Repressed Feelings and Christian Belief
|
The mind simply cannot keep desires repressed. |
||
By Merle Hertzler
When I was in college, I had a Victorian attitude toward sex. All thoughts of sex outside of procreation in marriage were strictly taboo. Young men were never to see any part of a woman's body above the top of her kneecaps and below her shoulders. Seeing might lead one to the wrong desires. Sure, sometimes one would see--the first look cannot be prevented--but one was never to take the second look. The natural sexual desires should not be felt.
In Matthew 5:28 we find that Jesus said "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." But can one commit adultery simply by desiring? If so, the Puritan ethic was right. For most young men can do nothing but desire when they see the body of a beautiful woman.
One day I had found myself watching TV alone. The announcer informed us that the next segment would be a display of the latest swimsuits on the beach. I perked up. Now please understand. I have no great interest in fashion, but the previews made it clear that I was about to see more skin than fabric. Feelings that had been pushed under the surface for a long time suddenly sprang to the forefront. And these feelings were united in their opinion that this was must-see TV.
The mental alarm sounded in the depth of my mind. The thought-police responded. This would be no show for a Christian to watch. Oh, no. The thought police swarmed through my mind, and demanded that I change the channel during this commercial break, and that I put the rebel desires back where they belonged. I changed the channel.
The rebel thoughts were not pleased. They could not have their party? This would not do. Those desires insisted that their demand be met--I must change the channel back as soon as the commercials were over. There was a problem. Changing the channel would be a direct violation of the rule forbidding a second look. No problem, I would simply surf through the channels; if I found flesh, it would be an "accidental" look. So why not simply surf the channels in that direction? I surfed. I found bikinis. Jumping Jehosophat! I found skimpy bikinis. Those girls were gorgeous! And so all those long-suppressed sexual desires sprung up at once. Oh, what a thought-party it was! But simultaneously the thought-suppressors also came out of hiding. The fight was on!
Now through the years I had learned a simple trick. If one was never allowed a second look, than one must make every look count. And I made this look count. Oh, yes. My eyes were glued to the screen. Now, what about the religious inhibitions that were screaming at me to change the channel? I told them to shut up, that's what I told them. The suppressors were now the suppressed. The thought police were outnumbered. The rebels were in charge.
Shortly the swimsuit segment was over, but the thought police were not about to let me forget what I had done. Once more they swarmed over my mind, angry that they had been ignored, and demanding that I repent. I repented. Oh boy, did I repent. I was so sorry for the emotion I had left myself feel. I poured out my troubled heart to God.
I do not think this kind of mental struggle is good. How much energy is spent in repressing the desires? The struggle is made so much stronger if one believes that the desires come from the flesh and the devil, and that the repressing thoughts are the work of the conscience or the Holy Spirit. If the urge to suppress these desires comes from God, then one must work overtime to keep the devil from placing these desires in his heart. There is a problem with this. The mind simply cannot keep desires repressed. Sometimes the desires get too strong, and one has to tell the restraining forces to shut up. When one believes that the restraining force is from God, and yet he finds that he must resist the restraining force, he can experience immense mental strain. This can happen all too often to folks in legalistic religions. Legalism demands the obedience of certain laws, regardless of whether it makes sense to follow that law in that circumstance. But reasoning powers sometimes take hold, and demand that the legalistic restraints be removed. It is then that the legalist must deal with the crushing load of guilt as he thinks about how he has said "no" to God. Such a mind can have little rest.
May I suggest a better way? One can simply allow all his desires to make their case. The desire for sexual gratification must be felt, yes, but it cannot be given free reign. While feeling the sexual desires, one must consider other desires and needs, such as the desire to respect the feelings and autonomy of other people, the desire to be moral, the desire to maintain social respectability, and the desire to do nothing that will harm one's other relationships. When all feelings and ideas are allowed to have access to the mind in an orderly fashion, the mind can usually come to a rational solution, and can choose a good course of action. This brings rest.
Years after I had graduated I was curious what had happened to the man that had been my pastor during my college years. So I googled his name. I was shocked to read that the man that preached long and hard about the evils of sexual desire and the horrors of looking at Playboy magazine had been convicted of some most immoral behavior.[1] According to the report I see on the web, this man was convicted of shoplifting condoms and later of sexually seducing a troubled woman who came for counseling. How can a "man of God" do such things?
I would write it off as a freak incident if the story was not repeated far too often in Evangelical and Catholic churches. What is going on here? How can men preach about the judgement of God and the need for righteousness, and then live so far from the standard they preach? Perhaps some of these men were pure hypocrites. Perhaps they didn't believe a word they preached, but they preached anyway because it paid the bills. But I doubt if this is the case for many of these men. I suspect that many really believed what they preached. When it came to suppressing the sexual desires, they found it was just too hard to keep the desires down. And so they provided for little compartments in their lives where the inhibitions could be temporarily suspended and the sexual desires could be unrestrained. The result was disaster. For when the sexual desires are turned loose without restraint, the actions can become quite immoral.
It simply does not work to practice religious restraint without sexual desire most of the time, and to give in to sexual desire without restraint at other times. It is better to listen to desires simultaneously in an atmosphere where the rational mind is in charge and can make the best decision.
Anger
The Bible condemns other emotions. In Matthew 5 we read about anger:
Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)
And so we find the Bible once again condemning a feeling. [2 ] But how can it be wrong to feel anger? Anger is bound to happen to all of us when we are mistreated. Can it be sin to become angry? Sure, it is wrong to respond in ways that harm others, but how can anger itself be wrong?
Many Christians respond by pointing to Ephesians 4:26--"Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath." Okay, so Paul appears to allow anger, but Matthew clearly does not allow it. The fact that Paul contradicts Matthew does not mean that we can ignore Matthew. Besides, Paul later condemns all anger. In Ephesians 4:31 he say, "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice." Here he condemns not only fighting and evil speaking, but also anger and wrath. Why Paul allows it in one verse and condemns it in another, I don't know. But it is verses like Eph. 4:31 and Matt. 5:22 that have caused many Christians in times past to condemn angry feelings as sin. And as a result, they have tried not to let themselves feel the natural feelings of anger that come when they are mistreated.
When I was in seventh grade I was the skinniest kid in the class. A few guys were trying to see if they could slip into a gym locker, but none could. I decided to try. With a little bit of effort, I squeezed right in. One of the guys wanted to see if the door would shut. It did. I was completely confined. "Anybody got a padlock?" one of the kids joked. I panicked. For a moment I was totally helpless and unable to move. I was immediately let out, but I was visibly shaken, and even had a tear in my eyes. One of the older boys decided to make fun of the tears. It was all I could take. I began to sob. That's not something you want to do in seventh grade. You want to be a man. But I was filled with terror and with sadness. And so I cried. And I felt anger at the boy that made me cry.
I could not forget that experience for a long time. And whenever I thought about it, I felt anger at the boy that had teased me when I cried. But I had also read the Bible. And I knew that the Bible said that those that were angry were in danger of God's judgement. I tried very hard not to be angry. You can imagine how difficult that task was. And then I would feel so guilty that I had these feelings of anger, and could not stop them.
Growing up with the fear of anger is not a pleasant thing to do. One often finds that the best solution is to avoid people altogether. I wish sometimes I could go back and relive my youth with the knowledge I have now. But that is impossible. I was simply mistaken back then, but now I know better. And so I move on.
I realize that I am preaching to the choir when I tell modern Christians it is okay to feel your anger. The pendulum has swung. Few Christians bother with those warnings about avoiding anger anymore. They just ignore those verses. They want to feel that anger and express that anger. But alas, it seems to me that the pendulum has swung too far. Some Christians have gone from the extreme of calling angry feelings "sin", to a fascination with the angry feelings, and a loss of personal restraint when the feelings come. This extreme is equally perilous.
I had a pastor tell me that every time we feel anger, it is because an injustice has occurred, and we have every right to express our anger, for the person has deprived us of our rights. Well, certainly many times a deprivation of our rights is the primary cause of the anger, but is that the only possible cause? Do we not sometimes get angry because we have selfish intentions? Do we not sometimes get angry because we misunderstand the other person's actions or intentions? And so, when we are hurt, should not the first step be to establish communication and work out the problem with the other person? Should we not be looking to ourselves and seeing if we have been too demanding? But some fans of pop psychology find little need to see if selfish desires or a misunderstanding are the cause of the problem. They feel anger; therefore they vent.
Imagine what would happen if you vented your anger every time that a client or supervisor upset you? Are there not times when the venting needs to be controlled? Is an angry reaction always the best response?
 |
Do you have a problem with anger? Learn to deal with it rationally. (click on the book) |
A popular response to anger is known as venting. But does it solve the problem? Imagine that a group of people meets behind your back every week to discuss how bad you are. Imagine that they seldom if ever come to you in private, and that they make no real effort to work out the problem with you. Instead, they meet behind your back and talk about you in a degrading fashion. Is that not an unkind way to treat others? We can all see the error in such gossip and backbiting. And yet I have seen this happen many times when good people get together to vent. They talk about the horrible things that other people have done, and think that this is catharthis, that they are venting their anger. It doesn't work. The next meeting they discuss the same gripes all over again. They meet again and again, constantly rehearsing their gripes and never doing much about the root problem. The result is that good people are slandered without having a chance to defend themselves, and many people in the meeting get angry with the well-intentioned people they keep hearing about. But this is allowed to continue, for the folks in the meeting are "venting". Such meetings only lead to frustration.
It seems to me that there is no need for such venting. It does not reduce the anger. Rather, it rehearses it. It is okay to talk about the anger, sure. But the emphasis should be on resolving the problem. Spewing angry, backbiting, gossiping talk does not resolve the problem.
It has been said that the difference between venting and gossip is, when someone talks about us, that is called "gossip"; when we talk about others, that is called "venting". If it is wrong for others to slander and gossip about us without trying to resolve the problem, then is it not also wrong for us to do the same to others?
We should see anger as an intense emotion that happens to us in certain situations. The best way to deal with anger is to use our reason to determine the best course of action. It is okay to feel anger. Where words help us to understand the situation and to resolve the problem, they are useful. But words that are not directed at resolving the problem, and that only mull endlessly over the feelings of anger, serve only to stir up more anger.
Seven Deadly Sins
We have looked at two emotions--lust and anger--that have been historically regarded as evil by many in the church. There are other emotions that have been seen as sin. In the Middle Ages, Christians developed a list of sins known as the Seven Deadly Sins. These "sins" are sloth, lust, anger, pride, envy, gluttony, and greed. It is interesting that these "sins" deal primarily with emotions. [4] They deal with basic desires. And so the serfs of the Middle Ages were told to be quiet and accept their lot in life, and to not desire anything better. In the extreme, these Seven Deadly Sins could be used to teach that it was wrong for the serfs to have a desire for relaxation (sloth), sexual pleasure (lust), personal justice (anger), feeling of worthiness (pride), equal status (envy), abundance of food (gluttony), and wealth (greed). The serfs could be condemned, not only for rebelling, but also for desiring something better for their lives. But I do not see how it is sinful to desire.
Some will tell me that these do not condemn all desire, that they only condemn desires that are too strong. But how do we tell if a desire is too strong? Do we not need to use reason to determine if a desire is out of place? And if the problem is desire beyond reason, why not simply tell the serfs to be rational? When one's mind is thinking rationally, his desires tend to coincide with the rational thoughts he is thinking. As the rational mind explores its desires, it can choose which is best. But to desire is not bad in and of itself. Those who have tried to condemn desire itself have done us a disservice.
I seems that the Bible condemns many desires. For instance, 1 John 2:16 says, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." And so we find that many emotional desires were considered to be wrong. But how can it be wrong to desire?
Some would tell me that this condemns only irrational desires. But do not irrational desires come from irrational thinking patterns? So it would seem that the proper response is to teach people how to think rationally. When people think rationally, the desires become rational. So why condemn the desire?
Envy, jealousy, and covetousness are frequently included in lists of sin in the New Testament. Romans 1:29 says, "Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, " So we find that covetousness and envy--desires of the heart--are treated as though they were as bad as murder and deceit. But what is one to do when he experiences such desires? Should he try to suppress them? The struggle to suppress these desires can be very futile.
Let me illustrate my concern. As a youth, I was plagued with a low self-image and shyness. I sometimes took pleasure in knowing that others around me also had problems, for that made me feel less wretched about myself. One person in particular came from similar circumstances, but often seemed to overcome them better than I. This would make me angry. When the anger, envy, and jealousy would come, the warnings would immediately sound in my mind. I had been taught that it was as wrong to wish someone
was dead as it was to commit murder, that it was as wrong to wish someone would fail as it was to swing a club and smash his knees in order to injure him and make him fail. Whenever I felt the desire to see this person fail I believed that this was evidence that I was a horrible person for wanting this to happen. And I would ask forgiveness for being such a horrible person who would desire another person to fail. I would try very hard to keep this desire from coming back. I failed. No matter how hard I tried
to suppress that desire, it always seemed to pop up when I saw this other person succeed. Immediately the whole battle would start over again. Overwhelmed by guilt for having felt such an evil desire, I would spend hours thinking about how sinful I must be to have had these feelings. I would try my best to keep from feeling this way again. What a waste of my youth!
As I look back on it now, the solution is very simple. Once I learned how to think for myself, I was able to think about reasons that it is good that other people are succeeding, and the momentary desire to see another fail is now usually dwarfed by other, more mature desires. I wish I had known it was that easy when I was young!
This is why I say the struggle
to suppress feelings is futile. Unfortunately, much of historic
Christianity taught us to do exactly
what I did, to suppress the emotions. If you will look at some of the historic Christian teachings on the seven deadly sins, and think about what these words mean to a person that is struggling to suppress any emotion, you can see how such words only added fuel to the fire that was burning in my mind. Thankfully, most modern Christians no longer teach the suppression of desires that I had been taught.
I conclude that feelings such as sexual desire, anger, and envy are natural. We will get nowhere by trying to resist them. Rather, we should concentrate on rational responses, while allowing ourselves to feel our own feelings.
Recovered Memories
I realize, of course, that Christians will tell me that I am preaching to the choir. Most modern Christians have abandoned the concept of suppressing emotions long ago. In fact, you will find much emphasis on feelings in modern churches. Arterburn and Felton, for instance, teach their Christian readers about the need to embrace emotions. [5] If you associate in Christian circles, it will not be long until you find someone who speaks of having a troubled childhood caused by legalistic parents and churches that demanded duty without considering feeling.
The pendulum has indeed swung the other way. It has swung so far that we have a whole new set of problems. I discussed one problem earlier, that many concentrate on expressing anger rather than resolving the problem. Another problem is that many now seek to find hidden emotions that they can express. They spend many hours digging into their memories, trying to find emotions that have never been felt. This effort to find repressed emotions cannot be supported by science. [6] Expressing emotions is not magic. It does no good to seek out emotions so that we can feel them. If you feel an emotion, fine, feel comfortable with it, but there is no need to go digging for emotions to feel.
 |
The hunt for sources of bad feelings in the past has led many to the "recovery" of false memories that have destroyed many lives. One can feel feelings, without manufacturing them. (click on the book) |
So, if you feel happy, or sad, or angry, or whatever you feel, go ahead and feel that feeling. That feeling is part of what it means to be you. Understand it. And as the feelings are felt, you can then move on and let reason guide your way. But there is no need to try to dig up additional feelings.
Scripture quotations from the King James Bible
Notes
1. Smith, Kenneth L. , Previously on the web at: Lookin' Fer Love in All The Wrong Places?
2. The phrase "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22 was added many years later, and was not part of the original. It does not appear in most modern translations. This verse condemns all anger. See Campolo, Anthony Seven Deadly Sins (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989) p 54
3. Tavris, Carol Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion (New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1989) pp. 128-142
4. See 7 Deadly sins for a view that emotions can be sinful.
5. Arterburn, Stephen, Jack Felton, Toxic Faith .(Nashville, Oliver-Nelson Books, 1991) pp. 310-311
6. Torrey, E. Fuller Freudian Fraud (New York: HarperCollins Publishers., 1992) pp. 214-239
7.Memory and Reality: Website of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation
8. Carroll, Robert T. Repressed Memory Therapy (trauma-search therapy) at The Skeptic's Dictionary
9. Pendergrast, Mark Victims of Mermory (Hinesburg: Upper Access, Inc., 1996)
10. Pendergrast, Mark ibid pp. 472-478.
CopyrightÓ Merle Hertzler 2004. All rights reserved.
 |