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

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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!