What if the definition for a value-word like Responsibility
was simple?
What if Responsibility generally meant “One with the ability
to respond” or “the one with the ability to provide a reason for why a behavior
was initiated”.
Too many times this word is used in conjunction with the assignment
of fault. “Fault” is another good word to define – it is generally defined as a
point of weakness – as in a geological fault where earthquakes can occur.
Unfortunately, because these terms have a relationship, they
are used to mean the same thing, even though they are very different: as in “the
person who is responsible is the person who is at fault.”
The biggest difference between responsibility and fault as
defined above is a relationship of power. The person at fault is the one whose
weakness results in undesired outcomes. The person who is responsible for a
word or an action is usually the owner of the body doing the speaking and
acting – usually in relationship to other humans that are also speaking and
acting. When these words are defined this way “fault-finding” results in the
surrender of personal power (power over what happened and what happens next) to
some other person or force (i.e. the environment, the government, the company).
In fault-finding and blame, the individual surrenders the power they have over
their life to someone or something else.
In this version of responsibility, each person takes ownership of the
words or behaviors they initiated, sometimes regardless of the words and
actions of others – thus maintaining their own power over their own lives.
Another term that comes up, when discussing responsibility
is “consequence”. While I am not trying to separate “responsibility” from “consequence;”
there are in fact consequences for every choice – either positive or negative. Responsibility
does not have to be only about negative consequence, looking for “the person to
blame;” instead it can be more about choosing one’s consequences, good or bad,
as “this is my life and I have power to make it what I choose it to be.”
Path to Freedom
In God’s economy we get in trouble when we agree to what we can’t
do, do not want to do, or what we intend to do. See Matthew Chapter 5, verses
33-37. From God’s perspective, we are accountable for what we chose to say and
do, not what we are expected to do by others, or what another has done. See Acts
chapter 5, verses 1-11.
If “responsibility”
were simply the ability to respond, person A would simply state what they did,
what happened, and maybe include what they were attempting to achieve in order
to be “responsible.” Each person would then state what they did and what
happened, retaining full power over what they do next. This may seem obvious or simplistic. If it sounds obvious, I propose that many
people do not live “responsibly” in that the reasons given for their
circumstances are the result of the actions of others or forces beyond their
control. If it sounds simplistic, I propose that by adding too many definitions
to the word (by making it too complex), the word is loses any meaning.
If you are curious about the idea of how to simplify the
expectations on your life – both the ones others put on you and/or the ones you
might put on yourself – contact us. We want to help!
Contact us at:
www.SpiritCounselingTx.com
Contact us at:
www.SpiritCounselingTx.com
Copyright © 2016 Spirit Christian Counseling Centers, Inc. All rights reserved.
Aside from small quotations, the material on this site may not be republished elsewhere without expressed permission.
