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.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Choosing Character Over Effects
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.
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.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Human Nature and Sin
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)
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)
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Shame On You
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.
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.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Divorce and Counseling
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Victims Can Apologize Too
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.
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.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Secret and the Desire for Omnipotence
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)