"God is a god of love," the radio preacher said this evening, "but be warned that He is also a god of judgment!" The preacher's delivery fell on the angry side.
So God's love is conditional. The greatest power in the universe, infinitely exceeding human understanding and even imagination, is unable to love His children more than quite a few parents I've known.
It's so unfortunate. I imagine that people who preach like this were subjected to an authoritarian male role model growing up. We all project what we learned from our main authority models as children onto the mystic concept of God. Research backs me up on both points.
Jesus, from what I learned, never dwelled on harsh judgment by the Father and instead focused on treating ourselves and others well after the example of a loving God. You have to go back to the Old Testament to find God acting punitively. But wasn't Jesus sent here to tell us that we weren't Getting It as far as God was concerned? That it's not the judgment but rather the love we need to practice? Of course, I suppose one needs a good example of loving in order to understand it. Loyalty and the fear of punishment aren't the same thing.
From listening to this preacher and others today I learned that humans are miserable creatures who can't do anything right and that we can't have original good thoughs and actions, so we need a parent figure to dump all our failings on and who will then tell us what to do, no questions asked and no individuality accepted. Again, the authoritarian father image.
My imagination over the years has also said that if God created us with differing ways of perceiving, understanding, thinking, and therefore acting, then one strict rut won't fit all. Surely God understands if I perceive Him in a different way than strict fundamentalism. If God is incapable of that small feat -- and again, I've known many parents who are able to do it -- then I have to confess that it isn't a very advanced god.
Oh, by the way, tonight's preacher spent the rest of the sermon talking about judgment. Didn't mention love anymore.
Some people approach mystery with fear and build temple walls to keep the misunderstood out; others welcome mystery as an ever-challenging journey. I would enjoy some company on the journey.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Following the last blog...
More research today, more writing discovered that gives voice to my difficulties with the Bush administration, as well as the Christian/conservative movement in vogue:
There are stages to spiritual/religious development, just as there are stages to physical, mental, and emotional development. If we go by M. Scott Peck's model, the four stages are: I. chaotic (pre-religious), II. fundamental, III. athiest/agnostic/skeptic, and IV. mystical. Google 'spiritual development' for a full description; Dr. Peck is right up there at the top.
What is important to my thinking is that the fundamental stage is based in a need to feel some kind of control in the cosmos (unspoken, but this can be fear at the bottom of everything) and is typified by rigidity, legalism, literalism, authority, and conformity. People at this stage tend to perceive that they have found the truth and feel a need to convert the other 99% of the population that doesn't seem to be where they're at. The issue of concern is that such people don't recognize that there are further stages of development, and rather than looking for something more developed than their own understanding they see those beyond them as threatening and wrong.
My own observation is that people at this stage haven't integrated all parts of their personalities, beliefs, and behaviors into a consistent whole. This stage is marked by a great deal of inner conflict that is avoided by projecting fears of evil outside the self, which prevents the integration. They live in a state of unacknowledged fear, forever puzzled that they don't really have the promised joy deep down when they see it in others (those in Stage IV), and occasionally the unacknowleged darker side of themselves, which they haven't developed the skill to act against, seeks expression. That is why we have fundamentalist, charismatic leaders who are caught, literally, with their pants down doing the very things they preach against.
It's possible to remain in this stage the rest of one's life.
What happens when such people attain positions of power in business, religion, and government? The secret, behind-the-scene abuses of people, their money, their trust, their bodies, the perception of evil and enemies that have to be obliterated from the face of the planet...all of the abuses we have seen during this period of neoconservatism. That it is secretive reveals something: somewhere deep inside they know that what they're doing is wrong.
All of this is why so many people object to the policies of the present government and speak out (since such people are at a later stage of spiritual development), and also why the government doesn't understand -- and thus respond to -- the will of the people.
If anything must be done to correct this situation, it seems that the most enduring would be the most difficult: to bring the people of an entire nation to accept that there are stages of development higher than that of those in power, and to no longer allow people into positions of authority when they are at lower stages.
History is shot through with those of lower development taking the reigns. Is it impossible to change such a solid habit of humankind? While we breathe I can't discount the possibility that we could.
There are stages to spiritual/religious development, just as there are stages to physical, mental, and emotional development. If we go by M. Scott Peck's model, the four stages are: I. chaotic (pre-religious), II. fundamental, III. athiest/agnostic/skeptic, and IV. mystical. Google 'spiritual development' for a full description; Dr. Peck is right up there at the top.
What is important to my thinking is that the fundamental stage is based in a need to feel some kind of control in the cosmos (unspoken, but this can be fear at the bottom of everything) and is typified by rigidity, legalism, literalism, authority, and conformity. People at this stage tend to perceive that they have found the truth and feel a need to convert the other 99% of the population that doesn't seem to be where they're at. The issue of concern is that such people don't recognize that there are further stages of development, and rather than looking for something more developed than their own understanding they see those beyond them as threatening and wrong.
My own observation is that people at this stage haven't integrated all parts of their personalities, beliefs, and behaviors into a consistent whole. This stage is marked by a great deal of inner conflict that is avoided by projecting fears of evil outside the self, which prevents the integration. They live in a state of unacknowledged fear, forever puzzled that they don't really have the promised joy deep down when they see it in others (those in Stage IV), and occasionally the unacknowleged darker side of themselves, which they haven't developed the skill to act against, seeks expression. That is why we have fundamentalist, charismatic leaders who are caught, literally, with their pants down doing the very things they preach against.
It's possible to remain in this stage the rest of one's life.
What happens when such people attain positions of power in business, religion, and government? The secret, behind-the-scene abuses of people, their money, their trust, their bodies, the perception of evil and enemies that have to be obliterated from the face of the planet...all of the abuses we have seen during this period of neoconservatism. That it is secretive reveals something: somewhere deep inside they know that what they're doing is wrong.
All of this is why so many people object to the policies of the present government and speak out (since such people are at a later stage of spiritual development), and also why the government doesn't understand -- and thus respond to -- the will of the people.
If anything must be done to correct this situation, it seems that the most enduring would be the most difficult: to bring the people of an entire nation to accept that there are stages of development higher than that of those in power, and to no longer allow people into positions of authority when they are at lower stages.
History is shot through with those of lower development taking the reigns. Is it impossible to change such a solid habit of humankind? While we breathe I can't discount the possibility that we could.
Monday, May 19, 2008
An Authoritarian Dilemna
Have you ever run across a bit of writing that encapsulates something you've believed for a long time? Last week, while doing some research on parenting styles, I ran across the 'authoritarian personality'. It was from research done by Theodor Adorno and proposed as a personality disorder to go along with the other eight existing disorders. The summary I read included this:
"A major determing factor in the formation of the authoritarian personality was found to be a pattern of strict and rigid parenting, in which obedience is instilled through physical punishment and harsh verbal discipline.
...People with this personality structure discharge the hostility accumulated by their harsh upbringing against those whom they perceive to be of lower status by forming negative stereotypes of them and discriminating against or overtly persecuting them. It is also thought that they may be projecting their own weaknesses and fears onto the groups they denigrate as inferior. Other traits associated with this personality type include dependence on authority and rigid rules, conformity to group values, admiration of powerful figures, compulsiveness, concreteness, and intolerance of ambiguity."
A personality disorder results in misery for the one with the disorder, for those around him or her, and even potential harm to others, making it worthy of use to bar such people from positions where they could misuse or abuse power based on the pathology.
Other research (see Baumrind, 'parenting styles') determined that such people produce children who have lower levels of esteem, lower social skills, lower academic achievement, and less individuality. One bit of research stated that people with authoritarian personality tend to perceive enemies around them.
I've been trying to say this stuff for years. It's woven into all my critiques of the Bush administration.
The punch line: Adorno's research is nothing new. It was published in 1950. It has been replicated numerous times and found to be accurate. It has been refined. Yet the personality disorder was never included with the others and this information isn't used to screen unhealthy types in business (where personality tests are used for screening every day), the military (where apparently screening is only done on those at the bottom ranks), government (where the public trust gives one authority and tools that are easily abused), or religion (ditto).
If you will read Baumrind, by the way, there is a difference between authoritarian and authoritative. See her works.
The perception of enemies (Bush last week in Israel: "We are engaged in an ancient battle between good and evil"), having the world's largest and most sophisticated military under one's command, the continual exposure of top-level CEO's and front-line religious leaders abusing people, and so forth make for a good argument to revisit whether we should include this personality disorder as a legitimate diagnosis. It would put a lot of people out of a job -- including psychologists who are like this, since this field attracts those with unhealthy dynamics looking for a defense against the world -- but isn't that what we want?
"A major determing factor in the formation of the authoritarian personality was found to be a pattern of strict and rigid parenting, in which obedience is instilled through physical punishment and harsh verbal discipline.
...People with this personality structure discharge the hostility accumulated by their harsh upbringing against those whom they perceive to be of lower status by forming negative stereotypes of them and discriminating against or overtly persecuting them. It is also thought that they may be projecting their own weaknesses and fears onto the groups they denigrate as inferior. Other traits associated with this personality type include dependence on authority and rigid rules, conformity to group values, admiration of powerful figures, compulsiveness, concreteness, and intolerance of ambiguity."
A personality disorder results in misery for the one with the disorder, for those around him or her, and even potential harm to others, making it worthy of use to bar such people from positions where they could misuse or abuse power based on the pathology.
Other research (see Baumrind, 'parenting styles') determined that such people produce children who have lower levels of esteem, lower social skills, lower academic achievement, and less individuality. One bit of research stated that people with authoritarian personality tend to perceive enemies around them.
I've been trying to say this stuff for years. It's woven into all my critiques of the Bush administration.
The punch line: Adorno's research is nothing new. It was published in 1950. It has been replicated numerous times and found to be accurate. It has been refined. Yet the personality disorder was never included with the others and this information isn't used to screen unhealthy types in business (where personality tests are used for screening every day), the military (where apparently screening is only done on those at the bottom ranks), government (where the public trust gives one authority and tools that are easily abused), or religion (ditto).
If you will read Baumrind, by the way, there is a difference between authoritarian and authoritative. See her works.
The perception of enemies (Bush last week in Israel: "We are engaged in an ancient battle between good and evil"), having the world's largest and most sophisticated military under one's command, the continual exposure of top-level CEO's and front-line religious leaders abusing people, and so forth make for a good argument to revisit whether we should include this personality disorder as a legitimate diagnosis. It would put a lot of people out of a job -- including psychologists who are like this, since this field attracts those with unhealthy dynamics looking for a defense against the world -- but isn't that what we want?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Flotsam and Jetsam
In my spam box there are at least ten messages a day promising to enhance my male appendage. Two things strike me: 1. the absolute volume of these messages day after day means that lots of men are buying, and most of it is bunk based on the manufactured lie that size equates with manhood; and 2. the titles on many of the messages refer to a love weapon, a love sword, a battering ram, a pocket snake and so forth. Since when is lovemaking a matter of battle, of force, of assault? Conquer thyself first, warrior.
Gore Vidal, in an interview with Amy Goodman, said that 9-11 was a very successful coup d'etat. A conspiracy theorist, they call people with that opinion. Only, what if he is right and people dismiss him just because they don't want to believe it? What would we have to go through to knock people off their pride and denial, how much destruction and death would have to happen before enough people say, "You were right"?
Last week I heard a client say that she stabbed her husband in a fight while he was drunk. It never got reported to police. Three weeks ago I sat on a kitchen tile floor for an hour and a half talking a woman down from suicide. Today I repeatedly told a client that she didn't have to rely on other people to give advice and make decisions for her, that she could make decisions for herself; how did she get to age 53 with nobody telling her that before? Two clients today nodded off in the office because they took pain meds or too many mood meds before coming in. My jobs never lacks for variety. And these are just the people whose problems have gone on long enough that they've gotten diagnosed. There are so many people out there with the same problems who never get help. And we make it a national priority to fight someone half the world away, spending five thousand dollars a second on the effort while cutting Medicaid benefits for citizens stateside who need help?
My roses are blooming. The simple, artistic complexity of the bloom just blows me away. Such effortless beauty. And I didn't even ask for it.
During Grandma Tressa's funeral on Monday, the family was standing outside the sanctuary just prior to the private family viewing when a double row of preschoolers, hand in hand, walked through our crowd. The symbolism wasn't wasted on an aunt and me: we had such smiles, seeing that new life exists side by side with death and the cycle goes on.
Gore Vidal, in an interview with Amy Goodman, said that 9-11 was a very successful coup d'etat. A conspiracy theorist, they call people with that opinion. Only, what if he is right and people dismiss him just because they don't want to believe it? What would we have to go through to knock people off their pride and denial, how much destruction and death would have to happen before enough people say, "You were right"?
Last week I heard a client say that she stabbed her husband in a fight while he was drunk. It never got reported to police. Three weeks ago I sat on a kitchen tile floor for an hour and a half talking a woman down from suicide. Today I repeatedly told a client that she didn't have to rely on other people to give advice and make decisions for her, that she could make decisions for herself; how did she get to age 53 with nobody telling her that before? Two clients today nodded off in the office because they took pain meds or too many mood meds before coming in. My jobs never lacks for variety. And these are just the people whose problems have gone on long enough that they've gotten diagnosed. There are so many people out there with the same problems who never get help. And we make it a national priority to fight someone half the world away, spending five thousand dollars a second on the effort while cutting Medicaid benefits for citizens stateside who need help?
My roses are blooming. The simple, artistic complexity of the bloom just blows me away. Such effortless beauty. And I didn't even ask for it.
During Grandma Tressa's funeral on Monday, the family was standing outside the sanctuary just prior to the private family viewing when a double row of preschoolers, hand in hand, walked through our crowd. The symbolism wasn't wasted on an aunt and me: we had such smiles, seeing that new life exists side by side with death and the cycle goes on.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Grandma Tressa
Yesterday was cold and rainy, and Grandma Tressa passed away. It's no tragedy for an old woman to die; two years ago at my dad's funeral she kept saying that it should have been her first. But after 94 years she was tired and her body shut down. She saw a lot in those years.
Today I looked at my home and the things in it. Although there is a good deal of antique furniture, although several things in my home cross the line into fine possessions, it struck me that all these things are somewhat comfortable but ultimately don't matter. Seeing my guitar propped up by the couch it seemed more important that I learned how to play music, that I learned to take pictures and cut gemstones, that I became an Eagle Scout and put myself through college and graduate school. It is more important that I spend time with my daughter and do the volunteer work that I've done for several years. There's no way of knowing how far my ideas and influence spread through my counseling work and writings, but it's more important that I do these things than buy nicer furniture.
It's important that I understand one day I will die, and being satisfied with my life at that point depends on what I do today and today and today. Since I don't know when I will die it is important that I be satisfied with what I've done today and every day hence.
Yesterday, buying pipe tobacco, the gal at the register asked if I wanted a bag. I told her I had enough at home already. She asked if I was married, with a sly grin. I replied that I will never refer to a woman like that, and that life is too short to build myself up by tearing others down. She said I was a good man. Today and today and today.
Be at peace, Grandma Tressa. I'll be along soon enough.
Today I looked at my home and the things in it. Although there is a good deal of antique furniture, although several things in my home cross the line into fine possessions, it struck me that all these things are somewhat comfortable but ultimately don't matter. Seeing my guitar propped up by the couch it seemed more important that I learned how to play music, that I learned to take pictures and cut gemstones, that I became an Eagle Scout and put myself through college and graduate school. It is more important that I spend time with my daughter and do the volunteer work that I've done for several years. There's no way of knowing how far my ideas and influence spread through my counseling work and writings, but it's more important that I do these things than buy nicer furniture.
It's important that I understand one day I will die, and being satisfied with my life at that point depends on what I do today and today and today. Since I don't know when I will die it is important that I be satisfied with what I've done today and every day hence.
Yesterday, buying pipe tobacco, the gal at the register asked if I wanted a bag. I told her I had enough at home already. She asked if I was married, with a sly grin. I replied that I will never refer to a woman like that, and that life is too short to build myself up by tearing others down. She said I was a good man. Today and today and today.
Be at peace, Grandma Tressa. I'll be along soon enough.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Food Insecurity
The term ‘food insecurity’ has been around a few years. It is a sanitized version of ‘starvation’. Lately, with worldwide starvation increasing and food riots from country to country, the term ‘food insecurity’ is increasingly used in reporting, even on more balanced NPR.
What is the need to sanitize the concept? Why can’t we face starvation for what it is? Because we, citizens of the United States, have more food and resources than the majority of people in the rest of the world. And because we, the United States, have enacted policies that have deprived people in other countries of food. Can we not face our responsibility for amassing food and resources at the expense of others, consigning them to poverty and starvation? Guilt is a strong motivator, but to use the energy given by guilt to cover up the problem does nothing but assuage our own spiritual insecurity. At least on the conscious level.
President Bush has asked for $700 million to address the problem. On the surface I am glad he doesn’t take the hard-hearted position of a capitalist who believes people are poor because they choose to be, and actually does something toward the problem. However, to keep things in perspective, he is asking for one-tenth the amount of money for starvation that he asks for war funding, making his priorities clear. Politically, how can he not address such widespread starvation? It’s got to be difficult to address the negative effects of policies without changing said policies. And one wonders whether it isn’t just ‘throwing money at the problem’, giving a man a fish rather than teaching him to fish. Dubbya and his supporters might not have been listening in Sunday school. Who would Jesus take advantage of to increase profits?
Sanitized words and buying our way out of guilt. Food insecurity? Spiritual vacuity.
What is the need to sanitize the concept? Why can’t we face starvation for what it is? Because we, citizens of the United States, have more food and resources than the majority of people in the rest of the world. And because we, the United States, have enacted policies that have deprived people in other countries of food. Can we not face our responsibility for amassing food and resources at the expense of others, consigning them to poverty and starvation? Guilt is a strong motivator, but to use the energy given by guilt to cover up the problem does nothing but assuage our own spiritual insecurity. At least on the conscious level.
President Bush has asked for $700 million to address the problem. On the surface I am glad he doesn’t take the hard-hearted position of a capitalist who believes people are poor because they choose to be, and actually does something toward the problem. However, to keep things in perspective, he is asking for one-tenth the amount of money for starvation that he asks for war funding, making his priorities clear. Politically, how can he not address such widespread starvation? It’s got to be difficult to address the negative effects of policies without changing said policies. And one wonders whether it isn’t just ‘throwing money at the problem’, giving a man a fish rather than teaching him to fish. Dubbya and his supporters might not have been listening in Sunday school. Who would Jesus take advantage of to increase profits?
Sanitized words and buying our way out of guilt. Food insecurity? Spiritual vacuity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)