The other day I read Hazel Mote's blog. And then I read my own. And it has me thinking.
I write analytically. Hazel writes personally. I write in the abstract. Hazel makes connections with others. I don't like it, this difference. I don't like that I write in the abstract as if I have achieved some distance between myself and the church. I don't like that I seem not to connect with others through what I write. The funny thing? I'm doing it again, even as I say I don't like that I do it.
I've been thinking about this tendency of mine--the tendency to intellectualize, to abstract, to step back away from what troubles me. Trying to understand it. I don't understand it yet, but I'm sure it has something to do with my history of trouble with the church. I think it's some sort of defense mechanism. But against what? And how does it work?
From where I sit, this "defense" mechanism seems much more harmful than helpful. It makes me feel removed from the very people I want to be connected to. And I'm not sure how to get beyond that. My instinct tells me it's about vulnerability and openness. That I need to be more open about my hurts and my fears and my anger; that I need to not just rant about them, but to just lay them out for others to see and feel. But I don't know if I have the strength to do it. Even anonymously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I say write in whatever way feels best. And if you are feeling inhibited, just give it some time. But I don't read your posts as overly-analytical or distanced. I read them as thoughtful AND personal. Here I am acting like I know what I'm talking about. I haven't written a post in almost a month. :P
ReplyDeletethanks, hazel. :) i'm glad i don't come across as distant to others, even if it feels that way a bit to myself.
ReplyDelete