Sunday, June 14, 2009

How Honest Are You? A reflection-review on Scott Peck's _People of the Lie_

Going to a therapist takes great courage, says M. Scott Peck. He adds that exploring our souls through therapy is deeply human, a unique quality among creatures. But therapy fails to work for everyone; it only works for those who want to get better.

Honesty is necessary for anyone serious with soul formation, Jesus changing us with his love and truth. Therapy assists us in that. If you believe you have the honesty but not yet the courage to visit a therapist or do not believe plopping down a decent sum for an hour of their time each week, then I have a book for you.

People of the Lie, by psychotherapist M. Scott Peck, has joined my top ten list. Every page pushed me, carried me forward, probed me with self-examining questions (do I really want truth?), helped me understand others and notice excuses and scapegoating ("the genesis of human evil" - 74). I better understand what sin looks like and why the modern church struggles to see transformation beyond moral behavior happening in the pews.

Be warned. If you’re not willing to explore your soul, this book can make you a worse person, a better hider. I agree with C. S. Lewis when he says (I paraphrase), truth will either make you better or worse; of all bad men religious bad men are the worst; of all creatures, the most demonic is the one who stood in the immediate presence of God (from Reflections on the Psalms). I know people who need this book for their own recovery; but I wouldn’t recommend it to them if I do not perceive a willingness to let light shine in. For "the pretense of the evil [person] is designed at least as much to deceive themselves as others." (106) This book will be a real hope, when they are ready. But not before.

For those who are ready, expect morsels on every page. Peck formats his book in conversations, followed by analysis. Both captivate the reader as Peck writes satisfyingly well. His conversations peek into the psychotherapist’s room, talking with patients, asking questions, giving evaluations. Through the candid dialog, you see the patient’s hang-ups, hear how Peck sees or feels befuddled by an issue, how the patients deliberately make excuses, hide, ignore, protest, put up defenses in their words or their posture. Through the book, the author grows as he weighs problems and soberly estimates his own abilities.

Though complex stories of hiding human evil form the backbone of the book, Peck starts with a couple of simpler one to give the reader eyes to see evil. For example: parents give their son a gun for Christmas and don’t understand why he’s depressed. On evaluation, Peck discovers the older brother committed suicide with this same gun. When Peck questions the parents, they thought it odd the gift would cause a problem and protested that with their lack of money, the gun was a perfect, coveted gift for a boy his age. But it is very likely, Peck replies, they are sending their son a message that they’d like him to use the gun on himself, just as his brother did. They continue the scapegoating that they are uneducated, blue-collar, cannot be expected to know these kinds of nuances...

That story is a clear sign of something evil in the parents, a deliberate ignorance, though they seem typical friendly people when you meet them.

Peck believes more evil people live outside of prison than in prison. In fact, most in jail are not truly evil people. They acted out of neurosis or tough times. But evil people are deliberate hiders, long-term, masquerading in law firms, churches, politics, and local supermarkets.

Evil often stems from parenting. Children become victims that have an opportunity to break out or remain in the web of deceit. One story unfolded of a woman and her very co-dependent, passive-aggressive mother. The mother craftily shaped her own identity with her daughter's. The mother resented the father and had frequent sexual liaisons. The daughter learned to do the same and even compared notes with her mother. They both stood against her father. As the years passed, the daughter discovered her father wasn’t such a bad guy as she was brought up to believe. And whenever she tried to separate from her mother, her mother would mischievously find a way to suck her back in (you have to read the dialogue to see how these things play out in real life).

A fascinating part of the story is this woman’s phobia spiders. She transferred her fear of her mother to spiders, never wanting to be honest about her mother, refusing to blame her for being evil, insisting other reasons explain why she sits in the therapists chair. The spiders represented the feeling of being trapped, stuck, a victim sucked of blood. As she grew toward heath, she admitted that her fear of spiders was her emotional response to her feelings toward her mother.

That related to my own life as I've worked to unpack the story. I have a phobia, not of spiders, but of needles. I’m the worst case I know of. I don’t pass out: I go into panic attacks, low blood pressure, heavy sweats. This happens at movies, doctor's waiting rooms, dentists chairs. I’ve even had a dentist poised to call the ambulance (I know, crazy, huh?). I pondered the cause of my transference to this irrational phobia. I think I found it. I’m still experimenting. I’ve shared my theory with my own therapist and she affirmed it. But time will tell as I heal from evil done to my soul, evil that I blamed myself for as a child instead of blaming the perpetrator. Children are prone to self-blame, I’m learning, and that goes very deep.

"Whenever there is evil, there's a lie around." (135) Lies that cover up, paint a rosier picture, create pretense, refuse to disclose certain truths. While all lies are evil, not all liars are evil people. They slowly grow evil as they continue to lie. It is possible to have a vice and then become your vice. The question for us is not whether or not Satan, the Father of Lies, has a finger in our lives. The question is how much and what we are doing about it? The older we get the more calcified we can become, the further we grow away from truth, light, and love when we are unwilling to face our problems, the lies we insulate around us to protect us from having to face our spouses, our children, our parents, our belief systems, ourselves.

Peck gradually leads the reader to the most severe kinds of evil: the demonic. As the book begins, he disbelieves in the devil. But through analysis, he bumped into two particular cases of demon possession, where Satan took residence in a person.

The demonic is not another form of schizophrenia, for schizophrenia is a disorder where the multiple personalities do not know one another. For the demonically possessed, the patient does know this other personality that traps the patient, suffocating them within.

Peck describes pieces of two different exorcisms in which he participated. He notes consistencies these demonic personalities had and the lies they spewed (interestingly , some of the lies are ones that we often hear praised in spiritual conversations). I read part of this section before sleep one evening and I dreamed bizarre pictures filled with fear. I don’t recommend reading that section at night. But for all that, I came out the other side of that chapter very encouraged, not only with the limitations of Satan’s power in the physical world, but also with the power of humans individuals who love. We are made in the image of God, after all.

Peck includes a perspective-shifting chapter on “group evil” where he describes how institutions can make us all culpable of certain crimes. This chapter validated thoughts I've about huge institutions, the craftiness of power-brokering in the name of virtue, the rhetoric to disguise real intentions. The larger the institution, the easier evil can hide and wreak havoc, including governments and churches.

For example, we follow orders and few know who is ultimately responsible. Even our tax money goes toward evil things, making everyone guilty of some kinds of evil at some level. The ones at the top, generals, presidents, and CEOs, are not the ones who pull the trigger on the ground. Foot soldiers and employees do that. Citizens foot the bill. Everyone does as they are told, blind to the consequences up and down the chain.

The last chapter of the book, on love, is worth the price of the book. The impact of the final section means more when you read the book all the way through.

I disagree with some aspects of Peck’s theological views, like his view that Satan will have a chance at the end of history to make a choice of redemption. But despite theological disagreements, his view of love and evil are not easily dismissed and are well worth your attention.

The way out of evil? Love, which begins with noting the evil within yourself and facing it, which sometimes means therapy. Love is a light that will change the direction of evil. Only the love of individuals can sacrificially absorb evil and set others free. This is the love modeled by Jesus, the love he gives us, the love his Spirit empowers in us. "People can deliberately allow themselves to be pierced by evil of others...to even be killed in some sense and yet still survive and not succumb. Whenever this happens there is a slight shift in the balance of power in the world." (269). Facing evil, though painful, is liberating, cleansing, a relief for everyone who wants to be whole.

Peck is a huge proponent of appropriate humanness. I wish he were alive so I could thank him for shining the light of love and truth and letting me know just how far the love of God goes.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

A Very Serious Look at Reductive Science

Science is usually defined as the study of material things.

Reductive science is the study of material things that add on the assumption that material things can explain everything else in the universe. Simple examples: our search for God is merely a problem with our parents; love is just a chemical in the brain; beauty is merely a pleasurable experience; free will is only an illusion--in reality it is the result of randomly bouncing atoms making decisions for you; the meaning of relationships is only the drive to procreate; and so on...

What happens when someone challenges that reductive conclusions are also reductive? Here John Cleese gives us a look.

Have a look and let me know your insights!

Monday, April 6, 2009

Jesus as a Jew?

When you hear the name, "Jesus" what image comes into your mind? I'm not talking about the image you conjure up after you think what the right answer would be. I'm talking about the immediate image that floats on the screen of your mind. Let me know and let's talk about it.

Theological historian, Oskar Skarsaune puts it like this,
We may like to think that nowadays Christians in general and Bible scholars in particular have repudiated and surrendered [an] anti-Jewish and unhistorical "unJewing" of Jesus. But it gives us food for thought to hear a rabbi say, "I have seen pictures and sculptures of Jesus in all kinds of dress and color of skin: as a blond Scandinavian, as a Latin American, as a black African, even as a Chinese. I believe there is only one version of Jesus I have never seen: I have never seen him dressed as a Jew, prayer-shawl, phylacteries and all." When you come to think of it...

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Government Soul: Taxing Generosity - 3

The last two days, I've been discussing some of the tax hikes the Obama administration is planning, particularly those aimed at donations to non-profits (and I run a non-profit). What has concerned me most, however is the rhetoric that is geared to gain support from people unfamiliar with the real issues. This not only hurts the soul of our culture but the souls of those playing word games.

Apparently Washington has been reading my blog.... :) ... because this article was found on page 3 of the Wall Street Journal, "White House Rethinks Tax Hikes."

Even congressional members of the Democratic Party are giving resistence, including the top tax writer who is chairman of the Finance Committee. You can read the article for the questions being raised.

Two comments stood out to me. One was by Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner when he said the tax proposals "affects only about 1.2% of taxpayers." Yet, that's not the point at all. This is still stuck in political spin. It's not about how many taxpayers are affected, it's about how many non-profits are affected. That 1.2% represent a large part of giving, which Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, said would have been hit over the last two years with nearly $4B in losses to non-profits. You have to compare apples to apples to see real impacts.

Geithner also said that the tax proposal would only have a "modest negative impact." How does he know? Nobody knows until the taxes are enacted, when government grows and charities shrink.

The other thing that stood out to me represented the real kind of change America has been wanting. It came from Democratic Senator, Maria Cantwell. "Why not look at a broader approach to tax policy, [rather] than coming in with this proposed change to marginal rates?"

Tell it like it is, sister!

THAT is the CHANGE America needs right now. Creativity and real reform, cleaning up the 66,000 pages of tax law we currently have! We do not need some easy slap on tax rate hike that doesn't clean up Washington nor help anyone else. That'll help a lot of souls, including Washington's.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Government Soul: Taxing Generosity - 2

Yesterday, I mentioned the new tax proposals of the Obama administration, targeting particularly those who make over $200k. I want to reflect today on a comment made by Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget that appears to be as intentionally deceptive in this article. Excerpt:
Thursday, the White House defended Mr. Obama's proposal, saying that the wealthy people it would affect would still have significant deductions from charitable contributions.

On a $10,000 donation, a family in the 15% tax bracket would save $1,500 in taxes, but wealthier taxpayers would save more. If philanthropist Bill Gates makes that same contribution -- without the proposed limits -- he would save $3,500 in his taxes, said Peter Orszag, director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

"All we're saying is we think Bill Gates should get a $2,800 tax break -- still a lot larger than a middle-income family -- rather than the $3,500 one," Mr. Orszag said.

This is intetionally deceptive for two main reasons. 1) The average reader will see these numbers and get the impression that the "wealthy" already get an unfair larger tax break over the "middle-income family." 2) What Orszag calls a "tax break," isn't a "tax break."

The idea behind tax-deductions through generosity is so that if you decide to forgoe income in order to help an IRS approved non-profit organization, then you are not taxed for that income. It makes sense: why be taxed for monies you don't keep or use for yourself? Why tax money you voluntarily do not claim as your own?

Because you are not taxed on money you give away, this is not a "tax break" at all. You don't get any special tax advantage for giving away money. It's as if you didn't have the money to begin with, it doesn't go into your savings. You get no personal benefit from it whatsoever. When you donate money, the money is gone, period. You simply are not taxed for money you hand out to IRS approved organizations.

Let's suppose two people made $100k each. Using the illustration of Orszag, one is in the 15% tax bracket and another in the 35% tax bracket. If neither of them gave money away, the first would be left with $85k after taxes. The second with $65k after taxes. You can clearly see who is left with the most money. The middle-income earner, dollar for dollar, takes more money home.

Orszag said that the 35% tax bracket gets a bigger "tax break" than the 15% tax bracket. But that's he's basing his "tax break" language on a higher tax bracket which pays more taxes already. Then he shows two people donating the same amount of money (which is unfair comparson, because people who make more, donate a higher percentage of their income). Then, he converts the percentages into real numbers (which is a misleading apples/orange comparison). These numbers are all corelated to the tax bracket, not to real number tax breaks. Any one would rather be in the 15% tax bracket than the 35% tax bracket and take the lesser "tax break." Calling it a "tax break" is intentionally deceiving to get people to ignorantly favor his point of view.

If the "wealthy" automatically got a $3500 tax break and the middle-income family a $1,500 tax break, that would be an unjust oucry. Everyone should get the same real number tax breaks. But the system isn't based on real numbers, but on percentages. The percentages are always higher on the "wealthy." When converted to real numbers, the "wealthy" always have higher numbers when it comes to paying taxes as well as their "tax breaks" because that's what percentages do!

I hope you're still tracking with me. Many people don't see the deception in the rhetoric because many people get confused with number-talk. But I believe you can get this... just review it (or ask a question) if it seems unclear or difficult.

But let's move to the next level. Obama's admin wants to reduce the amount of tax deduction a "wealthy" person can make from 35% to 28%. Currently, if someone is generous, he doesn't have to pay taxes for being generous. But on Obama's new plan, he does have to pay taxes for being generous.

Let's look at our scenario again. Two people have $100k each. One in the 15% tax bracket, the other in the 35% tax bracket. For the sake of discussion, let's say they both contributed all their money to a charity in 2009. On this scenario, both would walk away not paying any taxes. Why should they? They voluntarily gave up their income and have nothing for themelves.

But let's fastforward to Obama's plan. Both give all their income away. The person in the 15% tax bracket would walk away paying no taxes because he made no income. The person in the 35% tax bracket DOES pay taxes, even though he made no income! Why? Because Obama's new plan is even taxing the income that is given away to an IRS approved non-profit. This person in the 35% tax bracket, on Obama's plan, has to pay $7,000 in taxes on this $100k, even though he shows making no income (because he gave it all away). So now this person can only donate, roughly, $93,500 because he has to save the balance to pay the tax.

On this scenario, non-profits are shortchanged 7% and the generous person in the 35% tax bracket is required to pay taxes on money he doesn't show as income and does not keep for himself. Local non-profits who do not receive federal aid are hit hardest... theoretically, the federal government is removing resources from these non-profits (which is why many non-profits say this is the wrong tax-deduction to remove, especially in a hard economy... there are plenty of other loopholes that the mega-rich have setup to avoid high taxes that the $200k income earner cannot get.... but I digress).

But wait! When Obama raises the 35% tax bracket to 39.6% (as I understand the propsal), then non-profits are not shortchanged 7%, but nearly 12%! That they are comparing the 'tax break' to today's tax brackets and not to the tax brackets that are tied up with this 'tax break,' is also misleading.

Now go back and read Orszag's comments in light of this and how he confuses the reader with his numbers about a so-called "tax break." Does this sound odd to you? Why not just say it like it is? It's not reducing a tax break, as you don't get any benefit from the money you generously give. It's rather a program that says generous money must come from taxed money. Plain as that. It is a taxing on generosity.

The government is free to do this. And I must admit that over this past year, we probably donated more taxed money than non-taxed money (because many local needs are not related to an IRS-approved tax-deductible organization... like the hungry neighbor down the street or the teenager that needs counseling.)... we do our best to donate to needs, not based on whether we can write it off.

But while the government is free to do this, at least call it what it is. It is not reducing a huge "tax-break" for the wealthy. It isn't a tax-break at all. It is taxing donated money. Calling it a "tax-break" is, from my perspective, about as laughable as reducing the sentence on an innocent man and calling it "compassion."

For the sake of clarity, it isn't the taxing of generosity that bugs me most (though I run a non-profit and am not thrilled by the news). What bugs me is the deception and injustice and preying on people who don't understand the system, creating a happy populist or happy majority who march to the beat of the drum without understanding what is going on. If this is the best way forward, then be clear and plain. When deceptive words come into play (think Wormtongue), we should be suspicious that something more is going on.

As I do work for Soulation, I am aware that damaging the soul and being inappropriately human can happen at any level of life: rich or poor, healthy or sick, ivy-league or high-school dropout. We have a choices to be transparent and truthful; and choices to cloak our langauge to persuade people less informed (called, "lying").

When any public official misleads the public, this damages his own soul. And we should be concerned, at the end of the day, not only with the economy and poverty, with national security and public museums, with creation-care and energy independence, but also that those who lead and those who follow are not become people of the lie. Our politicians (and those who work for them) have souls too. And when they twist their souls to aid their money-goals, it is not creating the "change" for a better life for any of us.