Believing in the Miraculous

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?

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

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

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

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

1. Ice skating
2. Roller-skating
3. Picnic
4. Dinner and movie
5. Hiking
6. Museum
7. Sporting event
8. Concert (in the park)
9. Go karts
10. Fair
11. Pool hall
12. Miniature golfing
13. Bowling
14. Dancing
15. Zoo
16. Kayaking on the ocean or in a lake
17. Wine tasting
18. Theater
19. Fly a kite
20. Horseback riding
21. Scuba diving
22. Theme park
23. Karaoke
24. Comedy club
25. Snowboarding
26. Amusement park
27. Arcade
28. Tennis
29. Dance lessons
30. IMAX Theater
31. Aquarium
32. Magic show
33. Laser tag
34. Dancing lessons
35. Paddle boat
36. Hookah bar
37. Batting cages
38. Golfing/driving range
39. Farmer’s market
40. Shooting range – shotguns or handguns
41. Horse track
42. Walk on the beach/ beach trip
43. Window shopping
44. Hollywood Bowl
45. Scenic bike ride
46. Happy Hour
47. Church event
48. Feeding the poor
49. Book reading and signing
50. Air show

Excuses, Excuses

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

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.