Unity Sand

I attended a wedding of one of my wife's co-workers this past weekend and I do not know how most wedding ceremonies are conducted or even if there is a “usual” wedding ceremony. This one took place in a church that I assume is a traditional Christian church and so this one is probably similar to most Christian wedding ceremonies. This couple included a “Unity Sand” ritual that I was unfamiliar with but similar to the “Unity Candle” ritual my wife and I used in our wedding. The ritual is simple with each mother of the couple pouring one of the different colored sand into a larger glass container to symbolize the uniting of two families and the couple pouring the rest of the sand in so that a pattern of alternating colors is evident. Christian weddings are all about uniting two into one and I assume most weddings have some symbolism that emphasizes the same thing. The advantage of unity sand over a unity candle is that the couple gets to take the mixed sand home with them as a reminder.

As a marriage counselor who sees couples that are having great difficulty staying united I could not help but wonder how much power these rituals have. Of course by itself ritual has no power unless it has meaning so how important is it to the couple to stay united is the question. There are so many other forces during a life that compete for unity like making a living or having a successful career and mostly plain old selfishness. I like this image of sand pouring in to make a new and different entity because it makes one think about two people pouring their lives into each other to make something other than just themselves. This image of mixing lives together is obviously something that makes marriage unique.
We must be willing to give up something, and sometimes a lot of our self in order to stay together. That is often really hard to do.

I hope this couple makes it through a lifetime of staying together and as we all know divorce is more common, somewhere between 40-50% even though there is a lot of disagreement over this number (Scott M Stanley, “What is the Real Divorce Rate”). And the point for each one of us who are married is not what the divorce rate is but how important and meaningful is your marriage? Do you really believe uniting two lives into one is essential? Is this something you really want to do? Does staying together mean enough to you to do it? Do you know what it takes and how to do it?

One of the great things about attending a wedding is the witnessing of two people making a commitment to be together and the ceremony is all about making promises to each other to do just that; it is a moment filled with hope. I wonder if a wedding ceremony reflects more than just the hope for two people remaining joined together. Maybe it is a metaphor to remind us of what we must do as a larger community. Maybe it reminds us that we must pour and mix our lives together, that we cannot keep our sand separate from theirs. There is a great amount of discussion in this country about how we have become a divided nation. It has become very difficult for our governing bodies and political parties to agree on much of anything. We are hardly able to accomplish much of anything together; unity seems to have become an elusive goal. So many social issues divide us from gay marriage to abortion to income distribution that it seems unresolvable. Many of us do not want to pour any of our sand in with their sand. I do not know if there is a connection between becoming and staying united as a couple and being united as a nation but I suspect there is. Maybe our country needs a unity sand ceremony to remind us of what it takes to be “one nation, indivisible.”

The Unfettered Self

In reading writings on the state of the American marriage and family it is difficult not to feel discouraged if you believe in the sanctity of marriage, or the sanctity of life, for that matter. Sanctity has to do with something done before and with God. Marriage then becomes something more than a legal act, it becomes a holy union made in the presence of, and under the authority of God. It is not just “you and me” getting together, we are joining together as a witness to God's nature. The love between a woman and a man in marriage is representative of God's love. The love I have and express for my wife, and her love for me, is to be something like the love of God.

Current writings on the state of marriage seem to agree that a focus on individualism or an individual's right to express their unique selves is a major factor in the increasing divorce rate. In other words, our culture is placing a premium on my right for what I need, what I desire, what I want to become; paraphrasing Me and Bobby McGee: “individualism is just another word for what I want to do.” The other person then becomes nothing but a means for meeting my needs and when that no longer happens, I move on. Barbara Whitehead in her book The Divorce Culture refers to this as the “unfettered self”.

This same line of thought and behavior affects the sanctity of life. If life in a womb is not something I desire or is an inconvenience for my current plans, I stop it from becoming a life, I abort it. The right of a woman to determine what she does with her body is an expression of the same cultural impulse of the unfettered self. The individual decides and acts in his or her best interests, the rights and needs of the other takes second place.

I often listen to political conversations from media pundits and their guests. I happened to catch a segment of a conversation on the radio, I think with David Gregory on Meet the Press. He had Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, the past Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, and the current Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell. They were discussing problems with our economy and the associated political environment and potential solutions. One of the conclusions they reached was that the divisive rancor between political parties contributes to an inability to make decisions for the common good. David Gregory asked what can be done and none of these distinguished and brilliant men had an answer; they all agreed they have never seen anything like this in their lifetime. No one will give an inch to work together for the good of all; it is about maintaining, representing and winning a point of view. It is the same cultural impulse of doing what is best for me, for my party, or my position, not what is best for our country.

It is of course nothing new in history that the individual acts in his or her own self interests. What is different is how embedded it is in the laws of the land. We have legislated no fault divorce to make it easy to dissolve unwanted unions and it is legal to abort unwanted pregnancies. We even bail out institutionalized greed, holding no one accountable; doing what is in the best interest of me is both legal and profitable.

So what is an the answer to David Gregory's question? Restoring our culture to an ethic of love is one answer. The ethic of serving or deferring to the other over me is the basic position of love; love is always other directed, not self directed. Our society is losing this ethic, the impulse to serve the other, to sacrifice and dutifully meet the obligations we have in marriage, family, and country. We have lost the primacy of the obligated self developed from the presence of love; and I believe it is destroying our country.

My wife Carolyn and I try to get away to be with each other every three months or so. These “getaways” often coincide with a birthday or anniversary but not always. We usually arrive around noon and leave the next afternoon. We always hope to arrive sooner but necessities and demands prevent that. This does not sound like much time away and we would prefer longer but we always seem to leave feeling refreshed, renewed, and reconnected; not a bad outcome. The place we visit is a retreat house called “Quiet Place” in rural Garrard County near Lancaster, Ky. We have been doing this for several years now and we are so thankful for this place of retreat that Rick and Teresa Jenkins provide for ministers, pastors, and other Christian care givers. Rick and Teresa serve the servers. I don't know where they retreat but Quiet Place has become an invaluable tool for reconnection with the Lord and one another.

While visiting there this time I read from Conversations (www.conversationsjournal.com), a Christian journal about spiritual transformation. They provide a forum of “spiritual accompaniment and honest dialogue for authentic transformation.” Living in a culture that offers mostly sound bites of phantom promises that disguise other agendas something solid like real change is appealing;we all hunger for the real. Consider the woman in the Gospels who met Jesus at the well; with several relationships she obviously struggled with figuring out who she was and what she wanted and when she encountered the real she immediately changed her life, now that is transformation.

An article by Michael Glerup, who writes on “ancient christian wisdom for a postmodern age”, discussed change as defined by Gregory of Nyssa, an Orthodox Bishop from the fourth century who lived in what is now Turkey. Gregory said that change happens in one of two directions, for good or for ill. Change for ill is that which is cyclic and repetitive so that nothing really lasts or satisfies. We reach a state of temporary satisfaction that depletes, like eating food, and we have to do it all over again and again and again. Change for good is that which helps us progress in capacity, in our ability to grow and receive more. It is something that satisfies, that brings a fullness that lasts. Change for ill leaves us always hungering for more, change for good leaves us satisfied knowing that there is more, and so we are content.

While there is much more to Gregory's view on transformation (Conversations, Vol.8.1) his understanding of the cyclic, repetitive, empty change is what we see in struggling couple's arguments (not to mention the stock market and economic cycles). Their argument cycle is a repetitive one and it is the same over and over again. They keep coming back to it because a deeper hunger is never satisfied, it is like playing a roulette wheel, the ball gets thrown and you watch it spin hoping it lands in the right place. It rarely does and with repetitive cycles it never does. The insanity is that we believe we are going to win next time.

Becoming aware of our deeper hunger(s) is critical to orienting our selves toward what is Good. The difficult thing for most us is to begin to trust, to believe that their really is something solid and real and good that can meet our deepest longing. Receiving an experience of that, whether during a counseling session or a meeting at the well gives hope that real satisfaction is possible. Couples that become aware of their own and their mates true longing and move to meet that is what breaks the repetitive argument cycle and brings peace to the relationship.

While the time at Quiet Place is never quite long enough for Carolyn and I and we leave yearning to stay in a place of rest and quiet and connection, we know this peace is real and we can experience it again. I think that is something like the hope of heaven.

Greater Love

Dr. Sue Johnson, one of the originators of Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT), a very effective marital therapy approach, considers the approach to be a “practical theory of love”. EFT is based upon Attachment theory which describes how we care for and emotionally connect to one another, and how that affects our development as human beings. Attachment or bonding to one another in families is basic to our survival. Human life cannot survive and thrive without it. Humans take a long time to grow and become self-sufficient and a bonded caretaker(s) is required.

But what does it mean to attach to someone? Is it the same as loving someone? Are love and attachment the same? I think they are similar and related, interconnected but not the same. For sure love seems to assume attachment; you are likely attached to those you love. But I believe love is greater than attachment. Dr Johnson says: “The multitude of studies on adult attachment that have emerged over the last decade tell us that the essence of love is not a negotiated exchange of resources (so why teach negotiation skills?), a friendship, Nature's trick to get you to mate and pass on your genes, or a time-limited episode of delusional addiction. Love is a very special kind of emotional bond, the need for which is wired into our brain by millions of years of evolution. It is a survival imperative.” Without even considering the question of how we came to be hard wired for connection, it seems to me her view of love is reductionist, that love is nothing more than “a very special kind of emotional bond” whose primary purpose is survival. This is “the essence of love”? Okay, I don't know about you, but that doesn't really turn me on to go find a lover!

I know you might be thinking “who cares?” I would agree this might be esoteric musings of an obsessed attachment focused marriage therapist who also cares about theology, specifically Christian theology. Love is a, if not the, central tenet of Christian faith, “God is love.” In the Christian tradition, marriage and theology are intrinsically linked. Marriage is one of the primary metaphors used to describe our relationship with God and God's relationship with us. In fact, as Pope Benedict says in his Cyclical on Love (I am not Catholic but Popes are usually brilliant and say very interesting things) love of neighbor is love of God so that loving one another is the same as loving God. How well we love our spouse (or neighbor), and the expression of that love is our measure of how well we love God. As Pope Benedict says “God's way of loving becomes the measure of human love”.

In our society today God is often dismissed as grounds for anything. If you begin with “what God says” you may be quickly considered intellectually inferior and out of touch with post modern thinking. You are likely to not be considered as part of a serious debate if you reference God as a source. Well, okay, but since I have been following Jesus I have learned and become a better lover of others than I ever was before, so it is hard for me to ignore or dismiss his influence. I know this is antedoctal, that my experience doesn't prove anything in an objective or scientific way, but you can ask my wife or kids or family if what I say is true. This is evidence that is difficult to dismiss; they know how well, or not, I love them on a particular day or for a particular week, just ask them.

There is a concept in the Christian spiritual life called “first love” that considers “Do I really believe that I am loved first, independent of what I do, or what I accomplish?”(Henri Nouwen) That is, is love freely given or do I have to earn it? Am I loved, totally, simply because I exist and therefore I don't have to worry whether I get something right. I have nothing to fear because it is not about what I do, Love simply loves me. The more we know, experience this Love, the better we are able to love others.(1 John 4:19) This is the measure God presents.

There is no doubt understanding how we attach to one another gives a language to discuss how well we care for and love one another. I practice EFT with my clients and find it very helpful and effective. Understanding how we emotionally connect to one another is very powerful and EFT helps couples do this. It breaks down the dance of connection so we can understand it and learn how to change the dance so to not lose connection with one another. But I think this connection, this bond of unity to one another serves a greater purpose, points to a greater reality, than simply survival; it points to God.

An Unconstrained Society

As a kid, I remember feeling constraint, “a state of being checked, restricted or compelled to avoid or perform some action” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Constraint is experienced as a force that limits and directs what choices and options we have to act. I knew, almost without conscious thought, that there were expectations of what I could do and what I could not do; what was good and what was not good. And then, during America's cultural revolution in the sixties and seventies all hell broke loose. Two landmark legal decisions weakened and undermined constraint in our society. One is no fault divorce beginning with Ronald Reagan's 1969 signing of California's law and the 1973 Supreme Court's ruling to legalize abortion. Both of these decisions made it easier, lessened constraint, on what we individually, unilaterally could do. We had the “right” to make decisions that was in the best interest of me, not us. These decisions helped elevate individual choice and freedom over community good. The effect has been disastrous on our society contributing to much of the social dysfunction we are experiencing today. I believe this has significantly contributed and is continuing to contribute to our loss of freedom.

Consider this comment by Bradford Wilcox, director of the Marriage Project (http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce): “Prior to the late 1960s, Americans were more likely to look at marriage and family through the prisms of duty, obligation, and sacrifice. A successful, happy home was one in which intimacy was an important good, but by no means the only one in view. A decent job, a well-maintained home, mutual spousal aid, child-rearing, and shared religious faith were seen almost universally as the goods that marriage and family life were intended to advance.
But the psychological revolution's focus on individual fulfillment and personal growth changed all that. Increasingly, marriage was seen as a vehicle for a self-oriented ethic of romance, intimacy, and fulfillment. In this new psychological approach to married life, one's primary obligation was not to one's family but to one's self; hence, marital success was defined not by successfully meeting obligations to one's spouse and children but by a strong sense of subjective happiness in marriage — usually to be found in and through an intense, emotional relationship with one's spouse. The 1970s marked the period when, for many Americans, a more institutional model of marriage gave way to the "soul-mate model" of marriage.
Of course, the soul-mate model was much more likely to lead couples to divorce court than was the earlier institutional model of marriage. Now, those who felt they were in unfulfilling marriages also felt obligated to divorce in order to honor the newly widespread ethic of expressive individualism.”
Removing constraint on self expression with “an ethic of expressive individualism” is inherently destructive, it tears down and tears apart rather than builds up and connects. Or consider the “soul mate model of marriage” that places personal fulfillment over “duty, obligation, and sacrifice” for the good of the marriage and family. The effects a generation of divorce and breakdown in the family has had on our economic, physical, psychological, and social well being is well documented as every statistical examination of these factors indicate a significant loss in measures of well being. When we are losing ground on such measures, we are losing freedom because our choices become limited.

Even though divorce rates are dropping among the better educated and economically advantaged, the recent case of Mark Sanford and his wife Jenny (her recently released book about her response to his infidelity is Staying True) might be a prime example of the “soul mate model of marriage”. He is alleged to have said to his wife Jenny when discussing reconciling their marriage: “You expect me to give up my soul mate?” He also apparently refused to include a promise to marital fidelity in their wedding vows. Jenny's response? “In retrospect, I suppose I might have seen this as a sign that Mark was not fully committed to me...at the time, though, I thought his honesty was brave and sweet.”

Wow. Both of these obviously bright, talented, and socially successful people have an incredibly skewed perspective on what love is. It is apparent that Jenny Sanford was attempting to live out the “duty, obligation, sacrifice” version of marriage while her husband clearly, and “honestly” was not. It is easy to do a “you've got to be kidding me” response to this but given our cultural milieu of what constitutes a good relationship it is not so surprising. There really is very little legal and societal constraint that compels us in the direction of what is good for all of us; our children, our families, our spouses, and paradoxically our selves. We are a mess when it comes to loving and caring for one another in a way that produces successful human beings. A good place to begin is understanding what is good and appropriate constraint on our desires so that we might be able to be there for each other.

Why the Vow?

I am a child of the sixties, which makes me a baby boomer, and ever since my high school and college years there seems to have been a concentrated push in our society for individual freedom. I used to be a devout follower of individual freedom until I realized how personally and socially damaging it is to follow your own way. I hurt myself and I definitely hurt other people. At the time, I never really thought about “following individual freedom'', I was just living like most everyone I knew was living.. Most of us, when we are followers of individual freedom do not think of ourselves as selfish; we are living for a greater cause: “individual freedom”, an American ideal, the right to live our way. We only see our selfishness in the wake of debris we leave behind in the damage we have done in others lives. I think it is a fundamental problem that plaques many of our societal problems today. It certainly is part of the struggle to redefine marriage and undermine its purpose and meaning.

David Blankenhorn in The Future of Marriage frames this struggle as “marriage as an individual matter” vs. “marriage as a social institution”. He describes this fundamental change in how many Americans view the meaning of marriage as the rise in the belief that the couple comes before the vow. This, of course, is individual freedom at its finest; rather than anything being greater than me, or us, such as marriage having a greater purpose and meaning to have and raise children so that our species thrives, is replaced with what ever we decide is meaningful to “us”. This is so sixties bred; and so destructive to our society! Individual freedom lovers rarely consider what is good for the “other”, like children.

Consider what he says: “On their wedding day (if the vow comes first), couples become accountable to an ideal of marriage that is outside of them and bigger than they are.” This is a profoundly important statement and one that is totally lost on followers of individual freedom: “Something is bigger, more important, and outside of me? There is no way I am going to be accountable, allow something to influence and inform me on how to live.” This perspective does not allow the vow, the promise of committed love, safety, protection, and help to one another to influence and shape the relationship. There is nothing for the relationship to hold on to, to count on, to depend on, to turn to; it is whatever seems right, or expedient, or pertinent to the moment or the need. There is no bearing, no guidance, just....whatever!

The thing that followers of this way fail to realize is that not only is this destructive, it is an incredibly lonely place to be. You are on your own making all your own decisions. The wisdom from an institution like marriage that has developed over 5,000 years is unavailable. It is all up to me, or the two of us. All because we want our own way. I don't know about you, but I want others with me along the way. It is fraught with challenges and dangers that we are not prepared to deal with alone. This truly is a madness of our age when we think we know better than something that has stood the test of time.

Father/Son Roadtrip

I recently took my son Seth on a music school audition trip to Nashville. We live in Lexington, Ky so the drive usually takes about 3 ½ hours. Seth is a great kid, he has a kind, gentle heart, just like his mother. I love his mind probably because it reminds me of myself. Seth thinks, really thinks about things. I love that. He and I can have great discussions about life, literature, contemporary events, and of course music. He knows a lot about music; I don't but like most younger people that listen to blues, jazz, and rock he enjoys the music of my era, the sixties and seventies. I do know something about that music so we have a lot to talk about and listen to.

For the round trip to Nashville and back of 7 hours we listened to Herbie Hancock, John Coltrane, Stevie Wonder, and Frank Zappa. A lot of Frank Zappa. Most of you have probably never heard of Frank Zappa. I asked an older gentlemen at a convenience store in Bardstown, Ky if he knew that Frank Zappa drank gallons of coffee every day. Frank Zappa was not an illegal substance abuser but he definitely abused caffeine. The guy looked at me with a blank, confused expression. I told him it really didn't matter if he knew who Frank Zappa was but since we were talking about how much coffee we all drink I thought it was relevant. Apparently, he didn't.

Seth and I talked about Frank Zappa's lack of drug abuse. He was unlike probably every other music performer of that era. Drugs and alcohol seem to go with being musicians of the kind of music we both like. Listen to Frank Zappa's music some time; you will have a hard time believing he was not on some illegal substance; some of it is pretty bizarre stuff. And yet Zappa was one of the most talented and innovative musicians of his time.

I love talking with Seth about music, not so much because it's music but because it is his passion. I am so thankful he has passion. I can help nurture this passion he has for performing and becoming a musician. What an honor and a blessing it is for a father to help his son nurture his passion. The operative word here is “his” passion. My passion would have been for Seth to be a great swimmer (he could have been but he hated competitive swimming, told me at 15 he was done). Like all parents, and maybe especially fathers, I had to learn to start following my son in his direction rather than do the directing. Hard lesson for an aggressive ex football player like me. I am used to making things happen. It has been good for me to learn to follow Seth's passion. It has helped me learn to be a better servant and I think a better father. At least that is what Seth told me. “Good trip Dad”, he said, “really good father-son bonding time”. Music to my ears!

What Is Marriage Anyway?

I am reading David Blankenhorn's book The Future of Marriage, a self bought Christmas present. It is a timely read in light of California's Proposition 8, that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, constitutional challenge in federal court.

Articles are appearing in the media regarding this, including one by Edwin Meese, President Reagan's former Attorney General, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11meese.html and one by Terry Jeffrey, a conservation columnist http://townhall.com/columnists/TerryJeffrey/2010/01/13/do_three_people_have_a_right_to_marry_each_other. Both of these articles support the traditional definition of marriage that Proposition 8 upholds.

The Future of Marriage is a worth reading if you are interested in understanding what in the world all the fuss is about as to why we have to have statewide propositions or constitutional challenges on what marriage is. The fuss is whether we get to define marriage any way we want to, to whatever particular individual preference we have, or whether marriage is a standard greater than our individual preferences that affirms the historical basic organization of society, the family as a mother and a father for every child. As Mr. Blankenhorn eloquently, gently, and completely without gay bashing presents; marriage is between a man and a women because every society in the last five thousand years has figured out it is best for our children to have both a father and a mother. And because it is best for children it is best for that particular culture's ability to survive and thrive.

It is apparent, as Mr. Blankenhorn repeatedly points out, that those of us who are married have done plenty on our own to punch holes in providing children with both a father and a mother in the same home. We really don't need any more help hurting our children by being unable to live together and raise them together. Many heterosexuals live by the premise that my life is my own and I can define it anyway I want and if my partner, spouse, or whom ever I am with, can no longer agree on how to define it together, then we can just move on. It is all about me.

This is an age old battle between self will and a will or purpose that is greater than ourselves. The legal battle over Proposition 8, or the battle that homosexuals are waging for acceptance in society via marriage, or any other battle that pits individuals ability to define standards any way that suits them over and against an external standard that is there because it is the best bet for our "pursuit of (personal and individual) happiness", is really a struggle over what is good for us.

What is good for us is learning to live for someone and something greater and other than ourselves. The most destructive thing we can do to ourselves and to others is to live as if our life is our own. We must learn to balance the freedom of individual choice with what is good for us individually and as a society.

Make Marriage Work

It can be said very simply and forcibly that many marriages and maybe even marriage as a societal institution is in trouble. In fact, if things continue along the path of more and more couples deciding that getting married is unnecessary the moral and legal authority that marriage has in society might just disappear. The statistics are alarming and for divorce rates they have been alarming for some time. The fifty percent divorce rate has remained fairly constant for some time and it really doesn't seem to matter how much money you have, what god you worship, or your social standing. I suspect that if you asked how many couples were happy or content together, that number would be alarmingly low. They either have not yet decided to separate or have decided to stay together for some other reason. We just are not doing a good job as a society and culture with making marriage work.

This is not news. And many people and organizations have tried to turn the tide. There are organizations with names like "Saving Marriage", or the "Marriage Initiative", even welfare laws have been structured to try and encourage marriage. And most every religious faith, and certainly the Judeo-Christian heritages celebrate marriage as central to their life of faith and make every effort to keep couples together. And yet most initiatives, including marriage counseling have a dismal record of preventing divorce and improving struggling couple's chances of staying together.

There is one notable exception, at least in the field of marriage counseling. With over 15 years of research Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) has a 70-75% (and a few have 80-85%) success rate of helping unhappy marriages. It also reports that 90% of couples treated report significant improvement. This is great news and I have seen the results in my own experience of counseling couples with EFT. It is truly amazing how effective it can be. Couples have stated they had very little hope of making their marriage work and have been overwhelmed with gratitude when it did after counseling sessions based on the EFT method.

I have learned how to practice EFT from Dr. Sharon May Morris. She is a follower of Jesus Christ and a master EFT therapist. She has written two books on EFT, the most recent is How to Argue so Your Spouse Will Listen. She has worked with several churches in California, including David Jeremiah's church Shadow Mountain Community Church helping to implement mentoring and counseling programs based on EFT with great results. I am hoping that a coalition of churches and organizations in the Lexington area will help bring Sharon to Lexington for three days to help our local efforts. Centenary United Methodist and Crossroads Christian Church have committed to help. Please consider joining the effort to make marriage work.

In one of his newsletters Francis Frangipane made this statement: "We believe that the key to healing society is found in restoring marriage to its greatest goal as proclaimed by God in the book of Genesis. What is that goal? The Lord said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . . And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:26-27).

Man and woman, married, united, in the image of God. If we restore this, we will restore our society one family at a time."

We can restore our society one family at a time if we make marriage work.

Christmas Gift

One of the great qualities of Christmas is the time it affords family to be together. If you happen to have a family that enjoys being together, it really is a wonderful time of year. Christmas is also about the Christ. It is a comment on our culture that we even have to mention that He is the focus of the season. I remember that my childhood family seemed to focus on the gift giving celebration part of Christmas, not the Christ giving. But then maybe that was just me. I liked the gift giving part and really struggled with the Christmas Eve service candle wax dripping necktie tight pants itchy feet sweating staying in my seat listening to boring service part.

It was really difficult for me to believe anything other than we were just putting in time before the good stuff; me getting my stuff. Christmas was not about Him, it was about Me! Oh what a joy to get what you wanted! And most of my life has been about getting what I want until what I want became incredibly destructive to myself and others. That is when I woke up or more accurately desperately began hoping that there was something else beside satisfying insatiable appetites and desires.

Did my problem begin because Christmas is too secular, too focused on buying and getting and not focused on Jesus? Well, I do not know about you, but my problem with appetite and desire run amuck is a lot more complicated than reminding everyone that "Jesus is the Reason for the Season"! I know there are people who are very disciplined and able to manage their appetites and personal desires in order to achieve larger goals. It does not follow that they are any more satiated, that their desires and hungers have been completely satisfied. It just might mean that their temperament is more suited to delaying gratification.

There is a long held notion in psychology that we all have different temperaments that come with the package, so to speak. Our particular temperament has to do with a prevailing mood, emotional disposition and emotional intensity. While there are different classifications, most agree that there are four basic types. The original typology of temperament was developed by Galen around 200 B.C. I am most likely a choleric, quick to react and hot tempered. My wife, Carolyn is more sanguine, warm and pleasant. A phlegmatic tends toward being slow moving and apathetic and the melancholic struggles with sadness and depression. I think most of us can figure out our basic temperament and what our particular prevailing emotional state is. If you can't figure it out, ask someone close to you. They will definitely know!

So what does this have to do with Christmas! Well, God sent His only Son that we might have eternal life and He did that because He loves us. God gave us his Son as our gift. That is what we celebrate on His birthday; His gift to us. Our desires and appetites drive us to focus on what we can get, even if we do it in a disciplined or friendly manner. How many of us focus on what we can give? My wife might be more warm and fuzzy and I am definitely pricklier but does that mean she is more likely to give of herself? Maybe she is just more pleasantly selfish.

I still have trouble sitting in church on Christmas Eve. My hot, quick tempered nature will probably not disappear until Jesus returns and I get my new body. My appetites and desires are still there, maybe not as forceful or persistent, but they are still there. One thing that is different is that I know I need to give, like God gave me His Son. It is the only thing that really helps satisfy. By the way, my wife is pleasant, and very giving.

This Christmas give yourself as a gift to someone else.

Merry Christmas!