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.