I read an interesting blog on media in the church the other day that got me thinking. The author pointed out that the church has been changed as the media as changed. For example, the reading of Scripture used to be a public event. Before the printing press, the church would have to meet together to hear the Word and would have to hold on every word. But now that Bibles are widespread, reading the Bible has become a private affair.
Of course, the impact has been on more than just the church. Technology has been shaping our lives since the day we we born. Medical technology can save our lives. Consumer technology can change our recreational activities. But how does technology change us as people?
As I sit here, I'm watching TV that I muted during a commercial to type this blog. I'm on a laptop connected to the internet wirelessly. I am sitting in a recliner chair. I am enjoying the breeze from a ceiling fan. I am wearing comfortable clothes in a comfortable environment. Does all this change the way I view the world? What about the way I view myself? Does it change the very way I think?
A recent article in USA Today found that teenagers were retreating from face-to-face relationships and engaging in more online interaction. The benefit (according to my values) is that these teenagers are becoming increasingly less private with their lives and are gaining an increased appreciation of relationships that previous generations never have. While these technologies are occurring within an individualistic culture, they are at the same time revolting against individualism through online networking and text messaging.
Yet the dangers are obvious. These children of technology are losing the ability to relate to people of other generations, who value face-to-face interaction and etiquette. They also are beginning to fracture relationships by being so self-disclosing that they no longer respect the feelings of others because of the "anonymity" of the internet. And at it worst, the technocommunication encourages a relativistic view of human communication, where words are given meaning by the reader. In face-to-face communication, words are coupled with vocal intonations, gestures, affect, and many other non-verbals which can communicate meaning. But with text-based communication, the reader can interpret words in any manner that they wish. At times this can be hurtful, such as when one takes a joke as an insult. But culturally, this is bound to produce the belief that messages are entirely internal and that how one reacts to a neutral message determines what the meaning was.
All of this is to say that it is important to be aware of how we interact with technology. When we go online to chat, we may be reinforcing cultural values that do match with our aspired values.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Christian Psychology is Heresy?
I have found an interesting site arguing against Christian psychology which sums up some of the major rebuttals to what I am currently dedicating my life to. Now I first need to be careful, because I am obviously tied up to what I do. And I have already argued for ways in which therapy can actually help the church. But here I want to discuss a few of the arguments against Christian psychology. You will find these arguments on their website.
Finally, what I dislike most about the anti-Christian psychology movement is that it proposes very little middle ground. They don't propose a research backed Biblical counseling model. They don't say what the good points of Christian psychology are. They simply want to tear the entire "tree" down. I have experienced my own dissatisfaction with many of the theories. But I still think that doing therapy requires extensive training, a background in research, personal contemplation and informed decision as to a theoretical model, learning about working with people different from oneself, and personal development. I think together all those factors produce the best therapists. I think that Christian therapy still seems a bit too secular and I do in fact see that as a problem. But I think its possible to move further towards a Biblical, effective method of talking with people that can heal people's souls.
- Psychology encourages "talebearing." Essentially, talebearing is when the client retells stories from their past that cast them in a positive light. First of all, yes, psychologists generally do want clients to share stories from their past. However, talebearing would be considered generally bad and unhelpful for the client because it would perpetuate negative factors in their life - whether it be denying their own problems, trying to live a fantasy, blaming others, or whatever. Nearly all therapists would agree that this is bad. But talebearing will still occur and can be useful. If a client tells a story which was not completely true to what actually happened, that can still be useful because that is how the client actually remembers it. Even if they remember something totally different from what actually happened, the therapist needs to work with that memory because that memory can be shaping them even if it wasn't true.
- Christian psychology accepts the teachings of Freud, Jung, Rogers, etc. I have spent a yearlong sequence of classes critiquing these theories from a Christian perspective. What we hope to do is not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We try to take the good parts from these theories and throw away the mumbo jumbo.
- Christian psychology only teaches people how to understand themselves through a human perspective. Now this isn't fully wrong. I'm not saying that Christian psychology can take the place of studying the Word but I am saying that it can add insight. It is important for the Christian therapist to remember that certain things are wrong and certain things are false. But there is much to be gained if we devote ourselves to a rigorous self-analysis, even if it is human based. We would never doubt that medical students are helpful even though they have gained their knowledge from secular sources. I'm not in favor of huge theoretical models that conjure up that the reason we hate our fathers is because of an unresolved Oedipal complex, for example, simply because it can lead us too far off the conventional track. But I do favor using common sense and observation, as well as solid research, to back up certain therapies. Also I should add I support the spiritual disciplines, which encourage a healthy spiritual life.
- A healthy faith and church life can provide everything that therapy does. This is a judgment call. I personally think that serious mental illness is a problem. There are others who might not. I know that if a person is depressed, the church does not have much to offer them in terms of a solution, although it offers support, hope, a sense of purpose, and a feeling of belonging (some believe that it can alleviate mental illness and I admit I need to learn more about that, it was not my personal experience). But the untrained Christian will not know how to encourage a depressed individual so that they can find relief. But like I said, some in the church still believe that depression is God's testing of us to see if we persevere. I cannot disagree with them theologically. It just seems masochistic to me to continue to suffer when there is a possibility of a solution.
Finally, what I dislike most about the anti-Christian psychology movement is that it proposes very little middle ground. They don't propose a research backed Biblical counseling model. They don't say what the good points of Christian psychology are. They simply want to tear the entire "tree" down. I have experienced my own dissatisfaction with many of the theories. But I still think that doing therapy requires extensive training, a background in research, personal contemplation and informed decision as to a theoretical model, learning about working with people different from oneself, and personal development. I think together all those factors produce the best therapists. I think that Christian therapy still seems a bit too secular and I do in fact see that as a problem. But I think its possible to move further towards a Biblical, effective method of talking with people that can heal people's souls.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Intermittent Explosive Disorder
I had studied Intermittent Explosive Disorder just recently in my psychopathology class and the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders had reported that this disorder was "apparently rare" although it admitted that no prevalence study had ever been conducted. Before I got to this phrase I had remarked at how common the symptoms seemed. All it took was a reaction that was "grossly out of proportion to the stressor."
But a study that hit the news recently found that 5-7% of Americans suffered from the disorder. I have a feeling that this will be the new diagnosis of choice for clinicians, just like ADD and ED. But I think this is sadly appropriate. Our society has been infiltrated by a hateful spirit, particularly on the road.
I remember taking a test for road rage as a 17 year old in the middle of a traffic school class. I scored extremely high because I had answered "yes" to questions like: Have you ever fantasized about killing or severely hurting other drivers on the road. Certainly not a bragging right, even for an adolescent. I remember that being a turning point for me, as I was forced to face my own vicious anger. But how many people have not had that opportunity, or have refused to face that truth even when it stares them in their eye?
I have considered myself fortunate to have had a change of heart since that day. I assure you I am a much improved driver and am thankful that I have avoided drivers who seemed ready to "severely hurt" me. But I know that many of the drivers on the road are filled with rage. They fume with anger as they wait on traffic. They may not take it out on another car. But many will take it out somehow, often on someone in their own family.
But a study that hit the news recently found that 5-7% of Americans suffered from the disorder. I have a feeling that this will be the new diagnosis of choice for clinicians, just like ADD and ED. But I think this is sadly appropriate. Our society has been infiltrated by a hateful spirit, particularly on the road.
I remember taking a test for road rage as a 17 year old in the middle of a traffic school class. I scored extremely high because I had answered "yes" to questions like: Have you ever fantasized about killing or severely hurting other drivers on the road. Certainly not a bragging right, even for an adolescent. I remember that being a turning point for me, as I was forced to face my own vicious anger. But how many people have not had that opportunity, or have refused to face that truth even when it stares them in their eye?
I have considered myself fortunate to have had a change of heart since that day. I assure you I am a much improved driver and am thankful that I have avoided drivers who seemed ready to "severely hurt" me. But I know that many of the drivers on the road are filled with rage. They fume with anger as they wait on traffic. They may not take it out on another car. But many will take it out somehow, often on someone in their own family.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Fathering
I read Henri Nouwen's The Return of the Prodigal Son and he brought up something I had never heard suggested in the many times I have heard the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15). Nouwen said that the call of every follower of Christ is to become like the father in the story.
If you are unfamiliar with the story then it goes something like this: boy asks father for his share of inheritance, boy runs off to foreign land to gamble and spend his money on prostitutes, boy goes broke, boy comes back to father to ask to become a servant, father embraces his son and lavishes his riches on him by throwing a feast, boy's brother is pissed off cuz he was always the good kid and never had a party thrown for him, father tells the brother that he could have celebrated anytime. Maybe you should just read it yourself!
Oooook... back to the father. The father is the God-figure clearly from the story. He forgives graciously and holds no wrong against his son, even though he ran off to waste his money. The father was waiting for his son to return and runs to him when he sees him in the distance.
Some of us can relate to the story of the prodigal son. I know I can. And some can relate to the older brother. I can relate to his legalistic sense of entitlement too. But I had never thought that my goal in life is to become the father. But it makes sense for we are called to become like Jesus who is God.
I wish I had more time to write on this. But maybe this is something you shouldn't be spoon fed. Maybe you need to think about this yourself. You don't need to be a man to become like the father. In fact I think the father has many of what we might call feminine qualities. He runs after his son, embraces and kisses him, and gets incredibly excited at his return - not precisely what we would call a cowboy man. But the father demonstrates love. He demonstrates the ability to love unconditionally. I believe we should all aspire to be like the father - loving and seeking those who need to be loved and found.
If you are unfamiliar with the story then it goes something like this: boy asks father for his share of inheritance, boy runs off to foreign land to gamble and spend his money on prostitutes, boy goes broke, boy comes back to father to ask to become a servant, father embraces his son and lavishes his riches on him by throwing a feast, boy's brother is pissed off cuz he was always the good kid and never had a party thrown for him, father tells the brother that he could have celebrated anytime. Maybe you should just read it yourself!
Oooook... back to the father. The father is the God-figure clearly from the story. He forgives graciously and holds no wrong against his son, even though he ran off to waste his money. The father was waiting for his son to return and runs to him when he sees him in the distance.
Some of us can relate to the story of the prodigal son. I know I can. And some can relate to the older brother. I can relate to his legalistic sense of entitlement too. But I had never thought that my goal in life is to become the father. But it makes sense for we are called to become like Jesus who is God.
I wish I had more time to write on this. But maybe this is something you shouldn't be spoon fed. Maybe you need to think about this yourself. You don't need to be a man to become like the father. In fact I think the father has many of what we might call feminine qualities. He runs after his son, embraces and kisses him, and gets incredibly excited at his return - not precisely what we would call a cowboy man. But the father demonstrates love. He demonstrates the ability to love unconditionally. I believe we should all aspire to be like the father - loving and seeking those who need to be loved and found.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Tolkien vs. Lewis
I've engaged in a mini-debate with a professor over whether Tolkien or C.S. Lewis is better. I've not read much of Tolkien but I've read a fair amount of Lewis and from what I understand they take opposite views on the use of allegory.
If you have read the Chronicles of Narnia or The Great Divorce, you know that Lewis likes allegory. Aslan is clearly the Jesus figure and The LW&W is the story of Christ's death and resurrection. Tolkien, on the other hand, shied away from allegory nearly completely. He preferred to "sub-create" a new reality to which we could escape. This reality had the same values as earthly reality but it was a different story that did not directly relate to the Christian story. Tolkien liked certain elements of the Christian narrative, such as eucatastrophe (i.e. the happy ending after a catastrophe) and escaping into an alternate reality (Christians create a reality where an invisible God is more clearly visible). But Tolkien does not create an allegorical story.
There are two realities that are being "created." For Lewis it is the reality of the Kingdom of God. His stories clearly describe how God interacts with the world. For Tolkien it is a fairy story (and he readily describes his story as this) which is not merely for children but which describes a land where we can go to experience life.
So here is my opinion on the matter. What good is it to create an alternate reality that is not actually based on reality? Why not do as Lewis does and shed light on the Kingdom of God through the use of story. Is this not what Jesus does when he shares stories, or parables, with his followers. Perhaps Lewis is a bit didactic at times in that he tries to take some of the mystery of the experience away. But I think Lewis actually evangelizes through his stories, and not in some confrontational manner, by simply presenting the story of Christ in a manner which we can relate.
Tolkien, on the other hand, writes incredible stories (and he is clearly a better storyteller than Lewis) but the stories simply are made for enjoyment. The ethics may be the same as Christian ethics but since when is Christianity about ethics alone? I believe that books that share the story of Christ are greater books than books of fantasy and lore because they allow us to gain a greater understanding of who God is and who we are.
In the same way, therapy can be a means of simply allowing the client to escape into another world. And that is important for some. In fact, for those who do not want to discuss faith issues that may be where I get stuck. But I prefer to help the client see that God really exists and that God is a part of their life story.
Perhaps literature should be appreciated apart from its function. And perhaps we should consider how therapy tickles the client and makes them feel good. But to me that is far less potent than imagining therapy that brings clients into the love and grace and glory of God.
If you have read the Chronicles of Narnia or The Great Divorce, you know that Lewis likes allegory. Aslan is clearly the Jesus figure and The LW&W is the story of Christ's death and resurrection. Tolkien, on the other hand, shied away from allegory nearly completely. He preferred to "sub-create" a new reality to which we could escape. This reality had the same values as earthly reality but it was a different story that did not directly relate to the Christian story. Tolkien liked certain elements of the Christian narrative, such as eucatastrophe (i.e. the happy ending after a catastrophe) and escaping into an alternate reality (Christians create a reality where an invisible God is more clearly visible). But Tolkien does not create an allegorical story.
There are two realities that are being "created." For Lewis it is the reality of the Kingdom of God. His stories clearly describe how God interacts with the world. For Tolkien it is a fairy story (and he readily describes his story as this) which is not merely for children but which describes a land where we can go to experience life.
So here is my opinion on the matter. What good is it to create an alternate reality that is not actually based on reality? Why not do as Lewis does and shed light on the Kingdom of God through the use of story. Is this not what Jesus does when he shares stories, or parables, with his followers. Perhaps Lewis is a bit didactic at times in that he tries to take some of the mystery of the experience away. But I think Lewis actually evangelizes through his stories, and not in some confrontational manner, by simply presenting the story of Christ in a manner which we can relate.
Tolkien, on the other hand, writes incredible stories (and he is clearly a better storyteller than Lewis) but the stories simply are made for enjoyment. The ethics may be the same as Christian ethics but since when is Christianity about ethics alone? I believe that books that share the story of Christ are greater books than books of fantasy and lore because they allow us to gain a greater understanding of who God is and who we are.
In the same way, therapy can be a means of simply allowing the client to escape into another world. And that is important for some. In fact, for those who do not want to discuss faith issues that may be where I get stuck. But I prefer to help the client see that God really exists and that God is a part of their life story.
Perhaps literature should be appreciated apart from its function. And perhaps we should consider how therapy tickles the client and makes them feel good. But to me that is far less potent than imagining therapy that brings clients into the love and grace and glory of God.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
The Psychology of Salvation
Ok this blog was a long time coming. I think I'm finally ready to write it. I had saved it as a "draft" a couple months ago but couldn't motivate myself to finish it. The problem earlier was that my theology was changing. The way I saw the world was changing. I was beginning to see "the point" of holy living. It made sense why I should live a righteous life. But I didn't know what to do with the fact that I kept messing up.
I ended up beating myself up every time I would fall short of my own expectations. I would drown myself in guilt and the result was usually that I felt God was distant. I put my own guilt on God because why should God love me if I couldn't love myself? I think this is why I turned my back on God for that short period, which I wrote about in a previous blog. I was so pissed off at God for flooding me in guilt. In fact it was me who was putting guilt on myself and pretending like it was God.
So where does salvation fall in all of this? If you would have asked me two months ago I didn't have a clue. I started writing this blog and I couldn't finish. I just didn't understand what the significance of being saved was. I thought that if I entered into my guilt, and I used it as a motivation to change, then I would be able to live God's life for me. I had some of it right. I was transforming my mistakes into something positive. But God's grace had no part in that. And when I ended up failing I didn't know what to do. I just felt guilty and ashamed.
But the concept of salvation provides me with something deep. The word "saved," once stripped of the religious stuff, is a powerful word. "Saved" indicates that there is something which I could not protect myself from. Coming back to salvation meant that I had to rely on God's actions and not my own. Instead of feeling like I have to make myself feel bad for doing wrong - which is ineffective at making me do the right thing by the way - I accepted the forgiveness of my sins. I was able to accept the story of Christ's crucifixion as grounds for believing that God is forgiving. And if God can forgive me then I should be able to forgive myself.
I can't understand why I didn't understand this just a couple months earlier. I had been raised on this. I guess it is just so unnatural to receive forgiveness that we have to intentionally accept it. But since I have started to practice receiving grace again people have remarked that I look happier. I don't know quite what it is, but I feel lighter. And I am now able to reconnect with God in ways that I haven't been able to in months. I think I'm starting to reappreciate God's grace. And that's it. The psychology of salvation is that it frees us from the cycle of guilt that can keep us trapped. It brings us into freedom. There is nothing that can make us feel worthy in the midst of our guilt except accepting the forgiveness of God.
In case you are interested here's how my previous post, which I was unable to write any more on, began:
I ended up beating myself up every time I would fall short of my own expectations. I would drown myself in guilt and the result was usually that I felt God was distant. I put my own guilt on God because why should God love me if I couldn't love myself? I think this is why I turned my back on God for that short period, which I wrote about in a previous blog. I was so pissed off at God for flooding me in guilt. In fact it was me who was putting guilt on myself and pretending like it was God.
So where does salvation fall in all of this? If you would have asked me two months ago I didn't have a clue. I started writing this blog and I couldn't finish. I just didn't understand what the significance of being saved was. I thought that if I entered into my guilt, and I used it as a motivation to change, then I would be able to live God's life for me. I had some of it right. I was transforming my mistakes into something positive. But God's grace had no part in that. And when I ended up failing I didn't know what to do. I just felt guilty and ashamed.
But the concept of salvation provides me with something deep. The word "saved," once stripped of the religious stuff, is a powerful word. "Saved" indicates that there is something which I could not protect myself from. Coming back to salvation meant that I had to rely on God's actions and not my own. Instead of feeling like I have to make myself feel bad for doing wrong - which is ineffective at making me do the right thing by the way - I accepted the forgiveness of my sins. I was able to accept the story of Christ's crucifixion as grounds for believing that God is forgiving. And if God can forgive me then I should be able to forgive myself.
I can't understand why I didn't understand this just a couple months earlier. I had been raised on this. I guess it is just so unnatural to receive forgiveness that we have to intentionally accept it. But since I have started to practice receiving grace again people have remarked that I look happier. I don't know quite what it is, but I feel lighter. And I am now able to reconnect with God in ways that I haven't been able to in months. I think I'm starting to reappreciate God's grace. And that's it. The psychology of salvation is that it frees us from the cycle of guilt that can keep us trapped. It brings us into freedom. There is nothing that can make us feel worthy in the midst of our guilt except accepting the forgiveness of God.
In case you are interested here's how my previous post, which I was unable to write any more on, began:
If you have read my blog for a long time, you might have noticed that I steer clear of the Christian belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. Not because I don't believe it. Mostly it is because I just don't know what to make of it from a psychological perspective. Which is fine for me because I can accept that I will not ever fully understand God's greatest act for all mankind. But I'm afraid that it paints the picture that I believe that Christ's death on the cross means nothing. So here I will be a tad theoretical and I heartily encourage feedback because it is a topic that I am only beginning to consider.Once I got to there I couldn't write any more. I said that I was afraid that it suggests that Christ's death meant nothing to me... but I could not argue the opposite. Clearly at the time I really thought that Christ's death meant nothing. Now this might shed more light on why I nearly renounced my faith. Without the work of Christ I'm stuck with a bunch of guilt and anger towards God. And because of all that anger I could not deal with the reality that God exists. Thank God that He taught me what it means to be saved by grace and not by works.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Mirror Neurons and Our Connectedness
I'm taking a Cognitive Psychology class and my professor has been speaking a lot about embodied cognition, or how we "think" with more than just our brain. He also brought up "mirror neurons" which are neurons that fire when we see someone doing something in the same way that they would fire if we were doing them ourselves. Now this was perhaps one of the biggest findings in neuroscience in the last decade. (see Mirror Neurons)
The significance is that mirror neurons testify about our innate wiring to be affected by our environment and the people around us. I find it amazing to think that I can experience what someone is going through simply by seeing them go through it. Apparently, our gut reaction when we see someone getting hurt or crying is something that is hard wired into us. It seems our Creator wanted us to be relational beings.
I think the most exciting part of it is realizing that what we consider to be me actually stretches out beyond our flesh. We are connected to other people and the things around us in ways we simply cannot avoid. We interact with the world and the world interacts with us. As John Donne prophetically wrote, "No man is an island unto himself."
The significance is that mirror neurons testify about our innate wiring to be affected by our environment and the people around us. I find it amazing to think that I can experience what someone is going through simply by seeing them go through it. Apparently, our gut reaction when we see someone getting hurt or crying is something that is hard wired into us. It seems our Creator wanted us to be relational beings.
I think the most exciting part of it is realizing that what we consider to be me actually stretches out beyond our flesh. We are connected to other people and the things around us in ways we simply cannot avoid. We interact with the world and the world interacts with us. As John Donne prophetically wrote, "No man is an island unto himself."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)