Forgiveness, sinners and dysfunction

[2xx1xy1JD]

A lot of the themes that we've been hearing this week reminded me of things I regularly heard from my most dysfunctional clients. It makes me wonder just how much fundie theology trickled into 12-step programs and other various therapies (or conversely, how much of fundie doctrine is influenced by dysfunctional people). It also reminds me of just how fucked up and counter-productive such thinking was. [To be clear - a few of my dysfunctional clients were religious Christians, but most were not. The lines that I'm hearing, though, are strikingly similar.]

1. The "we are all equally sinners" line

This seemed especially common among the addicts. I remember one telling me that her step-father was just as bad as she was, because he'd have a glass or 2 of red wine with dinner. Sorry, that's not the same as a crack addiction. Another, who was an alcoholic in an abusive/dysfunctional marriage, insisted that everybody had problems that were just as bad.

Clearly, they were attracted to the message that everyone else was just as bad as they were. That message, though, was not the least bit helpful. It fueled their denial of their problems, and allowed them to continue to minimize the harm and avoid taking responsibility.

2. The "instant forgiveness" = forget everything mindset

I dealt with dysfunctional couples that would split up, report all the horrible dirt on the other person, and then decide to reconcile. They often seemed genuinely puzzled, hurt and offended that this didn't instantly make all involvement by the authorities go away. Sorry, but if you have sworn that crimes occurred and that children are at risk, that doesn't disappear.

3. The "why are you still punishing me when I've repented?" line

I don't care if you are very sorry about your actions. If you are an alcoholic, you may have restrictions on driving with your children. If you've threatened people, you may have a restraining order. If you have dependents, you may need to support them. It's called natural consequences, not punishment. It's about protecting people, doing what is in the best interests of children and expecting adults to fulfill their legal obligations. Whining about feeling "punished" always struck me as being incredibly self-centered. No, it's not about you and your feelings.

4. The "don't you believe that people can change?" line

Closely related to #2, I'd have either clients or their partners desperate to insist that someone could change, instantly, if they wanted. They didn't want to acknowledge that sobriety takes time and hard work and relapse was common. They didn't want to acknowledge that someone with a long history of abuse was likely to continue to be abusive. No, we were the bad guys raining on their parade, since someone had just promised to change so that should mean that they are farting rainbows.

5. The "why are they still angry/bitter/hung up on that?" line

Many of them couldn't understand why family, authorities, etc. would still have fears and concerns, and were a bit blind to the extent of the harm they had caused. Yes, if your mother suddenly had to care for your crack babies, it's reasonable for her to be strict about rules. Yes, if you were holding a knife over your wife, it's reasonable for her to still be terrified of you even after you got therapy. Yes, if you were a horrible abusive parent, it's reasonable for your children to reject you even if you made up with your spouse and went to anger management classes.

6. "We can't judge"

Actually, we can. That's what family court does.

[Palimpsest]

Interesting. I think 12 step programs generally are overrated, not suitable for everyone, and are not keeping up with current research and knowledge about the treatment of addiction.

Alcoholics Anonymous has, in my view, a highly overrated reputation. There is a lot of criticism of it as a treatment method out there if you look. It is worth knowing that its founders were part of Dr. Frank Buchman's Oxford Group (cult) and incorporated those beliefs into the program. Similarly, the links between Narcanon and Scientology are well documented.

So I'll go out on a limb here and say that cult thinking (and I consider some Christian Fundamentalist groups to be cults) preys on the dysfunctional and impaired and has permeated 12 step programs.

[Howl]

2xx1xy1JD, thank you for this post. I'd say the most interesting and fascinating post I've read from all of the spin-off information related to JoshGate. Especially so since my father was an alcoholic who was never able to get sober.

You've laid out the parallels in dysfunctional WAYS of thinking in a brilliant way and connected two things I would always have considered very separate, so again, thank you. You've definitely nailed it here (plus a tiny edit for emphasis):

(or conversely, how much of fundie doctrine is influenced by dysfunctional people). It also reminds me of just how fucked up and counter-productive such thinking was IS.

I'm convinced that Bill Gothard especially, but many other men of god, CREATE an entire world view to reflect back at themselves their personal dysfunction/compulsions. The more people who believe them simply reinforces that their dysfunction/compulsions are normal and moral and RIGHT.

I'm a gonna go and think about this now and look at DuggarGate and JoshGate with fresh eyes. Maybe they'll even be a BatesGate in the future.

Katie Botkin (blogging at katiebotkin.com) has some interesting things to say about forgiveness and the timeline for moving right along at Culture, Adventure, Stillness

From her post Why Josh Duggar won’t say “victimâ€

...So is claiming victims need to get over stuff, forgive whoever wronged them and slap a smile on their faces. One of the most bizarre occurrences of my post-divorce fiasco was sitting in Jim Wilson’s living room crying and being told this meant I might not be a Christian, because if I were a Christian, I would be “in the joy of the Lord.†I protested: I was scared. I was upset. Jesus wept. But no: apparently, brief sadness (coupled with repentance) should be followed by “joy,†and a few weeks was well beyond the allotted time Christians were allowed to be upset, no matter how many unanswered questions they had about their situation.

[2xx1xy1JD]

The reference to AA reminded me of another line I heard all the time: "I slipped." A "slip" was a often not a matter of having one drink, but of getting totally smashed until police and child protection officials arrived. One criticism I've read about AA is that it doesn't recognize anything between total sobriety and totally being in the clutches of alcoholism. They don't develop the tools to say, "just one drink". It just occurred to me that abstinence-only approach to sex ed works the same way - nobody is perfect, people "slip", but if you don't teach the details of consent and safe sex and contraception, the consequences of those "slips" can be devastating.

I also wonder if there is some influence the other way - if evangelical Christianity tends to appeal to people from dysfunctional backgrounds because it offers a message that anyone, regardless of how flawed, can be redeemed instantly. If so, is it possible that their warped thinking has influenced the teachings?

[Howl]

I also wonder if there is some influence the other way - if evangelical Christianity tends to appeal to people from dysfunctional backgrounds because it offers a message that anyone, regardless of how flawed, can be redeemed instantly. If so, is it possible that their warped thinking has influenced the teachings?

Yes, just yes, yes, yes!

[apple1]

Because this is probably lost in the big Duggar thread...

AreteJo, Thanks for this post. I self-identify as a Christian, and what you say here is how I have always been taught and reflects my current personal beliefs. I always heard teaching that repentance equals, as you say above, "turning around" and turning away from the wrong and taking a different path.

I also want to add to this theological discussion: In addition to everything above, it is also clear that even though one is forgiven, this does not mean that the natural consequences of the sin will not still be there. Natural consequences still occur; they are not eliminated by being forgiven. Additionally, while there are all kinds of sin that may be "equal" in that they fall under the definition "sin" - all sins are NOT equivalent in terms of consequences. Stealing the candy bar from your sibling's lunch box is a sin, and murdering someone is a sin, but only a fool would imply that the consequences of these two sins are the same.

Just to set the record straight, theology-wise...

... just wanted to add.

[K'Z'K]

[snip] Similarly, the links between Narcanon and Scientology are well documented. [snip]

[delurk][nitpick]

The 12-step program often referred to as NarcAnon is not Scientology. They also hate that abbreviation because of the name confusion. I think they like being called NA or Narcotics Anonymous.

Scientology's program is Narconon. Note that it contains the word CON. The name confusion is deliberate.

[/nitpick][/delurk]

[Palimpsest]

[delurk][nitpick]

The 12-step program often referred to as NarcAnon is not Scientology. They also hate that abbreviation because of the name confusion. I think they like being called NA or Narcotics Anonymous.

Scientology's program is Narconon. Note that it contains the word CON. The name confusion is deliberate.

[/nitpick][/delurk]

You are absolutely right and thank you for correcting it here. No nit-picking involved. I apologize for the typo because that is what it was. :doh:

I still have issues with 12 step programs, including the legitimate non-scientologist Narcotics Anonymous. They are all modeled after the AA program, which is essentially a religious support group you must stay in for life. Admit you are powerless over X, give over your power to a Supreme Being, list your sins, confess your sins, make restitution, pray/meditate, serve the program by mentoring others, and often then harass and pursue people who flee the program.

If addiction and the propensity for addiction are a disease and physical issue (which I believe) and not a moral failing then why should saying that you are "powerless" over it magically cure it? I think that is nonsense. Surely it is better to claim power for yourself with the ability and responsibility to be able to defeat the problem. Similarly, the need for a God/Supreme Being to pray to rules out the relevance of these programs to atheists and most agnostics. These programs are about guilting and shaming people, not about curing them.

Back to 2xx' s original question about Fundamentalist thinking permeating thoughts in this area: The Oxford Group (not to be confused with the Oxford Movement) was definitely rooted in Evangelical Christianity. It became "Moral Re-Armament" and now calls itself Initiatives for Change. It has always denied being a religion. I agree. Whatever it renames itself it is not a religion. It bears all the warning signals for being a religious cult.

How the 12 Step Programs have managed to dominate the treatment of addictions for so long has always puzzled me.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I've read that 12-step programs were originally intended primarily for men, and that female addicts may have quite different needs. The theory is that men are more likely to need to humble themselves and admit their weakness, in order to stop trying to justify themselves and accept help. I could see how bluster and cover ups could make a problem worse. Meanwhile, women already tend to feel weak and guilty and powerless, and often drink as a response to abuse, so they need the opposite - they need to feel empowered and in control of their lives.

Any insight?

[apandaaries]

This is an interesting discussion. I think the evangelicals (to use a broad umbrella term) tend to be a group of extremist, black and white thinkers. No shades of gray. That's very similar to the AA/NA approach to addiction: all or nothing.

What's also interesting is the more recent research showing little support for the AA/NA models. Moderation management is growing in popularity. The Atlantic and Slate have also had interesting articles on MM, but here's one from the NY Times, for anyone interested [link to news source left unbroken]: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opini ... .html?_r=0

[Palimpsest]

I've read that 12-step programs were originally intended primarily for men, and that female addicts may have quite different needs. The theory is that men are more likely to need to humble themselves and admit their weakness, in order to stop trying to justify themselves and accept help. I could see how bluster and cover ups could make a problem worse. Meanwhile, women already tend to feel weak and guilty and powerless, and often drink as a response to abuse, so they need the opposite - they need to feel empowered and in control of their lives.

Any insight?

Alcoholics Anonymous was developed by men for men definitely. As were most treatment modalities back in the mid 20th century. It took a long time for the medical world to realize that some diseases progress differently in women, and that some drugs are processed differently in women, including alcohol. I think it is now generally accepted that women process alcohol differently - I think it's something to do with liver function and enzymes but that is not my field.

I'm not sure that I agree with the theory that men need to humble themselves more and women need empowerment more. It is way too cookie-cutter and gendered for me. I think that everyone benefits from empowerment, and humbling and hacking away at self esteem is not beneficial to the vast majority of people. I can think of a few people that need humbling but that has nothing to do with their sex.

I also want to clarify that I think 12 step programs do probably work for some people as a support group and groups are very different. It's the very nature of the program. Each group will be in constant flux with people coming and going and the very anonymity of the program means that success rates can't be assessed properly. It is worth noting that the founders of AA reputed both died as active drinkers.

Not specific to other substance abuse problems, but alcohol specific: AA is not the solution for everyone. The "slipping" you referred to earlier is a good example. Some people "slip" and have a single drink but then can stop at that. Some people "slip" but are the type of alcohol addict/dependent* who then drinks uncontrollably until they are completely blotto. In AA those two slips seem to be treated as equal failures.

There is also the controversial and complicated area of degrees of dependency and co-morbidity with depression. Again, this is not my field and I'm not speaking from personal experience with AA. I'm musing about my experiences with people with problems with alcohol, including my mother in law.

My mother in law was totally dysfunctional during my husband's childhood, possibly partly due to untreated PPD. The family was investigated for child neglect twice, but no help was offered as it would have been today. Perhaps they successfully hid the drinking, I don't know. Anyway, somewhere around menopause she took control. She did not chose abstinence as AA would have required, but invented "drinking in moderation" all by herself and with no outside counseling at all. She was alcohol dependent, certainly. She needed her glass of sherry every day at 6:00 p.m. sharp, and then sipped on a couple more until she went to bed. However she was functional in all areas and never again got "drunk." So, is AA's "total abstinence" needed for that kind of drinking problem?

What about food addictions? You can't stop eating altogether so people have to eat in moderation. Just musing.

*WHO is discouraging the use of the term "alcoholic" these days.

[Palimpsest]

This is an interesting discussion. I think the evangelicals (to use a broad umbrella term) tend to be a group of extremist, black and white thinkers. No shades of gray. That's very similar to the AA/NA approach to addiction: all or nothing.

What's also interesting is the more recent research showing little support for the AA/NA models. Moderation management is growing in popularity. The Atlantic and Slate have also had interesting articles on MM, but here's one from the NY Times, for anyone interested [link to news source left unbroken]: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opini ... .html?_r=0

I think moderation management is getting far more accepted in the US these days. It has been accepted as a treatment choice in Europe for much longer. I remember mentioning moderation management in a social work setting about 20 years ago and thought I'd be torn limb from limb by a couple of 12 step aficionados. They totally disregarded the article I had from the Lancet to prove my point that total abstinence was not necessary for everyone!

[FoxyMoxie]

This is a great post. Like sobriety, repentence takes WORK. Jesus forgave the tax collectors for ripping people off, but they were expected to pay their victims back and make an effort to change.

In the Absolution after confession in my denomination, the priest says 'may God, who forgives all who truly repent, pardon and deliver you from all sins', italics mine. IMO truly repenting is more than just saying 'I'm sorry but we all sin and Jesus has forgiven me'.

[Arete]

Another interesting and ahistorical way this fringe of American evangelicals twists the doctrine of forgiveness is the way they encourage skirting and undermining the civil authorities. The early church was desperate to prove it was not a threat to Roman civic order. Members of congregations were encouraged to obey the civil authorities and follow the law. The restitution that was required for repentance absolutely included accepting legal consequences such as time in prison. In Gothardism everything is turned on its head: you don't obey the civil authorities and report crimes, you avoid restitution to your victims, AND you consider forgiveness as something that is automatically and immediately bestowed.

Unless you are gay, of course. Then they want the maximum involvement of the civic authorities to restrict others. Child molesting is instantly forgivable, consensual gay sex is the big unforgivable.

[apandaaries]

Another interesting and ahistorical way this fringe of American evangelicals twists the doctrine of forgiveness is the way they encourage skirting and undermining the civil authorities. The early church was desperate to prove it was not a threat to Roman civic order. Members of congregations were encouraged to obey the civil authorities and follow the law. The restitution that was required for repentance absolutely included accepting legal consequences such as time in prison. In Gothardism everything is turned on its head: you don't obey the civil authorities and report crimes, you avoid restitution to your victims, AND you consider forgiveness as something that is automatically and immediately bestowed.

Unless you are gay, of course. Then they want the maximum involvement of the civic authorities to restrict others. Child molesting is instantly forgivable, consensual gay sex is the big unforgivable.

I think those wide divides in punishments reflect that black and white thinking pattern. It's easy to cling to, fairly static, and doesn't require critical thought.

It also makes me think that maybe Gothard spent a bit of time studying other crazy fundamentalist religions (a la Hubbard) -- techniques mentioned in Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven come to mind, but not the bleeding of the beast. More likely -- Gothard is power-hungry. He wanted the ability to enforce punishments independently of other institutions.

So, I was working earlier and unable to finish connecting all my thoughts (stinking work). But I wanted to draw attention to the smaller numbers of people who wind up in those areas of fundamentalism and/or addiction. Fundamentalists definitely seem drawn to absolutes; the AA model has the same kind of rigid rules.

These grayer areas of repentance, working toward forgiveness, effecting true personal change, all of these aspects seem to elude those seeking absolute answers, or complete forgiveness. It could be a lack of critical thinking skills, or a fear of existential thoughts, or a desire for easy, uncomplicated answers...or something else entirely. I think there's very much a desire for easy resolutions of difficult problems, and a strong desire to avoid personal reflection and change.

Overall, though, what percentage of the population are we talking about with fundies and addicts? I'm guessing the two groups together make between 10-30%... It's a small proportion of people who cling to or completely abandon certain roles and responsibilities, but the level of fervor seems similar.

MM seems a better solution for workable approaches to life, but also more challenging for people who struggle without strongly defined boundaries.