Will All Be Well?

I've started subscribing to Richard Rohr's daily devotional, which I have found to be more thoughtful than most, balancing both an opportunity to pause and contemplate with intellectual growth and stimulation. Back in November, he had a post reflecting on Julian of Norwich's famous prayer, "All shall be well, all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well."

I'm familiar with this prayer, having prayed it myself. It's a nice reminder of God's sovereignty, among other teleological ideas. But this time, I wondered how true this prayer really is. It depends on our end point, of course, as one could argue that once creation is renewed and reconciled, "all will be well."

But in the shorter term, not everything works out right. Babies die. Terrorists succeed. Good people go bankrupt. Hard workers lose their homes and jobs. People in therapy suicide.

No matter how hard we work, sometimes bad things happen.

So is saying a prayer that all shall be well still true? Or is it a Nietzschean opiate to make us feel better? Psychological research has indicated that the negative cognitions of the depressed (and I would add that the anxious probably fall into this, as well) are actually more accurate than the thoughts of those who are normal. The depressive things are reality. But it doesn't help us live, either. It seems that sometimes we need some level of ignorance or blindness in order to function appropriately.

I want to believe that all shall be well. Teleologically, I could say it's so. Frankly, I've had a remarkably blessed life. But in this world, I've also seen others in great pain despite faithfulness.

What is the balance between hoping all shall be well and knowing that it's not? Maybe it's the hope that's the key.

Does Psychology Create a Need for Church Style? @maguyton

How much does our psychology influence the faith approach we follow, appreciate, and even need? There is regularly a lot of dialogue in the blogosphere about the holiness and horror of both the sin/wrath-focused church and the therapeutic church. Morgan Guyton recently published a couple of excellent posts on fundamentalism and his thoughts on the drive to the (highly disturbing) Christian domestic discipline movement (AKA wife spanking--yes, seriously). These posts spurred me to write about some thoughts I've had about the dichotomy between the sin and therapeutic churches.

One of the things I often hear from major proponents of sin-focused approaches is that we all need to be reminded of our problems, our weaknesses, and that God is in charge. In accordance, the argument for and against the therapeutic churches is that they make us feel too good about ourselves and make us forget about our failings.

This also reminds me of some of the applications of the 12 step approach (not all implementations are the same). Interestingly, there is a decent amount of narcissistic traits in people with substance misuse problems (this is a broad generalization, of course). I think the people who do best in 12 step programs often have this tendency, which is why it makes sense that they need to be reminded of their limitations. Can the same be said for the sin-focused churches? I think so. Some of the loudest voices of this approach (cough, Mark Driscoll, cough) ooze narcissism, so I can see how they benefit from being reminded of their finitude. And just like a good narcissist, they assume everyone is like them and needs the same approach.

Except I've met very few people who aren't aware of their limitations. Those who seem to be needing reminders fall into the undermentioned category. Almost every person I've worked with in my clinical work is acutely aware of his/her problems. Especially when we start getting into levels of higher anxiety, the last thing people need is to be reminded of what's wrong with them. Believe me, as someone with a strong level of perfectionism, I condemn myself plenty.

Continuing this message in the spiritual life does nothing to bring us closer to God. Rather, it reinforces psychological pathology, reinforcing a process of psychic self-flagellation. The therapeutic church approach, reminding people of the unconditional love and grace of God, compensates for the self-condemnation pattern many people experience regularly.

So perhaps both approaches are needed based on particular individuals and psychological processes. After all, God does meet us where we're at, right?

Does that mean I could actually recommend Driscoll and crew to the narcissists? I would have a hard time doing so because of his self-righteous condemnation of others rather than just himself (actually, I don't think I've ever heard him criticize himself, just like a good narcissist). Unfortunately, this becomes a pattern of many sin churches--the people condemn themselves, then become self-congratulatory for doing so and turns the condemnation on others, reinforcing the narcissistic tendencies.

Interestingly, a healthy therapeutic church (yes, there definitely are extreme, unhealthy ones who disregard any semblance of growth and change) could be very good medicine for narcissistic traits. In psychology, a popular explanation of the etiology of narcissism is called the narcissistic injury, which argues that these individuals in fact have an incredibly low self-esteem and sense of self-efficacy. Building up authentic self-regard is actually the "cure" for narcissism in this case. Internalizing God's unconditional love and grace is a core goal of therapeutic churches. And it's a beautiful spiritual and psychological cure to many ills...

The Anxiety of Doubt

One of the central purposes of this blog is to help people deal with doubt and the anxiety that goes along with that in a constructive, faith-building way.

This article summarizes a York University study exploring how anxiety can lead to religious extremism. I can believe that. From a psychological perspective, when we are anxious, we tend to often take more solid, definable views. That, by its nature, reduces anxiety because it reduce the ambiguity and the unknown.

If anxiety on its own can lead to religious extremism, then faith-related anxiety can definitely lead to more extreme views that happen to be self-soothing because they leave less room for error. This emphasizes the importance of being about to more positively manage and cope with religious anxiety.

In fact, we should embrace that anxiety. BioLogos hosted a nice post on this matter, discusses how doubt can lead to a deepening of one's faith through challenging our social constructions of God that prevent us from having a true relationship with the real, authentic God. This echoes Tillich's quote from The Courage to Be that is the motto of this blog: "The courage to be is rooted in the God who appears when God has disappeared in the anxiety of doubt."

Jonathan Brink also wrote a nice post on the idea of certainty and how defending certainty rarely works out for good. While it is important to be certain of some things, the best thing we can do is love others. I particularly love his quote, "The truest defense of the faith is not a defense of the faith but the act of love."