Unaffected Or Apathetic?
"Many things - such as loving, going to sleep, behaving unaffectedly - are done worst when we try hardest to do them." - C S Lewis
I'm particularly intrigued by the condition of a person "behaving unaffectedly". The word "behave" implies an outward manifestation.
What does it really mean to be unaffected? Perhaps it's maintaining one's composure regardless of surrounding happenings. If it's a conscious effort that we need to put in, then it would suggest a natural tendency for the opposite behaviour, wouldn't it? If it comes naturally, then is it out of apathy (uncaring, can't be bothered) or is it a calmness - a peace amidst tough times?
They say that the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart. Regardless of your disposition, the difference in the underlying motives is what matters. The thing is, though the difference between being unaffected and being apathetic is great but the line between the 2 can be very thin.
Recently, there is a temptation to draw back into a state of apathy. There were times when I felt that I could do with some. But there's the danger of the hardness of heart, a condition that upsets God. Can I remove myself from people, their conversations, even their whimsical murmuring? Isn't there a need to SHOW that we care, that we are bothered? So sometimes, behaving unaffectedly towards another can hurt as much as doing the wrong thing. At least the latter shows that you bother.
So I guess, instead of satisfying the desire for this state of "can't-be-bothered", what I really need is to learn to behave more unaffectedly. And if what dear old Lewis observed were true, then I shouldn't be trying too hard either, but I'll just keep trying. Strike a balance.
I'm particularly intrigued by the condition of a person "behaving unaffectedly". The word "behave" implies an outward manifestation.
What does it really mean to be unaffected? Perhaps it's maintaining one's composure regardless of surrounding happenings. If it's a conscious effort that we need to put in, then it would suggest a natural tendency for the opposite behaviour, wouldn't it? If it comes naturally, then is it out of apathy (uncaring, can't be bothered) or is it a calmness - a peace amidst tough times?
They say that the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart. Regardless of your disposition, the difference in the underlying motives is what matters. The thing is, though the difference between being unaffected and being apathetic is great but the line between the 2 can be very thin.
Recently, there is a temptation to draw back into a state of apathy. There were times when I felt that I could do with some. But there's the danger of the hardness of heart, a condition that upsets God. Can I remove myself from people, their conversations, even their whimsical murmuring? Isn't there a need to SHOW that we care, that we are bothered? So sometimes, behaving unaffectedly towards another can hurt as much as doing the wrong thing. At least the latter shows that you bother.
So I guess, instead of satisfying the desire for this state of "can't-be-bothered", what I really need is to learn to behave more unaffectedly. And if what dear old Lewis observed were true, then I shouldn't be trying too hard either, but I'll just keep trying. Strike a balance.
