The Neuroscience of Thanks

The UK's Chief Rabbi, Lord (Jonathan) Sacks, is probably our favorite presenter on BBC Radio's "Thought for the Day" (Sorry, Giles Fraser, you would be a close second). Today Lord Sacks landed a theory squarely in the sweet spot between faith and science: He offered a plausible explanation for why expressing gratitude is good for you.

Thankfulness is one of the pillars of positive psychology and the happiness movement. Keeping a gratitude journal, in which you list a few things that you appreciate in each day, for example, has been shown by scientific studies of children and adults to improve positive outlook. Being thankful helps bolster happiness, a positive work and classroom environment, and assuages depression.

Expressing appreciation has also been a pillar of religions over the eons. Think of the psalms attributed to David, for example, or the classical hymns of thanksgiving (too often typecast and just used at Harvest or Thanksgiving Services). My Dear Husband points out that "Eucharist" comes from the Greek word for "thanks."

Sacks' insight about why gratitude makes your outlook more sunny was inspired by BBC TV's recent Horizon Show on the subject, "The Truth About Personality."  On the show, reporter Michael Moseley, a self-confessed pessimist, follows instruction from leading psychologists on ways to "worry less and become more of an optimist." The two techniques they lead Moseley through over two months are Mindfulness meditation and cognitive bias modification.

It was primarily the latter practice that was involved in Sacks' theory. Cognitive bias modification (CBM) starts with the premise that some people's brains are predisposed to pay inordinate attention to the negative. They inevitably see the glass as half empty--they worry excessively about potential hazards and pitfalls. They read negative, ominous messages into the innocuous. A storm cloud follows them around (like cartoonist Al Capp's jinx, Joe Btfsplk, shown here --->)

CBM subtly changes this negative-bias brain-setting through computer games that increase sensitivity to positive signals. The games might entail picking out a positive image, such as one smiling face in a field of frowns, for example. (You can try it here: http://baldwinlab.mcgill.ca/labmaterials/materials_BBC.html). Although there's not yet vast data to support CBM,  some evidence suggests it may be helpful in treating alcoholism, pain, depression, recurrence of depression, and social anxiety, for example.

Sacks proposes that expressing gratitude works in the same way. It re-tunes our brains to focus on the good things in everyday life, increasing the odds that we'll notice positives more and negatives less.

This feeds my growing suspicion that where spiritual practices are beneficial to people's lives, there's some very good psychology involved, ancient magic and religious practice notwithstanding.

Sacks was impressed by statistics showing optimists live, on average, 7 years longer than pessimists. The fact that techniques like Mindfulness and cognitive bias modification can nudge people towards a sunnier disposition show this is not genetically determined from birth--at least not completely in all people. And, connecting the dots, or in this case the population studies with the disposition modification experiments, buying longevity through such practices seems a reasonable conjecture. It's certainly a testable hypothesis

But it hasn't been directly tested yet, much less scientifically proven. So if its really more years in life you're after, the evidence is much stronger for quitting smoking, avoiding obesity, eating healthily, and exercising daily.  What the studies say more strongly is Mindfulness, and other practices that raise optimism can at least put more life in your years, or at least happier life in your years -- "Stress less; celebrate more," as Sacks said. "Be surprised by joy."

 So, go on then, make your day: If you're a person of faith, count your blessings and thank God. If you're not religious,  just hone your gratitude attitude -- stop and smell the roses; tell someone you appreciate their hard work; start a gratitude journal; send a thank-you note or pay a visit to someone who positively influenced your life.

I end with a pictorial gratitude-journal entry (Father and son photo is courtesy of Lisa Morris-Moxham; Miracle Babe photo is courtesy of Char and Pete Herb; Sam 'n Jamie Jumpin' Jam and Camelia photos are by C. Kozlowski; Painting is Maxfield Parrish's, The Lantern Bearers, from FB "I Require Art" postings; other photographs by C. Kozlowski; Starry night photo from FB by unknown artist):

 

Two Sisters, Two Countries, Two Rural Churches

I started this blog entry with the story of my growing despair for my rural English church. But today my sister Fran sent me a wonderful response, describing why her rural American church, set in Thomas Jefferson's rolling foothills of Virginia, is increasingly feeling like a home for her. So I've amended this blog entry to include Fran's love letter, creating a more hopeful tale of two country churches.

Can this Rural Parish be Saved?

Basically, if you rub two Anglicans together, you can't start a fire, but you could well ignite at least three new religions.  As an official national Church, the CofE is officially obliged to be expansive and accepting of a wide range of flavors of faith -- at least broadly, globally, theoretically. A National Church needs to be a Big Tent, I was told. This should mean there's a spiritual home for everyone. But from the local real-world perspective, it's not working, not here, not now. My local church, like the Church in many benefices in England is dying, person by person, parish by parish, dwindling congregation by dwindling congregation.

I claim this is only the personal, somewhat quirky, view of an expat American -- and one who was enamoured of her former (United Methodist) church. Adding to the quirkiness of my background is that I migrated from a populous community to a tiny rural village in England. In suburban Maryland there were numerous churches of several denominations to choose from within a mile of my home; if I drove a few miles, I could have my choice of dozens of different churches. But now there's just one CoE church within a mile of my UK home. If I'm willing to drive a few miles, I have my choice of: Roman Catholic, URC, Methodist, Society of Friends, or an independent chapel, St Cleer's.

My village church is ancient and lovely. But the clergy (a vicar and a curate, with several retired priests and some lay readers brought in to take services) serve seven churches (not to mention one non-church venue, The Angel) within the benefice, and, largely don't have time to get to know or respond to each congregation individually. By and large, we all get the same clergy, almost all with a narrow (conservative evangelical) view of Christian faith, the same sermons, the same style of worship. I've seen no evidence that any of them are progressive or keen to dig deeply into meanings of faith today. No signs of ongoing growth through personal reading and study, or innovation in their approach to discussing, encouraging, or cultivating mature faith in others. The curate is the one exception. She actually does seem to be interested in exploring the heart of faith in new ways. Parishioners are supposed to be passive, brainless bumps on the pew; like it or lump it. Meanwhile, the church continues its inexorable decline.

Where I lived in America,  I picked a church where I thought my young son would find friends. It proved to be a great choice--growing, diverse, varied, challenging, thoughtful, serving lots of different people in different ways. But here... I don't feel at home in church, and I'm not the only one. One church in the benefice has already closed. Will ours be next? It's extremely hard to get people interested in what our local leader, the church warden, sees as the critical issue: doing the many jobs that must be handled by lay volunteers just to keep the doors open.

What's the problem? In my opinion, it's that no one finds what they want in a church like this. Yes, Anglicans are a diverse and cranky lot. But here, here especially, it's hopeless: Drive-by preaching -- which is pretty much the extent of clerical involvement in our village church -- does little to support, much less encourage life and new growth in a church that would be relevant to people's lives today. The status quo barely keeps a service on the schedule and a few coins dropping into the plate on three Sunday mornings a month.

For the elderly who grew up attending a traditional CofE service every Sunday, this might at least be emotionally satisfying. They, possibly, are among the people who have an inner rosetta stone that translates the ancient vocabulary of church liturgy into emotional operators that stabilize and calm their interior landcapes. I don't in any way discount these people or their needs.

But sadly, the more elderly elders have served their years as church warden or organist or PCC members. Now they are tired and want others to serve them -- and in the same way the church did over the past century... the same hymns, the same short sermon (content doesn't actually seem to matter much to anyone but me), communion (every Sunday if possible for some, but once a year would be enough for others)... They're quick to say how nice it would be to have more young people involved in the church (i.e. to do the work and keep things going exactly as they have been), but they don't seem to have a clue what this would actually entail, much less the interest or energy to find out.

I've used the Rob Bell line before in describing my feelings about such a church: for me, the clergy bring no THERE there. They might feed the emotional needs of the elderly and others who cherish the old traditions. But I'm lacking their Rosetta stone. The worship, and especially the preaching, does not help me to grow in faith -- and could actually cause people to go backwards in Christian faith sometimes, in my opinion.

I get the feeling the Readers and priests who preach at our church would be astonished to know that a good number of people in the congregation are at least as advanced in faith as they are. Many of us have actually studied the Bible. We've read it through and discussed it. Members of our parish have been military, artistic, intellectual, and community leaders. Our children are molecular biologists and rocket scientists. Some of our numbers have a soulful depth of emotional understanding that far surpasses that of low E.Q. clergy who have led pampered middle class lives sheltered from poverty, deep personal sacrifice, or ravaging losses that would test the faith of Job and everyone else reflective and honest enough to admit it. Thanks to books and the internet, some of the readers among us are quite up-to-date on contemporary theology and other subjects that we dare to hope would be making an appearance in churches today.We may be from a country parish -- but we're not bumpkins!

Why do I continue to put up with meaningless (for me) worship services and unenlightening sermons? At this point it's this: to keep community -- it's how I show my love for the people in my village who like that sort of thing. And because I have seen what a church can be; and, perhaps idiotically and romantically, still have some tiny trace of hope and vision for what it could be.

But as things stand,  I feel that vision won't be realized here, not in my lifetime, not in rural CofE churches, not with the sort of priests the church is turning out and hiring these days. It might be different in the cities, where a concentrated population can support more diversity in churches and people can shop around until they find a corner of the Big Tent that suits them... Here in rural England my little benefice is in its death throes.

Fran's Love Letter: A Rural Church that Works  

Hi Cec. I wish you could come and visit my small country church. It’s plain and simple (but with wonderful acoustics!)--not the grand church that yours is. It's old by our yard stick --but very modern by yours.

Like your church, it’s the center of a community that is spread over some considerable countryside. On an average Sunday we get maybe 30 butts in seats (as we in the transit business would say) and it’s not unusual for 10 or 12 of them to be singing in the choir. On Christmas Eve or Easter there are over 50 people worshiping at the church.

Ours too is largely an older congregation: only two young ladies in school who come with their Mom maybe once a month and get to light the candles when they are there, and one young man who comes with his parents maybe once every two months. But when they are there, there's always a children’s message. They come up and sit on the front steps with the pastor who talks with them about some part of the sermon or the readings that makes it meaningful for them.

Pastor Jane is making a big difference in the church, enriching the lives and the faith of the congregation, and getting those who have in the past come for community to now come to learn and to think new thoughts. She organizes Sunday morning classes that are interesting and challenge the participants; and the women’s group that she started provides a wonderful mix of theology and sisterhood.

While we get the official Presbyterian scriptures to read each week and do what we're supposed to do as a Presbyterian church in good standing, I'm sure that our church would generally be viewed as having a liberal point of view. But there are some who I'm sure are rock solid republicans and there are some who will exclaim a loud "amen" upon occasion, which always startles the rest of the congregation. There are also several people who have some church standing -- they help the pastor with communion and wear some sort of shawl that makes then look official.

Supporting our community and other communities in need is an important part of the church. The church has been home to and has supported a pre-school. It has particularly served low income families in our part of the county for years--continuing a tradition in education that started when the church was formed in the early 1800's and included educating slaves before the civil war. Each month the church contributes a carload of food for the local food pantry. And there are frequent mission trips that members of the congregation participate in -- to Haiti, Central America and SW Virginia, as well as one workday every couple of months with Habitat for Humanity in Charlottesville.

This year's church directory lists 39 families or singles, including the summer intern and our wonderful Jewish pianist! Some folks end up doing more of the work than others. It’s not easy to recruit people to bring flowers, set up communion, be a lay leader or usher on Sunday, to organize the monthly potluck dinner, to send notes to visitors or those in need, to say nothing of the upkeep and maintenance of 200+ year old  building and its surroundings. The call for help on clean-up days gets answered by a few, but somehow it gets done.

I think what really makes our church go is the combination of the spiritual enrichment AND the community, and the freedom to do those things in our own way. There are a few new people who are coming to our church, slowly but surely, when they hear about it or just trip over it driving up Route 29. Some of us are good friends outside of church, but the entire congregation truly cares about each other and they demonstrate that caring in a variety of ways. There is a menu of spiritual offerings that the church offers to those who want to partake in them but nobody is counting who does and who doesn't.

I guess we are just lucky that we don't have to carry the weight of the CofE on our back, and that Pastor Jane was willing to accept the challenge of a small country church that needed some gentle direction and nurturing. Someday I hope you'll come with me -- I sit in the 4th pew from the back on the left center section. There's room for you and your Dear Husband in the pew too.

Love you Cec.

Mindfulness: Skip the Spirituality *Please*

My apprehensions about linking Mindfulness to spirituality grew a bit yesterday.

In my previous episode of this blog, I described my fears about connecting Mindfulness conspicuously to ancient Buddhist practices and beliefs. Mindfulness might well have zen roots, but at this point, I argued, faith references can only put people off who identify with other faiths. I mentioned that one journal author was already proposing a Christian version of mindfulness based on contemplative  "centering prayer."

What I didn't mention is that faith groups are invariably prone to fractioning and bitter division. Putting Mindfulness in a faith context makes it subject to these.

The growth spurt in my apprehension was brought on by reading an article by Dr. Gary E. Gilley, an evangelical pastor at Southern View Chapel in Springfield, Illinois. Gilley's blog is a diatribe against contemplative prayer.

A Christian version of Mindfulness would be open to Gilley's criticisms -- which center on there being  no Biblical basis for contemplative prayer. Meditative and mystical practice should not be part of spiritual formation, Gilley says, because such practices were invented and promoted by human beings. Prayer, he says, should not be listening for an inner voice or awaiting some inner experience of God. This isn't in the Bible. Prayer should be us speaking to God -- praising, thanking, requesting, for example. God speaks audibly in the Bible, not via inner voices heard during meditation. So no one needs to be trained in special practices to hear Him. If God wants to tell us something, He'll say it right out loud.

Gilley concludes:

Spiritual formation seeks to lure evangelicals into ancient Catholic and Orthodox contemplative practices in order to draw closer to God, experience His presence, and hear His voice apart from Scripture. In order to embrace this mystical form of spirituality, contemplatives are willing to compromise at virtually every turn. Central doctrines such as sola fide and sola Scriptura are shrugged off as secondary. Methods never found in the Bible as the true means of spiritual growth and of knowing God, are emphasized. And complete heretics such as Thomas Merton are seen as reliable spiritual guides to spirituality. The contemplatives have sold out to Catholic mysticism and abandoned the clear teaching of Scripture. Sadly, in the process many undiscerning evangelicals will follow suit.

I expect Gilley would find a Buddhism-based Mindfulness even more objectionable than contemplative prayer.

Could he and other Christians accept Mindfulness strictly as a therapeutic practice, supported by research and scientifically validated data if all the Buddhist references were expunged? Could he see this as a healthy living practice, like washing your hands, not smoking, eating your veg, getting exercise, and keeping your weight down?

The nice thing about medical practice is that it's testable. If you have a theory about some aspect of a scientific practice, you design an experiment and confirm or reject the theory. People can argue with your experiment and perhaps design a better test, but accepted practice follows the data.

Spiritual practice is another kettle of fish. One faction believes this; another that. One group says subjective personal feelings and experiences are allowed as evidence in support of a spiritual practice or truth. Another group says only the experiences of approved saints, the Pope, and the Bible are allowed. Evidently Dr. Gilley believes only the Bible (and probably only one translation and his interpretation of it) are the basis for true religion.

The Bible vs the Buddah? Catholicism vs Conservative Protestant Evangelicalism? Science -- and Mindfulness -- simply don't belong in these contentious realms where truth and the paths to it depend on subjective choices and group affiliation, not testable hypotheses.

Update, 4 December 2014 ... The battle between Evangelical Christians and mindfulness continues, though still at a fairly low level. From the Associated Press via the Worcester, Massachusetts News Telegram:

Last year, an elementary school in Ohio ended its mindfulness program after parents complained it was too closely linked to Eastern religion and a conservative Christian law firm unsuccessfully sued on behalf of a couple in Encinitas, California, arguing their school district's yoga classes indoctrinate children. 

Just saying...

Mindfulness: Mending Minds vs Spiritual Practice

I had a coin-toss moment recently -- one of those instants when the coin is in the air and you suddenly realize which side you're on.

It wasn't so much a decision as a clarification of my true leanings on mindfulness as spiritual practice vs medically-proven therapy.  I would really like to  hold  Mindfulness in equipoise--simultaneously considering it as a scientific / medical practice AND an ancient spiritual discipline. But, in all honesty, I find my equipoise developing some cracks.

The Masters of Mindfulness™ would say you don't have to make a choice-- it is, indeed, an age-old spiritual practice, but now being studied--and its benefits confirmed--by scientific evidence. At least in the UK, Mindfulness teachers always hasten to say that Mindfulness is a secular practice and you don't have to be a Buddhist or change your religious beliefs to benefit from it.

But the link to Buddhism remains -- and prominently, even proudly so. A recent scientific review for example, defines Mindfulness in light of the connection:

"Mindfulness derives from Buddhist practice and is described in the psychological literature as an intentional and non-judgemental awareness of the present moment (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). Mindfulness is utilized in secularized interventions such as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction..." 

The Buddhist Backdrop

Evidence abounds of the pervasive Buddhist /Eastern / New Agey associations and influences in Mindfulness. For example, many teachers of Mindfulness in this area share office space with purveyors of unproven, semi-proven, or disproven holistic/ mind-body treatments such as crystal therapy, hydrotherapy, aroma therapy, massage, chiropractic, yoga, homeopathy, accupuncture, Qi Gong, reiki, Indian head massage, Hopi ear candling, reflexology, etc.  Association with yoga practices is especially prevalent.

My friend Tudor, who is a Naval chaplain training to be a Mindfulness teacher, has found that most Mindfulness retreats are held at New Age or Buddhist retreat centers. Another hint of the link: Meditation periods during Mindfulness classes will usually start with the ringing of a  ghanta (Buddhist temple bell) or  singing bowl --drawing on a ritual used for starting silent meditation in Tibetan Buddhist practice.

One type of Mindfulness meditation practice involves gentle yoga moves. While many Westerners today understand and practice yoga as a largely secular form of stretching for relaxation and fitness,  its origins lie in Eastern religions. Wikipedia says:

Yoga (Sanskrit: योग) is a commonly known generic term for the physical, mental, and spiritual practices or disciplines which originated in ancient India with a view to attain a state of permanent peace... Specifically, yoga is one of the six āstika ("orthodox") schools of Hindu philosophy. ... Yoga has also been popularly defined as "union with the divine" in other contexts and traditions... Various traditions of yoga are found in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism..

Tudor sees the links between Mindfulness and Buddhism as "inevitable, given that [Jon Kabat-Zinn, one of the fathers of modern Mindfulness-based treatment programs] borrowed heavily from the Buddhist tradition to put together his mindfulness meditation program. " Wikipedia notes:

 "Kabat-Zinn was a student of Zen Master Seung Sahn and a founding member of Cambridge Zen Center. His practice of yoga and studies with Buddhist teachers led him to integrate their teachings with those of Western science."

Cause for Concern?

I started to raise my eyebrows about the Buddhism connections when I noticed that training programs for Mindfulness teachers may require that applicants be assessed for "good dharma":

1. The teacher of MBSR teachers him or herself needs to have a longstanding grounding in meditative practices and be a committed student of the dharma, as it is expressed both within the Buddhist meditation traditions and in more mainstream and universal contexts exemplified by MBSR. This has nothing to do with being or not being a Buddhist.

2. MBSR is a vehicle for embodying and transmitting the dharma in a wholly secular and universal idiom. It is a recontextualizing of dharma, not a decontextualizing of it. 

Or, later in the same document (from my alma mater, the University of Massachusetts, home institution of Kabat-Zinn): 

We strongly recommend that all aspiring and engaged MBSR teachers and teacher trainers attend retreats in the Western Vipassana tradition, because this tradition closely reflects and serves as a foundation for the spirit, practice and attitudes of MBSR.

(I read the disclaimers that grounding in and transmission of the dharma has "nothing to do with being Buddhist" and is "wholly secular." But when"dharma" derives its very definition from Eastern faith traditions and is used with no attempt to translate or reconcile it with terms and concepts understood in secular Western culture, the disclaimers are unconvincing.)

Similarly, in the UK, the University of Bangor's course for training to be a Mindfulness teacher includes a unit on "Buddhist Background to Mindfulness-Based Courses." Exeter University's first year post-graduate training in Mindfulness includes two units in Buddhist Psychology.

My concern grew into worry when I noticed an abstract in the Journal of Religion and Health proposing a modified form of mindfulness based on  "Centering prayer, a form of Christian meditation that is rooted in Catholic mysticism." The author, Joshua J. Knabb, acknowledged that mindfulness-based conigitive therapy has proven effective in decreasing recurrences of depression,

"Yet, some Christian adults may prefer to turn to their own religious heritage, rather than the Buddhist tradition, in order to stave off depression relapse."

Next I found an abstract suggesting Sufism and the meditations of poet Rumi to create a sort of "Mindfulness for Muslims." Author Gretty M. Mirdal notes the dramatic growth in the use of mindfulness for treating a variety of interpersonal and health problems in the past decade and suggests elements of Sufism offer a more "culturally sensitive" method of mindfulness-based healing for people with Muslim backgrounds.

"The source of inspiration for mindfulness has traditionally been Buddhism, while Islamic thought has not been present in this development despite the similarities in philosophy and a growing need for mental health support among Muslim populations throughout the world. ... Introducing concepts, images and metaphors based on Rumi’s universe can constitute a meaningful alternative to Buddhist-inspired practices in the transcultural clinic, especially in encounters with clients with Muslim background."

Mirdal says it's understandable that many cultures would come up with similar basic techniques for healing.

These include generally a reframing, a new way of looking at problems of living; they provide new ways of coping, of unlearning bad habits and learning more constructive ways of dealing with stress, loss and grief; they offer rituals based on a myth or a theory of what constitutes 'a good life'; and finally, they impart belief and hope, that the process will restore health and well-being.

Mirdal says that both the Buddhist and Sufi orientations are helpful because "both approaches challenge the focus on the primacy of the individual self and on the narrow pursuit of mundane success which are not necessarily meaningful goals in non-western cultures."

Why Worry?

The fact that Mindfulness experts are now starting to see a need to develop more "culturally sensitive" versions of the practice suggests to me that Mindfulness may be on the brink of outgrowing or overplaying its Buddhist connections. My friend Tudor calls this "Remythologizing" Mindfulness. And requiring that people who want to train to teach Mindfulness have Buddhist credentials -- good dharma or training in Buddhist psychology is just asking for trouble, especially in America.

Both Tudor and I come at this as fans of Mindfulness AND Christians. Both of us feel we benefitted from learning Mindfulness meditation techniques--so much so that we want to share them with others. Tudor writes,

"As a chaplain working within the military I have found mindfulness meditation techniques to be useful in my pastoral work.  For those who have difficulty controlling anger and those who appear overly anxious, I have found mindfulness particularly effective in reducing their emotions to a manageable state. "

I don't think either of us find the Buddhist elements in Mindfulness to be a personal affront or challenge to our own faith or cultural sensibilities. So why are we worried Mindfulness may be veering too far into Buddhism?

1. Putting People Off: The main concern would be that conspicuously Buddhist elements in Mindfulness will put people off -- they'll cause a wide assortment of people to reject Mindfulness out-of-hand, without getting far enough in the door to see how it might be helpful. This could include people who identify strongly with non-Buddhist faith traditions; as well as militant atheists and agnostics; people (and institutions) who require that all aspects of medical treatment should be evidence-based; people who are suspicious of flaky New Agey stuff, and people who start out with apprehensions, misgivings, and doubts about psychological and psychiatric treatments.

As I've tried to describe in previous postings on this blog, Mindfulness is odd, delicate, chimeric, as well as amazing--approaching the magical or the "too good to be true." I find it difficult to tell people that something as simple as sitting in a chair, focusing kindly attention on the present moment (for example the breath you are drawing just now) REALLY DOES, with practice, accomplish wonderful, helpful things. Something as silly as ten minutes focusing on a raisin or 40 minutes lying on the floor in silence with a roomful of strangers, can, over time, change the structure and function of your brain and be your ticket to well-being. I fear that a pronounced layer of spirituality, be it Buddhism, Catholic Mysticism, or Sufism could be the last straw of airy-fairiness wafting Mindfulness into Cloud cuckoo land for many people.

Of course, connecting to Buddhist roots might well make Mindfulness more credible to Buddhists and people who are comfortable with Eastern traditions--or sufficiently urbane that they can put the Buddhist elements in a liberal, tolerant, non-personal, historic perspective. But I wouldn't guess this group is very large in either the United States or the United Kingdom. (And if this blog weren't already too long, I'd argue that people with these open attitudes and those already given to the loving-kindness favored by Buddhism are probably less urgently in need of Mindfulness. Studies have linked belief in a loving God to reduced risk of Social Anxiety, Paranoia, Obsession, and Compulsion. Belief in in a punitive God elevates the risk of these.) Given their training in the Buddhist roots of Mindfulness, I'm sure Mindfulness teachers can logically explain and defend elements of Buddhist spirituality and their therapeutic relevance. But when will they get the chance to do that if most people won't even have a look in the door?

I wish the world were already disposed to the accepting, rational attitude that Mindfulness teaches (possibly thanks to its Buddhist roots). But it's not. As Jonathan Haidt describes, especially when it comes to the essentials such as well-being and faith, people are largely driven by intuition and emotion. They make choices that fit in with the values of their home tribes and groups -- including religion-based groups -- and may be suspicious of the practices of others. I especially wish Christians could put down clan loyalties long enough to see what treasures might be gleaned from other faiths -- and Mindfulness. But many can't or won't.

You say you don't believe me? Consider this: Six years ago, in the very same town where I studied Mindfulness, a series of churches kicked out or turned down a toddlers' exercise group that had been renting or trying to rent a room in their (Christian) church halls. Why? Because the class was called yoga. A pastor of a Baptist church was quoted in the local papers:

...Rev Simon Farrar said some toddler groups used the church hall. But he added: "We are a Christian organisation and when we let rooms to people, we want them to understand that they must be fully in line with our Christian ethos.
"Clearly yoga impinges on the spiritual life of people in a way which we as Christians don't believe is the same as our ethos. If it was just a group of children singing nursery rhymes, there wouldn't be a problem. But, [the teacher] she's called it yoga and therefore there is a dividing line we're not prepared to cross."

An Anglican priest told the "YumYum Yoga" teacher "it was unlikely any Christian organisation would accommodate her."

Buddhists may see themselves as peace-loving and tolerant, but currently groups focused on religious persecution are now putting Sri Lankan Buddhists on the list of tormentors of Christian pastors and Muslims. My experience with groups targeting "Christian Persecution" has left me suspicious and distrustful of their message and charity; nonetheless, I think they have the power to turn neutral views of Buddhism to close-mindedness and hate which could spillover to strongly Buddhist-tinged Mindfulness.

The toddler yoga and anti-persecution examples come not from the U.S. Bible Belt--where they really take religious affiliation seriously -- but from supposedly tolerant England!  As you'd expect, there's an evangelical anti-yoga/ anti-meditation U.S. movement as well. This sentiment features in a book by the lieutenant governor of Virginia, who writes:

When one hears the word meditation, it conjures an image of Maharishi Yoga talking about finding a mantra and striving for nirvana. . . . The purpose of such meditation is to empty oneself. . . . [Satan] is happy to invade the empty vacuum of your soul and possess it.

This isn't about rational thought or the actual content and effect of Mindfulness training (which does not, in my experience, advocate you empty yourself). What counts with the guy on the street is impression, appearance, and gut reactions. Buddhist-based psychology, you say? No way!

Bringing Mindfulness closely to heel with research-based science will probably also put some people off, but this is bound to be a much smaller group than would be driven away with a conspicuous Buddhist affiliation. Religion-based anti-science attitudes never got much of a foothold in Darwin's homeland, and they seem to have lost ground in America. The courts and even most religious groups now accept that science --even evolution -- should be taught in public schools as matters of fact, not  faith. This gives me hope that most people would accept Mindfulness if it sticks close to the growing scientific evidence that supports it.

2. Separation of Church and State: This isn't as relevant in the UK as in the United States, where the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits government endorsement of any religion and  insists "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Would a pupil denied access to UMass's Mindfulness teacher training because they failed the  dharma test have the grounds for a Supreme Court Case? Since UMass is a state-supported institution receiving Federal grant money, I should think this might be a possibility.

Other meeting points of Mindfulness with government or the public sector should also be considered thin ice. I've mentioned before that the U.S. Marines are experimenting with advance Mindfulness training as a form of psychological armour to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Veterans' Administration researchers are studying post-combat Mindfulness as therapy for PTSD. And I would guess that most larger Mindfulness research studies, in the U.S. at least, are being paid for with taxpayers' dollars-- from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, or state-supported Universities and Medical Colleges, for example.

Again, I would like to think the awarding of public funding for research was rationally based on the merits of the science, as judged by peer grant review. But sadly, this again is a place where politics and religious and moral values intrude. I've seen, for example, presidential bans on embryonic stem cell research and congressional bans on funding studies of abortion, sex education, condom distribution, and clean needle distribution (to intravenous-drug users to prevent needle sharing, which fosters transmission of HIV-AIDS). (I've also seen Congress earmark funds for flakey projects that had no scientific basis -- but that was in a wealthier era...) Would Congress turn off the spigot of funding for Mindfulness research if they thought it promoted Buddhism? I think it's distinctly possible.

3. Ruining the Research: Standardizing Mindfulness into a tidy 8-week training package with defined instruction, practices, and teachers trained to a standard has given researchers around the world a (fairly) uniform common entity to work with. Researchers can be reasonably confident that they are studying, comparing, and making hypotheses about the same thing when they test this or that aspect of Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction, for example.

Remarkable studies on the effects of MBSR are coming out each week. Scientists are formulating testable hypotheses on how MBSR works. If the common standard holds for a bit longer, there's no telling how far this work will advance. I'm quite excited about it. Scientists may well find more efficient ways to convey the benefits of Mindfulness. They may precisely identify which aspects of Mindfulness training are key -- and then transfer these keys to other forms of therapy that could be accepted by people who can't take it as it is now.

But faith and spiritual practice don't lend themselves to standardization or scientific study. If Muslim and Christian versions of Mindfulness are the tip of an iceberg of modifications, adaptations and morphs to fit different groups, the uniform, common study subject vanishes. It's not impossible to accommodate and account for the added complexity, but I would guess that it would slow research progress and make between-study comparisons much more problematic.

Within individual studies, I would suspect that the more spirituality is part of Mindfulness, the fuzzier outcomes will be and the more difficult it will be to understand what's going on. It's a testable hypothesis, of course.

Should we care if research goes downhill? Yes, at least for now. I think there's still lots to be discovered about Mindfulness. Lots to be checked; maybe some earlier discoveries won't hold up. Science will learn more about how it works and can be made even more useful to humankind. But this is contingent on Mindfulness maintaining its popularity and credibility.

 Mindfulness without Buddhism?

I am a complete fool to write anything about Buddhism when I know so little about it. But some things I've read and heard suggest that the aims of at least some flavors of Buddhism are not incompatible with science. The Buddhist bits of Mindfulness might be well able to bend to assist Mindfulness silently--without speaking its own name.

I've started listening to a talk by Theravada Buddhist monk Ajahn Brahm. The talk is about the Buddhist view of creation, but in the long introduction, the monk (who was trained in Physics at Cambridge) makes some observations about religion, Buddhism, and science--which he sees as dedicated to truth, above all else--including "Being right." Ajahn Brahm says Buddhism is the same in that regard. So if it were to be true that there is a better way to do Mindfulness that doesn't involve Buddhism explicitly, wouldn't real Buddhists put the truth of better Mindfulness above historical pride, "being right" and displaying the Buddhist origins?

Brahm sees two types of religion-- those that bend the truth to fit the faith and those that bend the faith to fit the truth. Buddhism should be of the latter type, he says. "It doesn't matter what I say; It doesn't matter what Buddha says. You have to follow the truth. There are no sacred cows. " As with science,  people should be encouraged to challenge the teachings of Buddhism as a way of coming to truth. So here I am, eyeing the sacred cow, and wondering if we might challenge him. Does he really have to be a cow? Or could Mindfulness just rely on the fundamental essence of cow?

If Mindfulness™dared give up the sacredness of the cow,  it might ask what the key aspects of Dharma are that make for a good teacher. What is it in the Buddhist background that helps teachers understand and explain Mindfulness better? Is it commitment and discipline? Calling to a higher purpose? Is it connection to community? All of these can be explained and understood without reference to Buddhism.

If the Buddhist backdrop needs replacing, perhaps a substitute tapestry could be formed of relevant, secular-described elements from Buddhism. Positive psychology covers that territory and then some. This field is finding ways to observe and measure things--like Mindfulness--that contribute to human happiness and satisfaction with life. It might study faith practices, but it remains secular, scientific, and faith-free.

A Buddhism-free Mindfulness, otherwise identical but explained as an outgrowth of Positive Psychology, might be acceptable to a wider group of people and might avoid attracting destructive prejudice.

And perhaps, down the road, it will be time to build on the idea that many -- if not all -- religions and cultures have goals and practices similar to the Buddhist contributions in Mindfulness. A culturally neutral, basic Mindfulness would be a good common platform on which to build. So, when and where ties to religious and cultural groups are seen as necessary, teachers could "insert distinctive culturally-sensitive items here." Researched, planned carefully, this might extend the applications of Mindfulness without putting the whole endeavor at risk.
---------------------------------------------------------
A postscript: Today's Amazon ad, bringing me personalized suggestions adapted to my interests, recommended Mindfulness, Plain and Simple. I looked up the author on the internet and found an apparently very laid-back Aussie mindfulness teacher. No religion, no highfalutin New Age Mindfulness™mumbo jumbo... just an ordinary guy telling other people about something that has worked beautifully for him (and some cartoon frogs, his chickens, etc.) He has posted several short videos on his "resources/videos"page, including one about what his Labrador Retriever has taught him about the fun of being present in the moment. At the bottom of the "classes" page is a link to a 20-minute meditation exercise. If I were in Australia, I would definitely drop by for one of his classes! This is the sort of Mindfulness I think lots of people can embrace.

Space for us all on the Spectrum of Abuse

Britain has been rocked  by waves of lurid sex and abuse scandals over the last year. But at the end of the day, after we've given our pointing fingers a good workout, can we do something constructive--prevent it from happening; minimize damage to victims, perpetrators, and society--help people find peace and forgiveness?

I've been wringing my hands over this blog entry for months. I have something to say, but at the same time feel like I'm not entitled to speak. I can't begin to fathom the soul of a monstrous abuser, and the "victimization" I've experienced is nothing compared to the criminal abuse others have endured.
I think what finally moved me to post this blog entry was a line from a citizen petition from "MoveOn" a grassroots political organization in the USA. The petition, drafted by Trina McDonald, a U.S. Navy veteran and rape survivor, says:

According to estimates from the Department of Defense, 19,000 service men and women are sexually assaulted while serving in the United States military every year. But 86% of them never report their assault—too often because seeking justice threatens their safety, their job security, and their future. 

I would expect that many of the unreported assaults fall short of criminal behaviour. And the formally hierarchical structure of the military may intensify cultural pressures and change the weightings that go into the calculus each perpetrator and victim makes, raising the stakes. But I think the numbers reflect a large unspoken truth about our society: People abuse others and subject themselves to abusive relationships universally, constantly, and largely without consideration, healthy reflection, discussion, support, advice, or knowledge of the experience of others that could help put the experience in perspective and help them manage the consequences. The scandals and criminal cases differ only by degree and notoriety from what most of us experience in our lives. We are all entitled to a view and a voice.

If I had one wish for something to come out of my speaking out, it would be to encourage broad, rational thinking about relationships in general--especially the middle ground that most of us encounter. I have found that putting myself on the spectrum has increased my empathy and helped me set aside knee-jerk emotional responses, and avoid bandwagons -- lynch-mob mentalities, political correctness, sexual politics, guilt-tripping, shaming and blaming others. Surely a more empathetic society, a more measured view will help us prevent abuse and come to terms with it when it happens.

 My Framework: Thinking about the times I felt like I'd been exploited, and thinking about some of the milder examples of abusive behavior in the press recently, I concluded there's a graded spectrum of relationships, from exploitative to loving; from relationships governed by "the way of nature" to those governed by "the way of grace"--with lots of all-too familiar ground--space for all of us--in the middle.

Here's the schematic I came up with:

A Spectrum of Relationships 

		The Way of <---Nature	The Way of Grace--->
--The Illegal/NoZone--		--The Stupid Idiot Zones--		--The Grace Zone--
Victim Vulnerability
One party is a child, handicapped, frail, weak, physically or mentally incapacitated		One party is young, immature or naïve adult(s); low self-esteem; on the rebound		Both adults, high self-respect, capable, strong, confident,
Nature of Relationship
Lopsided power—One person submissive, beholden, psychologically or physically dependent on the other		Shifting or misperceived balance of power		Equal, mature; Both parties fully empowered; free to choose and refuse.
Deceptive—One party withholding or lying to manipulate the other’s choice		Both parties withholding, lying, manipulating the other’s choice		Open, honest. Both parties can make informed choices.
Impersonal—One party sees and uses the other as an object; a means to personal gratification		Both parties using each other		Mature, loving. Seeing, caring for the whole person & their long-term wellbeing
Type of Behavior
Abusive—Physical or psychological violation, harm, pain, humiliation, undermining, scarring, depriving of sustainance		Unknowingly or unintentionally harmful treatment of others; misunderstanding		Healthy—gentle, tender, mutually pleasurable, kind, helpful, affirming, uplifting
Downward spiral—Repetitive, ongoing, escalating harm, “grooming”; multiple victims		Changing circumstances convert healthy behavior into an unhealthy interaction		Growth—both parties learn and develop in positive ways from the relationship

This table is a representation of how I'd sort relationships--which inevitably mix elements from all three columns-- at different times, if not usually. Or maybe in some aspects, over some issues, but not others. It's just my personal framework. And possibly it's projection on my part to imagine it reflects anything beyond my own views and values.

Whatever. Under this scheme, the more elements from the red zone, the less healthy the relationship. I would guess victims of red-zone relationships would be more hurt and struggle more to recover. Perpetrators of predominantly red zone relationships more urgently need to have their behavior reversed. They need re-education, therapy, reform. Those are easy things to say.

Harder is admitting that we all err. We all take actions, ranging from completely unintentional to completely intentional and more or less wisely considered, that actively place us on this spectrum, either as perpetrators or as (potential or actual) victims. I don't say this by way of blaming or shaming. I claim this from my own confession. My underlying belief is that we restore ourselves and our relationships through honest self-examination conducted with deep consideration of others. This, followed by reparation of damage, and forgiveness for ourselves and those who've harmed us return us to the present and a more hopeful future.

  Confessions of a Victim

 The embarrassing personal history that is the foundation of my experience  of abuse in relationships would actually begin with a relationship mostly on the "grace" end of the spectrum.

Mike was 30; I was 15. He was a ex-Army paratrooper back from Vietnam, now driving a schoolbus. I rode that bus, getting on at the first stop in the morning and choosing the warmest seat--behind the driver, who had a heater next to his seat. We chatted every day. He was also friends with other kids, but I was his favorite.

At some point I must have given him my phone number. After school got out in June, the family of one of the other kids on the bus route invited him to house-sit while they were on vacation. He phoned and invited me over. The house-sit was at Thornoaks, within walking distance of our home. I told my Mom I was going. She offered to drive me there.

The last thing I wanted was for her to meet Mike. He was African-American. He was a grown-up. She wouldn't have allowed this unsupervised visit. I can't remember what lies I told her to allow me to walk. Probably that I would be back at a certain time. Or maybe that others would be there. Mom was clearly suspicious.

Kids today are much more mature at age 15 than I was back in 1968. For that matter, other 15-year-olds back in 1968 were more mature than I was. I was nervous going over to Thornoaks. Once there I chatted nervously with Mike. I can't remember if I went inside the house. It was a warm, lovely evening. I told Mike I couldn't stay long. He must have seen I was nervous.

Before I left he gave me a 45-rpm record, autographed by the Four Tops (who were friends of his). He kissed me. He said he'd been wanting to do that for a long time. I remember the softness of his lips. I don't remember feeling aroused--just a bit scared. I thanked him for the 45 and we said goodbye. I scooted home. I don't think I saw him again.

I've wondered about him many times in the years since. It would have been so easy for him to have exploited me. I was young and ignorant of the nuances of sexual expectations. We never spoke of faith or beliefs. But he was a good man. Wherever you are, Mike Patterson, bless you.

Fast forward 15-plus years through boyfriends, engagement, marriage at age 22... In this next scene, I'm in my 30s. There were two incidents, both occurring just as or after I'd left academic institutions. On these two occasions, four years apart, my department superiors expressed inappropriate personal affections, shall we say.

"Do you want to close the door?" one had suggested softly from his desk on my last day at the department. A goodbye chat. A kiss. I was attracted to him. I was thrilled. But we were both married. From the safety of my new home in another state I wrote him a gushy schoolgirlish letter, and that was where it ended. I don't think I saw him or heard from him again.

The next encounter with a department superior was more inappropriate. I had evidently learned nothing from the previous encounter. I was curious.  At least I came to my senses quickly, realizing the turn of events was not good--for either of us. But, like one duped by a conman, I was mortified by my own stupidity. I wanted to appear sophisticated, nonchalant, "adult." I was complicit and remained silent. After all, as foolish as I felt afterwards, I had participated of my own free will. Perhaps if I'd said or done something about what happened, it might have changed both our lives for the better. Might I have chosen relationships more wisely in subsequent years? Would he? As it was, until writing this blog entry, I just regretted our relationship privately and never saw him again.

A year later I would astound myself with even greater stupidity: I allowed myself to be "taken" by a foot fetishist. Going home on the Sheridan bus in Chicago after work, it was just getting dark. As I stepped off the bus, a man called after me, saying he noticed that there was gum on my shoe. He offered to remove it.

It never occurred to me that this could be anything but a kind, if bizarre, offer. He bent down, cupped his hand tenderly under the arch of my right foot and poked at the sole of my slip-off shoe. A few seconds later he declared the problem solved. I thanked him and headed toward home.

That wasn't quite the end of it. When I was a few yards away, he chased after me. He said he hadn't gotten it all. Again he slipped his hand under my foot and fiddled with my shoe. He told me that he worked in the shoe store back at the intersection, and if I ever needed shoes, I should come see him!

When I got back to my apartment, I examined my right shoe under a light. There was absolutely no trace of gum; just a bit of what looked like spit. DOH! How could I have been so stupid?

Priests, Lords, and Bishops

My sordid tales fall somewhere in the idiot zone, not unlike the fumblings described in the Guardian news story of allegations against Cardinal Keith O'Brien. The vitriolic critic of gay marriage has now resigned and apologized for not meeting the standards of behavior expected of Roman Catholic priests. I would also place in this middle zone the "inappropriate sexual advances" that Lord Rennard is accused of having made toward several women.

The Guardian news story on Lord Rennard sets his alleged abuse in the context of similar experiences of "Neanderthal behaviour among prominent parliamentarians" -- including chasing women around the office and invitations to come up to hotel rooms:

Channel 4 News last week quoted a former woman Lib Dem parliamentary candidate as saying that Rennard "shoved his hand down the back of my dress" when she posed with him for a photograph. The woman, who asked to remain anonymous, added: "I felt really humiliated, and very undermined and very shameful." 

The article points out the importance of contacts and party loyalty in politics, saying that political careers may add to women's reluctance to report abusive behavior. Similarly, The Guardian's story of one of the Cardinal O'Brien's accusers reflects the forces of authority and power that place his exploitation in the same realm:

"Priest C" was a young priest the cardinal was counselling over personal problems. Priest C's statement claims that O'Brien used night prayers as an excuse for inappropriate contact.... over a period of time...

O'Brien is, says Priest C, very charismatic, and being sought out by the superior who was supposed to be guiding him was both troubling and flattering. Those involved believe the cardinal abused his position. "You have to understand," explains the ex-priest, "the relationship between a bishop and a priest. At your ordination, you take a vow to be obedient to him. He's more than your boss, more than the CEO of your company. He has immense power over you. He can move you, freeze you out, bring you into the fold … he controls every aspect of your life."

Or consider the Roman Catholic priest in Leeds recently found guilty of  sexual asault for "forcefully kissing" and touching the buttocks of a 17-year old girl in church on Easter. Evidently the priest subsequently turned up at the girl's home and professed his sexual attraction to her. In the course of the trial it emerged that the priest had secretly married some years before. (I wouldn't be surprised if there had been common factors in the formation of their relationship.) The priest's wife had testified that he'd told her about the young woman. The story she heard was quite different than the one the jury believed.

After very serious criminal sexual abuse scandals, like the horrific Rochdale and the Savile cases, the UK is changing police practices. The pendulum is swinging back toward seriously listening to victims with allegations of abuse. The U.K.'s Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, said in a speech  that the Savile and Rochdale abuse went unchecked because over-cautious police put "too much focus on the victims' credibility and not enough on the suspects." I'm hopeful this change will encourage victims to come forward so that police can stop perpetrators before they can rack up a record like Saville's.

But I don't think this is sufficient. I think society's response needs to be more sophisticated, nuanced, pro-active, deep, and should approach abuse from all angles. This includes recognizing that not all abuse is the same. On my color chart, there might be intensity points for the various factors (different rows in the chart) adding or subtracting from the seriousness of the offence, for example. Differences in intensity should mean differences in the consequences for victims and perpetrators and the processes involved in coming to terms with what has happened.

In the case of the foot-fetishist, for example,  I, the victim, was not enfeebled by age or physical condition -- only by stupidity. There was no lopsided power relationship or a violation of longstanding trust, but the perpetrator was deceptive and did objectify and use me for his own gratification. The interaction didn't actually harm me and it was not ongoing. I can't say what happened to the perpetrator.  It was what it was. I hope I am a bit wiser for the experience.

When there is actual criminal abuse, well into the red zone in all or most of the columns on my chart, communities need to be sure that victims get the care and support they need to minimize psychological damage and come to terms with the trauma of serious abuse. Research is finding better ways to do this.

Care for Victims: For garden-variety inappropriate behavior, I think something different is needed. The orange-yellow-to-green zones on my chart probably aren't in the realm of police concern. But that doesn't mean we should do nothing. What's helped me minimize ongoing pain from idiot-zone interactions is mindfulness and forgiveness -- of others and myself-- based on acceptance of the fact that every human is prone to do stupid things. What's happened is now beyond our control, but what we make of it isn't. Two good quotes come to mind:

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”  ~Shakespeare  "We cannot choose our external circumstances, but we can always choose how to respond to them" ~ Epictetus

I choose to laugh about being had by a foot-fetishist. Because feet don't figure as private parts for me, there was no psychological damage, beyond the sting of feeling stupid. I forgive myself that and learn from it. And the same for my inappropriate interactions with departmental superiors. As the meme on FaceBook said,

"Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past; wisdom is knowing you'll be an idiot in the future; and common sense is knowing you should try not to be one now."

I think for victims, making great fuss about these incidents -- beyond acknowledging their inappropriateness  -- may actually deepen rather than heal wounds. In poring over minute details, reliving the experience, explaining the wrong and hurt, you build a case and magnify and prolong both your pain and the cruelty of your abuser. The incident becomes more conspicuous and shameful, disconnecting you, not reconciling you to your world.

Another Facebook quote:

"When you forgive, you release yourself from a painful burden. Forgiveness doesn't mean what happened was OK, and it doesn't mean that person should still be welcome in your life. It just means you have made peace with the pain, and are ready to let it go."

Reversing the Course of Abusers: I think that the priests who made the allegations against Cardinal O'Brien were right to do so. O'Brien may not have been committing criminal acts, but he was in violation of his vows, and after his outspoken criticism of homosexuality, deserved to be called out for his hypocrisy, if nothing else. Likewise the women who have made allegations against Lord Rennard. Society holds politicians and priests to a high standard of behavior. If the allegations are true, these men took advantage of their positions of power to exploit others, and seemed to be unaware of or indifferent to the harm their behavior was causing. I hope that by exposing the abuse to public condemnation, the victims have stopped the perpetrators' exploitative behavior.

I also hope that bringing abuse to public attention won't be at too great a personal cost to the people making the allegations. They are brave, but I worry that the ordeal of public exposure, church tribunals, court cases -- actually may make it harder for the victims recover inner peace.

I worry most about perpetrators who did exploit others but choose to fight the allegations. Does the battle actually make it more difficult for them to see how they were wrong, then attempt to put things right, and come to terms? I know little about it, but have been impressed by examples of facilitated reconciliation.

Prevention: As parents, teachers, and friends of potential victims and perpetrators -- we need to inoculate against abusing and being abused.  Of course we should teach our kids -- even teenagers -- not to go with strangers. That it's not okay for anyone -- even a priest or a relative -- to expose or ask them to expose areas of the body that should be covered by underwear. And if someone says not to tell, you need to tell.

We need to teach our teenagers that relationships should strive for the grace zone. They should be freely chosen, never compelled by differences in inebriation, age, status, self-respect, or physical strength. In a relationship of equals it's less likely that either person will exploit the other. And relationships should be honest, gentle, ennobling, and all about discovering and loving the whole person--not objectifying and using them for sexual gratification or other selfish personal gain.

The mother of a young son put it this way (in the wake of the convictions of Steubenville, Ohio, athletes for gang-raping a young woman):

"A toddler can learn how to use words of kindness.  It’s never too early to teach empathy, compassion, and awareness. ... Give your sons the tools they need to understand that sexuality is a powerful thing, one that they are solely responsible for.  Give them a framework for understanding that sex carries an enormous responsibility—not just to themselves, but to their partners.  Does your son know what rape is?  Does he know what it means?  Does he know that it’s not just creepy smelly guys who hide in alleys who are responsible for rape?  That it’s his peers?  Discuss the ways that a woman can give consent.  Pull the curtains back on the grey areas, and demand that your son learns how to protect himself and his partner."

[Update addition: A brilliant blog by @Soraya L. Chemaly on teaching pre-schoolers respect for others -- behaviors that will serve them (and the world) well for life: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/the-problem-with-boys-will-be-boys_b_3186555.html Quote from this article:

the world would be a different kind of place if children were taught to respect other children's rights from the start. Rights to be, to do, to look certain ways and not others. And that teaching children these things has profound implications for society. Anyone who has studied or worked in the field of domestic violence can tell you that the "overarching attitudinal characteristic" of abusive men is entitlement and the belief that they have rights without responsibility to or respect for others. Similar attitudes feed our steady stream of sexual assault and rape.

For Christians, Jesus showed us what we should aim for: Love others as he loved Mary Magdalen, the possessed, lepers, the woman taken in adultery, and as he described the love of the good Samaritan. But none of us are Jesus. We are going to fall short of this standard. We will be victimized. We will abuse others. That is where self-examination, regret, repentance, vulnerability, apology, forgiveness, and acceptance come into their own. I see these as the best, most sacred, perhaps only ways to move ourselves and our world into the grace zone.

In the air: So maybe this is what it takes to finally get me to publish. This morning I woke up to a BBC radio report on the increasing use of "community resolutions." Reporter Danny Shaw used a freedom-of-information-act request to find out how many police forces in England and Wales are using the informal procedures to resolve cases--rather than issuing cautions or filing charges. Community resolutions might entail the wrongdoer apologizing or repairing damage for example; cautions and charges result in a criminal record.

Evidently 10,160 uses of community resolutions in 2012 involved acts of violence, contravening guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers saying they should be used for less serious infractions, including "minor assaults without injury." The number is a jolting rise over 792 uses of community resolution of violence in 2008. A member of the shadow cabinet (i.e. representative of the opposition party) weighs in with her outrage. The general impression conveyed is that police are using community resolutions because, as budgets are slashed, they save much-needed time, money, personel, and paperwork.

But what really got my attention was stashed at the end of the article:

   Acpo's Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan said guidelines were in place to help forces decide where the use of community resolutions might be appropriate.
   "But in every case, this decision will be victim-led and above all reflect their views and wishes," he said.
   "At times it may be necessary, and appropriate, to use such informal resolutions to deal with more serious cases.
   "Going through a restorative justice meeting has also been proven to have more impact on an offender than a prison sentence or a court punishment alone, as they see the consequences of their actions and so want to make changes in their future behaviour."
   The Restorative Justice Council - "the national voice for restorative practice" - said it should be "available for all victims of crime who want it, subject to a risk assessment by a trained restorative justice professional".
   "When offered alongside the right sentence for the offender, restorative justice can meet the needs of victims of the most serious crimes," director Lizzie Nelson said.

I realize I may be bringing apples to bear on the oranges of personal relationships, and I am the first to acknowledge I know very little about criminal justice in my adopted homeland. But isn't it possible that victim-led resolution -- with strong support from professionals who can spot the influences and pressures bearing down on victims -- may be the best way out of the orange-zone and on toward the green?