As a part of her lecture on YouTube promoting a March 31 to April 2, 2011 Conference on Attachment at Eastern Mennonite University, Dr. Annmarie Early includes a video segment of an experiment based on the “Still Face Paradigm.” It is conducted by attachment theory researcher Dr. Edward Tronick, Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and the Chief of the Child Development Unit at its Children's Hospital.
In a segment about 30 minutes into the video Tronick has a mother interacting face-to-face with her six-month old. They are smiling, “talking,” making sounds together, and generally responding to each other in affectionate ways. On cue, the mother turns her head away, then back to the child, but this time with a totally blank stare. Mother goes from being highly animated and engaged to making no sound and showing no facial expression whatsoever.
The child almost immediately initiates a series of actions designed to get back her mother’s attention. At first the child seems puzzled, then smiles winsomely at her mom. When this doesn't work she tries pointing, gesturing, making various noises, raising both hands, throwing herself back against her infant seat, and finally gives a loud shriek of desperation as if calling for emergency help. The infant then cries inconsolably to tell the world how awfully distressed she is.
This two-minute clip vividly illustrates how important parents’ interactions are with their children at a very early age. Dr. Tronick’s continuing research demonstrates the importance of going back and repairing ruptures that occur in our everyday interactions. These same patterns of rupture and repair happen throughout the lifespan, he says, and our capacity to repair with our significant others--children and adults alike--makes all the difference between security and insecurity in our relationships.
Incidentally, Annmarie Early is to be the keynote speaker at the Family Life Resource Center's annual Spring Fundraiser Banquet held at 6 pm Saturday, May 14, at the Virginia Retirement Community's Hartman Dining Room. Dr. Early's topic is "Secure Relationships: Strengthening Our Connections Within, With God And With Others."
Annmarie is an engaging and down to earth speaker who uses stories and illustrations to emphasize the importance of our being truly there for each other when we are needed.
Attendance at FLRC's spring fundraiser banquets has been on the increase, so early registration is encouraged, at 540-432-8450 or at services@flrc.org. The Center (where I work) hopes to raise $12,000 to help us continue to provide services to people regardless of their ability to pay.
We just hope you won't respond to this invitation with a blank stare :-).
Showing posts with label counseling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label counseling. Show all posts
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Dressed for the Weather
“There’s no such thing as bad weather,” someone has said, “only inadequate protection.”
My mother was big on protection. She convinced us we’d catch a terrible cold or die of pneumonia if we didn’t put on our caps and several extra layers whenever it got chilly outside.
You can learn from your mother. Dress right and you can take your own good weather with you.
But “adequate protection” not only helps when it comes to facing the elements. It’s also great when dealing with difficult people in our lives--the folks we feel uneasy with, who create an unpleasant chill or even an emotional blizzard around us.
Consider the case of 40-year old “Harry.” He describes his 75-year old mother as downright vicious in the way she keeps delivering zingers like: “You never come see me anymore.” “You only think about yourself.” “You look awful.” “You’re such a disappointment.”
Harry is devastated. “She cuts me down, makes me want to stay as far away from her as I can. When I do have to be with her, I just lose it, that’s how much she gets under my skin.”
I feel for Harry. In spite of the fact that his Mom is now an aging invalid, to him she’s as powerful as when he was only five and she was 40. There’s no question in his mind--Mom is his number one problem.
But all mother does is create bad weather. She’s depressed and miserable, and has the unfortunate habit of taking out her unhappiness on others. Harry’s problem is inadequate protection. How can he stop focusing on Mom’s unpleasantness and simply begin “dressing accordingly”?
A familiar scriptural metaphor is that of putting on spiritual “armor” and using a “shield of faith” and a "helmet" to ward off attacks. That kind of protection can sound pretty welcome when we think of all the people who intimidate us, get under our skin, raise our blood pressure. But is feeling safe actually possible?
Let’s go back to our weather analogy.
All of us prefer being with balmy, Florida-like folks. But the next best thing is putting on the mental equivalent of good rain gear, having a suitable wardrobe to help us ward off others’ wintryness. It doesn’t change the climate any, but it makes it more bearable, maybe even half-enjoyable.
Here are some tips for braving harsh weather:
1. Dress up in a robe of courage. Shed your fear, and see yourself, by faith, as a fully empowered person, a competent parent, a capable worker, a confident and mature adult. This doesn’t mean being powerful over others, but powerful with others. It doesn’t mean having to be perfect, but being OK based on doing the best you can.
2. Always wear a “uniform” of equal-ness. See others as being very much like yourself--fellow human beings who are a mix of strengths and weaknesses. Being equal doesn't mean being identical, of course, it just means our worth is the same, that we are neither above nor below anyone else.
3. Use extra insulation to your wardrobe as needed. Picture yourself with Teflon-like protection when experiencing unfair criticism. Add warm layers of clothing as necessary to maintain a stable inner temperature, so you can carry your own good weather with you.
These forms of protection don’t have to result in shutting other people out. In fact, being “dressed for the weather” means we can be even closer to people. We can dread them less and love them more, connect with them more closely without fear of catching our death of cold.
Your mother would like that.
My mother was big on protection. She convinced us we’d catch a terrible cold or die of pneumonia if we didn’t put on our caps and several extra layers whenever it got chilly outside.
You can learn from your mother. Dress right and you can take your own good weather with you.
But “adequate protection” not only helps when it comes to facing the elements. It’s also great when dealing with difficult people in our lives--the folks we feel uneasy with, who create an unpleasant chill or even an emotional blizzard around us.
Consider the case of 40-year old “Harry.” He describes his 75-year old mother as downright vicious in the way she keeps delivering zingers like: “You never come see me anymore.” “You only think about yourself.” “You look awful.” “You’re such a disappointment.”
Harry is devastated. “She cuts me down, makes me want to stay as far away from her as I can. When I do have to be with her, I just lose it, that’s how much she gets under my skin.”
I feel for Harry. In spite of the fact that his Mom is now an aging invalid, to him she’s as powerful as when he was only five and she was 40. There’s no question in his mind--Mom is his number one problem.
But all mother does is create bad weather. She’s depressed and miserable, and has the unfortunate habit of taking out her unhappiness on others. Harry’s problem is inadequate protection. How can he stop focusing on Mom’s unpleasantness and simply begin “dressing accordingly”?
A familiar scriptural metaphor is that of putting on spiritual “armor” and using a “shield of faith” and a "helmet" to ward off attacks. That kind of protection can sound pretty welcome when we think of all the people who intimidate us, get under our skin, raise our blood pressure. But is feeling safe actually possible?
Let’s go back to our weather analogy.
All of us prefer being with balmy, Florida-like folks. But the next best thing is putting on the mental equivalent of good rain gear, having a suitable wardrobe to help us ward off others’ wintryness. It doesn’t change the climate any, but it makes it more bearable, maybe even half-enjoyable.
Here are some tips for braving harsh weather:
1. Dress up in a robe of courage. Shed your fear, and see yourself, by faith, as a fully empowered person, a competent parent, a capable worker, a confident and mature adult. This doesn’t mean being powerful over others, but powerful with others. It doesn’t mean having to be perfect, but being OK based on doing the best you can.
2. Always wear a “uniform” of equal-ness. See others as being very much like yourself--fellow human beings who are a mix of strengths and weaknesses. Being equal doesn't mean being identical, of course, it just means our worth is the same, that we are neither above nor below anyone else.
3. Use extra insulation to your wardrobe as needed. Picture yourself with Teflon-like protection when experiencing unfair criticism. Add warm layers of clothing as necessary to maintain a stable inner temperature, so you can carry your own good weather with you.
These forms of protection don’t have to result in shutting other people out. In fact, being “dressed for the weather” means we can be even closer to people. We can dread them less and love them more, connect with them more closely without fear of catching our death of cold.
Your mother would like that.
P.S. Of course, if the "weather" in your life is truly life threatening, as in a tornado or a severe hurricane situation, dial 911 and seek shelter immediately.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Psychobabble
Every year I get a magazine-size copy of the program for the annual national five-day Psychotherapy Networker Symposium, a glossy catalogue of the hundreds of seminars, workshops and symposiums offered there each year.
Some are intriguing, and could certainly be helpful to any counselor like myself, covering topics like dealing with borderline personality clients, overcoming compassion fatigue, understanding the anxious brain, etc. If only I could afford the the $500 or more registration fee, the pricey $200 plus per night rate for the hotel, and meals with after dinner speakers at $39-$62 a plate.
Then there are always descriptions of sessions that make me shake my head and wonder where my profession is going. For example, there is the seminar labeled “The Power of the Field,” in which participants are to be ushered into “a vaster, more liberating field of awareness,” and will be able to “experience feelings of aliveness, connection, creativity, and flow,” and “draw on the collective psycho-physiologically energetic field of the entire group, to experience a state of relaxed readiness and deeper intuition of this awareness.”
Or if that doesn’t induce enough puzzlement, there is another one on “integrating breathing techniques into psychotherapy.” Here we get to practice a variety of breath practices, including Qigong movement, Coherent Breathing, Breath movement, “Ha” breath, and Open Focus meditation.” At which I shake my head and ask, "What?"
I don’t begrudge anyone doing whatever meditation or breathing exercises they find helpful, but I question how how far we should stray from applying good research-based and faith-based common sense when it comes to offering help to people dealing with inner distresses and relationship problems.
Some are intriguing, and could certainly be helpful to any counselor like myself, covering topics like dealing with borderline personality clients, overcoming compassion fatigue, understanding the anxious brain, etc. If only I could afford the the $500 or more registration fee, the pricey $200 plus per night rate for the hotel, and meals with after dinner speakers at $39-$62 a plate.
Then there are always descriptions of sessions that make me shake my head and wonder where my profession is going. For example, there is the seminar labeled “The Power of the Field,” in which participants are to be ushered into “a vaster, more liberating field of awareness,” and will be able to “experience feelings of aliveness, connection, creativity, and flow,” and “draw on the collective psycho-physiologically energetic field of the entire group, to experience a state of relaxed readiness and deeper intuition of this awareness.”
Or if that doesn’t induce enough puzzlement, there is another one on “integrating breathing techniques into psychotherapy.” Here we get to practice a variety of breath practices, including Qigong movement, Coherent Breathing, Breath movement, “Ha” breath, and Open Focus meditation.” At which I shake my head and ask, "What?"
I don’t begrudge anyone doing whatever meditation or breathing exercises they find helpful, but I question how how far we should stray from applying good research-based and faith-based common sense when it comes to offering help to people dealing with inner distresses and relationship problems.
Friday, February 25, 2011
More Local Divorces Than Meet The Eye
On the face of it, the divorce trends may seem slightly encouraging, in that, like the rest of the country, the numbers have been mostly flat for the past number of years, and actually show a modest decline. But the marriage numbers are also dropping, in spite of a significant increase in our population over the past 15 years, as seen in the above graph.
A decrease in the number of marriage licenses issued, of course, doesn't mean that fewer people are in some kind of wedded relationship. If we were to define the essence of marriage as “leaving father and mother” (forming a separate partnership and household), “cleaving to each other” (becoming an exclusive couple) and “becoming one flesh” (forming an intimate sexual bond), we may find there are more people than ever who are "married." There are always those who engage in purely promiscuous, one night stands, of course, but there are many more couples who are simply in undocumented relationships we once referred to as “common law” marriages. We just don’t have a record of how many.
And when these unregistered couples break up, do they avoid all of the pain and heartache (and legal and other complications) we associate with the nearly 400 registered divorces that took place in our area last year?
I don’t think so. Ending an emotionally intimate “marriage” inevitably results in going through an emotionally painful “divorce.” So just cohabiting without the formality of a license or a ceremony doesn’t insulate people from the gutwrenching grief and betrayal they go through when they tear apart.
My uneducated guess is that we may have at least 25 percent more undocumented “marriages” happening each year than are indicated in the numbers above, and an equally large increase in the number of unregistered breakups.
So how is our community impacted by an estimated total of, say, 500 divorces, each of which, according to novelist Patrick Conroy, involves the “death of a small civilization”?
If there is an average of even only one child per divorce, that means we have 500 children in our community each year whose lives will never be the same. The impact of their parents breaking up is, for many, equal to the death of a loved one in the family. With lots of nurture and support, many children of divorce recover reasonably well from such a loss and go on to have a good life, but who would want to wish such a "death" on a child, or to be the cause of one?
And what about the 1000 divorcees involved in these numbers who, along with their parents, their siblings and their friends, also suffer the painful “loss of a loved one.” Physical deaths are usually due to an unavoidable tragedy (except for suicides), and those left behind savor the bittersweet memories of all of the good times they once enjoyed together. But divorce is more often experienced as a form of “wed-icide,” a preventable tragedy associated with raw feelings of anger, bitterness and betrayal.
In any case, closure is difficult. There are no funeral or memorial services, no burial rituals. Few friends or family members bring casseroles, send flowers or offer cards of condolence. The grief is palpable, and is much the same for documented and unregistered marriages alike.
If we had 500 school dropouts in our community each year for every 1000 students enrolled, we’d be forming blue ribbon panels to do something to help prevent this trend. Admittedly, in cases where partners are guilty of unrelenting abuse, addiction or adultery, a separation or divorce can be justified. And ironically, children may actually recover more easily in those cases than when their parents are equally loved and seen as good people who simply can't learn to get along (as they always insist on their children doing!).
The Harrisonburg/Rockingham Community Marriage Policy has been officially adopted by over 50 congregations in our area, and is one example of people trying to help prevent divorce and strengthen marriage, following the lead of over 250 other communities across the US with similar agreements:
Local clergy and congregations who support the CMP agree to the following:
a) for couples to be married:
• To encourage a courtship of at least one year before marriage.
• To guide engaged couples through an intensive marital preparation process involving individual or group educational sessions dealing with religious, financial, relational and intimacy issues and utilizing some form of premarital inventory.
b) for all congregational members:
• To promote premarital chastity and faithful marital relationships.
• To encourage enrichment opportunities to strengthen existing marriages and provide intervention and support for marriages in distress.
• To train mature married couples to serve as mentors to engaged couples, to newlyweds, and to those experiencing marital difficulties.
• To cooperate with other congregations and agencies to share resources and to create a positive climate in which all marriages are helped to succeed.
Let's all see what we can do to strengthen marriages and spare adults and children alike the stresses associated with their demise.
Note: For a pastoral response to couples in undocumented marriages, you may want to check out the following: http://harvyoder.blogspot.com/2010/11/undocumented-marriages.html
Friday, January 14, 2011
Should We Ever NOT Forgive?
Recent killings by deranged gunmen bring up the question of forgiveness for people who commit terrible crimes of that kind.
When a similarly deranged shooter killed innocent Amish children at the Nickle Mines School in southern Pennsylvania in October, 2006, that religious community instinctively responded with grace and kindness. Everyone saw their actions and attitudes as amazing examples of Christian forgiveness.
I wonder if their response shouldn’t simply be considered an incredible form of “give-ness,” the giving up of any revenge or hate and the demonstration of a truly Christlike and unconditional love for an enemy who had harmed them in the most terrible way possible.
I prefer to call that cross-like love. The forgiving part is up to God.
Jewish writer Dennis Prager questions the notion that we “should forgive everyone who commits evil against anyone, no matter how great and cruel, and whether or not the evil doer repents.” He also believes we can only forgive those who have sinned against us, not those who have sinned against others.
“If we forgive everyone (unilaterally) for all the evil they do,” he says, “we have substituted ourselves for God.” Even Jesus, he adds, when interceding to God to forgive those who crucified him, “never asked God to forgive those who had crucified thousands of other innocent people.”
As a Jew, Prager does affirm Jesus’ idea of having us forgive those who wrong us based on their repentance, just as God surely does. He just wonders whether many of us have trivialized forgiveness, turned into something that’s about making us feel better rather than, like the God of the Bible, being concerned with both justice for evildoers and compassion for them when and if they repent and commit themselves to genuine change.
What got Prager to thinking about this was seeing a news article and photo of some students in West Paducah, Kentucky, some years ago displaying a large banner with the words “We forgive you, Mike!” referring to the 14-year-old who had just shot and killed 3 teenagers at Heath High school. He believes they/we have neither the power or the right to forgive on others’ behalf.
So, should we distinguish between loving evildoers versus pronouncing them forgiven? The first is an initiative toward even the unrepentant, the second is a response based on a complete 180 degree turn on the part of the one seeking forgiveness.
Please understand, I strongly agree that we should forgive our debtors. But a debtor, by definition, is one who is fully aware of what he or she owes and is unable to repay. A person who denies having committed an offense is not a debtor. Nor is the person who insists the offense is not really their fault, as in, “The devil (or my temper, my addiction, or my bad upbringing) made me do it.”
I have a book in my office with two title pages, one on the front and another on the back. It’s actually two books in one, written by David Augsburger. The first title is “Caring Enough to Forgive” which takes up approximately half of the pages, and the other, reading from the reverse side of the book, is “Caring Enough Not to Forgive.”
The latter is a jarring title for those of us who’ve been taught that forgiveness is something we grant everyone unilaterally, no strings attached, just proclaim them off the hook. But Augsburger believes the implied condition for all of our “forgiving others their trespasses as we ask God to forgive us our own” is one clearly stated in Luke’s gospel, which says, “If others sin against you, and if they repent, forgive them.”
Meanwhile, for all who choose not to repent, we continue to love, do good to, and pray for them without question. All the while remembering that we are always in need of plenty of forgiveness of our own.
I'd love to have you respond with your thoughts below.
When a similarly deranged shooter killed innocent Amish children at the Nickle Mines School in southern Pennsylvania in October, 2006, that religious community instinctively responded with grace and kindness. Everyone saw their actions and attitudes as amazing examples of Christian forgiveness.
I wonder if their response shouldn’t simply be considered an incredible form of “give-ness,” the giving up of any revenge or hate and the demonstration of a truly Christlike and unconditional love for an enemy who had harmed them in the most terrible way possible.
I prefer to call that cross-like love. The forgiving part is up to God.
Jewish writer Dennis Prager questions the notion that we “should forgive everyone who commits evil against anyone, no matter how great and cruel, and whether or not the evil doer repents.” He also believes we can only forgive those who have sinned against us, not those who have sinned against others.
“If we forgive everyone (unilaterally) for all the evil they do,” he says, “we have substituted ourselves for God.” Even Jesus, he adds, when interceding to God to forgive those who crucified him, “never asked God to forgive those who had crucified thousands of other innocent people.”
As a Jew, Prager does affirm Jesus’ idea of having us forgive those who wrong us based on their repentance, just as God surely does. He just wonders whether many of us have trivialized forgiveness, turned into something that’s about making us feel better rather than, like the God of the Bible, being concerned with both justice for evildoers and compassion for them when and if they repent and commit themselves to genuine change.
What got Prager to thinking about this was seeing a news article and photo of some students in West Paducah, Kentucky, some years ago displaying a large banner with the words “We forgive you, Mike!” referring to the 14-year-old who had just shot and killed 3 teenagers at Heath High school. He believes they/we have neither the power or the right to forgive on others’ behalf.
So, should we distinguish between loving evildoers versus pronouncing them forgiven? The first is an initiative toward even the unrepentant, the second is a response based on a complete 180 degree turn on the part of the one seeking forgiveness.
Please understand, I strongly agree that we should forgive our debtors. But a debtor, by definition, is one who is fully aware of what he or she owes and is unable to repay. A person who denies having committed an offense is not a debtor. Nor is the person who insists the offense is not really their fault, as in, “The devil (or my temper, my addiction, or my bad upbringing) made me do it.”
I have a book in my office with two title pages, one on the front and another on the back. It’s actually two books in one, written by David Augsburger. The first title is “Caring Enough to Forgive” which takes up approximately half of the pages, and the other, reading from the reverse side of the book, is “Caring Enough Not to Forgive.”
The latter is a jarring title for those of us who’ve been taught that forgiveness is something we grant everyone unilaterally, no strings attached, just proclaim them off the hook. But Augsburger believes the implied condition for all of our “forgiving others their trespasses as we ask God to forgive us our own” is one clearly stated in Luke’s gospel, which says, “If others sin against you, and if they repent, forgive them.”
Meanwhile, for all who choose not to repent, we continue to love, do good to, and pray for them without question. All the while remembering that we are always in need of plenty of forgiveness of our own.
I'd love to have you respond with your thoughts below.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Undocumented Marriages
When it comes to supporting stable, lasting, loving marriages, you can put me down as a compassionate conservative. Here's a letter I had published in the September, 2010, issue of the Mennonite which suggested a more positive approach to dealing with cohabiting couples:
Editor, the Mennonite:
Thanks for publishing Sandra Fribley's timely article on "Love, Sex and Marriage."
Without condoning cohabitation in any way, what if congregations respectfully confronted couples who are living together as having already entered into a marital bond, as follows:
"Whenever you a) 'leave father and mother' (form a separate social unit and become publicly recognized partners), b) 'cleave to each other' (are an exclusive couple committed to fidelity), and c) 'become one flesh' (are sexually intimate), we will hold you to the same standard of lifelong faithfulness we expect of legally married couples. While we acknowledge that the Genesis 2:24 text quoted by both Jesus and Paul predates mandates like a marriage license or a ceremony, we nevertheless believe you should take the step of registering and solemnizing the de facto ('common law') marriage you have entered into.
"We understand you might see this step as a mere formality involving 'just a piece of paper,' but we consider it at least as important as having a baptismal certificate, a passport, a vehicle registration, or a deed to a new house. But whether documented or not, we see your joining together in the manner described above as a profound and emotionally bonding form of 'marriage.' And were you to terminate your undocumented union, we would consider it a de facto divorce, as implied in the German word for infidelity: 'ehebruch,' or 'union-breaking'.
"We pray you will choose to have your union blessed by God and by a caring community of believers, and so will be able to celebrate a truly joyful and faithful life until 'death do you part'."
Editor, the Mennonite:
Thanks for publishing Sandra Fribley's timely article on "Love, Sex and Marriage."
Without condoning cohabitation in any way, what if congregations respectfully confronted couples who are living together as having already entered into a marital bond, as follows:
"Whenever you a) 'leave father and mother' (form a separate social unit and become publicly recognized partners), b) 'cleave to each other' (are an exclusive couple committed to fidelity), and c) 'become one flesh' (are sexually intimate), we will hold you to the same standard of lifelong faithfulness we expect of legally married couples. While we acknowledge that the Genesis 2:24 text quoted by both Jesus and Paul predates mandates like a marriage license or a ceremony, we nevertheless believe you should take the step of registering and solemnizing the de facto ('common law') marriage you have entered into.
"We understand you might see this step as a mere formality involving 'just a piece of paper,' but we consider it at least as important as having a baptismal certificate, a passport, a vehicle registration, or a deed to a new house. But whether documented or not, we see your joining together in the manner described above as a profound and emotionally bonding form of 'marriage.' And were you to terminate your undocumented union, we would consider it a de facto divorce, as implied in the German word for infidelity: 'ehebruch,' or 'union-breaking'.
"We pray you will choose to have your union blessed by God and by a caring community of believers, and so will be able to celebrate a truly joyful and faithful life until 'death do you part'."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)