A number of insights to be gleaned from the report in Monday’s NY Times, “Go Easy On Yourself.” Not just in the sense of horizontalized Law (discipline/criticism) vs Grace (compassion) – though that too – but in the clearly universal discrepancy between head knowledge and heart knowledge, and most remarkably, in the immediate objection that self-compassion will lead to self-indulgence. An objection known in Christian terms as the fear of antinomianism or licentiousness, which crops up whenever freedom is being proclaimed. In fact, I’ve rarely heard it voiced so clearly in the social science realm. Now, if the “self” part of this equation causes some unease/sets off New Age alarms – which it probably should – perhaps things become more palatable to think of self-compassion as the process of internalizing the Gospel (i.e. at the end of the day, do you really believe God’s grace applies to you?). Meaning, I don’t think the article is endorsing auto-suggestive nonsense; Christians need not reflexively steer clear altogether. In other words, just because we see the basis of personalized compassion in Calvary, and not some pie-in-the-sky Stuart Smalley sense of intrinsic goodness, doesn’t make it any less real or concrete, ht CR:
People who find it easy to be supportive and understanding to others, it turns out, often score surprisingly low on self-compassion tests, berating themselves for perceived failures like being overweight or not exercising.
The research suggests that giving ourselves a break and accepting our imperfections may be the first step toward better health. People who score high on tests of self-compassion have less depression and anxiety, and tend to be happier and more optimistic. Preliminary data suggest that self-compassion can even influence how much we eat and may help some people lose weight.
This idea does seem at odds with the advice dispensed by many doctors and self-help books, which suggest that willpower and self-discipline are the keys to better health. But Kristin Neff, a pioneer in the field, says self-compassion is not to be confused with self-indulgence or lower standards.
“I found in my research that the biggest reason people aren’t more self-compassionate is that they are afraid they’ll become self-indulgent,” said Dr. Neff, an associate professor of human development at the University of Texas at Austin. “They believe self-criticism is what keeps them in line. Most people have gotten it wrong because our culture says being hard on yourself is the way to be.”
A positive response to the statement “I’m disapproving and judgmental about my own flaws and inadequacies,” for example, suggests lack of self-compassion. “When I feel inadequate in some way, I try to remind myself that feelings of inadequacy are shared by most people” suggests the opposite.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2bgZinFGEo&w=600]
COMMENTS
29 responses to “Self-Criticism, Self-Compassion and Self-Indulgence, Reconsidered”
Leave a Reply
If I am looking to myself for either criticism or compassion, I am in big trouble. While it is true that "repentance and true faith" in the one who has been compassionate toward me even unto death can bring true freedom from the prison of both self-criticism and self-compassion, "self-compassion" that stands apart for that is simply self-delusion. Of course, self-delusion can and does have its own powerful chill-out benefits.
If I am looking to myself for either criticism or compassion, I am in big trouble. While it is true that "repentance and true faith" in the one who has been compassionate toward me even unto death can bring true freedom from the prison of both self-criticism and self-compassion, "self-compassion" that stands apart for that is simply self-delusion. Of course, self-delusion can and does have its own powerful chill-out benefits.
But the fact really is that people do look at themselves critically, all the time. And this doesn't change on the instant (if it changes at all) simply when people become Christian. At least, it doesn't appear to, for most people; there appears to be more to it than that.
In fact, it appears as though some amount of work is required for mental health; that's certainly true in A.A. "The program" is at its heart – and that consists of working on one's problems via the 12 Steps. The Steps then ultimately become part of one's life and M.O.
I'm not saying that "self-compassion" is one of the needed processes, or not – it might be, though. A.A. does say, though, that in the case of depressives, a mentor (sponsor) can point out that a person's faults are probably not any different or more numerous than anybody else's. Which sounds a lot like “When I feel inadequate in some way, I try to remind myself that feelings of inadequacy are shared by most people," to me.
I think it's always to the good when we can simply become one among many, in fact – maybe that's the curative part.
I do agree with your last statement, however….
Gospel freedom is the freedom to see myself as the "miserable offender" that I am, not as the "relatively ok guy that has faults shared by millions." I have been given the freedom to repent and be forgiven again and again, knowing that God's love for me is not dependant on my pathetic efforts at "self-compassion." Of course being a Christian does not mean that I am magically healed and do not engage in ego-driven self-compassion or self-criticism, but that when I do, God's love is there to comfort even the wretched, self-deluded, man that I am.
I am also reminded of St. Paul describing himself as "chief among sinners" and seeing that stark personal reality as evidence of God's limitless love. I am thankful that Paul was such a failure at the art of "self-compassion."
Well, now: you've read quite a bit into my comment. Nowhere did I say that the idea was that I was a "relatively OK guy"; obviously I'm saying completely the reverse, if I'm talking about depressives. I'm talking about people who have a radically (and unrealistically, BTW) negative opinion of themselves. (Actually, as A.A. points out: this is just another case of self-absorption – imagining that I am worse by an order of magnitude than other people is the mirror image of imagining that I am better by that much. In both cases, I'm making myself out to be different from other human beings, instead of just an ordinary sinner, as you say. But the problem is real nonetheless, and needs to be addressed.)
I'm intrigued by the mention of "Gospel freedom" again, too; what, exactly, is meant by this? I don't ever feel it, I don't think.
I'm also curious about how people with, say, weak or vacillating faith are supposed to get any better in this system. Lots of people have trouble believing in God, or lose their faith; what's the procedure at that point? I would think it would be reasonable to find some way to work on one's problems when faith fails, as it often does.
I just don't think the church does a very good job of healing people, that's all; I'm looking for something more robust. (I'm not the first to say so, BTW; William James said the same thing at his lectures in 1900, and suggested that the church's inability to help people get better was the reason the whole "mind-cure" movement was taking hold.)
I keep thinking the church needs some Steps, actually….
(St. Paul was helped a great deal, I'd say, by his overwhelming conversion experience. He felt truly "called."
Most people, though, don't have that experience. So how can they have that kind of faith – and what if they don't, often?
Interestingly, BTW, A.A.'s Bill Wilson also had one of those overwhelming conversions….)
bls- I do agree that it is certainly the case that we are all sinners, and equally in trouble when measured by an absolute standard. But if I am able to make myself feel better by comparing myself to others who are in the same boat,rather than to an absolute standard, then the feel-good vibe that results serves only to drive a wedge between the real, nasty me and the love of God in Christ Jesus. As for the faith that that is so…that is a gift that requires no more effort on my part or yours than it did for Paul to be struck blind.
Well, again: I don't think it's necessarily about "making myself feel better." I would say it's more along the lines of "getting an accurate picture of myself."
One of our biggest problems as human beings is that we cannot see ourselves accurately. And people literally can't get there from here, because for one thing, everybody's early environment is unique to them – and includes highly complex factors and influences that our still-forming brains cannot take in, much less analyze.
So it's necessary to take a look – with the help of somebody else – at what the reality is. And if you happen to be excessively self-critical it's really quite helpful to recognize that you're just another schmoe, no more and no less. That way you can get about the business of working on whatever real problems you have, rather than fixating on false ones.
And finding compassion for the human plight – as it manifests in you (not YOU in particular, but the generic "you") – might not be a bad place to start. In any case, there are people really quite messed up who could use some treatment for some of these things – and churches probably won't supply it.
Of course, you might also risk your talent for being "supportive and understanding to others" when you start messing with your self-critical neurosis….
I think bls's reference to William James's 1900 lectures is extremely helpful.
We probably all wish the churches were providing that 'getting better' which sufferers crave, and require, in order to survive life. I truly wish one didn't need to go further afield, to find "what I still haven't found that I'm looking for" (U2). I wish the cure were all in our own backyard.
But on the ground at least, in observed pastoral experience, there's a lot of healing not going on.
No wonder the needy life keeps searching. I guess that has made me a little more "eclectic" in terms of pastoral pharmaceuticals.
I remember how Dr. Frank Lake, a prodigious person of healing within the Church of England, used to be criticized for his checking out new approaches to emotional pain, including LSD and the "primal scream". These unconventional approaches embarrassed us a little, as Christians.
But here is what he kept on saying: "I'm open to anything that will help unlock the door for people trapped in cycles of early affliction." If real healing is there, then the Crucified must be there, too.
Thank you, bls !
If real healing is there, then the Crucified must be there, too.
And that is exactly the point, I think – the very center of it all. The Crucified was also the Healer of the world; that was just about his whole earthly ministry, as far as I can tell.
The Great Physician would have loved whatever healed those who suffer, I'm almost positive.
I have to add that I really don't think I see faith at all from the perspective many on this board see it – it's simply not in my DNA to have a gut feeling for what I think is being termed "Gospel freedom" here.
Which is really OK – I lack the understanding and the particular faith implied by this thinking. Others here have it, and may they be ever blessed.
One size obviously does not fit all! That's maybe why there are so many ways to look at the salvation story.
I like talking to you all, but I can't get the feeling; I don't have your brand of faith – I have a different way, I guess. But we can still talk things over and come up with other ways to find healing, I think….
Paul, I agree that those who call themselves orthodox Christians, and I include myself as part of this problem, have been the source of much pain and have not shown the love and compassion of Jesus to the afflicted. We, including me, are prone to want to defend the truth claims of orthodox Christianity at the expense of empathetic love for those who are in need of a life line. But is the response to this a "compassionate" gnostic syncretism which finds "the Crucified" everywhere and anywhere we "feel the love"? Maybe so, but I can't tell you what a deep loss I feel reading your comment.
But Miguel,
where did I place the words "gnostic" and "syncretism" in my comment?
William James' mention of 'New Thought' is interesting to me not because of 'New Thought', but because it points to some failings in the Church's effectiveness in this area of healing for its members.
That was my point:
It's about us, not an endorsement of anything else in particular.
"We", the inheritors of a great Good Hope, have some homework to do. We need a little help, at least as I see it, in order to do what we so warmly desire to do, which is help our fellow sufferers as they're ' "toiling up new Calvaries ever".
Paul, Well, you did not use those words, that is true.
And finding compassion for the human plight – as it manifests in you (not YOU in particular, but the generic "you") – might not be a bad place to start. In any case, there are people really quite messed up who could use some treatment for some of these things – and churches probably won't supply it.
And that is exactly the point, I think – the very center of it all. The Crucified was also the Healer of the world; that was just about his whole earthly ministry, as far as I can tell.The Great Physician would have loved whatever healed those who suffer, I'm almost positive.
I don't think that it is helpful to confuse Church with therapy, self-help, or psychology. A Christian church is (or should be, at least) a place where people are brought face to face with a God who claimed that He was the only source of true life–helpful or no–and not with an abstract god who "heals," or "loves" or does any of the things that gods of our own construction must necessarily do.
I don't think that anyone would begrudge people from finding a little solace and consolation from fellow humans who suffer both generally (c.f. Plato: be kind, because everyone you meet is in the midst of a great struggle) and specifically; however, that does not have anything necessarily to do with the message of the Gospel.
All you have to do is turn on the TV to see that there is no uniquely Christian mandate to be long-suffering, compassionate and kind, not to mention self-sacrificing, and there is no guarantee that Christians would be any more self aware than others–history certainly attests to that. But, and this is the point, it is the offense of forgiveness and mercy shown to just these type gruff, unenlightened, dare I say sinful people, which remains the stumbling block of the Christian message. Yoga might be a source of physical and even emotional healing, but only Christ saves.
As long as people think that Church is about getting healed, getting better, being nicer, more compassionate, more enlightened, more peaceful, better in any way, then, of course, people are going to reject it, because when your ideal can not exist, i.e., a perfect church, then the grass will always be greener on the other side of the pew. Surely nobody thinks that judgment or hypocrisy only exists within the church?
As for healing, the world into which Jesus came certainly was not devoid of its healing religious claims—Artemis and Baal could help you out with a primal scream (or other such primal desires) or two—but into this world came a group of people who were proclaiming the end of healing, because, as the Apostle Paul often said–"You have died," and dead people do not look for healing in the same haphazard way that other sick people do.
Paul, I'll never forget what you always taught us: "I get by with a little help from my friends," is a perfectly valid way to live life, but let's not confuse that with the Christian message!
We don't get by. We confess with the Apostle Paul that "by one (not William James' pragmatic "varieties" ) one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
BLS, belief in that message remains a foreign "faith" to all of us, because it is not something that is discovered by internal checks or evoked by contemplating the "suffering of the world," but remains the "foolishness of the world"—especially a world that is looking for healing is all the wrong places.
This discussion has comes more interesting as it goes along.
JDK – "Yoga might be a source of physical and even emotional healing, but only Christ saves." I would assume that you wouldn't necessarily separate emotional healing from Christ's salvation. Then I suppose the question is whether a proper implication of Sola Christus the affirmation that that true and paradoxical healing through one's death must somehow be of Christ.
I think there's something positive and negative to say about the healing one may find in the world – the latter I think Jady rightly indicates. I don't have specific answers yet, though I may have more to say at the conference once I've finished with my upcoming paper on the Barth/Brunner debate on natural theology and their readings of Rom. 1.18f. 🙂
Todd. . . I look forward to the insights gleaned from the paper!
FWIW: I think that the debate between Brunner and Barth is very helpful here, because even though we would ultimately side with Brunner (I think), in that there has to be some analogy–analogia entis –between God and humans, the question here is what aspect of God's revelation is either hidden or revealed.
I think that we can get some insight from the Apostle Paul in this respect.
In Romans 7, after we hear his tortured cries of inner conflict, we see his redemption exclaimed in chapter 8:There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
The key part here is the concept of "law of sin and death." Clearly, the existence of death and its connection to sin, has now been coupled to the law (as we see in 1 Cor. 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law
This is a connection, not incidentally, that can clearly be seen in anti-smoking laws, diets and other thinly-veiled attempts to cheat death. Ponce De Leon was not really looking for gold!
So there is no stretch for those interested in properly distinguishing law and gospel to argue that because of this connection, there is a clear analogia entis–analogy of being—between general humanity and God; we would not die, so argues the Bible, were it not for sin.
Now, the problem comes as to what extent the Gospel shares such an analogy. I don't think so. Barth certainly did not think so and I really don't think Brunner did either, but as is the case with prolific authors, we can probably make both say what we want them to say! Barth overstated the case with his (in)famous essay "Gospel and Law" in Community, Church and State.
Whatever the case, for our purposes, the question remains as to whether a sense of freedom, healing, etc, can be equated to the "Gospel,"in the same way that affliction and accusation can be understood as the law. Again, I don't think so, and I think that it breaks down very quickly when you look at, for instance, the areas where the law is completely just in its condemnation. For example, a father of three kids who can't stand the demands being put on him to provide, are we to say that this is an unjust demand? Should we, as ministers, affirm his "Gospel freedom," to head off to younger pastures?
No, he is being rightly condemned and accused by the law that says he should remain faithful to his wife and children.
But, this is where we practice the art of "rightly distinguishing law and gospel," an art, I think that can keep us from unnecessarily calling everything or nothing the "Gospel." We don't want to confuse the two and imply that this father is related to God by his fidelity to his wife (or lack thereof), but we also want to hold out to him the promise that God will "never leave him nor forsake him" even in the midst of his turmoil. . .
more to come!
This brings us back to Romans 7 and 8, because the cry of our hearts against the law has to be understood for what it is: the real primal scream, yes, but against God, not against anyone else. This is the same scream that Jesus gave on the cross and the same one that continues to echo in all of our "groans and inward longings" of prayer during times of deep duress.
Even though Paul generalizes the affliction in Romans 7 (reducing the 10th commandment to simply, "thou shalt not covet"), the answer in Romans 8 is specific. It could have been "God is love" or "God is for the poor or oppressed", but it is instead "… for those who are in Christ Jesus".
This is why healing is not the Gospel. We are not made better, but must suffer the "sickness unto death." That we come to this death (into which we were baptized–not some sort of "covenant) before our actual death delivers us from the "power of sin and death," and, thus, offers us the only way of properly seeing that our original elevation of "healing" was yet one more idol that needed to die.
At least, that's what I think on the issue!
Love to you all!
As long as people think that Church is about getting healed, getting better, being nicer, more compassionate, more enlightened, more peaceful, better in any way, then, of course, people are going to reject it, because when your ideal can not exist, i.e., a perfect church, then the grass will always be greener on the other side of the pew. Surely nobody thinks that judgment or hypocrisy only exists within the church?
For at least the third time on this thread, I must insist that I haven't said any of these things. I mean, "being nicer" isn't anything even remotely close to what I'm talking about, so I think we're really on completely different wavelengths.
I must say that I'm gobsmacked at the idea that "healing" implies 'an abstract god who "heals," or "loves" or does any of the things that gods of our own construction must necessarily do.' I doubt there's a chapter in any of the Gospels (well, except for John, I guess) in which Jesus wasn't healing somebody who asked to be healed – and was. And "love God and your neighbor" is the summary of the Law, after all.
But as I said, I don't think the theology you're talking about is anything I can relate to at all. I have no faith and don't expect I'll ever have any, so I cannot be part of the church you're speaking of. I cannot be "saved" under that definition of church (honestly, I don't think I want to be, either!), and that's pretty much the long and the short of it.
And so I need to find a different church, or a different definition. (I really don't think there's only one, BTW.) Which is in fact exactly what I'm doing, so there's no harm done.
Here's a little saying people use in A.A. fairly often: Religion is for people who don't want to go to Hell. Spirituality is for people who've already been there. While I disagree with the "spiritual but not religious" idea – I'm definitely religious, myself – I do understand the sentiment.
If the church can't help people who've been to Hell – I must confess I can't see what the point of it is.
(I think, actually, that it is a major, huge error to believe there is one particular version of The Truth that will "save" all people. This seems – even by simple observation – to be simply wrong.
Even Paul knew this; he wanted to be "all things to all people" – implying multiple "things."
I don't there's a "definition" you can give me, IOW, that is definitive. It's what you believe – of this I have no doubt. But I don't; there is no health in it for me.)
bls–I think that you have misunderstood the specialized lingo that is sometimes used on this blog. That is understandable 😉 The word "healing" is a loaded word in some "church" circles, because it implies a kind of program of moral improvement whereby we do the right things, try harder to please God, and through those diligent efforts "get better" or are "healed" morally and as a result, psychologically. What is being rejected is that idea of "healing", not the claim that God, by his act of total love that reaches into every personal Hell, can bring life to the hopelessly dead, and not as a reward for faith even, but just because He loves you and me.
BLS—I agree, the paragraph you quoted was a little unclear.
Certainly, there are few more concrete things than Jesus physically healing people. It is not abstract.
My point is that the god who is healing them is not abstract, but concrete; the people were healed by Jesus, not their "spirituality."
OK, I see what you're saying, Michael Cooper. What I'm saying is that the theology of no-Law requires a faith that I just don't seem to have; I constitutionally lack it. In other words, No-Law is just another kind of Law, for somebody like me (and I'm sorry to have to point this out!). I don't think I'm alone out here.
But it's really OK; I can be saved someplace else, and just hang here and talk, even if I don't actually make a purchase. We're cool.
My point is only that there are some very messed-up people in the world; I personally don't function very well myself sometimes. I'm worried about people like us, that's all. And call me crazy, but I refuse to believe that the church has no way to help us, given the person of Christ. He didn't HAVE to be a healer, you know – but that's the way he came here. ("The Crucified" is a term of identification with this idea, and of respect and love, BTW….)
bls…I know everyone reading this is happy to have you here, faith or no faith 😉
Well, BLS, as is the case with conversations via the interwebs, it might take a few rounds to make it to a clearer place. Goodness knows this will not be the last time I'll have to emendate a comment in order to clarify my meaning. If you are willing to keep fleshing this out, then please bear with me again!
By your comments, it seems that I may have implied that the church is somehow not about healing, which isn't my point. I fully agree with your statement: And call me crazy, but I refuse to believe that the church has no way to help us, given the person of Christ. He didn't HAVE to be a healer, you know – but that's the way he came here.
I have a hard time thinking that anyone who has ever been part of a church would disagree with that statement. There has never been a priest, well, anyone who took their ordination vows seriously, that is, who has not intended to make this happen.
Yet, we find ourselves in a place where you've said: I just don't think the church does a very good job of healing people, that's all; I'm looking for something more robust.
This is my point. There are more "robust" places to find healing, and I–a fellow sufferer, as it were—avail myself of every possible avenue for healing that I can find, and don't expect that to be the sole purview of the church. As PZ often taught us, the Christian paradigm is not sickness to healing, but death to life. This is why the language of the New Tesament preachers, that is, those who came with the news that "Jesus is Risen," explained things in such stark terms. The verses are too numerous to list.
Again and again, this is not to say that the Gospel does not affect people positively, but sometimes a good therapist is more successful treating depression or curing an addiction. That should, I think, be pretty self-evident.
Look at it this way: If I am a consumer, and I view faith as a means to an end, then I will go shopping among "faiths" to find which one gives me what I want. If no-faith gives me what I want, then this will be just fine too. And this approach, the type observed by William James and Harold Bloom and Harvey Cox and every other religious sociologist, could also have been observed at every step along the way of human history, because this, according to the bible, is our default position.
This is the "faith, or no faith," not incidentally, which was held by the Athenians for whom the "unknown God," was just as viable as any other; however, it was to these very people that the revealed God was preached in Acts 17. Paul even starts the whole sermon with "I can see you are very religious. . ."
Into this default, self-obsessed and often religious need for healing (just look at the temple-like overtones of most health clubs:) came Jesus, inviting us to "take up our cross," and "lose our life to gain it," and "repent lest you also perish," that must have seemed a little counterproductive to his nice-guy image. But then he went and died and rose again, and his followers began to realize that their problems paled in comparison to the depth of the real problem that necessitated the death of God's son, and by faith in Him they would be promised redemption. Confidence in this future redemption–even or even especially when beset by current ailments, turmoil and struggle–; this is what the bible calls faith.
This is the faith that nobody wants and nobody naturally has. It is one that somehow, with the Apostle Paul, states that "by dying we live." In Romans, he explains the relationship between the two like this
5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Writing to the Corinthians, he became all "things" to all people, in his words, so that by all means I might save some
When it comes to compassion for sufferers, the church should stand along side all those who are endeavoring to bring a little comfort to the afflicted people of this world, and goodness knows that we are attempting to connect that suffering with the love of God in Christ, but, and paraphrasing PZ/Martin Luther once again, "the quest for glory (or healing, in this case) is not met, but extinguished"
If we are going with the New Testament, at least, by faith, all of our needs are already met. This type of faith is irreducibly connected to hope and love, which bears all things, believes althings, hopes all things, endures all things. Even, as it were, lack of healing.
Well, that might be a little clearer. We'll see.
Whatever the case, I do hope you'll stick around–faith or no faith–and keep us on our toes. As I've spent my entire ordained life thus-far in "post-Christian" eastern Europe, it seems that I can't get away from these type of conversations either on or offline!:)
With all blessings,
Jady
Sorry I haven't responded till now. For years, I've avoided the blogs during Lent – but that's an old habit meant to address an issue that I should probably deal with in another way at this point.
"When it comes to compassion for sufferers, the church should stand along side all those who are endeavoring to bring a little comfort to the afflicted people of this world, and goodness knows that we are attempting to connect that suffering with the love of God in Christ, but, and paraphrasing PZ/Martin Luther once again, "the quest for glory (or healing, in this case) is not met, but extinguished"
This statement is the point at issue here, and where your argument goes very far off course, in my view.
For one thing: there is no equivalence – there isn't even any sort of remote resemblance that I can see – between a "theology of glory" and "the quest for healing." Religious triumphalism, after all, seems to be a totally different phenomenon from working out how to get through the next 10 minutes without killing yourself (or engaging in some other self-destructive behavior). Can you explain how and why you believe it's possible to dispose of one thing by means of arguing the other?
For another: people who arrive at the doors of A.A. are not "consumers"; they are often desperate, dying people and they mostly don't want to be there. Many times, they are seeking a way to hold on for a few hours or minutes. Other screwed-up, self-destructive people are not really wandering around choosing from a myriad of "lifestyle choices" either; they are seeking some way to end the pain.
For a third: it's simply not true that the "quest for healing is extinguished." This implies that people who can't function either a) stop worrying about it, or b) start being able to function. Neither is the actual reality. You are not addressing the facts of the situation; this doesn't help your case at all. (In fact, this statement reminds me very much of what we've been hearing from Evangelical churches for many years about homosexuality; it's as if the issue will simply go away if it's summarily dismissed or ignored. Well, no.)
Lastly: I've made the point several times now that I'm not saying the things you want to attribute to me. These ideas are your own, coming out of your own particular point of view. It's straw men all the down so far.
The church, BTW, is really in no position to pretend to know what the "real problem" is. After 2,000 years of scapegoating, power-mongering, and religious war? Please.
A.A., on the other hand, has never engaged in any of those activities – and never tried to destroy those it disagreed with. I'd say the church could really take a few lessons, in fact.
(I do, in fact, agree with your views about a "consumerist" approach to religion. It's just that that's not at all what I've said; it's just what you've been attributing to me.
My comment about "something more robust" spoke to the shortcomings of the church, which I immediately elaborated on ("the church needs some Steps", etc.). I'm not clear why this is being misconstrued to mean "shopping around for a better place." Is every suggestion of a change to be taken as "consumerism"? The Reformation itself would have to be considered "consumerist," then, wouldn't it?
A.A. can take really messed-up human beings and do great things for them; the question at that point should be, what is the church doing wrong? What if weekly worship and Bible study isn't enough? And what about people who can't afford therapy – which is most people in the world, BTW?
I'm the first to acknowledge the benefits of therapy, I should add; without it I'd be dead now, I imagine. Thank goodness A.A. never tried to keep me from it – and thank goodness for the 12 Steps, too.)
I just found this post and am enjoying the exchange of ideas about such an important topic. I am a marriage and family therapist of 30 years, and have been encorporating self-compassion with those I work with in therapy. I noticed how life changing it is to people, especially as they integrate s-c with their faith. I noticed there were no nooks on the integration of self-compassion and faith, and so at God’s prodding I wrote Give Yourself a Break: Turning Your Inner Critic into a Compassionate Friend (Revell/Baker Publishing Group 7-15).
I have been so blessed to hear how much people of faith are incorporating s-c with their faith, and are hungry for it. Thanks for sharing this wonderful post! I just started a Facebook page for those who are like minded 🙂
Facebook.com/TheSelfCompasionClub as well as a blog “Self-Compassion for Real Life”