To a Cat

She was a Maine coon cat, so of course she was named Kittery, after the town in southern Maine. We adopted her many years ago from a dear friend who had this habit of taking in stray animals of numerous species. She was doubtless the smallest of her breed, and distinctly anti-social even for a cat. We realized early on that even her plaintive meows for attention did not guarantee that she wouldn't immediately run and hide when attention was paid. Hence, we called her "skittery Kittery," and learned to wait until she would come to us.But then, all cats are instinctively narcissistic, which makes their gestures of affection all the more precious.
Not everybody is a cat person. Some prefer dogs or some other animal. Some don't want any pet, finding the responsibility, the obligation, too much of a burden or an obstacle in a busy life, I have had many cats in my life, all the ways to childhood, and I am with Mark Twain, who wrote, "A house without a cat may be a home, but how can it prove its title?"
During recent days, she had become thin, even gaunt. A visit to the vet told the worst: a tumor that was preventing her from getting any nutrition from the food she ate. Remedies such as surgery or even chemotherapy were expensive and questionable for a cat of her age. Finally this morning she died peacefully and we will bury her in the yard.
Whether it be cat or dog or any other pet, the owner receives an unconditional regard. No matter the type of person you are, no matter how things have been going in your life, a cat purring in your lap seems healing in some way. (The same is true in a different way with dogs; that is why those comfort dogs went to Newtown.) And each pet becomes a member of the family of a sort. In fact, some people are able to relate to their cat or dog but not to other people. Studies have shown that elderly people actually benefit from adopting a pet.
Yes, we have other cats, who both seem to wonder what happened to their companion. and to carry on as if nothing had. But we still feel the loss and will take some time to grieve.
Resquiescat in pacem, Kittery.

Now What?

Many may not understand where I am coming from on this. They might well hate it! But somebody has to introduce that horse on the billiard table (to coin a new metaphor).
First of all, and most importantly, many condolences to the family, friends, neighbors and all others impacted by the tragedy in Newton. While I have never been inside that building, there was a time when I drove by it on a regular basis. One of the local pastors is a dear friend. To my knowledge, I had no contact or connection direct or otherwise with the people involved, although my wife works in the academic field and this has been a deep source of sorrow for her. Me too.
But I find myself becoming more and more impatient and frustrated with the public reaction. The vigils, the instant memorial shrines, the prayers and rituals are well and good. People need an opportunity, a venue, to cry and show their grief. The difficulty is that too many stop there.
Very cautiously- too cautiously!- we are dealing with the deeper issues of this tragedy. Yes, pray, sing, chant, speak the comforting word, but something of this scope and nature demands something more, something concrete to make sure it never happens again! Not the inane suggestions that some have already blurted out- yes, you, Ann Coulter!- about arming the school staff, or making sure that a particular kind of religion be preached in schools so that no other person would do something like this- thank you, Rev. Huckabee, we'll get back to you!
In the personal field,when we lose a loved one, friends flock around. One of the more foolish things people say to you at funerals is: If there's anything I can do... Of course, if you were to call on them for help days later, I doubt anyone would offer more than excuses.
When a trauma of this size and type hits us, the best way of dealing with it still may be calling upon our support network (religious community, family, neighbors) but also finding the WHY? and the NOW WHAT?
It does no one any good to continue in a state of loss and grief. After a tragedy of this type, everything seems chaotic. What we had been expecting for our lives, consciously or not, is gone. So we need to deal with what has actually happened and learn how to start our lives over again. That way, we can begin to feel in control of our world again.
Such need to be thought through, of course. People can plunge into all manner of foolish, dangerous and even life-threatening behavior in the aftermath of such a trauma. (That's how we ended up in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11.) But there are obvious issues that we have been avoiding: gun control, mental health coverage. Other issues may come to mind once we are able to think more clearly.
Let's not stop with our prayers and kind words. Let's ask: now what?

Too much of a good thing

Well, that version of Murphy's Law is all too true: If you explain something clearly, concisely and simply, someone will completely misunderstand!
See, someone had posted something on Facebook, nemind what, ain't pertinent, and I made a comment in response. Which in turn got him upset and he posted a comment. So I responded by posting an explanation of what I originally intended to say. And he in turn got more defensive both denying any responsibility for the original post and at the same time defending it. Oh, it was a glorious mess, ending in apologies from both of us and the mutual recognition that open dialog just ain't possible in that way.
But what I carried away from this tempest in a teapot (to use an archaic idiom) was twofold: Never put anything on public media (like Facebook) what you wouldn't want right out visible on the public square.  Pissing contests are never a becoming spectacle.
And second: People can get really, really, really uptight about personal beliefs. Especially if said beliefs are kind of out there, not generally accepted.
Yes, we all have our own distinctive faith structure, the stuff that gives meaning to our lives. When anyone challenges those beliefs, we can either consider things calmly and discerningly, or we can become defensive and belligerent. Of course, none of us is sure to react one way or the other, depending on what is challenged. But if we can stop and try to be aware of those things we believe in which are likeliest to trigger a negative response, we might learn something about ourselves.
The things I get defensive about are those things which seem too extreme, too rigid, too certain. The three most important words are "I don't know." When someone tells me that such-and-such is The Answer. I try to consider that with an open mind. But if it becomes apparent that an open mind is not welcome, I have to wonder at the validity of that Answer.
G.K.Chesterton, that great Christian apologist (and mystery writer) once said, "Doubts are the ants in the pants of faith." Remember, it was Doubting Thomas who was the first disciple to proclaim the risen Christ as "My Lord and my God."
So your beliefs about finding "proof" for this or that element of faith may be quite interesting. But please excuse me if I don't immediately embrace it as being as certain as you take it. I am not questioning your faith. I may be questioning the way you express your faith: too open and closed, too definite. Too much of a good thing.

One Big Happy...

"But isn't every family somewhat dysfunctional?" she asked.
"Yes," I equivocated, "and no."
As Tolstoy pointed out, happy families may be all alike, but unhappy families are unhappy each in their own way. Even so, there are certain signs common to dysfunctional groups,  certain things that children growing up in such an environment learn, even if never explicitly taught.
First, don't  think!
 If we stop and consider things carefully,we quickly see that things don't make sense! Of course, it is well-nigh impossible to consider things carefully when all around is chaos.  But we continue on with the status quo not because it makes sense, but because, well, it's what we've always done. Decisions, choices, actions taken impulsively without trying to think things out, all become the usual way we do things.
Granted, there are some who spend a lot of time and mental energy analyzing things, whittling nothing down to a fine point. But such might also be avoiding thinking, as they become so fixated on minutiae that they completely ignore the larger issues (woods/trees, if you get my drift.) Also, if one small detail can seem to be understood, then the rest of the whole can be tolerated no matter how crazy it actually is. Still, above all, don't think!
Second, don't talk!
 If you were to discuss your home-life with someone outside the family, you'd quickly discover that not every family is like yours. In fact, if you told your teacher or pastor or some other authority figure you trust how you actually got those injuries, those bruises, that person is required to report potential child abuse to the police. It can be difficult to comprehend that yelling and insults and serious physical discipline don't happen in other families, because people brainwash themselves into thinking that everything is just fine, he/she didn't really mean it, besides I really deserved it.
A corollary to don't talk is: don't invite anyone to the house!
Unexpected guests might see the mess, might hear the abuse, might tell someone. So the family become an isolated fortress. If the children want  to see friends, they go to their place. If a spouse wants to see someone, they pick a neutral place like a mall or a coffee shop. Don't let anyone see.
And: don't feel!
It is not uncommon to know people who are out of touch with their feelings for a variety of reasons. But when you grow up with only two acceptable feelings (anger and fear), then you learn not to feel anything at all. 'Cause it hurts!
Also, expressing feelings is a way of showing individuation and self-esteem. Abusive families are threatened by both; example A: "You're crying? I'll show you how to cry!" 'Nother words, when someone is confused with their own emotional state, any other expression of emotions cannot be tolerated and  must be repressed instanter.
Please understand: many families go through hard times and come out the other side. But if you have been reading the above and nodding sadly in recognition, know that there are ways to deal with those old wounds .

Sticks 'n' stones...

Big believer in freedom of speech, here. The first time I went to London, I made sure to visit Hyde Park Corner, that famous home of the right to free speech. (For those of you culturally deprived sorts in the audience, it is an unassuming part of one of the parks in London where anyone can get up and propound anything without hindrance.) Kind of a disappointment, actually. The few there who did express themselves were disorganized, rambling and obviously repeating the same old same old over and over and over. This was made even more apparent by those who were regular hecklers, so familiar with the various screeds that they could beat the speakers to the punchline of their meager jokes.
But then, free speech was never meant to be limited to the articulate, much less the coherent. And in a day when public discourse seems limited to an exchange  of insults like two children fighting in a playground, free speech has become like most things that are free; worth every penny.
I refer not just to those who disagree with my point of view (you worthless rapscallions you), but to those who seem to have lost the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. We have made public debate into a major contest where one side must not only seem more sensible but must obliterate any other point of view. Even worse, when one side loses, that means doubling down on the invective and calumny of the other side. After a sports game, the opposing teams shake hands in a show of respect for one another. After an election, the opposing parties continue to sling mud and act as if their side won.Like two children separated after a fight, threats and insults continue to fly futilely.
Difference does not threaten me, nor should it you. You have the right to say anything, even nasty things about me, no matter how mistaken or misguided you may be. As Voltaire never actually said, I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Whose child is this?

Yes, I'm a parent. And one of the worst things that could happen to any parent would be losing a child.
That is why so many become so frantic when there is the potentiality of some authority stepping in and taking custody  of a child. Whether it be the Department of Children and Families (or whatever variation there is to  be found in your state) or a divorce court or someone who has determined that you aren't taking care of your kids, the feeling is the same: what can I do to get my child back?
Now it is an open secret that the good people at whatever state agency are often overworked, understaffed and even underqualified to handle the many situations that show up at their doorstep.
'Nother words, they don't always get it right (That's an understatement, that is!) But they do try to preserve the family unit, to keep siblings together, to set up the foster care arrangement with an actual family member, to give the parents every avenue possible to recover custody with all due speed.
Trouble is, those kids might end up back in the same old mess, mark II. The abusive, neglectful, unhealthy environment that lead to the loss of custody to begin with sneaks back in past all those good intentions, only now mom and/or dad have learned how to cover up.
Yes, there are cases where the authorities come charging in like a bull elephant on Black Friday, or where it takes so much time to sort things out that the child is well grown before the parents get custody back. But this is the delicate balancing act, between the good of the child and the rights of the parent. Of course, we all  would put more emphasis on the welfare of the child, but that doesn't take into consideration the impact from losing a parent at any age. (Won't go into all the horror stories of fostercare.) And if we focus on the parental rights, what do we do when that parent is putting the child in harm's way?
No matter how carefully we try to do this, there is going to be some hurt, some loss, some guilt. There will be parents who try to avoid such situations by running away. There will be children who are scarred just by the process. And there are no easy answers.

Fame V. Humility

It is an American ideal to be famous. Not even for this or that accomplishment, but at times just famous because, well, you're famous! (Kardashians, that's your cue!) People are willing to undergo all sorts of abuse, abasement and agony simply for a few moments of notoriety. even with a promise of such. We have no nobility as such in our country, but the people who have those fifteen minutes in the spotlight come close.
Of course, it is all so ephemeral and transient. Flip through those gossip mags of just a few months ago, and the chances are that most of the people therein are best summed up thusly: who? The few, the very few, who have maintained their place in the public eye through talent, determination and a well-paid publicity staff, these are the people who exemplify an American paradox: the endless quest for fame versus the virtue of humility.
Isn't that one of the consistent characteristics listed when an everyday person meets some superstar (an overused term, by the way)? He or she is just like you or me, even shunning the attention they so assiduously pursue. In fact, that's one of the things we both expect of our heroes and yet find scandalous if they prove vulnerable after all.
Maybe it is because we misunderstand what fame and/or humility really mean. Fame has come to be something we reach by our own stellar qualities, not something that happens when others come to see something worthwhile in us. In the same way, humility has gotten confused with humiliation, the idea being that we scuff our toes in the dirt and say, aw shucks, folks, it ain't nuthin'.
But in our multi-media world, no one can avoid those fifteen minutes of fame Mr. Warhol identified all those years ago. And in a life with more ups-and-downs  than a manic roller coaster,  we all are familiar with hitting bottom.
The important idea is not succeeding or failing, but what we do then.   Do we take up residence in Mr. Bunyan's Slough of Despond, or do we carry on some frantic pretense of fame as so clearly limned in Sunset Boulevard? Or do we just try to live the best life we can without seeking everyone's love and attention or dreading universal disapproval?
When we let others' approbation (or lack thereof) define us, we stop being who we are. As the old ballplayer put it, "Be who you is. 'Cause if you ain't, then you isn't who you is."

Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

We all have those memories. You know the ones, where you look back and say to yourself, "How could I have been so dumb!"
Yes, we can explain/excuse our failure with  the usual accuracy of hindsight, but it doesn't help. It taps into that time in our lives when we were so young that we had to deal with our own inadequacies, those feelings of not good enough.
The difficulty rises when we can't let go of other things in our lives, those other times when we lost, when we failed, when we revealed to the world that we couldn't do everything perfectly. We can react to that many ways: falling into depression because we failed, obstinately refusing to give up or admit we had not succeeded, blaming others for what happened in an effort to elide any responsibility.
And there are those who are only too willing to play along. These are the people who, either out of a misguided attempt to comfort, or else punishing us over and over and over, bring up our failures, our mistakes from however long ago, re traumatizing all concerned and as a side-effect, giving themselves control of the situation. Such people seem unable to forgive or forget for reasons that do as much harm as potential good.
There are, of course, people who seem unable to accept when something is over and done with, so they continue to fight battles that have long since been truly won or lost. The election is over. You can stop the harsh messages now. The marriage is finished, there is nothing left but the bitter attacks. Family or friends tend to be the worst at this, dredging up events from long ago.
The answer "Let it go" is the correct one, but the hardest to do. But why hold onto pain, ever retroactive pain? Why tear the scab  off the healing wound? Could it be the old concept of reviewing something  again and again with the hope that sometime it will come out differently?
We don't need to be right all the time, do we? And maybe we need to move from obsessing on our failures to learning from them.

By the Book

"Do you you do Bible counseling?" she asked politely but hesitantly.
"Well," I answered, having no idea what she might mean, "I do use scripture as a resource in therapy."
Not good enough. She had been looking for a reason not to pursue therapy, especially after her husband was so vehemently and adamantly opposed, so this failure to meet her undefined criteria was just what she needed. She didn't slam the door shut, but it was obvious.
Since then I have gone back in idle moments, not obsessively but recurrently, to wondered what she was talking about. As one of the few self-proclaimed "Christian counselors" in Connecticut (long story for another time), I have believers of many variations showing up on my virtual doorstep, and the request for certain forms of treatment which seem to involve little more than prayer and laying-on-of-hands (no, no, not that type!) has been consistent. But this was new.
Did she mean that treatment would consist of quoting appropriate (or inappropriate) scripture passages intended to address her problem? This would be from the Bible translation of her choice, of course, and could quickly deteriorate into little more than a form of Bible study.
Or did she mean dealing with specific passages from the letters of Paul that have been used to get oppressed peoples to sit down and shut up? Whether we are talking about women submitting to their husbands, people of color accepting subjection, or gay, lesbian or transgender folk as bad, these passages (usually taken out of context or even totally irrelevant to the issue) are used more as a control maneuver than as regards the deeper relational issues.
Of course, she may be struggling with what scripture has to do with her everyday life. She may be in a place where she is trying to determine what she believes at all, and how to live that out. She may be on a journey with no clear destination and she is looking for a guide, a companion along the way.
And maybe she just wanted someone who opens the Bible at random and reads something which may or may not have anything to do with her (what I refer to as the "fortune cookie" approach to scripture.) Because that gives her the permission to stay as confused and lost as ever, but with the reassurance that she is still on the right road.

Never say goodbye

One of the toughest tasks in most professional- even most personal!- areas is saying goodbye. When we go through clinical training, it is called "termination." In other words, how does the therapist deal with the end of therapy. voluntarily or not? Some are so poor at this that they don't really call an end to things, just dragging on what becomes a dependent relationship until the client discovers a way to escape. Some put so much emphasis on this that they seem to take pleasure from how quickly they can wrap things up  into a neat package; call it "brief therapy" or what you will, this focus on volume of turn-over seems to crop up in agencies dealing with the marginal population who can't afford much anyway so the business department demands as many clinical hours with as many clients as possible.
Of course, there is the reality that clients can disappear on their own. They can call and cancel their next appointment, with the place-saver proviso that they will call sometime and reschedule. They can simply not show up, and follow-up phone calls get no response. They talk about changing the regular weekly appointment to  every-other-week or every three weeks or even monthly. They talk about coming in again a year or more hence, like a medical check-up. Much of the time, I celebrate these signs of independence, but there are too many times when it is just a flight into recovery, a symptom of denial.
But it is not just in the clinical field that we have problems with goodbye. We all have problems letting go. As we grow older, there are certain routine activities that come harder and harder, if at all, and we face the fact that we might need someone else to do things for us or not do them at all. We get to the stage in life where we have to lay to rest certain dreams of youth (I will never grow up to be a cowboy!) and know that who we are now will probably be who we are the rest of our lives, for good or ill.
This does mean we should simply settle for the status quo. We need not go gentle into that good night. I remember my cousin Betty of 70-something years who was late to a family gathering because her dance class ran late (true, this woman was on stage as part of a professional magic act for many years!) Even while we accept the closing of one door, we can look for the opening of another.

Taking the Blame

There has been a lot of loose talk about responsibility lately. One whole political group has staked their claim on the concept as they interpret it. By which they seem to mean that if you're powerless and dependent on others its because you haven't taken responsibility for the fact that you're, well, powerless and dependent on others. See, the idea is that you (the p. and d. on o.) just haven't seized the opportunities to make a better life.
The irony, of course, is that the very people who cast such scorn on the needy because they're not taking the responsibility, the business executives and social/political leaders, they're coming from a setting where no one is ever to blame for anything. In business, no one ever accepts the responsibility for something going wrong; it is always some subordinate who came up with the idea or who didn't carry it out properly. It is one of our contractors who dropped the ball, or some government regulation that makes the  business more accountable and less able to cover things up. No one spilled gallons of oil  in the Gulf, that was someone else's fault. No one authorized all those toxic bank loans, that was because some subordinate was careless. No one voted to go to war in Afghanistan or Iraq. No one sat on millions of dollars of assets because they didn't trust the current economy. Not their fault.
Taking responsibility doesn't mean casting blame anyway. It means facing limitations and admitting it when things are or are not something that come within your capability. It means doing what you can and not hesitating to call on others when you can't. Yes, it is a wonderful thing when someone achieves something no one had thought possible,  goes above and beyond. The danger is when we romanticize or even expect such superhuman efforts.
When someone does something where he or she goes beyond expectations, that can be inspiring. But there is a whole percentage of our population who seem to hold against those in greatest need that they are not inspiring enough.

The Hell You Say!

No, it's not scriptural. No flames with demons and pitchforks. And it's not down there somewhere, any more than heaven is up there somewhere.
We get ourselves into all sorts of emotional/psychological binds because we fear eternal torment. All due deference to Dante, but what the scriptures was referring to was something called Sheol, a place where all of us go once we die, good bad and the rest of us in-betweens. Sort of a cosmic waiting room where we just muddle along until, well, whatever.
What if we tried to live our lives not out of fear of hell or hope of heaven, but because we were trying to do the right thing for its own sake? So many of us have never gotten past that stage of human development where we were feeling hopelessly inadequate, and tried to make up for it by following parental edicts mindlessly or, conversely, tried not to get caught when we did something we judged wouldn't measure up.
Of course, the whole modern image of hell doesn't mesh with a loving, forgiving God, anyway. It also takes any responsibility out of our hands. We don't have to set limits on our lives because of our own sense of right and wrong; God does that for us. We don't have to recognize the ways we are being selfish or destructive or anti-social; we can just adopt the rules and regulations as we understand God laid them out for us.
And the paradox is that, when we depend on outer rules rather than inner, we become even worse when we choose to reject or ignore any imposed restrictions. Like a young person the first time away from parents, there is a giddy sense of freedom.The result can be a massive hangover at best, crashing and burning at worst. (Many of my college students know what I'm talking about.)
Please understand: I am not saying that God does not deal harshly with the wrong-doers. But we cannot assume it will be the way we have expected or experienced. God does not necessarily put us in a corner or take away privileges, much less anything physical. And when we put limits on our lives, we should do so because these things have a personal meaning, not because God will spank.

Managing Life

Let me tell you about my Uncle George. He was my father's little brother, and the general family understanding was that my dad taught him everything he ever knew. Of course, Uncle George went on to get his doctorate, and teach in several colleges, and write a few books on business management. He didn't invent the concept, but he is known for developing a classic business management style, Management By Objectives.
Oh, THAT George Odiorne!
Now, most of you are saying Huh? or Who cares? But many business managers (including one up at Post University- hi, Don!) are nodding wisely.
So when I see these political candidates vaunting their experience as businesspeople as qualifications for public office, I think of my Uncle George and feel uncomfortable. See, he never wanted any positions of leadership. The one time he was coerced into being dean of a business school, he couldn't wait until he could step down. He never forgot that he came out of a large working-class family where his father had to struggle to find work and his mother talked about escaping from poverty in Ireland. His approach to management was not top-down autocratic direction. It was collaborative and based on setting realistic goals with your co-workers.
For many business managers today, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Either ignore what can be done reasonably based on who and what you have, or set unrealistic goals and blame others if they are not reached. There is no sense of cooperation or compromise, as is so necessary in the public sphere. The watchword is damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
Of course, a lot of things in the public sector can't be judged on profitability or "success," whatever that means. When was the last time a police department worried about whether or not they made a profit? And their definition of "success" has more to do with catching criminals than making a buck. Of course, there have been shameful examples of fire departments watching a house burn because someone hadn't paid their bill, but most firefighters are focused on saving lives and property, not money.
Some elected officials are so enwrapped in their own agendae that they cannot find a way to work together with others who do not agree with every jot and tittle of said agenda, Rather than seeking an objective which can be agreed upon, with a realistic timeline, they want what they want, no more no less. Yes, they can sound quite reasonable and even pleasant about it. But they still offer only two options: take it or leave it!
I can only wonder how Uncle George would have reacted. I think I know. Back when he was still teaching, he was on a campus where the security people patrolled on horseback during the summer. Unfortunately, the campus had few trees and it could get quite hot there. One of the few shady spots was just under the window of Uncle George's office, and inasmuch as he needed to keep the window open during the summer, the smell got a bit much. Finally, he went down and talked to the security guards: would it be possible to put the horses  elsewhere? Certainly, they said, but where. Over by the administration building, Uncle George suggested, they'll never notice the difference in the smell.

And Call Me In the Morning...

A nurse once told me they were "the vitamins of the New Millennium." 'Cause, see, everyone takes 'em, and the stigma is much less and  so no big deal....
We're talking here about psychopharmeceuticals, those miracle pills that have changed dramatically the psychotherapy field. Often, they are used as a therapeutic tool, as clinicians try to determine the proper diagnosis by trying different meds and different dosages. These are so fine tuned and so carefully dispensed that only the proper prescription will work with the proper diagnosis.
At least, that's what your med rep will say when he comes by with his satchel full of samples, free pens and notepads, and the sales pitch for the latest medication that will solve all yer ills, yessir, step right up, ladies and gentlemen!
Yes, much more can be done to help many more people with these little pills. People who formerly would have been condemned to a lifetime of emotional agony or hospitalization now can live lives that are as close to normal as anyone else. Rather than years of mental agony, people find some relief within weeks or even days.
So what's the problem? No, it is not that I don't have the training to prescribe when people come to me for help. I can refer them elsewhere for that if such is indicated.
The problem lies in two areas: the clinicians and the clients.
People are so used to pills that solve problems immediately, if not sooner. Got a headache? Take a pill. Got a stomach ache? Take a pill. Got anxiety? Take a pill. Got a relationship problem? Well, um, er..
Of course, not all pills, even these marvelous new ones, have instant results. The most common anti-depressants, for example, can take weeks to make noticeable differences. Yes, there are some pills that work quickly, but it can be hit-or-miss before the psychiatrist finds the one that works best for you. And once you have been taking most meds, it is not recommended that you stop on your own without checking with your doctor first. (There could be some rather unpleasant withdrawal effects.)
Of course, some people are not comfortable taking anything. They may still hark back to the early days when people on psycopharmaceuticals went about in a perpetual daze (not true anymore.) Or they be recovering addicts, and are wary of any pills, even aspirin. Or they resist medication for religious reasons, but come looking for some spiritual practice that will do just as well.
It is not all the fault of the client that the meds issue is often the topic in a first session.  The clinician can be a little too eager to pull out the prescription pad after the initial fifteen-minute session. See me in another month or six weeks for another fifteen-minute session where most of the time is given to determining if this prescription is working or if it needs to be changed. See you again in two months. Oh, you want real therapy? Never mind the therapist who referred you; we have someone right in this office who will give you some time (brief therapy, six to ten sessions).
This way, you see, the clinician can schedule as many sessions per day as time permits. Never mind therapeutic alliance, much less empathy. The clinician may be quite good as a therapist and even a very nice person. But that is not the model chosen. Insurance companies have opted for a purely medical model, with the focus on the diagnosis and the treatment rather than the person.
Plus, you get quick and measurable results with medications. It's not as fast and obvious with traditional psychotherapy.
Oh well, sorry for getting so upset. Maybe I should just take a pill..

The Empty Chair

So much talk, so little said.
So this actor gets up in front of a political convention to endorse their party's candidate. Big Deal. Has done it before with that party, and who listens to celebrity endorsements, anyway? But then he does something without setting the scene or preparing the context, something that upstages all the political speeches and carefully scripted presentations: he ad-libs a debate with an empty  chair that is supposed to represent the candidate of the opposing party.
Ooo Aaah! Gasp! What is going on? The delegates, most of whom were probably not paying much attention anyway, are confused and then annoyed. And since things were pretty pro forma up 'till then, the media, hungry for something to talk about, seized on this and ran with it,
Now let me say first of all, the content of this impromptu skit has not really been the issue. Yes, there were a few who noticed that things got "nasty" in this imaginary dialog. But most have been fixated on the empty chair. So much so that polls have shown little or no impact on the way people continue to feel about that actor.
But why is everyone obsessing over what Jon Stewart wittily called "The Old Man and the Seat"? Actually, empty chairs are important in two major parts of my life: acting and psychotherapy. Yes, empty chairs have been used as stand-ins as far back as when Edward R. Murrow used an empty seat to represent Joe McCarthy in that confrontation back on '50s TV. But even today, the "empty chair" technique is used on stage and in treatment.
Actors will use empty chairs to play against both in auditions and in full performances. Acting (he said, echoing his acting teacher Annie DiMartino down at Long Wharf Theater) is always responding to the others on stage, playing off of someone. And in a monolog, one still needs to have others  "there," hence the empty chair. Even in the classic Shakespearean monologs, the actor still needs a focus, a purpose. An empty chair.
And in clinical work, the empty chair represents someone who is not there but is needed there. In groups, if a member leaves for whatever reason, a chair is left vacant to help the others in the group to deal  with the loss. When a client needs to confront someone, to say something not otherwise possible, to face an aspect of him/herself, an empty chair representing that is used.
We  will not go into the classic empty chairs, like the Siege Perilous at King Arthur's Round Table supposed to be reserved for the Perfect Knight (eventually filled by Galahad, I believe.) Nor the empty chair saved for Elijah at the Passover Seder (plus an empty wineglass, although I'm not sure of that.)
No, the point for me is not the politics involved. Given the way most politicians avoid answering questions anyway, an empty chair may be an apt metaphor for everyone concerned. But the way so many today are answering questions here without knowing a coherent answer (nor, to be fair, what question is being asked), it should come as no surprise that they end up talking to an empty chair.

Excuses

We all make 'em. We know we shouldna hadna done it, but we can't let  ourselves be wrong, so we come up with 'em.
Excuses. Rationalizations. Whatever you want to call 'em. (My brother-in-law, who is a cop in Baltimore, won't tolerate 'em: "That's an explanation," he tells the driver who just ran a red light and is trying to talk his way out of it, "An explanation, not an excuse!") We may or may not believe what we are saying as the words come out of our mouths, but we have difficulty admitting we did something wrong. Or, more exactly, that we did something wrong and got caught! 
So we park in that handicapped spot because we'll only be a minute. Or we push our loaded grocery cart into the Express Lane (12 Items Only) because all the other check-out lanes are so long. On a more serious level, we get verbally, even physically abusive with someone because they just don't seem to want to listen. We leave our dog (worse, our child!) in a boiling hot car while we run in to the store for a few things.
Most of the time, if we stop and think, we realize that we should be more considerate, less rushed. But in our pressured society (and that pressure comes from ourselves), we never stop and have little time to think. Except in the aftermath, when we are able to be incredibly creative in reasons why we aren't to blame.
Yes, there are some who believe their own excuses. That's why they call 'em rationalizations, 'cause they're so, um, rational! But such are also those who go through life never accepting responsibility, never seeing the places where personal growth is necessary. 
For most of us, we need to use  those Three Little Words more often. Oh, not those; they're important, but I was talking about: I was wrong!

What Are We Fighting For?

Many years ago (oh! so many!) a conference I was attending faced a decision on a controversial issue. (So long ago I can't remember what issue, nor which side I was on.) The person who was pushing this particular issue was memorable, if only because he was so abrasive.  And, no, he was not me. But as his various attempts to get his motion(s) went down in flames, he became more and more desperate and, hence, pitiable. By the end, if he had not been so outraged and angry, he would have been in tears. He  pleaded with the delegates at the conference to give him some small token, however meaningless, so he could return to his supporters and comfort them with that vestige of victory.
Alas, he was denied even that.
Today our public discourse has been reduced to a similar level of seeking complete and utter dominance. Unlike my friends the Quakers, where decisions are based on seeking consensus and common ground, decisions today are focused on winning and losing. If you ain't fer us, you'se agin us.
In other words, power. Control. The other guy must submit, totally and even willingly. If not, that person must be forced into subservience and obeisance.
Yes,  there are important issues today and they need to be addressed openly and honestly. But too often today, the debaters in the public square descend to arguments that could be summed up on a bumpersticker. (And not a very nice one, at that!) This is not the sort of sincere dialog that one should expect, but children arguing on the playground. If you can't answer your opponent's argument, then cast slurs upon him or her (the more personal the better). Or try to out-shout your opponent. If all else fails, resort to violence.
It is possible to take opposing views seriously. And sometimes to recognize that a valid idea might come from someone you disagree with on everything else. Yes, admitting that you could be wrong on this or that does not make you a lesser person. In other words, we do not have to take complete, total, unquestionable control over everything.
That's God's job.

And After the Silence...

Shoulda known better. Just after that glorious day of sailing when all was quiet and serene, my next time out was not so good. Oh yes, it was still wonderful (Any time out on the water is wonderful.) But we had barely got out there than the breeze died, and we had to use the motor to get us back...
Still, it caused me to ponder (as what does not?) Too often we seek those times and  places of silence, and then don't do anything about it. The stillness becomes a place to escape to, rather than a harbor out of which to sail.
It has been observed that action and faith must be yoked. Yes, we need those moments when we can be still and know God, those passing experiences of the divine. But sooner or later we must come down from the mountaintop and put that inspirational catharsis to use.
Much as works without faith are just empty sounds without sense or meaning, signifying nothing (with apologies to Shakespeare), so our avocations of faith without visible evidence are merely mouth-noises. Never mind what you say you believe, I need you to show me what you are doing about it!
Too often, clients come in without anything that brings meaning to life. Never mind what it might be, or if I would agree/approve/understand. Such are going through life without a sense of direction or purpose. They are like sailboats when the wind was gone, and they are thrown back on waiting for a breeze, or giving in and limping back to the dock via their little diesel engine.
Yes, there are periods in everyone's life when some new direction arises, and we set off on a divergent course. Times when some new insight points us to port or starboard, calling for a new setting of the sails. Times when it is only a matter of minutes before that fresh coastal breeze comes along and off we go again. But we can also choose what we believe, and what we intend to do about it, the same way some sailors contrive to keep moving regardless of the whims of Aeolus (that's the god of the winds, to you.)
So what do you believe? And what are you doing about it?

Sound of Silence

The sailboat needs a motor to push it out of the harbor, past the bridge and into the channel and finally open sea. Then the captain and crew raise the sails and turn the boat over to the winds. And for however long the boat stays out until it is decided to head back in, there is silence. Oh yes, there is the rush of the water past the hull, and the gentle shush of the air against the sails and perhaps quiet talk between those on  board. But in a world where is always background noise of a motor, cars rushing past, someone playing music much too loudly, being out on the water is a blessed moment of stillness.
When was the last quiet moment you had? There seems to be a human  need for such, whether it be an organized silent retreat or a few minutes of meditation alone. Yet at the same time, many become very uncomfortable with silence, even deliberating seeking something to dis spell it at quickly as possible.
Granted, some silence is manipulative and unwelcome: the person who refuses to respond to an urgent question, the child who deals with fear by withdrawing into silence, the abuser who uses silence an a tool for intimidation. But most will starting talking about something, anything, in the face of  a silence. Or they will turn on music, take sudden interest in some side attraction, do something outrageous to fill that awful silence.
What could  be so frightening about silence? Could it be that we will be brought face to face with something in ourselves we have covered over by noise? Or maybe we will feel a loss of control when we come up against that most uncontrollable force, silence. When things get silent, we are pushed back into ourselves, and whatever we might find there.
That is why psychotherapy so often calls on the therapist to be silent. Freud called the silence of the therapist the "greatest gift" of therapy, as it sent the client into necessary inner work. Of course, it assumes the therapist knows how to shut up!
And it helps to have moments of silence, on a sailboat or elsewhere!

Things Ain't What They Used To Be

Among the many interesting things that show up on Facebook lately is a nostalgic game, where some obscure object or person is captioned, "Who/what is this? Click 'Like' if you know." The people are mostly old television personalities; the objects can be everything from a potato masher to a boot scraper. They are from the era of the baby-boomers (my people).
Two reactions: some people have way too much time on their hands (but then, they're on Facebook, so isn't that a given?) At the same time, it is interesting that so many have become so fascinated in things of the past. Call it nostalgia, call it escapism, call it a resistance to change; it is still living today while remaining fixated on yesterday.
And not just any memory, but those good ones where we knew what would happen next. The painful ones, the losses, the difficult times, they are glossed over as we luxuriate in the comfortable times when everything was just fine.
The problem with these Good Old Days is that they never really existed. Our memories of growing up have been carefully edited by our minds to tone down the painful moments, to forget the failures, to make each of us the star, the hero of our particular life story. Yes, there may have been times in our past when things seemed simpler, choices were easier, and worry was not really an option. But those were days when we simply didn't know how complex, how challenging life could be. When we had grown-ups to take care of us, when we had a world bound only by getting through the day.
We didn't know, and wouldn't have cared if we did know, about people living during those same Good Old Days whose experience would not be anything to look back upon fondly. The people of color who wouldn't be served at some of those soda fountains we remember. The low income people who couldn't afford that television set to watch the programs we remember. The children whose family was a place full of shouting and physical abuse rather than the place full of love and care we remember.
Yes, we can draw strength and comfort from our memories when today becomes difficult. But we have to make sure that we don't make yesterday, a yesterday that may never have been, preferable to today. Things may not be the way they used to be, but then they never were.

Forget It

More and more doctors have begun a reminder practice. Assuming that clients need that little nudge (which is too often necessary), they have a policy of calling the day before an appointment to remind someone of the appointment time the next day. Yes, some of us never did have the memory retention necessary, so that call may be a sudden jolt, but still helpful.
Despite the implication that most, if not all, lack the responsibility to keep track of obligations, the reality is that the most common excuse given for not showing up is "I forgot." Of course, this can mean many different things  depending on the context.
(1) I forgot because I made this appointment in a moment of crisis, but now the crisis is past. So I really don't want to deal with the stuff that caused the crisis, until the next time.
(2)I forgot because I realized it would cost something (the co-pay at least) and I don't have enough. Which is part of my problem to begin with.
(3) I forgot because I didn't want to make an  appointment to begin with. But my mother/spouse/friend pressured me so I made the appointment just to shut 'em up.
(4) I forgot because it means I have to face my problems, and when I get this anxious and depressed I just ignore everything and expect it to go away. (Sort of a problem preventing its own solution.)
(5) I forgot because I tend to put everyone and everything else before myself. So not only does this mean I have to focus on me, it means I have to let all the other demands aside. And there is always another's need, another's problem that comes first.
(6) I forgot because I don't remember making the appointment to begin with. I called when I was high or drunk or just traumatized by the awful things that have happened.
There are other reasons/excuses, and each are quite serious and sincere. The spouse who makes the appointment for marital counseling but subsequently finds that it is futile to try to put Humpty-Dumpty together again. The client who is looking for a particular sort of therapist who can solve all problems quickly and easily. The one who waits until the marriage is almost burned down  before agreeing that some improvements would be good.
Hence the reminders. My attitude is that the people who call are adults, responsible adults, and  I will not infantilize  them  by chasing after them to make sure they show up for their appointments. Yes, it might mean some clients never do show, but I would rather that than having to pursue clients who make appointment after appointment, only to blow each of them off.
Still, it would be nice if people had better memories...

No Help At All

He terminated therapy after several months of hit-and-miss appointments. Sure, in the beginning, he was always there, but as time went by, he would show up later and later. Or he would call at the last minute with some crisis preventing him from being there. (Once he called from a class which was running longer than he'd expected!) Finally he announced that he wouldn't come any more, as he felt  the sessions were not helpful. Oh well, at least he came for an appointment to tell me...
It would seem obvious that not every therapist can help every client. People can be quite particular and even sophisticated in who and what they are looking for in a therapist. Some have had  numerous therapists, and they are willing to move on if they feel the current one does not measure up. They may not be completely clear as to just what exactly they seek, but they seem quite sure if this therapist is not it.
And then there are those clients who come, not for themselves, but for someone else. The abusive alcoholic angry spouse or partner who is told (by the court if not the spouse): therapy or else! The grown child still living with parents who is pushed into therapy with the need to find out what he/she will be when grown-up. The couple coming with each expecting the solution lies  in the other person changing.
Of course there is the financial aspect. People come because their employer tells them: you need help, and your job is on the line. They come under their Employee Assistance Plan, where they pay nothing for the sessions and obviously think it worth every penny.
And there is the religious issue.  Because I am a pastoral psychotherapist, people come to me expecting something like they would get from their pastor. But even there, the spectrum is wide, from beating them over the head with the  Bible to prayer and meditation. Yes, there are some clergy with the necessary skills to handle some short-term issues, and they know when to refer someone.
It is still a sense of loss  on the therapist's part when help was not possible. As suggested above, that may have little to with the therapist. But a good therapist wants to help, and it does no good to realize intellectually that no one can help everyone.
Which doesn't stop you from trying!

Troll

Troll: (1) (n) disruptive individual on a website, blog, chatroom who deliberately causes problems, writes insulting or otherwise inappropriate things.
(2)(n) fairy tale creature, dangerous, often found under bridges used by goats, especially of the gruff sort
(3)(v) to fish by running a fishing line behind a moving boat
(4)(v) to seek out companionship from another by moving from location to location at a party or bar
(5)(v) to move about constantly at a social gathering in an attempt to be sure everyone else is having a good time.
Now, boys and girls, for extra  credit, can you tell me how this one word accumulated such dissimilar meanings?
I must admit, the last is totally new to me, courtesy of a client, and has the most disturbing implications (except that one about the terrible creature under the bridge, and then mostly if you're a goat). Why do we get caught up in the trap of thinking that others' happiness is our responsibility? Maybe if we were the host or hostess at some elaborate party, we might have some cause to be concerned that our guests were happy. But this is more about our need to have everything happening the way we want.
Sure, sometimes it has to do with the co-dependents' focus on another's happiness over their own. What we are talking about here, this variation on "trolling," is making sure our expectations are met; in a word: control. 
When people do not show up at our events (regardless of reason/excuse), it becomes a personal rejection. When they do not enjoy/appreciate our efforts to have everything go well, we see it as our own failure. And the typical response is not to look for the causes (which might have nothing to do with us), but simply to double down on our efforts to make sure the same things go better next time!
The possibility that there might be nothing that could be done never occurs to us, is not acceptable to us.
Expectation is a cruel mistress, and we get stuck in a vicious circle: we set (unrealistic) goals, then feel a failure, so we set the bar higher for the next time. Only when we are able to accept what is, rather than what we expected to be, and enjoy the here and now, can we conquer the troll.

Bully

It started with a death, as these things often do. A quiet, shy young man committed suicide following harassment from a schoolmate. It was not the first such nor the worst, Yet it has led to too-little-too-late endeavors to keep it from happening again.
One of the biggest issues today in different sectors of society is bullying. In schools, in work,  even in some religious groups, anti-bullying is taken seriously and programs to prevent it or deal with it when it happens are increasingly common.
As a former victim of bullies when I was a boy in school, I can appreciate the sentiment to protect the people in this world who can't or won't fight back. In my case, it had a lasting effect on the way I live my life. But I suspect that, as is so often the case, deeper issues are not being talked about.
When I came home crying after some bully had verbally or physically attacked me, I was admonished to be a Man! Never mind that the bullies were bigger, stronger and more in number, the proper response was supposed to be: fight back! (I got too many lickings by trying.) So I learned that the proper response to a problem was violence, aggression. (Note: Aggression is not the same as Assertion!) And when I chose to find another, gentler way to deal with my problems, my opponents chose to stigmatize this as weak and unacceptable. Never mind that it plays a major role in my faith, they still could not accept the alternative of vulnerability. Ironically, these are the same people who claim to be Christian!
But there is still another issue here: too often the quiet young man who is the victim of bullies is seen as being gay (sometimes rightly so, sometimes not). And there are authority figures even today who defend bullying as merited as a way to deal with homosexuality. We will not go into the psychological issues of why a person secure in their own sexuality would find it necessary to fight off someone else's. The fact is that some today still follow that old mantra: be a Man!

Where?

One of the characteristics of my Celtic ancestors was a strong sense of place! As a tour guide back in Scotland once told me, "Yes, we know some of our stories didn't happen, but at least we know where they didn't happen!"
Unlike most of modern society today with the obsession on time (when did it happen? how long until until it will happen? how long did it last when it happened?), the peoples of the Celts were more concerned with where. They had a certainty that such-and-such a location was actually and obviously fuller of the presence of the divine than another location. They called them "thin" places, for there the veil between the everyday and the numinous was less substantial, "thinner."
Today we have few spaces that we recognize as sacred. Such need not be overtly religious or spiritual (although they may well be), but they still are places we feel closer to the divine. And if we select individually a place (even if only in memory) that we knew we were walking on holy ground, then there is our very own "thin" place.
So why are we in such a rush to commercialize, pave over, homogenize the world around us? Why do we need another building that will only be torn down to build another building?
The first time I walked on the isle of Iona, I knew that this little island off the west coast of Scotland was special, and it gives me, even at this great distance, a sense of grounding. Do you have someplace that does that for you? A  place you can return to, even if only in memory, that lets you know the divine is in that place?
So rather than rushing from place to place worrying that you might not be in time, pause and consider where you are rushing to. Because when we arrive where we were supposed to be, we will know it, and never leave.

How to Help

Another heart-rending request came in today. Because I am on so many referral sites on-line, I get phone calls or e-mails all the time, and sometimes I can help. Aaaand sometimes not. (There ain't that many therapists providing out-patient mental health for low- or no-income clients, folks!) Since I am not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, I offer a sliding-scale fee, but even there many can't afford the minimum on that scale.
So, occasionally, I do therapy pro bono, which means I don't charge at all. Uh, very occasionally! But there are those I wish I could help, and just can't afford to.
I went into this line of work so I could be there for people at their point of greatest need. And I learned very quickly that, besides those whom I am just not capable of helping, there are those whose need is so great, or those who don't really want to be helped, as well as those who very problem prevents them from accepting the help they need (like a question preventing its own answer)!
So when this woman writes for help for someone who has been refused disability, has no income, can't drive, my human response is I want to help! Then I take a step back, calm my breathing, and know that (1)this person has more needs  than I could handle, (2) the cost would be too much, (3) it was the friend who contacted me, and that disabled person needs to be the one to show enough commitment to call me himself.
Okay, okay, I come across as callous, even to me. And the money should not be that big a deal. Although, in our society today, we tend to measure worth by cost: anything that's free is worth every penny!
But then the bigger picture hits me: why is the need for mental health coverage so lousy for those who have only Medicare or Medicaid, or even nothing at all? Those much-maligned street people wandering downtown, carrying on conversations with themselves, are there because they are given vestigial care consisting of fifteen minutes every couple of months to renew their prescription for meds they may or may not be taking.
No, I have no answers to that question, either. I do my little best, but sometimes I feel as though I were trying to bail out the ocean with a teaspoon.
Maybe we are looking at a tectonic shift in perception of people in need. Excuse me while I give a cynical scoff.

Love and death

Would you die for someone you love?
Yes of course, that is the whole point of Jesus' death on the Cross, to show how much God loves us. And I would hope that most parents would make such a sacrifice to rescue their child. But on a more general scale, how many of us would do something that radical for the sake of love? Would you, or you, or even, yes, you, die just a little for another?
We seem to have fewer hesitations when it comes to violent reprisal upon someone who hurts the ones we love. When those gentlemen (ahem) broke in and slaughtered the Pettit family, the general consensus, lead by the good Doctor Pettit , was: string 'em up! I will not get distracted by the whole  debate over capital punishment(although here's a hint: I'm agin it), but stay on message. Are we willing to love anyone so much that we are willing even to go the last step for them?
It might seem, on first blush, as though love and death would be polar opposites. Again, scripture tells us that love conquers death. But too often we get them enmeshed. So many fear love because they fear the potential of loss, of giving up some part of ourselves however large or small, important or unimportant,that will have to be let go.
Wait, that last part seems backward: are those who fear love because they fear loss really afraid of losing the one they love- or losing something of themselves? Do they resist conceding any part of themselves even in the face of gaining something that might make them more complete than before?
There are many ways that we can let go for the sake of another. It could be something as minor as what movie you both go to, or what to have for dinner. Or it could be something like where you will live, or where you will work, or how many children you have (if any).
For some, giving in on even small things is dying a little. For some, he (usually he) will continue to live the same way regardless of another person's  needs and preferences. Maybe these people's self-esteem is so fragile that even a small shift seems life-threatening.
Of course, there are those at the other end of the spectrum. For her (usually her), any sort of personal need is readily discarded in a (vain) attempt to keep the other happy. And it is catastrophic when it turns out that Humpty-Dumpty cannot be put together again for the hundredth time, no matter what concessions are made.
The alternative is to stop trying to die for love. When we are able to realize that such measures aren't necessary for others to know our love, and for them to love us, then we can go on from there. We can live for love.

Clueless

There are so many issues around today it is hard to keep track of all the things we are supposed to be upset about!
Thanks to the internet, the 24-hour news channels, the other forms of social media that are growing exponentially, we are bombarded with disaster, tragedy, scandal and manipulation minute after minute (and then there's Fox News!) Even if we are able, by massive endeavor, to keep up with those issues that we care about, there are still those additional concerns tapping us on the shoulder for our attention. And when we have to set limits, draw boundaries, turn away from the Issue of The Day (which is how long most them last or are remembered), we have to deal with our own guilt for doing something!
There is a story about a Sister who was sent to India as a missionary. Soon after she arrived, she found an infant on her doorstep. Obviously, someone knew a religious would take pity on the child. But the next day, there was another baby on the doorstep. And the day after that! Finally, the good Sister turned to an experienced missionary: what she do about these children? The missionary thought about it and then told her.
Ignore the babies.
The actual parents would still be there and would see what happened, and the word would go out to the community. There were other resources they could call upon. There were other ways to handle babies that needed more than the parents could provide. But, in the meantime, the Sister would have to make a tough choice and do what she had been sent to do, rather than dealing with all these babies  she was neither equipped to deal with nor experienced enough to take care of.
I am not suggesting that we should be callous and not care for those in need. If anything, the need is greater than it has been in a long time, and some who might be helping seem to be looking for ways to cut back. But for those of us already trying to handle so many issues (issues not ours personally), we need to decide what is important to us, and how much we can do.
This should not be an excuse to avoid doing what we can do, nor to limit what we already do. It means being aware of what is possible.

Misspoken

I almost feel sorry for the poor dope.
Almost everyone has seen the video- gone viral many times over- of the North Caroline pastor of one of the non-denominational megachurches that have sprouted like fungi all over the place,  Charles Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church, who is preaching an old-fashioned hellfire and brimstone sermon. During this homily (if that gentle word is appropriate), he offers his solution (Final Solution?) to the issue of homosexuality: put all the lesbians in a concentration camp-style barbed wire enclosure, and the gay men in a similar separate one, and just leave them there until they die! Oh sure, he proposes regular food drops by airplane, but it would essentially be a prison.
The instinctive response of most would be (I hope) revulsion and fear, regardless of sexual orientation. And attempts to get interviews for another view from the man's congregation just make it worse: a parishioner who seems just as hostile and unloving and defensive as that pastor must be (the video of the  sermon was taken down the day after it was discovered by less involved people.)
But I have seen things from the other side of the pulpit. And while I would never spill out such bile (I hope!), I know I have said some things in a sermon- not quite of this caliber,  to be sure!- which hindsight suggests to me I shouldna said. It is, alas, all too easy to let your mouth get ahead of your brain or your heart.
Does this mean I would let this pastor off the hook? Not by a damn sight!
But it does mean that not all the foolish people should be made into some sort of lesser creature.  Simply because this man (and his congregation) are dehumanizing a large part of the population doesn't mean that we should do the same to them out of our outrage.
So the suggestion that someone has made is so good: make a contribution to the gay-rights organization of your choice- in this pastor's name! That's Charles Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church (I recommend Human Rights Campaign, an organization I support.) I understand a significant amount has already been given, and I remember the scriptural injunction to love your enemies. Besides, it drives 'em nuts!

Perfectly Unclear

It was that radical journalist H.L. Mencken who once said something to the effect that for every problem there is a solution that is quick, easy, obvious- and wrong!
Of course, that doesn't stop us from opting for the simplest solution, does it? I know a woman (ahem!) who walked around for several days taking stomach remedies before she checked with a doctor and found she had appendicitis! Sometimes we just don't want to deal with reality, and would rather put up with all the pain and inconvenience rather that face what we fear.
So clients come to me and are frustrated because their problem is not cured in just one 45-minute session. Maybe it is because people are used to going to their medical doctor and walking out with a prescription that will make them all better. Or it may be us clinicians under the sway of money-conscious insurance companies who feel we have to settle everything within the limited number of sessions given us.
Now, even Freud realized that psychotherapy did not tie up everything in a neat package with no loose ends; he talked about people reaching the level of a "livable neurosis." But he was not pretending to have the Answer in just 10 brief sessions. Nor should we think that a treatment plan holds the keys to life, the universe and everything. 
Maybe it is time to stop confusing Brief Therapy with being more focused and efficient and admit we are simply encouraging people to deal only with the Crisis of the Week rather than the deeper issues causing the problems. It leads to Serial Therapy, with clients returning over and over like someone stuck in a revolving door. It actually encourages dependency on the therapist who can make everything better, rather than treating clients as adults who are able to live the full lives they want.

Love and Like

We have been duped by "happily ever after."
Too often people fall in love and plan on going off into the sunset together, "happily ever after." Whether it is from watching too much television or other overexposure to fairy tales, the assumption is that love will conquer all and anything about the other which is unlikeable will be resolved (within an hour or half-hour including time for commercials.)
And maybe that might be possible, but the divorce statistics cast doubt on that. Couples who have married their True Love return from the honeymoon and discover that those annoying habits so easily overlooked before have grown in scope and importance. Yes, you may still love him or her, but you don't like 'em a lot!
We are not talking here about what I call the Jekyll-and-Hyde  syndrome, where a person deliberately conceals  an ugly behavior in order to deceive another. Abusers, alcoholics, others of that type will seem quite nice and even lovable during the courtship, but then become totally different once saying "I do." Yes, that is an issue, but no, I'm talking about something much more common: how can you love someone you don't like? Or conversely, if you don't like someone, should you love them?
We have made the whole issue too monolithic and  cut-and-dried. Even with those we don't like, there is some redeeming factors that we do like. We can handle that in reverse: when we do like someone, we are willing to tolerate those quirks that we are all too aware of. But first we have to accept the reality that it is possible to love someone and  not like everything about them.
"Love" and "like" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it helps if we do like the one we love. Friends make the best lovers, and vice versa. But that does not mean we  need to put up with those things we hate in the people we love. It just means that those times when we don't like someone very much, we can still love them.
All  this is much more work than just giving up on the whole thing. It means deciding if the person is really as  important to us as our heart tells us. It means hanging on when the most important person in your life is driving you crazy. It means recognizing those things in the other you value, and like.
Sorry, there is  no "happily ever after." But there is "happily today."

The Following Is Not A Political Advertisement!

Yes, it was a brave if foolhardy thing to do, coming out as President Obama just did in favor of gay marriage. Of course, after the vote down South, it might well have been expected, passing an amendment to their state constitution that marriages (even civil unions) were to be only between a man and a woman. How many voted for Amendment One (as it was known) out of their own values and beliefs and how many voted that way as a form of taunting the current administration? In other words, how many voters really understood what they were voting for rather than what they were told they were voting for?
Those who cry out against gay marriage try to frame it as the preservation of marriage itself. Which would seem to imply that, if that choice were generally available, people would desert straight marriage as an institution in droves in favor of homosexual unions.
It is especially bizarre because homosexuals are stereotyped as promiscuous, flittering from one shallow sexual encounter to the next. But when these same people dare to talk of love and commitment to one another, that is somehow not acceptable either. Never mind the pain and anguish gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender folks go through finding someone they want to spend the rest of their lives with, especially because it is even more complicated than the mating rituals of the straight. We would consign them to a "damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't" status where we can assume whatever superior posture we like in regard to their frantic search for happiness.
I am, of course, not addressing the real issue behind such homophobia; in my line of work we call it "homosexual panic." When someone reacts so strongly to someone else's sexual orientation, it often is because of fear. Fear of the Other, fear that we might feel something, fear that, given the right time and place and our own  mood, we might...
Yes, there are those who are coming from a thought-out, faith-based perspective. Never mind that they are just as wrong as the gay-baiting homophobes. The trouble arises, not where they begin in sincerity and honesty, but where they end up, with shrill condemnations of others who are doing no harm to them.
No, we won't go into the sufferings of those who are asking for nothing more than an equal place to stand. Beatings, suicides, alienation of family and friends, that all deserves fuller attention another time. Nor am I talking for or against the current presidency; the frothing-at-the-mouth of some in that discussion are a whole 'nother thing, too.
But I can't help but consider the issues behind the issues here.

Moneymoneymoneymoney

Ya know you can make a small fortune in this line of work? You start with a large fortune...
Too much these days is being measured by the financial yardstick. How much will it cost? Will it make a profit? And, goodnessgraciousheavenstomurgatroyd (as my daddy would say), be sure there's no debt involved!
Which of course, immediately eliminates lots of things worth doing but do not carry a balanced budget. I'm no expert in finances (that's fer sure!) (get out of my head, Dad!) but I realize that some things can't be evaluated by a balance sheet.
What is the price of a sunset? Give me the cost of love. Tell me the way you can price the good feeling that comes from helping someone in need. How do we figure out the budget on a hug or a kiss?
But we get so caught up in things, which have a clear value attached and which we can measure and weigh and know the worth of the result. This is vending-machine thinking; we put in our money and expect to get concrete answers.
But some questions, as the poet Rainer Maria Rilke put it, don't have answers. We just have to live the questions, he wrote to a young would-be poet. And some things are worthwhile no matter the cost.

What You Say...

Don't laugh, but there was a time when I dreamed of becoming a journalist/ Yup, a reporter. Most kids want to something like a cowboy or a firefighter or an astronaut, but me, I wanted to grow up to be a newshawk. And given the job market for same as well as the status of newspapers...
But it gave me a lasting sensitivity to the way things are expressed. What is actually said can be drastically different depending on the way you say it. I remember the famous scene from the western The Virginian where a friend calls the hero an insulting name and the hero laughs it off. But when an enemy uses the exact same word, our hero snarls the immortal words, "When you say that, smile!"
People today will often say one thing and the way it is said says its opposite. One time a pastor of a conservative Christian church showed this when he was preaching on the love of God. He leaned forward in the pulpit and,  with a look of absolute abhorrence, spat out, "God loves you!" How many people in that congregation must have recoiled with the thought, "Thanks anyway, not interested!"
How often do parents unthinkingly tell their child as they punish the kid, "This hurts me more than it hurts you"?
And many are not even aware of how they come across. They perceive themselves as caring, even compassionate, as they say vicious, self-serving words. Their actions put the lie to the words they say. I might see myself as determined and committed, but someone else experiences me as rigid and inflexible.
This is why e-mail and other forms of cybercommunication, which strips away the frills and other furbelows we use to cover our naked words, can seem so stark. Our anger, our fear, our confusion stand obvious for all to see. We do not always catch this, as we hear the words in our heads as we write. But when a correspondent reacts not to what we thought we wrote, but what actually appeared on the computer screen, we can be dumfounded to have someone reacting to us in a way that puzzles us.

Happily Ever After

It came to me while I was counseling with this wonderful gay couple. They have been together many years, and it is obvious they love each other and are committed to each other. Sure, they can drive each other crazy, but that can be the mark of a real relationship; the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy.
Still, they have chosen not to marry, even though it is legal in this state.
Yes, they have their reasons: if no marriage, no danger of divorce. Sure, there are pertinent legal reasons for making their long-standing commitment legal (if something happens to one, the other would not only lose a loved one, but all claim on inheritance- hell, he couldn't even visit him in the hospital!) but there are other ways around that- wills, insurance, so forth.
Still, they have made this decision, and I need to honor that. Even though I am a strong believer in marriage (and even though I am not gay), I think I can understand where they, and many other gay men and lesbian women (not to mention bisexuals and transgenders), are coming from.
When California passed that awful Prop. 8 against gay marriage, one of the largest groups voting for it were homosexuals. At the time I put it down to typical commitment-phobia. But then I realized that I was judging a group from my own perspective.
For a long time, gay couples may have been deeply committed to each other, but they had their own way of living that out. In fact, some gay couples stay together longer than straight couples (last statistic: almost one out of two heterosexual marriages; higher if a second or third.) But they have a way to make it work. Maybe we straights need to take a few hints?
It is human nature not to change something that works. So it should not be surprising if a whole subculture resists even a change that would seem in its best interests, a change it fights long and hard for and even begins to achieve.
I am not trying to be negative on gay marriage. In fact, if there is a Certain Someone in the audience, I hope she would take a hint! But the heterosexual community seems to sending a confusing message: you should be married/you shouldn't be married. And the gay community (which is not some monolithic group anyway) may hesitate to fix something they ain't sure is broken!

Gotta Be Right

It goes way back, this need to have things our way. As infants, we are self-centered as much from survival instincts as from our narcissistic tendencies. One of the first steps in child development is our ability to distinguish ourselves from the rest of the world, to deal with the others around us as separate from us.
But there are grown-ups today (see, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt) who still act as though the world revolved around them. Charming people, some of 'em, with a self-assurance and confidence that is quite alluring. They can be found in the arts, running businesses and especially in politics. (In fact I suspect that's part of the job description for politicians.)
These are the people (you know who you are!) who are never wrong. And when they are, it is someone else's fault. If fact, they react to being found wrong by doubling down and becoming wrong at the top of their lungs! The trouble is not with these charming people, but the collateral damage they leave in their wake: the abused, confused, misused folk who feel vaguely guilty and ashamed just for being in the path of such forces of nature! And that doesn't even take into consideration those who respond by taking on the mistaken doctrines of their abusers: the woman who defends her alcoholic abusive husband, the young person molested by an adult they still idolize, the soldier who, even after several tours of duty and traumatic experiences, tries to justify the mistaken military policy that put so many in harm's way.
The important step is to embrace our own errors, to admit that I might be wrong, you might be right. Sure, there are certain beliefs in everyone's life which end up as non-negotiable. But even there, can we accept that someone else can see things differently without being personally threatened by it, by needing to either convert them or eradicate them just so such a difference is no longer a dissonance in our world?
Of course, that's just my view. I could be wrong.

The Proper Beliefs

There has been a lot of ink spilt over Freedom of Religion, especially in the wake of the recent decision on contraception. What, you don't know it? Well, see the White House decided that contraception (that's birth-control  medication to you) would be made available under health insurance policies to all women, even those who worked at Roman Catholic organizations. But after the cardinals frowned upon this, the White House revised this, and said that the health insurance policies for the employees at such places would simply offer this as an option. This way, it would be up to each individual female employee to take advantage of this part of the health insurance policy. Most Roman Catholic officials were willing to accept the compromise, although bishops still frowned.
Then some politicians, especially those for whom President Obama could do nothing good, grabbed hold of this and lo and behold! the whole thing was really about Freedom of Religion. Not about an individual's right to get the medical help necessary, y'see, but a nefarious plot against all Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic church in particular. The United States Circus, uh, Congress even held a side show with clowns and such; a hearing on women's issues where only men spoke and one woman who tried to testify was not only refused but later publicly maligned and pilloried by still another clown.
The thing that has been missing in all this is that there are already laws on the books regarding certain limits: the banning of polygamy for Mormons, the required use of transfusions for Jehovah's Witnesses, the restriction of faith healing with many conservative groups. Or say some person believes all illness is caused by demonic possession, and denies someone the medical care they need, well that can be charged as murder, not Freedom of Religion.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote about the separation of church and state to those Baptists over in Danbury, he wasn't trying to abrogate the role of ethics in civil discourse, nor  to excuse people of faith from being accountable to the society around them. We also draw consciously or otherwise on our beliefs in whatever we do as individuals. But let us not claim discrimination because others will not accept our particular perspective on our particular beliefs. To paraphrase somebody or other, I may not agree with your views, but I will defend to the death your right to be a heretic!

What are you so mad about?

Everyone has 'em: the pet peeve, the hot button, the trigger that makes us howl at the elements like King Lear. It could be something big that pushes us out into the streets to march and chant and wave signs; it could be something seemingly insignificant that throws us into the dungeon of despair while everyone around can only guess at our mood. "Anger management" has become a common expression in so many forms, from the requirements of the courts to the human resource departments of many businesses.
It takes many forms as well. From the viciousness of a political campaign (fill in the candidate of your choice) to the road rage of the everyday rush hour, anger has becomes the commonest, if not the most socially permitted of emotions. Whether we are talking about the twisted criminal who tortures and kills or the well-intentioned (but bigoted) citizen who thinks the different is dangerous, anger is now more visible generally than, well, since we all had a common enemy we could join in demonizing and vilifying like the Nazis or the communists.
Anger, like all emotions, is not logical, so all the well-meaning pundits who point out the irrationality of these angry people miss the point. Rather than refuting their point of view logically, we need to find out the root cause of their anger.
Anger is what is known as a "secondary emotion." We are born with certain basic survival-based emotions: fear, love, hunger. Then, as we grow older, emotions become more complex. That's where anger comes in; we get angry based on a primary emotion. Think about it: we don't just get angry. We get angry because. When we are scared, when we are feeling unloved, when we have been rejected, then we get angry. We might not be willing to admit it, even to ourselves at first. But when we are forced to face that empty place inside of ourselves, we resent it and, sometimes, resist. In other words, we get angry.
But what about those almost instinctual, even instant, feelings? That person you dislike almost immediately after you meet? Well, let me introduce you to your doppelganger, someone who is close enough to you to be well-nigh your twin in certain ways. But this man or woman personifies those aspects of yourself you least like, resist even acknowledging to yourself you have. Carl Jung called it your shadow.
And sometimes the other represents something you have been fascinated by, but fought valiantly against. The homophobic person may be struggling with latent (or not-so-latent) homosexual urges. The person obsessed with success and earning money may have a deep fear of failure, and shows it by a nasty attitude toward low-income people.
Please understand: I am not saying anger is bad  per se. Like any other feeling, anger is not intrinsically good or bad. Like any other feeling, it is what we do with it that matters. But that's another story.