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?
Monday, 29 April 2013
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:
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!
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.
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?
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'
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
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.
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:
Baby: Jesus!
Cleansed water:
Don't throw the baby out with the 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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)