Monthly Archives: September 2007

September 28, 2007 · 9:32 am

WWII and your perspective on the world


Have watched only bits and pieces of Ken Burns’ documentary but what I’ve seen is moving and makes me want to watch it all at some point. Just a couple things I noticed:

1. The issue of racism. John Hope Franklin’s bit on how he had everything to run a military office, including an Ivy League PhD but couldn’t because he lacked the right color–very interesting character!

2. How much the whole of the US was involved in the war. The ads telling people at home to ration gas so “the boys” will have gas for their airplanes.

3. PTSD. One man tells of a strafing run where his fellow gunner had a jammed gun. So, he could see the damage, destruction, and death he himself was doing to the Germans. His hand “froze” and he had to fly the plane back with his left hand. For years afterward, he would have nightmares of that day and wake up without the use of his hand. Somehow his wife could sense it and offer him his morning coffee to his left hand. I’m sure he never got to talk much about that in public settings. Though he is now in his late 70s, you can see it still is with him. This truly was the greatest generation!

4. Impact on my family. My parents were in their formative years (pre-teen to teen) during the war. I’ve heard stories about rationing, blackouts, and plane spotting against the threat of a German invasion. My mother still makes “hot milk cake.” This was described as an invention of the war to have a good tasting cake without the usual amounts of sugar and butter. Also, my wife pointed out that my mother still cuts both ends out of soup cans and then flattens the can with her foot, just like they did during the war.

5. Heritage and perspective matter. Listen to Miaken Scott’s reflections of being brought up German after the war: http://temple.whyy.org/tv12/thewar_fm_growingup.html

1 Comment

Filed under Cultural Anthropology

Tagged as , ,

September 27, 2007 · 9:25 am

Emotionally Destructive Relationships 2


Previously, I introduced Leslie Vernick’s The Emotionally Destructive Relationship: Seeing it, Stopping it, Surviving it (2007 Harvest House). Here’s some more tidbits from the rest of Part one (Seeing it):

1. Chapter two covers the typical emotional, physical, mental, relational, generational, and spiritual effects of destructive relationships. Of note, Leslie says, “Perhaps one of the most serious long-term relational effects of interpersonal sin is how it shapes our view of ourselves and others.” (p. 55). This is a good point. Those who grow up in one of these kinds of relationships are like a starving person in the corner of a banquet hall where only one person is allowed to eat, where all the food is only for one person. That starving person may then grow up and either become a demanding person who starves those in their own banquet hall (under the guise of, “I will never be treated that way again”) or remain highly dependant on others and open to continually being used.

2. Chapter 3 helps the reader to avoid seeing self only as wounded or victim but as one who, due to the fall, responds sinfully to a sinful world. Leslie does not let the reader use excuses (e.g., I was abused so I can’t help that I’m harsh with others) when confronted with one’s own destructive tendencies. She paints a picture of what a Godly response looks like when we come face to face with our own sinfulness: face our brokenness and ask for forgiveness; Take responsibility for your part of the problem; Make an effort to change. In contrast, the immature response to our brokenness: refusal to listen, defensiveness; Blindness and denial; Unwillingness to change (saying I know, I’m sorry doesn’t equal change).

This is where many couples flounder. They feel that if they agree with their spouse’s criticisms and acknowledge their own destructive patterns, the other will get off without having to admit theirs. And so we hear, “yes, I know that I shouldn’t…but you…”.

3. Chapters 4-5 explore destructive themes of the heart: pride, anger, envy, selfishness, laziness, evil, and fear. A key point is that many of the things we want and desire in relationships are not bad. The problem is that these things turn into demands. Who doesn’t want to be understood? But it is possible to make that a demand and an excuse for our own destructive patterns. We like to suggest that other people’s sins cause us to respond in kind. In fact the environment is only the trigger that exposes our heart’s demands. Finally, Leslie points out that fear may not look at controlling and destructive to relationships, “Relationally, fearful people  don’t want to be gods, like the proud person does, but they allow their lives to be ruled by others instead of God.” And fear leads to the temptation to try to protect oneself from relational pain by demanding of others, “I need!”

What I like about Leslie’s writing (this and in other books as well) is that she avoids the black/white view of victims and victimizers. It is hard to read her books and not be convicted, even if you are suffering much at the hands of others.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abuse, biblical counseling, book reviews

Tagged as ,

September 26, 2007 · 5:27 am

JesusCreed on “Ex-Gays”


Starting on 10/2 Scot McKnight is going to start a post series at www.jesuscreed.orgon Stan Jones and Mark Yarhouse’s new book, Ex-Gays? Yesterday, he merely announced that he would start the series and it brought on the usual discussions that one encounters when talking about homosexuality, sexual orientation, etc. (e.g., is it right/wrong? Did Jesus say anything about the matter? What is orientation? Does it really change? Why do we give special attention to this particular activity and avoid things like gossip and adultery?). All good questions, but they may miss the actual issues raised by this particular book.

Personal experiences play a huge role in much of the public conversation about sexuality (we all have broken sexual experiences and friends and family with their own experiences). It will be interesting to see whether readers of JesusCreed will be able to consider the merits of the questions that Jones and Yarhouse ask: Is it ever possible for someone to change their sexual orientation using religious means? And, is it harmful to try?

Chapter one lays out the controversy (i.e., the scientific and political claims in the debate, whether sexual orientation is a thing or a construction) and articulates their view of the relationship between science and faith.

Chapter two provides an overview of a Christian/biblical view of sexuality (what it was designed to be and how it is broken). In short, they report that the biblical text gives sexual intercourse a fixed meaning (an good act between husband and wife) rather than have the act defined by the intent of the participants. “Nonreligious persons today are accustomed to thinking that the meaning of their sexual actions are conferred by their intentions for those acts….But the Christian tradition asserts the opposite: that sexually intimate acts have fixed meanings by their very nature” (p. 49).  God provides the boundaries, but given our fallen nature, every aspect of our personhood reflects humanity’s rebellion against God. They then detail both Christian ethical responses to homosexuality as well as pastoral responses by well-known agencies.

Chapters 3 and 4 are the defense of their rationale and methodologies. Of note is the small sample size. But remember, they want to know whether it is ever possible for someone to change orientation through religious means. They do an interesting discussion of what kind of study they wanted to do and what they actually did in the end (chapter five) and why. They also address matters of researcher bias here. Chapters 6-9 explore how one might measure sexual orientation change and report their results.

Whether you agree or disagree with their sexual ethic, agree or disagree with their interpretation of orientation or their view of what makes for a robust empirical finding, you ought to agree that this is a well-written book that attempts to very slowly walk through the issues (scientific, biases, change, identity and orientation) without slandering opponents and yet maintaining their apologetical stance.

A worthy book to read by anyone. Stay tuned to JesusCreed to see how readers there respond to the issues when it gets to the details of the chapters.   

2 Comments

Filed under counseling science, Identity, sexual identity

Tagged as , , ,

September 25, 2007 · 9:51 am

Your negative mood and how you view your loved ones


When you experience negative emotion in your most intimate relationships, what do you do? A recent study published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology (54:4, 2007) suggests that we are inclined to place much of the blame on our loved ones. Instead of attributing the problems to external factors (as we tend to do when feeling good), many tend to attribute the cause of their unhappiness to their spouse’s character or behavior. The researchers suggest that when we feel happy we broaden our cognitive focus and when we feel unhappy, we narrow it down to the most salient (convenient?) factors–our spouse’s behavior.

A couple of other interesting factoids that came out of this study. When either partner is unsatisfied in the relationship, the woman engaged in more demanding behaviors (blaming, discussing, putting pressure on the other) as opposed to withdrawing behaviors. When couples improved their relational mood by attributing the positive change to either individual, they were less satisfied than when couples improved their relational mood by attributing the positive change to environmental factors.

Does this make sense to you? Why would couples have more satisfaction if they think external factors account for their positive mood than if they attribute positive change to one or the other? Are we suspicious of our spouse’s motives? Don’t really believe their good behavior will continue?

Here’s why this matters for therapists. As the authors say, we are generally trained to explore a couple’s presenting problem, investigate the history of the problem, and then intervene. They suggest that this will INCREASE the couple’s negative emotions and tempt them to choose a bad solution such as blaming the other or withdrawing. This may suggest that therapists begin couples counseling by increasing positive mood before jumping right into the problem. The authors also remind us of some of Gottman’s research that how a conversation begins has a huge impact on the rest of the conversation and influences the particular problem-solving skills a couple uses.

Leave a comment

Filed under counseling science, counseling skills, marriage

Tagged as ,

September 24, 2007 · 10:06 am

Are you a social loafer?


How involved do you get in advocacy? My most recent Pennsylvania Psychologist magazine explores the need for political and social advocacy by psychologists. Most of us Psychologists want our state organization to fight the evil empire of Managed Care but few contribute or work personally toward the cause.

Social loafing, says Ed Zuckerman, is when, “Members of a group make less effort to achieve a goal when they work together than when they work separately.” He goes on to say, “We appear to contribute less energetically when cooperating on a committee than if we had the same parts of the task to do alone. Why do we loaf? The main explanation is that people feel unmotivated because they think that their contributions will not be evaluated separately from the group’s and they require individual rewards for effort.”

Does that explanation ring true for you? It does seem that we sometimes have the, “someone else will do it” mentality and so place responsibility on others that should be our own. I see that in class group projects sometimes. Second, we sometimes have the “what will I get out of this” short-sighted mentality.

But what explains the way some groups get things done where individually, they probably could not succeed? A compelling goal, an awareness of need, a heightened sense of expectation for self and other, and active choice. When roles are assigned, complaints, passivity, procrastination increases says Zuckerman.  

Where do you loaf? Work? Tithing and other financial gifts? Volunteering at church? I know for me it is when my local Y wants me to participate in fundraising to help support my son’s gymnastics team. I pay a nice monthly fee. I buy his uniform. I pay my part of the coach fees for meets. So, it feels like I have already “given at the office. Let others do it.

Or what about church volunteering. I’m in full time ministry (teaching at a seminary, counseling part-time). Its all for God. So, do I have to also be willing to teach Sunday School, serve on committees, etc.? Despite my temptation to say no, I believe I must support the local church with my time. Uh, is 1x/month duty in the pre-k class enough? Someone will surely pick up the slack…

Leave a comment

Filed under Cultural Anthropology

Tagged as

September 21, 2007 · 9:08 am

Frederick Douglass on American Religion


At the conclusion of yesterday’s staff meeting, Diane Langberg read to us from the appendix of Douglass’ slave narrative. He felt compelled to clarify his views on religion, and Christianity in particular. As with all great literature, this piece is timeless and ought to be revisited by us from time to time.

His main point? American Christianity practiced in the South is/was not authentic Christianity. In fact, it is another religion altogether. Here are some tidbits:

…between Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference–so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked…. I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason,  but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels…. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members…. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The deal gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity.

Douglass then goes on to connect Jesus’ description of the Pharisees to American Christians.

“They bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers…. But woe unto you scribes and pharisees…you devour widows’ houses…You blind guides! Which strain out the gnat and swallow the camel.”  

Where is Douglass’ assessment of the hypocritical nature of American Christianity still true today? Where do we accept things that should not go together? It is always hard to see it for ourselves. We need those irritating prophets who offend us but make us think. Douglass was such a prophet. Unfortunately, we tend to ignore these prophets in their lifetime and then other prophets forget that the message they have been given is not for their own personal gain.

Should you want to read the whole appendix (and if you haven’t–read the whole book!), here is the link to the text.   

5 Comments

Filed under Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, church and culture

Tagged as

September 20, 2007 · 5:58 am

Famous speakers and their stories


Most speakers illustrate their points with stories. It helps the audience to use their senses, emotions, experiences, etc. in connecting at a deeper level with the concept being taught. I noticed a couple of speakers recently who told a story that nearly filled up the entire time they talked and only paid lip service to the points they were trying to make. These people had concepts in order to tell stories (of which they were the center!). On the surface, the speakers seemed very transparent and down-to-earth. It was refreshing to hear their struggles.

But something bothered me and then it hit me. I wonder if these speakers could talk for an hour on points and never tell a story about themselves. Since I’ve heard these speakers before several times, I suspect they could not.

So, here’s my question. Does becoming famous make you ego-centric? Or, does ego-centrism plus charisma lead to fame?

Here’s why I think this practice is dangerous amongst Christians. Instead of the story pointing to Jesus; It has Jesus pointing to the person.

4 Comments

Filed under Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, Cultural Anthropology, self-deception

September 19, 2007 · 5:33 am

Contractual Christianity?


Sean Roberts, one of the interns at our church, preached Sunday on Matthew 20 and the parable where the owner of the vineyard pays those who work only 1 hour a full day’s wage–the same he paid those who worked all day in the heat. During the sermon Sean mused that we, “default so often to a contractual christianity.” Either we ask “What do I have to do to get… [some hoped-for blessing]” or we ask, “I’ve done such and such–what do I get for that?”

Can you relate? Ever have someone with less experience get paid the same or higher than you? The owner of the vineyard reminds the workers that they got what they were promised. The problem, he said, was that the grumbling workers begrudged his generosity. Or how about thinking that if you are more consistent in your spiritual disciplines that you’ll feel closer to God, have a better marriage, etc? Contractual Christianity.

Sean, the pastoral intern, reminded us of two things. First, notice that there are two groups: those who know they have gotten more than they deserve and those who think they are owed more. Second, he also reminded us that the owner deals gently with those who are anger and bitter. That reminded me of how the father treats the son when the prodigal comes back. He gently encourages the older son to take joy in the opportunity for grace.

Sean left us with this thought. God’s generosity is far better than our ideas of fairness. 

Leave a comment

Filed under anger, Biblical Reflection

September 18, 2007 · 5:28 am

Leslie Vernick’s The Emotionally Destructive Relationship


On my recent trip I began Leslie’s new book, The Emotionally Destructive Relationship: Seeing it, Stopping it, Surviving it (2007, Harvest House. Leslie is a LCSW here in PA. I first met her when I was a seminary student and she was a staff counselor/supervisor at CCEF, a local counseling center. Leslie has now authored several books, each of which shows her biblical understanding of people coupled with wonderful interpersonal skill and insights as a clinician. I often tell others that she’s a counselor I’d send any of my family members to see (including myself).

So, I’m looking forward to reviewing this new book. Let me highlight some tidbits from the first chapter:

1. In chapter 1 she defines the emotionally destructive relationship. While abuse is always destructive, destruction in relationship can be much more subtle and not always malicious as we often imagine abuse to be. Further, single episodes may be abusive but not destructive. Hence this definition: Pervasive and repetitive patterns of actions and attitudes that result in tearing someone down or inhibiting a person’s growth (p. 26).
2. Difficult relationships are not the same as destructive.
3. 5 patterns that are always destructive: abuse of any kind, overbearing/overprotectiveness, overdependency and demanding to be the center of attention, deception of the other, and chronic indifference, neglect, or disdain.
4. Lots of couples are in emotionally destructive patterns and it is easy to blame the other for one’s own behavior. She gives a great illustration of a couple (p. 29f). Neither feels loved. She attacks and demeans; he withdraws then explodes. Each wants the other to change first and justifies his/her own behavior as a “normal” response to being sinned against. Both need to take responsibility to name their own sinful reactions to the world.
5. She ends with a 30 question test to help those discern if they are in an emotionally destructive relationship.

10 Comments

Filed under Abuse, book reviews

September 17, 2007 · 10:23 am

Research that brought me to tears


I confess, the other day I got teary over someone’s research (we New Englander men don’t really cry–its a disorder caused by enculturated individualism). Truth be told, I didn’t get choked up by the research but by the man who was reporting it. Mark Yarhouse closed out the annual conference of the Society for Christian Psychology by reporting the history of his research in the area of sexual identity (and its change) and sexual orientation. 9 years ago he began explore these areas. First he and Stan Jones critiqued the pro-gay psychological research and pointed out serious flaws. At the heart of the matter he was concerned about those who acknowledged same sex attraction but because of their deeply-held theological beliefs, did not wish to identify with the gay identity. Mainstream psychology has argued that these folks are suppressing their identity or being suppressed by fundamentalist culture. Isn’t it possible, Mark wondered, that these seemingly healthy individuals could acknowledge their sexual desires and choose not to make their identity or behavior based on desire. In the talk he told us of his attempts to dialog with pro-gay psychologists and psychiatrists. He took some heat, of course, but also gained the respect of others. Most recently, he has been constructing a model for helping clients explore the many facets of their sexual identity and changing what is in their power (how they interpret and respond to same sex attraction) and allowing what they cannot change to be.

Okay, you are probably wondering why this moved me. I was moved because here was a man showing great compassion to these faithful, struggling christians–double minorities in both the world and in the church. He has done this at great cost to himself and has had to hang on to the Lord under significant spiritual warfare. Here is a man not willing to get stuck in the political speak but willing to dialog with those many would consider enemies and to try to hear and understand–even when he knew it wouldn’t change the world. Here is a man willing to explore how people remain faithful to God while trying to understand their brokenness. Finally, I was moved by the love and wisdom shown to Mark in a letter from his sister. She encouraged his faith and reminded him what was true in language fitting of a classic pastoral care author.

Okay, I still can’t express why I was moved. But I wasn’t the only one. The speaker who came up to close the conference was also choked up. It is possible that scientific endeavors show us the hand and face of God. 

Mark’s latest book, Ex-gays? A longitudinal study of religiously mediated change in sexual orientation (IVP) is hot off the press (first author is Stanton Jones).   

3 Comments

Filed under christian psychology, church and culture, counseling science, sexual identity, sexuality