Tuesday 24 December 2013

What is love?

Christmas is supposed to be a time for sharing, for giving, for getting together, and for peace and love.  And there are plenty of romantic, feel-good movies to watch on television to get us into the mood.

Working as a counsellor, I also know that too often it is a time of loneliness, stress and family strife.

While we like the romantic ideal of togetherness and harmony, we also know that it is 'not real life', that love is not measured in tinsel or by the price of a present, and that everything returns to normal within a very few days.

Here is the real message of love at Christmas: that, while people were greedy, selfish, divided and warring, the loving God sent his son Jesus into the world to freely offer peace, joy, total fulfilment and eternal life to all who would accept it.

It wasn't romantic: the stable was smelly, Mary and Joseph were poor, and they had to become refugees as they fled in fear of their lives.  And there was no feel-good ending - for it led to a painful and bloody death on a cross.

But it was an act of total love, giving everything for us, who did not, and do not, deserve it!

Tuesday 10 December 2013

You can't have trust without taking a risk

We value being trusted; it's a mark of a good relationship. Conversely, we don't like being distrusted, or the sense of suspicion that comes with it, for this strongly undermines a relationship - we become guarded, careful about what we share, less open and more distant.

There is another part of us that wants to be certain about things, to know for sure. We are wary when we don’t know all the details - are we being ‘taken for a ride’, is there something hidden and not being shared, is there something underhand going on?

But there is a paradox involved in holding the above two common characteristics together, which is at root a battle between love, which is willing to take the risk of trusting, and power, which controls and minimises any risk of threat and not knowing.

Think of a close personal relationship: in order to build trust the people in that relationship need to act in trustworthy and consistent ways as trust develops. Even once there is a considerable degree of trust, the people in the relationship do not know everything about the other, or even need to know everything - for there is willingness to trust that the other’s attitude and actions will be loving without our trying to exert any control over them.

Such confidence and trust is not based on full knowledge or on power, but rather on shared values and experience, and a willingness to believe in the other’s benevolence.

Now think of the national security services: their business is not trusting, but gaining all the possible information about others that they can, just in case there is some deception or latent hostility or threat to be uncovered. When this intelligence gathering is aimed at political or military enemies, the mutual distrust may make such intelligence gathering understandable, even necessary for self-protection. But where this takes place between allies, or is directed towards ‘innocent third parties’, then this is not a benign protecting against threat; it destroys trust, builds suspicion and increases the level of threat!

The paradox is that we must take the risk of trusting another in order to get close to them and build a safer world. Where we seek to eliminate that risk, then we inevitably endanger relationships and increase the level of threat.

Those who say they act in our best interest to protect us whilst also spying on us, may or may not be sincere, but either way they are mistaken. For you cannot have trust without taking a risk, and you cannot have security without a good deal of trust.

Sunday 17 November 2013

Plotting a course

Imagine a person in a small boat plotting a course. Ultimately, their desired destination is across the great ocean, which would involve navigating by charts and the stars, and risking unpredictable weather and currents. They may decide this is too daunting, and decide instead to follow the coastline, staying within reach of the familiar coves should storms arise.

Which course to plot?

We each plot a course for our lives, making choices between felt safety and reaching our destination on the other side.

If we plot a safe course, we can take 'day excursions' which offer a taste of the ocean but never leave the sight of land. In this way we can steer from one familiar harbour to the next and so may gradually, one step at a time, travel some distance.

But the ultimate destination can never be reached except by setting sail across the deep ocean, relying on the charts, a compass and the stars, accepting that this also involves a greater sense of danger.

So, which course do we plot in life? Do we keep to the shallows and the familiar landmarks, assuming that this keeps us safe? Or do we set sail across the great oceans, trusting our charts and risking the storms, and so head for a destination that can never be reached by any other course?

In my experience, it is only by trusting the ‘chart’ that is the Bible, and trusting ourselves into the hands of Jesus to protect us when the inevitable storms come, that we can find the one truly safe haven on the other side.

Sunday 3 November 2013

Doing what is legal, or doing what is good?

We human beings seem naturally inclined to push boundaries, to explore the limits of what is feasible or is allowed. On the one hand this means that we push the limits of our abilities - to prove ourselves stronger, faster, cleverer, or tougher than our peers. It also means that if a speed limit is set at 50, we want to go 55. In fact, if we learn that the police won't pay attention until we break the limit by a certain margin, then we exceed the limit by exactly that margin … or by just a little more! We expect to 'get away with it'.

The Government works full-time to set the rules for society by enacting more and more detailed legislation about every aspect of life. In this way, rather than setting out what is good, just and honest, they set out in ever-increasing detail what is illegal and punishable.

As the law becomes ever more complex and detailed, people employ lawyers to help explore and exploit the limits and loop-holes of what is legal.

But this is not the same as doing what is good or right or ethical!

It is has been said that "the Lord's Prayer has 59 words, the Ten Commandments have 297, the American Declaration of Independence has 300, and the [EU Food Supplements Directive] has 10,038" *

You cannot make people good by telling them what they must not do, for this just leads to legalism - at best merely observing the letter of the law, or more likely exploiting its outer limits.

Jesus asserted that all the law is summarised in these two short sentences, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind', and, 'Love your neighbour as yourself'" (Luke 10v27). Although he knew full well that our hearts are evil, yet, surprisingly, he set down the law as the good for which we are to strive.

What is legal, and what is good, are two different things. So when people justify their behaviour by saying that what they are doing is legal, it seems very unlikely that they are aiming for what is good!

-----
* Hansard, 20/1/2003, vol. 398, c99

Saturday 26 October 2013

Responsibility and free choice

We commonly hear the argument about people being responsible for their own decisions:
  • if someone wants to smoke despite knowing the health risks, then that is their choice
  • if adults want to watch pornography, they are free to choose to do so
  • if people want to drink to excess, then they are responsible for their own actions.

In each case the argument is that people are responsible for their own actions and choices; it is not for anyone else to interfere or restrict their freedom. So the gainsayers are routinely dismissed as restricting free choice and taking responsibility from people for their own decisions.

So tobacco firms state that consumers are free to make up their own minds about smoking cigarettes; those who produce pornography state that adults can choose to watch whatever they wish; and drinks manufacturers and distributors say it up to the drinker to be sensible.

But where does responsibility actually lie?

It is true that each person must take responsibility for his or her own actions. But all the above examples - although they sound reasonable - only look at one end of the transaction; they tell just half of the story:
  • Manufacturers of cigarettes are also responsible for their actions, and, as they know that cigarettes harm people's health, they produce goods and make a profit by helping people to harm themselves
  • The producers of pornography are also responsible for their actions, and do work that degrades and can be dangerous to their actors, and which encourages damaging attitudes to sexuality amongst their viewers
  • And retailers who sell alcoholic drinks in promotional multi-packs below cost price are also responsible for their actions in promoting irresponsible drinking.

So, while each individual is responsible for their own choices and actions and cannot simply blame the manufacturers, the manufacturers cannot evade their own responsibility by hiding behind the 'freedom of choice' argument; to do so is disingenuous. Denying their own responsibility and making a profit by helping people to harm themselves in one way or another is not just unethical, they are also responsible!

Sunday 15 September 2013

Can we have the Nanny State back please?

In decades past, much of state policy had a moral dimension to it - including concepts such as the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor - which influenced the degree and nature of any help or benefits offered.

We now expect the State not to make judgements about the ways in which people live. So the tax and benefits systems treat people the same, regardless of behavioural choices or lifestyle. Thus we affirm that it is not the job of the State to make moral judgements and so avoid having a 'Nanny State'. After all, it is not the job of the State to decide who is 'right' or 'deserving'!

At first sight this appears to be fair: people are treated equally regardless of their circumstances, and it avoids the State having to make difficult judgements at an individual level; straightforward regulations can be drawn up which apply to all.

But this stance has a number of unintended consequences: in avoiding making moral judgements, we promote amorality. And in an amoral society we do not face any consequences from our decisions; it makes no difference if we behave morally or immorally, responsibly or irresponsibly! Moreover, this system is not felt to be 'fair' either, for some groups are widely felt to be 'milking the system' at the expense of 'the rest of us'.

So there is a perverse consequence of this amoral stance: the irresponsible are in effect rewarded, by not reaping any negative consequence from their actions; and the responsible are in effect discriminated against, for there is no positive outcome from taking personal responsibility, as well as from having to pick up a share of the consequences arising from others' irresponsible behaviour.

And hence the 'neutral' stance is not neutral after all: in being amoral, we are promoting amorality. A state system which is blind to people taking personal responsibility, encourages and grows immature and irresponsible people. People unfamiliar with difficult moral decisions and judgements are ill-equipped to do so when needed, including about the interplay of personal and societal responsibilities.

And those who sneer at idea of the 'Nanny State' and strut around saying 'they don't want to be treated like children' appear to be behaving exactly like stroppy children who are trying to assert that they are grown up.

Others say that grappling with morality is the responsibility of the church, not the state. In part this must be true, for the ultimate questions of right and wrong are religious. But making judgements about balancing personal and societal responsibilities are not just a religious matter. People who have no religious faith make judgements of this kind all the time, and the state cannot wash its hands of doing so too; that is the state shirking a difficult responsibility!

Personally, I would rather we grappled with the problems associated with a Nanny State, than promoted an amoral culture. The former pushes us as a society to make judgements which balance the needs of the individual with the best interest of society. This will certainly involve difficult discussions and decisions about what is 'moral' or 'right', and what 'acting responsibly' means in relation to the rest of society.

But promoting an amoral culture is definitely wrong!

Monday 2 September 2013

There's much more to forgiveness than meets the eye

We all know that it is good to forgive people for their minor misdemeanours against us, and we expect them to do the same in return; this smoothes family and social relationships. After all, we are all fallible human beings and sometimes say or do things we regret. Forgiveness is a good means of dealing with this side of life.

But in the Biblical view, there is much more to forgiveness than that. In fact, if you have at some point been badly wounded by some very difficult circumstance, trauma or abuse, then you may find this topic challenging and difficult to hear. Please read on, if you choose to do so, with care.

While we probably find it possible to forgive others' minor actions, it becomes much more difficult when we have been badly wronged and emotionally wounded. Unfortunately, the Bible makes no such distinction according to how severe the transgression, and tells us to forgive others nonetheless: "…if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins" (Mark 11v25)

In fact, Jesus in the Lord's Prayer teaches his followers to pray: "Forgive us our sins, for we forgive everyone who sins against us" (Luke 11v4). If we will not forgive those who have wronged us, then God cannot forgive us either! It's not that God is reluctant to forgive us - far from it, for he longs to! - but rather he cannot deal with those areas of our lives, such as unforgiveness, that we hold onto tightly and will not put into his hands.

So, is the Bible seriously saying that we should forgive people if they have badly hurt us, even abused us or tortured us? And even if they are not repentant? Our natural response is to say, "Surely this is not fair; surely it is letting them off the hook and letting them go free! Surely God is just and will punish evil-doers?"

Well, that is the point: God is just, and will punish all who sin and do not turn to him in repentance - but justice is in God's hands and not ours. We are to forgive, to hold no claim, not even a grudge. As far as we are concerned, we are to let the perpetrator go free!

But why? Because this isn't just about letting the perpetrator off the hook, it's also about letting ourselves off the hook - the hook of bitterness, woundedness, of victimhood. It's about letting ourselves go free; it's about giving no scope for the devil to work evil in our lives through what has happened - leaving no room for anger, for revenge, or for resulting sickness of body or spirit.

So what about the perpetrator? They are, and always were, in God's hands, and God's alone; he is both loving and just and will decide that person's fate. Note that this is not simply saying 'you don't have to take revenge because God will do it for you'! Rather, it is leaving the outcome up to God, the ultimate and just Judge who has the power of eternal life and eternal death in his hands, but who will also forgive the vilest offender who truly repents.

But how do we actually do this? How do we let go of the hurt, anger and bitterness that are left after we have been badly hurt? How can we forgive?

We may feel that we cannot forgive, but the Bible doesn't accept this, asserting that we have a choice over whether to forgive. It reminds us that we are all sinners in need of forgiveness, and Jesus has forgiven us much more than we will ever need to forgive another person.

But this is not to imply that any of this is easy; it is likely to involve a real, and probably prolonged, struggle. In the midst of such a struggle, the best way forward is to pray, "Lord, please help me forgive and put this into your hands".

When we are able to put this all into God's hands, then God can also work his healing in us - restoring us mentally, emotionally, psychologically and physically - freeing us and making us whole again; a work that only God can do!

Thursday 22 August 2013

Doing what we know to be wrong

When we act in ways that we ourselves feel to be wrong, we do serious damage to our soul. I am not here thinking about acts that are serious or illegal, but rather the moment-by-moment small actions, the words we utter that we know are unjust, hurtful, not quite true or are one-sided or self-serving.

We are all familiar with such behaviour, so why is this anything other than a simple description of 'normal life'? Where is the danger to our soul?

When we do what we ourselves know to be wrong, even by some small measure, then we begin to distrust ourselves, to know ourselves as deceitful people, sometimes unkind or even cruel, liars; we begin to despise ourselves.

If we do something to put the matter right - for example, by apologising and making serious amends - then we may regain our footing, at least for a while. But where we do not put matters right, then we are on a very slippery slope indeed. While initially our conscience speaks to warn us of the danger, we quickly acclimatise to small deceits, then to greater ones, and then see all such behaviour as 'just normal'. Our conscience is first drowned out, then anaesthetised, then broken.

Soon all trust is gone, in ourselves and others; we expect nothing better than half-truth from politicians, deception from advertisers and the media, money-grabbing by those who are selling, and self-interest from all others, including ourselves. We look back with faint amusement at 'old-fashioned honesty' - that innocent and naive quality of yesteryear that no longer fits our sophisticated and complicated world; a world in which all kinds of deception and perversion are not just normal, but valid expressions of oneself and are to be accepted, and even admired or encouraged.

We have drowned out conscience, redefined bad as good and begun to believe in it, made ourselves impervious to truth, felt pride in our 'broadmindedness', and left ourselves dead.

Ignoring our conscience, even in small matters, is very serious indeed. And there is no way back ...

... except by submitting to the Truth*.


* see the Bible, John 14v6

Thursday 8 August 2013

But all religions are the same

Some beliefs say there is one God, some say that there are many, and some that there is no god.
But the common view is that all religions are fundamentally the same.

Some beliefs say that you can never reach heaven by trying hard, others that we can reach heaven if we follow certain codes of conduct, and some say there is no heaven.
But all religions are the same.

Some beliefs say that we are fundamentally bad, others that we are good, and others that it comes down to a selfish gene.
But all religions are the same.

Some beliefs say that they alone are right, others that there are many paths to the same end, and others that say all religions are wrong.
But all religions are the same.

Some beliefs say that you must choose for yourself, others force adherents to believe, and others that it's about following the evidence.
But all religions are the same.

Some religions are based in historical events, some in the writings of an enlightened one, and some on the assertion that the absence of proof is itself proof.
But all religions are the same.

All religions are the same? Eh?

Saturday 27 July 2013

Fiery arrows

In a previous post (The devil's top 10) I listed some of the more common deceits of the devil. These would apply to Christians as much as anyone else, of course, but this post lists some of the common strategies the devil employs particularly aimed at Christians. Again, they are filled with subtle or not-so-subtle half-truths, and at first sight may seem quite reasonable; but there is a deception at the core of each one.

You are not good enough to be a Christian
The devil says: "Christians, such as Mother Theresa, are such remarkable and saintly people! They have given their whole lives over to the service of others in disease-ridden slums. Whereas you are a very ordinary person, often confused and not at all special, not even particularly good; you are certainly not good enough to call yourself a Christian!"
Rationale: Putting Christians on a pedestal puts them out of reach, and makes them unlike normal human beings - admirable, but not real.
But the Bible says: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11 v28

Christians should be busy
The devil says: "There are so many needs in the world, there's so much work to be done - church services and mid-week meetings; reading Christian books; and that's not to mention the poverty and material needs across the world. God gives you every minute - aren't you wasting that time?"
Rationale: Keep Christians very busy doing good things, in fact doing anything except reading the Bible and praying.
But the Bible says: "If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you", John 15v7, and "In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength", Isaiah 30 v15.

Work in your own strength
The devil says: "God has given you that intelligence and ability; don't you think you should get on and use it? Don't you remember God told his people to be mature, so do you really think that he wants you to run to him every two seconds about every decision? No, get on and decide for yourself."
Rationale: Get Christians to step out and take the initiative from God rather than relying on and following him.
But Jesus said: "I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me." John 14 v31

Be very religious
The devil says: "Congratulations for trying so hard; with just a little more effort you could be a very good Christian indeed. Now, if you just got up 15 minutes earlier and knelt down while praying, then you'd do much better."
Rationale: This sounds wonderfully Christian, but it is just 'works', and it will put off most people, who can see this is just empty ritual. Moreover, you will be discouraged when you don't keep it up.
But the Bible says: "the Lord searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought" 1 Chronicles 28 v9

It's all about feelings
The devil says: "You know you don't feel as close to God as you used to. You should go to a good worship session, turn the volume up and wave you hands in the air; get into the spirit, and then it will all feel more real."
Rationale: Make truth subjective and personal, rather than based on what God has said.
But the Bible says: "‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14 v6

It's all about head-knowledge
The devil says: "How can you expect to be a good Christian if you don't know your Bible? You need to study it in order to understand some theology."
Rationale: Get Christians studying and discussing the Bible in order to check and debate their understanding. Discussing it is fine, just so long as they don't do what it says. Treat it as a academic exercise so they are relying on their own understanding, rather than the power of the Spirit.
But the Bible says: "faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." James 2 v17

Use the Bible to back up your arguments
The devil says: "It's important, if you are a Christian, to make sure that you have God's backing. So, when arguing your case, make sure to include plenty of Bible verses to show that you are right."
Rationale: Having Christians using the Bible to back up their own views means that they are not seeing themselves as subject to the Bible; it also passes their opinions off as God's views.
But the Bible says: "If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them" Galatians 1 v9 (You would be wise to check this 'reference' for yourself!)

A verse for every occasion
The devil says: "God has given people the Bible; that's where the power lies. So what you need to do is to be able to quote the appropriate verse from it for each and every situation."
Rationale: Encourage people to give trite answers from the Bible, preferably out of context or mis-applied. Then people will come to see the Bible as a source of annoyance, of simplistic advice, and will miss the costliness of loving.
But the Bible says: "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command." John 15 v13&14

You are a very successful Christian
The devil says: "You are such an excellent role-model as a Christian: active in church, insightful, holy, wise and knowledgeable. If only all the others in church were like you and followed your example!"
Rationale: pride, pride, pride...
But the Bible says: "These are the ones I look on with favour: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word." Isaiah 66 v2

It's more important for Christians to be right than to be united
The devil says: "Defending the Gospel is such an important task that it is vital that you let no heresy gain ground. So be on your guard and ready to condemn Christians who make the slightest error; keep your distance from such sinful people."
Rationale: Where there is disunity amongst Christians their witness is neutered and they end up fighting on the devil's side!
But the Bible says: "Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." Ephesians 4 v2-3

Ahhh! The devil's strategies are endless ...
... but the Bible says: "take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one" Ephesians 6 v16

Sunday 7 July 2013

The abiding desire for healing

I find it interesting that in Jesus' day the most common request from those who believed in his having supernatural power was for healing. We can easily put that down to the poor understanding of physical medicine at that time, for physicians were both expensive and not then very good at treating diseases; the possibility of healing from a passing prophet was too good an opportunity to miss!

But things have changed, haven't they? Now we have a modern health system: some health problems have been eradicated, many others can be treated and yet others can be controlled; not all, but a very great many.

So why is it that nowadays one of the most common requests for prayer is still for healing? Listen to any time of prayer, and it will include prayers for people who are sick.

What is it about healing that we still lack and so turn to God Almighty?

Perhaps it is when we are unwell that we recognise the truth that we are frail and mortal beings, a fact we quickly like to forget when we are well? Perhaps we know that there is a significant difference between the healing of body, mind and spirit that God deals in, and the treating of physical disease that our doctors deal in? Perhaps illness quickly brings us up against our ignorance and impotence, our lack of power and control, and so we reach out to the All-powerful, who alone holds life and death in his hands?

We instinctively know that in God's Kingdom there will be no more sickness or pain, and yearn for that time now. But, of course, we live in the 'now and not yet': we do see God at work but await to see life in all its fullness. That time will come for all who will accept Jesus' loving offer.

And in the mean time, despite all the advances of modern medicine and science - for which we praise God - we still look to God for healing.

Friday 21 June 2013

Life is relationship

All of life is lived in relationship, there is no 'me' who is not in relationship!

Of course, we relate to our friends and families, work colleagues and the other people and neighbours we know. We even relate to a stranger as we walk down the street, just by a glance as we move aside in order to not bump into each other.

We relate to shop-keepers when we purchase goods, and we relate to the producers of the goods we buy, by contributing to their gainful employment, or to their forced labour in third-world sweatshops.

We relate to 'friends' we have never met via social media, and to internet providers by browsing their material, and to advertisers and marketers by being influenced to buy their wares.

Watching TV, we are in a two-way relationship with those we watch, by giving them market share, so employing them and promoting their work. There is no "me in the privacy of my own home" when we look at pornography on the web, for we perpetrate abuse and provide business to people traffickers.

Even when we are physically alone and just with our thoughts, we are relating to ourselves: observing ourselves, 'talking' to ourselves to criticise, belittle or harm ourselves - or to nurture, encourage and build ourselves up.

When we are asleep, we relate to others in our dreams.

Even considering death, there is no "it's my life and I can die if I want to", for by taking our own life we affect family, friends, medics and officials, and others we have never met by changing the path of the world, even if just a little.

In acknowledging God, we bring joy to his heart when we are in relationship with him, and we grieve him when we ignore him, disobey him, or disbelieve in him who is our sustainer, and who made us to be in relationship with him.

Life is relationship. There is no 'me' who is not in relationship.

Thursday 13 June 2013

We are one: body, soul and spirit

In my last post I focused on the different world-views underlying spiritual faiths and Western psychology, and questioned whether the latter was imposing its assumptions on the many people of faith. In this blog I pursue this line of thinking further, focusing on the increasing overlap between Western therapeutic thinking and Christianity.

Some think that Christianity and psychology have nothing to do with each other: they are different realms and there is no reason for Christians to be any more interested in psychology than in any other '-ology'. There are others who see Christianity and psychology as so overlapping that they almost merge into one, and use 'pop psychology' in the church context with great relish, and seem to almost equate therapy with sanctification!

One of the very first things I learnt as a therapist was that it is difficult to tell psychological problems apart from spiritual problems. There are mental health issues that may have their roots in spiritual problems, and spiritual problems that may be presented as mental health ones. [I'm not interested here in those who suffer from serious delusions - such as thinking that they are Jesus Christ - but rather in the interplay of our ordinary everyday psychological and spiritual experience in life's ups and downs.]

Physicians and psychotherapists increasingly acknowledge that physical and mental health affect each other greatly. We are, after all, one person - our mind is part of our body! So, when people think about being in 'good health' or a state of 'well-being', they generally mean being in good physical and mental health.

But this is not sufficient. We also need to include the link between the physical and mental with our spiritual being. We are indeed one person - body, mind (or soul) and spirit; they each affect the other. So I do not see how one may truly be in good health without the spirit also being healthy. And how can the spirit be healthy when we ignore it, starve it, even deny its existence? We end up with people who look healthy on the outside but who are empty on the inside, hollow shells - or as Jesus put it more plainly, "whitewashed tombs".

Moreover, I do not think Jesus subscribed to the current ideology which sees spiritual issues alone as being the concern of the church, while we leave physical health to doctors and mental health to counsellors and the like. Jesus dealt with whole people - body, soul and spirit - and his healing was total - physical, mental and spiritual. He gave bread to hungry people, hope to hopeless people, enabled lame people to walk and the blind to see, and forgiveness and new life to those who were spiritually broken.

Counsellors must engage with the spiritual realities of their clients, not with any aim for salvation, but merely to understand their clients properly. And the church needs to follow Jesus' example and deal with whole people. Too often both have fallen for the same deceit: that the spirit can be separated from the body and mind.

Nevertheless, the church and counsellors are aiming at different things. It is not the role of counsellors to pass comment on their clients' spiritual frame of reference, merely to understand and engage with the whole person in front of them. But the church will not be relevant to people if it confines itself just to the spiritual; the 'average person in the street', as well as those in the pew, will see the irrelevance of preaching that doesn't deal with the physical and emotional realities of our lives. The gospel is not just about forgiveness for personal sins and being right with God, but about restoring relationships and the natural world - it's about making all things new.

Monday 27 May 2013

Psychological & spiritual world-views

Counselling is increasingly accepted in our society, to the point that choosing to see a counsellor is no longer seen as strange or implying anything particularly negative about ourselves.

As a counsellor myself, I must declare an interest in this growing acceptability and demand for counselling! However, as I'm also a Christian, I want to highlight a significant side effect of this trend which is probably unintended and certainly little considered in our secular society.

In seeking counselling there is an implicit assumption that the roots of many problems - anxiety, depression, relationship problems, to name but a few - reside in the realm of psychology, emotions or identity. Hence, seeking counselling is an appropriate way to address such issues.

So what? Where's the problem?

We are very likely blind to the prevailing Western and secular world-view that sees such issues as psychological rather than spiritual. Another view is that anxiety and depression are very natural responses when we lose touch with God and live in a de-personalising materialistic society.

Counsellors intend to offer a 'safe and neutral space' where people can say what they really feel, whatever is on their heart. However, in reality there are usually strict and unspoken limits to this space: "come here if you accept the world-view that such issues are emotional or psychological in nature; spiritual issues are not invited except as an aside".

A natural retort would be that if you want to talk about spiritual issues, then go and see a chaplain, minister, priest or other religious leader. But this implies that these two realms have little overlap and so can be neatly divided up and allocated to different 'specialists'.

Yet, to the person of faith, we cannot meaningfully talk about identity without focusing on the identity God has given us, or about our purpose or direction without including our God-given purpose, or about our relationships without considering how God has made us relational beings. There is no realm of human experience that does not involve God.

You may consider such statements strange or even extreme. But, if so, that simply tells us something about how these world-views collide. And this is not just a problem for a small minority of clients - the great majority of the inhabitants of planet Earth hold to one set of spiritual beliefs or another!

A spiritual world-view goes further, to questioning whether mental health problems may have not just biological or psychological roots, but may also be symptoms of spiritual dis-ease. If a client talks to their counsellor about being depressed, do we enquire into their prayer-life? If a client talks about body image, do we ask about their understanding of being made in the image of God?

While counsellors do their best to understand the diversity of gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation, we have barely even considered our own spiritual biases and the impact these have on our clients - often denying their reality and imposing a Western secular psychological world-view.

Friday 17 May 2013

Choosing our identity

In recent decades we have come to think and talk a lot about identity. However, what we mean by identity is rarely defined and often includes a multitude of meanings.

In a general way we think of identity to mean "who I am", with the common implication being that this is a given and not up for discussion or change. Rather, we talk about 'being true to our identity'. In other words, we see our task as aligning ourselves faithfully with our given identity in order to be authentically ourselves. In so doing we tend not to acknowledge any choice over our identity. Hence, it is not surprising that we feel misunderstood, offended, or even outraged, when someone challenges some aspect of our identity. After all, how can I change who I am? How dare they!

On the contrary, I think that our identity is largely a matter of choice; moreover it can and does change with time.

So, what factors influence our identity?
  • there are attributes we are born with, such as ethnicity, sex, hair colour - i.e. our genetic make-up
  • there are cultural aspects to our identity, such as nationality, caste, cultural norms and expectations, which may include religion
  • and there are behavioural facets to our identity, such as work roles, interests and preferences.
It is important to note that these are not distinct and separate categories - for example one may be Jewish by birth, by culture or by chosen religious practice.

But these are all factors that influence rather than determine our identity. For example, you may be red-headed by birth, but whether you see this as part of your identity depends on what importance you give this; if it is unimportant, it is just an incidental fact about you. The importance or significance we ascribe to a particular fact about us, in turn shapes how we perceive our identity.

The problem occurs when we feel defined - by others or by society - by some attribute or behaviour of ours which we do not take to be particularly important. For example, if you are a mother, a lawyer and campaigner for human rights, but others only see you as 'disabled' because of the wheelchair you use, then this is very likely to be frustrating! For good reasons we are encouraged to see 'a person with a disability', rather than a 'disabled person'.

While that example might be clear, others are not: do we see 'a gay man' or 'a man who is gay' or, indeed, just 'a man'? There is no right answer to this. It depends on what importance that person places on their same-sex attraction and whether they see that as a key part of their identity. [In saying this, I am accepting that a person's identity is defined by their own views, rather than the views of the observer.]

Moreover, although we tend to think that the 'real me', the 'inner me', remains unchanged whatever our age or circumstance, we do change our identity over time. As we move from child to teenager to adult, perhaps to partner, parent, grand-parent - or from student to unemployed person, to employee, to retiree - our priorities, interests, focus and values change. The young 'left-wing-radical' becomes rather more conservative with age.

There was a time when I certainly didn't think of myself as a Christian, but now it is one of the things I hold most dear, a key part of my identity. But what changed? My upbringing and cultural circumstances haven't changed, nor has my genetic make-up. Yet my behaviour, feelings and the values I hold dear have changed in ways I count very important. So my identity has changed. (You might say - excuse the cliché - that I was 'born again'!)

So, when you hear someone talking about his or her identity in ways that imply they have no choice in the matter, I would inject a note of caution, and look to the choices we each make along the way in defining our identity.

Monday 29 April 2013

Being true to our feelings?

We talk about 'being true to our feelings' as if to do so is to be 'honest', 'authentic', 'natural', to really 'be ourselves'. There is an implicit but clear notion that this is good and should be encouraged.

Working as a counsellor I am certainly interested in people's feelings; these give information and meaning to bald facts about a person and their behaviour. But the common assumption is that feelings are neither good nor bad, right or wrong - they 'just are'.

For example, if I feel hurt after a confrontation, we tend not to make judgements about whether it was right or wrong to feel hurt; we are more likely to ask what it was that hurt, or to agree that it was quite natural to feel hurt after such a bruising encounter.

But this is to overlook the great degree to which our thinking influences - even begets - our feelings. And our thinking is, in turn, heavily influenced by societal norms and our own worldview.

So, returning to my simple example, it may be that I am hurt because some uncomfortable truth about me is brought to light in the confrontation, and I think, "who do they think they are to pass judgement upon me?". So it is my pride that is hurt.

But from a Christian perspective, my sinful proud nature has been revealed. My feeling of hurt was a further outworking of this sin. A more Godly response would have been to admit my arrogance, humbly take it to God and to praise Him that He loves me nonetheless. So, not hurt, but gratitude to the other person for speaking the truth, and to God for His forgiveness!

So, it turns out that feelings, far from being neutral or 'just being whatever they are', reveal our (usually sinful) nature.

A blunter way of saying this would be: thank God that I am not being really true to my feelings - for otherwise I too would be a thief, a murderer, a tyrant.

What about you?

Tuesday 2 April 2013

Doubt: the growing edge of faith

All people of faith are familiar with doubt. Yet we may well feel some sense of shame or guilt for doubting, as if we should not. The very existence of doubts seems to indicate a feeble faith rather than a clear conviction.

I see it differently.

Doubt is not the same as unbelief; it is a time of being unsure whether we believe or not; it is a potential turning point. Although doubt is not a sin, it is important to pay it careful attention, because there can be consequences for all eternity.

Look back at the things you now believe. Wasn’t there a time, maybe long ago, that you doubted them? Praise the Lord that he has brought you through those doubts to greater faith. Every advance in our faith was preceded by doubt, out of which grew conviction. Through doubt, in time, comes greater faith - doubt is the growing edge of faith.

But of course doubt can also be the turning point at which we lose our faith - hence its seriousness and potentially eternal consequences. So what makes the difference? When does doubt turn to faith, and when to unbelief?

I think it depends on what do you do when you doubt.

Do you dwell on your doubts and try to rationally work them out by yourself, probably getting stuck in the process? Do you pretend to have faith, but inwardly harbour doubt? Do you turn away from God, doubting that he will help? Do you stop going to church because you are not sure what you believe? If so, that way lies disbelief, discontent, disillusionment, and ultimately death.

Or do you take your doubts to Jesus?

There are many famous doubters in the Bible. Here are a few:
  • Abram, who doubted God would give him the promised land, in Genesis 15v8
  • Gideon, who doubted whether he was hearing from God, in Judges 6v17
  • John the Baptist, who doubted whether Jesus was the Messiah, in Matthew 11v2
  • Peter, who doubted he could walk on water when Jesus told him to, in Matthew 14v29
  • and Thomas, who doubted whether Jesus had risen from the dead, in John 20v25.
Each was honest with God, taking their doubt to Him. And God didn't strike them down for doubting, but in each case responded carefully and gently to their doubts in a way that caused their doubt to turn to faith!

Why do I still doubt? Because my faith is still growing; because He still has more to do in me!

And if you are really struggling with doubt and wonder whether you can carry on as a Christian, do not suppose that you will resolve your doubts by giving up your faith. Do you really think that non-Christians and atheists don’t have doubts: What if there is a God? Perhaps Christians are right? What am I here for? Surely there is more to life than this?

So the answer to doubt is not atheism, but honestly taking your doubts to God. God can use doubt to grow our faith!

There is nothing that God wants better than to increase your faith, so that you know Him better and to make you more useful to Him. In every case I quoted – Abram, Gideon, John the Baptist, Peter, Thomas – it was through their doubt that God brought about greater faith! If we take our doubts to Him, He can use them to grow our faith.

Doubt is the growing edge of faith - when we take it to Jesus!

Sunday 10 March 2013

Playing victim with the poor - pt2

(This blog will make more sense if you read pt1 first)

The Persecutor-Victim-Rescuer roles are commonly played out by individuals, but I am also interested in how they play out at a societal and global level. Please consider the following two examples with me.

The UK welfare benefits system

In stereotypical terms, the UK Labour Party leans towards being Rescuers, wanting to support the poor people (in both senses of that word!), while the Conservative Party leans towards being Persecutors of those 'idle scroungers'. Those on benefits may choose to play the Victim role (or not).

But both main political parties are both playing the same P-V-R game. After we have played one way for a while with Labour riding to Rescue the poor Victims on benefits, we flip over to the opposing pole for a change and elect the Conservatives to Persecute them instead for a season.

Those on benefits, if playing the Victim role, use their power to extract benefits from the government, but in the process become dependent. So, whichever party is in power, nothing actually changes and no real help is provided to the poor Victims to enable them to gain independence.

To make real change we need to move to the Helper - Challenger - Vulnerable roles, with Governments taking the Helper and/or Challenger positions. This is not the same as either Rescuer or Persecutor roles, and looks for actual change, not the maintenance of some long-standing power game. From the Government's point of view, this would involve releasing some power, so those in poverty can take more control of their destiny. From the point of view of those in poverty, this would involve taking more responsibility for what they can achieve for themselves if given needed help.

Governments are keen on telling the poor to take more responsibility, but less keen on letting go of control. And those who are playing the Victim role are keen to ask for money, but are sometimes less keen to take on real responsibility. And so, the whole merry-go-round turns again, as we keep playing P-V-R instead.

When a person with real need asks for help (i.e. being Vulnerable - not playing Victim), is instead dealt with as a Victim by the state, this is a travesty and does untold long-term harm, creating dependency where none was sought!

How can you tell which set of relationships is being enacted?
  • the Vulnerable person asks for help, but also takes responsibility for what they can do themselves
  • the Helper offers relevant help when asked, but doesn't exert control or take away responsibility
  • the Challenger is fair and doesn't 'put people down'.

International aid

The same applies to international aid. For too long we have played P-V-R with aid, where developing countries exert their power as Victims to extract aid, but are left dependent. The Western world either rides to the Rescue in order to retain control (with the price being aid money) or else Persecutes by exploiting the developing world unfairly while blaming them for mismanagement.

Are Western nations willing to accord the developing nations equal rights with themselves, or do we really want to retain the moral high ground and the control, with the price being international aid?

On the other hand, we often we criticise developing nations for 'playing victim', but will not let go of the control we demand as Rescuers or Persecutors. If we really want to help, we need to acknowledge and accept the loss of power for the Western world if we are able to help developing nations gain independence and autonomy.

So the question is: are we just wanting to endlessly play the P-V-R game, or do we actually want to respond when asked for help in order to effect real change?


I've written on a similar theme before in: 'Doing more than half the work'

Playing victim with the poor - pt1

There is a commonly encountered pattern of relating that counsellors and others are familiar with - it is often called the Karpman Drama Triangle (1). In this pattern two people enact well-rehearsed roles out of the following three options:

Victim (V): In this role the person is, in effect, saying "Please help me, I am poor and helpless and can't help myself".
Rescuer (R): The person playing this role sees the 'victim' and rushes to their rescue, saying "I can help you, I know just what you need, you poor thing".
Persecutor (P): The person playing this role may see the Victim and say: "Help yourself, you lazy useless good-for-nothing", and or may say to the Rescuer: "What gives you the right to be so high and mighty, thinking you have all the answers…".

Now, what is important to realise, is that this P-V-R game is about power; it is not about helping. Moreover, the players are very likely to switch roles frequently! Here is a simple example:

Nancy: "I don't know how to check the oil on the car; I've never done it before. Would you be a darling and do it for me?" (taking Victim role)
Fred: "It's about time you learnt to do it yourself. You'll never be independent while you expect me to do it for you." (Persecutor)
Nancy: "Oh please, darling. I'll learn one day but right now I"m worried about the car." (Victim)
Fred: "Alright, I'll do it. It's very easy really and it won't take me long." (Rescuer)
Nancy: "Well, there's no need to rub it in. I do all your laundry every week without complaining." (Persecutor)

And so the conversation continues… Please excuse the stereotypical roles, but I trust you will recognise how it works!

Note that Nancy never learns how to change the oil. Her request was not to learn how to do this, but to have Fred do it for her. Similarly, Fred never learns how to do the laundry. But also notice that Fred probably doesn't want Nancy to learn to change the oil or to be independent, for that would rob him of his role as 'expert about the car'; similarly Nancy probably doesn't want Fred to do the laundry for fear of losing her area of expertise.

So why repeat this familiar pattern of relating? Everyone gains something: the person playing Victim gets something done for them; the Rescuer can feel proud of their expertise and good deed; and the Persecutor enjoys feeling important by putting others down!

But there is a deeper, darker, and ultimately destructive, result to this way of relating. The Victim ends up being dependent and helpless, the Rescuer knows they haven't really helped and the Persecutor knows they are not important - they are disliked, even despised. In the end everyone ends up feeling bad.

Nothing has changed; they have just been round the familiar, rehearsed roles one more time.

This pattern of relating is very common, but it is not inevitable.  Here is an alternative dialogue, with roles that could be called Helper, Challenger and Vulnerable, so:

Nancy: "I don't know how to check the oil on the car; could you show me?" (Vulnerable)
Fred: "Sure, no problem. Ill be right there." (Helper)
Nancy: "Thanks. And sometime you should learn how to do the laundry" (Challenger)
Fred: "Yes, you are right. I have some time on Saturday; could you show me then?" (Vulnerable)

In this exchange something does change - both learn new skills and there is no need to go round this conversation again in the future.

The P-V-R roles are commonly played out by individuals, but I am also interested in how they play out at a societal and global level - but that is for the next blog...

(1) See: http://www.karpmandramatriangle.com

Sunday 3 March 2013

Buddhism is cool!

Buddhism seems to crop up in conversations in the most unlikely places these days. I work as a counsellor in a secular context. One of the growing buzz-words in counselling these days is 'mindfulness' - though actually this is usually introduced as "mindfulness, which originally comes from Buddhist practices'".

Also, in a training I attended recently, the trainer introduced a concept and similarly added, 'this is a Buddhist concept'.

I tried to imagine how this would have been received if the trainer had said about some point in the training 'this is a Christian concept', or, equally, 'this is a concept from Islam'. I very much doubt that either of the latter would have been accepted without challenge.

But, as Buddhism is currently cool, it's not just acceptable to introduce things as 'coming from Buddhism', but this seems to add to their cachet.

So I'm puzzled. What is it about Buddhism that is attractive and acceptable in our secular society, when other religions are carefully put back in their box?

Buddhist teachings on the nature of suffering and how to rise above it sound attractive; we all know what it is to suffer and we would rather that we didn't! So, it seems worth paying attention when a teaching claims to have something to say about this. Moreover, as Buddhism doesn't make a big play about any deity who should be obeyed, but rather extols a personal inward journey towards enlightenment, I suppose that this fits with our secular self-improvement society rather well.

Personally, having tried self-improvement of various kinds and made no headway - remaining as sinful as ever - I confess Jesus as my Lord. He specialises in rescuing sinners and requires only a simple prayer: "Have mercy on me, a sinner".

Being a sinner isn't cool, but Jesus offers forgiveness and eternal life to all who will accept His free gift.

That is a Christian concept. And daily lived experience.

Sunday 17 February 2013

Throwing the baby out with the bath water

Dirty bath water:
  • Christian denominational & theological divisions
  • evil in our hearts, dressed to look smart in pews
  • self-serving, proclaimed as protecting the truth
  • traditions and unwillingness to change
  • self-importance and hypocrisy
  • keeping a safe distance from a troubled world
  • sticking with people who are 'like us'.

Baby: Jesus!

Cleansed water:
  • crossing the divides to bring Christian unity, under one Lord
  • evil in our hearts, forgiven at the cross
  • acknowledging Jesus as Lord, who is the Truth
  • following wherever Jesus leads
  • self-worth, bestowed at great cost on the cross
  • working to bring peace to a troubled world
  • loving those who are needy, in the name of Jesus.

Don't throw the baby out with the dirty bath water!

Saturday 9 February 2013

Boiling frogs

It is said that a frog will not jump out of a pot of water if the temperature of the water is raised so gradually that the frog doesn't notice. Despite nothing stopping the frog from jumping out, it will stay there and be boiled to death - so long as the change in water temperature is very, very gradual.

This doesn't just apply to frogs! People who exert power know they can make changes very slowly, confident that those affected will gradually acclimatise to the changing circumstances and not notice until it's too late. This often occurs in abusive relationships; politicians and managers also use it to gradually introduce unpopular measures.

But there are at least two ways in which this applies to us all.

First, as we grow up in our increasingly materialistic and consumerist society, we gradually adjust to living more and more depersonalised lives in an increasingly polluted world, with run-away global warming and a rapid depletion of species. While we mutter about the degradation of life, we make no serious change of course, and it's not difficult to foresee a 'boiled frog incident' of global proportions coming.

Secondly, we also grow accustomed to the devil's pervasive lies which promote deceit as truth, greed as good, selfishness as self esteem, sex as love and desires as rights - and we just go with the flow. We call it 'progress' or 'modernisation' and see nothing particularly dangerous about such ideas!

Despite nothing stopping us from going back to the Author of Life - who is ever ready to rescue us, through Jesus, from a very unpleasant end - we gradually acclimatise to increasingly deadly ideas and ways of life without ever noticing - until its too late, and we are boiled to death.

In fact, I understand that experiments with frogs have shown that the 'boiled frog' story is a myth* - frogs do jump out when the water temperature gets uncomfortably hot.

So, it turns out that it doesn't work with frogs. But it does work with many humans.

* see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

Saturday 2 February 2013

The devil's indecision

How difficult it is to make and own a decision!

There are big decisions, difficult decisions, those where we cannot choose between options because both are good, dilemmas where neither option seems desirable and double-binds where the choices are irreconcilable...

So we take the easy route: we don't decide, we procrastinate and say we'll decide later. But of course, by not deciding, we are in fact making a decision, attempting to maintain the status quo - or at least that is our assumption.

Sometimes we decide against something, for example voting against a political party we dislike at an election rather than voting for what we think is best (at least in those countries where some form of democracy exists). It seems easier to choose not to do something, than to make a positive choice.

Or we can make very small decisions to change. For example we may forego a biscuit in an attempt to lose weight, but continue unchanged with our intake of chocolate and sugary drinks. It's easier to make the little decision than to take the big one.

Sometimes there are moments when we really do have to make a decision because the status quo is no longer possible - and then we are likely to get very stressed.

In fact, it seems very difficult to make a clear, significant, positive decision. It requires honesty about our circumstances and about ourselves. It also requires an act of faith: that our choice will work out for the good.

Certainly, to become a Christian is a life-changing decision, but one that many hesitate over until it's too late. Although the responsibility is ours, the devil seems keen to encourage our indecision!

---
I've written about decisions before, see:
Decisions, decisions, decisions and Micro-choices matter

Sunday 20 January 2013

The one needed thing

Following a recent deluge in which some houses had been flooded, I heard the local politician saying on the radio that "they will do everything necessary to ensure this doesn't happen again". I'm sure he was well intentioned, but I'm also sure he had flood barriers and better warnings in mind, rather than addressing the root causes - changing planning regulations to preclude building housing on flood plains, or addressing the causes of climate change.

We go to great lengths to treat the symptoms, but won't address the root causes.

We will bankrupt the economy and enter recession, putting hundreds of thousands out of work, in order to save the big banks
... but we won't stop them gambling with other people's money.

We will tighten the benefits system and hamper the poor, increase tax on middle-income workers, and make public sector workers redundant
... but we won't tackle legal tax avoidance by the richest individuals or corporations

We will improve town-centre policing, train and employ more liver specialists, and introduce security measures at Accident & Emergency departments
... but we won't tighten alcohol licensing laws or ban it being sold below cost price.

In order to improve the nation's mental health, we will reorganise parts of the National Health Service, improve access to therapy and spend huge sums on researching new medications
... but we won't talk about the depersonalising impact of living a consumerist and materialistic lifestyle.

And in the personal sphere, we'll do anything to have peace. We learn meditation techniques, download the 50 most relaxing tunes, and reorganise our schedule in order to get a bit of 'me-time'
... but we won't put our lives into Jesus' hands.

We'll do anything to give life meaning. We work hard for years to gain promotion to earn more money to buy more things to seek fulfilment
... but we won't accept the Lord, the author of life.

How often we'll do anything ... everything ... except the one needed thing.

Sunday 13 January 2013

Is it difficult to know?

In these days when different religions jostle for space it's difficult to know quite where to turn or which to trust.

The atheists and humanists are more and more vociferous, and sometimes seem as militant as those at the other extreme. But they may have a point about God not existing; it's difficult to know.

The Christians keep disagreeing - protestants vs catholics, evangelicals vs liberals, Church of England vs Church of England. Who knows whether any group is right? But perhaps God does exist; it's difficult to know.

Then there are the Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucianists, and many others - each different, each with sincere believers. One God or many gods? A human God, a monkey god, or a god within? It's difficult to know.

Then there are those who are 'vaguely spiritual but not religious' - anything from reflecting in quiet spaces to believing in crystals and tree-hugging. Have they just taken bits and pieces from other religions or cultivated their own particular idea, and so ended up with a personalised 'pick and mix' blend - a religion specifically tailored to each one? It's difficult to know!

But which is true or do they all lead to the same end? That's the trouble: it's difficult to know…

Here are some questions that may help you to decide and come to know:
  1. Is it of human or divine origin? We can admire and learn from human wisdom, but a religion requires something 'other' and greater. To worship (rather than admire) a human being is perverse.
  2. Is it based in history or in myth? Myths can be beautiful, bring a sense of wisdom and have many levels of meaning; we can learn about ourselves, others and the world from myths. But that is not the same as worshipping a God quite beyond the human realm.
  3. Is it based on following behavioural rules that need to be obeyed, or is there a living relationship with God? Following rules is a reassuringly familiar process, though can often lead to disillusionment. But then we have come down to a simple matter of human effort, rather than knowing God.
  4. Are you looking at a culture or a religion? The two often overlap but are not the same. A religion involves giving one's life in the service of a higher power; a culture means behaving in ways that are familiar within a community.
  5. What happens to those who decide to stop believing? Disagreement and disapproval from other believers is one thing, but if there is coercion, threats or force to continue 'believing', then you can be sure that this is not about belief but about social pressure or power.

Here are some things that may appear useful guides, but I doubt they really are:
  1. What does science say? Scientific investigation can tell us many useful things, but in the realm of spiritual beliefs it has no way of knowing or making any useful comment.
  2. Are the followers sincere? This is not a good way of deciding what is true, as the followers of all religions are sincere (in the main), otherwise they would stop believing! You cannot distinguish religions on the basis of their believers' sincerity.
  3. Does the religion have a lot of believers? Although most of the great world religions have millions, even billions of followers, they differ in such fundamental ways that they are incompatible; they cannot all be right.

And that last point also tells us that they are definitely not all leading to the same end!