable."
Agree with you bro! Hmm. Any ideas how to help build a sense of safety within a group?
I remember when HH last time initiated a brothers' group, he laid down some basic ground rules. E.g. when one shares how he feels, nobody is to give any advice or opinions, unless explicitly asked. And whatever is said within the group must never, ever get out of the group - otherwise you'll no longer be in the group.
Very strict rules, but I think these rules really helped to provide a sense of safety and security in the group.
Post a Comment