You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.
When I was a kid my parents had a saying that summed up the way we learn, peer pressure, and curiosity all in one phrase. Whenever one of us did something dorky that we had seen someone else do they would say, “Monkey see, monkey do.”
Presumably, real monkeys are prone to copy what other monkeys do. Certainly, kids are prone to copying what other kids do. Did you take my crayon? Okay, I’ll take yours. Then, of course, somebody goes crying to Mom and the oldest kid (me) always is the one to get in trouble.
Regardless of the origin of this quaint saying, Jesus applies the same principle here. We should do what we see Him doing.
A lot of people take this to mean that we should talk to those we disagree with the way Jesus talked with the Pharisees. But this idea doesn’t make sense. Jesus is God. The Pharisees were God’s representatives to the people. They were, in fact, God’s servants. The problem was, they were not acting like servants. Instead, they acted as if they were God. Jesus rightfully takes exception to this because of the special relationship they have with Him. Jesus also knows their hearts.
If you have an employee who acts like he or she is your boss, then you have a problem and you have to talk to them about it. If you disagree with someone over their theology, that is not the same thing. Instead, Jesus wants us to copy Him in doing the hard work of loving those you disagree with. Instead of expressing anger with those whose theology we dislike, we are to show our theology by serving them. Effectively washing their feet in the love of Christ.
Let’s Discuss: What are some ways we can apply this washing of feet in today’s culture?
I would like to seek clarity on a point you made when you say:
“A lot of people take this to mean that we should talk to those we disagree with the way Jesus talked with the Pharisees. But this idea doesn’t make sense.”
I don’t want to misunderstand what you are trying to say here, but in all honesty the more I mulled over this in trying to come to terms with it, the more I realize it was too vague for me to be certain.
I’m yet unsure as to which aspects might be implied that we should or should not model after Christ when he addressed the Pharisees because I believe there are instances where it could be appropriate and where others have given us example from the text outside of Christ alone.
Such as Stephen’s response that led to him being stoned by the very ears it fell upon:
“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.”
Or when John called them vipers:
“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”
I guess that a part of what confuses me here, first comes in your preface of, “those we disagree with” because to that end, I know that I would myself not conflate Christ’s response to the Pharisees as running parallel to my own circumstances with someone I simply disagreed with.
For the very reasons you give as to the relationship concerning the Pharisees and God, I do however, find a context available to positively inform such a reaction here rather than negate it and I believe this is what Stephen and John are acting upon. But there are many other such examples in both the Old and New Testament.
It is precisely the Pharisees relationship to God, that warrants such a response, even from Stephen, who is not God, but who understands this clearly as his leading into this fully illustrates in the verses prior. I believe we can find instances that at least loosely parallel this today, or at least that we can be informed with this knowledge in light of what is at play, but it is not simply for when we disagree with someone.
But also, as your logic follows in that Christ is different than us, his being God, this would apply to instances in which he interacted, whether kindly or harshly, with anyone else and not just the Pharisees, but also the Jews, the gentiles, etc., seeing as God has a special relationship with each. So by taking this step we are now opening up debate over every instance that we may or may not model after Christ on account of him being God.
I think as a general rule, we should always strive to model after Christ, we simply have to understand this difference and understand the context. We can know something on account of each case, such as the things you lay out concerning the Pharisees, and this can help inform us. But I am hesitant to simply state that we cannot model after Christ here, any less than we can after his kindness in other instances.
In all cases, God is clearly the only one that can perfectly read another person’s heart. Thus, I think the debate goes much deeper than just classifying this distinction between Pharisee and layman (or boss and employee), as there are examples of Christ responding both favorably and unfavorably (or at least how we might perceive it) to either of these groups.
What I think is critical here is the heart and not the words. What I mean by this is that I would argue we can speak strong words, such as Stephen did, but that it comes from a strong heart, and not a weak one.
A weak heart will either not speak the truth, or when it does, will do so from vain and selfish motives, or to simply engender strife because it disagrees. A strong heart, grounded in the mind and love of Christ, can speak strong words lovingly.
This is the problem with our culture that I was trying to address in your April 17th post. Our culture does not base what is loving or kind in truth, they base it on what they perceive as being “kind” which is often only that which makes them “feel” warm and fuzzy. Anytime we disrupt this, people believe we are not showing them love.
My argument is not that we should model our responses in any conflict after how Christ addressed the Pharisees like a cookie cutter response to justify our actions. I was simply giving an illustration that I think is void within our culture and has permeated the church; that of a weak understanding of love. I’m also not saying this is why you’ve addresses things. I am simply clarifying because they are related.
Everybody knows they need to be kind, so there is not much to increasing our understanding here simply by affirming this. Putting it into practice is where the rubber meets the road, but if we’re to fully do that then we must realize that this can look quite diverse at times as opposed to what we may initially be pigeonholed into thinking.
I would rather break someone free from this paradigm, than just state the obvious that we all already know; that we must be kind. But what is kindness precisely, and are we handicapping our practicing of it simply because we are afraid to step on toes?
We all know what the obvious side of kindness looks like, but there is more than one way to express it, context is important. By not speaking the truth at times, this can actually be a manifestation of an unloving behavior or a weak heart.
Think of this, what was Stephens heart after speaking such harsh words (words that enraged those they fell upon)? We find it revealed in verses 59-60:
“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.”
“If you disagree with someone over their theology, that is not the same thing. Instead, Jesus wants us to copy Him in doing the hard work of loving those you disagree with. Instead of arguing with those whose theology we dislike, we are to show our theology by serving them.”
This reminds me of a quote that is often incorrectly attributed to Francis of Assisi that goes:
“Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.”
However, the closest we know that Francis came to saying anything of this nature was:
“All the Friars…should preach by their deeds.”
One of these statement is superior to the other, can you tell what the differences are and what they imply?
My point would ultimately be that theology is not something we decide by what we subjectively like or dislike, it should be defined by the word of God. And also that Scripture is not left to private interpretation.
Because of this, we can and are asked precisely to “argue” these things, if that is the word that must be used. If anything should be a stopgap to take heed of on differences, it is how we see and follow after God.
Nothing could be more important, and in doing this it does not mean that we have abandoned kindness or love, but rather it is where we have great opportunity and patience to perform it.
Certainly we are warned not to give heed to doubtful disputations, and there are many peripheral things we could get lost in, but in Christ’s examples when dealing with the Pharisees there were many core realizations and truths at stake, not the least of which was their own salvation in coming to such terms over those very things.
So, I actually think there is much we can and should model after Christ here, and I believe we see this evidenced in the behavior of others throughout the rest of the scriptures as well.
Sure, there are plenty of instances of kindness that bode for a warmer reception, but I do not see these things as being mutually exclusive and most people are already aware of these, they are simply having trouble putting them into practice.
Anyhow, I hope you can take my words out of a loving concern for others and the truth. I am not simply trying to argue. Nor do I think you will necessarily disagree with what I’ve shared, but if you do, I more than welcome your reply because I so highly respect you and I know you love me dearly. This is in part how iron sharpens iron and why the scriptures are not left to private interpretation.
With all that I’ve said I think I’ll leave addressing the actual discussion point to someone else. God bless.
I would suggest that what the church is doing through the Family Promise program is a good example of how we can apply it.
NMOP3PISdn
Thank you for your thoughtful comments today. I appreciate your concern with today’s topic. In fact, when I looked over my post this morning I made a couple of last-minute edits because this is a difficult topic.
Perhaps a little more background is in order. Today’s world is very different from the world I grew up in. The advent of social media has had a powerful impact on how people interact with each other. It seems that our ability as a culture to have civil discourse on any topic has been diminished substantially.
I have observed people tend to be aggressive towards those they disagree with. Sadly, this tendency sometimes includes those who claim to be followers of Jesus. The rationale for arguing with others is so that the other person will get their theology right. But is this a fair position for anyone to take?
Today’s passage concludes with: “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.” The context of this example is the washing of feet. By extension, the context includes the forgiveness of sins.
You provide two examples for discussion purposes. Stephen on trial before the Jews and John the Baptist calling out the Jewish leaders for being “vipers.” Both of these are interesting cases, and in my view both are unique.
John the Baptist is the herald of Jesus the Christ. John was chosen by God before he was conceived and was dedicated to God’s work. He was a prophet on the order of Elijah who had unique access to God’s thoughts about the Jewish leaders. As such he was speaking for God, not for himself when he called the Jews, “vipers.”
I relate to Stephen’s situation more because he was like you and me, a disciple of the Lord. Yet his case is unique, too. On trial for his faith, Stephen is full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7: 55) and like John the Baptist he is speaking for God.
Both of these situations are set in the context of the genesis of Christianity; the belief in the risen Lord. When confronted by people who deny the existence of Christ we should proclaim our Lord loudly and often.
However, to the extent that believers are prone to argue over little things (adiaphora) I disagree. I do not think this is Christ-like behavior. Jesus is the suffering servant. (Isaiah 53) He is humble. He does not argue from a human point of view, instead, he speaks only what the Father has told him to say. (John 8:28) I don’t mean to preclude the possibility that the Father might speak through you or me in certain situations. It is just that I believe the situation between Jesus and the Pharisees is different than you and I arguing with someone we think of as a Pharisee because of their beliefs.
If the Lord is a Servant who washes others feet, then I have the responsibility and privilege to serve others. Imagine if every believer sincerely served one another like Jesus did. That alone may turn the world upside down.
Rich,
That is a beautiful thought. Each time we put that thought into practice we help bring the kingdom of God into this world. Thank you!
NMOP…certainly has some thought provoking points. We certainly should emulate Jesus. Paul in Phil 2 tells us to have the servant oriented mind of Jesus. When it comes to addressing others…telling them that God is love is good in the right context (e.g. John 3:16). The hell fire and brimstone message is also appropriate when done in love (John 3:18-21). Obviously, not all accept a loving yet potentially offensive message. Thanks to all for your comments.
JEC,
Thank you for sharing! God’s truth is not loved by the world. No matter how we share, it takes courage.
Jeff,
Sorry that I could not get back to this right away with the holiday and family over, but I did want to reply and thank you for your response. I hope you’ve had a great time with your own family and friends.
I always appreciate the time and heart you put into everything that you do. I sense that you try to reciprocate what others put forward and to meet them in love with where they are at.
This is a model that many can follow after and is highly relevant to our current discussion. Everything you do here is a witness to your endurance, love, and patience in the faith.
You provide us with great material, colorful imagery (both in your writing and the visual aids), put forth valid perspectives, offer intriguing discussion points, and respectfully respond to nearly everyone’s comments. You and your wife also continue to open up your home.
I believe you offer these things out of a real concern and love for those in Christ. We have in part recently been discussing what kindness is and the washing of feet, and I believe you are modeling these nicely.
This is even if you and I have entered into deeper discussion and may not agree on everything. Some would call this edifying, some debate, others still simply consider it arguing.
I’m not sure it matters, it is what it is, but what is this precisely, regardless of what each considers it? Ironically, I will proceed to “argue” in order to flesh out where I am coming from…
I hope you can be patient with me as I feel this is important. I’m not so sure how much we disagree on or not but I would like to find out. This is not to engender strife, I simply want to understand where you are coming from because I am still unclear on a few things.
I took a course in college where one of the books we had to read was titled “Everything’s an Argument.” I’m not promoting the book (and certainly not a “higher education” although some may consider it a necessary evil), I’m simply reminded of the point that everything we can say truly is an argument–including such a statement–perhaps you disagree? 😉
As you have pointed out (concerning hostility and the advent of social media) that context can change over time including our language, culture, and sadly even the church and how certain individuals interact w/ others.
However, I am okay with the nomenclature regarding the points I’ve put forth as being considered “arguments.” This is because this does not necessarily mean that I think that what is taking shape here is “arguing” in any pejorative sense as some may model after and to which I would agree is wrong (such as those keyboard warriors you’ve eluded to).
If someone cannot operate out of love then they should remain silent, but it does not follow that the only place we have example to speak up is where it involves proclaiming Christ as Lord.
Hence, it is not clear to me how you see things at this point in time concerning our own interaction and especially concerning whether you think it is acceptable or not to entertain argumentation concerning theological differences.
So I’ll at least explain where I am coming from and how I am interpreting what I am hearing from you. Please feel free to clarify on anything I may get wrong. Sorry if this gets a little winded, it is just how I operate; for better or for worse.
In this context, when I refer to an argument, I simply mean it in terms of what contributes to positing the logical structure for that which I am attempting to articulate.
This will unavoidably take place whether others agree or not, and vice versa, whenever communication is present. Argumentation in this sense is just a part of what it takes to communicate and I don’t consider it hostile whether or not we even agree.
That said, is what we are doing here simply grappling over adiaphora? not saying you’ve said this, but if so (though I don’t believe we are), in what ways does this matter or should it prevent or limit us from lovingly proceeding?
I am hearing you say with your words that we should not argue concerning theology. When you clarified you did not touch on this aspect so I am left to your prior statements. You simply contextualized the platform in which such arguments were taking place and their aggressive nature.
If what you and I are debating here is considered adiaphora, then we both should remain mindful of wrestling here. But if this concerns our theology–then likewise as you claim–we should abstain from entertaining our differences.
However, proceeding as such is not a contradiction to what I believe, but I want to make sure I understand you on this because I am a little confused. I am not offended by this, but I am curious.
What you’ve stated is that we should remain silent and not engage in theological argumentation, and by so serving our theology will be made known. I’m okay with this in part, but I’m also okay with how we’ve proceeded; that of speaking up and clarifying our differences.
You see, I do not believe that I can come to an understanding of what you believe by your not engaging with me in this fashion. By vocalizing some of your beliefs and vice versa we can peer deeper into things as additional information is exchanged.
You may be able to show me that you love me by your serving me in silence, but so too could the Hindu, Muslim, or Jew. So I have to ask how you could differentiate on any theological differences by your actions alone were you to take such a route? I do not believe that you could.
What I agree with you on, is that we can show a great deal of sincerity by remaining silent and serving in love. What I don’t agree on, is that this is the only example we are given or that such is sufficient for delving into and sorting out any deeper theological truths; the precise area I feel you are asking that we remain silent on.
I understand you don’t want people going around arguing with the belief that they can change/control someone’s theology, but in part, this is actually the hope of such discussions even from sound principles and a loving heart. Otherwise what would be the point to discuss that which we believe. If we believe it, we hold to it as true and desire that others not live under the insanity of that which is not.
So I think a big problem for me in what you are saying lies in the fact that it seems you may be conflating adiaphora with theology.
If we could get some basic definitions in order it may help us to approach this from some common ground and with more clarity.
theology (thē-ŏlˈə-jē)
►
n.
The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
n.
A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
adiaphora (a-dē-ˈa-fə-rə) plural: from the Greek ἀδιάφορα.
►
n.
Stoic philosophy : a matter having no moral merit or demerit.
n.
a religious ceremonial or ritual observance that is held to be an affair of the individual conscience because it is neither forbidden nor enjoined by the scriptures.
It appears to me that you may be conflating these together, at least with how you’ve been presenting things so far.
I am simply going on the information you have provided and this is why I have some of the concerns that I do.
I understand that you don’t want to argue concerning adiaphora, but theological differences is what you’ve continued to press against.
I also understand that you don’t want people being aggressive, and that this does not reflect Christ, but it seems the only option you are offering is to remain silent.
I agree that we should not argue over “little things” (though that’s not quite what the term implies), but when you use theology as your ongoing example…can you see why I think you are at risk of having conflated these two?
If this is true, that you have lumped theology in with adiaphora, then you’ve lost any scriptural basis to admonish others from refraining here as a general rule. In fact, discussing even adiaphora is not forbidden, we are simply to be aware of our brothers weak in the faith.
Although I agree that we can speak through our actions, I believe these are auxiliary to the proclamations of our faith; and are not only to be reserved for extreme circumstances such as being placed on trial, etc.
Just because we may or may not find ourselves in such circumstances (like that of John or Stephen) does not mean we are dealing with an adiaphoron to which we are forbidden to defend, share, or posit concerning that which we hold to, even in the face of adversity.
If conflict was the measure or indicator by which we refuse to speak or engage, then good luck saving the lost world through serving them alone. You simply cannot get it done with that approach, and that’s not to say it does not have its time and place. I am simply arguing that so too, does argumentation.
And this goes well beyond just being able to proclaim Christ (because you’ve listed this as at least one example where we may be bold). It often takes working through many layers of deception to even be able to posit such a proclamation.
You see, I do not believe that deep theology can be communicated through “serving” alone. You can give it (certain aspects of our theology at least) life through serving, but you do not elucidate on them in this fashion unaccompanied by the power of the spoken word. And of course, not everyone is going to agree with us or our message as JEC has pointed on.
Theology is the understanding of deep truths as they relate to God; truths that must be formulated and stated (if even in our own minds) to be understood, and yes they can be silently lived out, but this will not transmit them to others because this is not the form in which they natively reside and take shape. It is simply a facet of their external manifestation.
There may be certain theological tenets or peripheral beliefs and practices tangential to living out our faith, but this is not nearly the same thing as placing theology, in general, within the sphere of adiaphora, far from. This what I am most concerned about and would like to know where you stand.
You said that,
“to the extent that believers are prone to argue over little things (adiaphora) I disagree.”
I don’t believe we should argue over these things either. I don’t disagree with you here brother, but I do not believe that is what is taking shape here.
If we cannot find support for or against a tenet in the scriptures and each man’s conscious does not condemn him respective to this, then each is free to his own accord.
However, much of what you and I have been personally discussing here can be found at large and is touched on throughout the scriptures. We are simply ironing out our individual interpretations and have entered into discourse subsequent to our own theological views.
I know you would agree with me that our theology should preeminently be derived from the scriptures. Adiaphora concerns that to which the scriptures neither elucidates nor forbids. Of course we should never argue over the latter when and where the scriptures go silent.
But by stating that you disagree here, it showed me that you had possibly missed where I was coming from altogether because we are in absolute agreement on this.
My issue is simply to make sure we are not treating our theology as if it is adiaphora. I felt I made this clear in my response as follows:
“My point would ultimately be that theology is not something we decide by what we subjectively like or dislike, it should be defined by the word of God. And also that Scripture is not left to private interpretation.
Because of this, we can and are asked precisely to “argue” these things, if that is the word that must be used. If anything should be a stopgap to take heed of on differences, it is how we see and follow after God [This was a reference to our understanding and practice concerning theology].
Nothing could be more important, and in doing this it does not mean that we have abandoned kindness or love, but rather it is where we have great opportunity and patience to perform it.
Certainly we are warned not to give heed to doubtful disputations [this was a reference to Romans 14:1 which would be considered an “adiaphoron” and in this case it involved the eating of meat] and there are many peripheral things we could get lost in, but in Christ’s examples when dealing with the Pharisees there were many core realizations and truths at stake [again, theological disparity], not the least of which was their own salvation in coming to such terms over those very things [he could not have shown this to them simply through his actions, he had to speak them in words, and this is an example we can follow, not that we are Christ and should speak his same words].
So, I actually think there is much we can and should model after Christ here, and I believe we see this evidenced in the behavior of others throughout the rest of the scriptures as well.”
I don’t disagree that we can manifest the love of Christ by serving others, but you cannot elucidate deeper theological abstracts outside of speaking them in love.
One’s practice in faith should not exclude this, they should merit them and this is precisely the example I see Stephen giving us and to which is more directly related to the context under scrutiny.
Just because some individuals (no matter how many) do this incorrectly today, does not mean that we are forced to over-correct and condemn such behavior. It is the heart that matters.
Hence, refraining from addressing someone with whom we disagree with is not synonymous with loving them or doing the “hard work,” whereas speaking up means we are no longer loving them or have become lazy or done so from ill intent.
Just because we are not to respond in our personal disagreements with others by acting as if we are God having run up against the most blasphemous of Pharisees, does not follow that we cannot speak up or that doing otherwise indicates a hardness of heart or unwillingness to serve.
Sometimes we are serving in it, and not in spite of it, even if others continue to get it wrong or judge us incorrectly in it. Sometimes people are just not going to like who we are or how we communicate.
By way of analogy, you don’t take away other people’s guns (or perhaps a sword would be more apt in illustrating the Word) because some people will act foolishly.
The only reason I find it safe to press on these things with you Jeff is because of the love, relationship, and common ground that I know we share in Christ.
I also highly respect you, but this does not mean that I cannot lovingly challenge you or take concern when I feel something could possibly lead others into error.
You said that:
“This washing of the feet was considered a servant’s work. It was also considered a kindness, even common courtesy. If Jesus was willing to extend this kindness to the man who would betray him to be crucified a few hours later, who on earth can I refuse a kindness to?”
With this I wholeheartedly agree brother and I believe you are demonstrating this nicely. I simply remain unwilling to equate kindness with necessarily remaining silent on issues of theological significance.
I also do not think kindness trumps everything that the Christian is called to be mindful of although it should accompany nearly all that we do.
Please don’t feel that you have to respond to everything that is here. I simply could not tell by your last response if you were grasping my own position and I know that I was not clear on yours.
I love you dearly brother. I hope this changes nothing between us but for the better as I would hate to cause any injury here. I believe I know your heart in this and it is one I would like to be better able to model after in my own walk. I am simply seeking clarity. Love in Christ.
NMOP3PISdn
Thank you again for your in-depth consideration of this topic and for presenting your ideas so lovingly. I think you have tapped into the weakness of my original post. The ideas presented were more of the broad stroke sketch variety rather than a finely detailed painting. As such, I left the door open for confusion. I apologize!
If I understand you correctly, the main thrust of your “argument” 🙂 is that we need to be free to discuss theology if we are to advance our understanding of our faith in God. In principle, I agree. However, my personal life journey has led me to conclude that there are a number of dangers involved with intellectualizing our faith.
In the concluding chapter of the book of Job, Job responds to God and says:
“I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.
“You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.’
My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes.”
There are many things too wonderful for us to understand, and there is a real danger of falling into pride when we kid ourselves that we can actually “know” things that are beyond our reach.
So I accept that we must discuss theology at some level, but I return to the beginning of this thread and fall back on the need to mimic Jesus in the washing of feet. That is something I can do.
Jeff,
Thank you brother for your response. I always appreciate your insights and the kindness that you show. I agree there are ditches that we can fall into on both sides of the issues here and that intellectualizing our faith is certainly one of them.
It is one that I try to remain mindful of because I struggle here. But I try not to let that keep me from being shut down and moving forward. It is a fine line indeed and I believe it is going to look differently for everyone. My job is to look after my own heart and I don’t always get this right.
To follow your paint brush analogy, I believe God has given each of us different brushes to paint with. I know mine is rather finely tapered than most and I don’t really know how else to paint with it than what you are seeing. This is regardless of where my heart is at or what I am trying to say. I can either hide this, or embrace it.
This is part of what it means to be autistic and what I feel you were encouraging me to come out of. My world is lost adrift a mass sea of details and interconnected “truths.” I cannot simply pluck one thing out without ruining my own web of understanding (which of course will always fall short).
This is probably a bit harder for me than others and I certainly have my own struggle in it, one that I know you can relate to in many ways. That is why I find it healthy to openly discuss these things and you or others can help bring balance to me as you have. I thank you for this brother.
This is a real struggle for me, but I also think that I am different in a way that is hard to separate from my condition and this is something that few people will ever fully grasp. I can live with this as you have been encouraging me to, but that does not mean that I will ever be free from troubles here unless God wants to heal me.
Until then, this is the brush I have been given, and I am certainly more prone to some struggles than others. However, not everything I do at length is intellectualizing, even if I may be amiss on the context at times.
This is another area that I can struggle in. Anyhow, I’m just sharing, I realize that I am rather cerebral to begin with, but I don’t really know how else to function most days. So I guess if I am this way, I wouldn’t really know how to be any different. And to function contrary to this, just seems false. I do try to grow where I am weak.
Anyhow, I am sharing because I believe it is safe to share. I hope and pray I am not just trying to justify myself. I actually want to share this and I appreciate you being so understanding of everything and sharing your concerns with me brother. None of it is amiss. I appreciate you greatly.