Let me reiterate.
written by Julie R. Neidlinger 8 comments link this postOne last time, Julie, lest you continue to forget:
- We are all busy.
- We all have time.
- We all make time for what we want to make time for.
- Quit waiting around.
- The message is obvious.
- No point in cajoling or nagging.
Labels: relationships
Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger 3/06/2008 07:40:00 AM
Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.
Help support this site.
Facebook |
Stumble It! |
Del.icio.us |
DiggIt! |
Technorati |
Blinklist |
Furl |
reddit |
Newsvine
8 Comments:
Point 3 is not true. Those of us with a hyperactive sense of duty put off what we want (e.g. time with a friend, replying to a personal e-mail) to fulfill our obligations (e.g. to job, family, church). Sometimes I need a friend to break through that -- to just turn up in my life with a phone call or an e-mail or showing up unexpectedly on my doorstep. And I need to be that kind of friend more often.
By 
Michael Bates, at
6/3/08 09:55
But Point 3 is true.
We may say "I want to spend more time with my family but I just can't right now" -- the question is what you really want.
Having a hyperactive sense of duty could be construed as another way of saying you have wants you don't want to admit to.
What do we really want in life? Because our human nature is such that that is what we do.
Number 3 is true, but hard to admit and often disguised as not true with words like "responsiblity", etc.
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
6/3/08 10:05
Point 3
I always think of the broken arm syndrome. If a fathers child shows up with a broken arm in pain crying dad doesn't say, "Gee Julie, I'm too busy to deal with that right now, let's see about that in a couple weeks when I have time".
Course not, everything else ratchets down in priority and that man takes care of his child.
Too busy is different priorities. We all make time for what is really important to us. Other things get bumped.
If you say you are too busy you are really saying, that is not a priority high enough for me.
By Gene Redlin, at
6/3/08 11:41
Does that mean that you really want to make up another logo for another jersey?
Like most assertions, Point 3 both is and isn't true, in this case depending on what you mean by "want."
I don't want to be doing what I'm doing for a living right now. I desperately don't want it. But this is the only way I have, right now, to provide for my family. So in that sense, I want it--and yes, it's a matter of responsibility.
So one could say that I'm doing what I want--but it's kind of a weird version of "want."
By Keith Schooley, at
6/3/08 11:49
I guess I would add two things, and let this go.
The first is that it mildly annoys me that this has taken the extreme path of using work as the example, as if the only option was being a slugabed and not working, as if the choice was provide for family or not at all. I am not saying that.
I am saying that what we say is "necessary" and "responsibility" is sometimes a cover for hiding the real want behind the issue.
For me, no. I do NOT want to design another jersey. I do NOT want to be here at this job. I'm not here because of want of the job, but because I want money. There's my want. So, I'm making that trade, my time for money.
However, I do not want money enough to kid myself into working 12 hour days and saying "I have to do this, it's my job" when what I'm really saying is "I want the money/benefits of this job" or "I like the prestige of this job" or "I want money for my apartment or gadgets or whatever else."
There is a difference between saying we need to work and do what is required, and devoting our time wrongly and using excuses for why we do it. I have to often check myself and see if I'm using those excuses as to why I'm not doing something I don't want, or paying attention to someone I don't want to.
The second thing is: I can't believe it, but I think Gene got what I was trying to say.
Priorities.
It's not either/or, work or don't work. It's "meet my responsibilities and know when to step back and say no and trust God."
One thing I've always admired about my father is that he never worked in the field on Sunday. Never. All the other farmers, even in our church, would rush home to take advantage of the usually sunny day. Even in a rainy year when all common sense said it was responsible farming to get out there and get the crop off, he did not. It wasn't laziness. It was a right priority. It made no human sense. He rested instead, and Sunday is, to me, always a day set apart from the rest of the work week. You can say all you want about meeting responsibilities and working and being a productive person, but again...priorities. We can say no. God wants us to, sometimes, and we don't.
So I say: Point 3 is true. We make time for what we want to.
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
6/3/08 12:08
The Bible story of the faithful woman saying to Christ:'yes, but, even the dogs get the crumbs which fall from the master's table' comes to mind.
Ideally, in my opinion, one's relationship with Christ... then spouse, then children, should be the 'bread' of one's time.
Everyone, and everything, else should get the crumbs leftover.
And since the rest of it truly is all just 'crumbs', well, there's hardly any point sweating where the crumbs happen to fall.
The problem is some of my friends, and/or projects, expect/require the bread of my time, and then I turn into a crank when I realize I can't 'do it all'.
Plus, more than once I've caught myself getting miffed if a friend merely wants to give me a 'crumb' here or there. Usually, though, when I get miffed about that it's because I, myself, need a good dose of 'bread' -- time alone with Him.
We can't possibly have dozens of close relationships, nor do a plethora of projects justice.
Christ had around a dozen close pals, and even amidst that, a truly deep connection seems to have happened amidst but three, more than the others-- Peter, James and John.
Something which He didn't feel the need to explain. So, sometimes I think it's okay, no, good, to just go with those connections we make with others (and to allow ourselves the freedom NOT to keep up with those we don't feel the connection with...) and not think too much about it.
About the drudgery of job duties:
I overheard an old farmer say the other day:'you still gotta hustle, even though the barn needed the same cleaning yesterday, and will need to be cleaned again tomorrow.' Words that sounded far better when spoken by a man in overalls, dirty work boots, and a jovial disposition-- than when typed into a blog by a woman who hasn't actually mucked out a barn in years. Sigh.
Just my two bits turned into two hundred again. HA.
By Andrea, at
6/3/08 12:12
I do want to say that I can appreciate the "it is both true and not true" but the problem with thinking in those terms is that after a while, everything is wash.
I want something solid. I want to nail something down. And while a certain level of thinking decries that, I find when I am entombed in "it is both yes and no, either or, white and black" I function by running in place and being confused about everything.
We make time for what we want, in the end. When it's all said and done, at the end of the day, we make time for what we want and find a reason for having done so. Making time for things outside of our want is the real work, not complaining about designing jerseys.
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
6/3/08 12:17
I think that focusing on job/work with regards to point 3 creates a false dichotomy. Short of being independently wealthy or leading a hermit's existence, work is a reality of life. If we are fortunate, we have a job we truly enjoy doing, but regardless, it is a necessity.
The issue, as I see it, is how we prioritize the rest of our time. Who and what do we decide is most important in our lives, and how do we then insure that we provide the time to devote to them?
I like Gene's "broken arm syndrome" analogy. I would agree that we all manage to find time for what is really important to us, no matter how much we protest the lack of time.
By Rey, at
6/3/08 13:56
