There has been more said about truth and its difference from falsehood than has been considered in a long time. This has been exacerbated by the presence of a newly post-factual world, where excuses, denial and even outright insistence that it is the truth,so what! are more and more common.
But let us be real: people lie! People have turned from truth in varying ways since Adam tried to cover the truth about that apple. In some communities of faith,there is even a liturgical way for someone to confess deceit and falsehood, and be forgiven for it.
And at the same time we almost expect the lie, even feel a thrill about the supposed revelations offered us. (Exhibit A: the tabloids, and even more the click-bait headlines on the internet.) Perhaps it is a residue of childhood when the grownups would keep things from us (in the justifiable reason of protecting us), perhaps it is our current rapidly-changing society where a need to know what is going on has become essential (if perhaps futile.)
But we are facing a different issue today. People in authority, for a variety of reasons, seem to have declared war on truth. Not absolute truth, to be sure (even were that possible!) But simple, garden variety truth. Perhaps it comes from a time in their lives where they could say whatever without chance anyone might know the difference. Perhaps it comes from something deeper, a need to seem better, grander than others. Whatever the etiology, it leaves many feeling every feeling from frustration to anger.(And for some, a kinky sense of the ridiculous.akin to Monty Python's "Dead Parrot"skit.)
Some have compared this to Goebbel's Great Lie strategy. (If you repeat a lie often and seriously enough, people will begin to believe it)But it does challenge us to look at what we hold true, to insist the earth does go around the sun, that there is nothing really to be afraid of in the darkness, that trust (however risky) is still our best option. Because the truths long since held evident are still true
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Been There,Done That
Okay, it was pretentious and condescending of me. She had been through the trauma of homelessness personally, and I tried to make it seem as though I knew what it was like. After all, I have a career full of work with that population, establishing shelters and drop-in centers, providing free counseling, leading a low-income advocacy group. No, I have never been personally homeless, but...
She caught me up right away. If you have never been through something like that, don't think you know what it is like! Which is a more and more common point of view: don't assume you know what my life is like! Don't use your perspective as a lens to examine my experience!
And, as is usually true with absolutes, it's right, and it's wrong.
It is true that most realities are not transferable. A white person cannot really know (however well-meaning) what it is like to be a person of color. A straight person ends up projecting his or her own sexual anxieties and fantasies onto the LBGT community. And the American who has vacationed in another land can only have surface understanding of the ethnic, national and historical reality of that land.
But if we were to take this to the logical extreme, no one would have anything in common with anyone else. The doctor would be unable to diagnose or treat any medical problem not personally experienced. The actor would be unable to play any role but him or herself. Laws could not be passed, much less enforced, because the legislators cannot know our personal code of right and wrong.
At its most benign, this ends up being a form of tribalism, a drawing of boundaries to exclude all those we hate or fear. In Vermont, for example, the only residents considered "true" Vermonters not only had to have been born in Vermont; one's ancestors must have as well! In a more insidious example, Nazi Germany ruled that a Jew was anyone who had a drop of Jewish blood in his or her ancestry.
In a day when we strive for a balance between diversity and commonality, it is essential that we begin from a common place, a place where we all are of equal value, a place where difference does not mean division, a place where unity does mean uniformity. You may never really know my experience, nor I yours. But see that as an opportunity to share rather than an obstacle
She caught me up right away. If you have never been through something like that, don't think you know what it is like! Which is a more and more common point of view: don't assume you know what my life is like! Don't use your perspective as a lens to examine my experience!
And, as is usually true with absolutes, it's right, and it's wrong.
It is true that most realities are not transferable. A white person cannot really know (however well-meaning) what it is like to be a person of color. A straight person ends up projecting his or her own sexual anxieties and fantasies onto the LBGT community. And the American who has vacationed in another land can only have surface understanding of the ethnic, national and historical reality of that land.
But if we were to take this to the logical extreme, no one would have anything in common with anyone else. The doctor would be unable to diagnose or treat any medical problem not personally experienced. The actor would be unable to play any role but him or herself. Laws could not be passed, much less enforced, because the legislators cannot know our personal code of right and wrong.
At its most benign, this ends up being a form of tribalism, a drawing of boundaries to exclude all those we hate or fear. In Vermont, for example, the only residents considered "true" Vermonters not only had to have been born in Vermont; one's ancestors must have as well! In a more insidious example, Nazi Germany ruled that a Jew was anyone who had a drop of Jewish blood in his or her ancestry.
In a day when we strive for a balance between diversity and commonality, it is essential that we begin from a common place, a place where we all are of equal value, a place where difference does not mean division, a place where unity does mean uniformity. You may never really know my experience, nor I yours. But see that as an opportunity to share rather than an obstacle
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Crazy?
In the most recent tragedy down in South Carolina (and isn't sad we have to qualify it?), there has (again) been finger-pointing at mental illness as the central issue. Yes, of course, he was crazy, or (to paraphrase Lewis Carroll), he wouldn't have done it. But there is a problem with such an obvious observation.
- First of all, ascribing this tragedy just to mental illness paints anyone with any sort of psychological problem with the same stigma. When it is pointed out that one out of every four people has to deal with some form of emotional issue, and that covers everything from depression to psychosis, we get a different and less scary perspective. Actually, very few seriously mentally ill people are any risk to others. To themselves, perhaps. but they can be so scared of others they would avoid any contact sooner than seek them out to harm them.
- Second, this speaks far more to our own fears than it does to anything to do with those who struggle with mental illness. We see stories of phobias, delusions, loss of contact with reality (the vast minority in the field), and we worry that we might have something like this happen to us. We have a bad day, or even a bad year, and we feel as though we are going crazy, so someone like Dylann Storm Roof becomes a shadow we desperately want to pretend isn't there.
- Most important, the people who suddenly want to focus on mental health are more probably looking for an issue to distract us from looking at the self-evident causes for such tragedies. Racism. Guns. System-wide inequality. (Feel free to add anything I've overlooked.) I do not mean that mental health is not an important issue, nor to pretend someone like Mr. Roof isn't mentally disturbed. But when we focus on that one thing as the only motive, we tend to ignore the broader issues.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Forgive and forget?
"So I should pick and chose whom I should forgive?" she asked. It was another turn in what had been a complicated and difficult interchange between us. She has her own reasons for holding high the banner of forgiveness (which, after all, is an essential and central part of Christianity.) And she was asking (actually, I am paraphrasing her words) an important question: do we not follow a faith where unconditional and immediate forgiveness is expected of us?
The problem arises not in forgiveness, as tricky as that might be in itself. It is what we should do next, after forgiving. We can note that, whenever Jesus forgave, He always did so in context: go, but don't do it again. You got into this because you didn't know. Make reparations to those you have hurt. Get yourself back on a better spiritual path. In other words, Jesus put a sort of price tag on forgiveness: personal accountability
There wasn't anything He couldn't accept. The infamous "unforgivable sin" is commonly seen as one where the person saw no sin, did not see a need to be forgiven. He hung around sinners, tax collectors and other people frowned upon. In fact, He seemed to prefer their company.
But what of us? There are those who repeat the same dysfunctional patterns over and over and over. Yes, we are told to forgive "seventy times seven," a metaphoric number of that time for "infinite." But do we have something we cannot let go of? Many have wounds so deep they seem sure to never heal.
Saying we forgive in such situations may seem appropriate but not always realistic. To quote the Bard, "My prayers fly up, my thoughts remain below. Prayers without thoughts do not to heaven go." Or must forgiving and forgetting go together? What if we claim forgiveness, but forgetting remains out of reach?
And what if the one we must forgive denies any such? Or has passed beyond any point where direct forgiveness is moot?
Maybe we need to look differently at forgiveness? Maybe it need not be a way of absolving someone of what was done but a way of setting ourselves free? Too often forgiveness (as Jesus hinted in His Prayer) becomes a continuation of the same tug-of-war that that sin/trespass/debt was to begin with? But if we are to let go, move on, stop this spiritual power struggle, then we need to use words of forgiveness. "I forgive" becomes "I'm free of this."
And we must do as much for ourselves as those who hurt us, Too often those who have been through a traumatic time will take on the responsibility, as though the abused child "asked for it," or the rape victim was dressed wrongly, or the soldier caught in a firefight should somehow have prevented it. True, we do have responsibility for much, but no one willingly steps in harm's way.
To answer the original question: yes, we choose when and whom to forgive. Not that we are picking whom to forgive, but that we are choosing. Not some automatic unconditional, universal forgiveness; that's God's job. But making a personal decision, one that we may revisit over and over.
The problem arises not in forgiveness, as tricky as that might be in itself. It is what we should do next, after forgiving. We can note that, whenever Jesus forgave, He always did so in context: go, but don't do it again. You got into this because you didn't know. Make reparations to those you have hurt. Get yourself back on a better spiritual path. In other words, Jesus put a sort of price tag on forgiveness: personal accountability
There wasn't anything He couldn't accept. The infamous "unforgivable sin" is commonly seen as one where the person saw no sin, did not see a need to be forgiven. He hung around sinners, tax collectors and other people frowned upon. In fact, He seemed to prefer their company.
But what of us? There are those who repeat the same dysfunctional patterns over and over and over. Yes, we are told to forgive "seventy times seven," a metaphoric number of that time for "infinite." But do we have something we cannot let go of? Many have wounds so deep they seem sure to never heal.
Saying we forgive in such situations may seem appropriate but not always realistic. To quote the Bard, "My prayers fly up, my thoughts remain below. Prayers without thoughts do not to heaven go." Or must forgiving and forgetting go together? What if we claim forgiveness, but forgetting remains out of reach?
And what if the one we must forgive denies any such? Or has passed beyond any point where direct forgiveness is moot?
Maybe we need to look differently at forgiveness? Maybe it need not be a way of absolving someone of what was done but a way of setting ourselves free? Too often forgiveness (as Jesus hinted in His Prayer) becomes a continuation of the same tug-of-war that that sin/trespass/debt was to begin with? But if we are to let go, move on, stop this spiritual power struggle, then we need to use words of forgiveness. "I forgive" becomes "I'm free of this."
And we must do as much for ourselves as those who hurt us, Too often those who have been through a traumatic time will take on the responsibility, as though the abused child "asked for it," or the rape victim was dressed wrongly, or the soldier caught in a firefight should somehow have prevented it. True, we do have responsibility for much, but no one willingly steps in harm's way.
To answer the original question: yes, we choose when and whom to forgive. Not that we are picking whom to forgive, but that we are choosing. Not some automatic unconditional, universal forgiveness; that's God's job. But making a personal decision, one that we may revisit over and over.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Changes: Xenophobia
Changes: Xenophobia: Fear of the different. Fear of change. Fear of the Other. One of the earliest stages of human development is coming to terms with the reali...
Xenophobia
Fear of the different. Fear of change. Fear of the Other.
One of the earliest stages of human development is coming to terms with the reality that we are not the world. As part of the process of building a better self, we accept the fact that there are things we cannot control, things we are not responsible for. Despite our earliest experience, the world does not rotate around us. There are others in this world, and (Schopenhauer aside) we do not control this world, no matter how we might try.
The difficulty arises after we realize this in whatever subjective or objective fashion. In a nutshell; how do we react to this new reality, with people, places and things that are Not Us. If we are secure enough in ourselves, we tolerate them, accept them, even celebrate them. (As the French would say in another context, Vive la differance!) But if we have no such feeling of self-worth, we will view others as frightening, threatening, simply because they are not us. We may even fear them because we fear there is something of them in us, as there might be something of us in them.
Hence we have those who react to the Other not just with wariness (as if dealing with a strange and possibly vicious animal) but with anger and even hatred. Their solution: get rid of the different, remove anything which is not Us. For anything which we do not control is scary, threatening. And if the Other has any alluring aspects, the reaction is all the more so.
So if the skin is a different color, or the national origin is different, or the sexual orientation is not the same, we react as people of ages past reacted to those with certain illnesses: Outcast! Unclean! And even within such groupings, there have been some instances of reaction. Even people of color distinguish, even ethnic groups maintain pride in coming from their own separate ethnicity, even those of any given political or religious belief may view diversity in their particular ran ks with mistrust or dismay.
When we were children, our parents went through the common ordeal of getting us to eat something other than what we wanted. Granted, it didn't always work; for every instance of having to stop the child from devouring everything, there are too many instances of adults that just won't eat peas! But we hold back from any such attempts to learn from the different, to know a world that is not Us.
Because only when we truly know the Other can we know ourselves.
"And this shall be the end of our exploring: We shall not cease from exploring, until we return to the place where we began, and know it for the first time." -T.S. Eliott
One of the earliest stages of human development is coming to terms with the reality that we are not the world. As part of the process of building a better self, we accept the fact that there are things we cannot control, things we are not responsible for. Despite our earliest experience, the world does not rotate around us. There are others in this world, and (Schopenhauer aside) we do not control this world, no matter how we might try.
The difficulty arises after we realize this in whatever subjective or objective fashion. In a nutshell; how do we react to this new reality, with people, places and things that are Not Us. If we are secure enough in ourselves, we tolerate them, accept them, even celebrate them. (As the French would say in another context, Vive la differance!) But if we have no such feeling of self-worth, we will view others as frightening, threatening, simply because they are not us. We may even fear them because we fear there is something of them in us, as there might be something of us in them.
Hence we have those who react to the Other not just with wariness (as if dealing with a strange and possibly vicious animal) but with anger and even hatred. Their solution: get rid of the different, remove anything which is not Us. For anything which we do not control is scary, threatening. And if the Other has any alluring aspects, the reaction is all the more so.
So if the skin is a different color, or the national origin is different, or the sexual orientation is not the same, we react as people of ages past reacted to those with certain illnesses: Outcast! Unclean! And even within such groupings, there have been some instances of reaction. Even people of color distinguish, even ethnic groups maintain pride in coming from their own separate ethnicity, even those of any given political or religious belief may view diversity in their particular ran ks with mistrust or dismay.
When we were children, our parents went through the common ordeal of getting us to eat something other than what we wanted. Granted, it didn't always work; for every instance of having to stop the child from devouring everything, there are too many instances of adults that just won't eat peas! But we hold back from any such attempts to learn from the different, to know a world that is not Us.
Because only when we truly know the Other can we know ourselves.
"And this shall be the end of our exploring: We shall not cease from exploring, until we return to the place where we began, and know it for the first time." -T.S. Eliott
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Swish
The worst hours of my life were supposed to be the most carefree, fun times. My father would come home from work, dig out the baseball and gloves and call to me, "C'mon! Let's toss a few!" And for an endless period of time, my father and I tried over and over to throw the ball and catch the ball. Unsuccessfully on my part, need I add.
It did not help that my eyesight was rapidly deteriorating. At one awful stage, my parents were resigning themselves to my eventual complete loss of vision (an event that did not happen.) It also did not help that I was shy and bookish and prone to numerous illnesses.
The net result was a long aversion to sports. I was relieved when I was the last to be chosen for whatever team. I would stand in the outfield (why the outfield? I dunno.) daydreaming or dreading that someone might hit a ball my way. I would go to school sporting events convinced my school would lose (and they usually did so!)
At various irregular intervals, I got involved in some esoteric sport such as karate or fencing. I was deeply committed at one point to hiking, if you take a broad definition of "sport."
But it was only when the physical became less possible for me due to increasing disability that I fell into my current fascination with sport, specifically baseball/ (Go Red Sox!) At the same time, I recognized how dysfunctional most sports can be.
This is not just about the inevitable physical wear and tear that is part of any sport. Not just boxing and football, but the damage that happens to any athlete, and that results in retirement from most sports by age 40 or so. This is also idealizing conflict as a form of entertainment and therefore acceptable as a way of dealing with differences even in most social settings. And we even go into the complicated ways in which sport is used as a pretext for making money (the big sports organizations as non-profits? really?)
But most of all, it has taken to recent years to address the homophobia implicit in many sports organizations. Not that there were no gay players! But as in society at large, we preferred not to see or acknowledge that these men and women might be other than the Frank Merriwether stereotype of the wholesome straight-no, no, chaste! role models we sought.
So what does society do when it is faced with the eroding of the gay stereotype, with the image of manly/womanly members of the LBGTQ community? What do parents do when they have a son who has no interest in the traditional macho things? What do they do when a daughter shows no so-called "feminine" tendencies?
Some advice: don't take them out to the back yard to play a game of catch. Doesn't work.
It did not help that my eyesight was rapidly deteriorating. At one awful stage, my parents were resigning themselves to my eventual complete loss of vision (an event that did not happen.) It also did not help that I was shy and bookish and prone to numerous illnesses.
The net result was a long aversion to sports. I was relieved when I was the last to be chosen for whatever team. I would stand in the outfield (why the outfield? I dunno.) daydreaming or dreading that someone might hit a ball my way. I would go to school sporting events convinced my school would lose (and they usually did so!)
At various irregular intervals, I got involved in some esoteric sport such as karate or fencing. I was deeply committed at one point to hiking, if you take a broad definition of "sport."
But it was only when the physical became less possible for me due to increasing disability that I fell into my current fascination with sport, specifically baseball/ (Go Red Sox!) At the same time, I recognized how dysfunctional most sports can be.
This is not just about the inevitable physical wear and tear that is part of any sport. Not just boxing and football, but the damage that happens to any athlete, and that results in retirement from most sports by age 40 or so. This is also idealizing conflict as a form of entertainment and therefore acceptable as a way of dealing with differences even in most social settings. And we even go into the complicated ways in which sport is used as a pretext for making money (the big sports organizations as non-profits? really?)
But most of all, it has taken to recent years to address the homophobia implicit in many sports organizations. Not that there were no gay players! But as in society at large, we preferred not to see or acknowledge that these men and women might be other than the Frank Merriwether stereotype of the wholesome straight-no, no, chaste! role models we sought.
So what does society do when it is faced with the eroding of the gay stereotype, with the image of manly/womanly members of the LBGTQ community? What do parents do when they have a son who has no interest in the traditional macho things? What do they do when a daughter shows no so-called "feminine" tendencies?
Some advice: don't take them out to the back yard to play a game of catch. Doesn't work.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Liberty or License?
Palm Sunday is God's way of reminding us what authority and responsibility are really all about. We have the mistaken idea that public acclaim, spectacle, the facade of leadership is all that is necessary. In the same way that Jesus used all the traditional associations with a ruler entering into Jerusalem, we mistake fidelity to religious practices (something forever in flux) with a deep spiritual commitment. We see how deep and true the people's belief in this latest messiah by how quickly the cries went from "hosanna" to "crucify Him!"
And people's attitude toward faith is being shown, alas, in the current use of "religious liberty" as a way to show hatred against others. Apparently, some people (are you listening, Gov. Pence?) seem to feel that simply claiming any kind of faith is enough to justify discriminating against others. Well, not any faith; more specifically, conservative Christian. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, need not apply.
Actually, there are Muslim restaurants who refuse service to any woman not dressed according to their standards. But that's another issue.
The problem with all this is not that some of my brother and sister Christians are unclear on the concept. There have been limits on faith expressions in this country for years and years. Christian Scientists are required to provide medical care to their children. Jehovah's Witness go through a complicated series of maneuvers when they need a blood transfusion. And Mormons have been legally prohibited from polygamy.
We won't go into the complicated issue of faith healers.
Of course, much of this new idea of dressing up discrimination as "religious liberty" comes from a comparatively small group that don't want liberty for anyone but themselves. The fact that this is showing up in state after state smacks more of a concerted effort than a spontaneous movement. But still it is the same old behavior in certain faith communities that demand you follow their restrictive code or be penalized.
When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, the crowd cried "hossanna," which loosely translates as "save us." But Palm Sunday is not about salvation in any sense. That would only happen through love and resurrection, aka Easter. So when anyone claims they will save anything through hatred and discrimination, they obviously seek license, not liberty.
And people's attitude toward faith is being shown, alas, in the current use of "religious liberty" as a way to show hatred against others. Apparently, some people (are you listening, Gov. Pence?) seem to feel that simply claiming any kind of faith is enough to justify discriminating against others. Well, not any faith; more specifically, conservative Christian. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, need not apply.
Actually, there are Muslim restaurants who refuse service to any woman not dressed according to their standards. But that's another issue.
The problem with all this is not that some of my brother and sister Christians are unclear on the concept. There have been limits on faith expressions in this country for years and years. Christian Scientists are required to provide medical care to their children. Jehovah's Witness go through a complicated series of maneuvers when they need a blood transfusion. And Mormons have been legally prohibited from polygamy.
We won't go into the complicated issue of faith healers.
Of course, much of this new idea of dressing up discrimination as "religious liberty" comes from a comparatively small group that don't want liberty for anyone but themselves. The fact that this is showing up in state after state smacks more of a concerted effort than a spontaneous movement. But still it is the same old behavior in certain faith communities that demand you follow their restrictive code or be penalized.
When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, the crowd cried "hossanna," which loosely translates as "save us." But Palm Sunday is not about salvation in any sense. That would only happen through love and resurrection, aka Easter. So when anyone claims they will save anything through hatred and discrimination, they obviously seek license, not liberty.
Friday, March 13, 2015
The value of a silent example
This is to my conservative Christian brothers and sisters; please stop!
There was a time in my life when I was so sure of my faith that I had to, simply had to tell everyone about it. In the same way that someone who is newly in love is only able to talk about the beloved (have I shown you the photos of my grand children?), Some believers feel compelled to tell others- at great length, in boring cliched sentences- about this incredible God they have found.
The amazing experience of a close relationship with the Ground of all being can be quite heady. And because some in that community have chosen to ally themselves, for reasons I can only guess at, with a particular political stance which, ironically, is quite antithetical to faith in general and Christianity in particular. (Are you listening, Ayn Rand?)
But the issue here is that the way our brothers and sisters are acting is driving people away from the community of faith. It is no coincidence that atheism as a mainstream phenomenon has been growing as conservative Christians have been more visible. If one's first exposure to any kind of Christianity is the toxic forms most people see today, it is understandable that one might recoil from it.
Please understand: if someone chooses to show their faith in a particular way, so be it! I was there at one time, as I said. But, in some parts of the world, missionaries are forbidden to talk about their faith unsolicited. Only their actions may speak. So, my conservative brethren, let your good acts speak of what you believe. Spare me from the Bible tracts and the televangelists and the demonstrations. As I said: just stop!
Show me this God of love you say you are following.
There was a time in my life when I was so sure of my faith that I had to, simply had to tell everyone about it. In the same way that someone who is newly in love is only able to talk about the beloved (have I shown you the photos of my grand children?), Some believers feel compelled to tell others- at great length, in boring cliched sentences- about this incredible God they have found.
The amazing experience of a close relationship with the Ground of all being can be quite heady. And because some in that community have chosen to ally themselves, for reasons I can only guess at, with a particular political stance which, ironically, is quite antithetical to faith in general and Christianity in particular. (Are you listening, Ayn Rand?)
But the issue here is that the way our brothers and sisters are acting is driving people away from the community of faith. It is no coincidence that atheism as a mainstream phenomenon has been growing as conservative Christians have been more visible. If one's first exposure to any kind of Christianity is the toxic forms most people see today, it is understandable that one might recoil from it.
Please understand: if someone chooses to show their faith in a particular way, so be it! I was there at one time, as I said. But, in some parts of the world, missionaries are forbidden to talk about their faith unsolicited. Only their actions may speak. So, my conservative brethren, let your good acts speak of what you believe. Spare me from the Bible tracts and the televangelists and the demonstrations. As I said: just stop!
Show me this God of love you say you are following.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
One Day at a Time
Today is all we've got. Yesterday is gone, and no matter how hard we try, we can't go back and change what happened. Tomorrow isn't here yet, and all our worrying and frantic preparations don't guarantee anything.
So live for right here and right now. Yes, we need is to be aware of where we have been. Of course, we should think ahead to where we hope to be. Those things may orient us, but they should not define us.
The problem lies in the way we live today. So many live lives that are dull, shallow, uneventful. The present for such holds nothing, so constant review and attempted revision of the past, or persistently seeking some presaging of what is to come, becomes more interesting than the humdrum of our daily routine.
There is a danger here, of course. Living in the now can become a way of avoiding responsibility for our lives, rather than taking the reins of life in our own hands. We must tackle all the things each day may hold, no more and no less. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." (Matthew 6:34)
And once you choose to live in the now, seek to live your life to the full. Remember, that's the only one you get, so live it to the full!
So live for right here and right now. Yes, we need is to be aware of where we have been. Of course, we should think ahead to where we hope to be. Those things may orient us, but they should not define us.
The problem lies in the way we live today. So many live lives that are dull, shallow, uneventful. The present for such holds nothing, so constant review and attempted revision of the past, or persistently seeking some presaging of what is to come, becomes more interesting than the humdrum of our daily routine.
There is a danger here, of course. Living in the now can become a way of avoiding responsibility for our lives, rather than taking the reins of life in our own hands. We must tackle all the things each day may hold, no more and no less. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." (Matthew 6:34)
And once you choose to live in the now, seek to live your life to the full. Remember, that's the only one you get, so live it to the full!
Thursday, March 5, 2015
So sorry
Everyone has things they regret. (Well, maybe not everyone, but you know what I mean.) The words that shouldna been said. Things should/shouldna been done. From when we were all very young, and didn't know any better, but that didn't matter. (Tell you sometime about a very young me and my Aunt Claire.) So one of the first things we learn is saying we're sorry. Even forgiveness is given but not believed or forgiveness is not given or given conditionally, or... You know the story, don't you?
But lately, apologies and forgiveness have taken a new sphere. We have assumed a global form of cynicism. We hold all apologies as suspect automatically, and forgiveness is given too easily or not at all/
Now, granted, with many in the public/political arena, the practice is to speak/act first, apologize after. It is akin to the courtroom practice of asking the witness a question that will be objected to, but the very act of asking it will hopefully bring up a forbidden subject. The idea is: I will say this or that, and the audience I am aiming at will hear only that and pay no attention to the apology.
This has contaminated the very concept of sincere repentance, much less forgiveness. Even though we Christians are supposed to pray regularly that we forgive and are forgiven, we seem to have difficulty receiving, much less giving. And the category of the unforgivable has become broader and broader.
The deeper problem is that we are unwilling to accept others. We cannot forgive because we do not want to open ourselves to others. Or we may be overly aware of our own flaws and failures so that we expect them in others/fear others will know them in us.
It is sad but true that we do not trust others now. There are people who can be bad, but we tend to go beyond that to include people we disagree with politically, spiritually, geographically, even what baseball team you root for. (Uh, go Red Sox?) Yet there are people I love that I disagree with about some or all of the above.
There was a time in my life when I hurt some of the people I love. (Story for 'nother time.) And I apologized. Boy, did I apologize. Over and over. Finally, a person I loved and had hurt told me: stop. The very act of repetitive contrition was having the opposite effect from what I intended. The point is we need forgiveness but we also should forgive ourselves. And we should forgive others, not worrying if they accept our forgiveness. (Or even feel they need it.) The whole point is letting go.
But lately, apologies and forgiveness have taken a new sphere. We have assumed a global form of cynicism. We hold all apologies as suspect automatically, and forgiveness is given too easily or not at all/
Now, granted, with many in the public/political arena, the practice is to speak/act first, apologize after. It is akin to the courtroom practice of asking the witness a question that will be objected to, but the very act of asking it will hopefully bring up a forbidden subject. The idea is: I will say this or that, and the audience I am aiming at will hear only that and pay no attention to the apology.
This has contaminated the very concept of sincere repentance, much less forgiveness. Even though we Christians are supposed to pray regularly that we forgive and are forgiven, we seem to have difficulty receiving, much less giving. And the category of the unforgivable has become broader and broader.
The deeper problem is that we are unwilling to accept others. We cannot forgive because we do not want to open ourselves to others. Or we may be overly aware of our own flaws and failures so that we expect them in others/fear others will know them in us.
It is sad but true that we do not trust others now. There are people who can be bad, but we tend to go beyond that to include people we disagree with politically, spiritually, geographically, even what baseball team you root for. (Uh, go Red Sox?) Yet there are people I love that I disagree with about some or all of the above.
There was a time in my life when I hurt some of the people I love. (Story for 'nother time.) And I apologized. Boy, did I apologize. Over and over. Finally, a person I loved and had hurt told me: stop. The very act of repetitive contrition was having the opposite effect from what I intended. The point is we need forgiveness but we also should forgive ourselves. And we should forgive others, not worrying if they accept our forgiveness. (Or even feel they need it.) The whole point is letting go.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Tell Me About the God You Don't Believe in...
Yeah, I know, I said I would stop, but someone pushed one of my hot buttons, so what the hell?
It has become "in", of late, to claim to be atheist. Understand, I am not talking about the increasing number of unchurched, "spiritual" people who repeat endlessly, "Yeah, I believe, but I don't to go to church or anything like that; I'm spiritual but not religious."
No, I'm talking about the can't-tell-the-difference-between-atheist-and-agnostic person who was turned off by some of the horrors of the Church, whether fundamentalist, Roman Catholic, charismatic or other variety of authoritarian, closed-minded Christianity. (Why just Christianity? Surely there are some born-again atheists from Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu backgrounds. Come to think of it, I know one!)
The trouble here is that such are not really atheists per se. Their vehement and evangelistic style for promoting their non-belief (pause here for necessary reflection on irony involved) seems to consist more of anti-theism. They are so focused on what they are rejecting that they become rather unclear as to what they do, in fact, believe.
No one can go through life without a place to stand, a set of values, some understanding of right and wrong. Well, ya could, but you'd end up in jail or dead or in a mental hospital. A sense of right and wrong can't grow just from human logic or common sense, any more than an infant can become a complete human being without guidance and learning.
A person without any recognition of Something Greater, whether we call that God or a Higher Power or some dream to follow, is a very sad person indeed. As the old Zen saying goes, if you don't know where you're going, you'll end up someplace else. That doesn't mean being rigid about life, or insisting that everyone else do what you're doing. It means knowing what is important to you, and following that.
When I was in college, my closest friend was an avowed atheist (even though I was even then preparing to go to theological school.) But our endless debates would end in stalemate when I asked him, "Tell me about this God you don't believe in." Not the God that others taught, but what exactly was he rejecting? Too often he would bog down when he would repeat some conservative doctrine that I didn't believe in either. Even today, he can't really answer that question because he is so fixed on what he doesn't believe that he has no notion of what he does.
Yes, it is easy to attack the straw man of certain forms of established religion, to lift up the flaws and atrocities done in the name of a given faith. But can this group proclaim something that they believe that separates them from most believers? Science? Logic? Who do you think kept them alive during the centuries? Recognizing the value of people? Hello, this is a faith teaching unconditional love. The arts? Medicine? Religion.
So tell me, my atheist friend, tell me about this God you don't believe in.
This is for Jon.
It has become "in", of late, to claim to be atheist. Understand, I am not talking about the increasing number of unchurched, "spiritual" people who repeat endlessly, "Yeah, I believe, but I don't to go to church or anything like that; I'm spiritual but not religious."
No, I'm talking about the can't-tell-the-difference-between-atheist-and-agnostic person who was turned off by some of the horrors of the Church, whether fundamentalist, Roman Catholic, charismatic or other variety of authoritarian, closed-minded Christianity. (Why just Christianity? Surely there are some born-again atheists from Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu backgrounds. Come to think of it, I know one!)
The trouble here is that such are not really atheists per se. Their vehement and evangelistic style for promoting their non-belief (pause here for necessary reflection on irony involved) seems to consist more of anti-theism. They are so focused on what they are rejecting that they become rather unclear as to what they do, in fact, believe.
No one can go through life without a place to stand, a set of values, some understanding of right and wrong. Well, ya could, but you'd end up in jail or dead or in a mental hospital. A sense of right and wrong can't grow just from human logic or common sense, any more than an infant can become a complete human being without guidance and learning.
A person without any recognition of Something Greater, whether we call that God or a Higher Power or some dream to follow, is a very sad person indeed. As the old Zen saying goes, if you don't know where you're going, you'll end up someplace else. That doesn't mean being rigid about life, or insisting that everyone else do what you're doing. It means knowing what is important to you, and following that.
When I was in college, my closest friend was an avowed atheist (even though I was even then preparing to go to theological school.) But our endless debates would end in stalemate when I asked him, "Tell me about this God you don't believe in." Not the God that others taught, but what exactly was he rejecting? Too often he would bog down when he would repeat some conservative doctrine that I didn't believe in either. Even today, he can't really answer that question because he is so fixed on what he doesn't believe that he has no notion of what he does.
Yes, it is easy to attack the straw man of certain forms of established religion, to lift up the flaws and atrocities done in the name of a given faith. But can this group proclaim something that they believe that separates them from most believers? Science? Logic? Who do you think kept them alive during the centuries? Recognizing the value of people? Hello, this is a faith teaching unconditional love. The arts? Medicine? Religion.
So tell me, my atheist friend, tell me about this God you don't believe in.
This is for Jon.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Adieu and Farewell
Two old Yankees are sitting in the back of a political rally. This was the days before PA systems, and the speaker has a low voice. Finally, one of the old-timers turned to the other in frustration. "Whut's he sayin?" he asked. His compa triot leaned forward, straining to hear. Then he leaned back and turned. "He don't say!"
Many people with nothing to say still find much to talk about. That has been the biggest obstacle to writing this blog in an on-going way At first, it was a marvelous format for venting that had been lost when weekly sermons were no longer available. And it appealed to that inner child who enjoyed the attention, the showing off before others. But then I began to run into my own limits. Writing even a short blog takes time. I was constantly reminded how little I knew about so much. And I had little feedback, so the necessity of an audience became more and more obvious.
There is much recognition today of the importance of silence. People spend much time sitting in silence, go on silent retreats, encourage silence as the unanswerable argument. As I was told back in Vermont, it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I have never been good at silence. Maybe it is time I found the wisdom of that Still, Small Voice. So this blog is going on hiatus. I appreciate those of you who read it (both of you) and wish you well. I reserve the right to speak up if there is some issue that demands a comment.
In the meantime, I will seek other ways to express myself.
Many people with nothing to say still find much to talk about. That has been the biggest obstacle to writing this blog in an on-going way At first, it was a marvelous format for venting that had been lost when weekly sermons were no longer available. And it appealed to that inner child who enjoyed the attention, the showing off before others. But then I began to run into my own limits. Writing even a short blog takes time. I was constantly reminded how little I knew about so much. And I had little feedback, so the necessity of an audience became more and more obvious.
There is much recognition today of the importance of silence. People spend much time sitting in silence, go on silent retreats, encourage silence as the unanswerable argument. As I was told back in Vermont, it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I have never been good at silence. Maybe it is time I found the wisdom of that Still, Small Voice. So this blog is going on hiatus. I appreciate those of you who read it (both of you) and wish you well. I reserve the right to speak up if there is some issue that demands a comment.
In the meantime, I will seek other ways to express myself.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Sticks and Stones
It seems that more and more people are coming forward with stories about being bullied in school, even the bullies themselves! Hesitating to participate in a mass movement that, lemming-like, doesn't accomplish much more than a communal purging, I nevertheless would tell my story of abuse.
My father was an ambitious man, and he was promoted over and over during his career. This resulted in my family moving many times in my childhood, sometimes staying in any one place only for a matter of months. We moved up and down the East Coast, and even overseas.
I was a quiet and bookish child, believe it or not, and made friends slowly and seldom simply because I never knew when we might move again. My classmates in the various schools I attended treated me as the outsider I was. My rapidly deteriorating eyesight made things worse, as I couldn't make up for my lack of social experience by any athletic skills.
Teachers in those days didn't know how to bring newcomers into the closed world of an elementary school. I can remember vividly one time when the class was to copy a picture from one of our classbooks. The teacher gathered these drawings and put them up for all the class to critique (presumably some sort of art lesson.) I am no artist, to be sure, but it quickly became obvious who was the class goat. As the teacher stood by, student after student picked out my picture- and mine alone!- to point out flaws.
Not until high school did I begin to fight back, futilely and franticly. Of course, I was disciplined when I reacted to the whispered teasing from the kid behind me in class by overturning his desk. Of course, I showed up at parties I thought I had been invited to only to find no party there. And we will not be distracted by talking about the young women who ignored me, denied any offer of a date, even plotted with my classmates to make me look ridiculous in public.
Two things saved me, and they are strangely linked: my faith and my acting. In my home church I found the acceptance I found nowhere else. And it was also there that I discovered an ability to act on stage, to transform into someone else.
That does not means the teasing, the nasty words, the rejection stopped. It took years before I came to terms with who I am, regardless of what others thought or said.
But it did leave me with this: because of all the hurts I have suffered, I can recognize and empathize with the hurts of others. Not that I would recommend that path to such a goal; As Mark Twain reported when he interviewed a man who had been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail: "If it weren't for the honor, I'd just as soon have walked."
My father was an ambitious man, and he was promoted over and over during his career. This resulted in my family moving many times in my childhood, sometimes staying in any one place only for a matter of months. We moved up and down the East Coast, and even overseas.
I was a quiet and bookish child, believe it or not, and made friends slowly and seldom simply because I never knew when we might move again. My classmates in the various schools I attended treated me as the outsider I was. My rapidly deteriorating eyesight made things worse, as I couldn't make up for my lack of social experience by any athletic skills.
Teachers in those days didn't know how to bring newcomers into the closed world of an elementary school. I can remember vividly one time when the class was to copy a picture from one of our classbooks. The teacher gathered these drawings and put them up for all the class to critique (presumably some sort of art lesson.) I am no artist, to be sure, but it quickly became obvious who was the class goat. As the teacher stood by, student after student picked out my picture- and mine alone!- to point out flaws.
Not until high school did I begin to fight back, futilely and franticly. Of course, I was disciplined when I reacted to the whispered teasing from the kid behind me in class by overturning his desk. Of course, I showed up at parties I thought I had been invited to only to find no party there. And we will not be distracted by talking about the young women who ignored me, denied any offer of a date, even plotted with my classmates to make me look ridiculous in public.
Two things saved me, and they are strangely linked: my faith and my acting. In my home church I found the acceptance I found nowhere else. And it was also there that I discovered an ability to act on stage, to transform into someone else.
That does not means the teasing, the nasty words, the rejection stopped. It took years before I came to terms with who I am, regardless of what others thought or said.
But it did leave me with this: because of all the hurts I have suffered, I can recognize and empathize with the hurts of others. Not that I would recommend that path to such a goal; As Mark Twain reported when he interviewed a man who had been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail: "If it weren't for the honor, I'd just as soon have walked."
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Consensus Yes?
My friends in the Society of Friends (that's Quakers to you) have a way of deciding things called consensus. When one of their committees or boards seek a resolution to whatever, everyone there must agree with the decision. That means when even one person objects, won't go along, finds just one detail unacceptable, the group must keep seeking some common ground. No voting, no majority rule, no compromise that pleases no one.
Even amongst some coummunity action groups that do not follow this practice, there is a tendency toward consensus. I have been in such meetings where someone who is otherwise sympathetic and cooperative, becomes an obstacle to getting something done. They may be highly idealistic, impatient with the dirty details sometimes necessary, or just having a bad day personally. The resulting group dynamic is the same, with people trying to placate, manipulate, or sometimes abdicate, just refusing to play any more
This might give some insight to those amongst you who cannot understand the (ir)rationale behind what is happening, uh, not happening in Washington these days. We have a president who still draws on his time as a community organizer (and please spare me from right-wing screeds about ACORN or its ilk). He does at times fall into the role of assertive manager and head of the whole shebang, but most of the time he seems to expecting that Congress will show the sort of openness and tolerance associated with reaching consensus. He honestly thinks the best of people!
So he offers various suggestions, not realizing that the people he is dealing with interpret such as a concession, not a move toward consensus. Open-mindedness is seen as empty-headedness
But there are politicians today who will not (can not?) seek a common ground. Such might be seen as (gasp!)weakness. In our winner-take-all society, the very word bi-partisan has become a meaningless noise. So when someone takes a stand, there is no possibility of convincing that person to move from that place.
Granted, we are all separate and unique individuals. But when we insist on everyone doing things our way, there are some who will reject anything we suggest, no matter how valid (or crazy.)
We share more than we differ. Isn't time to consider consensus?
Even amongst some coummunity action groups that do not follow this practice, there is a tendency toward consensus. I have been in such meetings where someone who is otherwise sympathetic and cooperative, becomes an obstacle to getting something done. They may be highly idealistic, impatient with the dirty details sometimes necessary, or just having a bad day personally. The resulting group dynamic is the same, with people trying to placate, manipulate, or sometimes abdicate, just refusing to play any more
This might give some insight to those amongst you who cannot understand the (ir)rationale behind what is happening, uh, not happening in Washington these days. We have a president who still draws on his time as a community organizer (and please spare me from right-wing screeds about ACORN or its ilk). He does at times fall into the role of assertive manager and head of the whole shebang, but most of the time he seems to expecting that Congress will show the sort of openness and tolerance associated with reaching consensus. He honestly thinks the best of people!
So he offers various suggestions, not realizing that the people he is dealing with interpret such as a concession, not a move toward consensus. Open-mindedness is seen as empty-headedness
But there are politicians today who will not (can not?) seek a common ground. Such might be seen as (gasp!)weakness. In our winner-take-all society, the very word bi-partisan has become a meaningless noise. So when someone takes a stand, there is no possibility of convincing that person to move from that place.
Granted, we are all separate and unique individuals. But when we insist on everyone doing things our way, there are some who will reject anything we suggest, no matter how valid (or crazy.)
We share more than we differ. Isn't time to consider consensus?
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Win or Lose
It is one of the most chilling moments in the Academy award-nominated documentary, The Gatekeepers. An Israeli security official is talking with a Palestinian doctor, who surprises him by saying, "We're winning." How can you think that, the Israeli asks. Your fighting forces are being wiped out, your people are being pushed farther and farther into a corner. We're winning, the doctor asserted, because we're causing so much pain and suffering for you!
That has become a more and more common attitude toward differences and contention. The goal has become not to acheive one's goals and dreams but to stymie one's opponents from reaching theirs! In other words, the battle becomes an end in itself where winning or losing are not merely out of reach, but not relevant at all.
So we have national elected officials who spend as much time preventing anything from happening as they do actually doing what obviously needs to be done. The goal would seem to be to cause as much pain and suffering as possible for the other guy.
And we have relationships where no one seems to want anyone else to achieve anything. Husbands stand in the way of wives going to work or for further education, even though they need the income and there is nothing to be done at home. Or, in a warped sort of caring, some parents encourage their children not to go for higher education, not to move on in a personal life, under the pretense of protecting them from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Such scenarios result in an on-going tug of war without any discernable reason or goal.
This modern-day version of the Red Queen's Race (see Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass) results in running as fast as possible while staying in the same place: frustration, despair, confusion. Oh, but our very resistance to anything productive enables us to continue our stance as helpless victims and to avoid risking responsibility.
I have never been a fan of our society's idealization of competition. If anything, studies have shown it as one of the least productive ways of interacting. But what we have now is nowhere near the old capitalistic ideal of winning and losing.
When we regain that sense of directions, goals worth working toward, then we can get past this societal gridlock where the struggle is all.
That has become a more and more common attitude toward differences and contention. The goal has become not to acheive one's goals and dreams but to stymie one's opponents from reaching theirs! In other words, the battle becomes an end in itself where winning or losing are not merely out of reach, but not relevant at all.
So we have national elected officials who spend as much time preventing anything from happening as they do actually doing what obviously needs to be done. The goal would seem to be to cause as much pain and suffering as possible for the other guy.
And we have relationships where no one seems to want anyone else to achieve anything. Husbands stand in the way of wives going to work or for further education, even though they need the income and there is nothing to be done at home. Or, in a warped sort of caring, some parents encourage their children not to go for higher education, not to move on in a personal life, under the pretense of protecting them from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Such scenarios result in an on-going tug of war without any discernable reason or goal.
This modern-day version of the Red Queen's Race (see Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass) results in running as fast as possible while staying in the same place: frustration, despair, confusion. Oh, but our very resistance to anything productive enables us to continue our stance as helpless victims and to avoid risking responsibility.
I have never been a fan of our society's idealization of competition. If anything, studies have shown it as one of the least productive ways of interacting. But what we have now is nowhere near the old capitalistic ideal of winning and losing.
When we regain that sense of directions, goals worth working toward, then we can get past this societal gridlock where the struggle is all.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Never Say Always?
The young man calling was dismayingly common: he and his fiancee, with whom he had three children, were looking for couple's counseling. We ran into dat ole debbil moolah right away: I'm not eligible for Medicaid/Medicare, Husky, Title 19 or any of the state insurance programs, and they couldn't afford even the minimum on my sliding scale.
But then he acknowledged they were just shopping anyway, so I could only suspect that they (or at least he) were just going through the motions.
It still raised the issue of relationships today. Ironically, at the same time that marriage equality has become an international battlecry for the LGBT community, straight heterosexual marriage has been more and more pushed aside especially by the younger generation. The much-bandied-about statistic that nearly half of all marriages end in the divorce courts ignores the increasing number of couples who view matrimony as an expensive and extraneous institition. Justifying the lack of a wedding ring or marriage certificate as unnecessary for two people who are truly commited to one another, they move in together and go through very similar stages to their legally married brethren and sistern: buying property, having children, loving and fighting and reconciling like any husband and wife.
Of course, given the rocky status of matrimony, it should be no surprise that the next generation might be wary of it. There is also a deep suspicion and rejection of traditional institutions such as marriage; we have a society that doesn't trust itself or any of the mechanisms which traditionally hold society together.
Inasmuch, as I said before, such couples might discard some of the legal ties (matrimony) but not others (property, children), it seems that people are being people and consistently inconsistent. Or may be it is a resistance to commitment.
Misunderstanding the reality of any relationship that no one is signing on for forever, or at least shouldn't, couples should realize that,like everything that works in life, marrage is only for today, Carrying the issues of yesterday or worrying about potential issues of tomorrow keeps us from dealing with what is happening right here and right now. Otherwise, there will always be that little voice in the background that whispers, "You could always leave."
In any relationship, there will be days when things turn toxic. If we have made a commitment to keep trying, that is as much as anyone can do.
But then he acknowledged they were just shopping anyway, so I could only suspect that they (or at least he) were just going through the motions.
It still raised the issue of relationships today. Ironically, at the same time that marriage equality has become an international battlecry for the LGBT community, straight heterosexual marriage has been more and more pushed aside especially by the younger generation. The much-bandied-about statistic that nearly half of all marriages end in the divorce courts ignores the increasing number of couples who view matrimony as an expensive and extraneous institition. Justifying the lack of a wedding ring or marriage certificate as unnecessary for two people who are truly commited to one another, they move in together and go through very similar stages to their legally married brethren and sistern: buying property, having children, loving and fighting and reconciling like any husband and wife.
Of course, given the rocky status of matrimony, it should be no surprise that the next generation might be wary of it. There is also a deep suspicion and rejection of traditional institutions such as marriage; we have a society that doesn't trust itself or any of the mechanisms which traditionally hold society together.
Inasmuch, as I said before, such couples might discard some of the legal ties (matrimony) but not others (property, children), it seems that people are being people and consistently inconsistent. Or may be it is a resistance to commitment.
Misunderstanding the reality of any relationship that no one is signing on for forever, or at least shouldn't, couples should realize that,like everything that works in life, marrage is only for today, Carrying the issues of yesterday or worrying about potential issues of tomorrow keeps us from dealing with what is happening right here and right now. Otherwise, there will always be that little voice in the background that whispers, "You could always leave."
In any relationship, there will be days when things turn toxic. If we have made a commitment to keep trying, that is as much as anyone can do.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Boundaries
One of the givens today is movable boundaries.
No, it is doubtful that there ever was a time when there were consistently defined and universal standards, expectations of behavior, acknowledgement what is right and what is wrong. Sure, there were clearly codified rules ranging from Moses to Hammurabi, but we are talking about social norms rather than legal/moral dictates. And today it has become more fuzzy (or at least more obviously so) than in the past.
Part of this comes from the seismic social changes that have happened in recent times. Traditional ways (even those not always acknowledged or adhered to) have been questioned, even outright discarded. Yes, there are those who, even though they honored these ways more in word than personal deed, have sought to turn back the clock to times that may have never really existed save in nostalgic memory. And when it proves impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube, the blame game begins in earnest.
Does this mean we should give up any attempt to set appropriate boundaries? Of course we need to define who each of us may be and what we may be willing to do or tolerate from another; otherwise we fall into a psychological maelstrom of enmeshment between our issues and everyone else's. Nor should we give way to what one author referred to as "raging narcissism," where we only care for our own needs (paging Ayn Rand!)
One of the biggest tasks in most psychotherapy is dealing with boundaries. On one extreme is the client who resists leaving at the end of a session. On the other is the client who consistently arrives late (if at all) and wants to leave early. The spectrum runs from those who do not trust anyone at all to those who suffer greatly from the burdens of everyone else's problems. In addition, there are clients who want to know the therapist in every detail, and clients who come with their own expectations of the therapist.
So should we not seek any standards or accept and follow any ethical mores? There is some evidence that certain actions or behavior is universally condemned (incest, for example). And we all seem to have from childhood a sense of what is "fair" or not(butting in line.) Of course, we have religious dicta that we carry from our faith, but that is where we get into the gray areas because they do not always mesh and can differ tremendously depending on how they are adhered to (do you eat pork?)
Before you begin thinking I have painted myself in a philosophical corner, let me suggest that the problem is not setting boundaries or what form of boundaries we set, but how rigidly we adhere to them. If we see our ethical/moral standards as goals rather than strict behavioral guidelines, we might be able live more honestly than we tend to do now. We might also save a great deal of emotional energy and anguish by not having to come up with rationalizations when we would not follow our own code of behavior, or feeling badly if we do. The point is having a goal to work toward, a sense of direction, something which might be at times beyond us but still whispers in our ear, come on! You can do better!
No, it is doubtful that there ever was a time when there were consistently defined and universal standards, expectations of behavior, acknowledgement what is right and what is wrong. Sure, there were clearly codified rules ranging from Moses to Hammurabi, but we are talking about social norms rather than legal/moral dictates. And today it has become more fuzzy (or at least more obviously so) than in the past.
Part of this comes from the seismic social changes that have happened in recent times. Traditional ways (even those not always acknowledged or adhered to) have been questioned, even outright discarded. Yes, there are those who, even though they honored these ways more in word than personal deed, have sought to turn back the clock to times that may have never really existed save in nostalgic memory. And when it proves impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube, the blame game begins in earnest.
Does this mean we should give up any attempt to set appropriate boundaries? Of course we need to define who each of us may be and what we may be willing to do or tolerate from another; otherwise we fall into a psychological maelstrom of enmeshment between our issues and everyone else's. Nor should we give way to what one author referred to as "raging narcissism," where we only care for our own needs (paging Ayn Rand!)
One of the biggest tasks in most psychotherapy is dealing with boundaries. On one extreme is the client who resists leaving at the end of a session. On the other is the client who consistently arrives late (if at all) and wants to leave early. The spectrum runs from those who do not trust anyone at all to those who suffer greatly from the burdens of everyone else's problems. In addition, there are clients who want to know the therapist in every detail, and clients who come with their own expectations of the therapist.
So should we not seek any standards or accept and follow any ethical mores? There is some evidence that certain actions or behavior is universally condemned (incest, for example). And we all seem to have from childhood a sense of what is "fair" or not(butting in line.) Of course, we have religious dicta that we carry from our faith, but that is where we get into the gray areas because they do not always mesh and can differ tremendously depending on how they are adhered to (do you eat pork?)
Before you begin thinking I have painted myself in a philosophical corner, let me suggest that the problem is not setting boundaries or what form of boundaries we set, but how rigidly we adhere to them. If we see our ethical/moral standards as goals rather than strict behavioral guidelines, we might be able live more honestly than we tend to do now. We might also save a great deal of emotional energy and anguish by not having to come up with rationalizations when we would not follow our own code of behavior, or feeling badly if we do. The point is having a goal to work toward, a sense of direction, something which might be at times beyond us but still whispers in our ear, come on! You can do better!
Friday, February 8, 2013
Just a Joke
He'd posted this joke on Facebook, and no I'm not going to tell it here 'cause (a) it weren't funny and (b) it was based on a series of sexist and ethnic slurs. Enough to say it was a regression to the old vaudeville gags based on insults and slapstick (which, as we all know, is really a comic form of physical abuse.)
Since I have this unfortunate difficulty tolerating that kind of thing, I pointed this out, in a low-key, polite kinda way of course. Next time I'll stick to something less hazardous, like wrestling alligators and poking bees' nests. Lighten up, I was chastised, stop being so "politically correct." It's only a joke.
Let us not be distracted by an old right-wing shibboleth, "political correctness." Let me, rather, introduce you to a little thing called "verbal abuse." When you use slurs, or stereotypes, even in a joke, you are putting someone down. You are belittling them, as in "putting them below yourself." Consider: would you say the same thing other than in the pretext of a joke?
Freud had a theory that most humor is akin to anger and hurt and humiliation. He might have had a point; consider the archetypal example of comedy: slipping on a banana peel. Why do we laugh at that? Is it because we feel superior to the poor person lying there on the ground?
Granted, there are variations on humor that depend on clever wordplay or identification with what is being talked about (Bill Cosby springs to mind.) But think of the most popular comedies out now: they are filled with people being hurt, humiliated, made to seem foolish. They are aimed at that particular stage in our lives when we can think of little funnier than putting down our peers. (In boys, as I remember, it happens around adolescence.)
And regardless of age, it is a common defense when confronted. I was just kidding. Only a joke, man. But that elides the difference.
Yes, I have a sense of humor. Like to think that I am even witty. But when someone moves into that kind of humor that depends on putting someone down, where the laughter is a cover for tears, that ain't funny anymore.
Since I have this unfortunate difficulty tolerating that kind of thing, I pointed this out, in a low-key, polite kinda way of course. Next time I'll stick to something less hazardous, like wrestling alligators and poking bees' nests. Lighten up, I was chastised, stop being so "politically correct." It's only a joke.
Let us not be distracted by an old right-wing shibboleth, "political correctness." Let me, rather, introduce you to a little thing called "verbal abuse." When you use slurs, or stereotypes, even in a joke, you are putting someone down. You are belittling them, as in "putting them below yourself." Consider: would you say the same thing other than in the pretext of a joke?
Freud had a theory that most humor is akin to anger and hurt and humiliation. He might have had a point; consider the archetypal example of comedy: slipping on a banana peel. Why do we laugh at that? Is it because we feel superior to the poor person lying there on the ground?
Granted, there are variations on humor that depend on clever wordplay or identification with what is being talked about (Bill Cosby springs to mind.) But think of the most popular comedies out now: they are filled with people being hurt, humiliated, made to seem foolish. They are aimed at that particular stage in our lives when we can think of little funnier than putting down our peers. (In boys, as I remember, it happens around adolescence.)
And regardless of age, it is a common defense when confronted. I was just kidding. Only a joke, man. But that elides the difference.
Yes, I have a sense of humor. Like to think that I am even witty. But when someone moves into that kind of humor that depends on putting someone down, where the laughter is a cover for tears, that ain't funny anymore.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Control yourself
Due in large part to the tragedy in Newtown where an obviously disturbed young man and some weapons massacred 20 children and six adults, there has been a great deal of debate regarding controlling access of such people from such weapons. Nevermind that other such tragedies over the last few years also involved persons equally unbalanced, with no such discussion subsequently. Nevermind the reality that people supposedly quite sane have been responsible for gun deaths that were just not of that scope.
The suggestion (and the actual law in New York now) is to require some sort of registry for those who have been identified as "mentally ill." Similar to the existent lists of convicted pedophiles or other criminals, those on such a list would be prevented from obtaining a gun. But this is where it begins to get murky.
The biggest issue, of course, is confidentiality. There is already a major law on the books strictly protecting patient confidentiality. Without written consent, the clinician cannot even disclose the fact that someone is in treatment, even to another clinician. The only exemption is if a person discloses to a clinician that he or she is going to hurt him/herself or another person. Called the "Duty to Warn;" you gotta notify the authorities, call the person at risk, make arrangements for the client to be hospitalized. The trick is, if that same discloses that they have in the past done that same whatever, that comes under confidentiality and cannot be disclosed!
And that doesn't even get into the area of discerning the reality of the risk. Most of the current debate seems to sweep all mentally ill people into the same pile; so seriously disturbed and so violent (or potentially violent) as to be dangerous to the populace at large. Of course, not all those who we might label "mentally ill" fit into this same Procrustean bed. They are on a vast spectrum that goes from passing depression or anxiety to those who require on-going supervision and restraint. Even there, thanks to psycho-pharmaceuticals (and the cut-backs on mental health hospitalization resources), many people who would have lived their lives in a locked mental ward are now striving to live as normal a life as possible in the world around us (assuming, of course, there is such a thing as"normal.")
There is another whole issue here, to be saved for another day, of the tension between requiring medical treatment of whatever sort, versus the freedom and autonomy of the person who, for whatever reason, refuses to take the medication or have the operation. (The New York law rolls it all into one, not only registering the "mentally ill," but penalizing them if they resist treatment.)
Of course, identifying the mentally ill is complex; can we make the distinction between the obvious (the bag lady wandering the streets mumbling) and the peripheral (the functional autistic person who does what needs to be done but just wants everyone to go the hell away!) and the everyday (the arrogant/narcissistic politician)? Can we rely on the insights of the therapist to distinguish between the expression of temporary despair and anger as against the real threat of dangerous action?
And we must recognize that, as important as it is to provide the help needed for those mentally disturbed, this should not be instead of addressing the gun issue.
The suggestion (and the actual law in New York now) is to require some sort of registry for those who have been identified as "mentally ill." Similar to the existent lists of convicted pedophiles or other criminals, those on such a list would be prevented from obtaining a gun. But this is where it begins to get murky.
The biggest issue, of course, is confidentiality. There is already a major law on the books strictly protecting patient confidentiality. Without written consent, the clinician cannot even disclose the fact that someone is in treatment, even to another clinician. The only exemption is if a person discloses to a clinician that he or she is going to hurt him/herself or another person. Called the "Duty to Warn;" you gotta notify the authorities, call the person at risk, make arrangements for the client to be hospitalized. The trick is, if that same discloses that they have in the past done that same whatever, that comes under confidentiality and cannot be disclosed!
And that doesn't even get into the area of discerning the reality of the risk. Most of the current debate seems to sweep all mentally ill people into the same pile; so seriously disturbed and so violent (or potentially violent) as to be dangerous to the populace at large. Of course, not all those who we might label "mentally ill" fit into this same Procrustean bed. They are on a vast spectrum that goes from passing depression or anxiety to those who require on-going supervision and restraint. Even there, thanks to psycho-pharmaceuticals (and the cut-backs on mental health hospitalization resources), many people who would have lived their lives in a locked mental ward are now striving to live as normal a life as possible in the world around us (assuming, of course, there is such a thing as"normal.")
There is another whole issue here, to be saved for another day, of the tension between requiring medical treatment of whatever sort, versus the freedom and autonomy of the person who, for whatever reason, refuses to take the medication or have the operation. (The New York law rolls it all into one, not only registering the "mentally ill," but penalizing them if they resist treatment.)
Of course, identifying the mentally ill is complex; can we make the distinction between the obvious (the bag lady wandering the streets mumbling) and the peripheral (the functional autistic person who does what needs to be done but just wants everyone to go the hell away!) and the everyday (the arrogant/narcissistic politician)? Can we rely on the insights of the therapist to distinguish between the expression of temporary despair and anger as against the real threat of dangerous action?
And we must recognize that, as important as it is to provide the help needed for those mentally disturbed, this should not be instead of addressing the gun issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)