I've been doing a fair bit of thinking about our culture's tendency to pander to the needs of the minority while making the majority bend to the minority's will.
Even that choice of words is inflammatory, isn't it?
Those who complain about the minority groups having the right to do this or that - what if YOU were the minority? What if suddenly Christianity was considered deviant? wouldn't you want those same rights extended to you? it's a 2-way street, folks; we have to live in THIS world.
Okay, here's a concrete example of what I mean.
Several years ago, we used to decorate our church with evergreen wreaths at Christmas and with Easter lilies at Easter. It's traditional, right? Well, there was a lady who came to our church who became very ill - needing to go to bed for days at a time - whenever she was in a room which had these items in it. She dearly wanted to come to church but felt that she had to stay away during the most special times of the year if she wanted to stay healthy.
When it became known that this was the case, the church leadership graciously opted to purchase large ARTIFICIAL wreaths; we got the greenery and she was able to come in at Christmas time and enjoy the services. And instead of lilies at Easter, the leadership decorated the church with other types of flowers and green things to which she was not sensitive.
Was this pandering to a minority? Technically - yes. Did anyone in the church feel resentful because there were no lilies or evergreens? Of course not!
Did anyone judge her for her weakness? Again - no - because we were more concerned about the health of our sister than whether things were the way they always had been. We were glad to see her, enjoyed her company, wanted her to be happy.
This idea of caring for people who have a difficulty has been around since the early church (more about that later.) A perfect modern example is fragrance. Most people have no problem with modern fragrances - those which, since the early 1980s, have been made with petrochemicals and aldehydes rather than from flowers or animal musk. Some people, on the other hand, have developed a sensitivity to these chemicals. Like me. Their bodies have finally said, "Enough!"
The fragrances do smell nice. The petroleum-based chemicals can dissolve grease, lift stains and soften clothes. They can cover over unpleasant odors in the home and on the body. However, when someone is made ill when these chemicals are around, is it really fair to that person to have it hanging in the air? Those who wear fragrance could get along without it, and those who can't go near it without becoming very sick are prevented from enjoying a normal life when there is fragrance present. It's not like there aren't fragrance-free alternatives. (Google the Nova Scotia Environmental Health Clinic and look for a list of fragrance-free products sold right here in Canada.)
People can be kind if they choose to be. Many don't.
I've heard people say that if there's fragrance around, people who are sensitive shouldn't go near where it is. It sounds valid - that the person who is bothered by something owns the problem. It would make sense as long as the fragrance and the person wearing it stayed in one spot!! Then a sensitive person could avoid that spot or that person. But people tend to be mobile - and if they're wearing fragrance (whether in the form of perfume, hair or skin care products, or in their clothes from laundry products) they leave a cloud of it behind wherever they go, and the chemicals that are harmful to sensitive people are designed to linger long after the person has passed by.
I've tried medications. Antihistamines don't work for me. My symptoms are neurological: headaches, disorientation, "brain fog" among others. These can last minutes or hours. I've stayed away from more functions: social gatherings, church, other meetings, just because I knew that I would not be able to handle the fragrances that no doubt would be present. I've left meetings in progress - at work and other places - as a result of not being able to breathe the air thick with fragrance. As a result, I am isolated most of the time. I get the reputation of being "anti-social." Or "stuck-up." Am I? Uh, NO.
If the chemicals were suddenly to be made visible and people could see how pervasive the problem is, the notion of the sufferer "just staying out of harm's way" would be exposed as rather ludicrous.
I'm not saying that we have the right to be obnoxious about our illness; I must admit that in the past, I have been quite aggressive with people regarding this issue. I've learned the hard way that there are gracious ways to ask for what one needs. And in some cases, yes, it's best to avoid certain areas and people. Sometimes, though, that's just not feasible. People have to work together, worship together, shop together. In the building where I work, the inside air is circulated all day long. If there's someone laying tar outside the doors and those fumes get in the building, most everyone suffers. Folks who have chemical sensitivities suffer in that way - some for hours or days at a time - when someone across the room walks by after having used scented mousse or hairspray even several hours previous. The effects are cumulative too - so small exposures over a long period of time make the sensitivities more ... well, sensitive.
In our culture, there is much talk about "rights" ... the rights of the majority, mostly. That's not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that along with rights go responsibilities. It teaches us to honour those who have difficulties.
The apostle Paul dealt with some folks in the Roman church who were judging each other and being offended by things others were doing in the church. I think that his words to the majority could apply to any situation where a larger group of people are in a position where a smaller group finds something offensive. Even if there's nothing wrong with it.
Paul said, "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another believer to stumble. You may believe there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. " (Rom 14:21)
To the Corinthians he wrote (regarding the same contentious issue of his day), "So if what I eat causes another believer to sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live—for I don’t want to cause another believer to stumble." (1 Cor 8:13)
In another spot (1 Corinthians 12:22-26) he said, referring to the members of the church as parts of a body, "In fact, some parts of the body that seem weakest and least important are actually the most necessary. And the parts we regard as less honorable are those we clothe with the greatest care. So we carefully protect those parts that should not be seen, while the more honorable parts do not require this special care. So God has put the body together such that extra honor and care are given to those parts that have less dignity. This makes for harmony among the members, so that all the members care for each other. If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it, and if one part is honored, all the parts are glad."
In other words, Paul advocated honouring (rather than having contempt for) the weaker members of the group, and using their weakness (or "infirmity" as the King James puts it) as an opportunity to show love. What a concept!!
I'm not naïve enough to expect everyone in the world to bend over backward to suit me or to accommodate my sensitivities in every situation. I'm also smart enough to know that I will not knowingly expose myself to the things which will hurt me. All I'm saying is that my world is a lot smaller than that of many other people ... and it doesn't need to be.
Even that choice of words is inflammatory, isn't it?
Those who complain about the minority groups having the right to do this or that - what if YOU were the minority? What if suddenly Christianity was considered deviant? wouldn't you want those same rights extended to you? it's a 2-way street, folks; we have to live in THIS world.
Okay, here's a concrete example of what I mean.
Several years ago, we used to decorate our church with evergreen wreaths at Christmas and with Easter lilies at Easter. It's traditional, right? Well, there was a lady who came to our church who became very ill - needing to go to bed for days at a time - whenever she was in a room which had these items in it. She dearly wanted to come to church but felt that she had to stay away during the most special times of the year if she wanted to stay healthy.
When it became known that this was the case, the church leadership graciously opted to purchase large ARTIFICIAL wreaths; we got the greenery and she was able to come in at Christmas time and enjoy the services. And instead of lilies at Easter, the leadership decorated the church with other types of flowers and green things to which she was not sensitive.
Was this pandering to a minority? Technically - yes. Did anyone in the church feel resentful because there were no lilies or evergreens? Of course not!
Did anyone judge her for her weakness? Again - no - because we were more concerned about the health of our sister than whether things were the way they always had been. We were glad to see her, enjoyed her company, wanted her to be happy.
This idea of caring for people who have a difficulty has been around since the early church (more about that later.) A perfect modern example is fragrance. Most people have no problem with modern fragrances - those which, since the early 1980s, have been made with petrochemicals and aldehydes rather than from flowers or animal musk. Some people, on the other hand, have developed a sensitivity to these chemicals. Like me. Their bodies have finally said, "Enough!"
The fragrances do smell nice. The petroleum-based chemicals can dissolve grease, lift stains and soften clothes. They can cover over unpleasant odors in the home and on the body. However, when someone is made ill when these chemicals are around, is it really fair to that person to have it hanging in the air? Those who wear fragrance could get along without it, and those who can't go near it without becoming very sick are prevented from enjoying a normal life when there is fragrance present. It's not like there aren't fragrance-free alternatives. (Google the Nova Scotia Environmental Health Clinic and look for a list of fragrance-free products sold right here in Canada.)
People can be kind if they choose to be. Many don't.
I've heard people say that if there's fragrance around, people who are sensitive shouldn't go near where it is. It sounds valid - that the person who is bothered by something owns the problem. It would make sense as long as the fragrance and the person wearing it stayed in one spot!! Then a sensitive person could avoid that spot or that person. But people tend to be mobile - and if they're wearing fragrance (whether in the form of perfume, hair or skin care products, or in their clothes from laundry products) they leave a cloud of it behind wherever they go, and the chemicals that are harmful to sensitive people are designed to linger long after the person has passed by.
I've tried medications. Antihistamines don't work for me. My symptoms are neurological: headaches, disorientation, "brain fog" among others. These can last minutes or hours. I've stayed away from more functions: social gatherings, church, other meetings, just because I knew that I would not be able to handle the fragrances that no doubt would be present. I've left meetings in progress - at work and other places - as a result of not being able to breathe the air thick with fragrance. As a result, I am isolated most of the time. I get the reputation of being "anti-social." Or "stuck-up." Am I? Uh, NO.
If the chemicals were suddenly to be made visible and people could see how pervasive the problem is, the notion of the sufferer "just staying out of harm's way" would be exposed as rather ludicrous.
I'm not saying that we have the right to be obnoxious about our illness; I must admit that in the past, I have been quite aggressive with people regarding this issue. I've learned the hard way that there are gracious ways to ask for what one needs. And in some cases, yes, it's best to avoid certain areas and people. Sometimes, though, that's just not feasible. People have to work together, worship together, shop together. In the building where I work, the inside air is circulated all day long. If there's someone laying tar outside the doors and those fumes get in the building, most everyone suffers. Folks who have chemical sensitivities suffer in that way - some for hours or days at a time - when someone across the room walks by after having used scented mousse or hairspray even several hours previous. The effects are cumulative too - so small exposures over a long period of time make the sensitivities more ... well, sensitive. In our culture, there is much talk about "rights" ... the rights of the majority, mostly. That's not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that along with rights go responsibilities. It teaches us to honour those who have difficulties.
The apostle Paul dealt with some folks in the Roman church who were judging each other and being offended by things others were doing in the church. I think that his words to the majority could apply to any situation where a larger group of people are in a position where a smaller group finds something offensive. Even if there's nothing wrong with it.
Paul said, "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another believer to stumble. You may believe there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. " (Rom 14:21)
To the Corinthians he wrote (regarding the same contentious issue of his day), "So if what I eat causes another believer to sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live—for I don’t want to cause another believer to stumble." (1 Cor 8:13)
In another spot (1 Corinthians 12:22-26) he said, referring to the members of the church as parts of a body, "In fact, some parts of the body that seem weakest and least important are actually the most necessary. And the parts we regard as less honorable are those we clothe with the greatest care. So we carefully protect those parts that should not be seen, while the more honorable parts do not require this special care. So God has put the body together such that extra honor and care are given to those parts that have less dignity. This makes for harmony among the members, so that all the members care for each other. If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it, and if one part is honored, all the parts are glad."
In other words, Paul advocated honouring (rather than having contempt for) the weaker members of the group, and using their weakness (or "infirmity" as the King James puts it) as an opportunity to show love. What a concept!!
I'm not naïve enough to expect everyone in the world to bend over backward to suit me or to accommodate my sensitivities in every situation. I'm also smart enough to know that I will not knowingly expose myself to the things which will hurt me. All I'm saying is that my world is a lot smaller than that of many other people ... and it doesn't need to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment