Danny ChaiI’m not a contrarian by nature. You know, some people have a natural aversion to things that are popular. If the masses like it, they’re inclined to be against it. I’m not like that; I like to think I form my opinions independently of anything. I love (still) Titanic. Don’t like Friends.
All that just to say that I liked but didn’t love Blue Like Jazz and I’ve been trying to figure out why, since it seems like everyone else I know loved it more than life. I thought it was good and had bits of insight, but it didn’t blow me away. Maybe it was just overhyped in my mind? I kept waiting for it to change my life and it didn’t, so maybe I just set myself up to be disappointed. I don’t know.
That said, I do think it was a very good book. One part that really struck me was his discussion about the power of metaphor. He goes to a lecture by a Westmont professor who’s talking about how metaphor frames our thinking and actions. He asks the crowd to yell out words they associate with cancer. They come up with words like “battle”, “fight”, etc. – all words related to war. That’s how we frame treating cancer – as a war. And he thinks that might not be appropriate. For one, many times cancer is not so deadly as to require that type of thinking, and it might cause unnecessary despair. And some people might not be able to deal with that type of war mentality, and just give up the “fight”, which is detrimental, because the outlook one has makes a huge difference in the outcome.
I agree with that. Around the time my mom was diagnosed with cancer, two other women from our church around the same age were diagnosed with the same cancer, but my mom was the only one that survived. I always felt vaguely guilty about that, that I got to keep my mother when they didn’t. Anyway, yeah, I think the outlook makes a huge difference in the outcome.
What really hit me though was his discussion on the words we use for relationships and love. The audience used words like “investing” and “value”, words that deal with investment and finance. I thought there was real insight there. That is how we view relationships and love – we give to make a return, and give most where we think we can make a good return. At least I do. I form relationships to get people to go to church, or to get something out of the relationship myself, or something like that. Even if I don’t use the word explicitly, I think of relationships as something I invest in because there’s value I (or God) will get out of it.
I dunno, I was challenged by that a lot, because that’s not the Biblical model of love and relationships. It’s not an investment, it’s a pouring out, with little consideration of return. So I think that’s how I want to frame things in my mind now – a pouring out, not an investment.
Anyway, on Sunday after church we were at McDonald’s and this random, probably slightly crazy guy butted in on our conversation in such a way that we couldn’t extract ourselves out of it. He just injected himself into it and would not stop talking. Which is annoying enough, because we’re just being talked at and have no way of escaping. Most annoyingly, he talked supremely confidently and inaccurately about two subjects I know a decent amount about – Christianity and the Internet. That’s my pet peeve, the combination of ignorance and arrogance. Drives me nutters.
And the whole time, I was thinking about Blue Like Jazz, and what it means to love this person. I was torn and even now am not sure. I knew for sure we weren’t going to form a lasting relationship, and apparently he already went to church so it wasn’t an outreach opportunity, but I kept thinking, I need to love not to get something from it, but just to love; that’s what Jesus would do. But practically speaking, I didn’t know what love was in this situation. At a bare minimum, I tried my very hardest to not seem visibly annoyed. And actually, that worked out well; even internally I wasn’t that annoyed at him. And even though he would not stop talking, I didn’t try to cut him off. Was that enough? I don’t know.
Jieun is actually better at this – she didn’t just listen but actually engaged him. In her mind, he’s just a lonely old man who wants to talk to someone, and she has no problem doing that without getting enraged at his ignorance. Well, one qualm – in general it’s not good for women to engage strange men, but she was with us. However, she thinks men (in particular me) have more license to engage other weird men so she thinks I should have done it more. Maybe I should have.
Anyway, I’ve been thinking about that a lot.