Greetings to all my friends out there in blogger-land. This post marks my return to blogging after several days off. As you may have read in my last whine post my wife has been out of town and I've been playing Dad and Mr. Mom and moonlighting as a pastor over the past week. Something had to give in my schedule and it had to be blogging. But the parousia of my lovely wife has taken place, times of refreshing and the restoration of all things has taken place and I am again walking in newness of life. Life is jolly again.
I thought that, with this post, I would share something of a more personal nature, than I usually do, as it relates to a struggle and an area of growth (hopefully) that I have been working through. I'm hoping that, as I share my own struggle, it will help me process a few things and be encouraging to you. This may get a bit rambling, but I hope it will be helpful.
In all of the busy-ness of the last week I found time to read a book I have been meaning to read. Awhile back I was reading one of Stephen Shields webpages. He has several - his blog is called Emergesque, and he also has a site called Faithmaps and Shieldsplace. I can't remember which site I was on at the time (so if Stephen or one of his friends happens to see this and can identify the site, please feel free) but he recommended the book Learned Optimism by Martin Seligman. I checked it out on Amazon and it looked interesting and I put it down in the "to buy someday" category of my mind.
Maybe its because my wife was gone but I was feeling blue one day last week (yes, I'm a wimp when she's gone) and I was in Annapolis, which has a great Borders, so I stopped and picked it up. I started reading it and couldn't put it down - Seligman nailed me in the book.
The book is about optimism and pessimism, and it presents a very nuanced, sophisticated view of the whole subject, and it's not what you might initially think. We might think that optimists are the eternally happy folks and pessimists are the chicken littles of the world. It's not exactly like that, according to Seligman.
Seligman ties pessimism to two main things - learned helplessness and explanatory style. Actually, the two correlate strongly, I'll separate them just to explain them. Learned helplessness happens when you come to believe that whatever you do is futile. It was first discovered in animal experiments. For instance, put two dogs in a box and shock them. Train the first dog that he can push a lever and the shock will stop and he will push the lever and the shock will stop. With the second dog, no matter what he does, the shock won't stop. Initially, the second dog will run around and do all kinds of things to try to make the shock stop. When he figures out that nothing he does will make the shock stop, he'll just sit there and take it. He won't move a muscle. He has learned that all of his efforts are futile so he'll quit making any effort.
This is a picture of the pessimist. They believe that there efforts are basically futile and won't make a difference.
To see if you are like this Seligman came up with a test to see whether or not you are an optimist or a pessimist. Your "explanatory style" is how you talk to yourself about the events of your life, particularly the negative events of your life. An optimist explains bad events as temporary, isolated and external. The pessimist explains them as permanent, pervasive, and personal. In other words, when something bad happens to the pessimist, he or she explains it in the worst possible way.
Let's say an optimist and a pessimist are playing golf and both of them have horrible days on the golf course. The optimist might explain his poor day in the following way: I had a bad day today (temporary - it was a "today" thing), my putting game was off (isolated - it was just his putting game that was off) and besides, it was a new course and I wasn't familiar with the greens (external).
The pessimist on the other hand might explain it this way - I stunk today (very personal and pervasive - personal in that he is focusing on himself and pervasive in that he didn't say that his golf game stunk, he himself stinks) because, let's face it, I'm a lousy golfer (permanent - he didn't just have a bad day and miss some shots, he is a lousy golfer).
So, I took Seligman's test to see if I was a pessimist or an optimist. You can take the test here, but if you do you really need to get his book to interpret your score. I won't bore you with all of the details on that, but if you take it you will see that there are several different categories detailing how you explain good events and bad events. At the end there is a final score that is your good minus bad score that tells overall if you are an optimist or a pessimist. On that final score you are very optimistic if you score 8 or above, you are moderately optimistic if you score 6-8, 3-5 is average, 1-2 is moderately pessimistic and 0 or below is very pessimistic.
I scored a -8 which should earn me a place in the pessimism hall of fame. I thought to myself, maybe I've just got a case of the blues, having a bad day. So, I took the test again online a couple of days ago. I knew for sure on that day that I was in a better mood than the first time I took it and figured this would give me a better read. I came out with -9 this time.
I told this to a good friend of mine and he was shocked to find out that I am off the charts when it comes to pessimism. Those who know me know that I am not the chicken-little type and don't walk around with a doom and gloom mentality. For the most part I'm a pretty happy fella and its not just an act. But this little test and the book also helped me understand a few things about myself.
I have always been a good starter and a lousy finisher. For years I have explained that in one of two ways. On optimistic days I have said that I am an ideas man, not a details man. Hence, great visionaries like myself can't be expected to know how to follow through on their visions. On pessimistic days I have explained this as just plain laziness, in ability to focus and a host of other things.
Also, I don't do real well with adversity. I have always been amazed when reading or hearing stories about people like Edison, who had how many thousands of failed experiments before he invented the light bulb. It sounded like he had a major failure once every week or so before he finally succeeded. I also have been amazed in hearing stories about all of Lincoln's political defeats before he finally succeeded. Here are guys for whom failure hardly fazes them on their way to greatness. For me, failure has always been debilitating. Edison seems to have been able to pick himself up and get going again just about every week, but for me, any significant adversity has made me afraid to try that again for a long time.
So, I have always tended to stay in very safe zones, every now and then lifting my head out of the hole to see what is going on.
Seligman says that these kinds of things are a result of our self-talk. I can't remember if he talked about the specific area of character, but I don't think he would say that these things are a direct result of a deficient character. Or, he might have been saying that character and self-talk are intertwined. But what he is saying is that it is the self-talk, the explanatory styles, that determine pessimists and optimists.
He went on to show that pessimists do worse in sports, in business, in relationships and even health than optimists. One of the fascinating parts of the book is his explanation of political elections. He and his team have been able to go back and read the nomination acceptance speeches of presidental candidates for several elections and discern their explanatory styles. Invariably the one with the optimistic explanatory style wins.
All of this has precipitated a bit of a crisis in my life because I am a pastor, a leader. Seligman does point out that pessimists do have value - they tend to see reality a little better than optimists. Hence, there are some places in an organization where a pessimist has some value - like accounting and risk management and things like that. But you don't want a pessimist as your leader.
If you have read my blog before you may have noted that I am not a big fan of psychology and you may be wondering why I am taking any of this seriously. First of all, Seligman is a cognitive psychologist and is pretty anti-Freudian. My objections against psychology have really been objections against too much Freudianism. Secondly, he goes into great detail about his research procedures. This guy has been very thorough and his findings are backed up by some strong research. Thirdly, though he does not write from a Christian perspective, he is not hostile to Christianity, or religion in general. And this brings me to the place where I found the real value in the book.
Hebrews 11:6 says:
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
What I am coming to realize is that I have not been walking by faith in my life. I have always had a vague sense that something bad is going to happen to me in the future or that plans aren't going to work out, or something is going to go wrong with whatever I am involved with. I can distinctly remember walking on campus one day at the University of Florida and thinking "man, these last few weeks have been really good and really fun, I guess something bad is going to happen to me soon."
This is the polar opposite of walking by faith. I haven't expected God to reward me for seeking Him. I haven't lived as if God's plans for me are for my welfare and not for calamity (Jeremiah 29:11).
Also, being a conservative Christian and a raging Calvinist to boot I've emphasized sin and TOTAL DEPRAVITY. I know that you are depraved, but more importantly I know that I am depraved and I have tended to view life through the lens of my sinfulness. As a sinner, I have never really believed that I deserve the blessing of God. All of my talk and preaching about grace has been as much for me as for anyone else.
I would never attribute such a view to pessimism, rather to seeing things through a biblical lens. But I think I have been seeing this through only one aspect of a Biblical lens. II Corinthians 5:17 says:
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
Yes, the Bible teaches that there is an ongoing struggle with sin and that the old man rears his ugly head, but that is only part of the story. I have viewed my life as if the old man is determinative in my life. Biblically, the old man is influential, but my newness in Christ is what is determinative, not my old man. Another way of saying this is to say that the "new creation" in Christ is the real me, not the old man.
But having lived for so long as if the real me is the old man, it has had predictable results. I have not expected God to reward me for seeking Him and I have despaired when things have gone wrong time and time again, rather than walking and living in the forgiveness and new life He gives.
This is where the book by Seligman has been so eye opening to me as a Christian. It has helped me see my own lack of faith.
For years now I have known of the Doctor's advice (Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones) to the spiritually depressed. He has said that one of our problems is that we listen to ourselves when we should be talking to ourselves.
Seligman's book has given me tools to talk back to myself. So, whereas I said above that this book has precipitated a crisis in my life, it has really given me a few signs of life that I have never had. Seligman says that one of the keys to combating pessimism is to dispute your pessimistic explanations. This dovetails very nicely with what the Doctor says. He gives an A-B-C-D-E process for disputing with yourself.
A - Adversity. The A stands for the adversity or negative events that come into your life.
B - Belief. This is the self-talk. or explanatory style, that goes through your mind when adversity strikes. It is at this point that you need to listen to what is going through your mind. Are you talking to yourself about the adversity in temporary, isolated and external ways, or in permanent, pervasive and personal ways?
C - Consequences. This is the result of your belief, or self talk. I think he said this, and I have found that sometimes you have to deal with "C" before "B." In other words, when adversity strikes the first thing you may be aware of is a feeling of uneasiness, or paralysis, or anxiety or depression or sadness, or a knot in your stomach. When you are feeling these effects they are produced by a certain kind of self-talk. If it is pessimistic self-talk you will have these negative consequence.
D - Disputation. After feeling the consequences and analyzing your beliefs or explanatory styles he says we need to dispute them. Seligman is dead set against "positive thinking" and things like that. He is not telling you to start thinking happy thoughts in place of unhappy thoughts. He offers four ways to dispute with yourself.
- Evidence
- Alternatives
- Implications
- Usefulness
Evidence is simply that, evidence to the contrary of your pessimistic self-talk. For instance, suppose someone tells me that my sermon stunk. I may be tempted to go into a downward spiral where I think I'm a lousy preacher, a lousy human being and the cause of the eclipse of the gospel in our world. Or, if 10 people said my sermon was good, I can dispute those thoughts with that as evidence.
Alternatives acknowledge that there may be more than one cause in the negative event. Maybe my sermon really did stink, but instead of assuming it is because I am such a maggot I start thinking about altermative explanations. Maybe I was up half the night with a sick kid, or maybe something happened this morning that distracted me, or maybe I dind't budget my time wisely this week and prepare as I should. Each of these explanations are temporary, isolated and correctable, so I don't have to be so down in the dumps.
Implications are how we deal with the situation when the negative things we think about ourselves are true. Keeping with my previous example, suppose this week's sermon continues my two year long streak of 104 sermons that were really stinkers. Maybe I am a lousy preacher, now what? The pessimist may think that he should write a letter to God apologizing for thwarting His plans on earth and then go crawl under a rock and die. But, in reality the implication may be the realization that God has not called me to preach and there is another calling out there for me where I will be very successful, happy and fruitful.
Usefulness - sometimes we just have to ask ourselves if it is useful to dwell on the negative. Maybe my sermon stunk and I can mourn it all I want, but how will that help me get next week's sermon ready.
Anyway, those are just a few of the examples he gives. You can probably come up with more.
E - Energize. After you have disputed with yourself this is where you look to see how you have been energized by your disputation. It may be simply feeling better about a situation or it may be a renewed energy to keep going.
I'll stop there and say thanks for sticking with me and reading this whole thing through. I hope this is helpful to some of you. I have a feeling that I am not the only one who struggles in these ways.
I got a negative four. :-)
Posted by: Terry | May 11, 2005 at 06:02 PM
Being a Christian enables us to cope with both favorable and unfavorable times. When good things happen to us or we receive laurels at work, we thank the Lord and say to ourselves, "Yes, I did a great job, but it was only by God's help that I accomplished this. All these accolades and awards pale in comparison to what God has promised." When "bad" things happen to us or we fail, we say to ourselves, "Even despite my failings, God loves me more than I realize." And so our identity in Christ, prevents us from becoming despondant over our failures and prevents us from becoming egotistical from our successes.
I think you are right that people want an "optimist" as our leaders. Take for example, Rudy Giuliani who was heralded for his leadership during 9/11. On that day, he told the people of New York City that they would be alright and things would get better. Later, in his interview with Time magazine when he was named "Man of the Year", he stated that he did not know if things were actually going to get better. Maybe the terrorists were planning a chemical or nuclear attack the next day that would have killed 2 million people. He admitted that he needed to be confident and "bluff" for the sake of the city which had its nerves rattled. Also, take Joel Osteen. His optimistic style enabled him to grow his church to a megachurch.
However, is this "optimisitc" style of leadership biblical?
Posted by: D.C. Chang | May 11, 2005 at 06:05 PM
Terry - welcome to the club!!
D.J. - I think the whole notion of optimism and pessimism needs to be carefully nuanced. I think Osteen's "optimism" goes beyond biblical bounds. I don't see "optimism" as being the kind of thing where I am optimistic that God is going to make me the pastor of a megachurch or healthy, wealthy and wise. Rather, optimism simply sees things through the lens of faith.
Guiliani's comments aren't necessarily opposites of each other. A leader might say that we are going to be alright, even though things might get worse. So, maybe Guiliani says something to the effect that "I don't care what those stinking terrorists do to us, New Yorkers will prevail." Or, think of Winston Churchhill's famous blood, sweat and tears speech. He was promising them that things would get worse, but that they would prevail in the midst of it.
On the one hand Osteen probably has built his church on optimism and he's probably a good argument for the theory. On the other hand, his optimism is an unbliblical optimism, being optimistic about things the Bible doesn't promise. The bible promises the Lord's presence in suffering, but it doesn't promise the alleviation of suffering. One optimist might say "follow me, or follow God, and you will not suffer." He'll probably get a following. That may be what Osteen has done. Another leader might say teach on the beauties of the presence of Christ in the midst of suffering. That is still optimistic because it disputes the beliefs of those who think that God has forsaken them in the midst of their suffering.
Posted by: David Wayne | May 11, 2005 at 06:20 PM
David -
"Also, being a conservative Christian and a raging Calvinist to boot I've emphasized sin and TOTAL DEPRAVITY."
Don't you find such points as Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints extraordinarily optimistic?
Posted by: D.C. Chang | May 11, 2005 at 10:02 PM
I scored a -2, but it really didn't mean that much to me. The questions seemed strange to me. For example, one of the scenarios was that you lose an event which you've trained at for a long time. You could mark, "I am a poor athelete" or "I am not good at this sport." Well, maybe you -do- stink as an athelete. Is that pessimism? What role does truth play in this deal?
So, I'll be a perpetual optimist and say that it was the test's fault that I came up a pessimist. And while I'm at it, I'll say phooey on psychology too. I'm keeping my money and spending it on Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology.:)
Posted by: Brad Williams | May 11, 2005 at 11:54 PM
To Brad Williams,
Hey good point. I actually am a poor athlete in some senses of the word. My hand-eye coordination are off due to a faulty right eye. My competition meter is off so I don't have good sense of fair play. So team sports don't work all that well for me, which usually involve a ball and hand eye coordination. Also in general, I am pretty sure I have to work harder to stay fit than the average person. So....am I a pessimist because of these issues?
On the cognative psychology side of the house, I have read that depressed people often have a more accurate view to the facts. Isn't truth an important component of our understanding of the world? I love the part of one of C.S. Lewis' Narnia books, I think it is The Silver Chair where Puddleglum, a deeply pessimistic frog like creature whose natural environment is a swap, tells the main character "Way to put a good face on it" when the boy starts complaining. It is an apologitic for the goodness of God, if I remember right. I will have to go back and reread it.
Posted by: Terry | May 12, 2005 at 07:24 AM
I know I will get shot for pointing this out but here goes anyway. Although SOME of the Word of Faith teachers have gotten of the track (i.e. Osteen Junior), this is what the WOF'ers have been saying for decades--that confession brings possession of who we are in Christ Jesus. In other words, the sanctification process goes better with confession. But as they point out, and I really did not see this stressed as much in your post as I would liked to have seen; they EMPHASIZE that we cannot just confess any old thing, but rather what the Bible says about us and what God is doing for us and will do for us. Maybe Kenneth Hagin Sr. can rest in his grave peacefully afterall..LOL.
Posted by: Diane R | May 12, 2005 at 10:26 AM
On topic I hope. I'm trying to learn chess but one of my challenges is that I really hate losing--even to the computer when it is set in grand master mode. I should be seeing my defeats as training, which is what they are, but the pessimist in me sees them simply as defeat.
So, while I haven't taken the test, I assume I'm a pessimist. And I really would like to realign my thinking on this.
Posted by: Teem | May 12, 2005 at 10:52 AM
I have a question about the book that came to me while I was taking the quiz. Out of curiousity, what role does personal responsibility play in determining optimism or pessimism? (Speaking from the book's point of view.) It -seemed- to me that the quiz often called blame shifting optimism, and taking personal responsibility pessimism. In other words, it seemed to indicate if I blamed a failure on myself, then I was being a bit of a pessimist, but if I blamed it on a circumstance or on another person, I was being optimistic. I am not trying to be antagonistic, only analyzing what I've read.
By the way, I am fairly new to your blog, and I'm enjoying it. I'm also a pastor way down in Louisiana. Thanks for sharing!
Posted by: Brad Williams | May 12, 2005 at 10:53 AM
Got a +2 which barely puts me into the pessimistic category.
Wasn't too impressed with the test. It is quite obvious how it is being phrased as to which way the questions leaned.
A few comments:
There is nothing worse in a church than eternal optimists because they are simply unteachable. They are unexamined people who are incapable of seeing any kind of reality.
My brother-in-law told me about a Christian talent agency that goes around scouting for potential singers who can make the transition into real recording artists. He told me that many of the people who judge these competitions see the same talentless hacks all the time because these people cannot be convinced they have no singing talent and never will have any, no matter how much training they get. Honestly, is there anyone more self-deluded than one of these people? Frankly, I see them as being no better than the pessimistic person in the church who resembles the cartoon character Droopy, always kvetching about what's wrong.
We are told that no one should think more highly of himself than he ought. Now it's easy to see how this can be true of self-flagellating pessimists, but how to convince the cheery optimist of this truth? You can't. I don't see that as being a good thing.
I recently wrote a post on my blog Cerulean Sanctum called "On Becoming Ecclesiastical." Many would claim that Ecclesiastes is the most pessimistic book in the Bible, but other, wiser people would see it as the accumulated wisdom of a life spent accurately observing the human condition. Life is not always optimistic, or as the writer of Ecclesiastes wrote, "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all."
Talk to anyone who knows a great deal about football and you will find almost universal acclaim for a quarterback named Greg Cook. By every stat out there, Cook was the greatest quarterback to ever throw a pigskin. Why does no one outside the inner sanctum of football know about this guy? Well, after he was a first round draft choice of the Cincinnati Bengals many years ago, he suffered a career-ending injury right as his career was starting. The sad thing is that time and chance happened to Greg Cook. No amount of optimism was going to change the fact that the Hall of Fame would never be his, even though it seemed assured.
History is littered with the wreckage of "Could Have Beens" who simply weren't. Some of those went on to have good lives and some of them lived forever on the misplaced optimism that they would someday achieve that greatness. In the meantime, their hope destroyed any chance for a real life outside the dream life that would always elude them.
A healthy person is one who has optimism and pessimism in balance in his life. Optimism is needed to even begin the journey and pessimism is needed to know when to take a different route. It is impossible to make wise decisions if optimism blinds one to the truth, and pessimism blinds one to the possibilities inherent in any situation.
Rather than reading a book called Learned Optimism, perhaps the the best book of all would be Learned Wisdom, for learned wisdom is the balance of optimism and pessimism.
Posted by: DLE | May 12, 2005 at 11:30 AM
David:
I noticed that same parallel between (nouthetic classic) Spiritual Depression and (cognitive behavoiral classic) Feeling Good, i.e. the concept of Self Talk.
Definately something there. I'm going to check out this book.
Posted by: jacques | May 12, 2005 at 01:27 PM
DJ - indeed you are very correct. Unfortunately, my personality and faith aren't always in step with my theology !!
Diane - although I am not a fan of Kenneth Hagin I think you and I are on track here. The filter I read this book through equates optimism with biblical realism. To use Seligman's paradigm an optimistic reading of Scripture would truly believe that the promises of Scripture are for me, whereas a pessimist would read those and say, "wow, those sure are great, too bad I've never experienced them."
Brad - I agree with you on the personal responsibility angle. I do think the test itself skews things in such a way that the optimist, as defined by the test, can be seen as one who denies personal responsibility for his actions. I don't think this is what Seligman is getting at, but the test is certainly open to that criticism. However, there is a difference between personal responsibility and self-flagellation as someone said here. In some cases it's pretty inocuous. If you beat me in tennis it may actually be the case that I was off my game that day or you were especially hot. It's not so inocuous when it comes to explaining sin. If I explain my sin away as being your fault, then that is a sinful explanation. But you can take personal responsibility in an optimistic or pessimistic fashion. It's one thing to admit you have sinned and are a sinner and then wallow in it and become defeated and assume that you will never get over this (pessimism). It's another thing to admit bravely that you have sinned and are a sinner and then hang on to Christ's promises of forgiveness, unconditional love and power to change (optimism).
DLE - I don't know that you and I disagree here, I just think you are taking a different approach to this than I am, or that Seligman is. He doesn't, and I don't, advocate what is generally thought of as optimism, which is a kind of pie in the sky think happy thoughts and kind ideas type of thing. In fact, he is very much against this and is especially against the whole self-esteem movement. Optimism isn't a talentless hack thinking they are the next Nashville Star or American Idol. Optimism is the talentless hack who realizes that even though they will never be the Nashville Star or American Idol, they still can have a successful, significant, happy, etc., life anyway. Optimism is very different from being delusional. The same goes for Greg Cook. If you want to speak of this strictly in secular terms, the goal of optimism isn't to get yourself to the Hall of Fame, it's to realize that you can be happy/fulfilled/successful/significant in any circumstance.
Similarly, I wouldn't call Ecclesiastes an optimistic or a pessimistic book, it's a realistic book. A pessimistic reading of the book would focus on the trials and tribulations of life under the sun and would lead to despondency. An optimistic reading of the book would rejoice in the fact that God is good when life under the sun isn't.
BTW - I am not wedded to the terms of "optimism" and "pessimism" nor to cognitive psychology as a science. I just think that Mr. Seligman has some good insights and has done us all a favor by calling us to re-examine the way we talk to ourselves. He's got some insights which, when filtered through a biblical lens can be very helpful.
Posted by: David Wayne | May 12, 2005 at 02:17 PM
Now that I've started commenting, I'm really on a roll. I guess what has particularly piqued my interest is that I am having almost the same discussion with someone about the sinner/saint idea. This person follows the train of thought that once saved, you can no longer call the saved person a "sinner". They are saints, not sinners.
When you talk about self-flagellation, Paul said some hard things about himself. He said he was "carnal, sold under sin" (Rom. 7:14) and that he was "a wretched man" (Rom. 7:24) and don't forget that "chief of sinners" comment (1 Tim. 1:15). *Note, many people believe that Paul believed these comments referred to pre-conversion Paul, but I hold them to be true and present statements of a converted Paul*.
If you are tracking with me, my point is that this struggle seem very much similar to the theology I'm discussing. (Passionately and seriously, I might add.) When I read Romans 7 as the typical Christian, I am driven to despair at the reality of my sinfulness. Yet, there is also a terrific hope of Christ delivering me from this body of death. When I consider myself, I am extremely, unabashedly, and thoroughly pessimistic. I am absolutely convinced that I am wretched, undone, and unclean apart from Christ. If God loves anything about me, it is Christ in me.
That's my source of optimism. Christ is in me, and He is sanctifying me and preparing me for Himself without spot or blemish. His word and reputation are on the line with me. I take tremendous comfort and hope from this promise. (Joy unspeakable, even.)
I struggle with simil justus et peccator. Not in the theology, but in the reality. It has driven me to low despair and heights of bliss. I really value and treasure the pessimist in me. (If you want to call it such.) For it is through my dismal self-evaluation that I recognize the magnificance of Christ. So, leave me with my wretchedness and my pessimism because I am very much looking forward to my ultimate rescue.
Posted by: Brad Williams | May 12, 2005 at 02:58 PM
Brad - I have also met those who believe we are saint/not sinner now that we are saved and you are correct in your insistence on simul justus et peccator. One little quibble I have with what you said is that Romans 7 doesn't really end at Romans 7 - Romans 8:1 is the capstone of Romans 7. The Romans 7 struggle ends in joy and thanksgiving. As we are going through all of these little back and forth thing I am realizing the influence of John Piper and C. S. Lewis on my life in their insistence that joy is the birthright of the Christian. Speaking only for myself I don't think I have really tasted all the joy I could be tasting in the Christian life because of my pessimism. I think the simul justus et peccator is an even better paradigm than optimism/pessimism. An exclusive focus on peccator is closely akin to pessimism and leads to despair. If the "et peccator" is the main thing I focus on then I am doomed to despair. Focus on the "justus" is closely akin to optimism and that brings joy. Focusing on justus without peccator leads to delusional thinking, focusing on peccator without justus leads to despair. We have to focus on both, but I think joy comes from realizing that justus outweighs peccator. Another way of looking at it is to remember M'Cheyne's famous quote - for every one look you take at your sin, take ten looks at the cross. For me and for many others, we have often reversed this - taking ten looks at our sin for every one look at the cross and thus have found ourselves with a lack of joy. I still like Seligman's notion of disputation and think it dovetails nicely with Piper's notion of fighting for joy. I think we can dispute our despair with the good (optimistic?) news of the gospel.
Posted by: David Wayne | May 12, 2005 at 03:30 PM
David- I agree, no quibble here. Chapter eight of course follows seven, but don't forget the climax of chapter seven, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
I would be happy even if I could see the dregs of my sinful self; the grace of God in Christ prevails even here. So, oddly, the more disgusting I see my sin, the more I know that grace abounds. Anyway, all that to say I certainly have not forgotten Romans 8. It's just that Romans 8:28 garners most of its profundity from Romans 7:24. Even my wretchedness is working for my good because I can see the depth of the love of Christ as it covers my sin.
Well, if I want to get more in depth than that, I'll have to get my own blog! Thanks.
Posted by: Brad Williams | May 12, 2005 at 03:45 PM
Man, your post really hit home with me, particularly this comment: "But you don't want a pessimist as your leader." I've known for quite a while that my pessimism adversely affects my life. You've made me want to read Seligman's book and begin putting his advice into practice. Thanks.
Posted by: Milton Stanley | May 13, 2005 at 11:52 PM
Dweck has a new book out that is probably relevant to the optimistic debate. She talks about having a fixed mindset ("You did well because you're so smart!") vs. a growth mindset ("You did well because you worked hard!"). Book is called "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success". I'm not sure I can adhere to all her points -- she seems to imply but miss a social component in all of this, common to most psychologists -- but it is challenging and I think you'd get something out of it.
Posted by: manasclerk | June 18, 2006 at 02:23 PM
Thanks Manasclerk - I'll try to check it out, although my "to be read" pile is huge right now.
Posted by: David Wayne | June 18, 2006 at 10:09 PM
You measure your own windows and fit your own blinds. Buy blinds on-line in minutes.They make and deliver your blinds in five working days. Browse their range and get a quote.Here
Posted by: Kj | February 06, 2007 at 02:27 PM