Archive for July, 2011

Precision within Idolatry

by brad on July 13, 2011 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

Note: This post was originally published on the Biblical Counseling Coalition blog “Grace & Truth.” I would highly recommend this organization as a clearinghouse for excellent materials in Biblical Counseling. This post has since been critiqued by Dr. Jay Adams on his blog at nouthetic.org. Next week I will post a reply to Dr. Adams’ critique in which I hope to demonstrate that the content of this blog is not an attempt to be “new” to draw an audience, but rooted in Scriptural directives and example.

One of the areas in which I believe Biblical Counseling can grow is the precision with which we think of idolatry. I am not referring to our ability to identify the object of idolatry: a person, money, an experience, etc… Neither do I mean just singling out the desire that fuels an idolatry: pleasure, control, peace, etc… Both of these are important.

But I believe we can be precise in our understanding of idolatry in another way. An idol (by definition) replaces God. More accurately, it tends to substitute for some aspect of God. Rarely do modern people call their idols “god”; we just rely on them for some particular thing only God can do. Therefore, because God relates to humanity in many different ways, we can turn to our idols in just as many ways.

For purpose of illustration, I will coin the phrases “idols of worship” and “idols of comfort.” Each is meant to capture different aspects of God we can replace.

Idols of Worship

  • With these idols we celebrate the object of our affection.
  • We pursue it with passion because we find it delightful. We try to savor and master the experience.
  • The mode of worship for these idols is pleasure
  • If you will, this is an idol we “sing to.”
  • These idols would have a tendency to stem from our raw sin nature and deem God to be less desirable.

Idols of Comfort

With these idols we turn to them for refuge.

  • When life gets hard we turn to these false gods believing they can provide safety or a form of escape.
  • The mode of worship towards these idols is trust.
  • If you will, this is an idol we “pray to.”
  • These idols typically emanate from experiences of suffering and perceive God to be less available, relevant, or dependable.

Both forms of idolatry share some essential commonality. God has been replaced. The replacement is incapable of sustaining what is being asked. The person will experience forms of disappointment and pain.

Yet the two forms of idolatry are different in important ways. Idols of worship are “classic” idols. Idols of comfort are “subtle” idols. The first is pursued for its own sake. The latter is pursued as a means to an end. The first insults God. The latter doubts God.

What is the relevance of this discussion? Does it change counseling methodology? Does it impact our theology of counseling? I believe it does.

Impact on Methodology

In both cases, the goal is to get to right beliefs about God through Scripture and by repentance. However, the “fear of God” that leads to repentance is very different. Idols of comfort already know fear. They are looking for something to be strong. Idols of worship are more rooted in pride and think they’ve already found what they’re looking for.

The words spoken to someone struggling with an idol of comfort should be more tender. The trustworthiness and understanding of the counselor serves as an ambassador for the trustworthiness and compassion of God. They are drawn from their idol. Dependence is natural and desired. Usually the scariest part of repentance and faith for these people is the absence of control.

The words spoken to someone struggling with an idol of worship are spoken to someone who does not yet see their need to be rescued. They are often still an evangelist for their idol. Their idol serves them and they want to know if God will do the same. More cognitive, relational, and emotional structures have to be torn down and built from scratch.

Impact on Theology

These are not the only categories for idolatry that could be developed. Each way that God relates to man can reveal its own flavor(s) of idolatry. We can try to replace or subsidize any aspect of God’s character or any of God’s activities towards us. The emotions that we are playing to in our false worship become indicators of how what we need points us back to God.

With this conception of idolatry, I believe it allows us to speak of the influence of suffering upon idolatry in clearer, more refined, and more compassionate ways. Our compassion does not have to be the mere avoidance of condescension (“I am a bad sinner too”) or empathy for injustice (“I would be tempted in the same way.”). Our compassion can be more descriptively robust without leaving our anthropology behind or compromising biblical standards.

Extended conversations about pain, neglect, disappointment, and other forms of suffering paint a picture of how someone sought comfort before they knew there was a Comforter. In these cases, repentance may be a very sweet transfer of trust. Conviction may feel like fear and anticipation more than guilt. In which case, idolatry would be “seen through” as much as “put off.”

In these possibilities, the core categories (idolatry) and movements (repentance) of change are the same but the experience (emotions) and role of the counselor (confrontation for idols of worship; directive compassion for idols of comfort) is different. I would hope as we grow in our precision of understanding idolatry that it would enable us to capture the experience of more hurting people, win their trust, and point them to all of who God is.

Join the Conversation:

  •  What other categories of idolatry would you suggest? What is distinct about that category and what part of human experience does it help us understand?
  • What dangers do you see in adding diagnostic categories within idolatry? In your opinion, does the potential reward merit the risk?

Blame It On the Body?

by brad on July 11, 2011 in Counseling Reflection with 1 Comment

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

 “Most of the man’s psychological make up is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or the worst of this raw material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things we thought our own, but which were really due to a good digestion, will fall off some of us; all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health will fall off others. We shall then, for the first time, see every one as he really was. There will be surprises. (p. 91-92).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

It would again to be easy to jump into the disease-model debate regarding addictions, depression and the like. But if we engage that debate at every opportunity, we will miss many other relevant and beneficial discussions.

In this quote, we do find Lewis adding something unique to the modern conversation. Lewis attributes both desirable and undesirable traits to human physiology. Too often in modern conversations desirable traits are assumed to be “me” and undesirable traits “not me.”

We are willing to receive credit for our biological advantages, but not willing to take responsibility for our biological disadvantages. Both exist. The question is not whether some people are predisposed to addiction, depression, or numerous other vices – and virtues (in my opinion). The question is, “How should we think about responsibility in light of these responsibilities?”

In the purely volitional realm, no one will ever become an alcoholic without taking the first drink. But that cannot be where the responsibility question ends. Yet depression is harder to discern than addiction. One cannot abstain from the emotional ups and downs of life.

The question does not even end at the point of deciding whether medication is a legitimate or wise option. Medication alone cannot reverse the decision to drink or give hope. In their best usage they curb an urge, make one nauseous for succumbing to drinking, or create a stabilized-to-flat-line emotional effect.

Decisions still have to be made, relationships engaged, work done, and life lived. Even if medication is chosen, the question of responsibility is not answered or bypassed. C.S. Lewis’ point (as I understand it) is that we all have a “me” which exists inside our physical body which is tainted by the Fall. The brokenness (and blessedness) that exists in our physical body influences our “me” for better or worse.

Interlude: Our “me” is also tainted because of the Fall. Our “me” is not innocent or inherently good only to be corrupted by culture and our broken body. This is why Lewis does not vilify the body and even presents the likelihood that some people’s physical giftedness hides the degree of corruption in their soul.

So what do we take away from this reflection? If we understood the influence of our body and valued the judgment of God correctly, then it would be a significant remedy for our insecurity. We would not be competing (another way to say comparing ourselves) with other people. That exercise would reveal itself to be comparing apples to oranges.

Our goal would be simply to steward the life we have been given, in the body we have been given to live it, for the glory of God. Other people would exist to be blessed by and join us on that journey, not as the benchmark of whether we were making progress on that journey.

10 Pre-Marital Questions on Sex & Intimacy

by brad on July 6, 2011 in Church Resource, Counseling Reflection with 2 Comments

This series of blogs comes from FAQ’s from the guys in Summit’s “Preparing for Marriage” ministry. They represent a conglomeration of questions from many different husbands-to-be during the Engaged Discovery Weekend. If you are interested in serving as a marriage mentor or are engaged, click here to learn more about Summit’s “Preparing for Marriage” ministry.

QUESTION 1: How do you transition from “sex is wrong” to “sex is right”? How do we move from shame into freedom? How do you transfer from guilt associated with sex to pleasure with sex?

Click here to read my reply to Question 1.

QUESTION 2: How do I keep my thought-life pure leading up to the honeymoon? What about masturbation—is it sinful? How do you navigate from the sin of lusting for your fiancé to the lusting of your spouse (or is that a sin)? How does attraction change when you get married and begin having sex?

Click here to read my reply to Question 2.

QUESTION 3: If sex is painful for my wife, how do I help her through it? How can I practically serve, respect and honor my wife on the first night?

Click here to read my reply to Question 3.

QUESTION 4: What’s a good way to honor my wife in sex? What common things are dishonorable?

Click here to read my reply to Question 4.

QUESTION 5: Are men supposed to “lead” in sex as in other parts of the relationship?  Is there an appropriate balance for initiating intimacy?

Click here to read my reply to Question 5.

QUESTION 6: How do you overcome expectations you have from past sexual experiences?

Click here to read my reply to Question 6.

QUESTION 7: How long is reasonable for my fiancé to get over my sexual past?

Click here to read my reply to Question 7.

QUESTION 8: How do we control the carnal nature of ourselves and replace it with selfless love that the Bible teaches with regards to sex in marriage?

Click here to read my reply to Question 8.

QUESTION 9: What’s a way to handle one of us saying no to sex? How do you deal with times when you want sex and the other doesn’t? What do you do if you are not having your physical needs met? When the other person is not in the mood and you are – how do you deal with that?

Click here to read my reply to Question 9.

QUESTION 10: How do you ensure you and your spouse are having “enough” sex given a hectic and busy weekly schedule? How “intentional” do you find yourself having to be to have a “good” sex life? Are encounters scheduled a la date nights? What is the best way to maintain passion within sex as your marriage progresses?

Click here to read my reply to Question 10.

God Does Not Judge on Raw Material

by brad on July 4, 2011 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“Some of us who seem quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and a good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as fiends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man’s choices make out of his raw material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it (p. 91).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

It would be easy to miss what Lewis is saying for fear of how people might apply his words. When we read a statement like this we (or at least I am) are quick to think, “People could easily use this kind of statement to absolve themselves of personal responsibility for their actions.” Or we might go in the other direction, “Does this mean that my faithfulness and hard work have contributed nothing to my life?”

Both statements would miss the point. God is fairer than we could ever be. We often try to measure God’s fairness on the basis of His equality. When we do this we often find God’s fairness lacking, because He has not gifted each person equally.

However, we resort to equality as our criteria of fairness because that is a limitation of finiteness. If we were able to be as fair as we believed fair, the result would be boring and unmotivating uniformity. God is able to be fair (“just” might a more complete word) in a world of variety. This is because God is not limited to the observation, measurement, and enjoyment of external variables.

We may be most like God in this way as parents of young children of various ages. We praise a crawler who takes his first step, but reprimand an adolescent who drags his feet while doing a job he does not enjoy. But even in this example we are able to suspend our judgment on the basis of the measurable external factors related to physical maturity and coordination development.

So what should we take away from this reflection? It would be easy to say humility (which could easily be thinly veiled shame) or a reprimand for being too judgmental (which could easily lead us to compromise truth).

I would say that we should take away a sense of peace in God’s justness that allowed us to stop competing with one another. If we stopped competing with one another to see who was better (based upon any given Christian virtue – Bible knowledge, patience, servanthood, etc…), then humility would arise without the danger of shame. If we were not competing, then we would not be judgmental but free to love one another with the truth.

I think the reason we (or at least I am) are quick to be defensive with this quote is because we are afraid that it will strip us of whatever “advantage” we have “earned” by our obedience. Thinking in terms of “advantage” or “status” reveals that we are competing with those we are called to serve. While thinking in terms of “earning” something through our obedience, reveals we have departed from the Gospel as the motivator for our service.

In the end, I think the way that we respond to this quote (at least if you’re anything like me) reveals how much we need to hear its message. It gives me freedom, but too often I still want to compete.

Keeping Score Equals No Winners

by brad on July 1, 2011 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

This is not a blog post that endorses the politically correct version of children’s sports. Regardless of how many times I tried to tell my son we were just playing t-ball for fun, he still wanted to know “who won?” after every game. But if I don’t depart from this introduction, I will wind up on my soap box.

This is a blog about a fatal flaw in an approach to motivating your spouse in marriage. Too often we resort to keeping score: how many times we had sex this month, how many more chores I do than you do, how many times we’ve gone on a date recently, how many times you’ve said “I love you” lately, or how few letters you’ve written me.

Marital neglect is a serious issue (not addressed here), but this motivational structure is used in marriages that are far from significant neglect. In this post, I would like to point out one major reason (there are many others) why this approach does not work.

That reason is our self-centeredness (do not read this as selfishness). We experience life from within our own body and consciousness. I am aware of everything I do and all the time, energy, and thought I put into those activities. I notice every unseen thing I do for my wife. I hear every unspoken fond thought I think about my wife.

Simply put, I score a lot of points my wife never knows I score. You can ask the deep philosophical questions “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” or “If a husband loves his wife in imperceptible ways, does it count?” if you like. But the point is, on MY scoreboard I should be winning. If I’m not winning on my scoreboard, then I am REALLY losing.

But my self-centeredness disrupts the process even further. When I am doing all of my perceptible and imperceptible nice things, I am generally in a good mood which positively influences my memory. However, when I am comparing my score with my wife’s (only perceptible to the degree that I am paying attention) score, I can often be in a disappointed mood which negatively influences my memory. Again, advantage me!

But there is more to my self-centeredness. In the midst of the already inequitable system, I will give more emotional credit to the things I like best. Personally, that means that a creative meal gets more points than an organized kitchen and a kiss-like-you-mean-it gets more points than my lunch being fixed every day.

There is a name for that – arbitrary, unequal scales. These things are merely my personal preference. Do I want my wife to understand my preferences and display love by putting forth effort at the things that are important to me? Sure. Do I have the right to grade my wife, her effort, and our marriage based upon a system that is defined exclusively by my preferences? Not really.

So what is the point of this little rant? The point is that we should be humble as we recognize how self-centeredly we experience and evaluate life. It is not an attack on personal preferences. It is merely a warning against allowing our preferences to become the definition of love. If we do this we will create such a “home field advantage” in our marriage that it will be difficult for us to ever experience contentment with our spouse.

Newer Entries →
 
UA-1304055