At the present time a series entitled Making Couples Happy made up of four 1-hour TV episodes is screening on the ABC (the Australian government station) (no ads!).
I would encourage you to watch at least one of these 1-hr sessions which features four couples whose level of happiness within their marriages is deemed to be low to very low. Two episodes have now been screened but these can be viewed at the above link.
This 'behavioural' approach is repeatedly said to be 'scientific' and it is this leading attribute of this series that I want to critique in posts to follow.
My focus will be on the view of the persons within marriage that this program is built upon.
Romans 12. 1-2 says,
1 I therefore urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercies, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices that are holy and pleasing to God, for this is the reasonable way for you to worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but continually be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you may be able to determine what God’s will is—what is proper, pleasing, and perfect.
Paul realises that Christians don't automatically know what to do in certain situations. The Bible is not an encyclopaedia of laws; it does not give us encyclopaedic knowledge about every thing we have to decide about. (It does of course, tell us what we need to know ultimately about all things.)
He therefore, outlines how the Roman Christians should prepare themselves to live so as to be able to what is God's will. If we examine carefully verse two above (in Romans 12) which is in larger type, we can see where Paul is headed.
Consecration
Paul appeals to the Roman church members to consecrate their whole lives ('all your members and faculties', Amplified Version) sacrificially to God which is their 'spiritual worship' (RSV). The way to honour God, in view of the revealed mercies found in Romans 1-11, is to ascribe worth to Him in all their living.
However, the path of the Roman Christians is beset by enemies: 'the world', 'the flesh' and 'the devil'* (see Eph 2.1-3; I Jn 2.16). Paul has earlier spoken of the 'flesh' (Rom 8), that powerful influence within humanity opposed to the rule of God, and here switches his attention to 'the world'.
The first thing to note is that 'world' does not mean the cosmos or the world of humanity (as in Jn 3.16). Rather it is aspects of the culture and society that stand in opposition to God (Jn 7.7), that are being used to draw us away from the centrality of our Creator. Ephesians 2 presents a description of the way cultural mindsets can oppose the will of God and be in servitude to the devil (Eph 2.1-3).
Be Not Conformed to this World
Paul exhorts them not to be conformed to the 'ways of the world' (Holman Christian Standard Bible [1999-2009]) or the 'fashions and customs of the times' (various alternate translations). Paul is well aware that 'the world' is the enemy of God because it is under the power of the 'god of this world' (2 Cor 4.4). J. B. Phillips rendered this Scripture in his paraphrase as: 'don't let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould' (here).
If there is one thing I remember about the church in which I was brought up it was this general notion of the avoidance of 'worldliness'. I accepted it at the time, putting up with all the jokes made at my expense at school and then at work, for not going to the 'pictures', 'dances', not using coarse language, sexually suggestive jokes, and later smoking, drinking, gambling, etc. etc.
Later in life, I rebelled against some of it and earned my parents' hostility for daring to drink moderately. Now I think my church's outlook was generally correct although, as one preacher pointed out, the boundaries of what is 'worldly' are continually changing and to be still condemning women's wearing of lipstick is anachronistic!
Today, being conformed to the world's thought-patterns is rampant within the church to such a degree that many Christians don't even realise how much they've become just like 'the world' with 'Jesus on top'. What adds to my grief is that the institutional church does not even seem to see a problem.
Just to give some examples: food, entertainment and the internet. Just look if you will at the current number of food shows on TV. The number will amaze you and so will the number of Christians who cannot miss their favourite show.
Our demand to be entertained is everywhere. We can't even sit in a doctor's waiting-room without a TV program blaring. It's just unacceptable for a client to be bored while waiting! We've banished boredom* from our lives with TV and the ubiquitous iPhone.
And church services? We can't have people getting bored in church either! So the modern church (not all of course) has become an entertainment centre. We don't have 'purpose-driven' churches, we have 'entertainment-driven' ones. The music is entertaining, the sermon is filled with entertaining information and even the 'notices' are entertaining. Woe betide the preacher or priest who doesn't entertain!
In all this we fail to realise that the church service is not primarily for us. It is divine worship which doesn't mean that the worship is 'divine'! What it ought to mean is that the Divine Lord of the Universe is given the praise and worship (worth-ship) due to His holy Name. Worship is only secondarily about us. Perhaps that's the reason church bores us because we are not centre-stage!
It would not be hard to wax lyrically about the internet as it is one of my addictions! But I will forgo pointing out the wonder and the horror of this gift to us.
To finish this section we need to grasp of course that worldliness is not just a matter of external deeds or things. Worldliness is a deep matter of the heart. One could give up TV, the internet, entertainment and go off to live in the desert and still live a worldly life because the spirit of worldliness can still remain alive in that environment too. Worldliness is just idolatry by another name.
Be Transformed by the Renewing of Your Minds
Paul first gives the negative side in verse 2a and then immediately introduces the positive 'renewing of our minds'.
Typically, Westerners think with their heads and feel with their hearts but the Hebrews did not think with their 'heads' but in their hearts (e.g., Matt 9.4; 15.19).
And of course, I mean 'heart' used in a symbolic way as in the sentence, 'It broke my heart'. In the holy Scriptures, the 'heart' is the central, core of man (see Holman Bible Dictionary), and the functions of mind, thought, imagination, feelings, will, and choice are closely associated with the heart (e.g., Jer 17.9).
The 'mind' in Scripture is not to be simply equated with the English 'mind' but translates at least six different Hebrew and Greek words (according to Holman). Nevertheless, 'mind' often does have a connotation of intellectual activity (as does the heart as well) but can also stand for the whole inner life of a person.
In fact, heart and mind are closely aligned. The important thing to remember is that 'the mind' has a broader range of meanings than does the English term. For example, it can even extend to what we would ordinarily call, 'worldview'. (See a good discussion here.)
The references given in the former section incline me to see 'mind' (in Rm 12.2) as a term for the inner life of man, as equivalent to 'mindset' which includes logical thinking but also the will, imagination, perception, knowledge and understanding.
Because of the fallenness of the 'age' and 'times' in which the Roman Christians lived, and the fallenness of human nature, these Christians needed an ongoing renewal of their 'minds', their 'mindsets' or 'worldviews' in order to be able to test things so as to approve them.
Hence, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul's long-term strategy is to prepare Christian believers to make the right choices with regard to what the will of God might be.
In truth, all Christians have 'the mind of Christ' (1 Cor 2.16) but all with the mind of Christ are 'being renewed in the spirit of [their] mind' (Eph 4.23). In other words, the renewing of the mind is a process coupled with being a Christian who is regenerate, born-anew by the Spirit and the Word of God (Jn 3.5; 1 Pet 1.23).
Next time, I will try to present a counselling-therapy application based on the above foundation.
*A number of interpretations of 'Christian Mind-fulness' (e.g., Phil 2.5-11) are possible and I have chosen just one of them.
**Not an exact biblical phrase but an excellent summary of the Scripture's list of the enemies of Christ believers derived from the earliest English Prayer Book of King Edward VI's time (AD1549).
***I don't want to suggest that all boredom is good. Boredom is often a spur to find something productive to do. However, to organise a society so that its members are prevented from experiencing it seems to be unduly paternalistic (or maternalistic) and patronising.
Discussions can be found on the internet as to whether Christians should be involved with the practice of 'mindfulness'. Some are enthusiastic about the practice (here); others are against its use (here) and others show caution (here).
In entering this area it is prudent to state whether as Christians it is proper to use a specifically Buddhist mindfulness or to adopt a 'mindfulness' that is built on a Christian worldview.
When put this way, I don't think any doubt exists that many Christians would stand with those in the latter camp. I would be one of them because the aims of Buddhist mindfulness do not comport with the Christian faith.
What is Buddhist Mindfulness?
This question is not as easy to answer as it may at first appear. For the original word 'sati' usually translated as 'mindfulness' in the Pali language (an important literary Indian sub-continent language) has, more recently, been rendered as 'recollection' or 'nonforgetfulness' (here).
B. Alan Wallace, a Buddhist scholar, says,
This ['sati'] includes retrospective memory of things in the
past, prospectively remembering to do something in the future, and
present-centered recollection in the sense of maintaining unwavering
attention to a present reality [such as the breath].
Adoption of this definition means that the use of the English word 'mindfulness' may be misleading, although a connection between Buddhism and the English word, 'mindfulness', is still maintained by many Buddhist authorities.
The further implication of using the definition of 'sati' as 'recollection': while its emphasis upon the present remains, it introduces- as in the above quote -the idea that mediators are encouraged to attend to the past and the future within the structure of the present moment.
Why do Buddhists emphasise 'staying in the present'?
We should remember in particular that Buddhist practice aims to rid its practitioners of suffering or dissatisfaction (Pali, 'dukkha'). That aim is central to all forms of Buddhism and needs to be borne in mind constantly.
In Buddhism, human life is suffering or dissatisfaction ('dukkha') precisely because of its stubborn clinging to the question of the soul-self. To escape 'dukkha' one must enter 'nirvana' (Pali, nibbana) which is beyond the suffering of birth, death and 'rebirth' (note, not reincarnation), beyond 'karma'.
Buddhism espouses the unusual belief that man has no permanent, enduring soul-self, no-thing that is either annihilated at death or lives on after death. Or, more accurately, that once 'enlightenment' is reached, one no longer asks the question of whether one has a soul or not. The question is considered unduly and excessively speculative.
The connection between 'dukkha' and awakening to the non-self is promoted by staying in the present for by staying in the present the 'illusory self' will be revealed as generated moment-by-moment, and therefore insubstantial, just a mental construct.
Each instance of 'self' is unconnected to any previous one so the 'self' has no continuous existence. Therefore, the self is an episodic, virtual and fleeting quality.
Western Psychology's Adaption of Sati
Western psychology is enamoured of 'mindfulness', in some cases acknowledging its Buddhist origins; in other cases almost wishing it had no such connections at all!
The latter group need not worry too much because they have effectively 'secularised' the practice so that its ethical-religious associations with Buddhism have been removed.
It should be mentioned
at this point that 'mindfulness', variously defined, is touted as being
germane to the efficacy of at least four well-known therapy systems: Acceptance-Commitment Therapy (ACT), Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT), Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT). In these approaches, 'mindfulness' is taught as a technique to calm the mind.
None of these approaches has any wish to involve a human self because they are all part of the behaviourist tradition whereby human action is conditioned by external events or internal thoughts. (However, it should be said that Marsha Linehan [developer-pioneer of DBT] at least builds her use of mindfulness openly on Zen Buddhist practice.)
Next time I will be looking expressly at what a form of Christian mindfulness might look like.
