Spiritual consumerism or ?

Christmas is a busy period for some. In most Christian traditions it is a time of joyful anticipation and watchfulness. It is also an opportune time when the message of Christian salvation is shared in many different modes, ranging from personal outreach and street carolling to large scale musical productions.

I attended one such event, a modest and admirable production. It came inclusive with a preacher sharing a personal testimony and fervent invitations to join the faith. Unexpectedly I almost laughed out loud at one particular statement. That bothered me a little.

I'm one who rarely laughs unless it's over an intelligent joke or an ironical situation. What triggered my response was "come try my Jesus for two months".  Consumerist ideas may be invading religion or there could be a myriad of reasons to explain why a person might say this. Anyway I will never know and it would be counter-productive for me to pursue this track of knowledge externally.

The irony I saw was on one end there are lofty and noble things: eternal salvation, a life changing religious faith, etc; on the other end: a product with return policy of two months. I could accuse the preacher of diminishing the religion but it also showed I was sensitive to such contrasts.

Looking inwards, over the years it has been easier for me to accept the diversity of human emotions and "negative" behaviours. Now the challenges are becoming more subtle. Surely, the preacher did not intend to make me laugh. This will be an interesting investigative project ...

Spiritual materialism

I found the below writing resonant with thoughts about my own religion, and also about most organized religions. The dominant discourse about the Christian religion is one about promised salvation. Can one let go of this "reward" and take up the practices of contemplation, compassion, and charity? It leads me to wonder, if Christianity did not promise salvation, would there be any followers?  Can people aim for "world peace" without any end goal at the end of life as we know it?

As long as we follow a spiritual approach promising salvation, miracles, liberation, then we are bound by the "golden chain of spirituality." Such a chain might be beautiful to wear, with its inlaid jewels and intricate carvings, but nevertheless, it imprisons us. People think they can wear the golden chain for decoration without being imprisoned by it, but they are deceiving themselves. As long as one's approach to spirituality is based upon enriching ego, then it is spiritual materialism, a suicidal process rather than a creative one.

-- Chogyam Trungpa

What is meditation?

Mother Teresa's biographer heard that when she awoke in the morning she would pray for an hour or two before she went out to do her spiritual work of charitable service. The biographer asked her what she said to God when she prayed, to which Mother Teresa replied, 'Oh, I don't say anything to God. I just listen.'

The curious biographer then asked, 'Well, when you listen to God, what does God say to you?'

Mother Teresa smiled and replied, 'Oh, God doesn't say anything. He just listens too!'

When her biographer questioned Mother Teresa further about her prayers to God, she replied: 'If I ever feel the need to speak to God in prayer, there are only two words that need to be said: thank you!'

Quoted from Meditation: An in-depth guide. Originally from an interview with a reporter, Dan Rather, CBS anchorman, and published in his book Deadlines & Datelines -- Essays for a new century, 1999.

Ways of being in relationship

But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.
Love one another but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf.
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.
Give your hearts, but not into each other's keeping.
For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts.
And stand together, yet not too near together:
For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow.
-- The Prophet: On Marriage by Khalil Gibran

Living with your emotions

Praise and blame,
Fame and shame,
Gain and loss,
Pleasure and sorrow,
Come and go like the wind.
To be at peace,
rest like a great tree
in the midst of them all.
-- The Buddha

Reflections on "Staring at the Sun"

I've just read Irvin Yalom's latest book on the topic of overcoming the terror of death. It connected very well with two other books that I read just before this: "Heideigger and a Hippo Walk Through Those Pearly Gates", and "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar". Common to these three books is the background on the journey of philosophers who have sought answers to the big questions about life.

Having experienced bouts of death anxiety before, the book did make sense to me in some of its recommendations in overcoming such anxiety. What  stood out for me though was Yalom's definition of ultimate concerns, he wrote "in my view, four ultimate concerns are germane to the practice of therapy: death, isolation, meaning in life, and freedom."  As I think about the approach of Narrative Therapy which I have adopted for my work, there is indeed great similarity with Yalom's existential psychotherapy. Narrative therapy being social constructionist in nature does place social connection  as being significant in therapy, thus the concern of isolation is addressed by efforts to reconnect clients to their community. Helping clients re-discover their personal agency in life basically tackles the issue of finding meaning in life and liberates them to take action.  The key difference is perhaps Yalom's belief that death is at the core of client's problems.

Postmodernism is a return to simpler ideas

While reading about structural family therapy I came across this passage describing the unbalancing phase in its practice:

"It is for their emphasis on the unbalancing phase of treatment that structural family therapists take the most heat from postmodernists and the narrative school of therapy. Joining is common to all forms of therapy and elicits no criticism. Enactments are central to structural family therapy because of the focus on the couple relating in "the here and now" as opposed to reporting on their behaviour outside of the treatment. Enactments in general are not provocative to postmodernists, since in enactments a therapist is simply asking a couple to speak to each other rather than to the therapist. However, the unbalancing phase of treatment is most controversial (Anderson & Goolishan, 1988). Challenging and unbalancing a couple's preferred style of interpersonal behaviour is often labeled by postmodernists as "disrespectful," "bullying," "culturally insensitive," "hierarchical," and/or "patriarchal." We agree that all of these accusations can be true. Some therapists are guilty of imposing their own values, insensitively confronting families, and being ignorant of the cultural differences motivating others. Any therapeutic technique can be misused or abused, and all therapies share in common the injunction that a therapist always remain respectful of her clients. Respect for clients is a necessary condition that must be present in all treatments if there is to be a therapeutic alliance and any meaningful change in behaviour.

But we believe that a therapist has expertise and leverage that can be used to benefit a couple. To deny that a therapist has advanced training and expertise in the dynamics of relational systems would be pointless. Choosing how to use the power of knowledge creatively requires the therapist to be both self-aware and ethical. The therapist intervenes based upon what is observed in the session. The therapist creates intensity by labeling and confronting the family's dynamic. The unbalancing phase of treatment is based upon a belief that people change their behaviour when they reach a critical state of discomfort that becomes intolerable for both the individual and the system. Members of the family at this stage have the opportunity to take responsibility for the consequences of their behaviour." -- Couple Therapy with Gay Men by David E. Greenan & Gil Tunnell.

What I find interesting are the similarities and differences between structural and narrative approaches. In narrative therapy a key concept is that life is multi-storied, thus the therapist finds entry points to unearth some of these other stories that may describe more about client's preferred identity and personal agency.  In a way this can be viewed as a type of "unbalancing" where alternative stories become more visible and known while the problem saturated story loses its grip. Perhaps the problem is not with "unbalancing" but with the approach used in achieving this. 

It does take significant effort on a structural therapist's part to influence a change through modifying existing structure/patterns of interpersonal behaviour.  Looking at a narrative therapist's approach, there is less focus on the therapist's ability to modify or facilitate modification but more on meaning making through dialogue. And how such meaning making can spur clients to seek solutions on their own. This roundabout path does not tackle the problem/structure/pattern/scripts directly which then allows it to be more respectful of clients.

Anderson, H., & Goolishan, H.A. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems. Family Process, 27, 371-393.