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.
Four summary articles are given to my recent series from The New Standard Non Cognitive Psychotherapy: Advancing Mood Management (2001) by Russell Hoover.
The links for these articles summarising Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 are to be found in respective order here, here, and here.
I have also included a compilation of the three Parts together in one file here.
I have suffered from panic attacks in the past and know of others who also suffer these distressing feeling unable to do anything about them.
So I've decided to look again at Russell Hoover's work and specifically examine how he deals with these highly unpleasant feeling states in his book, The New Standard Non Cognitive Psychotherapy: Advancing Mood Management (2001). His discussion comes from Part Three titled, In The Trenches, which I have referred to in earlier posts.
Hoover believes that emotional reactions and moods are invariably the result of something we have encountered in our lives which is 'not okay' or is 'an adversity'. He hammers this point earlier in the book with great energy.
Furthermore he says, mood is not 'irrational' but gives us the emotional significance of certain events and happenings in our world. Hence, it is foolish to try to tamper with the operation of our moods because they are benevolently providing us with 'interpreted' information from around us.
All this may appear obvious but cognitive therapy (CT) believes that 'bad' moods (e.g., sadness, depression, anxiety) need to be got rid of.
On the other hand, Hoover opposes CT convinced that it is not therapeutic in character. He believes that such psychotherapy is not helping people today in the long-term largely because it does not accept the 'common-sense' views outlined above.
This failure to help in the long-term occurs because these clients have received therapy that assumes that events external to us--the death of a close friend, loss of a loved animal, exam failure, a car accident--do not cause human distress.
In fact, CT theory states that such events cannot cause our distress; rather, we 'distress' ourselves by our 'catastrophic thinking' and/or our overwrought imaginings. Hence, the way out of our distress is to correct our thinking so that we come to think the 'correct' way (the way the cognitive therapist tells us we should think) about the death, the loss, or the shock of the accident.
Phases in the therapy of a young woman with panic attacks
(I don't wish to over-emphasise the 'phases' terminology in the above heading. It's not a technical use of the term 'phase' by me. But RH, the therapist, sets out his transcript in terms of five definite phases, each of which uncovers an important piece of therapeutic knowledge for us. So it's just a convenient way to navigate through the vignette.)
Note I've used asterisks * to mark passages in the dialogue that I regard significant.
The client is a woman Bertha (B), a 28 year-old mother of two children. She had come to RH earlier for one appointment some five weeks ago complaining of panic attacks but didn't come for a scheduled follow-up session.
(I acknowledge with thanks using this case from the above book almost verbatim but have been unable to contact the author to seek permission even though efforts were made to do so through his publisher.)
First Phase
She tells RH that she had been managing well until last week when suddenly she started to have times of intense crying. She has no idea why. RH believes that a reason exists and says to her that her 'head knows' but perhaps is keeping it from her because it would cause her more pain.
Interestingly, RH informs her about the fact that she might experience more pain if she finds out what is the adversity (X -my term) behind her crying; this is very wise of him because therapists need to tread carefully with regard to the pain of their clients. However, B has got the idea that if she doesn't come to know about X she is going to experience pain nonetheless.
He then asks her if she wants to go on and see what X is. Just in passing, we note that he gets the client's permission before moving on. Always an ethical move to get the client's 'informed consent'.
I pick up the conversation when Russell Hoover says to the client:
'Now what's the clue that tells you something bad has happened?'
B: I don't know.
RH: Well your sadness is a symptom that something is not okay, not right. Would feeling bad be a symptom of something good happening?
B: No it would be a symptom of something bad happening.
This point marks the end of the first stage of therapy in which RH has helped B to name her sadness symptom as something that is 'not okay' and AS caused by something that is 'bad'. Of course it takes much longer to reach this point but I have skipped material to get to the later 'phases'. (Note: that is not to say that 'sadness' is a bad thing in itself; it's a good thing in that it tells us that something not good has happened. So, 'bad' is used in a loose sense about the sadness mood in this context.)
Second Phase
RH: So let's see whether we can find this bad something. Let's see if you've felt something that was unpleasant recently.
B: Well, I remember I had tightness in my stomach for a few days before I had the crying.
RH: That makes sense because lots of people carry distress around in their bodies as headaches, sick stomachs, stiff necks and other things as well. But you were probably upset before that tightness yet you don't remember what it was over you say. No?
B: No. Can't think of anything.
*RH: Let's try something different. Can you tell me what that tightness in your stomach means to you?
B: Means to me? I don't know what you're getting at.
*RH: Well, could it mean you're sick or something?
B: Yeah it means I could be sick perhaps.
RH: Well how sick? Is that an issue?
B: You're right. I always think the worst . . . . (last 3 words are said faintly as if she had been stuck in something).
RH: And what may the worst be? Do you have any idea?
B: (face begins to flush) I could be sick for a long time. I could get *cancer. (Stops and clears her throat.)
RH has been searching for the 'bad' thing in her knowledge about her life that is coupled with the anxiety attacks. Note how how her realisation of '[being] sick for a long time' and then 'cancer' are accompanied by strong, non-verbal physical indicators revealing important meaning for B.
Third Phase
RH: You might get cancer?
B: (face still flushed) Yeah, I could get real sick.
RH: See. You could have been vaguely aware of that possibility. If you got the 'flu you would only be a bit upset. But cancer, would really grab your attention. So, how upset would you get?
B: A lot.
RH: But there's probably a reason you think about cancer rather than, say, a heart attack.
B: Well, my mother died . . . (B instantly grabs her lips and pinches them together; face flushes again and reddens more).
RH: Here, we've got these here (gives a box of tissues beside her even though she is not crying). Might as well just let it out; that's what we do here.
B: (finally blurts out through her lips and sobs while talking) I just can't talk about it. (Pinches her lips together again.)
RH: That's because of the pain it causes you. After all, if you mother died of cancer that is an ugly way to go.
B: She suffered for five years and just kept getting worse all the time.
RH: And when did she die?
B: Three years ago.
RH: So her death was not trivial for you and wouldn't be for someone who felt about her the way you did. But what's important now is to identify the pain you're having and try to understand it. Kind of knowing how our feelings work. For example, if you know something good, something real nice, then you'd feel how?
B: I'd feel good I guess.
RH: Sure you would. And the size of that good feeling would depend on how good you would know it to be. But when a well-functioning brain like yours knows something bad then, you would have a corresponding bad mood. What would that be?
B: I'd feel like crying.
*RH: Exactly. See your mood's just a reflection of something you know. Others may know it too and not feel bad because it's not really happening to them. They didn't see your mother having all that pain. So they might say that you're just not coping.
B: My husband tells me that.
RH: To him, it doesn't make sense. He can't understand why you still would have pain after that length of time.
B: I can't either.
RH: Well because the way she died represents a threat or burden you're still carrying around today. I wonder what it might be?
B: I don't know. I miss her. She lived right next door so we're always been close.
RH: That tells us a lot. So through the day you find yourself missing her more than at other times. Maybe when you are alone or something. Is that true?
B: Yes, I think so.
RH: And at those times, what happens?
B: Sometimes my throat begins to tighten up. (Clears her throat.)
RH: That's happening now a little, isn't it?
B: (clears throat even more) I get so I just can't breathe (-her eyes begin to water).
Together RH and B have made good progress by drawing out the strands of what is happening in her life combined with understanding that the therapist has of how human moods work.
To summarise: RH believes that it is 'proper' (-'it's the way things work') to be anxious when things threaten us and saddened when loss overtakes us.
Fourth Phase
RH: What kind of emotions happens to us when we know something bad is happening to us?
B: We get upset.
RH: It's the associated emotion that happens when we know that something bad is happening. So if we knew all that--what it means when you can't breathe--and then we weren't upset, what would you say about that?
B: (pauses) Well . . .
RH: Wouldn't it be a bit weird?
B: Yes you're right. It would be a bit weird.
RH: Weird but nice we could say. But it's important to see that it would be strange and not the normal reaction. If I have a rock in my hand and I let it go, it falls to the ground. That's the way things work. It won't fly upwards. That isn't the way things work.
**RH: But what if you knew something different at the time when you can't breathe: that it's not proper for you to be able to breathe easy. It's proper to have this bad thing happening to me. What might happen if you knew that?
B: (pauses) What?
*RH: If you said to yourself something peculiar; it's not proper that something good be happening to me. It's proper that something very bad be happening; is it always proper that good things happen to us?
B: I don't know.
*RH: Put it this way, would it be proper for you to feel okay then? Is it always proper for you to feel right?
B: Well no.
RH: Then it's proper that you feel bad sometimes: to feel awful and to be unable to breathe. Do you see that?
B: That it's proper for me to feel bad sometimes?
RH: It's perfectly 200% proper for you to be feeling lousy. I mean if you can't breathe, is that something anyone would feel good about?
B: Well, no.
RH: And how would you feel if you knew that odd thing at the time you felt you couldn't breathe?
B: I don't know.
**RH: Let's try it and see. You're home, thinking about your mum just like you do at times and you notice you begin to have difficulty breathing, and then you say to yourself, 'Oh well, it's completely proper that I feel this way. It doesn't even make sense for me to breathe easy'. And, let's suppose that as you say this, you meant it.
B: Well, I don't know for sure but I suppose I would feel better.
RH: Yes, to the degree that you meant. As it's not something you usually know, you probably wouldn't think of it. But if you worked at it until you knew it better and were able to do it at that time, then you'd have trouble not feeling better. So let's do it again. There you are at home, and you notice your throat tightening. Now say it to yourself out loud so I can see if you've got it.
B: Well, I guess it's proper . . . . you said it was proper? Is that right?
Fifth Phase
RH: That's right: 'It's not proper for me to feel good. It's proper for me to feel how?'
B: To feel bad.
RH: Excellent. Try it again. You can't overdo it even if you try.
B: Okay, . . . It's proper, yes, it's proper for me to feel this way.
RH: Yes, it's not proper for me to feel comfortable.
B: Then I'd feel better.
RH: Well, wouldn't you? How do you feel now?
B: I don't know. I don't think I am quite as scared.
RH: It's probably starting to work a little bit even though you don't know it well. So, we're going to go over it again and again. But let's look at something else that is very important. If you said to yourself in a convincing way, 'It doesn't make sense for me to feel here; it's proper to feel this pain', then the pain would go away. Now is that relief real or are you just stuffing down your feelings?
B: I don't think I'd be stuffing down my feelings, would I?
RH: You could be. How could you tell the difference?
B: Well if I didn't feel any pain.
RH: That's the key . . . . if you were stuffing down your feelings you'd still be upset and you'd feel pain. But it's hard to believe that if you knew what we've discussed doing, gave it to yourself at the appropriate time, and gave it with sufficient force that you wouldn't then experience some relief. So if the relief was real why might it come back later? [**Important therapy move to forestall relapse!]
B: You mean the pain could come back?
RH: You see I have people tell me the pain went away but then it came back later. Do you know why that happens?
B: I don't understand that. Perhaps they didn't mean it.
RH: Or, maybe they didn't know it that well and so their head forgets about it. That's why it's important to give it to yourself every so often while you're still learning it. that way you're re-programming those neurons in your head. So what does this tell you?
B: I'd better do it over again.
RH: Right. So let's do that now again, only let's do it with something else that bothers you a lot. In fact, let's look at the fact that you miss your mum so much. Remembering that it's proper for some bad things to happen, sometimes some very awful things. So, isn't it proper for you to be missing your mother at times; I mean missing her a lot.
B: I really don't think I should be missing her so much after all this time.
RH: Well, you're right about that too. Your mind is aware that your life would be better if you could forget it. But can people always do what they should?
B: No.
RH: So which is proper. For you to miss her or not to miss her?
B: That I miss her.
RH: Somehow you feel that you'd be doing something wrong. So, how would you feel about missing her if you knew that, 'It's proper for me to miss her. It's not proper for me to forget her and feel no pain'. How would you feel if you knew that peculiar bit of truth?
B: Well I don't think I would be so bothered then.
RH: Interesting and you'd then be able to do something that is otherwise a bit strange. So why don't you do it again right now so I can hear you again.
B: Okay. So, I trying to understand that it's proper to miss her?
RH: You're getting it. It's getting easier. But you want to remember that this procedure isn't something you know very well yet. It's pretty easy to get mixed up with it. For example, proper and okay are NOT the same. So, we can say that it's proper to miss her but it's not okay. Anyway we will deal with this in the future. Right now, can you say what you said above about your mum?
B: It's proper for me to miss mum (said with more certainty as an obvious tear comes to her eye).
RH: Correct, and the more you remember that, the less likely you are to get carried away with missing her. Now before the next session, I want you to take time every day to practise saying that sentence, just as you did here, at least 3 times a day. Let's try it again.
Brief Summary of Case
1. Feeling bad is a symptom of something bad happening
2. Find what the 'bad happening' was
3. Greater detail re the 'bad happening'
4. Certain emotions happen to us when bad things occur
It's weird (abnormal) to feel good when something bad happens or is happening.
5. Cure is verbally connecting 'feeling' to 'properness'
Bertha, the client has the bad feelings that go with 'not being able to breathe normally' and 'the thoughts surrounding the slow, lingering death of her mother'. According to RH, it is not 'proper' for her to feel comfortable. (By 'proper' he means, 'suitable', 'logical' and sensible'.)
'Proper' is not to be confused by saying that the two events above are 'okay'. RH is against any attempt to accept the events as 'all right' and bludgeoning the client's consciousness to accept something as 'all right' which is clearly 'not all right', 'not okay'.
If a relapse in feeling better occurs then perhaps the person has forgotten to say and mean that it's proper to be this way given what has happened.
Therefore, she is to say aloud when these situations arise, 'it is proper for this to happen'. She is to say this with as much intensity as she can muster and she will practise saying the phrase at least 3 times per day.
