Now that I'm just about completely relaxed, I'm two days away from leaving Hale Honu.  Today was cleaning day--scrubbing, sweeping, checking and replacing lightbulbs.  Before you feel too sorry for me, though, I spent a good deal of time on "break," watching the eerie overcast (caused by the "vog") day snail by.

I've done a good bit of reading since I've been here (and a bit of journaling, too).  One of the books I'm reading is called The Shack by William P. Young.  I picked it up on a whim a few months ago and have found it to be a profoundly challenging book...especially for such an easy read.

Young grew up as an MK (missionary kid) in New Guinea.  He attended Bible school, received an undergraduate degree in Religion and then attended (but apparently didn't complete) seminary.  So the book is informed by his Christian world-view...but it's also informed by a deep humanity and a quest for answers to life's toughest questions.

Which leads me to the Sunday question.  In the book, a man meets (literally) with God at the cabin where his young daughter was killed some years prior.  God is presented in three aspects and various conversations ensue.  In one of them, the man says:

"Didn't Missy have a right to be protected?"

The Spirit answers: 

"No, Mack.  A child is protected because she is loved, not because she has a right to be protected...Rights are where survivors go, so that they won't have to work out relationships."

I've had to sit with this quote for a while this trip, mull it over, argue with it.  Which is why I'm putting it to you.  Do you agree with the Spirit (as Young presents it)?

Or do you disagree?

 


Comments

Mom #1

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:19:13

Laura, I'd have to read the entire section if not the entire book to more fully understand the situation, but what I think is that Spirit is correct in saying the child is protected because she is loved, not because she has the right to be protected. The father no doubt blames himself for Missy's death and is punishing himself by saying that he did not protect her as he should have, as she deserved, as she had the right to be (protected). Human beings, no matter how responsible they may feel/be as parents, are fallible. A moment's inattentiveness and the child dies, choking on a soft drink tab; the child runs in front of the car. I've heard it all in Jenna Druck Foundation's parents' groups--parents who blame themselves. As parents we hope/pray that our child will always be protected where ever they may be. We are not always present, even when we're present, we cannot always be present.
Why is it an avoidance to talk about rights when relationships need to be resolved? That's the part I fail to understand. Is it the father's ongoing relationship with the child he failed to protect? Is forgiveness of self involved? What are our rights as human beings? What expectations might be reasonable to expect of our biological or adoptive parents? It's all subject to whether the parent feels obligation to protect. Rights/expectations on the one hand; love/obligation/self-expectation on the other. Dad will probably never ease off on himself, but I think that's what Spirit is trying to tell him. Ken sent his child to India and she died. He had no control.
Love, Mom

 

Mom #1

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:22:03

 

Laura

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:29:50

Hi Mom #1--

The father is actually blaming God (and himself) for the tragedy. He was saving his son at the time his daughter was taken, so his frustration in the main lies with God letting him down.

Your experience with parents who've lost their child due to a moment's inattention, or due to the proper letting go of their adult children to a world that doesn't make sure they are safe...I think it illustrates the Spirit's point.

There is no "right" to be protected. It is a function of love and dependence...and even in the best of situations, is ever imperfect as we are.

As to the "rights" part of the discussion...I think the point of the Spirit is that it's easy to channel our emotions into anger over how we were failed rather than working out the relationship despite the failures.

Does that make sense?

 



Leave a Reply