"Valiant, vulnerable, and scandalous" describes a woman living out her true design according to John Eldredge in Wild at Heart. These are three things I have always been. Yet the second two I have tried to fight. And the first I now appear to be failing at. What an odd time in my life to read these three words, to consider if they describe me.
Valiant: After a year and a half, I should be all healed up. I went through a stage of mourning, of physical therapy (so to speak), and a time of rejuvenation. But it's still there- a deep scar. And it still hurts, deeply too, whenever I give it time to speak up. Comparatively to others' hardships, mine is easily bearable. Why am I so fragile if not to be rescued? A knight is to save a maiden from her tower of distress. But what if my tower of distress isn't like most people's? What if I can't really explain why it's so distressing? What is my knight to do then? Should valiance come as a result of being rescued or regardless? I thought I was "vibrant" as my mom has always called me. I thought I was valiant. Allowing this hurt to go on so long has broken my image of myself as a courageous woman of God. Instead I know feel like a little girl, broken by people of the past.
Vulnerable: It appears I was too vulnerable. After countless time considering life lessons to be drawn from these experiences, how I could have caused them, and whether not making the mistakes I made could have changed everything, I have simply given up and allowed myself to fall into un-vulnerability. I tell myself that I will not be hurt again. But how can I "guard my heart" without guarding everyone right out of it? Where is the line? I don't do well with general concepts. I like my real-life applications. So what is my real-life application? How can I remain vulnerable and still "guard my heart?" Proverbs 4:23 calls my heart the wellspring of life. No wonder I sometimes feel spent and unable to give myself away.
Scandalous: I have always been, by nature, scandalous. Try to make me follow a rule, and I'll dare to break it in a hurry. But the church community says Scandalous? That's not a virtue. That's not the description of a godly woman. Especially when it comes to a girl with a boy. But John Eldredge dares to argue differently. Never have I heard someone tell me that this part of my nature is good. Never have I heard someone tell me that Ruth was scandalous. How did I never see it? She was a wild woman! I have always been caught between being called a borderline-bad girl to the church and a goody-two-shoes to everyone else. It's a strange place to be in. And although I acted the same at my high school as I did at church, my impression of myself changed depending who I was with. So, let's suppose John's on to something: scandalous is the description of a woman living out her true design. Where does it stop? What is being scandalous and what is being a temptress? Where is the line between encouraging a guy to be a man and tempting a guy to sin? How is it that this part of me that I have always felt compelled to repress is suddenly a positive feature?
So this is when I wait upon the Lord. He's got plenty of answers. I'm just hoping he'll be gracious enough to share a few with me. Yet despite all this confusion, I can rest in knowing this: God is in control and God loves me infinitely. It just can't get any better than that, now can it?
No comments:
Post a Comment