It's only when we communicate or understand the emotional side of what is being communicated, that we can properly understand and truly relate to a person.
For example, a parent says: "The children have grown up and left home". This is a simple and clear statement, a piece of factual information; we've learnt something. But we are not yet in touch with that person, and we can't actually understand them properly until some emotion is shared.
"The children have grown up and left home, and I'm missing them like crazy", or "The children have grown up and left home and I'm so glad to have them out of the house!". Now we are beginning to know the person and understand what they are experiencing ...
With no emotion, we know about a person; but with emotion being expressed we begin to know the person. Those two things sound similar, but are a million miles apart.
Much of the time in churches people learn about Jesus and about God. That is fine as far as it goes - but it's not the same as being a Christian! Where is the living relationship?
Knowing that Jesus lived, taught, performed miracles, died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven - is interesting; but what does that have to do with me? It's only when I recognise that Jesus did these things because he loves me, grieves over my sin, longs to forgive me if only I will accept, yearns for a relationship with me - that things becomes personal. And this difference isn't just knowing more facts, but being in touch with how he feels about me!
And my response is not sufficient if I merely recognise the fact, or intellectually assent, that I need his forgiveness. It becomes real when I too weep over my sin, feel the joy of being in his presence, am honest with him about my struggles and fears ... Now we have a relationship!
So if a church keeps emotion out of the sanctuary it is stifling living relationships with God. How very sad!
Emotion is not enough on it's own for a good relationship, but being wary of emotion in Christianity merely indicates that our relationship with God is more intellectual than personal - relating to the ideas in Christianity, rather than relating to God.
Fortunately for us, God wants to have a very personal and emotional relationship with us. It's high time we responded - with joy!
Showing posts with label emotion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emotion. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Head, heart and hands
Each of us naturally leans towards using our minds, or our emotion, or our practical abilities. People tend to be strong in one of these ways of operating, adequate at another, and are often poor at the third. There's nothing wrong with this - it's just that people are different.
Those who most readily respond with their minds will think first; they may also feel some emotion or do something practical, but these will come after thinking. They are likely to be comfortable with understanding and reasoning; they have good 'head knowledge' and understand how (some) things work, which gives them a 'mental map' of what is happening and how best to respond. They will use phrases such as: 'I think that ...', 'What is happening is...', 'I know about that...'.
Others are primarily in touch with their emotion. They hear about something that has happened and are moved by the joy or sadness in it; tears and happiness will be familiar. They may not think through a situation, but they are in touch with what they feel about it and this guides their decisions and actions. They will use phrases such as: 'I feel that...', 'It's so sad that...', 'That poor person!'.
Others are first and foremost practical. Their first inclination is to do something; so if they hear about a person in need, their response is to do something practical to help. They will use phrases such as: 'How can we help you?', 'Can I drive you there?', 'Let's take them some flowers'.
We may well not be aware of such strengths and weaknesses in ourselves, and so are puzzled (at best) or scornful (at worst) at others who have different responses.
Our churches also tend to have a similar bias, and are usually just as blind about it. So (to grossly generalise) the evangelicals think, the charismatics feel, and the socially active Christians get on with doing things. Moreover - to continue the caricature - the evangelicals will be very wary of emotional charismatics and dismissive of 'the social gospel' - their priority is to get their teaching right! The charismatics will be amazed at how cold and unresponsive those evangelicals are, and yet are also not so keen to rush out into practical Christian action as they are enjoying the presence of God in their worship. And those who are into practical loving in Jesus' name cannot understand why these other Christians don't do anything useful!
These differences are often dressed up in theological language, but this doesn't really reflect a difference in theology so much as that God made people different!
But Jesus - unusually - was skilled in all three areas: clear thinking, emotionally literate, and practically involved. Perhaps this is not so surprising, as each of these reflect aspects of God's own character; you will see them all threaded throughout scripture if you look.
Rather than having our churches majoring in just one of these ways of operating and then constructing a theology to justify their discomfort with others' ways of responding, can we not recognise and use the different God-given giftings of our membership so that all are welcome in our churches and all bases are covered?
Of course, our minister / pastor / vicar will have their own personal strengths and weaknesses in these areas and so will almost certainly find it difficult to operate skillfully in all these modes. Can they humbly acknowledge their own weak areas and so seek out and use those within the church who have different gifts?
Only then can we have churches which have the mind of Christ, express the love and compassion of God, and then get involved with their hands in practical loving action in the name of Jesus.
Those who most readily respond with their minds will think first; they may also feel some emotion or do something practical, but these will come after thinking. They are likely to be comfortable with understanding and reasoning; they have good 'head knowledge' and understand how (some) things work, which gives them a 'mental map' of what is happening and how best to respond. They will use phrases such as: 'I think that ...', 'What is happening is...', 'I know about that...'.
Others are primarily in touch with their emotion. They hear about something that has happened and are moved by the joy or sadness in it; tears and happiness will be familiar. They may not think through a situation, but they are in touch with what they feel about it and this guides their decisions and actions. They will use phrases such as: 'I feel that...', 'It's so sad that...', 'That poor person!'.
Others are first and foremost practical. Their first inclination is to do something; so if they hear about a person in need, their response is to do something practical to help. They will use phrases such as: 'How can we help you?', 'Can I drive you there?', 'Let's take them some flowers'.
We may well not be aware of such strengths and weaknesses in ourselves, and so are puzzled (at best) or scornful (at worst) at others who have different responses.
Our churches also tend to have a similar bias, and are usually just as blind about it. So (to grossly generalise) the evangelicals think, the charismatics feel, and the socially active Christians get on with doing things. Moreover - to continue the caricature - the evangelicals will be very wary of emotional charismatics and dismissive of 'the social gospel' - their priority is to get their teaching right! The charismatics will be amazed at how cold and unresponsive those evangelicals are, and yet are also not so keen to rush out into practical Christian action as they are enjoying the presence of God in their worship. And those who are into practical loving in Jesus' name cannot understand why these other Christians don't do anything useful!
These differences are often dressed up in theological language, but this doesn't really reflect a difference in theology so much as that God made people different!
But Jesus - unusually - was skilled in all three areas: clear thinking, emotionally literate, and practically involved. Perhaps this is not so surprising, as each of these reflect aspects of God's own character; you will see them all threaded throughout scripture if you look.
Rather than having our churches majoring in just one of these ways of operating and then constructing a theology to justify their discomfort with others' ways of responding, can we not recognise and use the different God-given giftings of our membership so that all are welcome in our churches and all bases are covered?
Of course, our minister / pastor / vicar will have their own personal strengths and weaknesses in these areas and so will almost certainly find it difficult to operate skillfully in all these modes. Can they humbly acknowledge their own weak areas and so seek out and use those within the church who have different gifts?
Only then can we have churches which have the mind of Christ, express the love and compassion of God, and then get involved with their hands in practical loving action in the name of Jesus.
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Are you a dedicated follower of (emotional) fashion?
Fashions come and fashions go. Fashions in clothing immediately come to mind - styles, colours, hem-lines. Within the realm of fashions, we may also take in particular activities that seem to arise from nowhere and then just as quickly disappear.
But have you thought of emotions as being fashionable or unfashionable? I admit that these fashions don't come and go in a single season, but think back...
In the 50s and 60s it was fashionable to be happy, carefree, frivolous and joyful - but it certainly wasn't acceptable to be depressed - the most anyone would admit to was 'feeling a bit blue'. Whereas, in the last couple of decades its become totally acceptable to respond to the question "How are you feeling?", with "Depressed!"; so much so that it sounds a bit naff to respond by saying "I'm really happy!". Equally, it is not only acceptable to be 'stressed', but if you are not stressed the implication is that you're not trying hard enough, not working hard enough; in fact you are a loser!
There are several factors in our changing use of emotional language.
National and world events are clearly influences: the 1950s were a time of (comparative) excitement and exuberance coming after the strictures of war; the 60s were full of confidence in scientific progress, and so on. Now, we are driven by money and efficiency, are cynical about whether real change is possible and shifting international power catches us (Westerners) off balance. So it would be surprising if the prevailing national mood wasn't reflected in our language.
Another influence comes from the fact that it is in the interest of huge pharmaceutical companies to medicalise our normal experience. Anti-depressants and medications for anxiety, to name but two major groups, are routinely taken by the unhappy and the worried, and not just by those who have real mental health problems. The 'pill for every ill' culture is well established!
But this also further encourages the changing meaning of emotional words. When most people say they are 'depressed' they aren't implying a clinical diagnosis of depression, merely that they are feeling unhappy, a bit down at the moment, rather discouraged or fed-up. The growing acceptability of talking about depression may be a good thing for those who really are clinically depressed, but when it is merged or confused with unhappiness we have a real problem.
It is a problem for those who really are clinically depressed, who are often assumed to be simply unhappy, for this quickly turns into: 'they should stop making such a fuss about it - everyone's depressed!'. But it is a real danger for the unhappy too, who too often don't recognise that our self-descriptive words are self-fulfilling prophecies. Describe yourself frequently enough as 'depressed' or 'stressed' when you are unhappy or busy and it's not surprising that you increasingly feel depressed or stressed.
Words have real power; we should choose them with care! The words we use of ourselves and our mood are not just descriptive, but also become prescriptive.
Happiness is much under-rated these days; it's become a childhood memory, an unfamiliar and under-used emotion. Emotions, like muscles, need exercise. Your depression and stress muscles are probably well built; what about getting some practice with satisfaction, happiness and joy?
This isn't to imply we should pretend to be happy - pretence is a slippery slope. Nor is it about denying the real sadnesses and difficulties in life. Rather it's about noticing and enjoying the (maybe small) bits of happiness that are in our daily experience already, usually unnoticed. Don't think you have any? Look closer! All the emotional colours are there in some measure - from blue to joy. Focus on those you want to develop and give those emotional muscles some practice.
Fashions are optional; we can choose to buck the trend and to 'do different'.
Lots of people, from drug companies to insurance salesmen try to sell us happiness. Why buy a lie? Why not practice and enjoy the real thing?
But have you thought of emotions as being fashionable or unfashionable? I admit that these fashions don't come and go in a single season, but think back...
In the 50s and 60s it was fashionable to be happy, carefree, frivolous and joyful - but it certainly wasn't acceptable to be depressed - the most anyone would admit to was 'feeling a bit blue'. Whereas, in the last couple of decades its become totally acceptable to respond to the question "How are you feeling?", with "Depressed!"; so much so that it sounds a bit naff to respond by saying "I'm really happy!". Equally, it is not only acceptable to be 'stressed', but if you are not stressed the implication is that you're not trying hard enough, not working hard enough; in fact you are a loser!
There are several factors in our changing use of emotional language.
National and world events are clearly influences: the 1950s were a time of (comparative) excitement and exuberance coming after the strictures of war; the 60s were full of confidence in scientific progress, and so on. Now, we are driven by money and efficiency, are cynical about whether real change is possible and shifting international power catches us (Westerners) off balance. So it would be surprising if the prevailing national mood wasn't reflected in our language.
Another influence comes from the fact that it is in the interest of huge pharmaceutical companies to medicalise our normal experience. Anti-depressants and medications for anxiety, to name but two major groups, are routinely taken by the unhappy and the worried, and not just by those who have real mental health problems. The 'pill for every ill' culture is well established!
But this also further encourages the changing meaning of emotional words. When most people say they are 'depressed' they aren't implying a clinical diagnosis of depression, merely that they are feeling unhappy, a bit down at the moment, rather discouraged or fed-up. The growing acceptability of talking about depression may be a good thing for those who really are clinically depressed, but when it is merged or confused with unhappiness we have a real problem.
It is a problem for those who really are clinically depressed, who are often assumed to be simply unhappy, for this quickly turns into: 'they should stop making such a fuss about it - everyone's depressed!'. But it is a real danger for the unhappy too, who too often don't recognise that our self-descriptive words are self-fulfilling prophecies. Describe yourself frequently enough as 'depressed' or 'stressed' when you are unhappy or busy and it's not surprising that you increasingly feel depressed or stressed.
Words have real power; we should choose them with care! The words we use of ourselves and our mood are not just descriptive, but also become prescriptive.
Happiness is much under-rated these days; it's become a childhood memory, an unfamiliar and under-used emotion. Emotions, like muscles, need exercise. Your depression and stress muscles are probably well built; what about getting some practice with satisfaction, happiness and joy?
This isn't to imply we should pretend to be happy - pretence is a slippery slope. Nor is it about denying the real sadnesses and difficulties in life. Rather it's about noticing and enjoying the (maybe small) bits of happiness that are in our daily experience already, usually unnoticed. Don't think you have any? Look closer! All the emotional colours are there in some measure - from blue to joy. Focus on those you want to develop and give those emotional muscles some practice.
Fashions are optional; we can choose to buck the trend and to 'do different'.
Lots of people, from drug companies to insurance salesmen try to sell us happiness. Why buy a lie? Why not practice and enjoy the real thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)