Tag Archive: Frustration

Hearts hurting, bewildered, angry
give into the most basic of human needs

security in one’s soul

A divide in concept, in ideal, in reality
serves to break us beyond our understanding of repair
Instead of recognising a shared predicament
we identify ourselves with our woundedness
It puts us at either end of a never balancing fulcrum
made of the stuff that original sin was created from

So, we fight one against another
Adversaries like pawns in our enemy’s game
Beaten, battered, victimized, shattered
Wearied, ashamed, fearful, unchanged
given into the most basic of human failings

destroy rather than restore

For Christ’s purpose was reclamation
relationships disintegrated, renewed by a selfless act
It removed the eternal imbalance, set aside brokenness
gave us a piece of hope, divinity wrapped in forgiveness and clay

He stands with us
not prize-fighters in a ring
He stands with us
love given everlasting
He stands with us

In the middle of grief, aside us with the steps of fear
we consumed by our own hatred, truth and right unclear
In the midst of failing and hopeless enveloping night
He stands with us to reconcile and won’t walk away

That’s the purpose of love, our souls set aright

7:29 am
25 November 2014

—-Should we not do the same with one another?  The only way people can move forward from such divisive and painful times is to promise to love someone enough to stand with them until reparations and solutions can be found.

Fresh on the heels of the scenario I recently wrote about, here is the next installment of my observations and struggles to figure out what is right.  The following is probably too simple and idealistic and not exacting enough for debate, but I’m fleshing out my reactions in the light of the verse below:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God”–Matthew 5:9


Now the problem with the previous exploration is that I want to extrapolate it.  Perhaps it isn’t something that can be expanded to society at large or to a global scale.  Our country often finds itself in situations similar to that.  However, our country is invested in keeping conflict going rather than resolving it.  In our history, we have entered into conflict around the world, and basically become the onlooker in the above situation.  In our haste, we have jumped in and protected one side of a conflict without flinching and then found ourselves protecting that side forever afterwards.  Other times, we have reacted to such a situation and provided one side the ability to overwhelm the other.  In the aftermath of seeing the outcomes of both methods, we sometimes have a reactionary response.  We then provide aid and help to both sides of the conflict.

That happens so easily because conflict between peoples or nations rarely occurs in short durations of time.  Years and years can pass.  So as a benevolent nation, when we step to assist one side of a conflict we observe the horror that conflict brings.  So, we step in and provide aid to the other side of the conflict.  Medical supplies, food, infrastructure, trade, and even weaponry are things that we’ve provided to both sides of a conflict.  In fact, it’s rare nowadays that there isn’t some assistance to both sides of an international conflict that we’re not involved in reaching out to help.  That is because if we make sure that two sides of a conflict cannot wipe the other off the face of the earth then they eventually will find peace, right?

That reality sounds like a caring and compassionate extension of our character.  It really appears to be a positive philosophy.

Now let’s look at the scenario that I used earlier.  Two people beating on each other.  If we provide support on one side to equal the fight, the one that was “winning” earlier might seek out assistance from elsewhere.  (this happens)  Then the conflict gets worse because they come back with better weapons, more people, better tactical advantage, etc.  So we then have to jack up our support to either match again (so it will be a standoff), or to keep the other side from getting more support we have to over-support our ally.  Essentially we would provide a superior advantage to our ally to discourage them from ratcheting up their abilities.

What would you do if you all of a sudden had a superior position against someone who was previously beating you silly?  Many of us would try to get revenge.  As conflict escalates, more hurt and pain gets inflicted until it spirals out of control.  Dispute leads to conflict leads to confrontation leads to war.  Eventually, things will just get very ugly.

Now watching this as someone who is now involved and now responsible for giving the tools for revenge it hurts.  What do we do now?  If we are truly not wanting this to continue, we must get involved again, right?  Do we help the other side even the balance of power?  The USA has been doing basically that very thing for the better part of the last 100 years.  Most of the time, we unify against a grave injustice.  Other times, we’ve been working on both sides of situations and conflicts.

That statement makes me feel ill in reflection.  It basically means that we’ve basically watched the two people beat each other up, and provided arms and assistance to both sides for long periods of time.  Whatever our intentions that got us into the conflict, the longer we allow the conflicts to continue, the more pain, bloodshed, pain, and anguish happen to people.

I have a question echoing in my ears as I think about this.  How long will the people involved in the conflicts go until they realise that the real enemy in the situation is us?  Because it occurs to me that if we provide military assistance to both sides, medical assistance to both sides, monetary support to both sides… we are on the side of the CONFLICT itself!

I view what happened to us on 9/11 through that mentality.  Eventually people resented our involvement in their conflicts for so long that they were angrier at us than the nations and peoples they’ve been at war with for centuries.

To truly be a peacemaker, we have to end the conflict.  Pacifists have the mentality that all conflict that ends in war is unjust.  They believe war is not an answer.  I agree with starting a war, but ending one… that’s another question.  How do you help someone end their war?  How do we watch others’ conflicts and see the horrors that naturally come from them without being moved to action?  The answers don’t really come easy.

%d bloggers like this: