I’m so tired of playing this game!
I do it with so many people who I know. How can I make myself more acceptable/presentable/appropriate/good/lovable? It’s a game that takes place mostly in the subconscious as we try to earn or maintain the favor of those around us.
The game itself feels toxic, but it also feels so necessary. If people don’t trust me, how can we have a relationship? Relationships are built on trust. No trust, no relationship.
So I try as hard as I can to keep people happy. Keep them smiling, keep them laughing, and if I slip up and say something that would upset the sensibilities of this particular person, I find a way to distract them away from it. But I find myself making a nosedive into a puddle of shame, because while I’m trying to draw the other person’s attention away from my “mistake,” my own attention is absorbed in nothing different.
The problem here is that trust is impossible without honesty. And the supreme irony is that we often use dishonesty (pretension, impression management, distraction) to get people to “trust” us and hopefully build a relationship with them. But you can’t build relationship. Relationships grow, kind of like flowers or trees.
What if trust comes not by earning it or manipulating people’s impressions? What if trust (and relationship) comes from being ourselves and nothing more? People trust us because they know when they look at us, they see what’s really there. What if relationship comes when we expose ourselves and all our insecure parts, not when we try to cover up and match the other person’s definition of acceptable?
I’ve been wondering this for a long time. I’ve tried to be more vulnerable with others in hopes of fostering relationship with them and finding healing for myself. I hate pretension. I want to be honest with people, as honest as I possibly can!
But try as I might, I can’t! I start to open up to someone, and then I clam up. Because I know they aren’t a safe space.
What is a safe space? A safe space is any space or relationship where you are accepted exactly as you are. I know that’s a cultural cliche. People talk about “accepting others as they are” as if it was easy. Never mind that we can’t accept people who are liberal, or pro-life, or gay, or fundamentalist, or addicted to pornography, or on welfare, or, heaven forbid, Wiccan, unless they repent. Somehow accepting others as they are has been simplified to mean just embracing the people who slipped up and hurried back onto the straight and narrow.
So what? Are we really supposed to accept everybody? Heavens, no! Because it’s totally worth it, but it’s an invitation. You are never required to accept anyone, just as you are never required to be somebody’s friend. You get to choose. Sometimes you don’t get to choose and your pain chooses for you. But someday you’ll heal and you’ll start to choose again.
And I think ultimately relationship is the overlap between whatever amount I am able to accept you, and whatever amount you’re able to accept me. The more mutual acceptance, the more overlap and the more relationship.
So, what does it mean to accept someone? Does it mean to agree? No. It means to embrace them!!!!!!!!!! It doesn’t mean I would make the same choices if put in their shoes. It means I embrace who they are today, and I embrace their ability to make their own choices. I honor those choices as far as my conscience will allow me—no further, no less. I make no efforts to change the other person or convince them they’re wrong. We often think we’re capable of persuading others to a better road, but usually our persuasion is little more than guilt-tripping. If we have it on our hearts, we can make an invitation for the person to join us and we’ll walk with them as they heal from whatever painful spot they were in. But the invitation has to be optional. The relationship has to be optional. The healing has to be optional. Otherwise, it can’t be real.
I think acceptance is so crucially important. It bothers me how people approach it. In the Christian community there’s the infamous adage: “Love the sinner; hate the sin.” It’s often held up as the golden rule of what acceptance should look like from a Christian perspective.
But suppose I say to you, “I love you to death, and you’re such a special person, but what you’re doing is an abomination!” How does that make you feel? It has never made me feel loved. It makes me feel like I’m a terrible person. “I love you, but … ” Never a good formula.
If we look at the “unacceptables” of this world as being just that—unacceptables—who we’re going to accept anyway because it’s the good, Christian thing to do, how will that make these people feel? Loved? I don’t think so. You can’t look down on someone and love them at the same time. You’ve got to get down on your knees and meet them where they’re at.
Where they’re at? But what if they’re standing on hell’s doormat, daring the fire to come get them? Well, that’s where you’ll probably have to go to reach them.
So what about pedophiles? Are we supposed to accept them? No! Remember, acceptance is an invitation. And it grows in our hearts like a flower or a tree. We have to start small. Practicing acceptance with a pedophile is something you probably haven’t been invited to do yet, if ever. But how would it even work if it did happen? Are we really going to let them get away with stuff?
Of course, this is obvious. We can’t have people sexually abusing children. We’re not going to accept that.
But then, in the minds of some people, being gay would be no different. It’s a “sexual perversion,” so what, are we just going to let people? Shouldn’t we make it illegal just like child sex abuse?
Then, in the minds of other people, letting fathers mandate that their wives and daughters should wear head coverings would also be seen as a form of sexual maltreatment.
So it seems that the whole idea of accepting others breaks down. True acceptance requires me to refrain from changing the other person. But trying to avoid changing anybody would be at best futile, and at worst immoral. But on the flip side, when we choose not to accept others, we end up with the mess we have right now—a world where every group and sub-group of people is trying desperately to legislate their version of morality and get everybody else to go along with it. When some people are fighting for a world without abortion and gay marriage, and others are fighting for a world without corporate elitism and pollution, and others are fighting for a world without Christian fundamentalism, and others are fighting for a world without atheists, what is going to happen? We ultimately end up buying into the idea that the world is a giant tug of war game. And if we see the power struggles in the world around us as little more than good versus evil, then of course we’ll assume that sooner or later, our side will win. Or maybe theirs.
But I think when we become interested in understanding others, this delusion melts away. Many of the things we fight over are caused by two or more groups of people who ALL have legitimate fears. If those fears are not addressed, the other will keep playing tug of war with you until you take the time to show them that you feel for them and see their fears as valid. For example, pro-life people are afraid for all of the millions of lost lives who will never be here on earth. Life is precious and worth being kept for its own sake. How is a baby any less human the moment before they are born than they are the moment after? Since when were we appointed to be the arbiter of life and death? Meanwhile, pro-choice people are afraid for all of the millions of women who have been treated like crap for most of human history. When a woman is faced with the predicament of an unwanted pregnancy, telling her she just shouldn’t have gotten pregnant is no different than saying, “You failed, so suck it up and take the consequences.” In many cases getting pregnant probably wasn’t even her choice (e.g. rape, or more likely, being pressured into it by a controlling male). How can she experience love then if we continue to control her and take away her choices? But how can we risk letting her choose when a child is on the line? And do you know what? ALL of these fears are legitimate! So what are we supposed to do?
I’m not here to answer that question, because I honestly don’t know. What I’m trying to say is, morality is complicated. Very complicated. We tend to simplify it by coming up with our own narrow definition of what right and wrong should look like—whether we do that in the name of the Bible, or common sense, or even love, it makes no difference. We have chosen knowledge over understanding. Knowledge says, “This is how it is.” It tends to deceive because it’s often misinformed. Understanding asks, “How is it, really?” Understanding is more humble. It doesn’t just say; it asks. It usually leads to pursuit of knowledge, and concludes with lack of knowledge. “I have no idea.” Which is so precious, because I think when we finally lay down what we think we know and come to see how little we really know, we are more empowered to see people as they are, to demonize others less often, to accept others further, to love others deeply. And there lies the missing piece to our puzzle. Understanding. If we don’t understand someone, we can’t practice acceptance or plant seeds for relationship.
I realize it would sound cheap to say we should all become moderates who look at every issue from a middle point of view. I want to make it clear that I’m not advocating that. There are some ideas that are genuinely toxic and worth our firm opposition. But what I’ve found helpful, is to stop demonizing the other. Most issues are more complicated than they first appear. Acceptance is so much more than, “Love the sinner; hate the sin.” It’s more like, “Love the other; understand and pick apart the sin until you see how lovely this other person is in spite of the fact that they live differently than you do.” Probably wouldn’t fit on a T-shirt, but … you know.
So I think to learn true acceptance, we have to destroy our concept of sin. Whaaat?! Yes, I do! Don’t get me wrong; there is good and evil in the world. Our choices have consequences. But as long as we think we know what’s best for everyone, we will love no one.
What if we look at the “bad” (that is, our definition of bad) things others do, and instead of seeing those things as the stubborn willfulness of an unregenerate sinner, we see those things as the vain efforts of a fellow human being to get their needs met in the world? Most of the things we call “sin” are really people trying by unhelpful means to get their needs met, or to distract themselves from their own pain. People do not “sin” because they are evil to the core. People “sin” because the world is a messy place, and desperate people take desperate measures.
So in the case of a pedophile, could we, maybe, as scandalous as it may appear, try to understand who they are? Could we dare tell them that the thoughts in their head don’t define who they are and that it’s nothing to be ashamed about? Could we teach them self-compassion? If they’re likely to be any danger, we’re not going to let them near our children. But if you feel that you’ve been invited into a situation and have been given special grace to navigate such a situation, why wouldn’t you let this person get near to your heart?
When then is it appropriate to intervene in another’s actions—to stop accepting, to stop them from doing whatever terrible act they’re going to commit?
I’m asking the same question. And the answer is, I have no idea. I don’t know. What I do feel sure of is that I don’t think it’s about doing what’s “appropriate” here. There’s no guideline to follow. Even if I did invent a guideline, would anybody follow it?
I have faith that when you need to know, you’ll know. You’ll know where you’re being invited to accept, and you’ll know where you’re being invited to stand against. Meanwhile, I’m going to keep accepting people, because I love doing it and each new invitation is exciting and helps me grow. Some of those people are hurting, angry, quirky, confused, religious, agnostic, hyperlogical, not logical at all. And accepting them all has been shockingly easy! This isn’t a chore we’re supposed to do. It’s something I love doing because I love these people. I see their perspective, and sometimes their perspectives make my heart hurt. Honestly, I care more about perspectives than choices these days. I could care less what choices somebody makes. That’s up to them. But when people get stuck in damaging perspectives—especially the ubiquitous “not good enough” and “unloved” perspectives—well, it just really makes my heart hurt. Watching other people snub love just plain hurts. It’s one thing I think I’ll always stand against. And yet, I have to tread carefully with these people so as not to invalidate their feelings. I have to find a way to honor their perspective and stand against simultaneously.
I am just a little sapling, just learning how to accept others and just learning how to do relationship in a world that seems to prefer division. I’m still growing, and I don’t accept everyone yet. I don’t think I’m supposed to. I accept the invitations nearest me. There are some people in my life I have no idea how to accept, usually because they have caused some kind of harm to me or to somebody I deeply love. Acceptance is a process, and it’s a process I accept. It’s an invitation, and it’s an invitation I frequently accept as well.
I think the most important invitation so far though has been the invitation to accept myself. Self-acceptance means giving myself the same freedom and love I give to others. It means listening to my heart and in seeing it, learning to trust it again. It’s a beautiful road, and if you’re looking for an invitation, here’s your first one. Accept you! You’re a far more beautiful soul than you are willing to believe.
SHARE THIS WITH OTHERS:
