Why Your Questions Don’t Work

050114magic8ballng

I am surrounded by suffering. But it’s okay. After 20 years of living this way, people expect it of me. It’s what I do. The good news is most of the suffering that enters my life is not my own, but I do invite the suffering to enter my life. Continue reading

Advertisements

Beyond Suffering or Sin: Pt. 2

I wanted to follow up on my last post with a few additional thoughts. I’m going to put these in bullet points as much as possible, since I am recovering from a minor knee surgery. I hope these condensed thoughts make sense.

  • People who operate from a perspective of reducing suffering can often be easily identified. Their main argument to justify their behaviors is “It’s not hurting anyone, so what’s wrong with it?” We see this argument in many arenas today, from justifying telling white lies to more controversial topics, like abortion, homosexuality, and legalizing marijuana.
  • Those who use the “It’s not hurting anyone” argument seem to operate from a morality that excuses their behavior as long as they do not negatively impact someone else; however, this conveniently denies the negative impact they are having on themselves.
  • Morality, by definition, is acting in accord with a set of principles that distinguish between right and wrong. To state that the highest moral is to “not hurt anyone” creates a false and flimsy morality. It is false because it relies not on an objective standard of what right and wrong is but on the subjective interpretation of your fellow human being regarding whether or not they were hurt, in some way, by your words or actions. It is flimsy because in order for the morality to stand, the statement “I’m not hurting anyone” must be categorically true. In other words, the moral choice can only be supported if everyone is free from harm. But if even one person is harmed, then this system of thought falls in upon itself.
  • This implosion is the expected conclusion of a morality that begins and ends with a creature that has both good and bad within it. Self-destruction is the natural result of a system at war with itself.
  • This self-destructive nature of man is precisely what the people who are trying to move beyond sin acknowledge. That we are a doomed system and any hope for survival must come from eradicating the darkness within us, rather than redefining the darkness so that majority opinion suggests we are not hurting anyone. Such redefinitions only reinforce the delusion that sin does not exist and allows the self-destructive nature to continue.
  • To eradicate the darkness within us, we must receive help outside of ourselves from a source who: 1) is perfect (it does no good to receive help from another self-destructing being) and 2) can provide more than a modified behavior plan. Rather, this perfect being must literally be able to change our nature to be like their perfect nature and provide a system of living that allows us to make clear, objective choices between right and wrong, so that we do not relapse into darkness while it remains around us in our lives. In other words, a morality that is not about removing suffering but about removing sin. A clear delineation between right and wrong that is both true and strong.
  • This is what Jesus offers any person. Not the freedom from suffering, but the freedom within it. Because He has substituted Himself to take the penalty for your wrongs, so that you do not have to endure it, you receive a new, sinless nature. To protect you against the darkness around you He provides a new way of living to maintain and strengthen this nature, and allows you to be a beacon to others, so that they can go beyond sin as well. Both of these gifts, the new nature and the new morality, allow you to live within suffering freely, no longer a slave to it or to the trap of trying to escape it.
  • Which do you desire? To go beyond suffering or beyond sin?

Beyond Suffering or Sin?

Everybody has something that they do not like about their job. I am no different. Don’t get me wrong. I like being a therapist and seeing people move from a position of hopelessness to healing, and I believe that a lot of good has come out of the advancements in psychology over the last several decades. I even think that, to some degree, the introduction of psychological principles and ideas to the mainstream media has benefited a multitude of people in both their individual and relational lives. There is a lot of good that has come of this field of study.

However, when I look at psychology as a field, what really bothers me is the humanistic and atheistic foundation of my profession. I know I cannot change that. I don’t intend to. Freud and many of the pioneers of psychology were atheists. It’s only to be expected that they would create a field of study that resonates with their worldview. But as a devout Christian, I sometimes find it difficult to integrate the psychological principles that define how to practice my profession with the theological principles that define how to live my life. I imagine I am not alone in this struggle. Of the five major world religions, only Hinduism (which can most easily absorb other worldviews into its system) and Buddhism (which most closely parallels the foundational thinking of psychology) will potentially not struggle with this psychology/theology integration issue.

For instance, Christians and Jews both learn in Jeremiah 17:9-10 the following truth: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”

On one hand this passage seems to validate psychology and the efforts it is trying to accomplish. After all, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is 991 pages long. But on the other hand, this passage seems to torpedo the entire notion of self-help, because if every heart is (at its core) deceitful and desperately sick, then reliance on any person, including your self, for deliverance is a foolish idea. Additionally, if only the LORD can accurately search the heart and test the mind, then what hope is there for the American Psychiatric Association or your local counselor?

The word “psychology” comes from two Greek roots, psyche and logos, that literally mean “the study of the spirit.” As a profession we have historically leaned towards the “study” side and away from the “spirit” side. Again, this does not surprise me because of the foundational leaders within the field. But if we are being honest, it is not only atheists who are “stuck” on the study side. Christians and other people of faith reside here as well. As a species with “deceitful” and “desperately sick” hearts we can codify behaviors that present specific patterns and label the grouping as a “disorder” and the patterned behaviors as “symptoms.” We can evaluate and diagnose based on those groupings and symptoms. We can even study different methodologies to see which one most effectively alleviates these symptoms. But all of our efficacy ends here. In other words, we can quantify how the physical, intellectual, and emotional experiences coalesce to shape a person, but we do so at expense of ignoring the spiritual component of people. This may not present a problem to those who do not acknowledge or believe in God. But to a person of faith, such as myself, this appears to be an egregious error. It is as if we have placed three tires on the car but ignored the need for a fourth.

Some try to rectify this issue by recognizing that a client’s spirituality is “true for them” and by giving the client opportunity to discuss how their issues intersect their faith. While this is often done in an attitude of respectful tolerance, it doesn’t always come across that way. Often it appears as if the counselor is either placating the spiritual person in order to move the process of counseling forward, or minimizing the confluence of the physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual rivers of their life. To the Christian this is especially true, because the attitude that spirituality is “true for you” relegates our faith to an arena of postmodern relativism that we are unwilling to accept. Not because we are intolerant, bigoted pigs, but because to us Truth is a Person, specifically the person of Jesus Christ. To tell us that our spirituality is “true for us” seems to equate our faith in Jesus Christ to Jimmy Stewart’s faith in Harvey the Rabbit, that is to say that it is based on an individual’s perception of reality, rather than on an overarching Absolute that both describes reality and prescribes how to live within it. When this occurs, it feels neither respectful nor tolerant.

That is not to say that non-spiritual people are unhelpful with their spiritual clients. Several psychological modalities teach us professionals how to help our clients alleviate suffering and do it effectively. But it does highlight a major gap between those who approach life with a psychological point of view and those who approach life with a theological point of view. In the most simplistic terms, psychology seeks to alleviate suffering through natural means, or things that can be done within one’s self, such as self-denial, personal insight, or behavior modification (to name a few). Christianity, on the other hand, seeks to change the quality and function of a person’s soul by eradicating sin. This is done through supernatural means, most specifically through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins (what Christians call justification). This justification for our sins gives us God’s Holy Spirit within us in place of our old sinful one and begins a lifelong process of the Holy Spirit guiding and purifying us so that we becoming more and more like Christ (what Christians call sanctification).

Sanctification can look a lot like psychology as it may implement strategies of self-denial, personal insight, or behavior modification. However, it differs significantly in one main way: Psychology begins with the desired result, tries to teach how to do and maintain the result, but respects the individualism of the person so much that their core remains relatively unchanged. Christianity begins with the core, changes that, and then works from the inside outward so that those changes produce and maintain a “how” of doing life, which produces the desired result.

Additionally, Christians understand that suffering plays a unique role in their relationship with self, the sinful world, and Christ. Those who have adopted a biblical worldview remember that early church fathers often strengthened and encouraged new disciples of Christ by reminding them, “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God.” (Acts 14:22) This does not mean that Christians enjoy suffering or want to invite additional suffering into their lives, but they understand that suffering is a result of a fallen, sinful world, not just a conglomeration of choices that have been defined as “unhealthy”.

Suffering, for the Christian, is not to be avoided, as most modern thinking emphasizes. It is to be embraced. This is for two reasons. First, suffering is often the catalyst for the sanctification process, because it reorients us to a God-centered mentality and resizes our own view of our selves so that we confess as Paul did in Philippians 1:21 “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.” Suffering can teach, purify, and increase our understanding of God; and just like healthy conflict can improve a marriage or a friendship, so suffering can improve our relationship with God. For this reason we often find encouragement through the examples of biblical saints who have preceded us, for they provide an example of how to remain God-centric in the midst of suffering. Also, scriptures like James 1:2-3, 1 Peter 1:14-16, and 1 Peter 2:11-23 do not encourage alleviation of suffering but a specific type of living in the midst of it.

This type of Christ-like living is encouraged for the second reason of embracing suffering: to promote Christ and invite others into a relationship with Him. If Christians endure suffering like their non-Christian friends/relatives, then there is no distinction between how we live and how they live. But when a Christian embraces suffering and demonstrates that the power of God is working through them to produce a joy or a righteousness that is independent of their circumstances, then other people take notice of this strange response. It becomes intriguing to them and can, in some cases, make them acknowledge that only God could be working through you to accomplish what they are witnessing. Embracing suffering is not easy but it does promote Christ as it removes the element of trusting one’s self and instead trusts in God to do a work that has never before been witnessed. To be clear, though, this may or may not include the removal of suffering in your life, or even the alleviation of it. It may, instead, accomplish only the exaltation of Christ.

Again, this does not mean that psychology is useless. It only means that as a Christian (or a Christian counselor for that matter) one must decide how to approach and handle suffering. Will it be with a psychologized theology, focused more on alleviating emotional pain, or will it be a theologized psychology where biblical principles and worldviews take precedence over those of man? This is the choice I have to daily fight. It is not one I enjoy, but I have hope that as I embrace this struggle, it will both purify my soul as well as my counseling. Perhaps this makes sense to you. Perhaps it doesn’t. Perhaps you think it is just the ramblings of local blogger. Either way, it is my hope that in the small struggle of work I can learn wisdom that will be helpful to both myself and my clients that extends beyond the sufferings of this life only. As the apostle Paul says in 1st Corinthians 15:19:

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Lessons from Vacation – The Hike

20150612_175314

Three years ago I lost the weight of the Christmas tree at the top of our stairs. The box went right as my leg tried to pivot left towards the attic, and two seconds later I grimaced in pain as I felt my knee pop out of then quickly back into its socket. A few months later, the orthopedic surgeon removed 60% of my meniscus. To this day I still think I can still play tennis, jog, etc., until my knee not so subtly reminds me it has less than half of its cushion remaining between my femur and my tibia. Admittedly I am a stubborn learner Continue reading

The Weapon of Suffering

During World War II one of the boldest Christian voices combating the evils of Naziism was that of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He was a native German pastor and scholar whose writings and radio broadcasts intentionally placed his own life at risk so that God’s truth could be contrasted against Hitler’s worldview. Eventually, Bonhoeffer’s words were censored, and he had to flee his native country. But this choice was not permanent, and he returned to Germany, knowing it would probably cost him his life. In the end, it did.

But before the Nazis hanged him, he penned one of the best quotes in modern Christian writing when he said:

When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.”

In a world where suffering in the flesh is disdained and avoided at almost any cost, Bonhoeffer sounds like a lunatic Continue reading