My goodness... if I wrote about all the things in this interview that resonated with me, my comment would be longer than the article. Thank you for this.
Since I can't help myself, a few things that extra stood out to me:
- The line "community for community's sake" landed. I'm not sure why, but I know it's touching on something that I've been feeling. My whole world has been supporting people who are building community (myself included) to fight loneliness. But I can't shake the feeling that the form of community we're creating isn't even scratching at the surface.
- Funny enough, I found myself recently leaning the other way on the self-love topic as a result of my spiritual journey. I used to focus on love entirely in the relational. But it's been through my spiritual practice (zen buddhism) and therapy (IFS primarily) that what I would call "self-love" naturally emerged... and it was only after I was able to find that love within that I found myself capable of being in deeper, more meaningful, and loving relationships with others. Ultimately, I see it as two sides of the same coin. And to get all "zen" about it, my view is that there's no separation. To love others is to love the self. To love the self is to love others.
- I recall learning that the original meaning of "sin", the way jesus used it, was something closer to "misalignment" or "out of harmony". If we're truly relational beings in the way you describe (I agree that we are), then sin does start to sound a lot like "disconnection"
- Last one, I promise. This line: "If you want to change the world, you have to be a relationship ninja and come to care for the people whose minds, behaviors, and lives you’re trying to change." Wow. This rings very true. I identify as being liberal/left-leaning, and this helps capture what has felt uncomfortable to me about the way many on the left go about trying to create change. I don't get the sense that there's much care for the lives, hearts, and minds of the people we're trying to convince.
Relationship as a theory of change - LOVE that so much. I may use that. Over 30 years of nonprofit work in different sectors, my truth is solidly behind this idea - change happens through relationships far more than programs, activities, or buildings.
So delighted to read this from beloved friends! :)) Liz, this clarity really sparkled for me - “Community doesn’t work under individualism.” Grateful for you all!
“Your response is pointing to our need for collective spiritual transformation as individuals...”
I think the answer to that issue is access and awareness without use of force. And the word, “intentional” is key as there will always be the crowds of people that choose to stay shallow and disconnected. I struggle with things that I “intended” to do but don’t actually take action or the steps for implementation. We need more people bridging the gap and showing how you can turn your intention into action.
We must look at life in a completely different way; the way Jesus did. He never tried to TEACH anything; He taught through parables that people had to decipher the understand and learn. Jesus led people on apath of learning. He gave them the ability to learn. We must do as Jes us did; present an idea, open our arms in peaceful welcome, and say, come let's learnt together. This way, we offer excellent equality of opportunity.
Hmm... change the world... your shifting it sounds toward refugia goes with your children knowing love and trust in a world beset with oligarchical Caesar and rapidly changing exigencies? I guess your community must have relationships beyond your 1800 sq. ft. and I would think they must bring them home.
At the fickle heart of it, sin is not evil? But not so many of us are Saints or Healers or even peaceful company. I recently looked at the classical tradition of Saints in Islam, the same book it seems but a different slant. God bestows the gifts on those who can bear it, which seems sufficient purpose to go along with.
My goodness... if I wrote about all the things in this interview that resonated with me, my comment would be longer than the article. Thank you for this.
Since I can't help myself, a few things that extra stood out to me:
- The line "community for community's sake" landed. I'm not sure why, but I know it's touching on something that I've been feeling. My whole world has been supporting people who are building community (myself included) to fight loneliness. But I can't shake the feeling that the form of community we're creating isn't even scratching at the surface.
- Funny enough, I found myself recently leaning the other way on the self-love topic as a result of my spiritual journey. I used to focus on love entirely in the relational. But it's been through my spiritual practice (zen buddhism) and therapy (IFS primarily) that what I would call "self-love" naturally emerged... and it was only after I was able to find that love within that I found myself capable of being in deeper, more meaningful, and loving relationships with others. Ultimately, I see it as two sides of the same coin. And to get all "zen" about it, my view is that there's no separation. To love others is to love the self. To love the self is to love others.
- I recall learning that the original meaning of "sin", the way jesus used it, was something closer to "misalignment" or "out of harmony". If we're truly relational beings in the way you describe (I agree that we are), then sin does start to sound a lot like "disconnection"
- Last one, I promise. This line: "If you want to change the world, you have to be a relationship ninja and come to care for the people whose minds, behaviors, and lives you’re trying to change." Wow. This rings very true. I identify as being liberal/left-leaning, and this helps capture what has felt uncomfortable to me about the way many on the left go about trying to create change. I don't get the sense that there's much care for the lives, hearts, and minds of the people we're trying to convince.
Thank you again for this wonderful interview.
Thank you! I am still figuring out the self love thing and that insight helps
Relationship as a theory of change - LOVE that so much. I may use that. Over 30 years of nonprofit work in different sectors, my truth is solidly behind this idea - change happens through relationships far more than programs, activities, or buildings.
Humans are being herded into a dead end - it ain’t going to end well.
So delighted to read this from beloved friends! :)) Liz, this clarity really sparkled for me - “Community doesn’t work under individualism.” Grateful for you all!
Such a fascinating and intelligent read. Thank you!
Brilliant.
“Your response is pointing to our need for collective spiritual transformation as individuals...”
I think the answer to that issue is access and awareness without use of force. And the word, “intentional” is key as there will always be the crowds of people that choose to stay shallow and disconnected. I struggle with things that I “intended” to do but don’t actually take action or the steps for implementation. We need more people bridging the gap and showing how you can turn your intention into action.
We must look at life in a completely different way; the way Jesus did. He never tried to TEACH anything; He taught through parables that people had to decipher the understand and learn. Jesus led people on apath of learning. He gave them the ability to learn. We must do as Jes us did; present an idea, open our arms in peaceful welcome, and say, come let's learnt together. This way, we offer excellent equality of opportunity.
Hmm... change the world... your shifting it sounds toward refugia goes with your children knowing love and trust in a world beset with oligarchical Caesar and rapidly changing exigencies? I guess your community must have relationships beyond your 1800 sq. ft. and I would think they must bring them home.
At the fickle heart of it, sin is not evil? But not so many of us are Saints or Healers or even peaceful company. I recently looked at the classical tradition of Saints in Islam, the same book it seems but a different slant. God bestows the gifts on those who can bear it, which seems sufficient purpose to go along with.