Category Archives: Christianity

Some thoughts on the roots/shoots of genocide


Been thinking about the topic of genocide lately due to a possible symposium talk in near future. If you are like me it is hard to wrap your mind around such a horrific human/group behavior. Just how does one get to the point of being willing to massacre 10 people much less 1,000? How does one become “okay” with mass killing?

I think most would like to believe it is something different from normal human behavior–something in a different category from the rest of humanity. Maybe it comforts us to think of it as a massive work of Satan (it likely is) or a secret political conspiracy that the general population knows nothing of til afterwards.

I suspect, however, that genocidal behavior develops out of some rather basic, even mundane, human tendencies. Here’s the recipe for mass murder, abuse of power, and even use of porn in the privacy of one’s bedroom while acting righteous in public. Duplicity, abuse of power, or any willful sin starts with,

  1. The seed of a perceived problem or threat/loss, and then
  2. Sprouts in the soil of self-focus and deafness or complacency to the needs of others, and then
  3. Bears fruit in warm glow of deception of self and other fertilized by propaganda

Here’s my question to you. What else might I be missing in this “recipe”?

17 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Christianity, cultural apologetics, deception, self-deception

Serious mental illness and Christianity: Questions about responsibility


Today marks the end of the semester and the end of Counseling & Physiology. At the end of this course I ask students to talk amongst themselves regarding what they have learned in the course and what questions remain. The most frequent questions have to do with this:

What of a person’s struggles can be viewed as physiological; what is spiritual? What is the client responsible for?

[I should explain. We looked at problematic behaviors (e.g., cursing, aggression, etc.) after brain injury and the physiology of bipolar disorder. The class took bodily weaknesses quite seriously and recognized that sometimes our expectations of individuals exceeds capacity.]

At the end of this post I’m going to give you what I think are some better questions to ask. But first: Simultaneously, a couple of my old blog posts are getting a lot of attention these days–both having to do with the problem of serious mental illness, faith, and the response of the church. I highly recommend you skim the posts (both are incredibly short) but hang out with the comments.

https://wisecounsel.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/serious-mental-illness-and-faith-what-to-do/

https://wisecounsel.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/living-faith-bombshell-honest-wrestling-with-mental-illness-and-divorce/

These two posts are some of the most viewed and most commented on. Each and every comment reveals a world of heartache, alienation, and confusion about how one should think about mental illness, healing, responsibility, and the Christian faith. Clearly, we have not talked about this problem enough in the church–either to those with chronic mental illness or to their loved ones. Far too many are suffering alone.

Does it matter what of your problems are physical and what are spiritual?

Let’s say that you are a parent of a 3-year-old. Due to no fault of your own, your child misses their afternoon nap. It is now 6 pm and your child is both hungry and tired. She sees some candy and begins to whine for it. You know that you will feed the child in 15 minutes. You decline to give the candy and your child now has a temper tantrum. What do you do? Or, what SHOULD you do? You most likely provide mercy and kindness as you try to calm the child down. If the child screams, cries, and maybe even strikes you…has she sinned? Yes. Does it matter at the moment? Probably not so much as you acknowledge the child is limited by her lack of sleep.

Now, let’s extend the analogy. Would you treat your 40-year-old spouse in a different manner if they also had a tantrum because they were tired and they wanted dinner NOW? Of course, you would determine their moral capacity to be greater than the 3-year-old.

Back to our question…is it necessary to consider the division between spiritual and physical problems? Here’s why I think not. Problems are problems. Physical problems are spiritual problems in that we don’t do things only with our body and leave out our spirit. And spiritual problems always include the body. We don’t have spiritual experiences outside our neurons. Further, I still have to respond to the 3 or 40-year-old now (illustration above). Yes, I need to discern how to respond. Do I teach, comfort, discipline, rebuke, encourage? Am I responding with grace and mercy? Less important (though highly desirable) is my efforts in trying to keep the problem from happening again. Isn’t that really what is behind the physical/spiritual question: Who is going to make sure that x problem is taken care of?

Here are some better questions:

1. What can I do to help bring increasing comfort, hope, and encouragement–right now?

2. What response is my client capable of–right now (post hoc)?

3. What spiritual or physical interventions might be of help–right now?

4. How can I encourage my client to accept/respect their body (and its limits)–right now?

5. How can I encourage my client to see the hand of God in their life–right now?

6. What community resources and/or involvement can be made available–right now?

Notice the emphasis is on practical/mercy ministry, increasing insight, and commitment to seeing self from God’s point of view (rather than “normal”, “acceptable” as defined by church or larger community).

7 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, Psychiatric Medications, Psychology, Uncategorized

Life amidst brokenness?


As one who makes a living listening to brokenness, there are times when troubles seem everywhere. Everyone is swimming in a pool of their own tears–to quote the former PBS motivational speaker John Bradshaw. Sometimes, the pool seems pretty deep…cancer, mental illness, sexual abuse, infidelity, mania, marital discord, identity confusion, etc.

If not careful, we counselors can begin to believe that brokenness is the ONLY reality–a dreadful position if all we have to offer our clients is a knowing sad smile. On Sunday I went to a class on Isaiah, what some call 2nd Genesis because of the prophetic descriptions of re-birth and redemption of Israel through the work of Emmanuel.

In the class, someone said something that has been banging around in my head. It went something like this (gist, not quote)

It is not a challenge to see brokenness around us–that is easy. The challenge is to see God’s re-creative activity. Oddly, we call reality (God’s activity in redeeming us) a myth and prefer myth (superficial Christmas peace) over the reality of God’s working through brokenness to make us whole. I repeat, the challenge is to see God’s recreation and Glory.

Not sure how much of that was said and how much of that is just my own thoughts. But, still, the challenge for us is to see re-birth and not merely dying and death. What looks like an ugly stump (Isaiah 11:1) to us is a fruit bearing shoot.

See if you can catch glimpses of growth and rebirth today!

4 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, Doctrine/Theology, Uncategorized

“Niceness is a decision”?


Cover of "Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists,...

Cover via Amazon

For “light” reading over the break, I decided to read Anna Salter’s book, Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists, and other Sex Offenders (Basic Books, 2003). I’ve known of this book for some time and viewed her DVDs which cover a chunk of the book’s topic. **I don’t recommend you read this book at night or at all if you have any history of sexual abuse.**

The book reviews research on those who commit these kinds of crimes. What I found most helpful is her treatment of the problem of deception, common techniques, and how both the average person AND expert clinicians are easily seduced by the presentation and lies of offenders. She closes out the book with chapters on detecting deception and protecting children from abusers.

But one particular paragraph caught my eye. The context of what you read below is her discussion of the necessity of a double life (appearances of sincerity, likeability, honest, etc.) in order to gain access to children. As she says, “a surly and obnoxious person would have little access…” (p. 38)

“Niceness is a decision,” writer Gavin De Becker wrote in the The Gift of Fear. It is “a strategy of social interaction; it is not a character train.” There are days I want to tattoo this on my forehead. De Becker is right, but who believes him? (ibid)

Do you agree? Niceness is a decision not a character trait?

Niceness is an action, a behavior. Frankly, any of the fruits of the Spirit may be short-term behaviors as well. I can choose to be gentle or patient for a time. But true fruits come from Holy Spirit induced character change. But what bubbles up in us when no one is looking tells a bit more about who we really are.

We ought to be just a bit more suspicious about ourselves and be wary of the tendency to pat ourselves on the back for being nice–especially if we find ourselves doing calculations on the benefits we might receive for our good behavior.

7 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Christianity, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, deception, personality, Psychology

Pastoral Narcissism | LeadershipJournal.net


A friend recently sent me this Leadership article link  (below) on the topic of pastoral narcissism. He wondered if those two words were oxymoronic. Yes, he’s right…but no, we do often seek out self-promoting leaders. It makes us feel good.

I encourage you to read the essay–but not so you can point your finger at some TV personality pastor. Read the essay and consider how you might be tempted to promote yourself in a conversation this holiday week. Or, check to see if you ever dream about your own “brand.”

Pastoral Narcissism | LeadershipJournal.net.

3 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Christianity, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, Psychology

Coming to Peace with Psychology 6


After a long hiatus I return to my summary/review of Everett Worthington’s Coming to Peace with Psychology (IVP, 2010). If you are new here just search his last name in the search bar on my blog and you can quickly catch up.

Chapter 10 is the second chapter in the last section of the book (“What Psychological Science has to Offer Theology”). This chapter covers the limitations of psychological science. Up to this point he has been lauding the value of psychological science as a marriage partner with theology. In fact, the purpose of the book is to argue for such a relationship over those who he sees as being overly critical of psychological science (due mostly, in his mind, to the anecdotal nature of psychological theory).

What does he point to as the limits of his science?

  • Despite amazing advances in psychological science, counseling hasn’t changed much (hmmm, does he consider this a limit of science or is this a complaint about practitioners?)
  • Psychological science must focus on general truths and so may not be as applicable to any one person
  • Scientists are not without bias (but then he goes on to say that given the review process, truth is a lot more likely than not)
  • Science can’t reveal the eternal (but it can reveal things of eternal value)
  • Inability to precisely predict behavior
  • No ultimate “proof” (but, probability is possible)
  • Scientist biases include “heuristics” (picking answers from an “available” list), confirmation biases, etc. which reveal our human self-serving nature.
  • Emotional experiences tend to make us more certain of our perceptions and beliefs.
  • human limitations on what we can remember, understand, perceive, do.

Notice from his list that he focuses on common human limits of knowing. This is a good start but insufficient. It treats science biases in an individualistic manner. I find this ironic given that I believe he has much awareness of family systems. In fact, systems add an additional bias–group think as example number one. Funny too that he gave very few illustrations from science of these various biases. For the most part, he illustrated them from everyday life or from theology. So, we are left with a chapter that admits to some general limits on how far psychological science can take us but no clear acknowledgment of systematic biases in the world of psychological science.

Now, let me be clear. I am not one who believes that psychological science is always biased all the time. And even when it is, there can be much to be learned from it. Nor do I believe that those within biblical studies or theology are unbiased either. But, I do think we need to recognize how specifically these biases send psychological science in some wrong directions.

Leave a comment

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, counseling science, Psychology

Normalizing Psychiatric Problems: Pro and Con


One of the hallmarks of the Biblical Counseling movement has been the clear articulation that psychiatric problems are not different in kind from any other set of problems. This assertion is made by some for a couple of reasons:

  1. To make sure everyone knows that the bible speaks to every kind of experience. if one draws lines between “regular” anxiety and pathological anxiety, those who meet the criteria for a DSM diagnosis might think that biblical material cannot speak to their situation–that they need to go elsewhere for help. God cares for and addresses every concern.
  2. To level the playing field between professionally trained counselors and biblical counselors. If the roots of human problems are common no matter the outer expression of them, then pastors and lay counselors can understand the issues (pride, suffering, fear, despair, etc.) and walk alongside anyone. One may not need special training to help another.
  3. To communicate to the healthy that they are not different from the more obviously unhealthy. The point is to reduce stigma and promote unity.

Consider the pros and cons of this viewpoint.

Pro:

  • Reduction of stigma and ghettoization
  • Increase normalization (“so, I’m not so different from others) and similarity with the rest of humanity
  • Increase the confidence and courage of leaders to address and dialogue about all forms of suffering

Con:

  • Decrease in interest in the specific experiences of suffering thus narrowing problems down to a simplistic cause (sin?)
  • Possible over-confidence of some leaders leading to a reduction of empathy and listening to the experiences of other; failure to consider body/mind issues not specifically elaborated on in the Bible.
  • Failure to recommend outside helpers with specific expertise and training; dismissal of the need to have professional counselors who may have greater practice with certain kinds of interventions\

When I teach my Psychopathology course I want my students to see just a bit of themselves in descriptions of people with thought disorders, addictions, eating disorders and the like. I want to normalize these kinds of problems so that students don’t think of clients with the problem as somehow different from their own experiences. While I may not binge, I may be able to empathize with those who do. However, I do not want them to think their brief binge as exactly the same as someone else’s experience. Otherwise, they might assume it would be easy to “just say no” to the binge.

When I teach my Physiology course, I want my student so to see the complexity of the brain and body and thus recognize the unique forms of suffering some go through. I want them to realize just how little we understand how much the body influences our experience of the world and of self. However, I do not want them to medicalize psychiatric problems. If they did that they might believe that counseling has little influence on psychiatric disorders. They might think that biblical reflections on anxiety and depression have no place in the healing of serious problems in living.

What is your experience regarding christian leaders handling of psychiatric problems? Do you see too little normalization? Too much? Do you see minimization of psychiatric suffering?

7 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, counseling science, Psychology

Reminder for Christian Counselors: We are voice, not Word


In G. Campbell Morgan‘s commentary on John, Morgan comments on John’s own recognition that he was not the foretold Christ but one who preceded the Christ and pointed to him. He says (commenting on chapter 3:22-36),

Then followed the last great statement. I have never read these final words of John without feeling their dignity and majesty. None greater ever feel from human lips. “He must increase, but I must decrease.” ….There was no unwarranted derogation of his own personality or work; but the content of the star as its lustre is lost in the rising glory of the sun.

….John the evangelist was thus showing the difference between the voice and the Word…

Surely this is what counselors must remember. Too often we want to be the sage wisdom, the Word. We want to be listened to; to be seen as wise. But, let us never forget that we are only conduit to the Word.

3 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, Biblical Reflection, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, Uncategorized

Suffering for Christ? How should we respond to discrimination due to faith?


In 1 Peter 2: 12 we are commanded to, “live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.” Peter goes on to tell us that our good deeds include showing proper respect for everyone. And still later he reminds us to follow the actions of Jesus who did not retaliate when he was insulted and mistreated at the cross.

Recently, a friend was mistreated due to her faith. Actually, the mistreatment was based on assumptions rather than facts. The one doing the mistreatment made false allegations about my friend’s beliefs and attitudes. This was in a professional setting where my friend expected to be treated as any other and not singled out like this. Thankfully, the episode was brief. But what if it wasn’t? How should we respond to mistreatment for reasons of faith?

Some things we shouldn’t do:

1. Sarcasm and biting back. One of the things that bothers me in the political arena is the amount of sarcasm and belittling used against each other. Not that this behavior is new–it isn’t–but it does seem more intense than before. It would seem that the goal for liberals is to catch conservative family values defenders not living up to their standards.  And conservatives put down liberals for being open to anything and everything (except conservatives). When attacked for reasons of faith, let’s not spend our time making public comments about the missteps of our accusers.

2. Say nothing at all. Silence isn’t always wrong but it may not be right either. It can be good to overlook some mistreatment as a mercy to the attacker. Sometimes when we know someone is having a bad day or is themselves a recipient of mistreatment, we may choose to overlook hateful comments. However, saying nothing as a matter of course may also eliminate an opportunity to speak truth in love to the offending party.

What can we do?

1. Deserved or undeserved? First, we can check to see if we have brought an attack on by our own behavior. If we have, we ought to address the matter right away. If the attack is not the result of our own foolish actions, then this is not about us but about God. Hopefully, this little bit of assessment can take the personalized part of the pain out of the equation.

2. Work to understand. Where are these comments coming from? What might be revealed behind the hurtful statements about our attackers experiences? It is possible that their attack comes from a bad experience from another person of faith who did not represent well the true meaning of Christianity. We can then validate their pain even if not their expression of it.

3. Speak the truth in love via a point of contact. Look for the value that you share together. Speak to that issue first. Often, some issue of respect, justice or shared concern can be a point of contact to engage an attacker. MLK wrote a letter from his jail cell in Birmingham, AL to white evangelicals who had written to ask him to stop raising tensions via nonviolent protests. He begins with a point of contact–their shared faith, their genuine good will and sincerity regarding their concerns. He attempts to speak their language first about the necessity of prophetic voices among God’s people. Surely he moves on to accuse them of inaction and maintaining the status quo–thus not caring for all of God’s people. But he ends with invitations to dialogue more and even requests that they forgive him if he has overstated their complicity in the problem of Jim Crow. In professional worlds, we may begin with discussions of shared ethical standards. We may want to point out failures by our accusers to keep their own standards, but first we need to establish common ground.

4. Bless, do not curse. Look for ways to bless and/or encourage an accuser if at all possible. Find reason to offer mercy rather than retaliation.

5. Activate, do not withdraw. In professional settings, use the existing system well so you can to gain a hearing,  and not just for yourself. Remember, the Apostle Paul uses his Roman citizenship to seek justice against false accusers and abusers. Using his right to appeal to Caesar enabled him to speak to numerous individuals and groups that he might not otherwise have met. It was this simple act that God used to spread the Gospel to Europe and then to the whole world.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, ethics, Evangelicals, Psychology, Uncategorized

Pretense: Just how evil is it?


In Acts 5, we read the story of a couple (Ananias & Sapphira) who sold some property and gave a portion of the proceeds to their church. Seems good, right? Well, God struck them down dead on the spot.

If you have never read that story, it sounds pretty harsh judgment on someone who just gave a chunk of change to God. However, the story tells us that some others sold items and gave 100% to the church. This couple donated a percentage of the proceeds but–and here’s the kicker–intended others to think they had given it all.

Have you ever thought about how this story my apply to you? Frankly, I haven’t given it much thought. I don’t have much resources to sell and give to God. But, G. Campbell Morgan‘s thoughts on the passage bring the core of the problem to light

The Church has never been harmed or hindered by opposition from without; it has been perpetually harmed and hindered by perils from within.

Let it be carefully remembered that the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was not that of refusing to contribute….Neither was it that of refusing to give all.

Wherein then lay the sin? …The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was the sin of pretending that part was all….The sin of Ananias and Sapphira is that of attempting, by confession of the mouth, or song of the lips, to make it appear that things are, as they really are not.

Morgan right rightly points out the heart of the problem: Pretense. Or, if you prefer, hypocrisy. Pretending to be someone of character when it isn’t true; pretending to feel something when you don’t; pretending to be spiritual when not connected to God; pretending to care about someone to their face while despising them in the heart. Sounds like a spiritual form of plagiarism.

If we are honest, we pretend all the time. We smile when we are angry. We say, “that’s okay,” when we don’t mean it. Now, I should point out that there are times when we don’t feel something but we act in a way that honors what we believe. For example, I may sing praises to God at church when feeling disconnected from him. I may help my son with homework when I would rather do anything else. That is not pretense. It would be hypocrisy only if I were to present myself to others as one close to God or tell my son that I love doing homework with him.

Let us work hard to make our mouths and hearts line up–especially if we have any leadership position. Sometimes we may need to be silent rather than pretend. Other times we may need to be more vocal about what is really going on inside us.

And let us consider soberly what Morgan says about today’s church:

The Church’s administration to-day is not what it was, or there might be many dead men and women at the end of some services.

2 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Christianity, Uncategorized