RESEARCH
Most would assume that since both the secular and Christian segments of our society have jumped on the self-image train, apparently the scientific research has revealed that low self-esteem is rampant and the need to build a good self-image is paramount. Such is not the case. As a matter of fact, most research has shown that both children and adults in our society actually esteem themselves too highly. In addition, there appears to be no correlation between self-image and behaviour. The following are some such examples:
• The findings of the College Board (through surveys taken from millions of high school seniors who take its tests) found that seventy percent rated themselves above average; two percent as below average. Sixty percent viewed themselves as above average in "athletic ability;" only six percent said they were below average. In "ability to get along with others," zero percent rated themselves in the top ten percent and twenty-five percent saw themselves in the top one percent (The Inflated Self, pp. 23,24).
• In one study, ninety-four percent of college faculty members think themselves better than their average colleague ("A New Look at Pride," in Your Better Self, p90).
• In a recent issue of Psychological Review, a journal published by the American Psychological Association, an article was written with the subtitle: "The Dark Side of High Self-Esteem." The authors stated, after studying numerous serious empirical studies, "In our view, the benefits of favourable self-opinions accrue primarily to the self, and they are if anything a burden and potential problem to everyone else." (Reported in Fortune, April 29, 1996, pp. 211-212). Newsweek claimed that although more than ten thousand scientific studies of self-esteem have been conducted, the experts cannot even agree on what it is (Newsweek, Feb. 17, 1992, "Hey, I‘m Terrific," pp48-51).
The fact is that the self-image movement is neither Biblical nor scientific. It is a fad that will eventually pass away after doing incredible damage in our society and unfortunately in all too many churches. By God’s grace and the truth of His Word, believers need not be taken in by Satan‘s lies. We can choose to live by the infallible, never changing Word of God!
CODEPENDENCY, A BIBLICAL VIEW
Codependency is one of the "hot topics," at the moment in modern-day psychology. Until recent years the word (and even the concept) was virtually unknown; now everyone seems to be a codependent. The goals of this section are to define codependency, look at what psychologists tell us causes it, examine its supposed effects on people and find out how to cure it. Finally, we will examine all of this in the light of Scripture.
A DEFINITION OF CODEPENDENCY
"Originally, codependency was used to describe a person whose life was affected as a result of being involved with someone who was chemically dependent" (Martin Bobgan, Twelve Steps To Destruction, p15). Today, however, definitions vary so greatly that it is often difficult to be certain what is being talked about. For example:
• "A codependent person is one who has let another person‘s behaviour affect him or her, and who is obsessed with controlling that person‘s behaviour" (Melody Beattie, Codependent No More, p31).
• "Codependency can be defined as an addiction to people, behaviours, or things. Codependency is the fallacy of trying to control inferior feelings by controlling people, things, and events on the outside. To the codependent, control, or the lack of it, is central to every aspect of life. When it comes to people, the codependent has become so elaborately enmeshed in the other person that the sense of self— personal identity — is severely restricted, crowded out by that other person‘s identity and problems" (Love is a Choice by Hemfelt, Minirth, & Meier, p11 ).
• "Codependency is the condition when your love tanks are
running on empty" (Ibid p38).
• "Codependency is a pattern of painful dependency on
compulsive behaviours and on approval from others in an attempt to find safety, self-worth, and identity" (definition used at the first national conference on codependency in 1989, Bobgan, p17).
Confused? Even Melody Beattie, the acknowledged spokeswoman for codependency admits, "There are almost as many definitions of codependency as there are experiences that represent it. In desperation (or perhaps enlightenment), some therapists have proclaimed, ‗Codependency's anything, and everyone is a codependent‘" (Codependent No More, p29). Not only are the experts uncertain about what this disorder is, they are also not sure who has it. Minirth and Meier tell us that roughly one hundred million Americans suffer from codependency; and therefore, we are embattled by an epidemic of staggering degree (Love Is A Choice, p14). It has been estimated by yet another source, that eighty-five percent of the codependency market is female. The reason for this is that mainly the traditional feminine traits and behaviours, such as nurturing, mothering and developing intimate relationships, are often considered symptoms of codependency. Women, who have chosen to be caretakers and nurturers, rather than put their own feelings and desires above others, are labeled codependent — in need of psychological help. While we would acknowledge that these traits can be carried too far by some, we are greatly concerned when we are told that virtually the whole adult population (especially women), is suffering from this "disease." Could it be that the psychologists are confusing codependence with unselfish acts of love? Is the goal of the anti-codependent proponents to turn us into a race of people who serve and love self more than others? If so, they are in contradiction with Phil. 2:3,4.
THE CAUSE OF CODEPENDENCY
What causes a person to become codependent and what are the effects of this "illness" on the life of the codependent?
Minirth and Meier claim the causes of codependency are:
"unmet emotional needs, lost childhood, and the compulsion to
fix the dysfunctional family" (Ibid. p15). While these causes are interrelated, we will nevertheless take them one at a time:
Unmet Emotional Needs: The theory is that we each have a reservoir for love (or love tank) inside us. If our love tank has not been filled by the "significant others" in our lives, we will not have our emotional needs met; we will therefore become a codependent (see Ibid. p33ff). This theory is especially true of children.
Lost Childhood: Children lose their childhood through abuse usually by parents or parental figures. Active abuse, such as incest, physical abuse or even excessive anger on a parent‘s part is the most recognized form of abuse — abuse that we must not deny or minimize. However, we are told of more subtle forms of abuse that apparently leave similar scars on a child's life. Minirth and Meier inform us of the following forms of abuse, often not recognized: one parent who is preoccupied and unavailable to a child emotionally, a child who is not constantly praised, lack of touching and hugging in the family, parents not being at peace (with one another) sexually, parents who demand "too much," parents depending too much on their children, a parent who is too rigid, etc. (Ibid. pp52-62).
We would mention two things at this point: Note the terrible pressure the codependency view places upon parents. At what point do we cross over from being emotionally available, to overindulging our children? When are we being too rigid, rather than firm? How do we know if we are expecting too much from our children, or not enough? What a horrible position to be in, knowing that the answers to these questions are relative, yet knowing that failure on our part will "scar" our children for life. The Biblical view would be that parents do have a responsibility to their children, but that they are not responsible for the choices their children make. Likewise, instead of blaming our parents for the mistakes they made while raising us, we must take responsibility for our own
actions.
By the codependent definition of abuse, virtually all children in
the past have been abused and should have developed into codependents. How could parents of ten or more children always have been emotionally available to them? How were parents able to fill their children‘s love tanks when they worked sixty-plus hours per week, and often their children held full- time jobs as well? Even more importantly, if codependency has been our problem all of these years, why didn‘t God give us instructions on how to deal with it? Are we to believe that God allowed all of His people until the 1980s to be unequipped to deal with this grave problem? Are we to believe, as well, that God has not chosen to deal with codependency in His Word, but has revealed this problem and its solution, mostly to ungodly men and women such as Freud, Maslow and Beattie?
Next and last part comes 15th of april :)
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar