How Close is Too Close?

Note: This article was first published in Life in the Delta in December 2004.

You may be wondering to what type of closeness I am referring. Specifically, it is closeness in relationships, especially in families. In other words, can you possibly love someone too much? I say you can. I would like to explain this because it is one of the main problems that I see in families who present for counseling. Often the parents bring a child or teenager who is having trouble fitting in at school or is unhappy. Of course, there are other reasons for these symptoms, such as trauma or abuse or illness. But generally, if these problems are not present, I begin to suspect what is called enmeshment – a therapeutic term for “too close” relationships.

The problem of enmeshment is difficult to explain because a parent is usually defensive of their close relationship with their child. And enmeshed systems appear so great because they offer a heightened sense of mutual support. Parents are loving and considerate. They spend a lot of time with their children and do a lot for them. However, children enmeshed with their parents can become dependent. The children become less comfortable by themselves and may have trouble relating to people outside the family. A test often comes when the child attempts to leave home to go to college and cannot adjust well. The opposite of enmeshment is disengagement, in which families are too independent and are not available to each other for warmth, affection and nurture. These families foster independent children but the children often lack the support and guidance they need. As you can perhaps guess, the balance lies somewhere between these two scenarios.

In enmeshed families, boundaries are diffuse and family members overreact and become intrusively involved with one another. The emotional world of one person becomes tied to the emotional world of the other. That is, your child’s bad day becomes your bad day, rather than your empathizing with your child about their feelings and helping them deal with them. Or worse, your child feels responsible for your feelings and for making you happy.

Enmeshed parents create difficulties by hindering the development of more mature forms of behavior in their children and by interfering with their abilities to solve their own problems. An example would be a father who jumps in to settle minor arguments between his two sons so the children won’t learn to fight their own battles. And a frequently encountered problem in the middle class family is the enmeshed mother/disengaged father, in which a mother’s closeness to her children substitutes for closeness in the marriage.

Ideally when children enter the family, the spouse subsystem should have a boundary that separates it from the children. A clear boundary enables the children to interact with their parents but excludes them from some activities. Parents and children can eat together, play together, and share much of each others’ lives. But the more that husband and wife are sustained as a loving couple, they are enhanced as parents. They need some time alone to talk, to go to dinner together, to fight, and to make love. Unhappily the demands of small children make it hard for parents to maintain a boundary around their relationship. And unfortunately, in our child-centered culture, the boundary separating parents and children is often extremely diffuse.

I encourage you to examine the nature of your family’s relationships. In a two-parent family, examine if there is time to cultivate the marriage as well as spend time with the children. In a divorced family, parents need to be extremely careful they do not depend on the children to meet their emotional needs. Watch for signs in your children of their not getting along with their peers or becoming depressed. Be aware that if you offer too much attention to your children that you may not be allowing them the room they need to become independent, even though this seems to be such a loving to do.

Maintaining Balance in a Busy Life

Note: This article was first published in Life in the Delta in November 2004.

Stress is unavoidable in our busy lives these days. But how much stress is too much?

Stress is a problem for several reasons. Emotionally it can lead to anxiety and depression. Physically it can lead to illness and pain, such as headaches, ulcers, and heart disease. It is estimated that 70% of all doctor’s visits are for physical or emotional problems that are stress related.

First of all, how do we define stress? Until 1950, stress was a physics term defined as “the load that is exerted on a physical structure, such as a bridge or cross beam.” But Hans Selye borrowed the term to use in psychology describing stress as “the load or tension exerted on individuals, which might alter an individual’s ability to respond or react normally.” Practically speaking, stress is being stretched beyond your limits and finding you cannot cope with your demands; it is overextending yourself without adequate time for recovery; or it is believing you can do more than your human form can take.

There are two types of stress – positive and negative. Positive stress can cause us to move forward and accomplish goals as a result of the force exerted, whereas negative stress manifests in adverse effects. It is very subjective – what is negative stress for one person may be a positive exhilaration for another.

No matter the source of stress – positive or negative – the body reacts in a similar fashion, preparing for emergency by sending out chemicals for “fight” or “flight.” The adrenal glands produce these chemicals, or hormones. First is the alarm reaction, brought about by hormone adrenaline. Next is the vigilance reaction, preparing the body to face the stressful event for the long haul, brought about by the hormone cortisol. Physiologically, the body responds with rapid breathing, sugars are released from fats into the blood stream for quick energy, blood pressure rises, acid is increased in the stomach, and you experience difficulty sleeping. But what happens if your body prepares for battle and there is none – that is, not one that is socially acceptable? Then you “freeze” with all those hormones floating around prepared for action.

Adrenaline and cortisol may be called “sad messengers” because they send signals to our brain that make us depressed, anxious, sleepless, or fatigued. They rush in like fighter pilots to defend us, for which we should be grateful should real fear or terror strike. Yet in our fast paced lives, we experience stress by living too hurried and hassled and overextended.

Stress also depletes our natural brain tranquilizers, which include serotonin, dopamine, noradrenaline, and GABA. These could be called our “happy messengers.” When the sad messengers overtake us, we must have some recovery time to build back up the happy ones. Stress is only positive when it is shortlived. Prolonged stress is never good. By paying attention to your shift in mood, you can discover how much stress you can tolerate.

Be warned, if you are an adrenaline junkie and thrive on the excitement of the fast paced life, you are at risk for developing physical and emotional disorders. The difference between now and 100 years ago is they had lots of recovery time from stress built into the natural life cycle. They traveled on camels or horseback, they had to gather and prepare food, and they had to sleep when it got dark. In our urbanized and industrialized culture, we think we can sustain compulsive activity, but we pay a price if we don’t pace ourselves. If you want to preserve your sanity and achieve a healthy life, you have to make some choices to live a balanced life. Also, remember to help your children do the same. The antidote to stress is tranquility, achieving a balance that is calming, peaceful and serene. So be sure to counterbalance the stress in your life with healing recovery time.

Navigating the Family Cycle

Note: This article was first published in Life in the Delta in October 2004.

The family life cycle has been categorized by family therapists as the normative stages through which most families pass. These stages bring inevitable changes which often involve grief and loss. Yet how well a family navigates through these sometimes stormy waters of life may be a sign of their flexibility. And usually, given time and the family’s resources and coping skills, the changes are accommodated with new adaptive growth responses. In fact, the ability to change is a sign of good mental health.

It is good to be aware, however, that families are their most vulnerable during the transition times. Some of the normative stages of family development with their tasks and vulnerabilities include the following:

1. Between families: the unattached young adult. Young adults must differentiate from their family of origin, establish their own personal system of values and beliefs, develop intimate peer relationships, and choose and establish a career. If they remain overly dependent on their parents, they may have difficulty with this stage.

2. The joining of families through marriage: the new couple. The newly married couple must form a marital unit and realign with their families of origin. This process tends to result in difficulties and differences being ignored, usually due to the covering over by romantic feelings, only to resurface later. Also, couples may marry in order to escape problems in their original families, only to bring them to the new system.

3. The family with young children. The family who has children, by choice or not, must make space for the children and take on new responsible parental roles, often in already busy lives. As the social lives of children expand, the family must be prepared for contact with other families.

4. The family with adolescents. This stage usually brings a jolt to families who like the sometimes comfortable and more carefree prior stage. Parents must permit the adolescent to move in and out of the family system and must allow more freedom along with increasing responsibility. This stage and the next require the couple to reinvest in one another and may be a time of increased vulnerability to extramarital affairs and divorce.

5. Launching children and moving on. The marital couple must renegotiate their relationship and develop an adult-to-adult relationship with their children. This is a time of rapidly changing roles, as children may marry and themselves become parents. Also, there may be a accumulation of unresolved issues from the previous stages that now may lead to divorce, a sense of overwhelming loss (empty nest syndrome) and general disintegration of health. Some families embrace their new freedoms and opportunities. Others experience only transient disruptions. And a few develop symptoms in an unconscious effort to cling to the last child. This phase is also a time in which many couples must deal with aging or dying grandparents and parents.

6. The family in later life. This is the stage in which couples provide support for the middle generation; face retirement; deal with the loss of spouse, siblings, and peers; and prepare for their own deaths.

The above stages are classified as normative events. Paranormative events are those which occur frequently but not universally, to which families must also adapt and change. Examples include miscarriage, infertility, marital separation, divorce, illness, disability, relocation of households, and changes in socioeconomic status. When these events occur close together, a family can experience what is called “cluster stress” and be especially vulnerable. I encourage people to assess where they are in their life cycle as well as any paranormative events that are adding stress in order to be prepared and to seek outside help if they feel overwhelmed. Remember, the stormy waters of transition are inevitable but you can choose whether you take the course of growth or that of dysfunction.

Grieving Our Losses

Note: This article was first published in Life in the Delta in September 2004.

In last month’s article I talked about the various kinds of losses we experience, from small ones to large ones, with the death of a loved one perhaps being the greatest of all. I stressed how each loss needs to be grieved or else the pain, though buried, remains constant. It takes so much energy to suppress pain and manage our feelings, but when we allow ourselves to share our grief with God and others, we release our pain, fears and heartache. As this occurs, our pain begins to subside and healing has begun. In this month’s article I want to discuss how to go about this grieving process.

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in her seminal book On Death and Dying outlined a 5-stage process of reactions. Others have described a similar process. My favorite book is Good Grief by Granger Westberg in which he describes a 10-step process. The steps common to most of these descriptions include shock and denial, anger, depression, loneliness, guilt, and finally acceptance and a return to joy. Conceptualizing these as stages is somewhat misleading since the reactions can occur in varying order and may overlap and recur at any time.

As we examine the grieving process, I will apply it to a death situation but remember that the process needs to be applied in a scaled down way to all types of loss. The intensity of grief depends on a combination of these variables, including how attached one is to the person, the way the loss came about, and whether it was sudden, premature, or violent.

In the shock and denial phase there is a numbness that allows us to lessen the impact of the initial loss because experiencing it all at once could be overwhelming. But to stay in denial by going on too quickly with our lives or by covering up the pain with addictions is not a good long term strategy. In order to begin to heal, we must come to accept grief as normal and unavoidable. A common myth that must be dispelled is that grieving is a sign of weakness or a lack of faith. Another common myth is that time, in and of itself, will bring healing. The emotions we feel inside need to be expressed. There are lots of ways to do this – by talking to close friends and family members, by writing in a journal, by praying to God – just to name a few. Thinking about our feelings and remaining silent are not the same as expressing them. By holding them in they only continue to churn and fester inside, only to come out someday, some how. Tears too are a wonderful release valve for emotional pain.

Though grieving is unavoidable, healing in and through grief is a choice. At some point we arrive at a partial understanding of grief – to grapple with the loss and adapt to it. Changes must be made so we can live with our loss in a healthy way. We can change from asking “Why did this happen to me?” to “What can I learn, how can I grow, how can God be glorified?” Some days will continue to be more difficult than others, with tears, fears, anger and confusion, but these feelings can continue to be released.

Grieving is a two-way process – the loss of a loved one and the recovery of our spirit. We want to return to the life we knew before the loss but we must live a new “normal.” Instead of locking ourselves away, we come to a place of surrender. We decide to re-organize our lives. We can develop a new identity without forgetting our loved one.

There is no prescribed timetable for recovery. For most people following a death it takes 2 -3 years to recover, and for some a lifetime. The peaks and valleys that are initially intense start to level out but not disappear. Be kind to yourself and diligent about your health. Grieving takes a lot of energy and your body needs more rest.

In closing, I challenge you with this question: “What is the loss in your life that you’ve never fully grieved?”

Not Cutting Our Losses

Note: This Article was first published in Life in the Delta in August 2004.

It is a prevalent belief in our culture that when we think we are losing we try to cut our losses and run, thereby minimizing them. This can be true of the stock market as well as our relationships. However, I want you to consider a different perspective – that our losses are of great importance and must be grieved, not dismissed nor denied. According to Norm Wright, a leading Christian counselor and expert on the subject of grief and loss, “We have to confront each loss whenever it occurs, because if you don’t and you bury it, you bury it alive – and someday there will be a resurrection.

It is important that we expand our understanding of loss. The death of a loved one, of course, is the quintessential loss. Death is truly our greatest enemy, as the Bible says, and the emotions it awakes are among the most powerful and overwhelming of all human experiences. But Wright lists the following as examples of the many other losses we experience regularly:

1) material loss – from a dropped vase to monetary loss

2) abstract loss – lost love or hope or ambition or control

3) imagined loss – we think a person no longer loves us or wants us around

4) relationship loss – the end of an opportunity to relate, such as divorce

5) moving – to a new house or community

6) end of friendship

7) intra psychic loss – lost image of oneself or death of a dream

8) functional loss – loss of ability to drive, of sight or hearing, of memory, etc.

9) systemic loss – a significant person leaves your workplace or group

10) child leaves home – family will not be the same

11) threatened loss – there is a likelihood of loss but nothing you can do about it, e.g., waiting on a biopsy report

12) disenfranchised loss – loss that cannot be publically acknowledged or socially supported, such as a secret lover, a co-habitation partner, a neighbor, a broken engagement, an abortion, a miscarriage, the loss of a pet

13) ambiguous loss – people cannot adjust but freeze, in such cases as deployment, MIA’s, kidnaped children, a coma, Alzheimer’s disease

This list can include many more things. One that readily comes to mind for me is transitional phases in our lives, such as leaving college or retiring from work, thus losing a lifestyle and group of friends. The important thing is to recognize these various things as real losses. The next step is grieving the losses. There is no way around the grieving process and no speeding it up. Some people try to stay in denial, either by returning to a normal routine and intellectualizing the loss, or by covering it up with drugs, alcohol, or various addictions.

A long-term study indicated that the death rate of widows and widowers is 2-17 times higher the first year following the death of a spouse. Another study discovered that about 25% of those who mourn experience a dramatic decrease in the body’s immune system 6-9 months after their loss. This is one reason why grieving people are more susceptible to illness. Denial may be a good short-term strategy that helps ease our grief, but as a long-term strategy, it is not beneficial. Recovery occurs when we face our losses and give ourselves permission to grieve. (See next month’s follow-up article – “Grieving Our Losses.”)

Overcoming Evil

In last month’s article, I described what I view is the problem of evil – that it is so common. All of us are capable of doing evil, but some people seem to hide their evil behind a facade of goodness. To repeat the definition of what I view as evil, according to Dan Allender in his book Bold Love, “Evil is present when there is a profound absence of empathy . . . An evil person is unmoved by the inner world of the other and has no respect for boundaries.” When their patterns of harm are exposed, evil people are not sorrowful nor open to feedback. Often they masterfully cause confusion and in turn make the victims of their abuse feel like the perpetrators of harm. Evil is fairly predictable in its efforts to intimidate through manipulation and shame. Evil wants control and absolute power over choice. An evil person wants not only conformity to their ways but almost an unearned devotion that borders on worship. An evil person, in a sense, seeks to steal the lifeblood from the soul of another. With this said, I would now like to address what what to do about overcoming evil.

One of the first things I suggest is to set limits on evil. I rarely have to worry about encountering evil people in counseling. They usually do not come because, according to them, they do not have the problem. But I see many of their victims, the so-called weak people who are depressed or addicted. I call these people courageous, because they are attempting to shine the light of truth on their entrapment. They often struggle hard to get free and do so at great costs. Often they must give up a relationship with a parent or other significant person while other family members and friends continue to relate to that person. Often it is the fear of abandonment that blocks most of us from setting limits and establishing boundaries. And sadly, many of the victims are powerless children whose choices are to become perfectionist conformists or to fall prey to depression or rebelliousness. Yet for those adults who have the freedom and courage to set limits on evil, they can find hope in knowing that they are doing the more loving thing by not continuing to allow an evil person to consistently and perniciously sin against them. Unfortunately, kindness and reasoning do not seem to work. It may take extreme measures, such as being willing to walk out, hang up the phone, or even call the police if the evil person intimidates through shame or manipulation.

Having suggested that to set limits on evil is all right, I want to quickly add a cautionary suggestion: hatred of evil in another may indicate our own evil propensity. In this case, we should examine ourselves thoroughly, as the Bible says, inspecting the log in our own eyes before examining the speck in another. Yes, we may want to avoid someone who has harmed us or, at least, limit their ability to harm us again. But if our motivation is vengeance, we need beware. Again according to Allender, “Evil knows the ways of evil. . . What evil cannot comprehend is goodness. Goodness offers life; evil seeks death.” So a better way to deal with evil is to overcome it with goodness. Good draws forth rage from evil because evil expects the good to operate according to its same principles, that is, in returning evil for evil. But if we desire in our hearts to root out evil, even in those who harm us, then we are doing good. We should want to put limits on evil in order that those who harm us would repent and change. It takes lots of wisdom, courage and creativity to do this.

As Scott Peck says in his book People of the Lie, evil spelled backwards is “live” – a person must want to come out from under the bondage to another in order to really live and become their true self.

Forgiveness: What It Is Not

Note: This article was first published in Life in the Delta in July 2004.

In following up last month’s article “Forgiveness: What It Is,” this month’s article addresses the counterpart – what forgiveness is not. I will summarize and then expound more fully: forgiveness is not reconciliation or pardoning or condoning or excusing or forgetting.

To briefly recap, emotional forgiveness is the replacement of the negative emotions of resentment, bitterness, hostility, hatred, anger, and fear, following an offense, with positive other-oriented emotions such as love, empathy, compassion, romantic love, or an altruistic gift to bless another. The benefits of forgiveness can affect us in many ways, including physical and emotional health. This type of forgiveness is intrapersonal, that is, it takes place inside the person. Forgiveness can be granted. It can either be expressed or not expressed to the other party.

The pardoning or excusing of an offense by the act of behaving as if it did not happen is more of a decisional forgiveness. The decision not to avenge or avoid the person may or may not actually alleviate the experience of the negative emotions. This may be a hollow forgiveness. It may make life easier, especially in family disputes or in workplace situations, but it may not bring the positive health oriented benefits, according to recent research in the area of forgiveness. We can either experience or not experience the forgiveness we express.

How then does reconciliation relate to forgiveness? Reconciliation is the restoration of trust when trust has been damaged. Reconciliation is interpersonal, that is, it takes place between two parties. Trust cannot be granted – it must be earned. Trust is earned by many trustworthy experiences over time. Both parties must decide whether to reconcile. It is like building a bridge – each must start from their own side and work toward the middle. One person cannot build a bridge to the other’s side.

Of course, the best scenario is to forgive and to reconcile. But as mentioned, one person cannot effect reconciliation. Reconciliation is a process which involves many steps, including confession, contrition, acknowledgment of pain, valuing of the other person, restitution, and patient waiting. Fortunately, however, reconciliation is possible. I have successfully witnessed several marriages that have survived an affair and have become stronger and healthier. But it took work by both sides. I have also seen one person make a decision to reconcile too soon and derail the process. Bitterness or anger may fester beneath the surface only to erupt unpredictably and uncontrollably. These emotional outbursts are a sign that forgiveness has not fully taken place. This is because reconciliation generally needs repentance – that being sorry for one’s offense and making the effort to change. Also, to reconcile requires that we take the time to grieve whatever we feel we have lost. If the offending party refuses to change or even acknowledge the hurt they have caused, then true reconciliation cannot generally occur. Reconciliation may even put some people in danger of re-injury, as in cases of sexual abuse. Sometimes reconciliation is just not possible, however much one would like for it to occur. That too is a loss that must be grieved. Forgiveness, however, is possible and desirable.

The Problem of Evil

I recall my experience of serving in an internship for a semester in a group therapy behavioral center for those with dual diagnoses – depression and/or anxiety with or without co-existing addictions. As I sat with these good people who were struggling to recover from their problems, I often heard them ask the question, “How can people be so cruel?” They said this often in reference to family members or co-workers whom they seemed to hold responsible for most of their difficulties. I recall the psychologist’s answer: “You simply need to know and accept that there are evil people in this world.” He went on to tell them, however, that they fortunately no longer had to be in bondage to them. A book he recommended they read was Scott Peck’s People of the Lie, which is a great description of real evil and may differ from the pre-conceived notions many of us have about evil.

Since I have talked about boundary setting and codependency in the last few articles, I thought this would be a good time to address this issue of evil. We all know of people like Saddam Hussein who are masters of evil. But according to Dan Allender in his book Bold Love, there are many people who do not perpetrate societal or individual barbarity but who are more than simply arrogant, hard, and hurtful. “All of us are capable of doing evil things, but evil people are driven by a self-interest that is so heartless, conscious, and cruel that they delight in stealing from others the lifeblood of their soul.” These people often masquerade as ordinary, unassuming people who hide behind a facade of normalcy. Again according to Allender, “Evil is present when there is a profound absence of empathy, shame, and goodness. . . An evil person is unmoved by the inner world of the other and has no respect for boundaries.” When their patterns of harm are exposed, they are not sorrowful or open to feedback. Their narcissism, or pride, is profound.

Evil rarely shows itself as bad. Instead, it often portrays itself as helpful, kind and generous, but these are displayed to entangle the victim deeper in the evil person’s web, i.e., there are strings attached. Evil people for the most part are unfeeling and without emotion. The victim is just an object to be controlled or destroyed. A characteristic of evil people is their ability to cause confusion as they regularly and masterfully portray their motives and behavior as innocent and in turn make the victims of their abuse feel like the perpetrators of the harm. They use heartless accusations and shame to wear down their victims and show no remorse for doing so. Just like a dictator who wants to limit the freedom of speech and thought of his constituents, so does an evil person desire to control and have absolute power over the choices of another.

An example Allender gives of an evil person is the following: “The father who craftily and pervasively undermines his children at every point of decision, criticizing their reasoning or their motives, superintending every one of their relationships with solicitousness and overprotection, may appear to outsiders to be a committed and sacrificial parent, but in fact may be a jealous, obsessive accuser who devours their hearts.” Another example he gives is the mother who may be a pleasant, hospitable woman known as a good Christian, who may even serve on church committees and be involved in civic organizations, but at home behind closed doors she may “ooze molten contempt” and “in her volcanic fury melts everyone who dares stand in her path.” She may coerce her children into doing as she wants while remarking, “I’m glad you’ve come to your senses.” One problem with discerning evil people is that they are so common. (To be continued next month.)

Forgiveness: What It Is

Note: This article was first published in Life in the Delta in June 2004.

At the recent annual meeting of the Mississippi Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, I was privileged to hear keynote speaker Dr. Everett L. Worthington, Jr. Though a Christian, Dr. Worthington has been working in the secular field at the Virginia Commonwealth University where he has done extensive research in the area of forgiveness. He is highly regarded for his expertise on the topic and has published many of his studies. Though all the major religions value forgiveness, it has also become an area of interest to secular psychologists who have found great personal health benefits for individuals who practice it. I would like to share with you some of Dr. Worthington’s findings.

One of the difficulties of discussing forgiveness is in defining it. Therefore, Dr. Worthington establishes the definition as the basis from which to work. He says that there are two types of forgiveness: decisional and emotional. In decisional forgiveness, a person decides to control the tendency to avenge or avoid their offender and by their outward behavior they “release the debt.” Many people have this type in mind when they think about forgiveness. But the forgiveness that Dr. Worthington says that brings the physical and emotional benefits to people is the second type – emotional forgiveness. This is the one he has in mind when discussing forgiveness. Therefore, he first defines it in the negative: emotional unforgiveness is the complex combination of six negative emotions – resentment, bitterness, hostility, hatred, anger, and fear, which occur after there has been an offense. Living in our world, we are continually faced with being hurt or offended by others. After the transgression happens, we usually respond with hot emotions, such as anger or hurt or fear, but this response is not unforgiveness. Unforgiveness develops over time as we ruminate about the offense. These six above named emotions can then become combined and deeply rooted and difficult to give up.

After an offense Dr. Worthington says an “injustice gap” is created, which can be dealt with in several ways. Emotional forgiveness is just one of the ways to close this gap, though it is impossible to fully close the gap and return to things as they were before. Other ways to close the injustice gap include personal revenge, legal recourse, invoking divine justice by turning it over to God, accepting that bad things happen (which is forbearance), or demanding an apology or restitution, just to name a few. These things can help alleviate negative emotions. But Dr. Worthington contends that emotional forgiveness is the replacement of the negative emotions of unforgiveness with positive other-oriented emotions, such as empathy, sympathy, or love – either romantic or altruistic (a gift to the other person).

Dr. Worthington says the level of hurt is crucial. The offense of someone cutting you off in traffic may be categorized as a nickel hurt, whereas a big hurt such as the murder of a loved one may be worth $500. It may take a while to cycle over and over again through forgiveness in cases of traumatic, deep wounds to reach the replacement of the negative emotions with positive ones. But the key is empathy – the identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives. This does not negate the hurt, but if you can separate the action of the offense from the negative emotions, then perhaps you can find ways of letting go of those emotions. For example, you can ask God to heal the emotions. Perhaps you can attempt to see the offense through the eyes of the offender or as an observer objectively telling the story. Maybe remember a time when someone forgave you and what that felt like. You can limit the time you ruminate over the offense, e.g, delegate it to a designated limited time period during the day. All of these are ways to replace negative unforgiving emotions with positive other-oriented emotions. Emotional forgiveness can be expressed or not expressed to the offender. Emotional forgiveness is an intrapersonal experience, that is, it takes place inside the person.

Our bodies are designed to meet an acute stressor by pumping out the hormone cortisol. People with unforgiveness have been found to have higher levels of this stress hormone cortisol, which can lead to many physical health risks, such as cardiovascular and immune disorder risks. Basically, emotional forgiveness is better for your health. (Note: See next month’s follow-up article – “Forgiveness: What It Is Not.”)

Attempting to Define Codependence

Note: This article was first published in Life in the Delta in May 2004.

I have many clients who come to therapy having been told they are “codependent.” Or as we talk I even throw out the word “codependent” to give them some name or framework to what they are experiencing. They seem to know something about themselves is not quite right but they do not have words to explain their experience. They just seem to feel a nebulous or chaotic sense about themselves.

Having talked about boundaries in the last couple of articles, I thought this would be a good point at which to address this term “codependence.” To give some background, the term was coined in the 1970's to explain the experience of those who were married to alcoholics, that is, those who supported the alcoholics in their lifestyle by enabling them or rescuing them. They were thought to also be dependent along with the alcoholic in this lifestyle, hence a partner in dependency. The definition of the word has since evolved into many different meanings. It has come to mean having an addiction to a person and seems to manifest itself in repeating the same type of self-defeating relationships with different people again and again. One definition I like that is quoted by Melody Beattie in her book Codependent No More is, “It means I am always looking for someone to glob onto.” The term codependence has even come to mean being an addictive person in general, addicted to various types of substances or behaviors, such as alcohol, drugs, food, work, shopping, or relationships. That is, they are looking outside themselves to find something which will satisfy their inner longings.

After much research and many attempts to define this fuzzy condition known as codependence, one common denominator that does seem to come through is the secret unwritten rules that develop in a family that order relationships. According to Beattie, “These rules prohibit discussion about problems; open expression of feelings; direct, honest communication; realistic expectations, such as being human, vulnerable, or imperfect; selfishness; trust in other people and one’s self; playing and having fun; and rocking the delicately balanced family canoe through growth or change . . . These rules are common to alcoholic family systems but can emerge in other families too.” These are the old “don’t talk, don’t trust, don’t feel” rules that have long been known in Alcoholics Anonymous circles.

Another way of explaining codependence is to say these people have poor boundaries or to say that they have passive people-pleasing personalities. These people can find favor in the eyes of many, especially if they are compulsive caretakers, but they eventually become worn down and feel empty. They may even become angry at the very people that they have cared for. They come to think that the problem is the “other person” who if just would change would make their own lives better. But the trick is, who can change another person? And the truth is, if that problem person changes, usually the codependent family comes unglued. For example, if the alcoholic quits drinking, the family does not know how to relate to this new person and usually prefers the old way of organizing around the problem person.

Codependents do not become the way they are on their own. They are a product of their family systems. Their real need is to change themselves and learn to establish good boundaries around themselves. Somehow they need to extricate themselves from their unhealthy system, which is frightening to codependents, but necessary. I recommend to those trapped in the cycle of codependency to take a prolonged period of time to be selfish. Codependents feel the way they are relating is so right because they are loving others. But the Biblical command is to “love your neighbor as yourself”(emphasis mine). Codependents can benefit from a time of catching up on learning what it is to love themselves. They can start by taking long baths and long walks. They can give themselves time to explore what they really think, feel, and want in life. And when recovered, they can then better love others. This is not easy. It may even take a whole generation to break codependent patterns.

Communication Styles Reflect Boundaries

Note: This article was first published in Life in the Delta in April 2004.

Last month I talked about boundary setting, that is, how to put invisible fences around our souls to show ownership of what is rightfully ours. Included in our boundaries are our thoughts and opinions, our feelings, our desires and dreams, our choices and behaviors with subsequent consequences, and the development of our gifts and talents. This month I want to show how our communication styles to a large extent reflect our boundaries.

There are three major styles of communicating which I believe are negative styles and styles which violate boundaries: aggressive, passive, and passive-aggressive. What I consider a positive style and keeps proper boundaries is a fourth style, which is being assertive. I will explain all of these and ask you to consider where you see yourself as you read them. Keep in mind that you can be in all of these styles at times, depending on whom you are relating to at the moment. But in general, you may find yourself in one major category.

The first style I want to address is the aggressive style. These people cross other’s boundaries by being pushy and intrusive. They may defend themselves by saying, “I just believe in speaking my mind” but they often do so at the expense of others. They usually have to be right and like to win at all costs. These are usually your sharp-tongued folks, whose words seem to penetrate, that is, come across as harsh and hurtful. They may even masquerade behind being joking and sarcastic. Other descriptors include being rude, bossy, intimidating, defensive, disruptive, eruptive, belittling, bragging, lecturing, or outright cursing and using foul language. A major character trait is that they are narcissistic, that is, it’s all about them. They seem to have little capacity to empathize or see how their behavior effects others. (Note: not all of the adjectives have to apply to be in a category.)

The second style is the passive style. These are people who allow others to cross their boundaries. These include your people pleasers, your victims, your martyrs. They will complain but not do anything. They generally feel helpless and feel used. They usually have problems with trust. They generally have low self-esteem, hence they draw their esteem from pleasing others. They are dishonest about their true feelings and let someone else have power over them. They are selfish in that they are worried about what others think and how things will affect them. And they are fearful in that they are afraid of other’s anger, their own anger, of not being liked, or of being rejected. It’s difficult to get to know these people because they are like chameleons, changing to fit the circumstances.

A third category is the passive-aggressive style. These are the people who “get back by getting even.” They won’t just tell you what is wrong but they let you know in subtle ways – by pouting, by brooding, by being avoidant, by shutting down. They may scheme to hurt you or punish you in ways such as withholding affection or gossiping. The ultimate passive aggressives include those who are anorexic or suicidal. Milder forms includes people who drag their feet, ignore others, or nag.

The last and the preferred way to be, being assertive, sets the proper boundaries around a person and gives one the best sense of self-worth. Assertive people are open and honest about what they are feeling at the moment. This is different from the aggressive person who is open and honest at another’s expense and different from the passive or passive-aggressive person who is actually dishonest. Assertive people can express their opinions, share feelings, ask for what they want, give and receive favors and compliments, can say no without feeling guilty, can admit mistakes. They generally take more risks and are more even keel. They understand that it is not possible to say and do the right thing all the time and have everyone like them. They are characteristically more genuine, authentic people.

I encourage you to try to move more toward the assertive style if you find yourself in another category most of the time. You may even want to consider getting the help of a counselor or therapist. Making some of these changes in communication styles can be quite difficult because they are so ingrained but I believe the results will yield more satisfying relationships.

Learning to Set Boundaries

Note: This article was first published in Life in the Delta in March 2004.

All of us know what physical boundaries look like – they are fences, signs, or hedges that give the message that the owner of the property has a legal right to the property. Physical boundaries give people a legal deed to their property, to the exclusion of all others. According to Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend in their book Boundaries: When to Say YES, When to Say NO, To Take Control of Your Life, in the spiritual world, boundaries “define what is me and what is not me.” A boundary shows where one person ends and another person begins and gives a sense of ownership to a person. God designed a world where we are to live within our own souls housed in our physical bodies.

If I had to say if there is a common theme of problems in marriage relationships or parent-child relationships, I would say it is the theme of boundary violations. This is a huge broad area but does seem to underpin the more obvious problems, such as communication problems with couples and discipline problems with children. If people can be responsible for their own person, and respect the boundary of another, they can have a more healthy marriage relationship. If they can establish firm boundaries for their children, the family can be more peaceful. An experience that illustrated this more clearly to me last summer was that of being on a high story at a condominium on the beach in Florida. The balcony had a very high and very sturdy rail. I could walk out to the edge and even lean on the rail – I felt safe and could enjoy the sights, sounds, and smell of the ocean and even the touch of the ocean breeze. But I thought to myself, what if the rail were not there? I could still walk out onto the balcony and perhaps be all right, but could I enjoy the beach? No, I would have to worry about falling off the edge at all times. Thoughts of my safety would necessarily overtake my enjoyment of the beach. It was easy to see that the fence was a protective thing to me. In much the same way, the boundaries we establish with others produce more safety and more enjoyment of our relationships.

What exactly belongs inside these so-called boundaries of our souls? Included are our thoughts and opinions. Right or wrong, we all have a right to our beliefs and to the expression of them, within reason. We all have a right to our feelings and emotions. They should neither be ignored nor placed in charge, but they should be owned. We all have responsibility for our choices and behaviors, which all have consequences. When someone removes our natural consequences, even with the good intention of protecting us, we lose the power to learn from them. We all have a right to explore our desires and dreams and goals. Our talents are also within our boundaries to develop and use. We all have the right to set limits, to say no to ourselves, either to destructive desires or even some good ones that are not wise to pursue at a given time. We have the right to set limits on others. This does not mean we can change others or make them behave right, but adults can limit their exposure to people who behave in destructive or unloving ways. This actually protects love. And we have the right to give and receive love. Many have actually closed their hearts to love out of fear and hurt. What is needed in all these aspects of boundaries is a good gate, one which we can choose to open to let the good things in and to close to keep the bad things out. Boundaries should not be walls but fences.

Boundary setting is easier said than done. When we are not in secure, loving relationships, we face two bad options: either to set limits and risk losing an important relationship, or not to set limits and be a prisoner to the wishes of another. The place to begin learning to set boundaries is with what I call “safe people,” those who can accept us as we are and with whom we feel free to be our true selves – able to freely express our thoughts, feelings and desires without being put-down or discounted. If safe people are not readily available to you, seeing a counselor or therapist is a good place to begin as well as joining a small group in a church or in the community. You may need to seek hard to find these trustworthy people, but it is a venture worth pursuing. It is by developing our boundaries that we become and can enjoy being our true selves.

By the way, I highly recommend that you read the Boundaries book by Cloud and Townsend. Even if it is the only self-help book you ever read, it is worth your time.

The Worst Kind of Abuse

Note: This article was first published in Life in the Delta in February 2004.

I talked last month about the damaging affects of all kinds of childhood neglect and abuse, including physical, emotional, sexual and spiritual. This month I would like to emphasize the seriousness of one of the most hideous of them all – childhood sexual abuse. Human beings are made in the image of God – male and female, and our sexuality is core to our being, even on the soul level. Therefore, when a child is sexually abused, there is usually lifelong damage to the soul.

There are many definitions of childhood sexual abuse, but at its essence, abuse occurs when a child is used as a sexual object by someone in authority or with power. It can encompass using sexual language, pornography, fondling, or any kind of sexual act performed to or in front of a child.

Children do not naturally know about being sexual, and developmentally children are not capable of understanding sex. Therefore, if a child is sexualized at an early age, there has been someone else to show them. Children do experiment innocently and occasionally will have a sexual encounter with another child, such as “playing doctor” or “I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours.” These experiences are not to be blown out of proportion nor do they damage a child. But if a perpetrator misuses their authority or the relationship to gratify their own sexual desires, ensuing damage occurs. A perpetrator can be an adult or another child who is at least 4 years older.

There are some common myths about childhood sexual abuse. One is that it is rare. Some of the latest statistics show that approximately 1 in 4 females and 1 in 7 males have been sexually abused. Another myth is that if children are taught to avoid dangerous strangers, then they will not be abused. To the contrary, 85-90% of abusers are known to the children. Molesters appear normal in most ways. Often the abuser is a relative. It is a fact that incest crosses all social lines. Another myth is that if children consent, they must have liked it or even invited it. Absolutely not, the offender bears full responsibility for the abuse. Children are sensual, that is, they need loving touch and affection, but children are not sexual. Another myth is that children will forget about the abuse if adults don’t remind them. Kids may hide the hurt and even feel responsible for the abuse. They interpret the silence of the adult as blame or anger. Another myth is that children make up stories about sexual abuse. Sexual abuse involves shame and guilt and children rarely make up a story where they are “bad.” So please, adults, listen to children if they try to get a message across that hints of possible sexual abuse.

Children trapped in sexual abuse have a problem in that they need relationship but the very people that they are supposed to trust are not safe. There are a lot of ways that childhood sexual abuse can affect people later. Sexual abuse can fuel addictions of all kind as people seek to meet their own needs through substances or habits rather than relationships. The abused can become dutiful and mechanized, because passion scares them or got them into trouble in the first place. Abused people often numb or dissociate and do not have a wide range of emotion. The abused can become sexually active. The abused can shut down sexually, especially later in marriage. Or worse, the abused can become the abusers, perpetuating a cycle of abuse. However, the best efforts to deny the abuse usually pop up later in life, be it in the form of depression, anxiety, addictions, or relationship problems. I urge anyone who was sexually abused as a child to seek help. The pain needs to be faced in order to go on with a productive life. Since most people do not like or know how to discuss such sensitive issues, I generally encourage seeking out a professional counselor or therapist. The road to recovery is long and arduous, but it is definitely worth the journey.

Unfortunately, with so many sexual images all around us – on television, movies, billboards, magazines, and the internet – almost all of our children are being sexually abused. Even the most caring and concerned parent is virtually helpless to prevent the loss of childhood innocence. The resulting damage is potentially catastrophic to our society. For that reason, I think we desperately need some kind of moral outcry or spiritual revival.

The Legacy of Neglect and Abuse

Note: This article was first published in Life in the Delta in January 2004.

In my article last month I left you with what I consider a good definition of love: to have a profound concern for the welfare of another without any desire to control that other or to expect something in return. To restate it in the negative – it is not a selfish manipulation of someone else to meet your own needs or to fulfill your own desires and expectations. This type of manipulative love is what I would call a pseudo-love – it appears to be love and even masquerades as love but is not a true God-like unconditional love.

What then is the opposite of love? Why abuse, of course – you might say. And it is true that so many children today grow up in abusive homes. The paths of their lives are almost doomed to the fate of probable addictions, wrecked homes, or even criminal behavior. What many people do not know, however, is that their children can equally suffer from neglect. The harsh reality is that neglect can do as much damage as abuse, but it leaves a vacuum much harder to grieve or to qualify. Many adults are walking around today with nebulous undefined hurt in their hearts and do not know that the source is their own neglect from childhood. Both abuse and neglect fuel addictions.

There are obvious differences in abuse and neglect, which I will point out. But I also want to show their similarities in order to warn well-meaning parents of their possible ignorance in causing inadvertent neglect to their children.

The basic difference in abuse and neglect is the following: abuse allows bad things into children’s lives that parents are responsible for keeping out, whereas neglect fails to allow good things in that children need and parents are responsible for providing. But there are four similar ways in which children can be damaged by both abuse and neglect, which include the following:

1) Physically – To prevent abuse, it is the parents’ responsibility to protect the children from those on the outside who would harm them. But in order not to neglect children, parents need to touch their children and be physically present with them. They need to allow them to participate in activities that build relationships and healthy connections to their outside world.

2) Emotionally - To prevent abuse, parents need to protect children from those who would damage them emotionally, such as alcoholic parents, bullies or other verbally abusive people. But in order not to neglect their children, parents need to praise them and speak words of encouragement. They need to validate their children’s emotions.

3) Sexually - To prevent abuse, parents need to keep their children from any non-appropriate touching, fondling, exposure or ridicule. But to prevent neglect, parents are the ones who should provide age appropriate information to their children about their sexuality. They should model and send affirming messages to them about their maleness or femaleness. They should set appropriate dating boundaries when the time comes.

4) Spiritually – To prevent abuse, parents should not send negative messages only of harsh rules or of hellfire and brimstone. The worst possible abuse occurs when a spiritual leader, such as a pastor or youth director, sexually abuses a child, for the child is damaged both spiritually and sexually. But something that is becoming more prevalent and is a huge area of neglect is parents’ failure to pass on a faith heritage to their children. Parents, if you do not currently attend church or think it is important, consider involving your family for your children’s sake. Otherwise, they may flounder through life not knowing their meaning or purpose.

To recap, abuse and neglect are flip sides of the same coin. Both can cause great damage that will usually leave a legacy of pain and addictive behavior. To be a good parent, you not only need to keep the bad out but you must also add the good in.