Celebrate Respect, Not Fear

As we celebrate Independence Day in the midst of election season, our country is again examining how it is viewed through the rest of the world. Most of us want the US to be respected. Some view respect through the lens of fear. In fact, I saw a comment online that we need a leader that will lead other countries to be terrified of us.

Yet fear is not productive in building relationships or moving forward. I guess some people don't care about that. But let's remember the purpose of fear--its function is to keep us alive when threatened. The classic responses are to fight or flee. How is that helpful long-term or in relationships? It's not. It's highly destructive. Fear is very useful when a bear is coming at you, but that will also mean you won't be an ally of that bear unless your whole world is built upon power and ensuring you're on top. That's a precarious position.

I hear people essentially equate fear and respect in kids towards adults. We must remember that what we often see as respect for adults or other isn't actually respect. It's fear, so a child stays quiet. There is not necessarily an attitude of respect. Behavioral respect without attitudinal respect is quite problematic.

Ultimately, fear-based relationships are immature, unskilled power plays. When we are unable to adequately express ourselves and our emotions and do not have the skills to regulate those emotions effectively, we default to primal-based actions of aggression.

Think of the toddler who doesn't get their way. They can't regulate and don't know what to do but yell and hit, which doesn't lead to anything good. As we grow and mature, hopefully we learn skills of emotional expression and regulation as well as effective behavioral responses that are beneficial for us and for other. That's what leads to positive relationships and mutual respect. Aggression and fear leads to mutually assured destruction.

Which would you rather have?

Meaning Without Transcendence?

This is the third in a series on meaning. A conversation I've had with others and is central to a universal concept of meaning is whether transcendence is needed for meaning. Viktor Frankl and others have argued that meaning is a central human need, and I'm inclined to agree.

There are many people who argue that transcendence is not at all necessary for meaning. They explain that they find meaning in simply enjoying the world around them, from sunsets to close relationships. However, nothing more than that is needed.

Others argue that such situations are insufficient. I'm in this camp. One way I'd phrase it is that survival for the sake the survival is not compelling nor meaningful. For me, there necessarily needs to be something more, something inherent, something transcendent to find meaning. That's where faith becomes central to me.

From the first perspective, having kids is important and meaningful only because that's just part of human nature, and we've evolutionarily been wired to have those drives. There's not necessarily anything transcendent about it, so just enjoy what biology has given us.

In the second perspective (using Christian language), God has used evolution to give us a desire for family because there is something inherently, transcendently meaningful about building life and relationships, and guiding little lives and character. Adoption is meaningful and relevant in this second context for me. I think it's harder to argue for in the first.

There's so much pain and destruction caused by humans that if there's nothing transcendent about them, then I find it hard to argue for our continued existence, frankly. But if there's something transcendent and valuable about all life, then we should continue on (and be good neighbors to our non-human friends).

What keeps me going is the faith that transcendence gives life and struggle meaning. I really have trouble understanding finding meaning without that. How about you? Do you find that meaning requires transcendence?

The Need to be Right

Anyone ever want to be right? I know I like being right. And even more importantly, many of us like others knowing that we're right (especially when they're wrong, huh? :) ). How many conflicts arise from the insistence on being right (and trying to get others to acknowledge that)? What happens to the way we treat others when we insist on being right? What happens to our emotional state? Do the answers to these questions match with the fruit of the Spirit or most people's goals of life?

One of the concepts in the skill of dialectics in DBT (Dialectical Behavior Therapy) is to let go of being right. This doesn't mean that there isn't right and wrong or that we shouldn't hold true to our values. Rather, the idea is essentially about letting go of winning an argument.

DBT is focused on targeting emotional dysregulation (emotions being overwhelming and out of control). So all the skills are practically aimed at increasing our ability to regulate ourselves. Trying to be right frequently leads to emotion dysregulation, which in turn leads to poor judgment and interpersonal conflict.

So trying to let go of having to be right allows us to look at what is effective in our long-term goals. Do I really need to convince my wife that dishes should be put in the dishwasher and not left in the sink? While I'm, of course, right, insisting on being right only leads to conflict, fights, and a poor relationship. Are the dishes really worth that? When we're emotionally dysregulated, whatever we're fighting for does seem worth it. But then we calm down, and it seems silly. So the goal is to head off the dysregulation in order to maintain wise decision-making.

This can be hard when relationships aren't at stake. I've been really tempted to take our first adoption attorney to court or make a formal complaint to the state bar association for breach of contract. From one angle, it's a lot of money we lost, and fighting to be right could literally pay off. And it's not like I care whether the guy likes me or not. But how much energy is lost in the process? What are the chances of actually achieving my goals? It's an uphill battle.

But there are times when it bothers me. A lot. I realized it's not really the loss of the money, since we'll get most of it back through the federal adoption tax credit. It's tolerating the idea that he thinks he won (or so I imagine him thinking). I don't want him to think he's right. I want him to think we're right. But what good does that ultimately do? Not much. It'll satisfy my emotions for a bit, then something else will come along to trigger them. Wouldn't it be better to find ways to regulate without relying on others?

There are times to fight for justice, but we need to be wise about it. And when our desire to be right becomes too strong, then we can actually lose sight of justice itself. (I'm afraid this happens sometimes in the legal system when prosecutors, defense attorneys, police officers, etc. behave unethically just to be right rather than seek truth.)

I see Jesus acting this way when Pilate was questioning him. There were so many ways Jesus could have argued he was right. But would it have convinced everyone? Would it have been effective at achieving his ultimate, long-term goals? From this perspective, I can see him saving his energy for what was most important. He could tolerate people thinking he was evil and even forgave them for making such erroneous judgments. He didn't have to be right. And that allowed him to be at peace and make even more powerful impact.

Yet ironically, how often do we insist on being right in the name of Christ? How much good does that bring?

I like being right. I want to be on the right side of things. More importantly, I really like it when people think I'm right (even if I'm wrong). And that desire leads to a lot of unrest. Jesus came to bring us life and peace. Part of that, I believe, is letting go of having to be right.

Occult Question, Part 2

I received a very thoughtful email from a reader in response to my post last week, Why I Don't Believe in the Occult. He agreed to let me post our short exchange, as I think it adds to the conversation and provides some clarification of my points.

Reader's Comment:

To the author at Jacobs cafe RE: on the nature of the spiritual world. 

I write, on an iPhone, in response to your comments about what you don't believe in related to the spiritual world of the occult and Hollywood's formulas about such. 

I have no problem with agreeing with you about the typical Christian Bookstores problems with popular supernatural fiction and Harry Potter and all that. I start with the assumption that CS Lewis' ScrewTape Letters and Charles Williams works like Descent into Hell are pretty tame and accessible and acceptable literary statements with "relative theological acceptance" on the mainstream Protestant conversation. So I want to make clear I am leaving all that context behind just to honor or admit some particular spiritual encounters I had with the Occult that were not shared by any of that sophisticated reflection. The experience i speak from was only a raw and totally "re-settling" and "over-turning" event. 

So, Part of me agrees with you and my "sophisticated theological" training supports much of that denouncement you make. BUT, also I was fortunate enough 40 years ago to directly experience some very deep encounters with the occult and from that found Jesus, as rescuer from that occultic violence. 

What you probably need to expand your horizons and reflection is to have some "scary as hell" encounters with the demonic realm where you shit your soul's pants and then thank God you were preserved from further fury and demise. When you find yourself like Job in a whirlwind holding your hands over your eyes and wondering where your ground of being and cosmological correctness vaporated... You will end up with a more complete sense of the context of your occult investigation.  

 I say that with an old Jesus people hippy guy's heart that has read thousands of sophisticated theological works over the last four decades but never forgotten several soul-shaking occult encounters.

Best of luck with your occult encounters and supporting grace. 

My reply:

Thanks for your comments, ___. 

I want to clarify that my post was really about the potential process of the occult and the concern people have in engaging in incantations and formulaic "magical" interventions. If dark forces exist, I don't think they operate in that fashion, so I see no threat in those activities. I see them just as games.

The existence of conscious dark forces is another conversation and debate, of course, which I talked about a little two and a half years ago (http://jacobscafe.blogspot.com/2010/12/satan-person-or-personification.html). Ultimately, I see it as a matter of faith, as any experience could be explained by a variety of psychological, cultural, sociological, medical, etc. theories. But they could be actually caused by dark forces. I'm not sure we'd ever be able to prove it one way or another, just like we cannot prove or disprove God. It's faith.

I'm not sure I would live my life any differently if I was very confident in an active, conscious Satanic force. I still think the ways we engage evil in the world would be the same whether it is human nature or active dark forces...

Blessings,Josh

Why I Don't Believe in the Occult

Conservative Christendom has long criticized films, books, TV series, games, and other media that have anything to do with witchcraft or the occult. The argument is that it lets in the demonic and exposes people (especially young ones) to dark forces. I've never been convinced of this. In fact, I've very much enjoyed several of the criticized franchises, including Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Harry Potter, and Hocus Pocus.

I've more recently realized why I probably have never felt threatened by this media. They all rely on formulaic interventions to impact how the powers that be work in the world. I don't believe God or the spiritual world works like that. God doesn't fit in the IFTTT (if this then that) workflow. He's far more relational.

Would potential dark forces work in a more formulaic way, then? Perhaps. But I don't see much evidence of formulas ever being the way things work in any Christian sacred texts. And I don't think gathering a few specific items and saying an incantation in a particular way would automatically please some dark being.

Magic like this just doesn't exist in this world. Magic from the perspective of awe, imagination, and wonder (as in Disney magic) is very much real, but that's a totally different arena.

Maybe Screwtape has pulled one over on me, and I'll quickly fall because l don't see the threat of the occult. But I frankly see no evidence that the spiritual works on formulas. Frankly, very little of the world, especially when involving humans, is truly as formulaic as these representations of the occult.

Sometimes I wish the world were more formulaic. It would be far easier to predict behavior and how things would work out. In fact, I think it is the human desire for clarity and confidence that leads us to try to find regular causal connections between things. If we can identify clearly defined formulas, then we have more control over the world (even the Divine), which soothes any anxiety we have about the ambiguity of life.

Because I don't believe the world, especially the spiritual world, operates on formula, then entertainment involving any form of magic is just that--entertaining fun. It's not a threat because it's not real. Frankly, I find the greater danger is believing that we can control ourselves, our world, and even God through rituals.

The Glorious Fog @EdwardDobson @christianaudio @caReviewers

Every month during my year-long predoctoral internship, I spent a day with patients diagnosed with or being assessed for ALS. This is a tragic disease that killed baseball great Lou Gehrig and gave renowned physicist Stephen Hawking his electronic voice. This disease not only affects the individual, but also the families. Often the families were more deeply impacted by the losses than the actual patient.

A common thread among the patients and families was that they were forced to address existential questions. During our support group including both patients and family members, it was not unusual to get questions and comments related to faith, the goodness of God (or lack thereof), and the process, hope, and promise of healing.

ALS can be a great equalizer of people. We saw all races and socioeconomic statuses. Both genders were well represented. While it tends to hit people in the second half of their life, we had a good representation of the under 40 crowd. We occasionally got someone under 20. And the process of ALS is different for each person. Some die within months of diagnosis. Others, like Hawking, can live for decades.

Medically-speaking, there is virtually no explanation for the etiology or the reason for continued degradation of the body. There was one lady whose hands were essentially paralyzed. She explained she and her congregation prayed hard and the ALS stopped partway up her arms and has been stable for years. Others have just as much prayer, and the disease seems to move faster.

This can impact one's faith in so many ways, as anyone can imagine. So when I saw Ed Dobson's book, Seeing Through the Fog, exploring, in part, his journey with ALS, I was intrigued. I was even more interested in hearing reflections from this pastor who worked closely with Jerry Falwell and yet voted for Obama.

What I particularly appreciated about Dobson's work is his complete honesty. Emotionally, cognitively, and spiritually, he discussed the journey of his life pre- and post-ALS.

Ultimately, this is not a book about ALS, although I can be very helpful for those suffering with ALS and their loved ones. It's also not a book presenting a formula for how to deal with challenges in life. Rather, he beautifully explores how to see God in the midst of the mundane parts of life. And find joy in those moments, growing ever closer to Christ in the process.

It seems that ALS really helped Dobson particularly see the complexities of life and find the joy in the nuances. He does not minimize the challenges of the fog that so many of us face in different ways, but he also reflects on the beauty of God's incarnational love that takes us through that fog. There were many times I left the support group I was co-leading wanting to cry. Not out of sadness, but because of the beauty of the deep, sacrificial love these families display. Like so many tragedies, ALS can destroy a family, or it can bring them together more powerfully than ever, gloriously shining the love of Christ for everyone to see.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Hearing God @christianaudio @DallasAWillard

Hearing and recognizing God's voice is one of the most confusing, challenging, and central parts of life. Arguably, all people try to find and understand God's voice speaking to them at some point in life. Even for the most spiritually devout, God's voice is not always clear.

Dallas Willard wrote and recently re-released Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God to address the complexity of connecting with God. He starts the book by addressing the many misconceptions about hearing God. But he doesn't stop there--he spends a significant majority of the book exploring the various, powerful, yet subtle ways God speaks us on a daily basis.

What I love about this book is that Willard really emphasizes that there is no formula for connecting with and hearing God. Willard very clearly notes that God can use whatever means he would like to speak to us, but that there are particularly tendencies in how he sends us messages, which are often some form of what I would call Incarnational.

I'm fairly familiar with Willard's work and the topic of hearing God, so there was not much new here that I had not heard before. However, it was validating, reminding me of how I am connected to God. This was particularly meaningful, as during the two weeks I listened to this book on my commute to and from work, we were matched with a birth mom for an adoption, which then fell through.

During the emotional roller coaster, I questioned my recognition of God's voice to us about the match (and even adoption in general, at times). When we were first offered the opportunity to talk to this mom, I had this clear sense of peace (which is unusual for me, who is usually anxious), with a message that it would all work out fine. As the adoption fell through, I questioned if I had really heard from God. Quickly after that thought, I experienced a response that I was not "told" that this particular match would work out, but that all would be fine and we would handle it.

That did not make the process easier, per se, but it did give me a peace about the process. And as I mentioned before, that's not my normal state, making it fit being a message from God all the more. Plus, the characteristics of God's voice, as Willard says, includes stillness, peace, and calm.

I pray we all continue to recognize God and his voice in all we do, both in providing peace and passion for life.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Calling Out Sin

Those who have been following my blog lately have probably noticed a theme on sin and sin reduction. In general, I'm not a big fan of the holiness movements that (in my opinion) over-emphasize the role of the lack of sin in people's lives. The idea of confession can also be over-used in a way that guilts and shames people into being meek and mellow followers of a certain set of rules and regulations (at least on the surface).

At the same time, I have strong holiness roots, spiritually and secularly. As one of my friends and I have talked about, we both generally have excellent self-control. Heck, I've avoided eating and going to the bathroom for hours in order to get projects done.

Yet that kind of self-control can be just as damaging as a prodigal lifestyle. Perfectionism is debilitating. I don't know of any psychological theory that encourages perfectionism. Yet it runs in my family, making us all anxious. My wife often comments about how unhappy I must be trying to make everything "right" and fixing things. Living a virtuous life can be taken too far (look at the Pharisees).

Ultimately, it's all behavior and external. The heart is what matters. And virtuous behavior can kill the heart. Ironic, isn't it? Unrighteous behavior can kill the heart, as can the opposite.

That is why I so often see the need for love. Without love, there is no heart. And there is no room for error.

Being a psychologist, I daily work with people who have a variety of behavior problems. Most of the behaviors could be given the sin label.

I sometimes have to point out a dysfunctional pattern. However, most of the time, people know how they're screwing up. They need help fixing it. And usually the solution is some form of giving and receiving love.

Even the narcissists know their foibles. In psychology, we talk about how a narcissistic injury caused the over-inflated ego. This is a deep injury to one's self-esteem and identity. There is, in truth, a lack of self, causing a facade of strength to cover the emptiness.

There isn't a person with a psychological disorder (or lack thereof) who really needs to be told how awful they are. They already know. They may not act like it, but that's usually because they have no hope of any better kind of redemption.

So what do we, as a Church, often provide? More condemnation and calling out of what they're doing wrong.

What we need to emphasize is what everyone is longing for: A means for transformation, to become whole. And the answer is Jesus Christ. Through love. Through unconditional, unwavering, magnificent love. Despite our sins, despite our doubts, despite our lack of love. Christ loves us. And Christ loves others through us. When we let him.

Yet there are times when it is good and right to call out a sin. I think it needs to be done in the context of a trusting, solid relationship. Without that, the safety of assured love and acceptance leaves a void of rejection and antipathy. Who wants to confess facing that abyss?

This is the process I generally follow as a therapist. Before I can confront someone, I need to build a rapport with them, a relationship built on honest trust and love. Otherwise, the confrontation is not helpful. When done right, it can lead to transformation.

What do you think? When and how is it appropriate to call out sin? Should it ever be done publicly? Generally (like against the "big" sins)?

Assumptions of Belief

This week I've posted a lot about doctrine and beliefs. One of the things that bothers me most is when I perceive people to be assuming what I believe. This drives me nuts, particularly when I don't hold that belief.

There's times to correct it and times not to correct it. However, recently, I've been hearing some beliefs with which I disagree be presented so frequently and unilaterally that I feel the desire to say, "I don't hold that belief!"

Has anyone else been there?

I'm not sure asserting my belief would do that much good. It could easily come across as antagonistic and put me on the outside of a group.

On the other hand, it could validate others who are in the same position as me, and that's very valuable. Additionally, there may be many people who do not have a firm position on a belief, and presenting and considering an alternative is a very important way of developing a solid, true belief system. Additionally, it is important for everyone to remember that their beliefs are not universally held, no matter what they are.

What do you think? When is it useful and effective and worthwhile to assert one's own beliefs in contrast to others'? What's the appropriate forum (obviously depends on the context)? Short blog post? Tweet with a summary?

Don't Waste Your Life @JohnPiper @christianaudio @caReviewers

John Piper is a prolific writer who people seem to either love or hate. In December, I had the opportunity to review his latest book (in audiobook format), which made me into a non-fan of Piper. I cross-post my reviews on other sites, including Amazon. It was quite interesting to see how passionately people defended Piper in response to my review. And how they review the usefulness of a review and people's comments based on their agreement with them.


Another of Piper's books became available in christianaudio's reviewers program (with a complimentary copy), so I decided to take the opportunity to give Piper another chance. Don't Waste Your Life is actually an older book of Piper's (from 2006), and it definitely gave me a more positive view of Piper.


I'm still not a Piper fan, but he presented a much more balanced view of life in this book. As the title suggests, he is encouraging people to not waste their lives. In short, we need to live for Christ and not for the materialism of the world in order to not waste our lives. He gives an excellent story from his childhood that his father would frequently tell people about an older man who died feeling like his life was wasted on "worldly" endeavors.


I agree with this viewpoint. We need meaning and purpose in life, and the only way to get true meaning is by loving others through Christ (or more accurately, letting Christ love others through us). I also appreciated that Piper acknowledged the various ways people can enhance the Kingdom--not always through explicit ministry. He did an excellent job of supporting an incarnational view of spreading the Gospel, as he noted the critical need of people to do "mundane, secular" jobs.


He illustrates these points with nice stories, anecdotes, and metaphors. At the same time, it would have probably been easy to make a more concise version of the book.


In his eagerness to emphasize the tragedy of a wasted life, Piper also invalidates other life tragedies. He explicitly states that people getting cancer and dying in accidents are not tragedies. I greatly and passionately disagree. These are all tragedies; just different types.


Further, there was still too much emphasis on sin and leading a holy (meaning morally pure) life. From my post Wednesday: "While we do need to combat sin and move toward moral purity, this is something that is impossible in this world. And it's not the primary goal of the Gospel or what God wants, in my opinion. He wants a relationship with us. And battling sin can get in the way of that. If we are always beating ourselves up in order to repent, we are ignoring God's redemption and therefore ignoring God."


Different Christian traditions emphasize the roles of repentance and redemption to varying degrees. Piper clearly comes from one that sees the role of continual repentance as central. I think we need to emphasize redemption more.

Big Tent Christianity

Next month, there is a conference called Big Tent Christianity occurring in North Carolina (no, I don't have enough money to go :) ). I'm participating in part of a synchroblog as a part of that conference. The theme for the synchroblog is:

What does “big tent Christianity” mean to you? What does it look like in your context? What are your hopes and dreams for the Church?

When I hear "big tent Christianity," I think back to Archbishop of Split (Spalato) Marco Antonio de Dominis' phrase, "in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity." There's a few ways that is translated, but this is the essence of the quote.

I think this should be a motto for all Christians in dealing with others. There are essential ideas in which we should be unified. However, I think there are really only a few absolute essentials (i.e. God exists and Jesus is our Savior) that truly define Christianity. Much else truly are nonessentials. Not that there are not absolutes, but we also cannot know them all because of the fallibility of humanity. And even when we do, they are not salvific issues (in my opinion). We need to be able to accept differences in opinion about these issues. We may need separate communities because differences of opinion can definitely impact the way a community operates. However, as a friend of mine recently said, we need to remember that we're all on the same team.

The most important part of that quote to me is the last part: "in all things charity." Even the essentials should be questioned in order to make sure they are valid and in order for people to truly understand them. Further, we are all in different places in the journey of understanding and faith. We need to have grace for each other (and ourselves) in that process.

However, I think a big part of charity is not having arrogance. We need to not instantly question the validity of each other's faith because of disagreements (even over essentials). One of the things I've discovered is that a lot of disagreeing parties are not as different as they think. They problems occur because they use different language, so they are not communicating clearly.

Christianity should be a place where people can explore themselves, God, and Truth in a safe place. That  necessitates charity. It's a hard thing to do, and no one will do it perfectly, but I'd like to see that happen more and more.

Marital Problems

I have posted several times about marriage and how we have a romanticized perspective of it. Science and Religion Today hosted a challenging (and I would argue controversial) post on considering if we should change our expectations about spousal sexual faithfulness. The author argues that by loosening the reigns on sexual fidelity, relational faithfulness can increase. He states:

But even as we allow for less fidelity, we may find our relationships enriched with greater faithfulness. When an occasional casual sexual adventure is no longer an existential threat to a marriage, it may become something partners can choose to share openly with each other, thereby increasing their own sense of intimacy and trust.

I'm not sure I buy it, but it's interesting to ponder, especially if we take the same process of managing anxiety to increase religious faith. Perhaps what we need to do is not necessarily lower our sexual standards, but put less emphasis on them so we are less anxious about them.

The same blog also summarized another study that found divorce clusters in social networks. Does that mean divorce is contagious? Or socially more acceptable when there are other divorcees? Or perhaps there is a lack of relational health in groups. It will be interesting if other pick up these findings and explore the possible causes more.

Marital Separation's (Lack of) Virtue

Christianity Today ran an interesting article last week regarding Al and Tipper Gore's separation and how separation can be pro-family. The author, Glenn Stanton, is the Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family, so the perspective is definitely from the value of not getting divorced, which is something I also value and would advocate for.

Before I read the article, I was expecting it to be something about how separation is acceptable because the couple is not actually getting divorced, so they're technically still married and following God's law. This kind of perspective is a really lame cop-out and a step into legalism, I think.

In many cases, the only difference between separation and divorce is piece of paper from the courts.

This was not the point of the article, but I have a feeling this was an underlying message. Stanton's point is that marital separation can be a sort of "pause button," allowing the couple space to breathe, re-evaluate their relationship, and then reconnect in a healthier way. While I could see this happening (Stanton said that happened to his marriage), I'm not convinced that's the reason anything near the majority (or even any semblance of a significant minority) of people separate. Rather, the article felt more like Stanton feeling the need to defend his own past separation.

From a psychological perspective, I could see pros and cons of marital separation. Looking at Stanton's argument, sometimes people do need space in order to reconnect. However, there are much better ways than separation. People definitely need to address the problem earlier (although this is not common--most people only seek marital counseling when they have basically already decided to divorce).

The best point Stanton makes is that separation brings the couple's community together, letting everyone know there is a serious marital rift and that they need help. Community is important. But if it takes formal separation to get people to help, it's not much of a community...

I also think separation from Stanton's perspective can actually be more damaging than helpful. I would think people more often will use it as an excuse to get separated to make themselves feel less guilt about the separation. They will "try" to reconnect, show it didn't work, and then use that as a theological excuse for divorce.

And then there's the issue if there are children. Much research has shown that divorce definitely causes problems in kids. However, it also consistently shows that a constantly feuding couple who remains married does MORE damage to the kids than if the two divorced. Separation could be seen as a way of having a balance between marriage and lack of feuding. However, I don't think it does this well.

In fact, I think separation would be worse than divorced because of the ambiguity involved. Are mommy and daddy staying together? Are they separate for good? Kids don't do well with ambiguity, particularly when it comes to their families and living situations. Our treatment team at work often tells parents not to tell kids of major plans unless they are sure it will happen. If there's a chance it won't, the rollercoaster of expectation and anxiety just causes more problems.

So in summary, "separation" sounds nicer. It's more theologically friendly, as we haven't sinned by getting "divorced." But this is really more of a legalistic view. In many ways, I think separation is more dangerous and damaging than divorce. This is not always true, as in Stanton's case. But it needs to be approached cautiously, in my opinion.

What do you think?

Polarized Thinking in the Church

Last year, when I was running group on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), we would often discuss polarized thinking (also known as black-and-white or dichotomous thinking). In exploring how this can be damaging, people often discuss how it hurts ourselves. But I also think it's important to point out how it hurts others.

When we view people with our dichotomous thinking, we often thinking of them as either perfect or horrible (this idea is known as splitting). While it can feel good to be thought of as perfect, it is also anxiety provoking and setting others up for failure.

A perfect example is clergy. As a society, we often view clergy as perfect (or supposed to be perfect). A perfect example of this expectation of perfection is when people make mistakes. We've had several big-name pastors "fall" in the last couple of years.

We're never shocked when an actor has an affair (or even a politician), but a pastor? What makes them so special that they are free from temptation and sin? Really, they're more susceptible to such problems because of how the church community uses and abuses pastors.

So we hold this view of perfection, then the person doesn't meet that expectation, and so they move to the opposite extreme. This is not healthy, helpful, or biblical. Jonathan Brink wrote a nice post regarding Ted Haggard and the shock people have that he could start a new church. He also has nice, but sad joke about the situation.

But seriously. Why can't he start and led a church? He should not have been kicked out of his last church, in my opinion. He's human. He's made mistakes. That's what would make him a GOOD pastor! But then again, he moved into the area of sexual sin, the black hold of evil...

Article Round-up

Here's some good and interesting articles from this week:

Reimagining the Slippery Slope Challenging the idea of the "slippery slope," particularly relating to male-female non-sexual relationships.

Does God Change His Mind? Exploring the purpose and mechanism of prayer from the perspective of a Christian physician.

God As Deliverer A post from John Eldredge exploring God as a deliverer versus God as preventer. Never thought of the difference before.

Where Is God When Things Fall Apart? An article that's very relevant to this blog and exploring how to respond when life falls apart. Since that never happens... ;)

Is Monogamy Just a Myth or Is It Possible? An interesting exploration of monogamy by Sue Johnson, one of the founders of EFT (Emotionally Focused Therapy). Nice points, but there's also some limitations to the argument. Still a good read.

Sex, Porn, & Marriage Redeux

On the heels of last week's series on unmet marriage needs, focusing on sex, I read two articles from two separate Christian magazines relating to this issue.

The first is from Christianity Today, reporting on a New York Times article on gay marriage and how many gay male partnerships are open relationships. As they point out in the article, this situation has ironically strengthened the endurance of the relationships. Again, I'm not advocating for open marriages, but the facts should make us think about our assumptions.

The second is from Relevant, discussing the idea of emotional pornography. I love the line the author wrote, stating "Just as there is sexual excitement surrounding the mystery and allure of what flesh might be seen in a movie known for its racy reputation, so too are we drawn in with an anticipation for the emotional and physical high of a romance film." I recommend you continue to read the article. It brings up some excellent points, including how emotionally relationships media often encourages can actually be counter-productive. I thought of Shakespeare in Love in particular...

Unmet Marriage Needs, Part 3 of 3

So continuing from the last two days, sex is a need at some level. If it's not being adequately met (and it's not met in many marriages), how can that need be met without destroying the marriage?

One option is masturbation, with or without porn. Christians have a lot to say on both masturbation and porn, often with passionate arguments on both sides. My supervisor recently gave a lecture to a group of female nurses on sex addiction. He started by asking them if their husbands were masturbating to an image of a beautiful nude woman on their computer screen, how many would consider that cheating. Only about 1/3 raised their hands. Adjusting the situation, the woman is now in the room, while the man is doing nothing different. Now the whole audience thought it was cheating. Sure, there are dynamics as to why the man would be in the same room as the nude woman. However, the action itself is the same, under slightly different circumstances.

This emphasizes the very fine line between what is considered cheating and what is not. Affairs are a clear example of being on the cheating side (that's the definition of affair). But what about blow-up dolls and other anatomically-correct tools to self-stimulate?

So then there's the option of an open marriage. Both parties agree that sexual needs are not being met within the relationship, so they agree to let them be met in other ways.

Interestingly, most people are more appalled at the idea of an open marriage than affairs. We are not shocked to hear spouses straying. We're not even shocked by pastors having affairs. Yet a couple has found (what they believe to be) a mutually satisfactory solution to a problem in their lives in which they can protect their marriage. The couple in House brought up this point. I think it's an excellent one and shows the hypocrisy of much of our societal judgment on sexuality.

This reminds me of a point a friend made about a group he knew of that attempted to "help" homosexuals. In the group, the people were encouraged to discussed ways they "slipped" into having a one-night-stand or anonymous sex. But talk about a meaningful relationship, and you're out of the group. Interesting approach that is very similar to this topic.

How can we approach the topic of unmet sexual needs without condemning and while finding a satisfactory solution. Open marriage and affairs are not particularly satisfactory on a theological, psychological, and emotional level. Masturbation for most people is not satisfactory on a physiological level (or emotional level due to the lack of emotional intimacy).

Many marriages have unmet sexual needs due to relational, physiological, emotional, and psychological reasons. As I provide therapy to these couples (or an individual), I would not be sure what to suggest. There does not seem like a good solution about ways to get these needs met.

Of course, to complicate and at time negate this whole conversation, it's also important to remember that sexual desire is also a symbol for other desires within a relationship and may, in fact, have nothing really to do with sex...

Unmet Marriage Needs, Part 2 of 3

Yesterday, I introduced the topic of unmet needs in a marriage and how they can be met outside of the marriage. At least this is true for most needs. The problem is in the area of sexual needs.

The reason I put the spoiler alert yesterday for House is that last week's episode had open marriage as a central topic (and got me thinking about this topic, so hat tip to the screenwriters! :)). For those who don't know, an open marriage is one in which the partners are free to have sex with other people without it being considered cheating.

The physicians were largely appalled by the idea of an open marriage. However, the woman (the one who had asked for the open marriage) said the reason she wanted the open marriage was because she loved her husband. Huh? That's surprising to most people. But let's follow her logic for a moment. She said her husband meets 90% of her needs. The 10% can be draining and can take away from her appreciation of that 90%. And she doesn't want to let that go. I have to say that's a very valid point, although the solution of an open marriage is still questionable at best. But let's explore this a bit more.

Maslow puts sex as a fundamental, physiological need. It's more fundamental than relationships. It's at the same level as food, sleep, and breathing. Now, I would argue that we can survive without having intercourse, but sexual arousal will occur whether or not we like it (ever heard of a wet dream?). We can argue how fundamental a need sex is, but many theorists have emphasized the importance of sex. So I would say sexual need is something that needs to be legitimately looked at within a marriage.

The difficulty is the complexity of sex. There is the "pure horniness" factor, which solely deals with physiologic arousal. Then there's the sexual intimacy, which includes a relational element. Maslow puts that much higher on his hierarchy (meaning, it's not as fundamental to life).

Unmet Marriage Needs, Part 1 of 3

Due to the controversial and sensitive nature of sexuality (the point of this 3 part post), I feel the need to remind readers that the purpose of this blog is bring up questions and struggles many people may have. Playing the devil's advocate is a very effective and good way to combat group think, which I believe is a major threat to authentic faith. I am NOT advocating for a particular position here, but rather pointing out an area of life that we, as a society, have not adequately addressed.

I also need to add a spoiler alert if you watch House and haven't seen last week's episode (the spoiler really won't affect much, though).

As I have mentioned before, marriage is not necessarily meant to meet all needs for individual. It hopefully meets most, but no individual or relationship is perfect, so not all needs will be met. This can create a variety of problems due to the modern romanticized marriage in which we expect all needs to be met in that single relationship. I think that's part of the reason the first year of marriage is so hard: It's beginning to debunk that myth.

In truly traditional marriage (not the false traditional marriage that is really based on a model of the 1950s), a person's needs were met in community. That takes pressure off the spouse to be everything to an individual. It's also useful for when one individual is incapacitated in some way (illness, death, etc.).

Now most needs if not fully met can be met outside of the marriage. For instance, (and again, I'm not saying my wife does not meet any of these--my phrasing is for the use of argument) is not emotionally available to me. Well, I can go to friends. Frankly, most spouses are not always emotionally available (they can't be), so we NEED friends. Or if my wife is not available to do hobbies with, then I can do that with a friend. Even for chores around the house, I could hire a housekeeper.

All of these are socially, religiously, and psychologically acceptable means to getting needs met. In fact, they can help prevent divorce and affairs. Many affairs begin when one partner is not getting all of his or her (yes, her) needs met. It could even be 90%, but when we are missing something, we focus on that. So we find someone who meets that other 10%, feel filled up by them and think they're the solution. Then you have an affair, followed by divorce. And the cycle repeats. Recognizing the limitations of marriage and finding ways to get the needs met in a healthy way can help prevent this breakdown.

But how do we deal with this when sex is the unmet need? More on that tomorrow...

Salvation, Gospel, and Evangelism Without Repentance

When people talk about salvation, the Gospel, and evangelism, repentance is almost always central. Along the lines of the morality discussions from the last couple of days, repentance is a good thing. We need to recognize where we've screwed up so we can rectify that and grow.

However, I'm coming to realize that one can evangelize without emphasizing repentance. As I have discussed over the last couple of days, the Christian life is not about repenting of sin and becoming "holy" (i.e. pure). Rather it is about becoming holy by coming close to God through Christ.

That includes repentance and morality, but does not necessarily start nor end with it. It starts and ends with desire and love for Christ. Yet so often salvation, the Gospel, and evangelism begin and end with "Repent!" and give a cursory nod to love of and for God.

The problem is that most people I know already know how and that they have screwed up. They don't need to be reminded of that. Having God shame us and beat us up even more is not helpful. (No, I don't believe God does this, but that is the message I always get from the message people discuss of repentance.)

I thought I was not big on evangelism because I'm not big on shaming people more. And the centrality of repentance has never felt right to me. These were thoughts I had while listening to an audiobook version of Blue Like Jazz (review forthcoming).

Then I read a Celtic prayer book my wife got me for my birthday. And I realized that I actually am quite passionate about evangelism. My passion is for emphasizing the journey of faith. It's about telling people about transformation that is possible in relationship. It's about finding Truth through struggle. If I didn't have that passion, I would not be maintaining this blog or doing many other things I do.

I believe a lot of other people have a passion for evangelism but have been shamed into believing they are not evangelists because they are not telling people they suck but God loves them anyway. How different would the face of Christianity and the world be if we included repentance as a natural step in the path of faith rather than a shaming gate?

I think this is where repentance can be quite helpful: Not in telling people they suck (since most know that already), but that they need to rely on God to help with their suckiness. I think that's where a lot of us falter, even after our initial "repentance." Reliance on God and walking with him is central to the Christian faith journey. And trying to go it alone is where the central sin is, I think...