Considering Untangling Emotions

When I taught thru the Westminster Confession of Faith I had to spend some unscheduled time on the topic of emotions when we got the subject of impassibility. The subject of emotions among Christians is often fraught with danger. I was glad to see the release of Untangling Emotions by J. Alasdair Groves and Winston T. Smith. They are coming from the same general theological tradition that I am. The timing was also good as I go through an extended season of loss personally and professionally. The last year has been very difficult and a swirling mess of emotions. Or, to borrow their metaphor a paint can of emotions that create a unique color in my life.

The book is divided into three sections: Understanding Emotions, Engaging Emotions, and Engaging the Hardest Emotions. They laid a good foundation for engaging those most pesky of emotions in the early chapters of the book. The book ends with an appendix on the doctrine of Impassibility and what they mean by saying God feels.

Emotions can often get the best of us. They seem to sneak up on us, and control us. They can get out of control as well. It is important for us to understand God’s purpose in giving us emotions. This is addressed in the Introduction and the first section.

“… we hope three different kinds of people pick up this book. First, we are writing for those whose emotions tend toward extremes. … Second, … if emotions baffle you. … Finally, we are writing to you if you want to love and care for people whose emotions, for one reason or another, have them over a barrel.”

Each of us probably find ourselves in at least one of those categories, if not more.

Their initial premise is that emotions are a gift, essential for how we bear God’s image. Jesus, as God Incarnate experiences emotions as God and man. He alone among us lived in perfect relationship with emotions. We see Him expressing sorrow, anger, compassion and more. These emotions, unlike ours, are not in control but under control. So, as they lay out the scope of the book it isn’t “about how to change our emotions but to bring them wisely to God and other people.” In this sense there are shades of Ken Sande’s Relational Wisdom which focuses on God-awareness & engagement, other-awareness & engagement, and self-awareness & engagement.

The authors want us to know that even bad emotions aren’t always or necessarily bad. Jesus wept. Jesus was angry. “God made us to respond to things as they actually are.” And in a fallen world there is plenty to be sad and mad about, sometimes at the same time. We were made in His image to see the world as He sees it, and respond as He responds. Unfortunately as sinners, we don’t see it as He does, nor respond as He does. Nevertheless emotions are a gift and like all other gifts can be misused.

They then move into what emotions actually are. Philosophically they are generally understood as arising from the body or the mind. Theologically, however we are a body-soul union. Such theories don’t quite fit. They involve our bodies (bio-chemical) as well as our thoughts. But emotions do communicate what we value or love. They function as signpost revealing what is important to us.

“Your emotions are always expressing the things you love, value and treasure, whether you understand them or not.”

Emotions also help us relate or connect to other people. Because they reveal what we value they communicate who we are. If you want to know what a person loves see what makes them sad or angry.

Emotions also motivate us into action, to put our values into action. They are also an expression of worship, the valuing of God Himself. Our love for God should shape all else that we love.

With all that in mind they enter into the complexity of our emotions. They don’t enter “single file.” They are streams of color filling the can of be base that create a single color. When I worked at Ace we’d get the right base and set the machine to put in the right amount of each main color to create the precise color you want to stick on your wall. Except, of course this is not precise and you don’t necessarily want the world to see.

Sadly, people oversimplify emotions. Some ignore them and focus on action, while others obsess over them and find someone to blame. This fails to identify emotions that are helpful, if unpleasant, and those that aren’t or are expressed in destructive ways. “Mixed emotions are the right response to a mixed world.” Jesus experienced both sadness and anger with respect to the death of Lazarus.

They move into the bodily aspects of our emotions. We have bodily reactions: chemical surges, skin changes and more. Our bodies are messengers of emotions too. Our soul communicates through the body God has given us. Made good by God, our bodies do experience corruption due to Adam’s sin, and don’t always work properly, including emotions. They mention that they can be too slow or too quick to respond, too long or too short of a time as well.

“Your body is the vehicle through which the passion of your soul flows.”

The shift into the process of connecting or relating with others through emotions. This is the sharing of the heart, and emotions flow from the heart and all that it loves. This is not about changing the other person, but discovering who they are. Some of what we discover will need to be forgiven, but love covers these things even as it prays for change.

We don’t change our emotions. Emotions are instinctual. We “listen” to them and take that message to heart. We listen to what we love and how we love it and that is where our repentance needs to be. Faith won’t grant us control over our emotions.

“Rather than selecting our emotions on a whim off a menu of ways to feel, God gave us emotions that are actually designed not to change unless what we love changes or what is happening to the thing we love changes.”

Change happens by changing what we love, and that happens as we engage or emotions. This is the second part of the book. They warn us to avoid the two extremes: letting emotions run everything or ignoring them completely. You don’t emotionally vomit each time you feel something, letting it all hang out. Neither do you stuff them until you implode. To engage them is to identify them, examine them, evaluate them and act. One problem they seemed to over look is that when we are highly emotional, it is difficult to evaluate due to flooding- we stop thinking and acting rationally because the amygdala takes over for instinctual action. But we can do this after the fact and begin to address our loves as necessary.

We then begin to engage God with our emotions, pouring out our hearts to Him. Talk about the strongest emotions in the mix. They also address why God is trustworthy to talk to about our emotions. As we do this we are able to bring our emotions into our relationships in a more healthy way. We begin to be more aware of other’s emotions as well. We talk together about what we were each feeling during a conflict: “I was scared because other’s hoarded the items we we didn’t have in sufficient quantity. The lack of control made me feel angry, and then left alone due to what I thought was a lack of support or concern on your part.” It is a sharing of what you learned in the earlier “steps”. You can also talk about how to begin doing things differently, the loves that need to change.

“Therefore, as a mixed person, living in a mixed world, with other mixed people, you may well respond to the complexities of the people and situations around you with complicated and mixed emotions.”

The next two chapters are on nourishing healthy emotions and starving unhealthy ones. It is much like vivification and mortification when we speak of sanctification. They begin by pointing us to the means of grace, so the parallel continues. The Scriptures also give us examples of a healthy way to express negative emotions, lament for instance. There is also a good emphasis on corporate worship as a place to express emotions in a healthy way. In terms of putting unhealthy emotional patterns to death they address the lies we often believe causing us to spill or stuff them.

“Instead of developing an either-or perspective on the world, develop a both-and perspective. There are absolutes in God’s universe. But our experience is sandwiched by both-ands. So reject black-and-white thinking. More often than not, it obscures truth rather than fortifies it.”

Inside Out: about a child learning about their emotions.

In the final section on managing the hardest emotions they address fear, anger, grief, guilt and shame. I found their interaction with these to be quite helpful, even though they were not long. In each chapter they walk you through their engagement process. The chapter on anger was more helpful to me and the questions that have nagged at me for the last couple of years: discerning righteous from unrighteous anger. Seeing grief as loss of connection was very helpful for me as I go through a season of loss. I’m losing my connections with my childhood as older family and extended family members pass away.

In the final chapter they address our eternal state. We will no longer experience negative emotions. Nor emotions negatively. But, they argue, we will remember the pain and sorrow, and not just the good God worked from them. We see this in Jesus, who is known by His scars, as Michael Card sang. Jesus’ trials and suffering were memorialized not white-washed. Our tears matter to God who stores them in a bottle. We won’t lament, but we will remember.

As I noted above, the book ends with an appendix on Impassibility and emotions. They develop the distinction between passions an affections. God values things too, and His affections are a response to their circumstances. But they don’t control or change Him, like they can control or change us. I used to work at a men’s shelter and heard many stories of how tragedy changed men, negatively. God’s affections reflect His unchanging character. His affections are important if He is to be a God who relates to His people or just another mute idol. Or a robot.

“God is energetically enthused and emotionally invested in creation by his own free will and consistent choice, but God’s emotional life does not compromise his character or change his essence.”

I found this to be a very helpful book. I think they were sound in their theology, and there was plenty of it. They concluded with Deuteronomy 29:29 to indicate we have true knowledge of God in what He has reveal, but He hasn’t revealed everything. I believe they were sound in their application of theology as well. I found it personally helpful, and will recommend it to some people in my care who struggle with emotions. There is much wisdom in this.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Considering The Gospel & Sexual Orientation

Released in 2012, the report by the Reformed Presbyterian Church, North America (RPCNA) has been the gold standard among Reformed and Presbyterian churches for statements on sexual orientation. I’ve been meaning to read The Gospel & Sexual Orientation, edited by Michael Lefebvre for some time.

Controversies have arisen since then that touch on the issues covered, but aren’t addressed directly by this report. I wish I had read it when the Revoice controversy hit. It would have been helpful to show how the RPCNA report actually supported much of what I was trying to tell some of my brothers who hold this in report in high esteem.

Now that the PCA ad interim committee report has come out, I decided to read The Gospel & Sexual Orientation (GSO) for comparison. I won’t be comparing them here, but as I continue my series on the PCA report, I will be able to more meaningfully refer back to the GSO.

The Forward is quite helpful. It reminds us that much of the New Testament was written in response to controversies. We dread controversies. They are an opportunity to refine our thinking and re-think pastoral strategies and responses. Yes, some will fall victim to the spirit of compromise. But not all who want to talk these things through are compromisers, but can be people of good conscience who want to think more clearly and pastorally on these issues.

This was my goal as more people in the church were being honest about their struggles with same sex attraction. I wanted additional guidance on how to effectively care for them and minister to them. I think I have a firm grasp on the Scriptural teaching (some have claimed I don’t) but wanted additional wisdom.

“Contemporary questions about sexual orientation are not simple, and they must not be treated simplistically. There are sophisticated medical, scientific, theological, and exegetical arguments at issue in the present controversy.”

According to this report, that is not a bad thing at all. It is, in fact, a necessary thing. Similarly, I don’t see the PCA report as a sign of compromise but to help us see how to apply the Scripture and Standards more thoroughly to the issue at hand in our day. I would be concerned if my fellow pastors in the PCA were jettisoning Scripture and the Standards but they are not. Yes, I get defensive with people claim they are. Thus, I do not see us taking the path of the denominations that cast off the Scriptures and ended up conforming to the world.

The first chapter is Introduction and Terminology. The focus of the chapter seems to be the word “homosexuality”. In that regard it is quite helpful. There are other terms in this discussion that I wish were laid out in similar fashion. In the more recent controversy people have been using various definitions without actually defining them and so there was a fair amount of talking past one another by assuming definitions. These additional terms would include sin and temptation.

The term, homosexuality, originated in 1869 by the social reformer Karl-Maria Kertbeny. It was in a pamphlet written in opposition to new anti-sodomy laws being proposed. Slowly use of the new term spread, and the older terminology focused on behavior fell aside. Terms for sexual orientation are relatively new, and were used to justify ending laws against same sex practice. The discussion shifted from behavior to psychology, and now that it is not considered a psychological disorder there is the search for genetic origins. In a materialistic world, there must be some material cause for such desires (is the argument).

“The term homosexual (along with its counterpart, heterosexual) was coined to convey the new idea that some people are same-sex oriented by nature and ought not be prejudiced against simply because it is a minority orientation.”

This is why I try not to use the term. It comes with baggage and is a late-comer to the discussion. This is met with a mixed response. But in light of this big shift in terminology and resulting shift in thinking the GSO proposes:

“Either the church’s traditional understanding of genders and sexual identity needs to be corrected to accommodate the new perspectives on homosexuality, or the church’s traditional positions on these matters need to be re-articulated in ways that show their relevance to the modern claims.”

We need to do exegetical work to answer the claims of those who want the Church to change its views. We also need to do pastoral work to lovingly care for those in our midst who love Jesus but still experience same sex desires. These things are not opposed.

GSO moves on to Biology, Gender, and the Biblical Doctrine of Man. The new terminology shifts thinking about same sex attraction away from morality to sociology, psychology and biology. The quest has been on for a few decades to find the material cause of homosexuality. They note that a degree of skepticism about research can be maintained for two reasons: the faulty presupposition of physiological causes in a materialistic worldview, and the reality of personal and political bias that can affect studies and conclusions. There is a great deal of pressure to validate same-sex desires. We discover similar issues in global warming, the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and a host of other issues. There is money at stake, peer pressure (not simply peer review) as well as personal agendas at play.

“… even scientific consensus is not formed in a vacuum, and the immense political pressure in this field introduces an unavoidable degree of wariness. Many of those involved in the quest, as the proponents themselves admit, have a personal interest in proving its existence.”

This is not intended to be a denial of science, nor the scientific method. Nor is it intended to rule out the possibility of an innate cause. There are physiological causes for a number of problems, including alcoholism in some cases. Finding a cause shifts our pastoral response, but not our theology. They believe that finding a cause would result in greater compassion in the church’s ministry to many of those who struggle.

“If science shows us that sexual disorders are more deeply enmeshed in human biology than the church has traditionally understood, this ought to stir our concern for even greater understanding and compassion for those who experience these desires; however, it does not change the fact that such inclinations are contrary to human nature as God designed it- and as he is redeeming it.”

Adam’s sin has broken us all. We are disordered and corrupt. The Fall has affected us spiritually, morally and physically. While the Scriptures do not speak of a sexual orientation, they do speak of “dishonorable passions” which include but are not limited to same-sex desires. We all bear brokenness, though in differing degrees and in different ways. Our lives are profoundly affected by Adam’s sin, our own sin and the sins that others commit against us. Why a particular person experiences same sex desires may be quite complex.

Romans 1 is not about an individual’s decline but a culture’s decline as it turns away from God. We are watching it unfold in America these days. There is a profound descent into spiritual and moral folly, degrading passions and cultural decline.

They also note that Jonathan Edwards wrote of a person’s ‘natural constitution’ being the root of many sins. People have different weaknesses, or sins to which they are more prone. He therefore calls for allowances to be made. Not excusing it, but recognizing the weakness. This is part of our total, or radical, depravity.

“The bondage and afflictions of the curse really do run that deep; but it is against the backdrop of such struggles that the profound power and immeasurable greatness of God’s grace shines forth with splendor and stirs our hearts with a yearning for sanctification and hope in heaven.”

They rightfully remind us that “EVERY person will face profound struggles sexually.” When we are honest about our own sexual struggles we should have more compassion on those who struggle differently. Note, compassion not compromise.

Personality Traits and the Multiplication of Gender Categories brings us back to 19th century Germany. This time it is Karl Heinrich Ulrichs who proposed new terminology. He spoke of himself as “a female soul confined by a male body”. He saw himself exhibiting some typically female traits. He thought his feminine qualities indicated that he was differently oriented. His views developed into the common saying that “sex is between the legs and gender is between the ear.” Gender became separated from physiology, which is odd in a materialistic worldview. But sin (as a power) does this kind of thing.

Our world tends to think of masculine and feminine as generalizations. When someone doesn’t fit the stereotype, they are considered to be the other gender. Instead of a strong woman simply being a strong woman, she’s considered manly and therefore masculine. Christians have fallen into this kind of cultural thinking. We really confuse people who don’t fit our strict categories. Rather than simply being an outlier, we treat them as if they are actually the other gender.

Into this they interact with the profound differences between Esau and Isaac. Esau was a “man’s man” who loved to hunt and explore. Jacob preferred life among the tents. While more “sensitive” Jacob was not a homosexual as some might supposed based on his more feminine (supposedly) qualities. While these two men had very different traits, they were both men.

This brings us to Hermeneutical Issues of the Homosexuality Debate. In this section they deal with the main arguments to adjust our theology and refute them. These arguments are:

1. Since same-sex orientation is a recent discovery, the biblical texts  addressing same-sex activity don’t apply to orientation. Yet, the Sermon on the Mount expresses Jesus’ teaching that activity flows out of the heart and reflects a Godward or selfward orientation. Paul and other NT authors speak of passions, not simply actions. They weren’t ignorant of internal dispositions but refused to allow them as an excuse to transgress the law of God. Robert Gagnon also points to similar concepts in Plato and Aristotle (inner orientation and by nature).
2. Many interpretations are based on a view of Scripture as an evolving religious understanding. This is the trajectory hermeneutic made popular by Rob Bell. It asks the question, “what would Paul think today” as if Paul was actually writing under the inspiration of the Spirit but rather the spirit of his age. But they use this concept to negate what the Scriptures say. This is obviously to be rejected as well.
3. Some use Barth’s “christocentric” interpretation in a way Barth likely never imagined. Christ is separated from the written word, and the word must be interpreted “through the lens of Jesus’ redemptive life and ministry.” As a result it re-interprets Scripture to minimize differences between people- social reconciliation. Jesus essentially, in this view, redeems homosexuality rather than redeeming saints from the sin (in both a want of conformity and transgression) of homosexuality.

“We would urge ministers and laymen to be alert for these kinds of hermeneutical errors when encountering those who quote Scripture to contradict the historic stance of the church on same-sex issues.”

Addressing the hermeneutical issues, they shift to Exegesis and Confessional Statements. Here I think they inadvertently make a huge error.

“While the exegesis of biblical texts is our only authority, confessional statements offer us the fruits of the church’s exegesis in ages past.”

I get that they are distinguishing between the role of the Scriptures from that of the Confession. But it is not our exegesis of the Scripture that is authoritative but the Scripture itself. Our exegesis can be either accurate or faulty. We are disagreeing with the exegesis of our opponents, in part, based upon their faulty presuppositions. I’m quite surprised this wasn’t cleaned up, or I am really missing something.

The rest of the chapter is quite good. They are not trying to be comprehensive in the chapter, or it would be far too long for a report. They do take us to the creation of man in  Genesis 1 & 2 to see that there are two genders. They are “two distinct categories of humanity (not poles on a continuum).” Much of what we might call gender differences are more likely differences of personality having little to nothing to do with gender. Along with gender we see the institution of marriage, including sexual union, to be heterosexual. This is social orientation determined by anatomical gender. They speak of it in terms of “head and helper” which is true as far as it goes, but remember that God is our helper too. This passage is not simply descriptive but also prescriptive regarding marriage.

They spend a fair amount of time on Sodom and Gomorrah. In the Genesis account focuses on their intention to rape the “men” who sought refuge in Lot’s home. Many claim they were judged for other sins, and discount the role of homosexuality. They root this in Ezekiel. Yes, Ezekiel addresses other sins that characterized Sodom and Gomorrah. He focused on the sins of which Judah was also guilty, and for which judgment came upon them. Similar to this is the Levite’s Concubine in Judges 19. This is handled more briefly, stressing the fact that Israel had so quickly become like the Canaanites.

Another good amount of space is devoted to Leviticus 18 and 20. They draw attention to the fact that both parties were to be put to death. It was against God’s law to play either role in a same-sex encounter. Admitting that “abomination” can refer to ceremonial uncleanness, they provide 7 reasons that these are moral injunctions and not simply “temple prostitution.” For instance, the general word for “male” is used, not the word for a “male prostitute”. The contrast is not simply about worship but with normal sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex. We also see Deuteronomy 23:17-18 addressing cultic prostitution.

GSO moves on to 1 Corinthians 6 and Paul’s vice list. They spend time explaining malakoi which can refer to the “effeminate” but was also used for the penetrated, often younger, partner. Used in conjunction with arsenokoitai we see the sexual nature of these terms and that Paul is considering both roles are not conforming to the law of God. Lev. 20 also makes the same point, and Paul is likely just drawing upon it.

In 1 Timothy 1 Paul uses arsenokoitais in his discussion of the ten commandments. He sees same-sex sex as a violation of the moral law. They spend far more time on Jude 5-7 and the “different/strange flesh”. Some get around homosexuality in saying the men of Sodom sought angel flesh, but they didn’t know the men were actually angels. The surrounding towns were also guilty of this sin, and there is no record of them seeking to assault angels looking like men. Jude wasn’t concerned about his audience seeking to have sex with angels, but lapsing back into the same-sex activity common in the Greek and Roman world.

Then GSO addresses Romans 1 again. There is much there that hearkens back to creation. This is about perversion of the created order. It is not simply about actions, but we see a focus on passions or desires which are corrupt. It is then back to Genesis and Ham’s sin against Noah. Ham is the father of the Canaanites, and their sexual perversion. We aren’t exactly sure how, but that much is clear.

They shift to the Standards, particularly WLC 139 which addresses not just homosexuality but lust, fantasies, adultery, pre-maritial sex, pornography and more. Their mention of lusts or desires reflect the fact that we are to put them to death, not just behaviors.

GSO concludes with Pastoral Implications. They want us to remember “homosexuality is not just an issue to try to understand, it is a struggle experienced by real people.” Some of those real people are in our pews and need our help. There are two things that GSO does that are reasons why I wish I’d read it prior to the Revoice controversy.

1. Don’t treat homosexuality as a special sin.  They say “they are not all that different from other temptations common to human experience. … Christians must avoid the stereotype of homosexuality as a sin greater than all others… Like many other temptations, same-sex desires often arise without warning and feel hopelessly overpowering. But all human brokenness is within reach of the Gospel’s power.”  Later, “Christians must avoid the stereotype of homosexuality as worse than all other sins and beyond the reach of God’s grace.”
2. There are no quick solutions. “Deep-seated desires are never resolved easily. They are certainly not resolved by mere will-power or ‘steps of treatment’. We dare not promise quick solutions; but neither should we shy away from the full hope of the Gospel for total redemption by the working of God’s Spirit.” They have good balance in this matter. “The Spirit of Christ may work patiently or he may work quickly.” In fact, one of the primary reasons for “failures” is unrealistic expectations. I suspect that is the reason for most people I know of that left the faith in order to live according to their sinful desires.

In the great Revoice debates it would have been great to say “I’m saying nothing different than what is expressed in the GSO.” I’m not trying to minimize sin, under-sell the Gospel, and I’m not self-deceived. I’m simply recognizing what the Westminster Standards say about sanctification. Repentance doesn’t mean we are free from temptation from within, or even that we never act on our temptations. It is an endeavor for new obedience, but our reach often exceeds our grasp in the area of sanctification. We want to be more fully sanctified.

The authors when us to remember that sanctification is about more than same-sex attraction. It is but one aspect of discipleship, not the whole enchilada. They also briefly mention that the guidelines they layout do not replace evangelism, but are generally to be understand in the context of discipleship. Generally you want to develop trust because discussing such a personal struggle is often quite difficult. Most people in the church are not proud of their struggle. They often feel legitimate shame. I’m not going to go through all their guidelines (it is short, and I want you to read this). One great need is generally healthy same-sex relationships. Non-sexual relationships. It is not about doing “manly” or “girly” things, but about building edifying relationships. It becomes about spending time together, sharing life together.

As far as GSO goes, it is excellent. Being a human document it couldn’t anticipate all of the controversies which would arise since then. It is a product of its time, and its controversy. It provides good guidance in other controversies that touch on the same issues. It provides plenty of pastoral wisdom. It should become a helpful addition to a pastor’s and church library.

Read Full Post »

Considering Sexual Chaos, Part 1

There has been lots of sex talk by pastors lately, and a lot of push back from other pastors and lay people. This whole thing has produced lots of heat, and not nearly as much light. Some of it simply reeks of sensationalism, like Ed Young’s bed on a roof stunt. Some of it has been pastors trying to pastor their people.

The push back is that pastors shouldn’t talk about sex, or write about sex. And I’ve seen quite a few people say Mark Driscoll is obsessed with sex. I don’t remember any push back to Lauren Winners’ book about sex, Real Sex. Any any number of Christian therapists’ books about sex. Perhaps it is that people just expect pastors to say “don’t do it”. They are uncomfortable with pastors, who speak to mixed audiences, talking about it positively beyond “it’s okay if you are married”. But there is no reason that pastors need to surrender this topic to counselors. But, let’s slow down.

In my advanced years, I’m less reactionary. So I’ve been pondering this. I want to explore a few things. First, why pastors need to talk about sex. Second, how should pastors talk about sex. And lastly, how pastors should help their people think thru sex. I’m anticipating three posts on this. I’m sure to offend someone. That is not my intention. I’m going to try to bring my experience as a pastor who does some counseling (yes, I have an MA in Counseling) to bear on this.

Why Pastors Need to Talk About Sex

Read Full Post »