Spiritual Psychology

Imitation

2011-12-20T15:12:00.000-08:00

Did you know that one of the great things that make humans unique is our ability to imitate? Sure, other animals can imitate sounds (like parrots), basic movements (like apes), and songs (like whales), but humans take imitation to a whole different level.

Children learn how to talk on phones, put on make-up, and even to misbehave by imitating adults and other children. And we don’t finish imitating when we reach grade school. To become musicians we imitate Mozart, to become physicists we imitate Einstein, and to become chess grandmasters we imitate Kasparorov.

Being natural born imitators means that we have a responsibility to find the right person to model ourselves after.

No wonder Paul encouraged the Corinthians, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.” Paul knew that the Corinthians needed someone holy to imitate, so that they might be more like Christ. Sometimes we need to look for that sort of person, who is actively imitating Christ and whom we may imitate in turn.

Look around you. Perhaps you know someone with a loving spirit and strong character. Pray that you might be more like him or her.

Dr. Curtis Lehmann

OC Christian Counseling

Breathe

2011-12-18T11:12:00.000-08:00

Pause a second and pay attention to your breath. You are breathing every minute of your life and yet, most of the time, you don’t even notice. As you notice your breath right now, thank God for giving you that particular breath, allowing you to live.

There is also a spiritual practice that you can utilize any moment you become aware of your breath. As you exhale, simply confess your dependence upon God and any sin that is troubling you. Then, as you inhale, accept God’s forgiveness and allow God’s spirit to come into your mind, heart, and soul. Breathe in. Breathe out. Be thankful.

Dr. Curtis Lehmann

OC Christian Counseling

Inviting God Into the Moment

2011-12-16T12:07:00.000-08:00

Right now, I would like you to take a minute to focus on what is around you, something other than this glowing screen. Perhaps you might see something new. Invite God into this moment. Ask God what He wants you to notice around you. Pray about what you see around you, even if the object seems trivial, and see what this opens up.

You may start praying about a water bottle but then finding yourself thanking God for clean water and praying for those who lack access. Simply tell God whatever grabs your attention and ask him to speak to you through that object. You may be surprised to find God can speak to you through even the most mundane things in your life.

Being Present

2011-12-15T11:04:00.000-08:00

Have you been spending your day rushing from one thing to another? Sometimes we tend to fly through life so quickly that we hardly notice we are missing wonderful things. In the next few days, I would like to lead you in a few meditations meant to help you reawaken your awareness to the world you live in.

Look for the nearest window. Open the blinds or actually step outside if you need to or want to. Focus on something natural, something alive. It might be a flower, a tree, a bird, or even just the grass. Allow yourself to marvel at God’s creation. Imagine God creating that life with a stroke of a brush or with a sculptor’s chisel against clay. Notice any so-called imperfections in that life. Then notice how even the imperfections can be beautiful. You may even want to thank God for bringing that life to your attention. For the rest of your day, see if you can notice God’s creation this way again.

Dr. Curtis Lehmann

http://occhristiancounseling.com/staff/dr_curtis_lehmann.html

Virtually Attend my Dissertation Defense

2010-07-03T13:30:00.001-07:00

If you are interested in virtually attending my dissertation final oral examination, you can attend by signing up here. The meeting will begin at 8AM (Pacific).

Reasoned Action and Conversion

2010-06-03T11:03:00.001-07:00

My dissertation has been focused on understanding how spirituality affects how we decide to engage in moral and immoral behaviors. The model I am using for this relationship is the Theory of Reasoned Action. Reasoned Action states that behavioral intentions are the result of two main influences: personal beliefs and social norms. Personal beliefs are related to what we believe about the behavior: is it enjoyable, is it instrumental for something else, and is it moral? Social norms include what we think other people want us to do and what other people actually do.

I have been wondering how Reasoned Action could be applied to religious conversion. When a person thinks about changing their religious convictions (or lack thereof), what influences are important for them? Here are some possibilities, based on this theory:

Attitudes: people convert because they think it will be enjoyable, pleasant, and maybe even fun to be a different religion.

Instrumental Beliefs: converting will help them accomplish some goal in their life, such as quitting alcohol or raising good religious children.

Moral Values: conversion is important because it is the "right" thing to do, because it is God's will and because it is true

Descriptive social norms: converting is attractive because a lot of their friends are that religion or have just converted, their example is influential

Injunctive social norms: the person believes that their friends and other influential people in their lives want them to convert (regardless of their own faith)

Perceived control (an aspect of Planned Behavior, not Reasoned Action): the person believes that it is possible for them to convert, that they could live a new life.

As you can imagine, all of these dimensions will likely be important influences on why a person converts. Two questions emerge: which of these are most important to the person who converts? And which of these reasons are acceptable to the religion as a reason to convert.

For the first question, this could suggest possibilities for ways to help people convert. If it is Attitudes that is foremost, then how do make the religion appear more enjoyable? If it is Injunctive Social Norms, then obviously sharing faith will be an important facet for helping people convert. But this brings us to the second question, what are the preferable reasons for conversion?

I think it is likely that religious clergy would want people to convert out of their moral values, a belief that it is true and good. But what if a person wants to convert so that they can meet dateable men or women? Obviously, some religious traditions would care more about intentions than others. If we "sell" a religion based upon Attitudes, then do people actually internalize their faith? If we pressure people to convert by sharing our faith with them regularly, does this create the type of faith that we hope for?

These questions are complex. Maybe I will be able to read up on any previous research in this area... or maybe even do some of my own research. Any thoughts or comments?

LOST and Job

2010-05-28T12:31:00.001-07:00

This past Sunday brought the finale of LOST. As an avid fan of LOST, I came to the episode with great anticipation but also fear - how would this all be resolved. While to a great extent I am borrowing from a number of other in-depth and scholarly reviews, (though in far less depth) I hope to add my own perspective.

But first, I would like to debunk any notion that the series was Christian - that it was an attempt to put forth a Christian worldview. I can understand the longing for that, but I think that it would ultimately fall flat in the face of the much broader spirituality it presents. However, I still believes it has great value for the Christian because it provides a unique view into what it is that people want.

I would like to develop this idea in the frame of the Biblical character of Job. Job was a man of "science" or in his case theological/legal law. While it is easy to get caught up in how Job's response to his tragedy is portrayed as blameless, what is easily missed is Job's long discourse with his so-called friends. Here he actually calls God to trial so that God would pronounce him innocent and declare that his suffering was truly "for no reason." He wanted to have an actual court case where he shows that God made a mistake in causing his suffering because only evil people suffer and Job is a good man. In the loss of so much within his life, and the rejection of his friends, he sought out the one thing that he believed would bring his life meaning again - certainty in his knowledge of God as retributive.

I think many viewers of LOST have been caught up in a very similar attitude towards the finale. They want the mysteries solved, they want to be justified in their search for meaning in the mythology and mystery of the island. They have seen characters die without much cause, and they have chosen to invest less in the characters than in the mysteries.

Returning to Job, we find that he continues his long discourse until finally - surprisingly - God arrives! Job's opportunity to appeal his case is allowed - or so he thinks. No, instead God declares the world a mystery. Some may think this is a harsh response to Job and, yes, it is. But so is Locke's response to Jack, that he doesn't really have a son. Sometimes awakenings are jolting. But Jack recovered and so did Job.

Job's awakening was that God was not "reasonable" but rather mysterious. But, in the midst of that, Job realized that a reasonable, predictable, and comprehensible God was not what he ever really wanted all along. What Job really wanted was to know that God was there, that God would show up. Job wanted to know that God cared for him. So God had to reveal the error inherent in Job's search for acquittal: that he was trying to find fulfillment in having the mysteries solved.

Instead, God presents himself to Job and, rather than condemning him for his presumptions, invites him into a deeper relationship, one where the mysteries remain.

The conclusion of LOST is really about showing that ultimately (hopefully?) we cared about these people much more than we cared about the mysteries. Sure we tried to subjectify the mysteries, hoping that we would find fulfillment in them, to experience them as things we can relate with. But, really, would we have been remotely satisfied if every mystery was solved but the characters whom we cared for were lost in the midst?

Sure, we feel loss that the mysteries remain. We will never know for certain how it would have felt to have those questions answered. But I know the feeling I had when the lives of these characters found a conclusion. And that assures me that it is real relationships that matter. It is when God shows up when we realize what we really wanted all along.

The Psychology of Music

2010-01-28T10:10:00.000-08:00

Music is an interesting phenomenon for psychologists. Music is ubiquitous and fundamental to human culture. But the tools of psychology seem, at first glance, to be unable to capture the dynamic experience of music. I'm not sure if I will revisit this topic but I thought it would be fun to share some psychological articles I have read about music. First of all, what makes a person a good musician?

There are numerous anecdotes of musical giftedness - that success in music is primarily a function of some inherent quality within a person. But the research does not support this. One longitudinal study found that the significant predictors for success in music were practice and resilience against failure. Individuals who practiced more were considerably more likely to succeed as musicians. The resilience against failure is a somewhat surprising finding because the failure that was investigated was not related to music at all. Apparently, the ability to cope with failure in general allows people to overcome the frustration inherent to learning music.

Perhaps what is more notable is what was not significantly related to music: musical aptitude and intelligence. Neither of these variables predicted how good the individual would be at music. While it may be possible that giftedness could be related to success, the relationship is weak and nobody really knows how to discover that giftedness. So - PARENTS - if you want your children to succeed in music, stop trying to determine if they are gifted and simply encourage them to continue practicing and remain positive when they struggle.

Motivational Preaching Revisited

2010-01-21T10:48:00.000-08:00

About a year and a half ago, I posted a blog on Motivational Preaching that has turned out to be one of my most visited articles. It turns out that people (I assume many are pastors) are very interested in learning how to make their preaching more motivational. But I imagine that people searching "motivational preaching" envisioned reading something very different from what my article addressed. So I would like to revisit Motivational Preaching here to connect some of my arguments to what is traditionally thought of as motivational speaking.

When you think of change you need to think of two forces or motivations. The first is the motivation to change. This includes beliefs about what the change will involve in terms of quality of life and self-concept, ideas about how people will perceive that change, and a sense of moral obligation to make that change. The second force is the motivation to stay the same. This includes one's attitude towards their current lifestyle, their beliefs about the change process (how hard it will be and whether change is possible), and their beliefs about whether the people they care about think they should stay the same.

Now, I would argue that most preaching focuses on the first dimension: arguing for reasons to change. Now, I think this is a critical step for making change. However, we all know people (and I consider myself one of them) who know they should make changes in their lives - in fact, can be completely convinced of the need - but fail to do so. I would argue that this is because the second motivation to stay the same has not been effectively addressed.

One of the potential pitfalls of only arguing for the need to change is that the person starts to think of all the positive aspects of staying the same. This is psychological resistance - we automatically try to counter arguments as a natural response. So instead of increasing our desire to change, focusing on reasons to change can actually increase our reasons for staying the same because our psychological resistance brings up all the good of staying the same.

However, preachers can use psychological resistance to aid in making change. If the preacher bring up the reasons why we stay the same, and does so without completely discounting them, the people who are listening will begin to counter the argument. So if a preacher says, "I know that times are tight, that we all need to watch our finances, and that we need to take care of our family first" then those who are listening might start to draw upon their own reasons for wanting to give financially. If they don't give, it is because they feel they truly don't have the finances to give right now, instead of not giving because they hate being guilted into giving. You see? By siding with their ambivalence, we can help them reflect on the good and the bad. We're simply acknowledging what they automatically start thinking about.

There are a couple of considerations to this. The first is that people do not like being manipulated and so if this is simply a device to manipulate, then it can become ineffective. But, if the preacher really understands his congregation and how hard it would be for them to make the change, he can empathize with their hesitancy to change in an authentic manner and look beyond just his desire to feel effective by getting people to change. I would also add that preaching still should involve direction, that preachers should teach about the joys of giving and the mandate of tithing, for example. Sometimes, people do not know why they should change or even how they should change. Motivational preaching still needs to show people how God would like to use them.

Now, I hope this clarifies some of the specific techniques I wrote about in that previous blog. If you would like to read that blog, you can click on the text Motivational Preaching and do so. I know that it would take up some of your time and you might not think I have much expertise, but I think it might help you grow as a preacher. (I know, that was a cheesy way of using motivational interviewing techniques - sorry!)

Important Lessons on Myers-Briggs and Personality

2010-01-18T12:45:00.001-08:00

I have been doing some research on the Myers-Briggs lately and thought it would be interesting to share some of what I have found. Now, this topic isn't directly related to spirituality but I know that many churches use the Myers-Briggs to help people understand themselves better. So what does the research say about the Myers-Briggs?

First of all, the research is fairly clear about one thing: classifying yourself into types (i.e. Introvert vs. Extrovert, Sensing vs. Intuiting, Thinking vs. Feeling, and Judging vs. Perceiving) is not the best way of understanding personality. If certain types were completely different (rather than relatively different), then they would have unique characteristics. Instead, the degree to which one leans to a certain personality is important. As an example, someone who scores a little bit on the introverted site would be characterized as an I, but they will be very different from another person who scored very extreme on Introversion. Lesson #1: Know how extreme your score is on each dimension.

Second, and this relates to the first, the 16 classifications (INTJ or ESFP) do not represent this variability in the dimensions and are thus oversimplifications of personality. The descriptions are vague enough so that we feel like they describe us, but they do very little to predict our actual behaviors. Lesson #2: Don't pay much attention to your 4-letter type.

Third, the Myers-Briggs is not the accepted model of personality within academia. Instead of four dimensions of personality, most research suggests that there are five dimensions. They are: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Extraversion is pretty much the same as the I/E scale of the Myers-Briggs. Similarly, Openness to Experience is the same as S/N, with Intuitiveness increasing as Openness increases. There is some evidence that T/F does measure a unique orientation to problems; however, it also measures Agreeableness, so that those high in Thinking are less Agreeable. Judging/Perceiving is related to Conscientiousness, with Judgers being more Conscientious. Finally, Anxiety has been shown to be a unique dimension of personality but this is not reflected in the Myers-Briggs. Lesson #3: The Myers-Briggs can tell you about your level of Extraversion and to what degree you are open to experiences through intuition. Lesson #4: The Myers-Briggs is not very reliable in deciphering whether you have a thinking or feeling orientation and instead T/F is actually a combination of multiple aspects of your personality, most notably Aggreeableness. Lesson #5: Judging/Perceiving is actually a combination of several elements of your personality and it is unclear to what degree this tells you something unique about who you are. Lesson #6: The Myers-Briggs does not tell you about your level of Neuroticism (Anxiety and Depression) although this may be an important strength of the measure for general usage.

Fourth, personality is not simply 4 or 5 dimensions. While I have mentioned the five factor model of personality, the reality is that there are more dimensions, but the dimensions can be grouped into five factors. One popular personality test, the 16-PF measures personality on 16 dimensions. While this test can group the scores together into the five factors, looking at all 16 dimensions reveals a lot more about our personality. Lesson #7: Broad views of personality are helpful but specific viewpoints add clarity.

Finally, there has been some who have argued for a sixth dimension of personality: spirituality. Our ability to connect to the sacred reflects a key component of who we are as people. This does not mean that we are bound to either be spiritual or not spiritual. Remember, our personalities can change! Lesson #8: Spirituality appears to be a component of our personality. Lesson #9: Our personalities can change to some degree through our life experiences.

What Defines Spiritual Maturity?

2009-12-18T19:02:00.000-08:00

Lately, I've been wrestling with how we might conceptualize Christian spiritual maturity. Here are a few options that I have been considering.

Moral behavior - a person who engages in acts of service and giving and who does not engage in behavior that can be harmful to their self or others. Now, I know this is broad - how does one judge what is harmful? - but is this even the right track to explore? I firmly believe that Christian spirituality encompasses morality and ethics - that there is a changed life - but is this the essence of spiritual maturity, a critical component among many, or simply the byproduct of something else entirely.

Spiritual well-being - one popular scale for measuring spirituality in the psychology of religion is the spiritual well-being scale. This scale measures two things: a sense of well-being in one's relationship with God and a sense of well-being about life in general. Of course, we would expect that people who are mature will feel good about their relationship with God and might even feel good about their life, but again is this something that determines maturity? What about people who are struggling with their relationship with God and a sense of purpose in life, but nevertheless are faithful in their actions and their beliefs?

Intrinsic religious motivation - is spiritual maturity a state of being motivated towards faith for the intrinsic sake of faith alone, and no other reward? Intrinsic religious motivation suggests that we love our faith for its intrinsic characteristics and would remain faithful even if we were to face suffering. Does this characterize spiritual maturity, despite the fact that the person's faith might be completely twisted?

Beliefs - is spiritual maturity holding to the correct tenets of the Christian faith. Is Paul's argument that our minds will be transformed and renewed mean that we will find the truth in propositional form?

Closeness to God - does spiritual maturity mean that I feel close to God in all moments of the day, like Brother Lawrence? Certainly, the spiritually mature will often report a deeper sense of God's presence in their life where they find strength and comfort. Yet, can closeness to God lead to susceptibility to a narcissistic belief that one is acting as God's agent?

Of course, I am being somewhat critical, and possibly even cynical, of these criteria for determining what is spiritual maturity. Perhaps the answer is all of the above, that spiritual maturity cannot be reduced to one essential element (maybe "Christlikeness" but what is that?).

I think I would have to add that spiritual maturity is not a universal construct, that spiritual maturity is determined, in part, by the situation a person is in. Spiritual maturity will obviously look a lot different among a persecuted church than among American churches. And I would argue that this is okay, that God would have us grow to serve our communities, not to simply be idealistic models of perfection.

Any thoughts on this? Any criteria for spiritual maturity that you think should be added?

Theories of Spirituality

2009-10-30T19:39:00.000-07:00

Following this past weekend's conference, I thought it would be nice to review some of prominent theories in the psychology of religion. These theories have to do with how we can conceptualize religion and spirituality. As they developed in the realm of psychology, some of them may strike religious believers as being unusual or atheistic. I will discuss the implications of them as I currently understand them.

Attribution theory - generally, this theory has to do with how we attribute causes to events. We might explain events internally, by our own action, or externally, by the action of an outside agent. In relation to religion, attribution theory suggests that humans judge the cause of some actions to be a higher power, which they might term God. The way we attribute the causes of events can be referred to as our locus of control. We can infer causation to self, powerful others, luck, or God (among other sources). While this may sound scientific or reductionistic, I find that this is an important element of faith. Religion and spirituality give believers a new lens to see the world and to interpret what is happening around them.

Motivational theory - One of the earliest studies of religion was by Gordon Allport on the relationship between religion and prejudice. Studies had found a small but significant positive relationship between religious importance and prejudice, such that religious individuals were more prejudiced. Allport posited that this relationship had to do with how one orients oneself to religion. He found that in individuals with an intrinsic orientation towards religion, this relationship reversed and was significantly negatively related to prejudice. People who were oriented toward religion for personal happiness or as a social group as their primary motivations showed a positive association with prejudice. Thus, the motivations for why one pursues religion matter. This was the first study to show that religiousness was more than just an identity but actually had components that were important to understand. I appreciate the concept of intrinsic religiousness because it captures true faith rather than just an identity.

Religious coping - The study of religious coping has recently exploded - and for good reason. This is the most promising area of religious research currently being investigated. Religious coping refers to how we use our faith to deal with problems. Ken Pargament suggests three coping styles: collaborative, deferring, and self-directing. Each of these has to do with how we rely on God in the midst of our problems, do we collaborate with God, do we let God make all the decisions, or do we take the reins for ourselves? In fact, a collaborative style has been shown to be the most healthy, physically and mentally, which is consistent with most religions. (A fourth coping style is surrender - but I have not read Pargament's research on this concept). Religious coping has been shown to be very predictive of spiritual well-being and is therefore a key component of religion.

Multivariate Theory - This is the theory that I have been using and which integrates the above perspectives. Additionally, it holds that religious beliefs are an important part of religion. This theory argues that what we believe affects the reasons we turn to religion (religious motivation), our reasons for being religious affect how we use our religion (religious coping), and that beliefs, motivations, and coping styles compose the structure of our religious life such that our experience of religion (i.e. closeness to God, spiritual well-being, morality, etc.) are founded on these variables.

Attachment theory - the final theory that I am aware of is attachment theory. This theory is based on the belief that our cognitive conception of God, as well as experience of God, has to do with how we connect with God. If we have a secure and trusting attachment with God, we will see God as loving and feel that we are safe in his hands. However, if we see God as abandoning or as restrictive, we will react in other ways. While this is a compelling theory, the empirical evidence for its validity is lacking. However, I anticipate that further research will show that this, too, is an important part of religious life. Certainly, how we interact with God is an important part of our spiritual lives.

Hope these theories enliven your understanding of the psychology of religion. Feel free to ask questions about any of the above.

Psychology of Religion

2009-10-29T09:37:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend, I attended the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion conference in Denver, CO. It was great getting to meet some of the major figures in the Psychology of Religion. In fact, I was able to go out to dinner with a large group who were celebrating the legacy of Bernard Spilka, who developed an application of the Attribution theory to the study of religion. Many pictures were taken and hopefully I will be able to access some of them in the near future.

Flow States and Everyday Spirituality

2009-09-25T11:36:00.000-07:00

In my previous post, I wrote about flow states and spiritual disciplines but here I want to expand on how flow states could be related to everyday spirituality. I encourage you to read the previous post first to get a better feel for what I am writing about here. But, to summarize, a flow state is an "optimal experience" where one feels highly challenged and highly competent to meet those challenges. An example would be expert rock climbers when climbing a difficult face, they feel a sense of "flow" in what they are doing.

Now can Christians achieve this type of experience in their everyday lives? I might argue that the Apostle Paul, who was able to bear numerous trials and still remain connected to the faith, is an example that one can. But I believe the trick is to achieve the proper amount of "spiritual competency" to meet the challenges of everyday life.

Now, first of all, let me say that I believe that all believers have the Holy Spirit working inside of them and are capable of doing everything that God requires of them. So I'm not saying that spiritual competency is just a skill-base or something that we can develop apart from God. But I also believe that all Christians need to rely on numerous resources that they are not inherently able to do as soon as they become Christians.

One might call this concept "religious coping" - using religious resources to cope with problems (the term has limitations - true faith does not use strategies just to get through life, it embodies faithful devotion that has a secondary effect of being able to overcome difficulties). Religious coping is not bestowed through conversion but is taught in sermons, books, etc. and modeled through relationships in the church. Religious coping involves both external forms of coping (seeking support of a pastor, listening to and participating in religious music, etc.) and internal forms (surrendering will over to God, prayer, etc.). These are the resources that will enable a believer to feel competent to meet the challenges in their lives.

But one important point needs to be made. Some Christians (I might even say most American Christians) do not experience "high challenge" that requires them to feel a state of flow. Their lives do not involve the threat of extreme poverty, violence, or political control. These Christians likely do not experience recurrent times of "high challenge" that can facilitate the awesome experience of flow. But there is hope here. By challenging themselves (and I can say this to myself - by challenging myself) to grow in ways that are uncomfortable, by giving generously, sharing one's faith, and giving voice to the powerless, Christians can have the opportunity to experience the pleasure of being in a state of optimal experience. By giving of themselves, they can receive the blessing of fulfillment.

Flow States and Spiritual Disciplines

2009-09-24T15:54:00.000-07:00

I have been doing some reading on the concept of flow lately and wanted to see if I could relate this popular concept to spiritual disciplines. Flow states, or optimal experiences, are thought to arise when situations are highly challenging and when the individual feels like they have the capacity to meet those challenges. There is a balance of high difficulty and high ability (Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007).

When we engage in spiritual disciplines, we are engaging in an activity that might have variable levels of challenge. While reading the Bible may seem like a straightforward task to some, trying to grasp deeper spiritual meaning of any given passage might be more difficult. If someone tries to simply read the Bible for simple answers (or to check off their to-do list for the day), but is actually quite capable of deeper reflection, they will likely not experience flow. On the other hand, if someone tries to really dive into the Word, looking for deep truth, but is not trained on how to do so, that can inevitably end up being frustrating.

To achieve a flow state when engaging in a spiritual practice means taking on the activity with challenging goals appropriate for that person and with the skills to meet those goals for that time.

A new Christian, for example, might take prayer as a time to simply talk with God openly and honestly while submitting to God's will in their requests. A mature Christian, on the other hand, might look at prayer as a chance to speak with God with Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication (ACTS) to achieve greater personal devotion and submission in all they do.

Why would flow states be important to consider when we practice spiritual disciplines? Well, I believe that spiritual disciplines are more likely to be adhered to when we enjoy doing them. That means that asking people to engage in such behaviors means assessing how capable they are at engaging in the behavior while providing them further skills to grow in their practice of spiritual disciplines. As people grow more capable of practicing spiritual disciplines, they must be further challenged and provided further resources to meet those challenges.

Live Forever or Die Tomorrow?

2009-03-29T12:18:00.000-07:00

I read a short passage from "Zorba the Greek" by Nikos Kazantzakis that has provoked some thought for me. In it, Zorba comes along an old man who is planting a tree. He questions the old man about why he would plant a tree when he will never see it produce fruit. The old man responds, "I live as if I am going to live forever." Zorba enjoys this thought, as he mutters to himself, "I live as if I will die tomorrow."

What a contrast in perspectives. But which leads us to a full and prosperous life? Haven't we all heard that we should live as if we will die tomorrow? Isn't that the lesson we feel we must take away any time we attend a funeral? Sure, living as if we could die tomorrow has some benefits. We may treasure our relationships more and give to worthy causes. Yet, what about the constant fear? I am not sure I want to live a life worrying that the value of my life depends on having everything in order when I die.

The old man suggests another way. Now, living as if we will never die has some dangers. If we live in ignorance of death, we run the risk of taking unnecessary risks to our health. We all know we should visit the doctor, wear our seatbelts, and avoid dangerous activities. But what if believing we will never die could mean more than that? What if living forever meant that we devoted ourselves to larger causes, tasks that may take a long time to complete?

The Christian believes they will live forever, through the grace of God. The faithful do not live in fear of death but in hope for the redemption of all creation. They do not sit back and watch but participate in this work of salvation.

What are your perspectives?

Truth and Beliefs

2009-03-27T13:42:00.000-07:00

Truth is the accurate and complete perception of reality, including and transcending a variety of perspectives and beliefs. Truth is not a constructed reality but simply exists, without relation to subjectivity. Yet subjective knowledge, including beliefs, can have a varying reflection upon truth. The psychology of religion typically gives little mention to beliefs and, when it does, relegates belief to "merely" subjective experience, without attending to whether beliefs are true (Vergote, 1993).

Cognitive psychology has taken a greater interest in this question by looking at how beliefs develop and change. The research in that field has pointed out that beliefs can be formed independent of rational discourse and accurate perception that would be consistent with a search for truth (Begg, Anas, & Farinacci, 1992; Gilbert, 1991; Hasher, Goldstein, & Toppino, 1977; Ladowsky-Brooks & Alcock, 2007). Instead, beliefs are formed through mechanisms that can introduce error, such as repetition, reputation of the source, and consistency with prior memories. Although this provides a quick and efficient means of information gathering, the drawback is that beliefs are not always representative of truth (Begg, Anas, & Farinacci, 1992). In fact, people are directly affected by all sources of information, whether they be factually true or false, and the inherent process is to accept all information as true before comparing to prior experiences and evaluating the source (Gilbert, 1991). Beliefs are therefore subjective rather than objective.

Does this mean that beliefs can never be true or that truth does not matter for beliefs? On the contrary, the truth of beliefs becomes of the utmost importance when a false belief causes an unwanted problem. Cognitive-behavioral therapy addresses the emotional consequences of false beliefs by teaching the client to rationally judge their beliefs, rather than allowing false beliefs to continue to have a destructive effect on their lives. The need for such therapy reflects how difficult it can be for people to become aware of and challenge their false beliefs. While psychology cannot determine whether beliefs about transcendent realities, such as God, are true, there is the possibility that the factors that contribute to these beliefs can be unveiled and evaluated.

What does all this have to do with religion? Well, religion is fundamentally about beliefs (Froese & Bader, 2007). These beliefs are presumed to be true. Yet if beliefs can be formed in a manner that allows for error, how can we be sure of our religious beliefs? Sociological research has shown us that beliefs about God are shaped by socioeconomic status, suggesting that beliefs are merely constructed out of experiences that have little to do with a personal knowledge of God (Froese & Bader, 2007). However, religion has retained its explanatory power as a belief system despite thousands of years of hard experiences that have tested the limits of these beliefs. Although theology has changed alongside the times, the shortcomings of these new perspectives generally become evident in time. In other words, theology's truth can be tested with experience. Cognitive-behavioral therapy has been effective because the flawed thinking of depressed or anxious individuals has proven to be too weak for rational evaluation. Religion has not yet experienced an equivalent rational retort.

Religion evaluates truth in a variety of ways: through scripture, reason, religious tradition, personal experience, with some even integrating science (Brown, 2004). By these methods, religion tests beliefs for truth. These are all methods for evaluating religious beliefs that can help discern truth for the religious individual. Religion therefore has a more stringent test of the truth of beliefs that most other institutions and individuals.

Begg, I., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 446-458.
Brown, W. (2004). Resonance: A Model for Relating Science, Psychology, and Faith. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23, 110-120.
Gilbert, D. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107-119.
Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 107-112.
Ladowsky-Brooks, R., & Alcock, J. (2007). Semantic-episodic interactions in the neuropsychology of disbelief. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 12, 97-111.
Preston, J., & Epley, N. (2005). Explanations Versus Applications: The Explanatory Power of Valuable Beliefs. Psychological Science, 16, 826-832.
Unkelbach, C. (2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 219-230.
Vergote, A. (1993). What the psychology of religion is and what it is not. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 73-86.

Christian Camps and Our Youth

2008-12-14T22:12:00.000-08:00

I'm writing up my master's thesis right now and thought I would share a few of my findings. I'll try not to get into the details and really paint the broad picture of what I found. My thesis is on two main topics: understanding the changes that occur when youth attend Christian camps and understanding the mechanisms and interconnections of adolescent spirituality. I might decide to blog on the second topic but for now I will stick to what effect attendance at a Christian camp had on adolescent spirituality.

First off, I should note my methods. We gave questionnaires to campers at two Christian camps (confidentiality prevents me from saying which ones), half receiving the questionnaire at the beginning and half at the end. We looked at the differences in spirituality between these two groups, inferring that any significant differences were the effect of the camp. We looked at God concept, religious motivation, religious coping, and spiritual well-being.

What did we find? Well, first off, I should note that we found that the kids attending these camps were already very religious. They attended church about once a week, they rated their religion as being "Very important" and nearly all rated their belief that Jesus is the Son of God as a 5 on a 5 point scale (what researchers call a ceiling effect). This is important to note because camps often focus more on conversions than on spiritual growth. But with a very religious camp, this might not be appropriate. Of course, some camps might have a greater representation of the less religious than we found at these camps.

What changes did we find? Campers changed their God concept so that they believed more in a Christian God concept (God is loving, kind, and not distant). Although campers were religious at the onset, their God concepts moved towards being more Christian, and this change was statistically significant, despite the "ceiling effect." We also found that campers had higher religious and existential well-being at the end of the camp. We weren't too surprised by higher religious well-being, which has to do with a sense that God loves them, but an increase in existential well-being, which has to do with a positive orientation towards life in general, was a bit more surprising. This means that the mechanisms targeting spiritual development at camps, the speakers, small groups, games, and free time, lead to an improved outlook on life as a whole. Our conclusion: the camps are doing a good job.

What changes didn't we find? Well, we didn't find any significant changes in belief in Jesus Christ. The reason: they had such high belief at the onset. The fact that some people still did not have a 5 out of 5 rating reflects doubt rather than unbelief, and there have been some studies that suggest doubt and questioning can be a positive aspect of spiritual development. We also didn't find any change in 7 variables of religious coping, or how campers use religious resources, such as prayer, clergy support, and listening to religious music, for example, to deal with problems in their lives. This is the area where we see the most room for growth for camps. Instead of trying to persuade campers about the truthfulness of the gospel and their need for salvation, camps can address the practical aspects of religious life, as the problems in our lives really do define who we are.

We also found that campers were increasing in extrinsic personal reasons for pursuing religion, rather than intrinsic reasons. That means they were increasing their religiousness because of what they got out of it, rather than because they found more to enjoy within religion. This finding may seem to be negative, but we suggest that this may simply be a stage that must be entered in order to progress towards a more intrinsic faith. Adolescents who find a lot of external reasons for becoming religious may be more likely to stick around religion and have positive feelings about faith in general. However, there is always the alternative explanation that these Christian camps are so much about fun that they distract campers from intrinsic faith. But we do not think that this is the case (as the campers are clearly changing positively in God concept and spiritual well-being).

To sum up, Christian camps change beliefs and increase external reasons for being religiously involved. They also increase religious and existential well-being. They do not seem to increase intrinsic reasons for pursuing religion (enjoyment of being religious for its own sake) and don't seem to change how campers use their religion in everyday life (but maybe this occurs when they get home, it just takes time to implement these changes). Of course, campers may change on variables that we didn't study and it's important to remember that, as well. Hope this clarifies the positive role that Christian camps can have on the spiritual life of youth in the course of a week.

Imitation of Christ

2008-11-22T22:06:00.000-08:00

This quarter I've been taking a class entitled "Imitation and Mimetic Theory." It's a class that integrates research on human imitation with Rene Girard's theory of mimesis (think miming). Mimesis refers to the way that humans learn about the world through imitation. One of the fundamental aspects of being human is that we imitate one another, according to Girard. This can be seen in the interaction of two toddlers: one is playing with a toy and another comes along. When the new toddler sees the one playing with the toy, he immediately wants to play with that particular toy, even if there are other toys exactly like that one. Girard believes, and I am fairly convinced, that adults interact with one another in a similar fashion, albeit more sophisticated. The result is that humans tend to get into conflict because we want the same thing.

Research on imitation has found that humans are born with an innate ability to imitate. Newborns are capable of imitating facial movements, such as tongue protrusions (i.e. sticking your tongue out at the baby) even before they get the chance to see themselves in a mirror. Scientists discovered about ten years ago how this might occur with the discovery of "mirror neurons." Mirror neurons are neurons in the brain that fire regardless if the person is performing an action or if they are watching another person perform an action. The result is that the person will have the same experience regardless if they perform an action or watch an action performed. These mirror neurons are scattered among the brain and scientists are still trying to learn more about them.

Why is this important? Mirror neurons would mean that when a toddler sees another toddler playing with a toy, they will experience pleasure as if they themselves were playing with that toy, to a limited extent. That toddler will have desire for the toy awakened in him/her and will want to play with the toy.

Advertisers have known this implicitly for years. Showing a clip of a man or woman enjoying a product will leave viewers with the neural experience of having enjoyed that product. They will want that product more after they have seen someone else want it.

Where am I going with all this? The reality is that we all imitate. We try to be like others. Not exactly like them, but in the rhythm of our lives. We want to be successful, powerful, rich, influential, charismatic, beautiful, and funny. We learn how to be this way from our parents, our peers, media, and countless other sources. We choose others as our models for how to live.

The solution is not to revoke those people as evil but to choose better models for how to live. We find people who are living their lives for a greater purpose and imitate them. We choose our friends wisely and seek to learn from them. But most importantly, we hold up Christ, who was the perfect human for whom our innate motive to imitate was designed. We live like Christ, not in being a first century Jewish rabbi, but in his rhythm of living. We choose to live out his connection with the Father, his willingness to serve, and his pursuit of perfection. That is how we turn around our God-given imitative qualities to worship Jesus as Lord, rather than ourselves.

Elections and the Abandonment of Humility

2008-10-05T17:51:00.000-07:00

I have been enjoying the lead-up to the presidential election. I'm naturally competitive and so I love to argue about policies and personalities. Most of those arguments happen only in my head with imaginary foes - where I naturally always win. But if there's one thing I hate about elections it's that morality goes right out the door. I'm not talking about "moral issues," I'm talking about the morality of the candidates themselves. Now lots has been said about negative campaigning and I hardly think I have much to contribute there. I want to discuss the deprication of humility in the campaign.

Now, in some ways, we don't expect or want the president to be humble. He (or she) should be the best person in the nation for the job and should know how to lead the country. The president needs to show confidence in decisions in order to bring together the country. For example, when John McCain said that the economy is not his strong suit, I took that to be a mark against him. The president should be strong in areas where he will be expected to make important decisions.

But a little humility is warranted. And it's not always respected in the election. When Barack Obama was asked when he thought a human life began, he responded that it was above his pay grade. Now, as one who thinks that abortion is wrong, I can still respect that he is willing to say that his opinion does not decide the matter. At the very least, I saw Obama being willing to admit his limits, that the president does not decide these matters. (As a reminder, Roe v Wade was decided not upon when life began but on medical privacy - )

The fact is that a lack of humility has been present throughout both campaigns. McCain said that experience is of the utmost importance in the presidential campaign then selects a vice-presidential candidate with almost no experience and then has the audacity to call her experienced. Obama made the argument that he would bring change to Washington then selects an experienced Washington insider, coloring him as one who would shake up Washington.

The problem is bipartisan. But it's not a Washington problem. It's an American problem and a people problem. We've lost our faith in humility as a core value in being human. We excuse it in ourselves and idolize the narcissist, forgetting how tough it is to actually deal with people who are so self-absorbed. We present ourselves under the guise of a mask in order to keep people from knowing our flaws. And when we see someone else exposed, we pounce on the opportunity to strengthen our image by attacking their deficits, selfishly ignoring our own shortcomings.

We should learn to expect humanity from our leaders, from our fellows, and from ourselves. We should not kid ourselves and believe that we are better than others. We should expect occasional failure and admire those who are willing to admit it. I hope your friends look past your occasional poor decisions and I hope that you are willing to look past the occasional poor decisions of these presidential candidates. The real reason they have abandoned humility is because we have abandoned it. Let's remember how important it is by remembering how important it was to Jesus - the divine man who said that his creation was more important than he was and gave up his life to that end.

Believing in the Miraculous

2008-09-18T12:04:00.000-07:00

I took a course this summer on the miraculous in the New Testament. We looked particularly at the miracles of Jesus and what the gospel authors wanted to convey through these miracles. The miracles included healings, exorcisms, feedings, and nature miracles. What became evident was that Jesus himself understood his miracles not as a validation of his ministry but as an essential part of what he was doing. In other words, the Kingdom of God was the miracles. Jesus, who ushered in this kingdom, did so by performing miracles of healing and exorcism.

Why is this significant? Well, for a number of reasons. If miracles are the Kingdom of God, then being followers of Jesus means that we are expected to bring miracles to the world as well. We are to bring healing and we are to expel Satan from the world. We cannot assume that we cannot perform miracles. We ought to have faith in our ability to perform miracles in the name of Jesus. We can't believe that salvation means that we convert people to a belief system alone. Salvation, entering into the Kingdom of God, means that we bring earthly good to our fellows as well as showing them the truth of Jesus' identity.

So where does that fit with psychology? I think that as a counselor, I would not perform any ritualistic exorcism on a client. But I would try to expel Satan, the fountain of evil, from their lives. This means leading them to make better choices in their lives and restoring them to the sanity of a life well-lived. I would also bring healing by allowing their minds to work more effectively. Can I not believe that it is miraculous to perform effective psychotherapy? Jesus wasn't the only one performing miracles in his time. And so we shouldn't be surprised in finding that non-Christian therapists are making miraculous changes in people's lives.

A talking cure? Come on, you've got to admit that it does seem a little bit like a miracle.

What's Inside that Noggin of Yours?

2008-09-14T22:49:00.001-07:00

This year I will be working as a neuropsychology clerk at a rehabilitation hospital as part of my clinical training as a psychologist. I will be administering various tests to patients, primarily with traumatic brain injury but also a wide variety of other issues. Traumatic brain injury occurs when the brain receives a significant jolt, for example from a car accident, that causes memory and attention deficits, as well as personality changes. These changes are typically temporary but they can often persist long enough and be severe enough to cause great concern.

The real issue that I wish to bring up is that I have been reflecting on my difficulty in understanding mental issues to be caused by problems with the brain. I simply find it difficult to attribute behavioral problems to physiological causes. Not to say that I do not believe it, I just find it difficult to incorporate that knowledge into how I conceptualize others.

The trouble is that people with brain damage or chemical imbalances can often look healthy. While many of the patients at the hospital are still recovering from their wounds, there are also plenty who appear to be healthy but nevertheless behave in bizarre manners. So when we see them acting strangely, we are tempted to disassociate from them and label them as odd.

What we must remember is that we have a common bond with all of humanity, and we may be just one car crash away from being severely changed. We must remember that we can have so much taken away from us, even our personality. And we must show great love for all others, including those who have been changed by physiological problems.

The Psychology of the Eucharist

2008-07-24T21:55:00.000-07:00

A week ago, I returned from a 5 week vacation in Europe. It was a combination of a study abroad program, church mission trip, and holiday as I traveled in Italy, Estonia, and England. The class I took in Orvieto, Italy was entitled "Medieval Spirituality and Art" and I would like to discuss a few of the things I learned, particularly about the Eucharist, a.k.a. The Lord's Supper, a.k.a. Communion.

Taking Eucharist in Orvieto is a special experience because it was in that relatively obscure city that the doctrine of transubstantiation was firmly established as a doctrine of the Catholic church. In the 13th Century a priest was performing the Eucharist when the bread mysteriously dripped blood as he blessed it. The Duomo (main cathedral) of Orvieto was built shortly after to house this miraculous cloth. The Corpus Christi celebration was established by the pope after the duomo was built to honor the Catholic belief in transubstantiation.

I should begin by pointing out the points of disagreement I had going into this trip about Catholic views on the Eucharist. First of all, I did not believe (and still do not) that the bread and wine became the actual body and blood of Christ through transubstantiation. I also disagreed with how Catholics excluded Protestants from taking Communion. And I did not share the belief that the Eucharist should be a daily event, taken in the Mass, but should be a special event. I point these out because I want to convey that I am examining Catholic beliefs and practices as an outsider.

So, as an outsider, I would like to share the insights I gained regarding the Catholic Eucharist and why my complaints were softened in many ways. But first I want to ask you a question: what is the central focus of a Protestant church's design? The podium. The spoken word is the central focus. For Catholics the podium is offset, preaching is secondary. At the very center of the Catholic church is the altar table where the Eucharist is situated. That is to say, the actual body of Christ is the central focus. I point this out because I want to convey a sense of the importance of the Eucharist to Catholic spirituality.

Now I believe the best place to begin is with the doctrine of transubstantiation. As a Baptist, I have never received a push to believe that "Communion" was about eating the actual body and blood of Christ. I've always believed it had symbolic content; that the elements were meant to remind us of the death and resurrection of Christ, his atonement for our sins, and our call to be resurrected with him. So the doctrine of transubstantiation has always superfluous, because I felt like I had enough respect for Communion by treating it as a spiritual connection with Christ.

But I began to wonder, might there be a benefit in believing that the elements are Christ's actual body and blood? Well, perhaps the most obvious benefit is the feeling that there is a constant presence of the miraculous. It is a remarkable thing to believe that bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ every time you attend Mass. In fact, pious Medieval peasants would often rush from one cathedral to the next within their city (there were usually several), knowing the exact timing of the liturgies, so that they could witness the blessing of the elements, where they are believed to turn into the actual body of Christ. Now I can understand that kind of piety. It would certainly mean something to me if I were to witness what I believed to be a miracle everyday. In fact, I think I would gain a deeper sense of God's presence within my community, as a result.

But a sense of the miraculous was not all that there was to gain. The Catholics, as you probably know, hold the Virgin Mother in high regard. I, however, did not realize there was a connection between the Eucharist and Mary until this class. For just as Mary held Jesus in her insides (her womb), we could hold Christ in our insides (our stomachs). There would be a shared experience between us and the woman who gave Christ birth and nursed him, who knew him intimately as both human and divine. They would gain a sense of closeness with Christ through their connection with Mary and through their physical closeness with his body. I could go into why they held Mary in such high regard, but that is a longer post than I can write here.

Now I have always objected to the exclusion of Protestants from taking Eucharist. In fact, I did not take the Eucharist in Italy and was saddened that I could not (they never said I could not but it was common knowledge). But I always thought that it was a matter of pride - that the Catholics thought they had it right while Protestants had it wrong. But I now see it differently. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. Now as a Protestant I may believe in Christ, just as they do, but I do not believe in transubstantiation. So when I took Eucharist, I would treat the elements differently than they would. So Catholics exclude those who do not believe in transubstantiation because we could potentially profane the elements by our lack of faith. (We witnessed nuns run out of the cathedral with the chalice and return with a new cup of wine because a bug apparently landed in the wine!) Now that sort of reverence is something I can respect, even while disagreeing with the outcome.

I write all this in the hope that your view on the Lord's Supper might be expanded. My assumption is that the majority of my readership are Protestant. But I hope that, regardless of your religious affiliation, you gain more clarity on your own views of the Lord's Supper and what can be gained through this sacrament of faith in action. May you all be blessed by the presence of Christ in your lives and through the fellowship that comes through his life, death, and resurrection.

Motivational Preaching

2008-06-05T22:38:00.000-07:00

I have been taking a course in Motivational Interviewing this past quarter. Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a "client-centered, directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence." That basically means that it's a way to make people want change through compassionate and informed communication. Rather than giving people reasons why they should change, MI focuses on eliciting change talk from the client that will ultimately lead to action. It has been used effectively as a therapeutic intervention in several areas, most notably in substance abuse, but I see possibilities for its application in preaching.

One thing I have noticed is that sermons can often be confrontational in nature. On a surface level, this type of preaching doesn't promote seem to produce defensive resistance in the attendees. That's due in part because there is diffusion of responsibility throughout the congregation. However, that is not to say that those sermons aren't producing some resistance among those listening. Now resistance can sometimes be obvious: excuse-making, avoidance of responsibility, blaming, etc. But, more often in a church setting, resistance can take the form of over-enthusiastic "acceptance" of the message, followed by a lack of action. Psychologically the individual is assenting to the position but they are not "owning" the belief.

I would like to suggest that preaching might become more effective if motivational interviewing techniques were employed more often. Now this includes: acknowledgment by the pastor of benefits of staying the same, acknowledgment by the pastor of the difficulties of change, envisioning what the future would be like if they became more holy, asking the congregation to quietly consider how important change is and how confident they are they can change on scales of 0-10 (then pointing out that anything more than 0 is a good place to be). Another technique could involve the pastor and the congregation getting into a debate, where the pastor gives the reasons why he should continue living a sinful lifestyle while the congregation can yell out reasons why he should be holy. All of these can gently move the congregation towards greater ownership of the reasons for change. It would make sermons more interactive, and I think that's a good thing (in some cases).

Now of course this only addresses motivation to change, which is only half of motivational interviewing. The second half is developing a change plan while acknowledging the individual's autonomy and their right to forego change. The pastor can suggest a plan of change that works for most people but then admit that each individual must decide whether change is even the right thing for them. This empowering act allows the person to feel like they aren't being persuaded to change but that it really can be their own decision. While this is only a perfunctory start to the integration of motivational interviewing and homiletics, I think that they make a good pair. What do you think?

50 Great Date Ideas

2008-03-16T17:55:00.000-07:00

This is a little off topic from the rest of my blog but a couple years ago I became frustrated that every time I went on a date (which admittedly was rare) I would have to rack my brain to figure out ideas for what to do. I looked online for a list of date ideas but there really weren't any comprehensive lists so I decided to make my own. I guarded this list jealously until I realized recently that there are probably many others interested in such a list. Below you will find my list of 50 great date ideas, in no particular order. Feel free to add your own ideas in a comment. I hope you enjoy!

50 Great Date Ideas

Ice skating
Roller-skating
Picnic
Dinner and movie
Hiking
Museum
Sporting event
Concert (in the park)
Go karts
Fair
Pool hall
Miniature golfing
Bowling
Dancing
Zoo
Kayaking on the ocean or in a lake
Wine tasting
Theater
Fly a kite
Horseback riding
Scuba diving
Theme park
Karaoke
Comedy club
Snowboarding
Amusement park
Arcade
Tennis
Dance lessons
IMAX Theater
Aquarium
Magic show
Laser tag
Dancing lessons
Paddle boat
Hookah bar
Batting cages
Golfing/driving range
Farmer’s market
Shooting range – shotguns or handguns
Horse track
Walk on the beach/ beach trip
Window shopping
Hollywood Bowl
Scenic bike ride
Happy Hour
Church event
Feeding the poor
Book reading and signing
Air show

Excuses, Excuses

2008-02-26T13:09:00.000-08:00

I have a couple apologies that I would like to make this week and I've been thinking about what place "clarification of my intent" ought to play a role in the apology. In other words, what excuses are okay to provide and which will just drive a wedge deeper between us. From preschool we learn that we are not to make excuses for our actions. But every action that we take has a cause and that cause may actually help the other person understand and forgive us. But the flip side is that every excuse that we give can indicate an unwillingness to act differently in the future. If our actions made perfect sense, why would we need to apologize in the first place?

I think that one rule of thumb is that any excuse that we might give for our action ought to come from our vulnerability. Our excuses should not simply state that someone did something to us and therefore we did what we did. No, it should state how we were emotionally affected by another action. It is not simply stating that we felt angry that something happened so we responded in kind. A valid excuse focuses on what need we were hoping to have met that went unfulfilled.

The best emotion to get to the core of vulnerability is, of course, fear. That's because fear is in it's very nature an emotion of vulnerability. And unlike most other emotions, like anger, disappointment, and disgust, there is no condemnation of others in its tone. And people respond better when they are not being attacked. Fear conveys the message that the individual needs one type of response, rather than demands it.

Expressing your fear means that you do not simply state the antecedents of your actions. It means you explain the meaning you interpreted from being treated a certain way. Although this may feel awkward, it opens each person up to the other person, where there is possibility of reconciliation. Rather than "excusing" your behavior, sharing your fear conveys your essential humanity and need for love and acceptance. Finally, the apology can occur because whatever we were expecting from the other person, and fearing that they would not provide, was a need that could be provided by God. Without that connection, we could never really admit our wrongs because we would have responded the only way we could without God.

A Personal Viewpoint on the Elections

2008-02-03T23:29:00.000-08:00

I'm scared to tell you who I plan to vote for in the election. I'm afraid that some of you will think I have just jumped on a bandwagon that most young adult men have found themselves on, without really engaging the tough questions. But simply by stating that you can likely guess who I favor. I get excited about Obama because I sense in him a powerful charismatic spirit and a vision for the future that gets me excited about being an American.There is something inside me that longs to witness something historic. Perhaps that's why I was torn between rooting on the Patriots and the Giants. Regardless of what happened, whether an upset or perfect season, it would be a historic game. Yes, I'll admit it's not just about his political stances, I want America to be something different. And I want to be a part of it.

I grew up following in the political footsteps of my parents, who are Republican. They weren't dogmatic and they held pretty sophisticated political beliefs, which I certainly respect, but the upcoming election felt like a change of tide for me personally. I sensed that the Democrats values were closer to the vision of God's world that I've come to hold. Now I must admit, I got a thrill telling my parents I was likely going to vote for a Democrat, just to shake them up. But as the election has come closer, I catch myself feeling like I'm betraying someone or something that I have sworn loyalty to. I've realized that, for me, voting was about more than just deciding who would lead our country in the right direction; voting was about my identity.

I encourage you to take this election time as an opportunity to shake up your identity. Question your motives for why you want to vote for a particular candidate. Discover what draws you away from certain candidates. Of course, fear will creep up at the slightest hint that you would change your political stance. It would mean that part of your identity will be forced to change. It will mean admitting that you were wrong in the past. But exploring these fears and hopes will help you learn about yourself and help you make the best decision.

Assessing the Church

2008-01-17T22:34:00.000-08:00

A few months ago, Willow Creek conducted a series of surveys to assess how churches were promoting spiritual growth in the congregation. If you would like to read about the results, you can visit the REVEAL blog. Since my research area is essentially focused on how people grow in their faith and since I work with a small business that does church consulting, I consider myself to have some authority on this topic. Although I have thought about the study quite a bit, I really want to focus this discussion on the place of assessment in the church.

There are four main issues related to church assessment: (1) what do we measure? (2) how do we measure? (3) what do we learn? (4) what do we miss?

1) What do we measure? Or, in other words, how do you measure someone's spirituality? Now there will be some who argue that spirituality is a completely personal affair and therefore it is impossible to measure it objectively. But I find this unpersuasive, as spirituality inherently stretches beyond the mystical, and is full of theological beliefs that we either hold to or deny, religious behaviors we either engage in or don't, and phenomenon we either experience or don't. To say that our spirituality is devoid of anything religious is to say something objective about our spirituality.

Next, on this same point, we need to consider what are the important variables inherent to faith. Sometimes we make these decisions based upon theological reasoning. For instance, it makes sense not to study how food preferences are related to religious behavior. And the flipside could be that it makes sense to study how prayer is related to a sense of closeness to God. These are our a priori theological beliefs that can inform us. But additionally, we can simply use trial and error, in a scientific manner, to figure out what variables are important to study. For example, one study may look at 10 different variables related to church attendance and find that only one is significantly related to it. We would therefore decide to further study that variable, since it seems to be important (if our theological beliefs state that church attendance is a good thing).

2) The question of how we measure spirituality is also an important one. Are we to assume that those who rate themselves as a 10 (out of 10) on closeness to God are really closer to God? Should we even use paper and pencil (or nowadays, computers) to assess someone's spirituality? Should we rely on spiritual exemplars to study what factors are important to spirituality? It is easy to generate more and more questions. But the truth is that we need to start somewhere. Face-to-face interviews are time consuming. Using spiritual exemplars risks finding people who have their outsides clean. And of course paper and pencil measures have plenty of problems. The real place to start is by engaging a variety of different methods. We should not limit ourselves to one way of approaching the problem.

3) What do we learn from assessment? Assessment can tell us whatever we want to know. It can tell us if people like the preacher's sermons. It can tell us how people use their faith to deal with problems. The real task is learning to ask the right questions. What is most essential to the life of the church? This means that we must really dig in to the Word, explore our theology, and dialog with people from other denominational and faith backgrounds. Again, the point is to begin the discussion. Willow Creek seems to have been scared prematurely by their findings. If we learn anything from the REVEAL study, it's that we should not shift paradigm's too quickly but we should also not be afraid to admit we have been doing things wrong.

4) What do we miss? By this I meant that we should always be aware that we have blindspots. Assessment is never going to be comprehensive so we should always be willing to take a step back and look at the full picture, as best as we can. No one in the congregation may realize that using multimedia in sermons is affecting them and assessment is unlikely to evaluate this issue, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue, for instance.

REVEAL is the first large scale step towards something that I have become a huge believer in since being in grad school - using assessment to improve our churches. While there are some limitations and problems in REVEAL, it does add a great deal of knowledge and has opened up the Christian culture to the use of assessment. I hope that this trend continues, hopefully without being abused, and allows the church to repent and grow where it needs to.

Choosing Character Over Effects

2007-12-06T21:24:00.001-08:00

Whether or not I am responsible for how my actions affect others is, for me, a big issue. I want to know whether I am to blame for how a person responds to my wrong. I'm not talking about emotionally harming others when a person has done nothing wrong, such as breaking up a relationship, but that is important to the discussion. I'm referring more precisely to whether we should consider ourselves responsible if we commit a small sin against another but that small sin has dire consequences.

Consider the following: I am trying to cut lust out of my life. I look lustfully at a woman then tell myself, "By looking at her in that way, I have turned her into an object." The act is made wrong by its outcome.

But does that mean that we are to judge our sins by the effect they have on others? For some, the temptation regarding looking at sin in their lives is to underestimate their effects. But for others, they choose to imaginatively maximize the possible effect their sin has on others, in order to punish themselves into submission.

I think doing this is rooted in narcissism. We want to believe we have profound effects on others. What we really need is neither minimizing nor maximizing but honest appraisal of what we have done. Rather than concerning ourselves with the effects of our actions, we ought to worry about our character. Does this action reflect the kind of character I want in my life? Will continuing to behave this way make me a better or worse person. This could seem more narcissistic than the last, but this is untrue. Narcissism insists on believing untruth about the self, including our effect on others. Humility knows who we are and deals with who we want to become.

So the next time you do something wrong. Don't worry so much about how it will be a bad witness to others, how catastrophic your actions were, or even how many tears you induced in other's eyes. Think about who you want to be and pursue that.

Human Nature and Sin

2007-11-26T11:29:00.000-08:00

I'm taking a class on Christian Ethics that has introduced me to the theology of Reinhold Niebuhr. He wrote about the origin of sin in such a way that illuminates the psychological concepts inherent in our faith. One could conceptualize his theology of sin with two equations:

Freedom + Finitude = Anxiety
Anxiety + Disbelief = Fear

Freedom lies in our free will. We have the power to choose right and wrong. But we are also finite human beings. We are limited by our life experiences and by our nature. The combination of our freedom and limits creates anxiety. We become aware that we are not self-sufficient and that leads to worrying that we will not be satisfied. This is part of how God created us and, in itself, is not sin. The anxiety that Neibuhr speaks about is a precursor for sin but is also the precursor for true faith.

Our reaction to this anxiety is what is important. If we choose not to place faith in God, but to live in disbelief, then we will end up with fear. Humans deal with fear in two main ways: pride and abdication of responsibility. We will accumulate wealth and power to maintain the illusion that we are self-sufficient. This requires self-deception. We need to lie to ourselves in order to believe that we can take care of ourselves.

But there is another sinful solution to the fear we experience. We can pretend we are not responsible for our actions. We become resentful of others or we engage in sensuality. At no point do we claim agency of our actions. Instead, we blame, repress, or rebel.

Psychologically, acceptance of our reality is the solution to this problem. But that leaves us at the point where we can easily despair. Facing the reality that we cannot satisfy our selves can be scary. From this perspective we see the advantage of faith in God that allows us to trust God to satisfy our spiritual needs. By consciously surrendering our freedom to God, we can accept our limitations. Instead of inspiring dread, we gain serenity from our limitations because that only increases where God will work. As Paul wrote, "To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me." (2 Corinthians 12:7-10)

Shame On You

2007-11-06T16:39:00.000-08:00

Shame is a loaded concept. There seems to be more than a few different ways of conceptualizing it. But I like to define it as a response to guilt that creates some degree of self-hate. I define guilt (at least the psychological version, not the legal version) as the belief that you have done something wrong. So shame takes the belief that you have done something wrong and concludes that there is something wrong with you.

I believe that we turn to shame for a reason. Because although we feel bad for what we did, we don't want to do the work to change our actions. Therefore I look at shame as a refusal to learn from what we did and try to change our behavior. Shame works against repentance. Shame is a form of self-punishment that recapitulates the wrong we've done.

Of course we can't discard the place of Christ's death in our shame. The work on the cross means that we are no longer guilty (legally) for our sins. Of course we are still psychologically guilty. But shame returns to the legal guilt and states that we must be punished by calling ourselves names and deprecating ourselves. Shame is therefore a lack of faith in the work of Christ.

Practically shame has the consequence of focusing our efforts on the punishment, rather than a solution. By the time we are done punishing ourselves verbally for something we have done (e.g. I'm such an idiot. Why did I do that again?!?), we have lost all motivation to learn and change. Rather than using our effort to punish, we can accept God's grace then begin the process of clarifying where we went wrong. Asking ourselves questions like: What was I trying to satisfy in myself that led me to do this? What kind of thinking did I have that led me to do this? What emotions led me to do this? Such an approach can allow us to identify problems before we do something wrong.

Divorce and Counseling

2007-11-04T22:17:00.000-08:00

Counseling married couples will often lead to talk about divorce. How ought a Christian therapist handle this? Should they refer? Should they tell the client not to get divorced? I have some thoughts on the matter but I wanted to begin with my view of marriage. In Genesis 2, the institution of marriage is introduced as a relationship that places a person in a community. The person moves from being under their parents to being married to another person. I believe that this is because marriage was designed to be a place where people have the opportunity to be understood and cared for. Marriage is designed to produce growth. I like to compare it to Jesus' teaching about the Sabbath, marriage was created for people not people for marriage.

I believe that although marriage is a covenant that we ought to be committed to, there are times when the relational difficulties between a couple are so intense and so intertwined that they are nearly impossible to change. In these situations, when carrying on in a marriage will cause more harm than a divorce will, and all options have been exhausted, a divorce is permissible. As a therapist I would see it as my responsibility to discern both the extent of interpersonal conflict and the ability of the relationship to heal after new interpersonal skills are gained. Some marriages would create greater harm if they remain together than if they divorce - sometimes we need to be honest about the likelihood of recovery and how long such recovery would take.

Divorce is a painful experience for both the couple and any children. Therefore, if a couple comes into therapy with only one intent - how to get divorced with the least amount of damage to the children - I would make it clear to the client that I would first assess their relational skills and the possibility of recovering the marriage. But if I agree with their own assessment of the state of their marriage, that divorce is the best option, then I will have no problem with counseling them in how to have a peaceable relationship through the divorce and afterwards.

Victims Can Apologize Too

2007-10-23T17:09:00.001-07:00

Imagine you're in a situation where a good friend has gossiped about you regarding something very personal about you. They told something to others, let's imagine they told lots of people, that they promised never to tell. What would you do? Who would you talk to about this?

This is a situation where it is safe to say that you have been harmed. But is that where it ends? Usually not. If you were honest, you would probably have said that you would have told all of your close friends what that person did to you. Then you would start thinking about how much better you are than the other person. Then you might have tried telling the person you were hurt but did it in a way that did not even try to understand why they might have shared the information in the first place.

The point I'm trying to make is that we often do something wrong when we have been wronged. And we always have done something wrong when we cannot let an offense go. It scares me to go to such a distance, because I know how difficult the issue is, but we will inevitably do something wrong when we suffer something heinous as a victim, like physical or sexual abuse. That is not to say that we need to carry more shame. But we should not deny or discount our selfish reactions in any circumstance, especially when we are clearly the victim.

Especially when we are clearly the victim? That seems counter-intuitive. We think that the more we have done wrong, the more we are responsible to admit our wrong. But I have two simple reasons for saying this.

1) Admitting our wrong narrows the gap between how wrong we were and how wrong the original perpetrator was. It is more likely that the other person will not apologize if they feel that there is less distance between you and them. Again, it is a bizarre truth that the greater the sin, the harder it is to accept responsibility for it. Thus, admitting our wrong draws us closer to getting the apology we deserve because it decreases, ever so slightly, the shame of the wrong that the other person committed.

2) Admitting our wrong allows us to better handle problems in the future. We should desire to be less affected by the evil actions of others. But often our way of handling the wrong that has been done to us exacerbates the problem. Accepting that we have done something wrong means that I will be more aware the next time I am in a similar situation and will be able to control my reaction better.

A final warning. We should never approach a person with the expectation that our apology will guarantee us that they will apologize in return. In some instances people feel more free to apologize when we apologize first but that is not the rule. It would be easy to feel coerced into apologizing if someone apologizes for their smaller offense first. That is why we need to remember the second reason. We may hope that they apologize, and will likely be disappointed if they don't, but we should be careful not to take the focus off of what we can gain from apologizing.

The Secret and the Desire for Omnipotence

2007-10-21T14:20:00.000-07:00

My professor in my Christians who Counsel class laid out his theoretical framework for therapy this past week and it kind of reminded me of the popularity of "The Secret." If you're not familiar with the book and the videos, the underlying principle is that positive thoughts can influence the universe in such a way that you will be able to get what you want. The reason that you did not get the promotion you wanted was because you had conflicting and negative thoughts about it. Based upon the principle that "like attracts like," the power to have a successful and thriving life is within us.

Now I hope that I do not overplay the difficulties of this worldview to completely undermine some of the lessons that can be learned. In fact, confidence and belief in yourself can lead to better outcomes in careers, relationships, and daily life. Positive thinking allows us to pursue our dreams more fervently. The zeal we have for pursuing our dreams can and does impact the probability of achieving your dreams.

But back to my professor's theory. He believes that the primary motive for most human behavior is the desire to be self-sufficient. The problem is that humans are not self-sufficient and they cannot control the universe. Thus, our primary motive is reality denying. This is evident in how we blame ourselves for problems that were out of our control or in how we feel guilty that we cannot be in two places at once. The Secret is popular for this very reason - it allows us to believe that we have more power over the world than we actually do.

The Secret can promote pathological guilt responses. Why did my aunt die from cancer? Because I had negative thoughts about her. Why do I have diabetes? Because I don't like my body. Obviously this perspective would be devastating but it is the logical consequence of believing the principles of The Secret.

What is the alternative? As my professor often repeats: "Embrace your limits." You cannot control the universe. Sure, positive thinking can create opportunities that weren't there before. But know where your power over a situation begins and where it ends. The Serenity Prayer sums it up nicely: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

Response to Christians who Counsel

2007-10-13T12:17:00.001-07:00

Here are my personal thoughts on Chapters 1 - 3 of Christians who Counsel. Anderson's anthropology of humanity is one of the great strengths of his approach. Many who have discarded psychology, even Christian psychology, have lacked the insight into how human beings are "not good" when they are alone. We are created to become fully alive when we are in communion with others. Beginning here helps us challenge views of spirituality that claim that a relationship with God is sufficient for our growth as humans and as followers of Christ. This is where counseling can come in.

Counseling (which I will use as an equivalent term for therapy) states that all of our problems in life do not stem from spiritual issues. An example would be a young man who was physically and sexually abused as a child and who now acts out with sexual promiscuity and angry outbursts but is depressed and believes that he is worthless. A spiritual response would state that he needs to connect with God through prayer, accept his forgiveness, and be transformed by studying God's word. However, this would ignore the fact that he has not learned to have healthy relationships with other people. His sexuality is intertwined with his low view of himself and with his inability to cope with the pain in his life. And his view of himself will affect his spirituality and not just the converse.

A view of humanity that sees spirituality as being affected by social, personal, and sexual aspects will not dogmatically hold on to relationship with God as being supreme. God has created human beings to have dominion over the world and to live in loving relationships with others. While spirituality should never be downplayed, the more common approach is to overemphasize spirituality while neglecting the other realms. However, Christian therapists will sometimes overreact to this approach by neglecting the spiritual aspect of living. We do need to live in God's grace and forgiveness and in constant relation with him in all we do, think, and say. This model reminds those who counsel that spirituality IS an important part of emotional life and should not be downplayed.

As for the place of the agogic moment, where the three components, motive power, intermediary, and response, define growth while the hermeneutic moment is put on the sidelines, I have a couple problems. While I believe that it is true that creating an environment of love and parity between therapist and client is beneficial, I don't believe that it is always necessary. Those who are relatively healthy have the capacity to accept condescending advice and integrate it into their lives. Doing so is more difficult, because the person needs to remove the advice from the advisor, but it is possible. We have the capacity to grow through experiences with ourself, where we open ourselves up to the need for growth and can recognize growth promoting ways of thinking and acting, even when they come from non-equal sources. I do believe that people can change from listening to a sermon, though it is much less likely. This may be a mute point but I think it needs to be said. An agogic moment is not always required.

Finally, I think that Anderson's model lacks a theology of shame. If our starting point is creation then there must be at least some discussion of the fall. Humans now have a sense of shame in their lives, a pain that makes them feel that something has gone wrong in the world and in themselves. This pain is present in every single person but you wouldn't know it from Anderson's model. We all react not only to love that has been shown to us but also the the pain that is oppressing us. A person in pain will try to numb themselves in many ways. But they may also, after finding temporary solutions to the pain to be just that, realize that true growth will bring about healing. Pain, like love, can be a motivator for growth.

I hope these thoughts show my general satisfaction with Anderson's model and are taken as possibilities for what can be added. So far Anderson's approach as a theologian, rather than a psychologist, has been quite helpful.

Partnering for Growth

2007-10-13T10:23:00.000-07:00

Chapter 3 of Christians who Counsel centers on the position that the possibility for growth is opened up when the client perceives that the therapist is a partner in the growth process. As Carl Rogers has often made clear, therapy involves removing the obstacles that were hindering process for growth. Thus, Anderson argues that the capacity for growth is within the person rather than from the therapist. But first of all the nature of growth is clarified as: integrative, relational, and open to change. The therapist, unlike the doctor who focuses only on the physical realm or the pastor who teaches only closeness with God, is concerned about integrating all the areas of our life. Asking questions like - how does my spiritual life affect my physical life? and vice versa - the Christian who counsels can facilitate wholeness in all realms of being. The therapist will also help the client develop relational closeness in the room and with others in order to facilitate new experiences of the self and others. The third aspect of growth is openness to change. Although openness to change is itself a consequence of growth, the role of this openness needs to be highlighted because it will, in turn, promote more growth.

But how does this growth occur? Rather than arguing that the therapist causes the client to grow in a stimulus-response manner, Anderson argues that the therapist merely creates situations for growth. Within the therapy room, two important moments are described. The first is the "hermeneutic moment," or aha! moment, where the client is able to change the way s/he looks at him/herself. The second is the "agogic moment" where the client gains a motive for change from an experience with the therapist that creates change. The agogic moment is where true growth occurs. It is a situation where the therapist places herself as equal with the client. Hermeneutic moments are often necessary, but never sufficient, to create an agogic moment.

As mentioned above, an agogic moment is created when the therapist and the client are perceived as equal human beings. This equality is the humanization of the client. The client no longer feels inferior and can have a real relational moment. To create this atmosphere, the therapist must engage the client wherever they are and enter into that experiential space. As the therapist attempts to do this, the client can see the therapist as a partner in the growth process rather than invader of the client's space.

Finally, the power of growth is that of love. As I pointed out in my look at Chapter 1, humans were created to be in relationship with one another. We are created to be set in motion towards growth by others. Anderson writes, "The power of selfhood is response power." The overwhelmingly most important aspect of therapy is to create an environment where the client feels loved and cared for. It is only in this situation that any growth can occur.

Summary:
1) Growth is integrative, relational, and open to change.
2) Growth occurs in the agogic moment, where the motive to change is released.
3) The counselor is an equal partner in this growth.
4) Love is the fundamental ingredient to produce change.

2007-10-11T18:13:00.000-07:00

Chapter 2 of Christians who Counsel by Ray Anderson discusses the human being as an integrated being that must be counseled through integrative means. Anderson states that humans are a gestalt of subsystems that include the social, personal, sexual, psychical, and spiritual. People progress through these subsystems in a developmental fashion, although not in a cut and dry stage manner. We continue to have difficulties in each subsystem throughout our lifetimes and problems in one subsystem will often create problems in other subsystems.

A second way in which we must be integrative beings is that we need to grow in relationship to God, others, and ourself. If we have problems in one realm that will create problems in the other realms. These realms are placed on equal standing, with no one relationship being more important than the others, which means that our relationship with God is not considered to the primary issue through which all other relationships are subject. Instead, relationships with others and self are considered to be so categorically different that they must not be treated as inferior in the quest for wholeness.

In order to facilitate growth towards an integrated being, therapy must utilize hermeneutics, narrative, and eschatology. Hermeneutics means the process of interpreting. Thus, counseling needs to help the client re-interpret life events so that they will have different meaning, perhaps even a spiritual significance. Next, counseling utilizes narrative by allowing the client to see his or her story as placed within the story of his community and thereby creates a value-oriented world for the client to enter. Finally, counseling must involve a look at eschatology or the end times. Having an eternal perspective can allow the client to gather a more global view of the world and their own personal and social problems.

What I enjoyed about this chapter was that it was anthropological. It began with a look into what a whole human being ought to be and therefore provided a goal for where therapy could lead. This is helpful because many theories for counseling do not have a clear vision for health and therefore can potentially remove one pathology only to have it replaced with another. But the chapter also described how wholeness could be promoted through specific growth promoting processes. I enjoyed that the hermeneutical task was more than just changing specific beliefs but was focused on changing entire worldviews. Overall, I really thought that this chapter laid a solid foundation for which therapy could be built upon.

Being Human

2007-09-27T23:21:00.000-07:00

I will be beginning a series of blogs on the book, Christians who Counsel, by Ray Anderson. He begins chapter one discussing a theological anthropology of human relationships. In the creation account of Genesis 2, where God says that Adam is "not good" by himself, we can often be completely dismissive of the true significance of what is being said here. God admits that his presence is not sufficient for the human creature to be complete. Even after bringing the animals to Adam, God realized that Adam needed a companion that would be the female to his maleness.

This declaration that the solitary human is not good is important. From it we can correct any belief that we have that unhappiness in life is necessarily a spiritual issue, between God and the individual. Here we see that God created us to be in relationship with one another. That relationship is to be one of equality and co-laboring.

Personally I find that this theological truth relieves me from thinking that my spiritual growth only comes from private prayer and meditation and that social relations fell into a different category. On the contrary, it is clearly evident that God created us to be in relationship with both God and other humans. Jesus taught that the two greatest commandments are to obey God and love your neighbor. Neither can be separated from the other.

Anderson's conclusion is that there are three parts of being human that support one another. They are relating to yourself, relating to others, and relating to God. Relating to yourself properly means that you see yourself as God's creation and thus see value and purpose in your life and beauty in your life. Relating to others means that you have relationships that create meaning for your life and that allow for mutual help in times of need. Finally, relating to God means placing yourself in humble obedience to God's will and living in his grace.

This theological anthropology reminds us that we were created for real relationships and so true "spirituality" means that we are living with others in a vulnerable and open position. For therapists, it is the reminder that we can bring the kingdom of God simply by having fellowship with those who are in isolation, whether physically or emotionally. We can help people who have tried to live a full life in 2, 1, or even none of the three relational areas and bring them to wholeness in God's image for them.

Transforming Initiatives

2007-09-20T11:39:00.000-07:00

I've been taking a class in Christian Ethics over the summer that has really been opening me up to the Biblical view of how we should live out our Christian lives. My professor, Dr. Glen Stassen has suggested that the Sermon on the Mount ought to be the central focus of Christian ethics. Here Jesus talks about the Old Testament law and expands on each law. For example:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." (Matthew 5:21-23)

But while we often think that Jesus is merely raising the bar for us to make holiness a more difficult standard to obtain, we forget that, if that is what he is doing, he would simply be creating a more rigid legalism. But in fact that is not what Jesus does. Jesus does not say, "Do not get angry with your brother." It is not a command. But Jesus does command that, if our brother has something against us then we ought to go be reconciled. Jesus does not offer us legalism; he offers a solution.

Think that this is only the pattern here? Jesus does the same for nearly all of the other teachings. Jesus speaks in hyberbole regarding to lust saying, "If your eye causes you to sin, cut it out" (v. 29). Again, Jesus is providing a solution: lust leads to adultery so get yourself away from the situation that causes you to lust.

The real point is that Jesus offers us solutions, or as my professor calls them: transforming initiatives. These are ways to get ourselves out of the cycle of sin that we find ourselves within. It offers much more than a higher standard. It offers us a way to find freedom from sin. That, not legalism, is Jesus' way.

Waking Moments

2007-09-14T21:40:00.000-07:00

I think one of my most creative times is when I've woken up from sleep but haven't gotten out of bed. It seems that my mind has fewer restrictions and tends to free associate better. Perhaps it's the lying down that does it (which might explain Freud's technique).

The reason I'm writing this is because I have come up with several great ideas for blogs in the last few days when I have rising from my slumber and each time I've lost the idea over the course of the day. I hope that this serves as a reminder that my mind is a delicate instrument and sometimes I need to help it out with a few Post-It notes.

Climbing Mountains

2007-09-11T22:03:00.000-07:00

Last Sunday I hiked Mount Whitney. This 22 mile hike to the highest point in the lower 48 states was a grueling, intense accomplishment. But I had the advantage that I knew what to expect and I knew when it would be over. But sometimes life brings us mountains that remain in front of us for months and even years. Those types of mountains are the ones that truly test our perseverance and character.

I would like to think that climbing Mount Whitney proves that I am a tenacious and persevering man. But the truth is that my character is tested more often in the day to day. Just today I sat idly by while letting my dad and brother work on the sink, knowing that I had been asked a week ago to fix a broken faucet. And yesterday I spent about 4 or 5 hours on the Internet looking at clips from a TV show.

These seemingly small character flaws are my real mountains. I have long disliked my own tendencies to be lazy and unhelpful but progress in these areas has been slow. Times of growth have been thwarted by backsliding to old habits. The humbling truth is that I have not given myself completely to change in these areas. My true character has been revealed. But I like to think that, even if I have idled for awhile or even retreated, that I can head back up the mountain and make another attempt to change.

Psychiatrists Don't Tend to be Religious

2007-09-03T22:00:00.001-07:00

Psychiatry was found to be the least religious type of physician, according to a study published by Live Science. Why do religious people stray from religion? Perhaps it is because the history of psychoanalysis. But I think that this is just another reminder that psychology needs the input of Christianity to be more relevant to the general population.

Demons

2007-08-25T14:01:00.000-07:00

If you hang around Christians long enough, you will eventually hear about demons and evil spirits. Many Christians believe in spiritual warfare - that there are demons trying to lead us astray from God and angels who are fighting on our side. But in psychology you don't hear much about that. How can many people perceive demonic activity while psychology makes no mention of it?

I believe that sometimes people can call the same thing different names. This happens when people have different experiences, different languages, and different worldviews. So Christians often say that they are tempted by the devil while psychologists might say that we are tempted because people enjoy breaking the rules. The devil is external, the delight in breaking rules is internal.

But sometimes I wonder if we are not describing the same thing. How does a demon tempt us except through making our neurons fire in a certain pattern in our brain? Otherwise we would not even be thinking tempting thoughts. We now know that our experiences of the world occur through our body, so any demonic work would need to impose on our body to change our experiences. Hence why I think we may be calling the same phenomenon by different names.

A further similarity arises in how we effectively combat such problems. Those who believe in spiritual warfare pray to God for help in the midst of the challenge. Those who believe that it is only psychological learn to change their thinking patterns. In both, the solution is to focus on doing something (praying or thinking about something else) instead of focusing on the temptation.

I believe that we need to find solutions that allow us to stay in the presence of God. But for those who believe that demons are an artifact of ancient superstitions, therapists can help them find relief in other ways. Christian therapists ought to integrate faith into their counseling regardless of whether their clients believe in demons or maladaptive thoughts or anything else. Therapists can use the client's framework to help the client change because they are just using different words for the same experiences.

Back From Vacation

2007-08-18T21:42:00.000-07:00

I am back from my time in Oregon and San Francisco. It was a fun vacation, filled with star-gazing, swimming, hiking, time with family, and seeing the sites.

On Vacation

2007-08-06T22:08:00.000-07:00

For the next ten days I will be on vacation in Oregon and San Francisco. I'm looking forward to time with family and time to relax. You may have noticed that my rate of posting has slowed and I'm hoping that I will soon become refilled with the passion to write more consistently again. Adios!

The Porn Myth

2007-08-03T14:14:00.000-07:00

I wanted to share a link to an article I just read on pornography by Naomi Wolf. She argues that pornography has made our culture less truly sexual. By exposing men and women to further extremes of beauty and "eroticism," pornography has only made men less connected to women and women less happy with their bodies. Not only are men objectifying women more, but the higher standards are causing men to check out from reality more. Check it out, it's a good read.

Trends in Brain Imaging

2007-07-26T23:26:00.001-07:00

Brain imaging, such as fMRI, is becoming increasingly more popular. In fact, that brain you see on the right is my brain. I participated in a study at CalTech on pain and mental associations. Sure they shocked my foot while showing pictures to me (seriously!), but I got some money and - based on the lack of a silicone chip - a little more certainty that I am not a cybernetic robot.

But what does all this mental imaging mean for the future? An article reports that when making ethical decisions people use parts of their brains where old memories are stored. Thus those ethics training seminars aren't going to be very effective because are ethical decisions are based on what we learned as kids.

But we're still on the cusp of what neuroimaging can find. And that means we're going to get better at reading people based on how their brains work. Can we predict who will be the best psychologist based on the layout of their brain? Can we pinpoint child molesters, violent offenders, and antisocials based on their brain scans? What would that mean for believing in free will? And what about when we find out things about ourselves that we don't like? What will all that do to our society?

I'm not pessimistic about the future. But I do think it is important to pose questions before we have any of the answers. I hope that we figure out how to use this information for good.

Perfectionism and the Spiritual Disciplines

2007-07-18T20:13:00.001-07:00

I was recently wondering whether I should cut down on the amount of TV that I watch. Over the summer months I often will become engrossed with television and spend countless hours channel surfing. Sometimes I can become so entranced that I feel almost like I cannot stop watching. So I started considering whether I should just quit watching television altogether. When I mentioned this to a mentor, he quickly started trying to investigate my motives. He suspected that perfectionism was the root cause of my desire to quit.

I can't blame him for his conclusion. When probing for the reasons behind why I want to stop completely, all I could muster up were appeals to what is "normal" and feeling like I had to stop. Many of the motivations behind wanting to stop were a grand delusion that once I stopped watching TV, that I would soon morph into a perfect Christian. I would be caring, compassionate, and interested in the lives of others. And I would like myself.

That final bit is what leads me to think he was right, in part. When I think about it, the fact that I do not like myself now says much about how I will feel about myself if I actually change my behavior. It seems pretty likely that I won't really like myself entirely if I did stop watching TV. I cannot accept where I am today, even though I have tried really hard to get where I am. So maybe my insecurity is deeper than a remote control.

One thing I need to understand is that no matter how disciplined I am, if I cannot accept imperfection, I won't be happy. The spiritual disciplines can soothe my insecurities for a little while, but unless I hare real soul change then my life will not be any more satisfying - nor more loving. So I must pray for God to turn me into a person who accepts his grace and lets that gift, rather than my own perfectionism, drive my obedience to his will.

Authenticity

2007-07-13T23:30:00.001-07:00

Have you ever wondered why we have a layer of being that is below everything that seems to completely liberate us when we find it. Or maybe wonder at why we don't operate at that level more? I'm talking about that way of relating that makes us feel completely content. You feel after you've had a long heart-to-heart or when you've shared a secret that has been pressing down on you and been received with grace.

I think it is one of the mysteries of life why we were created with the need for authenticity. That seems to be what is behind our enjoyment of such times. We thrill at having authentic relationships.

I think the joy we feel at such moments reveals a lot about the way we ought to live our lives. The scariest moments of life are when we reveal something sacred about ourselves to someone else. But, when handled right, those are the most blessed moments as well. I can't resist putting it in spiritual terms because there seems to be nothing mundane about such moments of meeting.

I wish I could live my life with more authenticity. When I was in therapy, I found it difficult to open up and reveal what was at my core. I deeply longed to be called out, to be invited into authentic relationship. But such times and such relationships are scarce. Although I find that I can be sustained by these moments for a long time, I still long for such times to come with more regularity. I want to pour out my heart to someone without holding anything back.

I wish that I could learn to live with less fear of authenticity. I wish I had the capacity to live authentically at every moment. I feel that this kind of relationship is the one that God craves. I believe that God desires it more than anything else. Because out of such authenticity does true connection come. And in that connection there seems to be a power that grows us in love. If only we could find that power more often as we go about our lives.

Lucky

2007-07-10T12:53:00.000-07:00

Saturday was supposed to be the luckiest day of the millennium. It was 7/7/07. But why do people believe in luck? If the world has an order then being lucky would only mean that the outcome turned out against the odds. But people seem to believe that they are going to experience some great event - that luck is coming their way.

I think that the belief in luck is simply part of our inherent desire for hope. When we hope that luck will go our way, we are awakening a desire in us for something to look forward to. When people hope they will be lucky, they are looking forward. But when they realize that it hasn't gone their way, they blame their misfortunes on being unlucky.

If luck is based on hope, then believing in luck makes sense. We are hardwired to be hopeful. Of course depression can disrupt that hardwiring. But I think it says something about what people are craving when they believe in luck. They want something to hope for.

Relational Evil

2007-07-03T09:59:00.000-07:00

In my young adult class at church, we've been trying to figure out what constitutes evil. In a world where absolute morality has lost its appeal, we need to envision culturally relevant and intellectually sophisticated arguments for the reality of evil. Rather than seeing evil as trespassing an archaic rule, it seems that we need to gain an understanding of evil that respects those rules while finding a deeper and truer principle. So we've developed this definition of evil:

Evil is a system that breaks relational ties with God, with others, with myself, and with nature.

Thus, evil is anything that destroys a relationship. Now we are by no means the ones that came up with such a definition. But I hope that I can help popularize such a view as I believe that it encompasses all evil in the world. Not only does it condemn those actions that are obviously evil, such as murder, theft, and idolatry, but it also helps us see actions such as insensitivity to others as being evil as well.

Now I'm aware that the acceptance of this definition hinges on the ability of individuals to recognize that connectedness is a good thing. And there are plenty of people who wish to be islands to themselves. But I believe that at some level all people recognize that they need to be harmony with the universe.

Such a definition is tricky. Because it means that we are labeling as evil acts that were not done with malicious intentions. But I believe that as we become more spiritually aware, we will see that we have sinned against all creation by our self-centeredness and greed. What are your thoughts?

Drugs and Spirituality

2007-06-20T22:21:00.000-07:00

Many Christians believe that taking prescription drugs for mental illness is tantamount to a lack of faith. I believe the reason is that people wrongly believe that their spiritual nature is greater than their physical nature. Although this problem occasionally becomes evident when people refuse medical treatment in order to be healed of general medical conditions, this way of thinking is more rampant in regards to mental illness.

I'm taking a Psychopharmacology course and my professor, Dr. Archibald Hart, suggests that the reason for this belief is that people lack a comprehensive theology of creation. That is to say, people don't know how God works in creation. Specifically, people remain ignorant as to the physicality of our minds. God created us with miraculously complex brains that can sometimes go awry, just like other body parts. If we come to grips with this truth, we will find that drugs are merely a way to restore our body to it's "natural" condition.

Sex and the Human Spirit

2007-06-16T22:34:00.000-07:00

I read an interesting article in Relevant Magazine on chastity. Unfortunately I could not find the article online so I am reflecting on it by memory.

The author pointed out that there is a difference between abstinence and chastity. Abstinence is merely not doing it while chastity is something much more. Being chaste means valuing purity as a way of life. I liked this important differentiation because it highlights that sexual purity is more than merely a lack of behaviors. I'd posit that the reason that abstinence pledges tend not to be very effective is that they do not acknowledge the values and thoughts that lead to a chaste lifestyle.

The second point that I appreciated hearing anew was that sexual intimacy without emotional attachment is unhealthy. While most people in our culture tend to think that guilt over sexual acting out is a symptom of an unhealthy approach to sexuality, the author argued that the opposite was actually true. Those who can detach themselves from their sexual experiences are often quite emotionally unhealthy.

On this second point I'd like to add a few of my own thoughts. I have come to appreciate more and more the unified nature of our selves. We cannot detach our bodies from our emotions. As such, the belief that we can share ourselves in a physically intimate way without emotional intimacy is ungrounded.

In addition, I believe that the large majority of human sexuality is actually not caused by "sexual" arousal. I have noticed in myself the drive for sexuality is increased when I feel disconnected and lonely. And I also notice that there are numerous links between sexuality and fear and anger and selfishness. I think healthy sexuality will come when we recognize that our cravings are not for human flesh but for spirit and relationship.

Care to disagree? Please share your thoughts.

What Makes a Church Healthy?

2007-06-12T16:47:00.000-07:00

One area where I dabble in is the assessment of churches. I am contracted labor for a small business that does consulting for churches to help them improve. We have some ways of assessing what defines a healthy, growing church but I want to take a second look here.

Now I've grown up in a fairly large church. So I'm biased towards a more institutionalized church where there is little contact with pastors. But most churches have less than 500 members and the pastor(s) have the opportunity to really connect with their congregation.

1) New ideas are welcome and managed well. I believe a healthy church will open itself up to the input of the congregation. Now, this can be dangerous because it can distance members if their ideas aren't taken up. But it also creates a sense of identity and ownership so that people can get excited about their own church.

2) The church has events and activities that the whole church can get excited about. Whether it is a church-wide picnic or a missions fundraising project, the church needs to create a sense of unity and reliance on one another.

3) A feeling of being at home. This is rather elusive but I think there are some defining characteristics. The first is that people talk to one another. The second is that the church building feels welcoming and does not provoke anxiety (i.e. poor parking, etc). The third is that people take personal interest in maintaining the property. Finally, there is a routine that can be counted upon.

4) Music is enjoyable. I can't tell you how important this seems to be to a lot of church members. This is a difficult task to accomplish as the older folks tend to enjoy the hymns while the younger crowd likes more modern music. But either by having numerous services with different types of music or by blending the two types together, music needs to be of high enough quality to draw people in.

These are by no means exhaustive. In fact, they are just some that I thought were important to me. But I think it is important to consider what qualities are important for churches to provide a safe place to grow closer to God.

Fundamentalism

2007-06-06T15:51:00.000-07:00

As a neo-evangelical that has emerged out of fundamentalism, I have come to see that certain views that I once thought were inescapably Christian are actually the result of reactionary trends in populist views that have emerged neither from Scripture nor church tradition, but rather from a desire to concretize the abstract and dynamic nature of faith. First let me unpack that a little bit with some definitions. By neo-evangelical, I mean that I see myself as holding to the core elements of Christian faith, including but not limited to the belief in the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, salvation through faith and not works, and the induction into a community of believers referred to as the church. By fundamentalist I mean those individuals who have ascribed to an approach towards faith that is dogmatic and uninformed, choosing to retreat to individualistic and propositional belief statements rather than engage in the changing contexts of their cultural surroundings.

Like I said in the opening statement, I came out of a fundamentalist background. Although I do not see my church nor my parents as fundamentalist, I had such a fear of uncertainty that I embraced a worldview that saw the Bible as inerrant, evolution as false, liberals as evil, and my own mind as the best manager of truth. I had been discouraged from incorporating scientific findings into my worldview because they were in contrast with Biblical witness, and therefore wrong.

Fundamentalism represents the most widespread religious understanding among Christians. There is no one criterion for fundamentalism but in general it is the placing of faith and science in conflict against one another. Now, while I cannot explore the fallacies of fundamentalism, Biblically and logically, in this blog for lack of time and expertise, I do want to begin a discussion on what the repercussions are. Because I think a fundamentalist mindset can lead to a number of unhealthy approaches to living.

The first is that science is only to be trusted if it agrees with preconceived notions of Christianity. Despite the clear evidence that these notions have been wrong in the past (e.g. Galileo), people continue to trust their gut instinct (sometimes coined as the Holy Spirit) to determine what is true or not. Such an approach is grounded in pride and results in the person becoming unwilling to take on the perspectives of others. This devotion to one's own belief above love of neighbor causes rifts in relationships with others.

The second is that the Bible is looked at as a source of truth statements. While in reality the Bible is written primarily as a narrative of the story of the people of God, fundamentalists see the Bible as being an instruction book for living. While the Bible does inform us as to how we ought to live, this is done through stories of people struggling and failing and invites us to enter that story.

The third is believing in the dualism of mind (or spirit or soul) and body. Believing that people have a soul is common. And while I don't discourage people to hold such beliefs, I do discourage holding to the complete worldview that such beliefs encourage. Such a worldview would discount the impact of mental illness, including imbalances in neurochemicals, because the mind or soul is the ultimate cause of all action. In other words, mental illness would be seen as a weak soul or lack of faith. Rather than fully considering our embodied nature, which limits our free will, dualists pretend that all lifestyles and ways of thinking can be transcended by the soul through the Holy Spirit.

While there is much more to say I will stop there. I hope that Christians recognize fundamentalism for what it is - an unbiblical approach to truth and faith - and begin to incorporate true faith, which has room for doubting and uncertainty.

Not Disciplined for Spiritual Disciplines?

2007-06-02T14:16:00.000-07:00

One person in ten reads the Bible daily. Of course, there are plenty of people who aren't interested in doing so. But there are still others who wish they would read the Bible daily, kind of like hoping they could stick to their diet. Most people suggest that it is a lack of time that gets in their way. But could this really be the case for Americans, who have the time to watch a 2 hour finale of American Idol? I would say not. I think there are psychological obstacles to reading the Bible.

1. Many think the Bible is too long, the language is too difficult, and that it would take a great deal of time to actually read it. But, while the Bible is undoubtedly thick, that is because it actually is comprised of 66 books, all of which are manageable to read in a month. I also recommend that if you find reading the Bible to be difficult, find a different translation. The NIV is written at a 7th grade reading level, and is one of the most popular translations available, but an even better selection for those who have difficulty reading the dense language is the New Living Translation (NLT). Finally, just remember that you don't have to read a whole book in one sitting. Reading one chapter in a sitting can be easily accomplished in ten minutes and makes a good habit just before bed.

2. Although I discounted it earlier, finding time to read the Bible is often a real obstacle. People can sometimes genuinely want to read their Bible but they only remember at times when they are too busy to read. When time is available, people usually just go into passive mode and never even think about reading their Bible. One good way is to read the Bible when waking up or going to sleep. While this is a habit that may take awhile to catch on, these are times where the mind can become prepared for the day ahead or settled down from the day that has passed. Keeping the Bible on the bedstand can be a good reminder.

3. Failure can stop a person in their tracks. Some people try reading their Bible regularly. Then they miss a day or two and suddenly they find it impossible to start again. I think there are two things that you can tell yourself when this happens. First, "This is a new habit so of course I'm not going to do it perfectly. I'm human and I forget sometimes." This reminds you that you are in the midst of a process in which there is a lot of grace. Second, "I want this because it will remind me of ... (God's love for me, how I need to live, or whatever motivates you)." This second one reminds you that you are trying to read out of desire rather than obligation. This is more effective than saying, "I should read my Bible" because that means you are being forced from a power outside yourself rather than making the decision for yourself.

4. Many people, although they wouldn't admit it, feel like the Bible makes them feel guilty. People don't want to be reminded of religious beliefs that contradict their lifestyle. This is a tricky one. In fact, I think this is the most important obstacle to overcome. I noted above that we should remind ourselves why we want to read our Bible and that it should our personal desire. If we are motivated by guilt, then reading the Bible will only last for so long. Instead, we need to be dissatisfied by our life enough to see reading the Bible as a means for change. If we have that mindset then we look at reading the Bible as something that is a positive step for ourselves and thus experience no guilt in it. We may have sins pointed out as we read, but even then we do not wallow in our guilt but rather, by looking at the benefits of a Christian life, find renewed purpose to change.

Empowered or Powerless?

2007-05-31T13:54:00.001-07:00

You probably would never read my blog and think I'm a feminist. But I do find feminist thought to be enlightening and helpful. Feminist theory seeks to understand how contextual factors shape our experiences. Issues of power and disenfranchisement play into how we view the world and ourselves. But I read an article recently (Gammell & Stoppard, 1999) that helped me be more critical of some of the underlying principles of feminism. The study looked at how women can feel disempowered when they are prescribed drugs for mental illness, such as depression. The authors worked from a standpoint grounded in feminist theory. The authors correctly identified that some of the participants felt like they had little or no control over their mental illness. Yet I disagreed with how they made the argument that feeling like one does not have control over situations is necessarily a bad thing.

Rather than seeing depression as something which they have power over, women (and the same is probably true for men as well) can feel like they have no control over their depression. Being informed that your mood problems arise out of an imbalance in brain chemicals can lead to such a conclusion. If someone sees this as another indicator that they cannot change anything, this is psychologically harmful. But isn't it possible that disempowerment can actually be a feeling of powerlessness. The difference between disempowerment and powerlessness, in my mind, is that powerlessness is a much more neutral term that describes the state rather than the emotions. While I think that people ought to feel like they have control over their life, it is nevertheless important to properly assess the reality of our powerlessness in certain situations. I therefore do not think that powerlessness is inherently bad.

The truth is that there are many issues in life that are beyond our control. That includes mental illness. Realizing one's powerlessness does not mean that a person should feel like less of a person. Instead, as my pastor puts it, we can try to be "life size" - neither bigger nor smaller than we really are. The article continued to label the feeling that one cannot control one's mental health as disempowerment - a term with clearly negative connotations - when I feel that powerless is a better way to describe it. I also thought that powerlessness better described the way the participants saw their situations. Sometimes we have to face up with the fact that we have limits.

How We Talk

2007-05-25T23:02:00.000-07:00

Last year I wrote a post entitled The Language of Healing where I argued that the language of psychology is inferior to the language of the Bible. I had been thinking about language recently and I re-read it for this post, as it had completely fallen from my mind. There I argued that words such as addiction, resistant, and pathology were psychological words that are inferior to the Bible's perspective. I want to soften my perspective some here but also add to it some new insights.

I think that language shapes the way we see the world. Naming things allows us to have power over them. Could I understand forgiveness if I was never taught the words and the stories of forgiveness? I doubt not well. In fact, part of my education involves gaining a new vocabulary that allows me to think more sophisticatedly about humanity.

In the last post, a commenter mentioned how the word "powerless" had been found to be ineffective in capturing the experiences of the people he had worked with in a 12 step group. The vocabulary of the steps was difficult to comprehend because they saw that they could have power. In such times we learn to hold our words loosely. Although we know that learning these new words can reshape our thinking, we also try to find words that are liberating and lead us to who we want to be.

Reflecting back on that blog, I still see that words and phrases like hard-hearted, slave to sin, dying to one's self, and sin can be words that bring freedom or oppression. For some people these words cannot be received because they carry the weight of shame that has been stirred up by some in the church. In that case, that person needs to find the words that will bring them what they are looking for: "liberation," "relief," "healthy living," "satisfaction," "freedom from sin," or "salvation." They can even choose the words to describe what they seek, often what lies behind the words is not so different.

But one thing we should not do is search for words on our own. Often this leads us straight to talking about our life in either too condemning or too accepting terms. It is wrong to do either. The better way is to enter into a community who is journeying towards what you value and is speaking a language that you can understand, if only in part at first. Learning to speak the truth in love and being spoken to in love.

But the best way is to be multilingual. We need to develop multiple "languages" that help us think critically about our lives from each perspective. For me this means studying theology alongside psychology - along with the Christianeze that is sometimes bad-mouthed beyond its due. You probably already speak some languages in part - from your family, your culture, the media, and a number of other sources. Develop the languages of the people you admire.

Remember that Christ introduced a new language to speak of God. He spoke of the Kingdom of God. He spoke about light and darkness, the truth, and God's forgiveness. Jesus was the word.

The Addiction Tightrope

2007-05-19T22:07:00.000-07:00

For Christians who believe in moral culpability, the concept of addiction is a sticky one. Very few deny that addictions can occur for various controlling substances and most do not deny behavioral addictions, such as gambling and sex addiction. The question remains: where is our free will? Most people believe that people with addictions have some free will and ability to choose. However, the experience of many of those who cannot overcome addiction is that they do not. Who is right?

I probably stand on the side that sympathizes more with those who are addicted. I believe that they have very little resources to be able to stop their behavior. In fact, I think that, on their own, they have almost no control over their addiction. The problem is that most addicts and most critics of addicts think in terms of controlling their addictive behavior. This is not helpful. This only leads to more frustration and hopelessness.

Addicts typically do not have power over their addiction. But they do have control in other areas of their lives, which can have power over their addiction. The whole premise of the 12 step program is that God can do for you what you could not do for yourself. While I cannot resolve whether or not addicts have control over their addictive behavior, I do not need to. Those who have become addicted to substances or behaviors can always find their "higher power" in order to be free. Why debate whether or not we can have control over our actions? With God's help, problems can be resolved.

We are all slaves to sin. We ought to learn these same lessons for ourselves.

As a final note, most people have tried to cry out to God for help. God does not desire momentary wishes for freedom; God wills that we give our lives over to him completely. In that lifestyle of surrender, there is freedom from addiction and slavery.

Homosexuality and Therapy

2007-05-16T21:37:00.000-07:00

I have a set of beliefs about whether or not a homosexual lifestyle is sinful. Is it right for me to share that with my clients? Is it right for me to implicitly make them question the moral nature of their behavior, suggesting that it is inappropriate? Is it right for me to help them simply to behave however they want but free from guilt? I don't think any of these are correct. The following thoughts may not be helpful for those who do not think of homosexuality as sin, but for those who do, I hope it allows you to see how therapy can help a client without confronting them.

What is the role of a therapist? To alleviate mental illness. What is the role of a Christian therapist? To alleviate mental illness within the light of the presence of God. A therapist would simply want to help the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender client transition into their new lifestyle in a manner that decreases their mental illness. A Christian therapist differs in two main ways. The first is by allowing the moral language of the client to unfold. The client may have ambivalent feelings towards their own behavior and these should not be stripped of their moral content. The second is by creating a longing for God. Regardless of the faith of the client, simply helping the client accept that the world is unjust can lead to enhanced spirituality. By keeping the moral language of the client and by fostering a spiritual longing, the therapist is actually helping the client learn a way of critical thinking and relating that allows them to continue to pursue God while still alleviating their mental illness.

Why shouldn't therapists confront "sinful behavior"? To some degree, the therapist's viewpoints will certainly escape at some point. However, direct confrontation can actually harm the work of therapy and can cause the client to retreat. By fostering the moral language and desire for spirituality in the client, the therapist may actually allow the client to become a more faithful follower of God than by directly challenging them. The client has almost certainly already heard that homosexuality is a sin, the therapist who reminds them disempowers clients from making their own decisions.

Therapists must also remain humble. I've heard the arguments that suggest that homosexuality is not a sin, teleologically and Scripturally, and they have some weight to them. I should not be so prideful to claim the truth without question. Finally, love towards our clients should underlie everything we do. Within our cultural context, many people with alternative sexual orientations are not willing to accept that their behavior is sinful. By remembering that God's kindness, not his condemnation, leads to repentance, we can show grace to all people.

Moral Development

2007-05-15T17:06:00.000-07:00

I had a conversation with my faculty adviser today and he was bouncing some ideas off me about issues he had been thinking about. One thing he brought up was regarding the story in Joshua about how the Israelites were told to kill all inhabitants: men, women, and children. His argument was that God was doing this to develop Israel's moral character. How you might ask? Well, most nations would take the women and children as slaves. Therefore, war became a financial enterprise. Naturally, you might respond: isn't taking slaves better than killing off an entire people? But his argument was that this actually was a progression forward in their moral development because it allowed them to see war in light of their role as the people of God rather than in terms of financial gain. It allowed Israel to turn away from the common practices of the surrounding nations to invade other lands to turn people into commodities. This was actually a building block towards a more peaceful nation.

My reflection on this is that our moral development does not always follow logical paths. Instead of becoming more moral through church attendance, we seem to gain our desire for perfection from becoming aware of our faults. God might let us become cynical about the church in order to plant a seed inside of us to want to change the church. The truth is that God's morality does not always fit with what our culture thinks is right. It doesn't even fit with what Christian culture thinks is right all the time. But God works within all of us to develop us to what we can handle.

The Support of God

2007-05-04T22:58:00.000-07:00

I noted in a previous post that the idea that Christians benefit from believing that God supports them has often gone unmentioned. Most people choose to point to the social support available for religious people as the explanation for how they benefit in various ways, such as health, parental ability, etc. But the experience of being supported by God should not be neglected. Yes, the church is often the hand of God in difficult circumstances. But praying to God is a source of comfort and assurance for many.

God is, of course, more than just an experience. But the experience of God's presence can be powerful in helping people see through crisis and see purpose. While I often try to reason my way through difficult situations, by trying to figure out what is the best way to handle a problem, when I pray I experience clarity and discernment that surpasses my reasoning in the moment. I believe God grants insight and direction for those who seek him out. To neglect that ministry in our lives would be tantamount to saying God is unnecessary for religion.

The God Who Feels

2007-05-01T22:08:00.000-07:00

Those of us who belong to the Christian faith believe in a God who feels. God has revealed his redemption through sorrow and pain. He has delivered us into a life that was meant to be filled with joy. We worship a God who weeps when confronted with death, becomes furious when confronted with injustice, and sweats drops of blood out of fear of upcoming agony.

Our God is not dispassionate. He is full of life and all the various emotions that go along with living.

For humans that have been created in God's image and who are instructed to be like Jesus, God's incarnated son, the lesson is clear. We are to live out our lives in the midst of a wide sea of emotions. Amongst our feelings of anger, fear, joy, sadness, and even sexuality, let us find the life God has set before us to live.

Great Website on Faith and Psychology

2007-04-30T09:13:00.000-07:00

In case you haven't clicked the link here on my blog, if you are interested in psychology and Christianity then you really should check out http://www.mindandsoul.info There are resources for people suffering from mental illness, as well as clergy and those in the helping profession. Also, check out Rob Waller's blog here - he is a psychiatrist who has regularly posted comments on my blog.

Parental Religiousity is Good for the Kids

2007-04-25T08:53:00.000-07:00

I just read a study on the positive effect of parent religiosity on children's social skills , self-control, and approaches to learning. To some who think that religion breeds intolerance, such studies may prove to be enlightening of the beneficial aspects of religious involvement. Here's some interesting quotes from the article:

"Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children."

"The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services... were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents."

"Bartkowski thinks religion can be good for kids for three reasons. First, religious networks provide social support to parents, he said, and this can improve their parenting skills."

"Secondly, the types of values and norms that circulate in religious congregations tend to be self-sacrificing and pro-family."

"Finally, religious organizations imbue parenting with sacred meaning and significance, he said."

The study noted that secular interventions designed to accomplish the same goals were not as effective and the study did not have an answer as to why this might be.

Living in an Emotional World

2007-04-19T21:59:00.000-07:00

It is easy to forget that we live in a world infused with emotion. But in grad school it can become more visible, as students are stretched beyond their prior capacities in a setting that has a variety of stressful experiences. In fact, burnout is expected among long-term graduate students; there is little way around it. And while I am studying psychology, I can still be oblivious to the emotions of my fellow classmates, as well as my own occasionally, and that just seems to highlight why this issue is so important.

Emotions are unavoidable. We are feeling creatures. And we are affected by these feelings and emotions in how we behave and think. Burnout can make us grumpy and resentful. Depression can make us lethargic, unmotivated, and sullen. Sometimes we can only perceive our emotions from how we are acting. Such interpretations are unnatural and typically occur at the rational level. But noticing our emotions, based on how we are behaving, can be useful in making changes. And imagining the emotion in another person can allow us to have greater empathy for them. We live in an emotional world. Best get used to it!

Intellectual Surrender

2007-04-19T21:45:00.000-07:00

When two intelligent, faithful people hold two opposite positions, what are we to make of it? Do we consider that one is right and one is wrong? Do we think that both may be right? or both wrong? How does it shape the way we see our own opinions?

Sometimes I have to forcefully bend my mind to recognize the point of view of other people. I actually have to remind myself, "This is an intelligent person who knows a lot about what they are talking about." So I can empathize with anyone who has difficulty in seeing a problem from another person's view. Whether it be spouses, siblings, friends, or neighbors, we all find ourselves making different conclusions about the world around us.

When faced with the possibility of being wrong we can become defensive and angry. But this shuts out new knowledge to correct us. I think we need to learn the practice of intellectual surrender. We just need to admit that the other person could be right. That is sometimes all it takes to see we are in the wrong. But at the very least, that humility puts us in the position to be understanding and care for the other person's feelings.

Christians and The Image Problem

2007-04-18T17:41:00.000-07:00

Christianity has an image problem. In America, Christians are seen as homophobic, closed-minded, superstitious individuals who are concerned only with getting their way. Abroad the problem is more that Christianity is associated with America, which means Christians are seen as materialistic, immoral, and narcissistic war-mongers. In a religion that desires to be recognized by our love (John 13:35) this seems like a problem.

Does this problem need to be reconciled? Shouldn't we just be faithful to what our religion is concerned about and pursue it regardless of what others think? Not exactly. The problem is that Christians have long pitted themselves against the values of non-Christians. But we need to recognize that Christians are not the only ones concerned with doing good. While we should not abandon our faith to be accepted by others, I think we should be retooling to address the issues that Christians and the world converge on. These issues include solving global poverty, becoming more eco-friendly, and finding a way to create a more peaceful society.

When Christians focus on issues like homosexual marriage, they distance themselves from non-Christians and appear unloving (even if the pursuit is done with honest heart). And I think it matters how we are seen by others. I think Christians ought to find points of unity where we can live in harmony with others of different beliefs from ourselves.

Important Qualities of a Modern Day American Christian

2007-04-12T10:21:00.000-07:00

My pastor challenged me to think of 10 qualities that are important to develop in present day Christians. The list below is not systematic nor is it comprehensive. The qualities are numbered but keep in mind that they are not being ranked in order of importance.

1) Global awareness - appreciation of global problems
2) Prayerfulness - relationship with God that infuses all of life
3) Community mindedness - both valuing and building community
4) Integrity - ethical behavior in work, school, and personal relationships
5) Compassion for others - willingness to learn how to help others
6) Self-awareness - understanding thought patterns and behavioral habits
7) Peacefulness - desire for peace with others, both politically and interpersonally
8) Service - Working to help the church by serving others, both inside and outside the church
9) Sense of Christian Identity - becoming comfortable with the positives and negatives of being a Christian and knowing how to represent Christ well, in both words and action
10) Discipline - ability to practice spiritual disciplines, both individually and within a community

With What Authority?

2007-04-07T21:32:00.000-07:00

Sometimes we can enter into a situation and think that we ought to have a hand in it, only to find out that there is nothing we can do. Take driving for example, you may have a dangerous driver swerving through traffic behind you and think - why should I get out of this guy's way? He may end up tailgating until there's enough space for him to sneak past you. In a way, this is you trying to teach the other guy a lesson. Or perhaps you go for the tactless move and just flip him the bird. Basically you believe that you have the authority to dictate how he should drive.

I was listening to a John Eldridge book on cd called the Power of Prayer. One of the topics he points out is that we cannot demand God to act in areas where we don't have authority. I see this as informing all of our relations - do we have the authority to try to change something? Maybe it's driving, maybe it's with another person's clothes or behavior, maybe it's the weather.

Adam and Eve were granted authority over all creation. But after eating the forbidden fruit, they lost full authority and had to settle for partial authority. We have authority over certain areas: ourselves, our family, our car, our house, our safety, etc. These are things that we are connected to us or belong to us, perhaps only temporarily. But most of the world is not under our authority. Still with me? Authority is the right to control something or someone in some form - direct or indirect - and that right is bestowed sparingly.

In reality we experience this all the time. We try to convince, persuade, manipulate, teach, or guide, in other words control, someone else but they do not obey us because we lack any real connection with them. Even in close relationships, like marriage, we are still only entitled a small amount of authority over our spouse and this becomes evident as they continue to disappoint one another. On the flip side, we realize that we can only do what we want to an extent; we are bound to honor the needs of those around us.

The reason I like thinking in terms of authority is because when I question what right I have to being in authority over another person, I realize I have very little. With the bad driver that I mentioned in the beginning, I have no authority to tell them how to drive, the police do, but I do have authority over my own life. So by thinking in terms of authority I do what I have a right to - I get out of their way as soon as possible. If I would insist on pretending to have authority over the other driver, they would certainly not be happy with me and I would not be exercising wise care over my safety.

Unfortunately I think I embarked on a bigger topic than I can write in a single blog. But what I want you to consider is that we have much smaller spheres on influence, or authority, than we think (the exception is public figures who often do not live up to their authority and instead follow their own passions and desires). I also want you to consider what authority people have over you. One thing that Jesus has called us to is to be servants to others. That means putting ourselves under the authority of others. Ask yourself, how can I submit to the will and desires of others, without yielding my own authority, so as to better serve others?

Being Culturally Different

2007-04-05T14:56:00.000-07:00

I sometimes forget that I'm white. I don't think about being white when I go to the grocery store. I don't think about it when I'm in class. But not too long ago I was in the library and I suddenly realized that every person in that particular part of the library was Asian. I instantly felt out of place. I actually asked myself whether I had intruded into a study session which I was not invited to. Gradually I came to my senses and realized that it was just a coincidence. But it made me more aware of what it can feel like to be ethnically different.

Some people, like me, need reminders of what it feels like to be different. But, if you are a minority, you probably get more than enough of that experience already. My mind had automatically jumped to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy of some sort happening in the library where one people group would congregate in a particular location. I think cultural issues took on a personal feeling after that experience. I can now use that experience as a landmark for understanding how people sometimes, although it may be "paranoid" and "irrational," assume that there is prejudice against them - that they are unwanted strangers.

I hope I learn to use that experience to guide the way I treat others. Reminding myself of what my mind can assume is a good place to start in learning to accept another person's insecurities. While I hope that I go beyond mere welcoming, I hope that I can remember just how lonely it can be to think that I'm an extra piece to an already finished puzzle.

Christian vs. Christ Follower

2007-04-01T22:26:00.000-07:00

Thought I'd post this for anyone who hasn't seen it. Although I like the lesson that we don't necessarily have to show off our Christianity to others, I sometimes wonder if cynicism is the right approach to make a point. It makes it seem that if something appears funny to the culture then it is wrong. Though I sometimes resort to cynicism too, I prefer to find common ground with other Christians (or Christ-followers) and proceed with love. Although it may not be as funny, I believe that it is the best way to build unity within the body of believers.

Christian Ethics in Research

2007-03-29T23:13:00.000-07:00

I've been working on my master's research project over the last few months and have, at times, lost sight of the bigger picture. But one thing I hope is that my Christian faith will be apparent by the quality of research I do, both scientifically and ethically. You see, as a Christian, I believe that I am not only called to follow ethical rules (like respecting confidentiality, not fudging my results, etc.) but also that I should work as if working for the Lord (Col. 3:23). For research that means researching topics that are beneficial to practitioners and researchers, having sound methodology, and doing a proper literature review. Thankfully I'm being supervised in such a way that these should not be an issue.

As my research develops, I will certainly update you on my progress. Thankfully I'm working on a topic that I am excited about. Perhaps this post can be a reminder to you to consider how you can better honor God in your work. From tent-makers to cupbearers, the Bible is full of hard working individuals whose work habits flow from their relationship with God. Hopefully, more Christians might find joy in doing the work that is before them.

Reconciling Individual Differences

2007-03-27T22:08:00.000-07:00

One difficulty in working as a therapist - well it's a difficulty in being a person, too - is that you have to learn to see things from a perspective that you aren't really used to. I was reminded of that in my diversity lecture this morning. I am well aware that I can be a bit pig-headed at times. I'm ruthless about being on time to things and expect the same of others. I expect others to listen to what I have to say but don't extend the same courtesy.

The trouble is that I can become so stuck in my way of thinking that I can miss the perspectives of others. I think there are two parts to it. The first part is that I like to be right because it validates my judgment and makes me feel safe. The second part is that I like to be admired for being right. The problem is that I can sometimes only acquire that respect by proving that the other person is wrong. And I pursue these ends despite all evidence to the contrary. This is simply self-centeredness.

I believe that loving others requires us to humbly put down our entitlement to be correct. We must begin listening and learning from others. I try to remind myself every day to surrender my right to be right. Are there any areas in your life where you struggle with seeing things from another's point of view? What is keeping you from listening?

Men Versus Women

2007-03-21T23:59:00.000-07:00

In my neuropsychology class that I recently finished, we learned about sex differences in cognitive functioning. The book published the results of a number of studies done on different areas of cognitive and motor abilities. So the question you've been dying to know - who is more gifted, men or women? - has finally been answered. See the results below:

Men scored points (do better) in: target throwing and catching, mental rotation, spatial navigation, geographical knowledge, and mathematical reasoning.

Women scored points in: fine motor skills, spatial memory, computation, sensitivity to sensory stimuli, perceptual speed, sensitivity to facial and body expression, visual recognition memory, fluency, and verbal memory.

Men: 5 Women: 9

Of course the scoreboard is in jest. But it illustrates three key points.

1. We put values on skills. Most people would argue with the results, saying that certain skills are more important than others. But this way of thinking has historically led to men being considered better than women. What if we learned to value skills other than strength and mathematical ability as important? What if we learned to value diversity?

2. We love to be associated with the "better group." This has more to do with your reaction to the findings than the findings itself. I'm betting that you did not passively interpret the results. If you are a man, I can hardly imagine that you did not question at least some of the findings. If you are a woman, I'm sure you feel at least slightly empowered by the findings.

3. Men aren't necessarily smarter than women. In the past, women were thought to be incapable of handling complex thought because they were too fragile. While women have gained headway in working professions, proving this to be far from true, there still remains some stereotypes that they are not as smart as men. However, research seems to indicate otherwise.

As a final warning, there is more variability within than between the sexes so don't take it as gospel that one sex will always be better than the other sex at that skill. The reality is far from that. In fact, I don't even know exactly how much better each sex is than the other for the skills. My point was really to provoke thought, not to show who is better.

See Kolb and Whishaw (2003). Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology.

Moral Appeals

2007-03-16T11:57:00.000-07:00

In my last post, the issue came up about where we can look to find our moral values. I am reminded that as a Christian I have inherited a moral tradition from a number of arenas: the church I grew up in, my family, the Bible, plus a number of others. Each of these, and the following, have a number of difficulties around them, as will become apparent below:

Should we base our morals on what promotes a functioning society? Something could be wrong depending on whether or not it allows society to function well. Works well in explaining why we shouldn't steal but not for issues like exploitation of the poor. This might be considered the utilitarian viewpoint. The problem is that this ignores the individual in favor of the group and ignores the possibility of God and an ultimate morality.

What about on personal experience? Many are influenced to believe homosexuality is immoral because they have known (personally or through the media) homosexuals who were promiscuous and perhaps a little bizarre. Then there are people who have known homosexuals who were nice people and they are more likely to believe that homosexuality is not immoral. If experience is our guide then we claim that our life determines what is universally right or wrong and that is narcissistic in its own right. However, given that we cannot escape it, it can be useful in shaping our beliefs if we put experience in its proper place.

Genetics? As I said in my last post, we can't argue morals based on our design. Just because we have some sort of biological inclination towards some behavior doesn't make it right.

General opinion? I think that's where most people appeal for their morals. Didn't racism become wrong for most of the US only when it became unpopular? The problem is that morality is therefore completely relative.

Divine revelation? Some have argued that the Holy Spirit has made it clear to them that homosexuality is not a sin and others are saying the converse. Well when you have opposite sides claiming the Holy Spirit is on their side, you begin to wonder if the Holy Spirit is even involved at all in their conclusions.

The Bible? Besides the fact that most people don't see it as a moral authority, there is also the problem that there are Christians who believe that the Bible does not say that homosexuality (in terms of two consenting adults) is wrong. While I think that the Bible is the best place to look for authority, since it is the Word of God, the interpretation of it goes through fallible human minds.

In the end, we find ourselves in the precarious position of having to argue for morality with the full knowledge that we don't have a firm grasp on what truth really is. Unlike the anonymous commenter on the last post, I believe we need to look at more than just what the Bible says. We need to look at how the church has traditionally interpreted the Bible, we need to look to reason, we need to our own experiences and then we can humbly realize that we do not know without doubt what is right and wrong.

While that is an uncomfortable position, we must realize that our highest calling is not to protect a moral system but is, in Jesus' own words, to "love one another." In this light we see that we ought to act based on our best judgments as to what the Bible says is truth but keep our interpretations humble. Loving others means doing what we think is best for them, and while we can sometimes argue that our moral tradition would be best for them, we need to love them as servants not as ones who are in a position to command them how to live.

Is Homosexuality Genetic? A Theological Response

2007-03-14T17:12:00.000-07:00

I just read an article on MSN about Southern Baptist Seminary president, Rev. Albert Mohler, Jr., who wrote an article on how homosexuality is likely to have a genetic basis and then raises the question of whether or not it would be right, if it were possible, to treat the babies with hormones to change their sexual orientation back to heterosexual. A provocative thought, to say the least. He's managed to anger both conservative Christians, who think homosexuality is a choice, AND gay rights, by suggesting a "treatment." I didn't read what Mohler actually wrote but it seemed like he merely wanted to dialog about it. I would like to address why I think a genetic cause for homosexuality does not mean that homosexuality is moral.

Do I believe homosexuality has a genetic component? Yes. Current research strongly supports this position. (Actually, research supports the finding that homosexuality has a biological basis - more likely to be associated with hormones than genes... but that can get confusing to the average layperson) Does that make homosexual behavior moral? No.

If morality is simply dictated by our biological makeup, then we have surrendered any belief in personal agency. It is each person's responsibility to do the most with their life that they can. Alcoholism is perhaps the simplest example, if there is a gene for alcoholism does that make it okay to be an alcoholic? Of course not. If there was a gene for pedophilia, would we excuse it? Absolutely not.

Now I would hate to insult homosexuals by equating them with pedophiles so let me make it clear that that is not my goal. I simply want to illustrate that genes = moral is a fallacy. It is unfortunate that both gay rights advocates and conservative Christians have fallen for this simplistic thinking. So how do we judge if homosexuality is immoral or not? If we cannot appeal to the "natural order" (whatever that is) then to what or to whom do we appeal? I cannot answer that question [for those who do not follow Christ (added 3/16)], all I can do is show you that we cannot appeal to science. Science is not ultimate truth.

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment...

Changing From Information to Transformation

2007-03-12T16:08:00.000-07:00

I was looking at a site on Christianity and Mental Health called Mind and Soul and came across an article on the need for churches to change their approach on how they teach their congregation. The situation that is described is one that I have certainly felt - being told what's wrong with you but not how to fix it. The truth is that even if I do learn something new, if I don't apply it then I will forget it.

I think one sentence sums it all up well, "Most people don't need information, they need techniques to help them change and a supporting culture in which to do (so)." I think that is what many of us long for. The opportunity to grow in a supportive and instructive environment.

Is My Education Making Me a Better Person?

2007-03-10T23:27:00.000-08:00

If you count Kindergarten, I have been in school for 20 years. And since I still have four years ahead of me until I get my doctorate, I guess you can say that I'm a believer in education. But while I believe all this education will open up career options for me, I still have to question whether or not I am becoming a better person out of all this time in school. I regularly visit a blog by a psychologist who is a professor at Biblical Seminary and he wrote a personal apology for a statement he made in a class. One sentence captures the message well, "Seminary education can be rather dangerous."

As a student of both psychology and theology I can relate. I can often feel the pull towards smugness and pride whenever I get into a conversation on either topic and perhaps I should apologize to those who I have vainly given my opinion to as fact (and sometimes rather insensitively). Education can make you feel empowered and that can indeed be dangerous. I think it's good to be critical - to know your weaknesses - and that is no less true for ventures where you are pouring your time and money into. I must critically ask myself if my education is making me a better person.

I've noticed, paradoxically, that learning makes me both more open-minded and closed-minded. At times writing position papers, learning theory, or criticizing theology can make me choose sides and suddenly my views are the "right" views. But there are also times when I, as a result of my psychological training, can see that where a person is coming from is more important than what they are saying. I can see their side because I can sense their passion, pain, or fear about an issue. It can often depend on my mood whether or not I am close-minded with others and perhaps the work ahead of me is to better control my mood.

Beyond that, I believe that the trials of being evaluated and stretched have forced me to develop a better work ethic. While in college I could skate along with a mediocre work ethic, I find myself needing (and occasionally desiring) to work hard and become the best psychologist I can be. I also have learned how to balance my life with school, work, social events, and time to relax. And of course everything I learn about people in my classes I can apply to myself.

So, indeed I would say: yes, my education is making me a better person. But I know that it doesn't always do so. In the past two years I have managed to stave off burnout and hopelessness (for the most part). Perhaps that is because in those dark times where I feel so stressed out, I usually take a minute and see how this is all shaping me to become the person I want to be. If I did not have those times of renewal, and the people who encourage me on, I could easily become bitter and my education would be my downfall. Although I wish at times I could be in a steady 40 hour week and making money, I am thankful for the opportunity that has been set before me. God has brought me this far, he will lead me on.

Prescription Privileges for Psychologists

2007-03-06T17:18:00.000-08:00

In the last month, a bill has been introduced to the California state assembly regarding prescription privileges for psychologists. Similar bills have already passed in New Mexico and Louisiana. Now, in case you didn't know, psychiatrists are medical doctors and have the ability to prescribe medications while psychologists do not. However, this bill would change that by allowing psychologists to gain prescription privileges (RxP) by undergoing a two-year post-doctoral education that involves both didactic instruction and practicum. The American Psychological Association is lobbying for this bill to pass under the auspices that psychologists can help meet the needs of underserved populations, particularly in rural areas. However, it seems that the true purpose is to gain a clear distinction for psychologists from other mental health workers - in other words RxP is for economic purposes. The bill is opposed by psychiatrists and some other members of the medical field.

I want to bring up a few key issues why I think it is a bad idea for California to allow psychologists to gain RxP.

1. There is little evidence to show that psychologists can provide quality medical care. 50% of all mental illnesses are associated with an underlying general medical condition. Psychologists may not be able to understand all of the nuances of these conditions to treat properly. The real problem is we do not know if psychologists will provide quality care, we should wait to see how it goes in New Mexico and Louisiana.
2. The reasons for pursuing RxP, particularly meeting the needs for clients in rural areas, may be a fallacy because it seems that most psychologists who pursue the further education will want to work in urban and suburban areas.
3. The training program may be too short to properly train. The APA is lobbying for a training plan but the plan is much different from the one that the Department of Defense used to train psychologists to prescribe. Again, it's a question of knowing whether or not it will work.
4. The occupation of the psychologist will work best if there is unity within the members. RxP will cause a disunity as psychologists choose to either pursue RxP or get left behind. As a field, psychologists need to stick together.

In the end I recognize that there are problems with the system we currently have. There are not enough psychiatrists and most prescribing is done by general practitioners who have little training in psychopharmacology (i.e. meds for mental health issues). This is a problem. But I don't think RxP is the solution at this time. Psychologists already have the ability to gain RxP through gaining an advanced nursing degree, which takes about three years, so proposing a separate avenue is premature at this point in time.

A Critique of Christian Apologetics

2007-03-03T15:09:00.000-08:00

In high school I had a stage where I got very interested in apologetics. If you don't know what it is, Christian apologetics is making an argument for Christianity based on logic and reason. But I no longer get much comfort from most of the philosophical arguments that are made. Why? Here's a few reasons:
1) A great deal of apologetics is based on "straw-man" arguments. By straw man I mean that Christians will misrepresent the secular viewpoint as being simplistic and then will make easy work of demolishing "their" viewpoint.
2) Apologetics is often based on poor interpretations of science. I will limit my argument to evolution. Evolution does not mean that humans were created by chance. Evolution is a systematic law that makes sense. One can argue that it would take tremendous time to come together or that their would be roadblocks to evolution (like human consciousness) but that is based on solid science. Again, this is creating a straw man but it is particularly aggravating to me when science is portrayed as being irrational.
3) Arguments often rely on intuition and pathos. The one I hate is "I can't believe we evolved from monkeys." Like it or not, that doesn't influence it's truth.
4) Most importantly, apologetics look primarily at the God of creation but not at the God of Subsistence. Sure, we can argue for a first cause of the universe till the cows come home, but where is God in the world today? In a world where science seems to have an explanation for everything, where does God fit in? I want to know that God is present in my life and hears my prayers.

While I've found great comfort in a limited amount of apologetics, particularly reasons to believe in the resurrection of Christ (particularly relevant considering the latest archaeological "findings"), I am in a place where I must rely in part on a non-rational faith. Instead of knowing the truth, I must live the truth. I do not know that God truly exists but I have chosen to live His life, accepting the truth as best I can, because the one thing I do know is that my life is better when I live it as he revealed it to us. I cherish that Paul commanded us to be "stewards of God's mysteries." (1 Corinthians 4:1)

Knowledge without Deeds is Dead

2007-02-27T21:06:00.000-08:00

As my research project develops, one of the issues that comes to the forefront is that there is a divide between theoretical research and actual practice. Tens of thousands of psychological articles are published every year but perhaps only about 1 in 100 actually impact practice in some shape or form. It seems that researchers in psychology are spending all their time delving deeper and deeper into understanding an issue without every taking the time to work out how it could affect actual practice. Although we can get into trouble by making recommendations without proper theory to base it on, psychologists simply can't neglect this part of research.

I'm So Left Brained

2007-02-23T23:00:00.000-08:00

I first must warn you this is hardly profound or insightful (am I ever??) but you may get a kick out of it all anyways.

So in my neuropsychology class it had been suggested that people have assymetrical facial expressions. I just reviewed about 20 pictures of me and I am now convinced that the right side of my face is more expressive than my left. I have a "good side." And if I remember right, facial expressions are contralateral (but it could be ipsilateral) and so this is just confirmation that I am left-brained (logical).

If you want to test this out go to my profile and look at my picture (my right side is on the left in the picture). If you can't tell by my smile then look at the creases in my cheek.

Actually this may explain why I think I look better in pictures than I do in the mirror. In pictures my right side of my face is on the left side but in the mirror my right side is on the right side. Now our right hemisphere processes facial expressions better than our left hemisphere. And since the left visual field (which would see the right side of my face in pictures) connects with the right hemisphere, it would make sense that I would appear happier and better looking in pictures than in the mirror. Haha - this all must sound so vain!!! Well I found it interesting and so you may too.

I should not I just watched A Scanner Darkly, a Philip K. Dick novel turned movie, that talks about split brain stuff which sorta triggered my desire to check this out for myself.

Indifference on Genocide

2007-02-17T14:51:00.000-08:00

Pastors, political activists, and concerned citizens beware! Alerting others to mass atrocities may not be the best manner to engender concern and compassion to people in need, according to a recent research article. My suggestion to the natural human reaction to be overwhelmed by mass suffering would be to focus specifically on an individual case of suffering rather than presenting numbers of how many people are actually suffering. I don't think preaching at our need to become sensitive to the actual numbers will work - that is to say I don't think you should force your numbers on people to make them comply. Instead, by focusing on an individual it becomes possible to address larger concerns regardless of this phenomenon.

Not Crazy, Just Insane

2007-02-17T12:05:00.000-08:00

I often wonder what it means when people refer to another's behavior as being "crazy"? If you ask them you will get a variety of responses ranging from doing risky behavior to following their dreams to hearing voices. Obviously there is no consensus on what constitutes crazy behavior. And, in my opinion, any time a word has such a vague meaning we should be hesitant to use.

Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." While I don't think we need to start thinking of ourselves as crazy or insane, I do think it can help us when we recognize that we do things that might be a little crazy - or perhaps irrational is a better term.

I think of all the times I have thrown a tantrum in the hopes that I will make somebody listen to me and how rarely it works. I think of all the times I've procrastinated only to be miserably stressed out later. And the list of old mistakes can go on and on. Those mistakes would certainly qualify under Einstein's definition of insanity.

I like to admit that I'm a little insane. While I don't think calling myself crazy is helpful (because it is so vague) I know what I mean when I say I'm a little insane. This kind of joking self-deprecation keeps me humble and eases the discomfort I feel around my mistakes. And if I can laugh about it, then I can share about it and allow others the chance to encourage me to change.

I'm not crazy, just insane.

On Anger and Fury

2007-02-11T17:46:00.000-08:00

I hope you first read my previous blog on Resentment before reading this as it sets up the distinction between anger and resentment. I begin with Ephesians 4:26, "In your anger, do not sin." This surprises some who associate anger with sin. But there are numerous records of people in the Bible, including God himself, who use anger to make an appropriate action.

Anger is an internal marker that something is not right. Now I nearly added "with the world" but I quickly recognized that would not be exactly right. I can become angry at the good works of others because of jealousy, greed, and a number of reasons. And this is important because we must not assume that, when we are angry, some injustice has been done to us. As I said in the previous blog, we must begin with self-reflection. Once we know ourselves then we can proceed in the confidence that what we want to reconcile is actually a problem with the world.

Anger is a terrific motivator. We do things that we would otherwise would never do - and we do them with flair so as to make sure we are noticed. This is important because we could otherwise ignore the harm that is being done to our selves. And others would never know they were doing something that was hurtful to you! Anger makes sure we take care of ourselves and helps others act with love towards us.

Anger can communicate to others that what they are doing to us is hurtful. Sometimes another person's behavior is completely appropriate but we still respond in anger. For example, some people have different relational styles that conflict - neither is wrong but one person may become angry at the other person. Anger, properly expressed, can communicate that you need the other person to adjust how they relate to you. This can be a wonderful experience that brings two people together as they adjust to the needs of one another.

So what about righteous anger you might ask? Well, first of all, righteous anger assumes character. We should be careful if we ever excuse our behavior simply as righteous indignation. Sure, Jesus showed intense anger and violence but can we assume to know when this is appropriate in our contexts? By taking the posture that our anger is our reaction and not the direct result of another person's actions, we prepare ourselves to find what the evil is in the world and what the evil is inside of us.

If I could sum it all up I would say: Anger motivates people to communicate that they are hurting. The offense may be real or imagined but the hurt is always real. By learning what angers us and learning how to better communicate our anger to others, we can see the world and ourselves truthfully. This truth allows us to better love the world and to be loved by it.

The Folly of Resentment

2007-02-10T07:50:00.000-08:00

"Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die." - Malachy McCourt (for other quotes on anger go here)

I think there are dueling accounts of how we are supposed to deal with anger. The first perspective sees anger as a vice that demands to be extinguished. The second is that anger must not be ignored and must be expressed in healthy ways. I think the problem is that anger is sometimes confused with resentment. While anger involves an emotional reaction, resentment is the unwillingness to let anger subside and forgive the offender. In that light, I want to say a few things about resentment.

I have often tried to change my thinking about an event while I'm angry. It is near impossible. Anger demands that the feelings be dealt with by our behavior. In order to avoid resentment there are a number of steps we can take. For example, I find praying for a person that you are angry at to be extremely useful because deep down it reminds me to love the other person. I simply cannot tell myself the facts about why I shouldn't resent and condemn a person. I need to put belief into action. Perhaps this is why Jesus said "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." Luke 6:27-28

But why change? Why stop resenting someone who you may have spent a lifetime resenting? There are a myriad of reasons. But perhaps the most persuasive is that resentment does more harm to you than to them. We know this but we fear forgiveness will permit people to harm us again and we feel so safe buried in our resentment. But as we forgive, praying for those who harmed us and even doing good actions for them (if it is safe to do so), we actually walk into the light of joy and freedom. We may be hurt again but at least we avoid hurting ourselves.

God, I surrender my hatred to you. I pray that you bless those who have trampled on my spirit and have caused me so much pain. Shower them with blessings. Make them into a light for the world and a blessing to others. And forgive me for my unwillingness to forgive, when I have been forgiven so much. Amen.

Or the 4-word prayer: "Bless them, change me."

I will post later on how to deal with anger in more productive ways.

ABC or FHL?

2007-02-06T18:57:00.000-08:00

I was running today and I began to think of 1 Corinthians 13:13: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." Suddenly I was also reminded me of the ABC's of CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy).

A = Affect (Emotions)
B = Behavior
C = Cognitions (Thoughts)

Perhaps the connection was a loose one but I thought about how there are similarities between the triads. Faith is rooted in belief so one could call it Cognition. Hope is related to emotions so I saw it as Affect. And love is an action so I thought of it as Behavior.

As I realized that my apparently brilliant connection was probably not as profound as I first hoped, I did realize that the two ways of thinking of life could illuminate one another. I believe that faith is a set of beliefs and therefore something that we have in our mind. But while "good" cognitions are often thought to be positive thoughts about yourself from a psychological perspective, the concept of faith reminds us that our belief is rooted in our relationship with God.

Now hope illustrates one principle that therapists are well aware of: you can't change mood directly. You can only change behavior or thoughts and that will in turn change mood. In the same way, hope is clearly emotion that is built upon a foundation of trust. But while psychology often focuses solely on positive emotions, hope illustrates that it is possible to suffer now with the expectation that our future will be bright. Hope does not demand a positive mood now.

Finally, I have always seen love as an active process. While there is an emotional component, love is primarily the act of sacrificing your wants for relationship with another person. But love, unlike behavior, must be done in a relationship. One indicator for depression is social isolation and thus the "behavior" is actually to put yourself into a love relationship. Thus the concept of love reminds us that the most valuable behaviors are those that place us in a relationship (i.e. going out with friends).

I believe that breaking down life into affect, behavior, and cognition is very useful. But it seems that we need a better model of living that actually points to how we should change. Faith, hope, and love are models of living that demonstrate our need for relationship with God, belief in redemption, and, most importantly, to find ourselves in a love relationship with others.

Intentions and Actions

2007-02-02T21:47:00.000-08:00

[Originally posted January 04th, 2006. Edited some today. As an update, I feel like I have made some progress in this area. But I still need the reminder.]

"He defended the cause of the poor and needy... Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the Lord - Jeremiah 22:16

This verse symbolizes to me that "to know [God]" means to put our faith into action. It really is a dreadful thing to hear that knowing God (or believing in God) is in our actions. I for one would love it if my faith was measured by my good intentions. I often think that, since I THINK about doing good deeds and quitting bad deeds and really want to do both, I am a good Christian. But this quote is just one example that intentions don't equal belief.

My faith only extends as far as my life is transformed. In other words, the measure of a Christian's faith is in how much love he exudes not in how many rules he follows.

Of course, this verse is primarily about working for the good of the poor and needy. Since I've traditionally not been interested in helping the poor that is what makes this verse a double whammy for me. My religion is about good intentions but it is mostly about good intentions regarding ME. Now I hope to put this passage to heart because it is an area in which I am hardly faithful. But I also wish to encourage those who are Christians to consider how they can assist those in need. At the heart of our religion is a movement to help others, for without helping those in distress our faith will die.

Nicotine Addiction and the Insula

2007-02-02T21:29:00.000-08:00

There is a small part of the brain located in the cortex of the temporal lobe called the insula. While previously not receiving much attention, recently it has garnered research interest when a doctor noticed that a patient with a stroke to the insula had completely forgot his previous addiction to smoking. Upon reviewing the records of other stroke victims this finding was proven to be more than just a fluke: 13 of 19 victims of stroke to the insula experienced immediate relief from their nicotine addiction. While nobody is suggesting brain damage as a treatment for nicotine addiction, knowing what region of the brain, and thus the types of neurons and neurotransmitters, could help in treating this addiction, which happens to be one of the hardest to break of all addictions.

Since I am taking a class on substance abuse this quarter, I thought I would share this recent finding. One of the least understood subjects of science is the human brain. We know only a fraction of how it works as a unit and we are constantly learning more. While I don't believe that science will cure all ills, in fact I can see how a cure for nicotine addiction could increase the number of smokers, I do believe that the quest for knowledge is a godly one.

Learning is Doing

2007-02-01T21:48:00.000-08:00

As I learn so many interesting things about how we as humans think, sometimes I can keep it at an intellectual level. But this is in spite of everything I believe about learning. I believe that you don't know something unless it changes you. A smoker does not know that smoking is harmful until that knowledge changes their actions. I can know that behaviors that isolate me will only rob me of energy and make me depressed but until I act on that knowledge, I do not really know it.

The difference may seem trivial but I think that incarnating our knowledge into action represents a much higher respect for truth. I am a liar when I do anything that is against the truth. If I know that the truth is one way and I continue on in my old ways, then I am a liar.

Knowledge that transforms us is peculiar. We can learn something as an object and it will remain distant. But when we learn something and let the knowledge change us, that is treating what we learned as a subject which we have relationship with. I rule over and dominate objects but I respect and love subjects. Such a relationship frees us to live authentic lives, according to truth.

A Quick Thought On Diet

2007-01-31T17:05:00.000-08:00

I sometimes wonder how what we eat can affect how we think. It seems people are willing to accept certain foods (alcohol, sugar, caffeine) have an effect on our thoughts and behavior while we don't question whether a bag of potato chips has an effect as well. I have read recently about the benefits of fish oil in treating depression. While I have known that depression has a biological component, I never thought about how what we eat (or what supplements we take) can affect us in such a direct manner. Maybe eating healthy can have a positive effect on mental health as well as physical health.

The Blessing Assumption

2007-01-27T17:57:00.000-08:00

Many Christians believe that if something that seems to be good happens in their life then they should thank God for it. In fact, Christians often criticize themselves if they don't "give God the glory." But often they give God credit without thinking how he played a role or if he even played a role in it at all!

For example, some Christians assume that financial success = blessing from God. But this is simply not supported Biblically. What we call a blessing from God, others might call "overworking," "exploitation," or "unfair business practices." Obviously, that kind of behaviors does not stem from a just God. I could get A's in all my classes by cheating but that does not mean that God has blessed me.

We need to be discerning about what in our lives is really from God and what is actually against God. While God has given us the ability to achieve many things, he did not give us free license to use it as we wish. Sometimes we need to be more critical and realize that what we see as good things are not always that good to God. Perhaps the best way to thank God for his blessings is to quit just giving him lip service and take the time to really count HIS blessings.

Responsibility

2007-01-13T22:26:00.000-08:00

In my History and Systems of Psychology class we were given a scenario where we were asked whether or not we should take responsibility for the ways in which psychology has been used to abuse others. At first I had some trouble understanding so here's an example that helped me:
A client comes in and says their last therapist was verbally abusive. As a therapist myself do I see myself as connected to all other therapists as a member of that group? Do I therefore apologize to the client because I am "one" with that other therapist? Will the client hold me somewhat responsible (unconsciously) simply because I am a therapist?

I know that sometimes I take too much responsibility for things that occur. Just because I am mean to someone does not mean that I cause their reaction - but I nevertheless can think that way. But is taking responsibility for the actions of other people healthy? Should I apologize for being a man because men have done awful things? Should I apologize for being white because white people have done awful things?

I think the answer is a tentative yes. As a member of a group - whether voluntarily or not - I am connected with the other members of my group. People will therefore see me as being "one of them" and an apology can be useful for accepting that stereotyping people together is just a part of human nature. I need to accept that everybody places other people into groups and makes assumptions about them. We are not isolated from our group identity.

However, I recognize that I am not fully connected with people in my group and am thus autonomous and independent. It is not right for me to distrust all people of one group just because one member has done me wrong. I accept that one person holds the final responsibility. So while I am willing to accept that others will hold me responsible for what members of my groups have done - from other Christians, other psychologists, other men, other whites, other tall people, etc - I hope that I will be judged in the end for my own actions and for how I have shaped the groups I find myself in.

What owns you?

2007-01-08T22:38:00.000-08:00

I'm a channel flipper. As soon as a commercial comes on I'm gone to the next channel. I guess it shows my lack of patience. But sometimes I feel quite justified because I know the effect commercials can have on me. Ads make me feel like I'm missing out on something. I've gotten hyped over countless movies only to be disappointed that they weren't as life-changing as the trailer made it seem. I am completely convinced that advertisements provoke a sense of dissatisfaction within me.

Advertising was originally aimed (in the early 1800's) at making people feel uncivilized, unhygienic, and unsophisticated. As commercialism evolved so did the advertisements. While advertisements at first were meant to convince people that they needed to be clean and proper, they soon were clearly selling the abundant life itself. The quality of one's relationships could even be defined by what you bought: parents were bad if they did not provide everything they could for their children.

As a result we are left with a sense of self that is no longer rooted in tradition, family, character, or religion. We have entrusted our lives into the care of companies concerned about profit earnings.

I hate depressing messages. They don't motivate me to change or even be self-reflective. And so far that's what this has been. But it doesn't have to end that way. You can reappraise your life right now and better determine what is important to you. We all live in a world where we simply cannot avoid some materialism. And that certainly has not been all bad - with improved standards of living and financial security. But while we live in such a world we do not necessarily have to embrace it with open arms.

What areas in your life might you consider living without luxury?
What are the costs of doing so?
What are the benefits?

Final thought:
"The things you own, end up owning you."
Brad Pitt in Fight Club

Most of this has been provoked by my reading of Philip Cushman's Constructing the Self, Constructing America: A Cultural History of Psychotherapy. You have him to blame (or thank) for the guilt trip.

Boasting

2007-01-05T22:01:00.000-08:00

My church had set a goal to raise $160,000 in a single Christmas Eve offering to build a hospital in Malawi. Not only did we surpass that goal (our previous largest Christmas offering was $23,000) but we raised $525,000 and we now have to figure out what to do with the excess, possibly considering building more hospitals. I'm proud to attend Whittier Area Community Church and am glad about how our church is now considering what we can do to show love to the global community and help make a difference.

Disabled

2007-01-04T14:11:00.000-08:00

I started classes again yesterday. Dr. Brown, my neuropsychology professor, shared that his thinking on disability was that it is a range rather than a category. From that perspective we are all disabled to some extent. For example, I wear glasses and thus am disabled in vision. While some people are more disabled in some areas than others, we can all relate to the experience of not being able to do something that we would like to do. (As a side note, I have frustrations with people who believe that all we have to do is put our mind to it and we can do it - we all have our limits.)

Being disabled I have to remind myself of two key ideas. The first is that I must rely on others to meet many of my needs. Regarding my nearsightedness, I have to rely on an optometrist to give me the right prescription, the eye glass store to have fashionable glasses, and insurance to help pay for it. We all have to accept that we need others to some degree in order to survive. More generally I need to remind myself that I need to search out counsel, support, knowledge, and direction in the ways that I choose to live my life.

The second related idea is that others are relying on me. Given that I have physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual handicaps, I need to accept that others will have them too and will be looking to me to bear with their disabilities and help in any way I can. Understanding that when others are a burden it is not their choice reminds me to be patient, generous, and kind. So let's remember to be united with one another and love one another.

The Creative Self

2006-12-21T15:48:00.000-08:00

God is creative. He created the heavens and the earth. He created every human being uniquely.

To be created in the image of God means to be creative. Acting upon that creativity is a challenging and often scary process but we must not be unwilling to take risks. The following article from Psychology Today illustrates how we might develop our creative self.

The Creative Self
By Hara Estroff Marano

A flash of insight. A solution to a longstanding problem. We all long to express ourselves creatively, admire the capacity to be original. It seems to be part of human nature.

Immersion in creative enterprises is hugely rewarding by itself. And often during that immersion we experience that special state called "flow," a feeling outside of time, of effortlessness that is so extraordinarily satisfying it bestows on us the sense that life is worth living.

How do we develop and nurture creativity within? Many people see creativity as a capacity far beyond them. But it is not.

In a lovely little book entitled Creative Authenticity, artist Ian Roberts argues that at some point you just have to jump in, fears and all. There is something courageous about it.

It's finding what you want to say that's the really tricky part. Usually, it lies just beneath the grip of the conscious mind. It springs from hard-won personal inner synthesis, experience and insight acquired firsthand. In our mind it is not logically structured, but it may take logic to get it expressed.

"Ultimately, it doesn't matter to the world whether you paint or dance or write," says Roberts. "The world will probably get by without the product of your efforts. But that is not the point. The point is what the inner process of following your creative impulses will do to you. It is clearly about process. Love the work, love the process. Our fascination will pull our attention forward. That, also, will fascinate the viewer."

Roberts enunciates a number of principles essential for creative authenticity.

Searching for beauty. Beauty is something that seizes your attention, stops you in your tracks, silences you. It can be the way light filters through the trees in your backyard or the magnificence of a fifteenth century Italian painting. The subject is irrelevant; it is only a vehicle for your attention, to engage the intensity of your feelings. That intensity is what viewers ultimately respond to.
Communication. Creativity fundamentally involves expressive power; it is the catching of the "gleams of light" that flash across our mind and forming that vision into something.
Your home turf. It could be a garden. Or a studio. But you need a creative home base that always stays open for your arrival and bestows on you a readiness to begin your work.
The Van Gogh syndrome. Don't buy into the myth that creativity is the province of tortured geniuses.
Your craft, your voice. Practice, practice, practice your craft. It gives you fluency in the creative process and in technique. It's technique that gives life to your creative ideas. Learning your craft opens the channel for your voice to flow.
Showing up. "Nothing determines your creative life more than doing it," says Roberts.
The dance of avoidance. Starting is always a psychologically messy process, because there are no rules surrounding what you want to do. Setting up a dedicated space for the practice of your craft helps you shift gears directly into your creative process.
Full-time or part-time. You can't expect to fly consistently at a high level of inspiration.
Follow something along. If you are going to say something authentic, you need to stick with an idea for a while, an idea that has personal resonance.
Wagon train and scout. Creativity involves the interplay between where you are and where you see yourself going to keep your expression growing. Always be on the lookout for new paths, and observe how others solve the problems you face.
Working method. Creativity is in the process, not in the finished results.
Limits yield intensity. Unrestrained freedom is a myth, and it's not productive.
Being ready to show. Don't spend your time marketing your creations. If you spend it creating, you are investing your work with the authenticity that will draw others to your efforts..
You are more than creative enough. The question is not whether you are creative enough but whether you will free yourself to express it.
Finding poetry in the everyday. Develop the power to see the ordinary as poetic.
Holding the big picture. Always keep a sense of the whole. That commits you to making the moves that will ultimately represent what you see.

Brain Wired for Improv, Not Perfection

2006-12-20T17:41:00.000-08:00

The following article from WebMD was interesting. We try so hard to do things perfectly and sometimes miss the fact that it can be wonderful to do things differently each time. Jesus would spice up his miracles with variety, like how he gave sight to the blind in different ways. Maybe part of the imago dei is that we were created for inconsistency.

Brain Wired for Improv, Not Perfection

By Jennifer Warner, WebMD Medical News

Dec. 20, 2006 -- Practicing your golf swing may make it better, but it'll never make it perfect, because the brain is wired for inconsistency.

That's according to new brain-based research that suggests the reason humans have a hard time doing the same task exactly the same way is that the brain starts planning each movement from scratch.

The study found variations in monkeys' brain activity in the planning stages before they performed the same task over and over again -- and that those variations were associated with inconsistencies in their performance.

"The main reason you can't move the same way each and every time, such as swinging a golf club, is that your brain can't plan the swing the same way each time," says researcher Krishna Shenoy, assistant professor of electrical engineering at Stanford University, in a news release.

Inconsistency Explained

In the study, published in Neuron, researchers trained monkeys two simple reaching tasks: to reach and touch a green spot slowly, and to reach and touch a red spot quickly.

After monitoring thousands of attempts, they found the monkeys rarely reached with the exact same speed for either spot, and that about half the inconsistencies in the monkeys' performance was in their heads rather than their muscles.

Specifically, the study showed changes in neural activity for planning a movement was predictive of the variations in reach speed.

The researchers say inconsistencies in how the brain plans for each movement may have an evolutionary reason.

"The nervous system was not designed to do the same thing over and over again," says researcher Mark Churchland, a postdoctoral student at Stanford, in the release.

"The nervous system was designed to be flexible," Churchland says. "You typically find yourself doing things you've never done before."

Of course practice can reduce the variation in the mind's and body's ability.

But, researchers say, it can't change the variable way the mind plans motion.

The Perfectionist

2006-12-18T23:27:00.000-08:00

Over the last few days I have been reflecting on the fact that I can have a tendency to be a perfectionist in quite a few areas. I try to get A's in all my classes. I hate doing anything half hearted. I'm just an "all out" kind of guy. Of course, in many areas I am far off from perfection and how I deal with those areas is actually kind of interesting. I can sometimes devalue that part of my life (it's not that big of a deal to keep your room clean) or pretend like it's impossible to get any better with that (acting like it's impossible for me to remember names any better). Now perfectionism is useful in driving us to perform well but it can become a problem when life becomes unbalanced or when we are crippled by the perfectionism in some way.

Now I had been thinking that I would like to be more helpful around the house. But the problem was I had only been thinking about it. I started to think about committing to a drastic change but something was holding me back. At first I didn't have a clue what was wrong. I wanted to be a nicer, more caring person but I didn't want to commit to it. The problem was, as a perfectionist, I was afraid that I was going to fail. If I committed to change then I would be raising the bar for my own standards of how I should act.

My perfectionism couldn't handle this. I could deal with being disappointed with my behavior from time to time. But raising the standard would likely mean that I would fail more, at least at first. So deep down I resisted the change because I was afraid to fail. Once someone pointed this out to me everything suddenly clicked. I realized that I couldn't accept that I am a work in progress. I should applaud myself for wanting to change and not be deterred by initial setbacks. I was glad because once this perfectionism was brought to the light, the truth suddenly made it seem silly.

Perhaps my case is not unique. Could there be ways in which you resist change simply because you fear failure? Maybe you tried before and failed. No matter how many times we fail, it is always important to try to live up to a greater standard. Sometimes we simply need to remind ourselves that our goals are worth the pain of a few setbacks.