Mountains of Culture & Caught up in a Mess

Source

Good Sunday, everyone! Last Friday night, I went to a conference entitled The Power of One, headed by speaker and Marketplace Leaders founder, Dr. Os Hilman. I wasn't sure what to expect as this wasn't something that I'd searched out myself, but that someone from work had invited me to. Hilman's thesis is that there are seven mountains of culture: Arts and Entertainment, Business, Family, Government, Media and Religion. His position is that in order to be influential in the marketplace, a person/organisation needs influence, and in order to achieve influence, that person/organisation needs to engage the culture in these seven "mountains". 

I can get into this. Hilman is from a Christian persuasion, and his input here is a breath of fresh air. He's saying that being Christian does not mean being absent from the world in which we live, but rather engaging it. The concept of influence is an important one for me, because I see how the world has always influenced the church - popular music of the time has always been utilised by the church to get people interested in the message, but I also see that in more subtle ways recently. Currently, the climate in places/organisations that are considered "progressive" includes giving everyone the right to exist as they choose.

Lately, I've been thinking about what that means for people who have religious principles they wish to live their life by? It is absolutely NOT straightforward. Look at Dan Cathy and the Chick-fil-a mess, versus this interview with Bill Marriott. My question is this: how do people like me, who consider themselves progressive but faith based, fit into debates like this one? Do we boycott organisations who voice unpopular (especially, potentially Christian) opinions? Do we just stay out of it entirely? I want to stress again that this isn't straightforward. This is my stance as I have it so far (NOT an exhaustive list):

Some of What I do stand for, as a human being and a Christian:

1. I value life and all people that exist. 
2. I am a Christian by choice, and within that belief system, I believe that God gave me and all people free will. That means that God gives me the right to choose my behaviour, and while there are consequences to any action, God isn't going to force me into doing anything, good or bad. 
3. I believe that I should share the great experiences that I have had (as a result of my faith, or otherwise) 
4. I believe that it is good and right for me to tell people how my relationship with God has made me better, and made my existence fulfilling and meaningful. 
5. I do believe that God has given us stipulations about how to live, and that as individuals who follow Christ, we must stand within the morality He has given us. 
6. I do believe in working hard, in developing relationships within the environments one finds him or herself in, and I absolutely believe that every person is responsible for him or herself.

Some of What I don't stand for, as a human being and a Christian:

1. I will not stand for any organisation or person who aims to brainwash or promote a political agenda under the guise of religion
2. I will not stand for any organisation or person who aims to brainwash or promote a lifestyle under the guise of "progression"
3. I will not support or stand for any person, or organisation that purports to have more dominion over me or other people than God has. 
4. I don't believe that the job of teachers, leaders, government officials, or pastors is to make social judgements on lifestyle and preference. The same way liars get away with lying and might even argue that their utterance or action was not a lie, I believe that that is the product of free will, and hence, in God's jurisdiction. 
5. I don't even believe that our focus should be on the do not half as much as it should be on the do.

Do you see how unclear some of this is? I'm saying I don't believe in telling people who they should be, but I do believe that when you make a faith decision, you're becoming something in particular. "But What?" is the next question. I believe that love is the missing ingredient in most of the dispute. A pastor who preaches on putting gay people in a pen doesn't know how to love his neighbour as he does himself. I'm not interested in lording my faith over anyone else, because at the end of the day, I'm still wrong a lot of the time and so are my fellow Christians with enough humility to admit it (we're sorry). The truth be told, I am worried as a Christian, as a member of society and as a (hopeful) future parent. 

How will I teach my children and the young people in my life what is right from wrong when a.) bigots make me uncomfortable being associated with them, and b.) the world's growing liberalism makes me sure my children won't be allowed to watch even cartoons? I'd really like to hear what other people have to say about this. My answer so far is to "test the spirit" and FOREVER ensure that I am not getting my opinions from other's opinions, but that I have my very own relationship with myself, and with God. 

The Very Opposite of Perfect: On Being Wrong, and Okay

I listened to a TED talk on being wrong a few weeks ago, and felt reminded again of the fact that sometimes, I'm wrong. In light of the post I published a few Wednesdays ago, I want to continue the challenge. Lately I have been working with people on confrontation and Mirriam-Webster Dictionary defines confrontation this way: 

1: To face especially in challenge: oppose <confront an enemy>
2 a : To cause to meet : bring face-to-face <confront a reader with statistics>
2 b : To meet face-to-face : encounter <confronted the possibility of failure>

Have you ever found yourself at the point where you're surprised about who you've become? I am exploring this "wrong" idea in terms of the way we see ourselves, and the plans that We've made. If you're a regular reader, you'll know that I tend to be very structured and have clear targets for myself, and that in the last year of my life, those targets have pretty much gone out the window. For me, the first reaction I had was complete and utter denial (and I see myself in some ways, as still being there), then, I moved into acceptance, which I assumed meant that I was resolved to my circumstances and was working myself forward based on my new truths. Wrong. 


Something that I've noticed with my clients is that often-times, at the source of whatever struggle they're having is a basis of grief. Recently, I've had to reconsider my plan, AGAIN, and I have gotten quite emotional about it. I'll be honest, I was surprised by my struggle. While conceptually, I "got" that a change of life, long-term plans would be hard to swallow, I was expecting to see it, understand it intellectually and live in acceptance unless or until I could change the path. I didn't bargain on grief over my dashed expectation, and as a result, I wasn't moving forward like I potentially could. When I found myself having an emotional outburst while faced with another layer of "the new plan," I began to take a closer look. 


What do confrontation and grief have to do with each other? My question came from the observation that with every single client I've ever seen, we go where the client on their own has either been afraid or otherwise unwilling to set foot. For anxiety clients, it is often the very fear of not knowing that creates anxious fear, for people with relationship issues it is often the failure to confront the past as an effector of the present, and I've seen people with depression who run from how depressed they truly are until they can no longer manage to carry out their normal daily routine. As a result, in therapy we take a confrontational approach in our controlled setting - we meet what I am calling "our grief" face to face. 


Grief is not only something we experience when experiencing the death of a loved one or loss of a job, but can develop from the loss of a dream, idea or relationship. Grief can even come from the realisations of a sad past or a disappointing outcome in a current relationship. Strada (2009) states:

Normative, non-pathologic grief is characterized by a constellation of physical, cognitive, psychological, and spiritual symptoms that can create significant suffering but with varying frequency and severity. The various models of grief share the principle that bereavement involves an initial period of shock, disbelief, or denial, often followed by a phase characterized by distressing physical and emotional symptoms.

One of the interesting features of grief is demoralization, and this is an important feature to understand because demoralization is the point at which most people cease investing energy in "an escape." When we become demoralized enough, we stop trying and essentially accept the grief as our normal operating conditions - i.e. "This is just something I have to live with". My theory is that we do this because we haven't fully grasped the "sometimes, I'm wrong" concept. We build up beliefs and values and dreams about how we expect life to be, and each loss or failure of these produces grief. I believe that that is where we start healing. Acceptance of our grief means that we don't choose to encounter it - it means that we are in fact, afraid to see our loss, failure or disappointment because (I believe) we can't stand the idea that we were wrong then, (even if it was just wrong to assume someone else would behave a certain way.) Our misjudgements seem to really embarrass us, but the  fact is, we're all wrong sometimes.

My challenge for you this post is to ask what things in your life are you afraid to be wrong about, and do you think you can confront them? Try talking this through with a friend or partner and trade stories. Just remember this: You are wrong sometimes, and it is absolutely okay.

Source