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.
Showing posts with label counsellor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label counsellor. Show all posts
Thursday, 13 June 2013
Thursday, 14 June 2012
Holding labels tightly
Isn't it interesting how we identify ourselves? For example, people commonly define themselves by their work: "I'm a teacher"; sometimes by their sexual orientation: "I'm gay"; and sometimes by their faith: "I'm a Christian". In my particular case, in the 'About me' section on this blog I said 'I work as a counsellor' and also defined myself by saying 'I am a Christian'.
I understand that we need a simple way of introducing ourselves, but I am curious about how particular labels become such central parts of our identity that they are the first things we say when we introduce ourselves, and what effect this has on us and others.
1. Labels are always a shortcut
"Hello, I'm Mark and I'm a counsellor." Even though this is true, it is not a proper identity – I am also a husband, a father, a manager, and like paddling a canoe. Does it seem to change anything if I tell you that I am also a software programmer, a bass guitarist, and a 'biker' (motorcyclist)? We seem to have moved some way from the 'counsellor' label, but even this longer description merely lists some of the things I do, rather than 'who I am'...
In using labels as short-cuts, we both avoid the complexity and miss the richness of real relating; we hide many aspects of ourselves, dealing instead with stereotypes. These simplify our dealings with each other enormously, but at what cost?
2. Labels come to define our identity; they become self-fulfilling - not just descriptive but prescriptive; they influence our behaviour.
When a label becomes a central part of our identity it can be very restrictive. A label round our neck - even if we put it there ourselves - quickly becomes very difficult to remove.
If I define myself as 'a counsellor', then I start to behave in the ways that I think 'a counsellor' should behave, which in some measure will be a false self. And to what extent am I able to put that aside when I am being a husband or a friend, etc? If I continue to act as 'a counsellor' within those relationships, I threaten those relationships as my friends expect me to be a friend and my wife expects me to be a husband; neither asked for a counsellor.
3. A label can be a way of not taking responsibility; it can become an excuse.
Just as a label encourages us to behave in certain ways, it discourages us from behaving in other ways. When my church wants someone to help with serving the coffee after service, it is too easy for me to brush off their request for help - after all, I am 'a counsellor' and not a waiter. So I have excused myself from getting involved; I am of no use to them at all.
4. Another risk of labels is that we come to believe they are true.
I am 'a counsellor' in that this is what I am employed to do, but this side-steps questions about whether I am a good counsellor, or am proficient in some areas of counselling and weak in others, or am growing in knowledge or becoming rusty as a counsellor. The simplistic identity-label allows, in fact encourages, me to ignore all such honest reflections. We come to take its truth as self-evident. If we hold a label tightly in our heart, then what are we missing and what are we avoiding?
We've seen that our labels are gross simplifications, come to define and prescribe our identity, and are something we can hide behind. Moreover, there is a risk that we come to believe in them ourselves and give them a status and a precision they do not deserve.
I have used a simple 'counsellor' label as an example. Let's apply this to two other labels, one that isn't mine and one that is.
I gave an example above of people who define themselves by their sexual orientation, e.g. "I'm gay". Does what I have written still apply? I think it does. That label is certainly a short-cut, omitting saying a great deal of other things about a person. It is a label that some hold very tightly in their heart and can come to prescribe identity and behaviour; and it is possible to believe it is 'true', so avoiding the personal history and complexities that cannot be captured in a simple straight/gay definition. (And that last phrase may begin to rankle with those for whom this is a core part of their identity ... which also applies to straight people too, of course!)
More personally, I'm interested in my self-definition in my 'About me' bio. I said I 'work as a counsellor', which is different from saying 'I am a counsellor'. However, I also defined myself by saying 'I am a Christian', so it's personally challenging to consider whether all that I put above still holds true in my identity as 'a Christian'. Yes, this is also a short-cut; it does come to define and prescribe my identity and not just describe it. It's true that I may at times hide behind the label and I may also become complacent in assuming it's truth, when ultimately it will be God who decides whether this label fits when he looks up his Book of Life. (And some Christians will begin to prickle at the notion that their Christianity could or should be questioned.)
Used as a brief introduction, labels hide more than they reveal. They carry power and influence, for ourselves and our hearers. We need to hold labels lightly, even such core-identity-labels as these two examples.
I understand that we need a simple way of introducing ourselves, but I am curious about how particular labels become such central parts of our identity that they are the first things we say when we introduce ourselves, and what effect this has on us and others.
1. Labels are always a shortcut
"Hello, I'm Mark and I'm a counsellor." Even though this is true, it is not a proper identity – I am also a husband, a father, a manager, and like paddling a canoe. Does it seem to change anything if I tell you that I am also a software programmer, a bass guitarist, and a 'biker' (motorcyclist)? We seem to have moved some way from the 'counsellor' label, but even this longer description merely lists some of the things I do, rather than 'who I am'...
In using labels as short-cuts, we both avoid the complexity and miss the richness of real relating; we hide many aspects of ourselves, dealing instead with stereotypes. These simplify our dealings with each other enormously, but at what cost?
2. Labels come to define our identity; they become self-fulfilling - not just descriptive but prescriptive; they influence our behaviour.
When a label becomes a central part of our identity it can be very restrictive. A label round our neck - even if we put it there ourselves - quickly becomes very difficult to remove.
If I define myself as 'a counsellor', then I start to behave in the ways that I think 'a counsellor' should behave, which in some measure will be a false self. And to what extent am I able to put that aside when I am being a husband or a friend, etc? If I continue to act as 'a counsellor' within those relationships, I threaten those relationships as my friends expect me to be a friend and my wife expects me to be a husband; neither asked for a counsellor.
3. A label can be a way of not taking responsibility; it can become an excuse.
Just as a label encourages us to behave in certain ways, it discourages us from behaving in other ways. When my church wants someone to help with serving the coffee after service, it is too easy for me to brush off their request for help - after all, I am 'a counsellor' and not a waiter. So I have excused myself from getting involved; I am of no use to them at all.
4. Another risk of labels is that we come to believe they are true.
I am 'a counsellor' in that this is what I am employed to do, but this side-steps questions about whether I am a good counsellor, or am proficient in some areas of counselling and weak in others, or am growing in knowledge or becoming rusty as a counsellor. The simplistic identity-label allows, in fact encourages, me to ignore all such honest reflections. We come to take its truth as self-evident. If we hold a label tightly in our heart, then what are we missing and what are we avoiding?
We've seen that our labels are gross simplifications, come to define and prescribe our identity, and are something we can hide behind. Moreover, there is a risk that we come to believe in them ourselves and give them a status and a precision they do not deserve.
I have used a simple 'counsellor' label as an example. Let's apply this to two other labels, one that isn't mine and one that is.
I gave an example above of people who define themselves by their sexual orientation, e.g. "I'm gay". Does what I have written still apply? I think it does. That label is certainly a short-cut, omitting saying a great deal of other things about a person. It is a label that some hold very tightly in their heart and can come to prescribe identity and behaviour; and it is possible to believe it is 'true', so avoiding the personal history and complexities that cannot be captured in a simple straight/gay definition. (And that last phrase may begin to rankle with those for whom this is a core part of their identity ... which also applies to straight people too, of course!)
More personally, I'm interested in my self-definition in my 'About me' bio. I said I 'work as a counsellor', which is different from saying 'I am a counsellor'. However, I also defined myself by saying 'I am a Christian', so it's personally challenging to consider whether all that I put above still holds true in my identity as 'a Christian'. Yes, this is also a short-cut; it does come to define and prescribe my identity and not just describe it. It's true that I may at times hide behind the label and I may also become complacent in assuming it's truth, when ultimately it will be God who decides whether this label fits when he looks up his Book of Life. (And some Christians will begin to prickle at the notion that their Christianity could or should be questioned.)
Used as a brief introduction, labels hide more than they reveal. They carry power and influence, for ourselves and our hearers. We need to hold labels lightly, even such core-identity-labels as these two examples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)