Category Archives: Psychology

October 7, 2010 · 12:41 pm

Do you belong to a tribe?


Dan Shapiro has an extremely interesting article in the latest American Psychologist (65:7), entitled, “Relational Identity Theory: A Systematic Approach for Transforming the Emotional Dimension of Conflict.” In it he describes a “tribes” experiment where he has a group of people break up into 6 groups. After each group forms its own identity (50 Minutes), he sends in an alien creature who says,

I have come to destroy earth. I will give you one opportunity to save the world from utter destruction. You must choose one tribe as the tribe for everyone. You must all take on the attributes of that tribe. You cannot change or bargain over any attributes. If you cannot come to full agreement by the end of three rounds of negotiations…the world will be destroyed. (p. 634)

He reports that he has done this exercise nearly 100 times and across a wide diversity of participants. Nearly every time the world blows up. Tribes “clung to their invented identities, amplified their differences, and ended up in deadlock and destruction.” (p. 635)

Why? Emotional dimensions of conflict are not addressed. He believes that many see political conflicts as primarily rational conversations rather than emotions entangled with identity and loyalty.

What makes for a tribe? Shapiro sees three things: Likekinded, kinlike, and emotionally invested in group’s enhancement. As tribes work and live together and face external threats, they “rigidify” their identities and beliefs–even with other groups who are nearly identical. He quotes a line from Freud–narcissism of minor differences–to illustrate how trivial differences may spawn vociferous debate and hostility. In a footnote, he notices that certain events can make for greater tribal warfare: one leader argues too much for their own positions, a leader is seen as aggressive, a group feels slighted, too many voices in the discussions, and no consideration given for the process of negotiation.

How do you reduce tribalism and thus political stalemates? He lists some tasks:

1. Identify lines of loyalty (figuring out the groups with interest in a tribe)

2. Paying attention to identity concerns (what are tribe’s concerns in negotiating with another group?)

3. Addressing these concerns by supporting autonomy and building affiliation across groups.

Seems this works even in marriage counseling. Though in marital conflict, there may only be one tribal member for each tribe, you can see how emotions maintain the conflict and that when one is able to repeatedly join with the concerns of the other, the rigidity decreases over time.

And notice how other-centeredness breaks down tribal differences. Kinda fits with Philippians 2…

Leave a comment

Filed under counseling science, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

September 30, 2010 · 9:01 am

Coming to Peace with Psychology 5


We turn to the last section of Everett Worthington’s Coming to Peace with Psychology (IVP, 2010) entitled, “What Psychological Science has to Offer Theology”.

Chapter nine has the goal of exploring psychological tools and what they can do. Worthington rightly points out that all sciences derive from philosophy. They are an attempt to conceptualize reality “by observing, measuring and quantifying life experiences.” (p. 149). He then summarizes Thomas Kuhn’s work on the concept of scientific revolutions–that is most of science is an effort to support existing hypotheses until the current paradigms no longer work at which point a revolution occurs in thinking. Then Worthington points out another way of looking at scientific progress–the creation (happenstance or not) of new tools results in massive new data that may change our perspective on reality.

Worthington seems to prefer this model and wants to explore the “new tool” of psychological science. In his mind psychological science is a new theological tool. Wait, you might say, how is it a theological tool? He would argue that it helps us understand humanity better thus it teaches us something about the God who created us.

Here are two of the “tools” he mentions for looking into the mind: Peripheral nervous system measures that get at subtle experiences of stress; face twitch recording that get at highly subtle psychological reactions. Both may help us understand reactions/behaviors that cannot be easily verbalized.

The remaining portion of the chapter defends the value of science in spite of its shortcomings. Yes, science is flawed, but to Worthington it is “still useful.” He wants to remind readers that science isn’t as cold and impersonal as it is often portrayed. It can teach about development of children,  about religious behavior, about human strengths, etc.

If there is a problem, says Worthington, it is that “we [scientific tool users] do not often refer back to the purposes of psychological science–to think the thoughts of God, to know the Creator by learning about the creation.” (p. 166)

I think it is helpful to remember that tools like these do produce data–data worth looking at and learning from. However, it appears we don’t do well with our approach to this data. Either we are too enamored with its glittering images as if it were spoken from the mouth of God or we reject it because it must be biased and a waste of time. Careful critical evaluation of self and data are necessary. What are our blind spots? Are we too enamored with data? Or do we think we already know all we need to know?

2 Comments

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

Tagged as , , , ,

September 21, 2010 · 4:00 pm

Coming to Peace with Psychology 4


Worthington’s Relational Model of Integration

**In case you are tempted to snooze through this long post or get bored by the endless attempt to construct a relationship between psychology and christian faith, skip to the last paragraph!**

In the conceptual world of integrating psychology and Christianity, there are four common depictions: Christian faith trumps psychology, psychological science trumps Christian faith, dialogical model, and parallel but separate levels of explanation. In Coming to Peace with Psychology (IVP, 2010), we have seen in the previous two posts that Everett Worthington wants to argue that psychological science (a) has something to offer beyond theory, (b) can teach us something about ourselves and God that Scripture does  not reveal, and (c) can interact with, influence, and be influenced by Christian faith. In sum, he argues for a relational, interactive levels of explanation view of integration.

Beginning in chapter six, he lays out a relational model, akin to a deepening love relationship,

…the fields of Christian theology and psychological science will become more committed to each other to the degree that we are satisfied with the union, invest in the union and don’t play around with alternatives (such as a conflict model). I believe that, in fact, psychological science and Christian theology are already married. In some ways it is like an arranged marriage. Because God reveals the divine character through both special and general revelations, the two disciplines are joined together. The question we face is, how committed will each discipline be to this arranged marriage? (p. 101)

In chapter seven and eight, Dr. Worthington digs deeper into the proposed relationship partners (psychological science and theology) and illustrates each domain’s way of collecting “data” and subsequent conflicts between the two. Psychological science deals in the realm of material.

Scientists can believe in many nonmaterial causes within reality but simply exclude them from the “map” of a particular science. They do so because, by convention, that science aims to explain materialistic relationships among variables. By analogy, an aerial photograph will not reveal the presence of an underground river…even though the photographer knows [it exists] (p. 107).

This material (data) is best collected using observational, correlational, and experimental methods. He acknowledges (ever so briefly) limits to these kinds of studies, especially alluding to the biases inherent in psychological hypotheses. Moving on, he reviews the nature of theology, its subsets (biblical, exegetical, historical, etc.), and methods reading its “data.” Finally, he reviews the relationship between the two. “At their root there is no conflict between God’s truths as revealed in Scripture and nature” (p. 115). However, both disciplines suffer from human error (e.g., errors in scientific conclusions, errors in translating or interpreting Scripture) and so he does not want to prioritize theology over psychology (the primary reason for this book—to correct what he sees as a mistake within some in Christian psychology).

What is the real problem between psychology and theology? In chapter eight, Dr. Worthington points out three problems that lead to unnecessary perception of conflict between the two disciplines:

  • trying to integrate clinical psychology and theology (rather than psychological science)
  • using a filter approach that presupposes a higher authority given to theology
  • denial that one can learn about God through nature by some Christian thinkers

While not devaluing clinical psychology, Dr. Worthington does not believe it to be “apt relational partner” to theology (though maybe more helpful to practical theology). Why? He lists a couple of reasons: clinical psychology is anecdotal, experiential and therefore not objective; clinicians may be more prone to having less theological training while pastoral counselors may have less than adequate knowledge of empirically supported treatments; therapists view people through their models rather than seek to construct data informed models.

Next he goes after Eric Johnson for his views on Scripture. Worthington wants to take Johnson to task for failing (his perception) to admit the weaknesses within human activities of theology and the interpretation of Scripture. While Johnson wants to argue for the uniqueness of biblical authority in Christian psychology, Worthington wants to argue for the ability (albeit limited) of general revelation to reveal surprising information about the nature of persons—even to those who reject Christian faith. I suspect that both agree with the other but see an imbalance (not enough credit given to Scripture re: human nature vs. too much credit given to Scriptural interpretation and not enough acknowledgment of disagreement amongst Christians).

Finally, Worthington concludes this chapter by summarizing his view of the impact of sin on science. His main point is that he is opposed to a Dutch Reformed emphasis on the noetic effects of sin. He quotes passages that state that nature communicates about God and the humans are therefore responsible for knowing God. He does not believe, however, that nature is sufficient in telling us about God and so we need Special Revelation for salvation. In the end, he wants mutual respect and humility to reign between experts of each domain in order to promote harmonious dialogue and learning.

A Challenge

In the remainder of the book Dr. Worthington intends to illustrate what psychological science has to offer the “marriage” between the two. Books like this are written to try to bring balance to what is perceived to be imbalanced. Here, Worthington thinks too little credit is given to researchers’ ability to perceive human nature in ways that might reveal new things about the nature of God and humanity—things beyond Scripture. In another book, you might find more criticism of the biases of psychological research and the failure to acknowledge the impact of belief systems on data collection and analysis. Notice both sides are reacting against a perception of bias and control.

Here’s the challenge. Whether you lean toward Worthington’s arguments or those that give priority to Scripture and the Christian faith, consider where your views might be shaped by (a) experiences of being mis-represented by someone on the other side, and (b) too easy use of an obvious error on the other side (e.g., Worthington seems to brush over the problem of presuppositional biases in science or gives general revelation too much credit when Rom 1 tells us that humans deny its message well; Johnson seems to brush over numerous biblical interpretation conflicts, fails to interact deeply with current psychological research). Instead, see if you can build your view by first detailing the weaknesses (or mis-uses) of your discipline or view and then construct a proposed relationship from a positive framework that accounts for the aforementioned weaknesses rather than builds off of the mistakes of your epistemological opponent.

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as , , , , ,

September 17, 2010 · 1:03 pm

Geographical Psyche? Does your location shape you?


Is “Mid-west Nice” an empty stereotype? What about “southern hospitality? Are people in the Northeast more neurotic than those in the West?

The most recently published American Psychologist (v. 65:6) has a couple of articles on the topic of geography and psychology that pique my interest and may give us some clues to the relationship between location and personality.

Nansook Park and Christopher Peterson (U Mich) look at regional variation in character strengths of cities say the following,

“The place where we grew up or currently reside is more than physical space. It defines who we are, how we think about ourselves and others, and the way we live.” (p. 535)

The authors used an Internet-based “self-report of character strengths” measuring 24 different strengths. These strengths are loosely lumped into two general categories, head strengths and heart strengths. By this they mean those that are more individualistic and intellectual vs. those that are more emotional and interpersonal.

Interestingly, the cities with the highest “head” strengths were LA, San Francisco, and Oakland and those with the lowest “head” orientation were Arlington, TX, OK City, and Omaha, NB [NOTE: this is a very large convenience sample, not a representative sample]. Those with the highest “heart” orientation were El Paso, TX, Mesa, AZ, and Miami. Lowest “heart” cities were Seattle, San Francisco, and Boston.

Then the authors correlated head and heart cities with 2008 presidential voting data. Head cities correlated with voting for Obama (.44) while heart cities correlated with votes for McCain (.46). These correlations are not huge but significant.

So, it may be that where you live influences the development of head or heart. Or maybe we tend to migrate to like-minded/hearted people. Also, the media in these cities have ways of influencing what we know and feel. Having lived near Philadelphia and Chicago, I can attest to the influence of the nightly news. Though Chicago is a larger city, the evening news was nowhere the crime/body count I watch in Philadelphia.

The second article explores, “Statewide Differences in Personality” (Peter Rentfrow, author). Rentfrow wants to give evidence that our stereotypes (e.g., “New Yorkers are outspoken, neurotic, and always in a hurry”) have a basis in reality. 3 different studies (1973, 2002, and 2008) reveal “surprisingly consistent geographical patterns for Neuroticism and Openness”

Neuroticism tends to be high in the Northeast and Southeast and low in the Midwest and West….Openness tends to be high in the New England, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific regions and comparatively lower in the Great Plains, Midwest, and Southeastern States.” (p. 549) [Openness, by the way, does not mean “nice” but openness to new ideas, change, etc.]

Rentfrow wonders what might account for these differences. Do people migrate to areas where others also have their same traits? Is it more the result of social influence? Or, is it the result of ecological influences (e.g., environmental or infectious disease load influencing disposition)?

He concludes with considerations of the impact of personality differences in regions. It matters because of consequences to social connectedness, political power, and overall health.

So, what do you think? How much does the region you live (or were raised in) influence your demeanor, personality, etc?

3 Comments

Filed under Psychology

Tagged as , ,

September 8, 2010 · 5:07 am

Coming to Peace with Psychology 2


In chapter 3 and 4 of his Coming to Peace with Psychology (IVP, 2010), Everett Worthington continues to show us how we are not near as good at intuiting facts as they really are. We us heuristics (rules of thumb). Hidden factors influence our views, ideas, experiences, and behaviors. In chapter 3 he gives an example of clinical judgment about trauma vs. research data. He suggests that most clinicians believe that the vast majority of survivors of traumatic experiences will have some form of PTSD. In contrast to this assumption, George Bonanno provides research data suggesting that some 10-30 percent of trauma survivors have chronic problems. Another 5-10 percent have delayed problems. However, the rest recover quickly or are resilient altogether. His point? Clinicians think resiliency in the face of trauma is rare when in fact it is quite common.

I find this example a bit strange. He did not cite sources pointing to the fact that clinicians assume PTSD in most survivors. I would have expected that he, a scientist, would have done that. Most therapists I know don’t go fishing for PTSD when no symptoms exist.

I think his deeper point still stands. We humans believe what we believe in the face of inconsistent data. So, he wants to explore what more objective research about human behavior might give us in our quest for consider the relationship between psychological science (not psychotherapy) and Christianity.

These first 4 chapters appear to be Worthington’s efforts to make sure we recognize that empirical research can teach us much about human nature; that research is going to be useful in building a model relationship between psychology and Christianity. Good for him! Let’s see how he begins to deal with the disciplines of psychology and theology in the next chapters.

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as ,

September 3, 2010 · 5:31 am

Coming to Peace with Psychology 1


In the first chapter of Coming to Peace with Psychology: What Christians can Learn from Psychological Science (IVP, 2010) Ev Worthington makes this point: We’re not as good at predicting human behavior as we would like to think. Science can help us. Or, the flip side, we are really great at formulating post hoc explanations (after we read scientific data) that help us think that we knew it all along (p. 28). You know, like when you get the answer of some piece of trivia, you feel you knew it all along. He provides several examples of surprising data that prove that we aren’t that good at predicting human behavior. Why is this important? We humans need help understanding our world. We don’t always make good choices even though we have massive data about humanity (biblical, experiential, etc.). So, he asks at the end of chapter one, how does psychological science relate to theology given that theology looks not to “thin slices” of large amounts of data but to Scripture?

In chapter two, Ev shows how his approach to the scripture/science relationship differs from previous attempts. He starts with the origin of the debate, makes an allusion to the Renaissance but quickly turns to the issue of counseling because it is in counseling where Christians are most concerned about whether they are receiving godly or ungodly wisdom. He points to usual suspects: secular models, rejection of Christian worldview, especially in academia, rejection of traditions and authorities. These cultural phenomena lead many Christians to be wary of liberal, free-wheeling, therapists. The call for “Christian counseling that was centered on biblically consistent beliefs and values was answered by Christians trying to integrate current counseling theories with Reformed theologies.

While there are variations on this theme, Worthington thinks one belief ties them together: Scripture and our human interpretations of it provide a clearer picture of reality than do human attempts to read general revelation. And, those disciplines that cover the nature of person (vs. “harder” sciences) have more distortion to them. Thus, there is a need to develop Christian filters to get rid of distortions in psychology.

He then singles out a few individuals who have diverse but generally favorable takes on the filter model: Robert C. Roberts, Eric Johnson, and David Powlison. Each has a different take on the problem of psychology and theology but all agree that there needs to be some critical evaluation of the underpinnings of psychological science. Interestingly, he dismisses each view (gently) for not being able to survive mainstream psychology.

Following these three, he points to three scientists who happen to be Christian: Malcolm Jeeves, David Myers, and Fraser Watts. Each, says Worthington, uses some form of a perspectivalist approach: two disciplines looking at overlapping data from different points of view (and asking different questions).

He ends the chapter saying that psychological science (Not psychotherapy) can be the bridge between science and theology–though I’m not sure he has spelled that out yet. Further, instead of just making Scripture trump (filter model) or Psychological research trump (Myer’s approach), we need a longer dialog when there seems to be conflict between Scripture and psychology.

He will take up “who do we trust during a conflict” in the next chapter.

Some thoughts. For those looking for deeper philosophy of science dialogue, you will need to look elsewhere. This is not Worthington’s focus. Rather, he wishes to give scientific endeavors some room at the table so that it can be taken seriously. To do so, he needs to show how both the filter and the separate-but-equal approaches miss the mark.

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as , ,

August 31, 2010 · 5:09 am

Coming to Peace with Psychology I (Review)


I’ve arrived as a blogger! No, I’m not getting paid to write and I’m not getting millions of hits each day. But I am getting a new perk. Someone has seen fit to send me complimentary books just in case I might wish to review them here. Free books! Do you know how cool that is? To an academic and book lover, it is just about the best perk ever.

[I guess this is a good time for a disclaimer. I only review books I find interesting. And even if the book comes wrapped in Ben Franklins (this one wasn’t for some reason), I promise to tell you what I really feel about the book]

Today, I received Ev Worthington’s new book, Coming to Peace with Psychology: What Christians Can Learn From Psychological Science (IVP, 2010). You may be familiar with Dr. Worthington’s work on marriage enrichment, marriage and family therapy, and forgiveness. This is my first experience with him writing about the relationship of psychology and Christianity. Here are a few of his thoughts from the introduction and the enclosed “Author Q & A” about why we might need a new book on this topic:

  • “In this book I will claim that we can know people better, and even know God better, by heeding psychological science.” (p. 11)
  • “People have been integrating theology and psychology for years, but a vast majority of the integration has come from psychotherapists. Only a small minority of integrators have been psychological scientists…. While psychotherapists try to generalize about human nature on the basis of the clients they have seen and the models of helping they were trained in, psychological scientists measure the whole range of people–those 15 percent who were clients with some psychotherapist and about 85 percent more who are not.” (Author Q & A)

Wow. He lays down the gauntlet. The problem with previous integration has been the emphasis on anecdotes from therapists. If only we had more integration models by scientists. In fact, he is right–to a degree. Much of integration is highly theory driven. But is that bad?

[Rabbit trail: What are the common “sins” of theologian integrators? Clinician Integrators? Research Integrators? Theologians put far too much emphasis on their constructs and exegesis; clinicians put too much emphasis on “what works”; researchers put too much confidence in p values. In fact none have the corner on the market of truth. But again, Worthington’s book may be very helpful. He is right that both clinicians and biblical counselors fail to interact deeply enough with psychological research. Either they dismiss scientific methods by pointing out its weaknesses or they generalize from a small data point into a grand theory even though the data cannot bear the weight of the theory.]

Let’s hear some more from Worthington about the direction of his book:

  • His theses: Psychological science helps both Christians and non-Christians (a) understand God’s creation in human beings, (b) know about God more because the study of image bearers points to God, and (c) live more virtuously. (p. 13)
  • So, he sees psychology as a common grace to refine us all. This is very interesting. Usually integrative literature has cited common grace as what allows humans to rightly perceive. Here, the discipline IS common grace.
  • The relationship between psychology and Christianity is an “emerging marriage”– one that has possibilities of conflict and yet greater intimacy.

Finally, you might be interested in just what approach Ev Worthington will take in connecting psychology and Christianity. In the past some have described integration as a recycling project, a filter to get rid of non-Christian worldviews, a recasting effort, or a perspectival or level of explanation project. He mentions two: filter and perspectival approaches. The filter tries to have theological/biblical constructs as interpreting science. He finds this problematic. The perspectival model tries to separate the two disciplines as different ways of knowing.

So what does Worthington suggest? A new model he calls a relational approach.

That’s enough for this post. Next post I’ll make some comments on his first section (where he addresses some of the problems in previous integration by pointing to some psychological science).

4 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling science, philosophy of science, Psychology

Tagged as , , , ,

August 25, 2010 · 8:08 am

Integrating Faith and Psychology: Listening to God


Having read chapters by L. Rebecca Propst, Everett Worthington, and Siang-Yang Tan (in Integrating Faith and Psychology, IVP 2010), I am seeing an initial pattern–how important experience of God is in the development and outlook of the person–especially through the trials and tribulations of life. Worthington points to it in his work on the  topic of forgiveness (his mother was violently murdered). Propst speaks of integration as the product of her daily struggles and walk with God. Tan points to a burnout experience plus subsequent healing that led to his move toward psychology.

As one who reads and sometimes writes about the relationship between faith and psychology (and the fact that we cannot separate these two concepts–faith and psychology are always linked for everyone), I find these stories useful. They remind me that much of our practical integration is seamless and emanates from the gut. It doesn’t mean that we ought not have critical thoughts about our gut or that we ought to supply theory to our practice. But, try as we might to focus on the logic of our work, our integrative work is in the moment affective work I think.

Tan and Propst are right. You want to do good integration? Don’t make it your primary focus. “Instead, seek the Lord and his kingdom first (Matthew 6:33), and always see the bigger picture of God’s will and God’s kingdom with loving obedience to him, even as we are graced and blessed by him.” (Tan, p. 88) “Follow hard after God. Cultivate a daily habit of prayer and Bible study. As much as possible, understand and try to grasp a truly supernatural view of the universe.” (Propst, p. 64)

Let us be reminded that there is something more important than getting the right view of Christian counseling–that of knowing and being sensitive to the Spirit of God. It is possible, to be right in one’s view of psychology and theology and fail to be sensitive to the Spirit of God.

2 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, church and culture, education, Psychology

Tagged as , , , ,

August 23, 2010 · 9:05 am

Integrating Faith and Psychology: Book Notes


IVP just sent me a new (free!) book, Integrating Faith and Psychology: Twelve Psychologists Tell Their Stories (2010), edited by Glendon L Moriarty and with a foreword by Gary Collins. I’m looking forward to reading it. Each chapter is by a different psychologist and tells more of a personal story on how they came to the work they do and how their faith matured along the way. This is not a theory driven book but a group of narratives. While I very much appreciate theories of how psychology and Christianity function together, narratives sometimes provide a window into a more living integration. I might disagree with a theory but appreciate the heart behind it. Each author describes their development as a person and a professional, points to mentoring along the way, addresses key personal and philosophical tension points, mentions their experience with spiritual disciplines, and concludes with a personal letter in order to share key wise advice to those interested in the integrative  process.

I’m especially interested in reading several chapters written by those I know more closely than others: Mark McMinn and J. Derek McNeil (former professors), Jennifer Ripley, Siang-Yang Tan, Everett Worthington, Bill Hathaway (people I’ve met at conferences and whose work I appreciate), and Mark Yarhouse (influential scholar and fellow student at Wheaton College).

The foreword by Gary Collins gives a tiny window into the tensions he experienced between evangelical-fundamentalists and the profession of psychology. He first felt the tension of psychology colleagues who looked down on him for being a Christian. There were leading scholars of his day who felt that religion was the cause of most psychopathology. He notes that this view has shifted greatly and there is now much openness to spirituality within psychology (though I hasten to add this openness isn’t always felt in the Northeast United States). He then briefly mentions Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel, and the attacks he received from those Christians suspicious of psychology’s secular humanism.

I find his foreword less than helpful only in that it can only stereotype the conflict in 7 short pages (what else could he do?). But he does conclude by saying that not all the critical statements (about the integrative agenda) made by Christians were wrong and in fact many help to refine the work of Christian psychology. He lists quite a few names of those who have worked hard to build a psychology on biblical foundations. Nearing the end, he comments on a shift that happens somewhere in the late 80s and early 90s. “The integration movement began the shift to a younger, more pragmatic, less theoretical generation.” (p. 14).

I will blog here on a couple of the chapters as I make my way through the book. I’ll be looking for interesting historical threads that help me better understand some of the prominent leaders of the integrative movement.

1 Comment

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

Tagged as , , , ,

August 17, 2010 · 5:36 am

Pessimism and Powerlessness


What is the most dangerous threat in your life? In society at large? Is it economic stress? Job insecurity? Relational conflict? Health-care challenges? Amorality? Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan believes there is a deeper danger afoot (Thanks Darryl Lang for telling me about this op-ed!):

Inner pessimism and powerlessness. That is a dangerous combination.

Noonan says this just before the previous (and concluding line):

When the adults of a great nation feel long-term pessimism, it only makes matters worse when those in authority take actions that reveal their detachment from the concerns—even from the essential nature—of their fellow citizens. And it makes those citizens feel powerless.

She is trying to make the point that Americans are coming to terms that the country is not going to provide the next generation with a better life. Parents now hope their children will have about as good a life but they even fear that is not possible.

I’m not so interested in what she is discussing in this column (politicians and the immigration debate). But I am interested in what happens to us (how we respond to life) when our personal and collective narratives shatter.

Noonan mentions that Americans do not have pessimism in their DNA. I have seen this to be true  with most Caucasian Americans. They may be unhappy with their life but they are optimistic that things will get better. This is in opposition to those from other parts of the world who seem quite happy but not at all optimistic about a better life. We Americans generally feel empowered and independent. When we do not have the power to change our situation it drives us to re-write our understanding of self, the purpose of life, and assumptions about God.

What will we write? Will we cave to pessimism and powerlessness? Or will we develop realism and creativity in finding life in the middle of brokenness?

4 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Cultural Anthropology, Great Quotes, News and politics, Psychology, suffering