- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Brains are funny things. I was working on something for my job today, and, completely out of the blue, I had the following thought:
In the movie “A Few Good Men”, Jack Nicholson’s military commander character says the famous line, “You want me on that wall; you need me on that wall” – when pressed about the abusive tactics he used at his base. I don’t want this post to be about abuse in any way, so please don’t take it in that direction, but the thought hit me that SO many people crave security and peace so deeply that they are desperate to have someone they can look to as a soldier on a wall – a watchman on a tower – a shepherd at the gate. They literally want AND need to have someone watching over them, so they don’t have to watch for themselves and can, instead, go about their lives with a degree of security in a very random, scary, otherwise terrifying world.
It’s not my job to push their protector off that wall, even if I am not inclined to want or need one as badly as they are. Even I find comfort in the knowledge that someone is trying to look out for me – even when I sometimes don’t appreciate or agree with what they see.
It’s also much easier to look outward and see external threats (real and imagined) than to turn, look inward and see internal threats (both communal and individual) – especially when external threats are approaching across barren land and internal threats are moving through buildings and hidden behind masks and in hearts.
Yes, we want them on the wall as long as they are looking outward. Nice analogy. As long as we personify evil in the person of Satan, Surround ourselves with a wall that he can not penetrate, And convince ourselves that the secret to victory is to never set foot outside of the wall then all will be well. Unfortunately both people and walls (organizations) do move over time and heaven help you when you find yourself on the outside of that wall. That comment sounds snarky but I am having trouble coming up with a rephrase. I understand that the literal interpretation of symbols and hedges built around good principles do contribute to the performace of good that might not happen otherwise (that some need to visualize a more literal carrot before getting the motivation to do good). To that extent I am thankful, even as I complain.
Bottom line: I want people who need to feel protected to be able to feel protected, even if I don’t feel that same need to the extent they do. There is no way I’m killing or crippling their protector(s) when they need him/her/it/them.
This is good, I agree! Ha, I posted this a while back. Jack Nicholson should totally work in apologetics: http://www.wheatandtares.org/2012/07/14/fair-farms-maxwell-institute-et-al-weekend-poll/ Old-Timer wrote:Bottom line:
I want people who need to feel protected to be able to feel protected, even if I don’t feel that same need to the extent they do. There is no way I’m killing or crippling their protector(s) when they need him/her/it/them.
You are right Ray. The protectors fill an important role – and I have nothing bettter to offer.
What if your protector is an abusive control freak? What if they are so adept at mind control that you actually believe you need them all the while you are doing nothing more than their bidding while suffering personal turmoil yourself? Just saying sometimes the protector needs someone to knock them off the wall. I agree, Cadence, 100% (which is why I mentioned abuse in the original post) – but that has to be a targeted effort toward individuals, not the general rule. Old-Timer wrote:I agree, Cadence, 100% (which is why I mentioned abuse in the original post) – but that has to be a targeted effort toward individuals, not the general rule.
How do you target individuals when it may be the entire organization that is a fault?The entire organization is not responsible for “serious” abuse – and I hesitate to say it that way. All of us can be and sometimes are abusive to some degree, but there are WAY too many wonderful watchmen/shepherds among us to claim that serious abuse is a natural result of the entire organization as a whole. Old-Timer wrote:The entire organization is not responsible for “serious” abuse – and I hesitate to say it that way. All of us can be and sometimes are abusive to some degree, but there are WAY too many wonderful watchmen/shepherds among us to claim that serious abuse is a natural result of the entire organization as a whole.
Is a church organization ever responsible for its leaders actions and teachings?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:Old-Timer wrote:The entire organization is not responsible for “serious” abuse – and I hesitate to say it that way. All of us can be and sometimes are abusive to some degree, but there are WAY too many wonderful watchmen/shepherds among us to claim that serious abuse is a natural result of the entire organization as a whole.
Is a church organization ever responsible for its leaders actions and teachings?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
A church organization is as responsible for its actions as are the members themselves responsible for choosing to follow the organization in the first place. It’s a two way street. Just my opinion.
I like what Ray said about the entire organization not being responsible for abuse. The church is made up of people who all are human and make mistakes. Most people I meet at church are genuinely trying to do their best.
No one has ever abused me at church. Maybe pestered me, but that is it. I get nervous throwing the word abuse around in regards to the church. It’s not like we are dealing with the Khmer Rouge or Waco.
AngryMormon wrote:… I get nervous throwing the word abuse around in regards to the church. It’s not like we are dealing with the Khmer Rouge or Waco.
Hmmmm?
Is it fair to compare to Warren Jeff s and Ron Hubbard?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Quote:Is it fair to compare to Warren Jeff s and Ron Hubbard?
In some ways, sure; in most ways, no.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.