Showing posts with label healthy thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthy thinking. Show all posts

Sunday, August 31, 2014

a year of big anniversaries

40 YEARS AGO  we graduated from college, got married and moved across country so I could go to grad school at Virginia Tech.  (The order of the previously listed events is based on chronology, not importance.)

30 YEARS AGO after completing a Fulbright Lectureship at a Nigerian university,  we moved to a little college town in Northern New York.  The Sunday before Labor Day I attended Christian Fellowship Center for the first time.  Despite never having been in a church quite like it, I immediately knew it was home.  It has been ever since.  The next day (yes, on Labor Day) I taught my first class at St. Lawrence University.

20 YEARS AGO I visited a church, Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship, and experienced the so-called laughing rival (a.k.a., the Toronto Blessing, the Father’s Blessing).  It had a huge impact on me.  I have never, ever since questioned God’s love for me, no matter what has happened in my life. God's love was never an issue, not even during a period of severe depression.

10 YEARS AGO I experienced probably the worst day of my life.  This caused me to seek professional counseling for depression.  After counseling, after living most of my life with the illness, I have been depression free.

ZERO YEARS AGO I now know a great God and I am knowing Him better each day.  I have a great wife as companion and friend and I find her more attractive in more ways each day.  I attend a great church with over-the-top wonderful pastors for whom I am thankful to God each day.  I have a great job (with tenure!) teaching great students at a great small college for which I am more grateful each day.  I live in a great little village in the great undiscovered paradise of New York's North Country and I appreciate living here more each day.

As you can see from the previous great-full paragraph that I am grateful.  I'm not bragging since I cannot really take any credit.  At a minimum, that would assume I thought I knew what I was doing! I have been greatly blessed in a great many ways.  The past decade has literally been the best years of my life and the last two years by far the happiest of those.

I know I deserve none of this and that realization makes me very grateful indeed.

Be blessed!
RB


Monday, April 26, 2010

finding out what someone is really like

Have you ever caught yourself being surprised, maybe shocked by discovering what someone is really like? More often than not this occurs when someone has done a very wrong or quite unpleasant act or says an awful thing. He does X which is bad, and we conclude that X exposes a dark underlying flaw which defines the true nature of the person.

Christians should not be surprised at others, or ourselves for that matter, doing some awful thing. It is after all just revealing our sinful nature or natural inclinations of our Adamic nature. But surprised we are.

The problem I think is not that we are surprised but the interpretation we make of the surprise. What does it mean? To expose who we really are? Doesn't this imply there some underlying reality that is the true self? Does all the good stuff we do just mask the true self?

Frankly, if that is the case I'd rather not find out. It is bad enough that the longer and better you know someone, the more garbage you find out about them. Sure you can find out more good things, but the discovery process seems to be biased toward finding garbage.

Someone, I forgot who, once said something to the effect that if you want to find a little gold you have to dig through tons of dirt. Well I'm not sure that is worth the effort. At least it seems to me like a small payoff for a lot of effort, unpleasant effort at that.

What is the reality? The tons of dirt or the small amounts of gold?

That is likely the type of question about which semi-drunk sophomores can have long, deep late-night discussions. As for me, I'm not interested this debate because I think I have the answer:

Neither.

Maybe, just maybe, we Christians ought to take God's view? While I usually do not have problems finding fault with a person, the Lord seems to have a different take. When I bother to check with Him, He is not interested in the past and not even too concerned with the present. He seems to view a person as He intends him or her to be, as the person is designed to be, and as He desires for them to be, rather than care about the how sin and circumstance has made one a distorted caricature of God's design.

Actually, the Lord just might be on to something here. It is much healthier to focus on God's ultimate vision, His truth, than on the temporary distortion of the past or present. I am not advocating denial of reality but rather focusing on results rather than temporary conditions.

I don't really want to find out people's secret garbage. This is also not denial. I've seen enough garbage and it no longer holds any fascination for me. In a similar way, I have no interest in examining a toilet after someone has used it and before it has been flushed.

We think we have brilliant insights into the truth when from God's perspective we are believing a distorted picture of the truth.

Let's see things as God sees them. Maybe this is an application of the instructions of Philippines 4:8?

Be blessed!
RB

Thursday, April 15, 2010

palace or toxic waste dump?

You have to study and learn so that you can make up your own mind about history and everything else but you can’t make up an empty mind. It is your house of treasure and no one in the world can interfere with it. If you won the Irish Sweepstakes and bought a house that needed furniture would you fill it with bits and pieces of rubbish? Your mind is your house and if you fill it with rubbish from the cinemas it will rot in you head. You might be poor, your shoes might be broken, but your mind is your palace."

~ Mr. O'Halloran in Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt


I read the above quote a while back from a friends blog that no longer is published. The quote got me to thinking about a couple of difficult people I have encountered of late. Each is very careful of the food they consume. For at least one it is a matter of fashion.

However, each of them is not very concerned about the stuff the put in the palace of their minds. The garbage they watch, the junk they read, the negative stuff they hear.

It just seems a bit inconsistent doesn't it?

Of course, when I point a finger at others it doesn't take me long to discover I'm pointing three fingers back at myself.

The bad stuff that slowly pollutes and poisons our minds, or at least the effect, is harder to get rid of than the effect of junk foods that our bodies absorb. Like junk food, the junk thoughts and junk ideas are quite enjoyable to consume. Do we think it doesn't matter because unlike food, the thoughts and ideas are not tangible so that somehow they aren't real?

I spend too much time consuming food, ideas, thoughts, images, words that are not good for me.

Why? I enjoy them.

This is dumb.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

a dopey nostalgia for a nonexistent past?

Why It's So Hard To Get Real?
A book review by Paul Beston printed in The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday 13 April 2010, page A17.

The Authenticity Hoax By Andrew Potter

(Harper, 296 pages, $25.99)

Remember when eating organic food made you unusual? That was barely a decade ago, when people in the vanguard celebrated the superior taste of organic food, not mention its health benefits and environmental friendliness. But no sooner had the rest of us caught up than organic advocates began arguing that what really mattered was locally grown food. They pushed for the 100-mile diet, according to which one eats only food grown within that distance from one's home. Local-food evangelists now scorn the distantly grown organic products in places like Whole Foods and—above all—Wal-Mart. Of course, the problem with locally grown food is that it can be difficult to find and afford.

For Andrew Potter, the ever-narrowing search for just the right kind of food has less to do with saving the environment or pursuing a healthy lifestyle than with achieving a certain self-image, one in which the tawdry, consumerist aspects of modern life are thrown over for the sake of a simpler, truer, more "authentic" self. Food is only one part of that broader self-definition. In "The Authenticity Hoax," Mr. Potter notes that the search for authenticity often ends up as a status-seeking game.

Authenticity, Mr. Potter writes, is "a positional good, which is valuable precisely because not everyone can have it." By competing against one another to see who is more authentic, he says, we just become bigger phonies than we were before. The local-food trend illustrates what Mr. Potter calls "conspicuous authenticity," by which the well-heeled embark on a "perpetual coolhunt," whether it is for authentic jeans, pristine vacation spots or mud flooring, part of the "natural building" movement. The overarching goal is less to possess the thing itself than to make a claim to refined taste and moral superiority.

But the authenticity fixation, according to Mr. Potter, goes deeper than consumer choices. It is the culprit, for instance, behind "a debased political culture dominated by negative advertising and character assassination." Political candidates are always selling their own sincerity, so that any crack in the façade (never too hard to find) launches a hundred attack ads. Taken to its darkest extremes, obsessive authenticity can become deadly, as in the case of Islamic fundamentalism or the hyper-nationalist authenticity of fascism. Less toxic, but more common, is the craving for authenticity among those in the West who see a market economy and consumer culture as sterile and false—inauthentic, in other words—and who defend the world's most repressive cultures, looking past their brutality to admire their resistance to modernity.

It is the disillusionment with modernity, Mr. Potter maintains, that underlies the authenticity quest. When man was preoccupied with finding food and appeasing capricious gods, he didn't have the time or inclination to ask whether he had "sold out" for an easy paycheck or failed to align himself with some abstract ideal of the "authentic" life. But then science made the formerly mystical cosmos explainable, and a spread of democratic ideas, in politics and markets alike, made food and freedom more broadly shared. The result was "a new kind of society and, inevitably, a new kind of person," Mr. Potter writes, one more given to looking within for meaning and not liking what he found there. The individual's own self-definition filled the gap left by faith and authority.

Mr. Potter anoints Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th-century philosopher, as the godfather of the authenticity quest. His famous "state of nature" was a fantasy of authenticity, an idea of man's existence before society. Mr. Potter argues that Rousseau used the state-of-nature concept as "a regulative ideal" by which to measure how far we had strayed from a lost harmony.

Rousseau's "antimodern tunnel vision," Mr. Potter says, can be found in various modern forms: in the views of the American Transcendentalists of the 19th century and the counterculture heroes of the 1960s, for instance; or in such gloomy social critics as Al Gore and Prince Charles and alarmists like James Howard Kunstler. These antimodern voices, and others, represent what Mr. Potter calls "the authenticity hoax in full throat: a dopey nostalgia for a non-existent past, a one-sided suspicion of the modern world, and stagnant and reactionary politics masquerading as something personally meaningful and socially progressive."

Mr. Potter is here to tell us what should be obvious: that there is no paradise back there, that we moderns have never had it so good and that authenticity in the way we've defined it is a sham. Modern life has blessed us with health, wealth and freedom never imagined in the good old days. It is depressing that anyone should have to write a book defending modernity from such crude opponents, but Mr. Potter's broad-ranging survey makes a good case that the authenticist fantasy is deeply embedded in the culture.

Few given to the authenticity mindset will be convinced by Mr. Potter's straightforward prescription: that we simply make our peace with modernity and accept its trade-offs. He urges us to "rehabilitate the very idea of progress: not the blind conviction that things are getting better all the time, but the simple faith that even when humans encounter obstacles, we'll figure things out, through the exercise of reason, ingenuity, and goodwill." Mr. Potter's admirable faith in progress, even as qualified, may itself be a little utopian or ahistorical, however. Europe's brightest minds expressed similar confidence prior to August 1914. And while much of the authenticity search is absurd, not all of it is so easily separable from the self-criticism that has been foundational to Western success. The extremes of Rousseau's heirs are just one of the tolls we'll have to keep paying for freedom of thought and philosophical self-examination. Whether using our unique powers of reason or ignoring them altogether, humans have probably always been a little phony.

Mr. Beston is associate editor of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal.


Wednesday, February 25, 2009

kenya elephant: an inspirational story

In 1986, Peter Davies was on holiday in Kenya after
graduating from Northwestern University.

On a hike through the bush, he came across a young bull
elephant standing with one leg raised in the air. The
elephant seemed distressed, so Peter approached it very
carefully.

He got down on one knee and inspected the elephant's foot
and found a large piece of wood deeply embedded in it. As
carefully and as gently as he could, Peter worked the wood
out with his hunting knife, after which the elephant
gingerly put down its foot. The elephant turned to face the
man, and with a rather curious look on its face, stared at
him for several tense moments. Peter stood frozen, thinking
of nothing else but being trampled. Eventually the elephant
trumpeted loudly, turned, and walked away. Peter never
forgot that elephant or the events of that day.

Over twenty years later, Peter was walking through the
Chicago Zoo with his teenaged son. As they approached the
elephant enclosure, one of the creatures turned and walked
over so it was close to where Peter and his son Cameron were
standing. The large bull elephant stared at Peter, lifted
its front foot off the ground, and then put it down. The
elephant did that several times and then trumpeted loudly,
all the while staring at the man.

Remembering the encounter in 1986, Peter couldn't help
wondering if this was the same elephant. Peter summoned up
his courage, climbed over the railing, and made his way into
the enclosure. He walked right up to the elephant and stared
back in wonder. The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its
trunk around one of Peter legs, and slammed him against the
railing, killing him instantly.

It probably wasn't the same elephant.


[SOURCE]

Sunday, February 17, 2008

paying for self-discipline

Would you pay yourself $200 to lose weight? How about $500 to stop smoking or $300 to read your Bible through in a year? Now you can. According to last week's edition of THE ECONOMIST, there is an online site developed by a couple of economists to help you do this.

StickK.com enables you to make a "commitment contract" to achieve a goal, say losing 20 pounds, and then enforces the contract. For example, you can pay them $200 which will be returned to you if and only if you lose the weight. If you don't lose the weight then you lose the bet and the money goes to someone you designate. (Maybe a charity or a political campaign you don't like?) To prevent cheating, you also need to assign an independent referee to verify that you have accomplished your goal.

Would you lose the weight or give up $200? Resolutions and good intentions are fine, but show yourself the money.

Be blessed.
RB

P.S. I love stickK.com's slogan: Put a contract out on yourself!

Monday, January 28, 2008

scholars pursue happiness

Happiness has become a serious academic pursuit but this is not the usual pursuit of happiness. Rather, social scientists are trying to figure out what makes people happy. According to an article in last week's issue of THE ECONOMIST, married religious Republicans who are sexually-active extroverted optimists with short commutes to work are generally happier than pessimistic introverts who have long commutes, are single, agnostic, vote Democrat, and aren't getting any.

Having more wealth has positive impacts on measures of happiness but these impacts are surprisingly small.

I guess I am happy enough. Chasing after financial riches doesn't have much of a payoff in joy. Optimism I can work up if I really try but being extroverted is something I don't know how to do.

Be blessed.
RB

Saturday, January 26, 2008

the worry gene

From a recent WALL STREET JOURNAL (17 January 2008, p.D1):

Researchers at Yale have identified a gene mutation for "rumination" -- the kind of chronic worry in which people obsess over negative thoughts. It's a variation of a gene known as BDNF that's active in the hippocampus, an area of the brain involved in thinking and memory. In a study of 200 mothers and daughters published in the journal Neuroscience Letters last month, the Yale scientists found that those who had been depressed in their youth were more likely to be ruminators and to have this particular variation of BDNF.

The discovery adds to a growing body of evidence that depression involves an inability to control negative thoughts, not just excess emotion, says psychologist Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, one of the Yale investigators. And just because rumination has genetic roots doesn't mean it's inescapable, she says. "People can learn to stop these thought processes and have better emotional health."

People can be trained to control or manage these negative thoughts. "Renewing the mind" (Romans 12:2) is not easy and isn't perfect, but it can help. Yeah, I've written here or there about this before.

Monday, October 8, 2007

shakespeare on counseling

I just read of the death yesterday of a faculty emeriti (retired), also an SLU alum and a fourth generation Laurentian. He taught in the education department and was a counselor.

One of his favorite quotes was from Shakespeare’s Hamlet:

"There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."


While this can be taken to extremes of relativism, is does capture the trap of unhealthy, negative thinking patterns. Our minds have developed habits of twisting reality that lets us think we see truth when it is often only the product of our deceitful hearts.

I've written on this before . . . 'nuff said.

Be blessed!
RB

Sunday, September 16, 2007

a new challenge

My oldest recommended a biography from one of his classes, so I started reading George Marsden’s Jonathan Edwards: A Life (Yale University Press, 2003). Most people know Edwards for his sermon, "A Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God." However despite growing up in the backwoods, the wild frontier of early 18th Century New England that was the Connecticut River valley, Edwards was one of the world’s foremost philosophers and theologians of his day. The book's first few chapters have been very good and given its excellent reviews, along with being the 2004 winner of the Bancroft Prize for American History, I expect more good things.

Marsden attempts to explain the worldview of Edwards and his times, the early 18th Century, rather than interpreting his life by modern sensibilities. Edwards experience of finding God, his “awakenings,” as a teenage is interesting with many of the same struggles all young men have when seeking God.

I also found myself comparing and contrasting my feelings with his. I am grateful to have the assurance of my salvation and standing with God, something Edwards lacked given his particularly Calvinist/Puritan/Reform theological roots. He was always looking and striving for evidence of his salvation, his election by a completely sovereign Lord, but never being quite sure if such evidence was merely the result of self delusion and self will. I have the confidence and peace that comes with knowing that I am a child of the living God. I know where I will spend eternity and fear not the Day of Judgment. I know that God is with me and will never leave me.

Edwards, on the other hand had many things that I lack but desire. He had a deep knowledge of the particular depths of his own sins and his own sinful nature. While I doubt he was more sinful than I am, while I do realize to a degree how sinful I am, I am afraid my sin awareness just scrapes the surface. I am much worse than I imagine. As a result I think Edwards had a more powerful appreciation of God’s mercy and grace than I or most 21st Century contemporary evangelical Christians do.

Edwards as a young man clearly saw all around him, particularly in nature, signs of an all-powerful, a good and just, a magnificently awesome and great God. I am afraid that a consequence of my awareness and assurance of a God that is always with me, who loves me, who communes with me, that I have a vision of Him that is way, way smaller. I think maybe I have a better micro-view while Edwards had a more wonderful, awe-inspiring macro-view of God. What I need to do is magnify my view of God, not to distort His greatness, but to get closer to reality of how big our God is. However tough it is to reconcile the incredibly awesome Creator, the One who designed and spoke the universe into existence, with the God who cares for me and lives with me as His temple, it is something I need to do.

Anyway, that is the challenge for me.

Be blessed.
RB

Saturday, August 25, 2007

grasping the obvious

Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.

~ Proverbs 26:5-6 (ESV)


These verses have always puzzled me. They seem so contradictory yet since the verses are next to each other I can’t argue a different context or other typical ways to reconcile a seeming scriptural paradox.

How to handle the contradictory commands of Proverbs 26:5-6? I used to think that we needed discernment to know when to answer a fool according to his folly and when not to. However, that is too difficult to justify. There are no conditional statements or anything else to support this interpretation.

Then it came to me. Duh! This refers to a situation where there is no good outcome. No matter what I do, the result is bad!

For example I have had to deal with someone, a believer, with very twisted thinking, negatively interpreting actions and then believing the fabrications as truth. This sort of “insightful” toxic thinking is ungodly, a fool’s folly.

Do I address the person’s fabricated yet sincerely believed conclusions? Whether I do or I don’t, I lose. After an initial disappointment, I realized that these verses are actually quite freeing. This is a no-win situation! This freed me from agonizing over what to do, then blaming myself when things turn out badly; being weighed down by the second thoughts of “if only I had said it better.” God is pointing out there are times when the outcomes are going to be less than I desire.

Sometimes it takes me awhile to grasp the obvious.

Be blessed.
RB

Saturday, July 28, 2007

this post has been shanghai'd

If you wanted to fly from Chicago to Shanghai, which direction would you go?  I mean besides the obvious and necessary "up."  I would have thought west and my second choice, even though longer, would have been east.  The best answer?  North!  Unlike me, the airlines remember that the world is not flat.  The shortest route from Chicago is to fly north to Canada, skirting the edge of Hudson Bay, on up over the Arctic Ocean, just a few hundred miles from the north pole, and continue south across Siberia and on to China. 

If you have a globe, a fun thing to do is take a string and stretch it between two points.  Although this shows the shortest route, it is almost never the the straight line you'd find if you plotted a course on a flat map.  On one level I already know this but still I am a little surprised each time.

Why do most of us find this surprising?  It is because our conceptual map of the world is two dimensional.  We all know the world is round but our thinking, and often our resultant actions, are based on the images with which we have flooded our mind.  May I go so far has as to say our minds have been trained to misperceive the world?  No conspiracy theory here, it just that we have constantly exposed our eyes and our minds to distorted pictures of the world. In the case of maps, it is easy to correct our mistakes because it doesn't take much convincing us that the world is really round.

Other areas of our lives, the distorted picture is the only one we have.  What seems natural to us is actually quite twisted.  We flood our minds with pornography and romance novels.  (Yes, I endeavor to write a gender neutral blog!)  We also bombard our minds with tv and movies and especially advertising.  We have distorted images of the opposite sex, what is desirable, love and marriage, and a host of other things that lead to relational problems and hurts.  Another example: the victim of emotional abuse who grows up thinking everyone is lying, imagining and imputing negative motivations, unable to accept acceptance.  (Tragically, the victim of abuse very often grows up to become the emotional abuser.)

I could go on and on.  The sad thing is that we are comfortable acting on our twisted perceptions.  It seems unnatural to operate with a truer picture of the world and the godly thing to do often does not seem right.  We fool ourselves in to doing "what is right for me" or dismissing correction by saying "I have to be true to myself " or "I've got to be me."  That is why the Word tells us in Ephesians 4:23 to renew our minds.  That is why we are to surround ourselves with godly people (not just believers).  The process is ongoing and not at all obvious.  It usually needs training and other people to help us.

Actually, this post is just expanding on Ephesians 4:17-23.  Check it out and see if I'm wrong.

. . . I do go on.  Sorry. It is the jet lag talking.  After about five hours of sleep in two days complemented by a shift in twelve time zones, I'm likely to write anything.

It is now Sunday morning in Shanghai.  What I was starting to write about was my arrival in Shanghai. No problems; more pleasant than expected flight; no lost luggage.  When we stepped outside the airport, it was like a sauna, very high 90's and extremely humid.  Our hotel is not a 3-star as advertised, but still is more than nice enough and still a bargain by Shanghai standards.  I have a small room with a double bed,  private bath, ac, tv, and in-room internet broadband.

A mother of one of our students took us out to eat last night and we had real Chinese food.  After dinner we did a little site seeing since XC (one of our Chinese students) had never been to Shanghai.  We went to the Bund, the old financial center along the river.  There is a broad walkway overlooking the river and the skyline of Pudong, the new financial district across the river.  Except for NYC, Shanghai's skyline is more beautiful and more impressive than any in the US.

Be blessed!
RB

Saturday, July 21, 2007

science v. atheism

Is atheism is incompatible with science? You usually don’t hear this question in the popular press. The fundamental premise of atheism is that God does not exist. This is an untestable hypothesis. You can not do a real world test of God’s existence unless God makes his manifest presence known to all. I doubt this will happen until the Judgement Day.

It takes far too, too much of a blind leap of faith to be an honest, I-believe-in-science, rational atheist. The basis for atheism is inherently unscientific. How can you believe in something that, while conceptually possible, is quite impossible to prove and still be "scientific." It is much easier, in that it requires much, much less faith, to believe in a God who makes Himself real to you.

Atheism is making a bit of a comeback at least in terms of book publishing. In a critique of the “new atheism” in The Wall Street Journal (“The New New Atheism” by Peter Berkowitz, Monday 16 July 2007, p. A13) noted that four recent champions of godlessness have sold nearly a million copies of their books altogether. This is a lot of sales for this type of book.

I found the Berkowitz critique persuasive and it has gotten a lot of play in various blogs. On an atheist’s blog, someone commented, “Are these guys trying to make atheists look stupid?” Believe me, I feel her pain.

Science is incredibly useful but isn’t always able to clarify or settle all disputes over every aspect of reality. That’s OK. God can reveal Himself if and when He wants to really settle the issue of His existence. In fact, I know He will if you honestly ask Him.

Be blessed!
RB

Saturday, June 9, 2007

feelin' down

I have been feeling a little down today. Fortunately I found this music video featuring Hugh Laurie of the TV series House. I've been playing it over and over again. It really ministered to me. I hope it will minister to you.

Monday, June 4, 2007

hurt people hurt people

The above has been going over and over again in my mind for months and especially for the past few days. The following is a collection of non-random thoughts but I don't have the energy to connect them:

Hurt people hurt people.
~ Anonymous

We see things not the way they are but the way we are.
~ Anonymous

The worst lies are the lies we tell ourselves.
~ Richard Bach

It's not the truth that hurts us but letting go of the lies.
~ Anonymous

The biggest lies, the lies we can never discover on our own, are the lies we believe about ourselves.
~ rb

Hurt people hurt people.
~ Anonymous


However, if you want real insight, you should check this post.

Sunday, June 3, 2007

the prodigal's father

I believe the passage in Luke 15:11-32 is misnamed. The story is about the father, not the son. Jesus told the parable so that the listeners, mostly adults, could understand the Father’s heart. In fact, I think to understand the parable you really need to be a father, or at least a parent.

There is nothing in the story to help us better understand a son. A kid wants his own way and wants to escape his hometown. He then blows his money and ends up broke, hungry to the point of coveting pig slop. The son finally realizes that he would be better off, that it would be a big step up, if he were one of his dad’s servants. So the kid moves back home.

What’s so surprising about that? Where’s the revelation there?

No surprise. No revelation. The parable is about the father, not the son. Forget about the son or you’ll miss the whole point.

While I’m venting on this topic, we need to remember that this is a fictional account told to illustrate a point. It is a story originating with Jesus, not Disney. We often assume a Hollywood-style, they-all-lived-happily-ever-after type ending. Is there any evidence that the son’s issues with authority, self-will, sexual addiction, self-discipline, or whatever, were resolved? Is there an implication that the son and father had no future, on-going struggles?

No, because the story is not really about the son. It is about the father’s heart.

This is not original with me. I’ve been mulling this over since I heard a talk show on the radio a couple of months ago. When real world prodigals return home it often the beginning of a new round of struggles and conflicts. Are we to have the heart of prodigal’s father? Sure, but often the dealings, the pain, the hurts, are even worse after the return. The time away from the father just delayed the resolution of problems. The return home in no way indicates resolution achieved.

We need to read the word of God so that we can stand on the sure promises of God rather than assuming they reflect the fantasies of Hollywood. I know that there have been many times in my life when I have been disappointed because reality turned out not to be the Hollywood storyline I thought was supposed to happen.

The funny thing is, I often blamed God and not Disney.

Be blessed,
RB

Friday, May 18, 2007

marriage as idolatry

Yesterday I wrote about Proverbs 30:23 and the tragedy of an unloved woman marrying. When googling this verse I ran across an interesting article that deals with ungodly attitudes toward marriage. In fact these attitudes are so embedded in our culture that Christians commonly buy into them as well. The following is abridged from Soul Mates or Sole Mates? by Gary Thomas:

Our culture has embraced a rather absurd notion that there is just one person who can, in the words immortalized by Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire, "complete us." This is a disastrous mindset with which to approach a lifelong marital decision.

The notion of a "soul mate" is actually pretty ancient. Well over two thousand years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato surmised that a perfect human being was tragically split in two, resulting in a race of creatures sentenced to spend the rest of their lives searching for that missing other who can complete them.

The real danger in this line of thinking is that many people mistake a storm of emotion as the identifying mark of their soul mate. How else can you identify "destiny"? Such individuals marry on an infatuation binge without seriously considering character, compatibility, life goals, family desires, spiritual health, and other important concerns. Then when the music fades and the relationship requires work, one or both partners suddenly discover that they were "mistaken": this person must not be their soul mate after all! Otherwise, it wouldn't be so much work. Next they panic. Their soul mate must still be out there! Such people can't get to divorce court fast enough, lest someone steal their "one true soul mate" meant only for them. When we get married for trivial reasons, we tend to seek divorce for trivial reasons.

There is no indication that God creates "one" person for us to marry. This is because Christians believe that God brings the primary meaning into our lives. Marriage — though wonderful — is still secondary.

Consider, for example, Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 7:1-9. He clearly leaves the choice of marriage up to us; there are benefits to singleness, and benefits to being married. If you're unable to handle sexual temptation as a single, Paul says, then by all means, get married. There is no hint at all of finding "the one person" that God created "just for you.” It's far more a pragmatic choice: do you think you'll sin sexually if you don't get married (1 Corinthians 7:2)? Are you acting improperly toward a woman you could marry (1 Corinthians 7:36)? If so, go ahead and get married — it's your choice, and God gives you that freedom.

The reason it is so crucial to adopt the Bible's view of "good and bad choices" over your destiny of finding "the one" is that the former attitude allows you to objectively consider the person you marry. There is no objective measurement of "destiny." Powerful emotions can blind us to all sorts of clues; when we adopt the biblical attitude of making a "wise" choice, we can use all that God has given us to arrive at a solid decision....

The search for "the one" is often an idolatrous pursuit. As Christians, we must believe that our primary meaning comes from our relationship with God: "Seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness...” (Matthew 6:33, NKJV, emphasis added). Thus, a Christian should not consider any marital union that would not feed this primary relationship with God. You'll bring great misery into your life if you ignore this command.

But also — just as importantly — we mustn't enter into a marriage expecting more than another human can give. If my wife looks to me to be God for her — to love her like only God can love her — I'll fail every time and on every count. I'm trying, but I fall short every day. Tragically, I see too many young people wanting to get married in order to find this God-acceptance and God-love. Infatuation can initially feel like it approaches this God-love, but eventually it fades, disillusionment sets in, and the once "fabulous" relationship soon becomes an excruciating prison.

Can I suggest a more biblical pattern? Instead of following Plato in a wild pursuit of our soul mate, we should seek to find a biblical "sole mate.” A sole mate is someone who walks with us as together we apply biblical love. The most accurate definition of true love is found in John 15:13 (NASB): "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."

This love is not based on feelings, but on sacrifice. The Bible calls men to act like martyrs toward their wives, laying down their own lives on their wives' behalf (Ephesians 5:25). Love is not an emotion; it's a policy and a commitment that we choose to keep. Such a love is not based on the worthiness of the person being loved — none of us deserve Christ's sacrifice! — but on the worthiness of the One who calls us to love: "We love because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19).

A "sole mate" appreciates that marriage is a school of character. Clement of Alexandria, an early church father (ca. 150-215), captures this thinking marvelously when he writes, "The prize in the contest of men is shown by him who has trained himself by the discharge of the duties of marriage; by him, I say, who in the midst of his solicitude for his family shows himself inseparable from the love of God."

Clement asks, who wins the prize? Not the couple displaying the most emotion, with the biggest smiles on their faces, or who can't keep their hands off each other; but rather, the women or men who, through the duties and sacrifice of marriage, have trained themselves to love with God's love. They live out the gospel on a daily basis, forgiving, serving, and putting others first in the most ordinary issues of life in such a way that they see themselves in training for godliness.

As Christ's follower . . . I’m called to take his example and his definition of love and apply it to my spouse. It really doesn't matter whether my spouse is a "soul mate," as much as it matters that I choose to love her with Christ's love. That means a sacrificial mindset marked by generosity, kindness, and mercy — for she certainly is my sole mate, my precious sister in Christ.

A biblical sole mate who walks in this truth, who daily travels God's journey of sacrificial love, and who willingly goes "into training" for godliness is a far more stable foundation upon which to build a lifelong partnership than the philosophy of Plato. "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.” This may not sound like the most exciting or emotional love, but it is certainly the truest love.


Marriage is a school of character? I don't know about you, but when I see something referred to as "character building" I translate it as "not being at all enjoyable."

Being self-centered and wanting my needs to be met, I wish I had known this stuff a long, long time ago!

Be blessed.
RB

Thursday, May 17, 2007

proverbs 30:23

Under three things the earth quakes,
And under four, it cannot bear up:
Under a slave when he becomes king,
And a fool when he is satisfied with food,
Under an unloved woman when she gets a husband,
And a maidservant when she supplants her mistress.
~ Proverbs 30:21-23 (NASB)


A couple of weeks ago I was reading at breakfast when Proverbs 30:23 caught my attention. It very clearly implies that it is a horrible thing when an unloved woman gets married. This made no sense to me. Isn’t it a good thing when the unloved find love?

With classes over and grades in, I had some time this week to study this verse. After looking up the original language in Strong’s, googling the verse, and searching Christian sites, I came up empty. There apparently isn’t much out there on this verse.

What to do? Since I doubt God got it wrong, maybe I should try to find out how it is true and therefore how I had it wrong?

Look around and you will have no problem finding unloved women. Often emotionally abused, and therefore very needy, they are very desirous of love. The problem is that when one marries, her husband never seems to be able to love her enough. In fact, she is unable to believe that she is loved. So when her spouse falls short of perfection, and of course, it is inevitable that he will, she will feel unloved and betrayed. As a victim of emotional abuse, she often becomes emotionally abusive herself, demanding works of love and respect but viewing every shortfall, real and imagined, as confirming evidence that she is unloved. Of course, this can set off a vicious cycle where she becomes even more abusive and more demanding, doing whatever she can to coerce her husband to love her.

If the earth cannot bear up under such a situation, few spouses will either. Marriage becomes a living hell. The tragedy is that the unloved woman cannot see this happening and cannot accept that she may be at fault. Everything makes perfect sense to her and she has no doubt that she is the victim in the marriage.

An unloved woman, or an unloved man for that matter, makes marriage something to fulfill one's own needs. Rather than looking for God to fulfill and meet needs, she feeds a cycle of disappointment by looking to an imperfect spouse to find perfect love.

This is not a Christian marriage; this is idolatry.

More on that next time . . . .

Be blessed.
RB

Note: Click the underlined for more on emotional abuse and the symptoms of abuse for female victims and male victims.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

what do you do when the lord is wrong?

All to Jesus, I surrender. All I want is you Lord.

Ever said, or sang, those sorts of things? If so, be prepared. I have noticed something over the years. It is not a certainty but a very strong tendency that eventually happens in the life of Christians. You may find yourself in a situation where what God asks is absolutely wrong for you. That is, to follow God is something you absolutely do not want to do. It could be something that you view as making you miserable for the rest of your life or denying you something you view essential; something without which you will be miserable.

Let me give some examples. A person wants a divorce and can see only a life of misery if the marriage continues. Maybe someone has an opportunity for a job, money, love, or whatever, but the Lord says no. In fact, there is absolutely no doubt that the Lord says no. It is a time when you know you have to make a choice between following the Lord and having any hope for some sort of satisfying life. You'd rather be dead than do what the Lord asks.

I am not talking about an addiction or compulsion. I am not referring to sin fueled by sudden passion. I am not talking about something you don’t want to do but end up doing anyway. I am talking about something you really want more than anything. Something you do not intend to regret. It is not a decision you will slide into unknowingly, but a conscious, purposeful decision.

You start with the “yeah buts.” You read or hear the Word of the Lord and comeback with “Yeah but....” “Yeah, but what about him or her? He did that. She did this. Yeah but they didn’t have to do…. It is not my fault. It is not fair. Yeah, but I do not deserve this. I’m tired of this....” Your reasons are solid but the Lord does not seem to be receptive. You may be right in all you say, but God seems extremely closed-minded on the subject.

He just isn’t listening.

People may say you must have faith and things will eventually be good. However, what you hear from the Lord is not the statement “I will deliver you if you trust me,” but more as if he is asking, “What if I don’t? Will you trust me?”

You know this is a major crossroads in your life. God is very real to you. Yet, God wants you to do or not do something and he does not seem to care about how hurt you are or how hurt you will be. This is tough, double tough. Sure, you won’t lose your salvation but you know that you would be purposely turning your back on God. You are seriously considering walking away from him and you know that if you do, then you can’t sing those songs on Sunday morning without being a total hypocrite. What makes it worse, you are right: you really will be a hypocrite. You may fake it for others but you will know. The result is emotional estrangement: you will distance yourself and not have a close relationship with God.

The Lord may make the conditions so bad that no matter how strong you are, you find yourself pushed to that special place designed just for you where your strength is not enough to bear what the Lord asks. There is no desire left in you to want to follow God, at least not under these conditions. Those songs you sang about loving and following Jesus seem pretty hollow, pretty hypocritical. (They probably were anyway, but you didn’t know it.)

What are you going to do? Now you don’t have even the strength to follow God. You can walk away from God in your own strength or choose a path where you are helpless and have zero strength. However, if you cry out to him to enable you to follow him, then there is good news. You will end up in a very special place in God. He will deliver you to place you never wanted to be. You will no longer be able to rely on your own strength because you have found out it really isn’t worth much. This is good. You also end up resting in God’s strength because you know you can’t trust in your own. This is very good.

If you haven’t experienced it, then it is hard to understand. You know without a doubt how weak you are and how virtually faithless you are. You also get to know what it means to really rest in the Lord’s strength, how what faith you have is not of yourself but a gift from God. There is no room for boasting. You understand it is not your righteousness but the righteousness of God in you. You finally understand how God’s strength is made perfect in your weakness. You thought you understood those things before but now you really begin to understand the upside down world of being in Christ.

Is it worth it? Is the humiliation, the stripping away of anything you thought was good in you, and the realization that God needs nothing in you, a good thing? No, it is an awful experience. The journey stinks and even the destination doesn’t appear so good until after you get there. Trusting God is not always enjoyable, but the destination is something you have to experience to appreciate.

Job said, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him." Will you trust him even if he has you live through it?

Yeah it’s worth it, but you won’t know that until later.

Who is your Lord?

Yeah, it is worth it.


Be blessed.
RB

Saturday, March 31, 2007

cbt

From The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, March 27, 2007, p. B9:

When it comes to treating certain mild to moderate forms of mental illnesses, cognitive behavioral therapy, or CBT, is gaining ground on drug therapy and "the talking cure" of analysis. Rather than delve into patients' past traumas to fix anxieties through conversation, or medicate the symptoms, CBT teaches patients to keep bad thoughts at bay, writes Forbes reporter Robert Langreth.
[Informed Reader]

"If you were abused, you accept it," says therapist Albert Ellis, who started developing many CBT techniques in the 1950s, having become convinced that Freud's approach didn't work. He coached depressed patients to evaluate their reactions to minor setbacks and assess them more realistically. Other similarly minded psychologists developed breathing exercises and "exposure therapy" to deal with anxiety attacks and insomnia.

The University of Pennsylvania's Aaron Beck, another founder of CBT, says there isn't enough money to prove CBT's efficacy in large-scale trials. But in a large number of trials with a few dozen, or a few hundred, subjects, CBT has been as effective as medication for some ailments. In a 240-patient trial, 16 CBT sessions worked as well as Paxil at treating moderate-to-severe depression. Last June a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed six sessions of CBT worked better than a Lunesta-style drug at getting patients to sleep. Plus, CBT has no side effects.

Health insurers are especially attracted to CBT since it aims to heal a patient after 10 to 25 visits, in contrast to the lifelong conversation with therapists depicted in Woody Allen movies. Samuel Mayhugh, founder of Integrated Behavorial Health, which manages mental health benefits for companies employing 1.5 million people, says over half of his cases involve CBT, up from 10%-20% a decade ago. He likens traditional psychotherapy's building of long-term relationships between the therapist and patient as akin to renting a friend.

However, there are downsides to CBT. Even its supporters acknowledge that some severe ailments can be treated only by drugs and long-term care. Also, few psychiatrists have received rigorous training in cognitive behavioral therapy, since hospitals only started requiring it in 2001. "It is the psychiatrist that makes the difference, not a particular kind of therapy," says University of Wisconsin-Madison psychologist Bruce Wampold.