Good and Bad Anger PDF

Chapter 5 Good and Bad Anger INTRODUCTION "Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus' son Achilles and its devastation, which put pains one thousand fold upon the Achaeans, hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls of heroes ..." So reads Richmond Lattimore's translation of the magnif...

Chapter 5 Good and Bad Anger INTRODUCTION "Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus' son Achilles and its devastation, which put pains one thousand fold upon the Achaeans, hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls of heroes ..." So reads Richmond Lattimore's translation of the magnificent opening lines of Homer's Iliad. The bitter wrath of Achilles caused horrifying division and destruction. Achilles was moved by personal pique, operating within the social code of the Homeric aristocratic hero. However, he had little in him of the visionary statesman, who understands the unique potential of his people or his times. Other greater statesmen would express such feelings later, e.g., Pericles' paean of the greatness of Athens in his oration of 429 B.C.E. or Abraham Lincoln's sense of the meaning of American democracy as expressed in his debates with Stephen Douglas and in his Gettysburg Address. Achilles' passions were egocentric and destructive to others and to himself. In Western thought, the strength and power of the athlete or war_rior is glorified. People such as Achilles are admired as heroic because of their macho and their warlike deeds, with no regard to whether they behaved decently and morally. The Hebrew Bible praised physical strength and heroism (e.g., David and Samson), and Israelite armies often displayed their prowess on the field of battle. The Hebrew Scripture insists, however, that the race is not to the swift, northe battle to the strong. It is not the warrior's powers that bring victory. The winning or losing of the war is God's decision. The truest hero is the person who overcomes oppositions not by proving his macho nor by winning athletic or military contests, but by doing what is right and rejecting what is wrong. The opposition may come from the outside or it may come from barriers or weaknesses within one's own character. "To conquer one's own inclinations is 93 94 B/BllCAL STORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSEll.NG greater than conquering a city" (Proverbs 16:32). The Hebrew Bible, unlike Achilles, prizes virtues such as kindness, honesty, and peace. Still, sometimes one must be rough or deceptive or militant in order to uphold those very virtues. Sometimes we must perform angry and violent deeds in defense of greater ideals, and at such times quiet and passivity may be inappropriate. This chapter presents five biblical figures who found that the most appropriate response to their particular situatiom was to be strong and assertive, even perhaps violent. Only thus could they support the higher aims of virtue, peace, and harmony. These people would not go through life like Achilles, as machines of angry destruction. They could remain wholly loyal to their nobler purposes and their better selves. The stories discuss the zeal of Phinehas in confronting immorality; the excess of anger displayed by Simeon and Levi, who become obsessed with revenge for revenge's sake: King Saul, who first is too merciful, and then too violent; the healthy anger of Moses in protecting an innocent Israelite: and last, the story of Hezekiah and Rabshakeh, which highlights the role of anger in escaping cynicism. CONFRONTING IMMORALITY: PIIINEIIAS Biblical Narrative Zealous vengeance is an act that modern man finds very disturbing and uncivilized. So does Scripture, enjoimng its readers, "Thou shalt not take revenge." God rebuked Elijah. the great prophet. for being overly zealous. Sometimes. however. zeal and vengeance are the only effective means to handle a serious problem. Let us view two stories in which a person needed to act with zealous vengeance. In a biblical story the protagonist acted-with success. In a famous English play, the protagonist did not act-with tragic results. The biblical Hebrew word. kanai, is often translated into English as zealot, and it is used thus in Numbers 25 to describe Phinehas. However. the word "zealot" connotes an angry fanaticism while kanai implies more an unflinching dedication to do what is right even with great personal risk or hardship. This can be a very positive force. Phinehas was a grandson of Aaron, the kindly high priest who loved peace. However, in the moment of need. Phinehas's vigorous action saved perhaps thousands of lives, and indeed brought peace. Good and Bad Anger 95 Near the end of their forty years in the Sinai, the Israelites were encamped at Shittim. The Moabites, having failed to destroy them with Balaam's curses (see Chapter 9) and fearing to take arms against them, determined upon another means to destroy them. They sent their daughters to seduce Israelite men and lead them into the disgusting rites of their deity, Baal Peor. The plan seemed to be working. Many Israelite men were entrapped, and God sent a plague to punish them. Moses set up special courts to deal with the crisis, but with little apparent effect for the orgies went on and so did the plague. Then Zimri ben Salu, a pnnce of the tribe of Simeon, brought a Midianite woman through the Israelite camp, flaunting her in full view of Moses and his advisers. The two proceeded to Zimri's tent. Moses and the judges wept, perhaps from sheer frustration, but they seemed unable to stop Zimri. National disaster threatened. Then Phinehas arose. No record indicates that prior to this moment he had ever done anything noteworthy or had ever held any public position. Now, however, he saw that the plague was spreading, and that the leaders could not act. He took upon himself the great responsibility required of that moment, working completely on his own with no authorization from the leaders, although in consonance with law. Although he was not an experienced warrior, he took a spear in his hand. At great personal risk, he followed Zimri and the Midianite woman into the tent where, finding them in flagrante delicto, he thrust the spear through them both, transfixing them in a way that showed exactly what they were doing: "And he came after the Israelite man into the tent, and he speared both the Israelite man and the woman through her belly" (25:8). The result of Phinehas's "zealous" act was that the plague finally ceased after having killed 24,000 people. Phinehas was compelled by the need to honor God's name, to save lives, and to prevent a potential moral breakdown of the entire nation, not by a thirst for blood or attention. This was an act of personal growth for Phinehas as well as a great public service. Phinehas acted quickly and effectively. God confirmed Phinehas's act by establishing two covenants with him: ( 1) a "treaty of peace" (25: 12) and (2) a treaty of "everlasting priesthood" (25: 13). Phinehas now joined the rest of the family of Aaron as a full-fledged priest, serving in the tabernacle, a privilege he had not held before. This was the suitable reward for one who had brought atonement for the Israelites, which is 96 BIBLICAL STORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSEUNG one of the priest's main responsibilities. By acting as decisively as he did, Phinehas saved many lives and quieted God's anger at his people. Compare the story of Phinehas to Shakespeare's Hamlet, surely one of the towering presences of Western literature. Hamlet is given the imperative of killing his uncle, King Claudius, to avenge the murder of Hamlet's father. A man of intellect and refinement, Hamlet fails to carry out this violent duty, procrastinating and thinking too much as opportunities pass him by. "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?" (Act III, scene I). Hamlet is a noble human being, but he lacks zeal. By not killing the king quickly, Hamlet makes the situation far worse, allowing the king to set up the final scene in which Hamle.t, Laertes. the queen. and, too late, the king all meet violent deaths. Polonius and Ophelia have already died. By slaying the guilty Claudius earlier, Hamlet could have averted this tragic ending. Hamlet was a refined soul and a better swordsman than Phinehas, but his hesitation to strike when it was necessary brought all his goodness to naught and destroyed many innocent lives. Phinehas. by doing what the law required of him even though violence was not his usual way. struck the blow that stopped the plague and ultimately saved many lives and perhaps the essential character of a great world religion. Clinical Implications Modem sensibilities recoil from a story of vengeance, but this is an important story for therapists. The essence here is that Phinehas reacted and Hamlet did not. It is sometimes right and healthy to become angry. Not to become angry in the face of great wrong or danger can breed an insidious passivity that will "cast a blind eye" at all sorts of wrongs. Moreover, such inaction tends to diminish one's sense of self. It is an evasion of responsibility. This story must not be interpreted as glorifying violence or macho per se, but at times action simply must be taken, and zeal and conviction need not be a mindless fanaticism but instead represent the deepest spiritual love of God, of goodness, and of right. Patients will grow if they develop the strength and stamina to take action when it must be taken. Often, like Phinehas, patients may find themselves acting Good and Bad Anger 97 alone-but so be it. The alternative is the endless inaction and selfrecriminations of a Hamlet. TAKING REVENGE: SIMEON AND LEVI Biblical Narrative When a man is attacked, should he react violently or absorb the attack more placidly and not risk escalating the tensions? Genesis 34 provides a case. The patriarch Jacob returned with his household to Canaan after many years in Haran working for Laban, his father-inlaw. Dinah, Jacob's beautiful young daughter, wandered away from the safety of the family's camp and was abducted and raped by Shechem, the son of the local King Hamor. Shechem became very enamored of Dinah, refusing to let her go. He negotiated with Jacob for Dinah's hand in marriage as part of a general alliance between Jacob's people and the citizens of the town of Shechem. Deeply saddened and angry, Jacob kept silent until his sons came home. The sons were enraged and Simeon and Levi devised a plan to take Dinah back. They pretended to be interested in Shechem's offer, but insisted that Dinah and other women of Jacob's clan could marry only circumcised men. Pressured by their king and anxious for the al· liance, the Shechemites agreed to circumcise themselves. On the third day, when all the men were weak and in pain, Simeon and Levi entered the town and slew them all. They and their brothers then looted the town. Can such an act of revenge be justified? The brothers believed it was necessary to rescue Dinah and that to uphold their family's honor and take a just revenge would discourage others from starting up with them. Jacob was much older than his adolescent sons and had gone through many trials. Although he felt the wrong probably even more de_eply than they did, he was hesitant to use violence lest it draw upon him the anger of nearby nations and put his whole household in danger. He always abhorred violence and sought peace in his own life. Years later, he warned his sons about controlling their anger, expressed both in the story of Dinah and in the selling of Joseph. "Cursed be their anger for it is hard ..." (Genesis 49:7). Jacob did not reject Simeon and Levi or disapprove generally of using appropriate 98 BIBLJCAL STORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING force when one's well-being or one's cherished principles are threatened. He blessed Simeon and Levi among his twelve sons before his death, although warning them in strong terms that anger must be used only for good purpo~e. Clinical Implications Violence is not to be glorified in itself, nor will it serve to prove one's macho or manhood. The blessings of a just peace are certainly preferable to war, yet sometimes violence is the only way and people or nations must fight. Even so, violence should be used wisely. It is useless to strike angrily at someone physically and indeed verbally only to find that the other person can harm you far more than you can harm him or her. Also, one must be careful not to descend to the lower moral level of a threatening enemy. A patient must learn to respond to threats with neither undue violence nor undue restraint, but with practical wisdom and with a strong sense of right. MISPLACED MERCY, MISPLACED VIOLENCE: KING SAUL Biblical Narrative As it is not helpful to be tough when one should be gentle, so it can be equally unhelpful to be gentle when one should be tough. The Talmud (Yoma 22b-23a) cites King Saul as the classic example of this error, despite his greatness of character and his many accomplishments. God had commanded the Israelites, through Moses. to totally obliterate the Amalekite tribe. When Saul became the first king of Israel, this duty devolved upon him. Saul, indeed. attacked the Amalekites and won a smashing victory. However, when the prophet Samuel arrived at the army camp, he was shocked to find that the Israelites had spared not only the Amalekites' sheep and cattle but even Agag. their king. Samuel remonstrated bluntly with Saul on his failure to carry out God's clear command and then himself slew Agag. Saul could only try to excuse himself by claiming that he had merely followed the wishes Good and Bad Anger 99 of his people. Samuel then informed Saul that God would take his kingship from him and give it to someone more worthy. On a later occasion, Saul grew angry when it was reported to him by Doeg, one of his agents, that a priest of the town of Nob had supplied food and a sword to David, who at that time was fleeing from Saul. The priest had not known that the relationship between Saul and David had so deteriorated, and he had acted in good faith. Saul, however, would not accept the priest's protestations of innocence, and he ordered his men to slay all the priests of Nob. When they refused in horror, Saul turned to Doeg, who slew eighty priests. As the Talmud puts it, to King Saul's unwarranted mercies to Amalek are applied the verse in Ecclesiastes, "Do not be overly righteous" (7:16). To his treatment of the priests of Nob is applied the verse, "Be not overly wicked" (7: 17). A righteous person must be kind and forgiving and modest but not inappropriately so. Clinical Implications Consider a man who feels pushed around by his boss at work. He is totally unable to stand up to the boss but winds up displacing his anger on his wife and children when he arrives home. Feelings of anger and rage do not simply disappear. If they are not addressed to the eliciting targets, they will be displaced on innocent victims. This does not mean that anger must become violent, only that the feeling of anger needs to be expressed appropriately. PROTECTING THE INNOCENT: MOSES Biblical Narrative Moses was a deeply humble and compassionate man who had learned much of the meaning of peace and of goodness both from God's direct teaching and from his own life experience, yet he was not totally free of strong or even violent reactions. Let us view four incidents in his life. In two, his strong reaction was appropriate, but in two it was not. 100 BIBLICAL STORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING 1. Moses descended ~fount Sinai after forty days of study with God. He was bringing to the Israelite people the Ten Commandments inscribed by God on two tablets of stone. Moses walked down the mountain and saw people worshiping the golden calf, "And he saw the calf and the dancing, and Moses reacted angrily and cast the tablets from his hand, breaking them at the base of the mountain" (Exodus 32: 19). Moses' anger was in this case very suitable. The people had behaved badly, and they did not deserve the divinely made tablets. God later signaled approval of Moses' act by spending a second forty days with him on the mountain and by giving him a second set of tablets. 2. Exodus 2:11-15. Moses was raised as a prince in Pharaoh's palace, but the princess, his stepmother, had informed him of his Hebrew origin. When he grew old enough, Moses went forth to see the Hebrews oppressed in their slavery, and his heart went out to them. A certain Egyptian overseer was beating a slave. Looking around and seeing no other Egyptians, Moses killed the man and hid his body in the sand. Moses had been careless. He could accomplish nothing for the slaves by killing one taskmaster. Perhaps the taskmaster did not even deserve to be killed for beating the slave. More dangerous for Moses was that he had been careless of his own safety. Someone, perhaps one of the slaves, reported Moses' deed to Pharaoh, who sought to arrest Moses and to execute him. Moses was forced to flee Egypt. He returned many years later when God sent him to lead the Hebrew exodus from Egypt. Again, Moses' killing of the Egyptian was noble, fed by his compassion for the slaves. However, it was ill-considered in that it was too violent and, in fact, accomplished little, putting Moses in danger. 3. Many years passed. By now, Moses had long been the leader of the Israelites in the wilderness. The people came with a legitimate request for water. God told Moses to speak to a certain rock and it would bring forth water. However, feeling that the people's request was out of line and rebellious, Moses overreacted, addressing them harshly, "Hear ye rebels" (Numbers 20: 10). In his anger, Moses then smote the rock with his staff instead of speaking to it as he was commanded. God punished him by decreeing that he would not be permitted to enter the land of Israel. Good and Bad Anger JOI 4. Moses had endured many months of dealing with Pharaoh's cruelties toward the Hebrews and with his constant reneging on promises to let them depart from Egypt. After the ninth plaguedarkness-Pharaoh finally told Moses that "you will never see my face again for on the day you will see my face you shall surely die" (Exodus 10:28). Moses could deal with the frustrations and disappointments of his labors and even with the hardships and sufferings of his people, but until now there had always seemed some small hope that Pharaoh could still be dealt with peaceably and successfully. ~ow Pharaoh himself seemed to be rejecting with finality all of Moses' goodwill as well as his own human duty to the Hebrews. It seems to have pained Moses deeply to see a human being so persistent in his foolish wrongdoing and purposefully hurtling to his own self-destruction. Moses became angry-"And Moses departed in anger from before Pharaoh" (Exodus 11 :8). The Scripture give no indication that Moses' anger was in any way wrong or unjust. Clinical Implications A person must know when to show anger. Many events occur in life that are frustrating and even unjust, yet we cannot show anger in all of these instances. Sometimes, we become prisoners of our own anger, which deepens our misfortune. Other ti mes, we become trapped through trying to overcontrol our anger. Leaming when, where, and how to show anger is an important clinical lesson. ESCAPING CYNICISM: IIEZEKIAII VERSUS RABSIIAKEII Biblical Narrative Some people, unable to tolerate others' belief in goodness, have the effrontery to accuse those people of being as empty, forlorn, and cynical as they are. The story of King Hezekiah and the Assyrian Rabshakeh illustrates this pattern. It is told in 2 Kings 18-19 and again almost verbatim in Isaiah 36-37. 102 BlBllCAL STORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING King Hezekiah of Judah was a man of great ability and of noble character, known especially as one who trusted in God (2 Kings 18:5). In Hezekiah's time Judah remained one of the few countries that had not yet been conquered by the growing might of Assyria and its cruel and aggressive armies. Finally, after much political and military exchange, the Assyrian King Sennacherib invaded Judah and set about conquering its cities. Soon little more than Jerusalem remained. Hezekiah strengthened the city defenses and tried to buy time by paying Sennacherib a heavy tribute of gold and silver. Still, the Assyrians came on, and a powerful army was soon encamped around Jerusalem. Three high-level Assyrian leaders were sent to parley, and Hezekiah dispatched three of his advisers to meet them. The Assyrian Rabshakeh (this was a title, not a personal name) addressed not only Hezekiah's representatives but also the Judeans standing on the walls. He spoke in a loud clear voice and in the Hebrew language so that all could understand. Many scholars believe that Rabshakeh was a renegade J udean because of his apparent know ledge of both Judah's language and religion. His speech was deeply threatening and highly cynical. He first attacked directly the deep faith that was central to Hezekiah's personal thought and to his governing: "And Rabshakeh said to them ... 'What trust is this in which you have trusted .... ;\low on whom do you trust that you have rebelled against me?'" (Isaiah 36:4-5). He argued first that Judah certainly could not rely for help on Egypt for Egypt is but a "broken reed" (Isaiah 36:6). Then he attacked the whole idea of faith in God and accused Hezekiah of forfeiting God's support by his iniquities. "But if you say no to me: We trust in the Lord our God; is it not He whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah has taken away" (36:7). Hezekiah had indeed removed the illegal private altars so that people would offer sacrifices only in the Jerusalem temple. In this. Hezekiah had followed the teachings of the Pentateuch and of the prophets of his own day, but Rabshakeh cynically twisted this around. presenting Hezekiah as ignoring true religion to build the prestige of his own capital city, thus making Hezekiah no different from any pagan king. Rabshakeh may have been seeking to arouse support among Judeans who opposed removal of the private altars. Hezekiah's deep and sincere piety was projected as an expression of cynical self-promotion. Judah was being ravaged because of Hezekiah's impiety, not despite his piety. Good and Bad Anger 103 Rabshakeh went on. Resistance to Assyria would be useless, for her power was too great, and God favored her too--"Have I now then come without God upon this land to destroy it? God said to me, 'Go up against this land and destroy it'" (36: I 0). Finalfy Rabshakeh revealed his own total disdain for faith and indeed for God himself. (He mockingly used the word abtkha, trust or faith, seven times in his speech, in an attempt to denigrate Hezekiah's real sense of faith.) We have conquered many nations, and their gods could not help them, said Rabshakeh. "Who among all the gods of these lands saved their land from my hand that your God will save Jerusalem from my hand?" (36:20). This world is ruled by power and the Assyrians are more powerful than gods. Hezekiah had done what he could to prepare Jerusalem's defenses for the war, and now that the moment of decision had come, he knew exactly what to do next. He put on sackcloth, and went to the temple to pray and sent word to Isaiah the prophet to ask for his help. To Hezekiah, the contest was not only over Jerusalem but also over the cynical boasting and threats of Rabshakeh-"It may be that the Lord your God will hear the words of Rabshakeh whom the king of Assyria his master has sent to taunt the living God" (37:4). Hezekiah's own prayer to God centered on his belief that the Assyrians had conquered many lands and burned their gods. They did not realize that those gods were false, nor did they realize that it was now the true God with whom they were warring (37:20). "Now therefore, Lord our God, save us from his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth will know that you alone are God." This was not an appeal to God's vanity. It was a hope that this was an opportunity for people to come to recognize God's rule over the world, which is the main purpose of human history. God's answer came through Isaiah. All that had happened is part of God's plan for the world. The Assyrians boasted that their conquest and power proved their greatness. However, in truth, all that was happening, the whole war, was from God. "Have you not heard? Long ago I made it; from the.earliest days I formed it. Now I have brought it to pass. Let tt be so that fortified cities should turn into desolate ruins" (37:36). God struck Sennacherib's army with a plague and 185,000 men died in one night. Sennacherib abandoned the siege of Jerusalem and returned to Nineveh, his capital, where his own sons stabbed him to death (37:38). 104 BJBLJCAL STORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSEllNG Clinical Implications It is often tempting to project a worldly cynicism to protect oneself from hurt or disappointment. "I didn't really expect anything," one might say, "and you are naive to have hope." This can extend to protecting oneself from rejection in love and failure in work. From such a vantage point, hope seems naive, faith is to be dismissed, and love is illusory. Goodness is merely weakness, and right and truth are determined by might. The difficulty is that the cynical response sounds so much more sophisticated. Mistrust sounds so much more worldly and smart than trust, and negativity sounds so much more rooted in experience than optimism. Indeed, the sense of the tragic seems to reflect a deeper vision than a hopeful stance. A biblical approach to therapy suggests that the opposite is true. Hope in the face of all the onslaughts of life may, in fact, represent a clearer and deeper vision than the tragic. The things that cannot be seen may be even more important than those that can be. This does not mean that patients should be encouraged to act foolishly or to put their lives at risk through meaningless and illusory attempts to illustrate power and freedom. True freedom can come only from putting oneself in God's hands and relinquishing a need to control everything in the environment. True freedom allows one to experience a sense of awe in the wonders of the world. Chapter 6 Various Disorders INTRODUCTION "unfortunately," writes critic Stanley Crouch in an article about jazz great Louis Armstrong (2000, Part 2, p. 16), "our aesthetic sense of tragedy and comedy, sorrow and happiness, derived from the Greeks, has convinced us that spiritual affliction is a more serious subject than spiritual exultation." Many humorous activities that can produce joy, be uplifting, and promote personal growth can be garbled and distorted so that they give instead pain, anger, and frustration, which deplete and stifle the human spirit. They feed into human tragedy not into man's natural love of life. The Bible enjoins that people should "serve God with joy and awe" and "rejoice before Him with trembling" (Psalms 2: 11 ). Let people focus not on the tragic view of life but on life's bounties and opportunities. In all human activities, it helps immensely to have a clear and positive perspective and to understand both one's responsibilities and potential. People can handle problems and not be crushed by them. This section highlights the stories of five biblical characters whose lives were disrupted by their inability to deal with matters that should have been simple and joyous. Many are problems that involve ordinary day-to-day matters-eating, drinking, working, having sex, and acquiring possessions. Common to all these stories is an inability to establish boundaries around the self and to regulate walls between the self and the outside world in healthy ways. Food, work, sex, and material possessions all have their proper place. They can be enjoyed in a fruitful and positive way and can enhance a person's life. Taken to excess, however, they can poison and make one a captive of an obsession or addiction. 105 106 BIBUCAL STORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSEUNG The story of Adam and Eve approaches the problem of an eating disorder. The second story, Noah, discusses drunkenness and the disrespect that often results from it. The third story, again of Adam, offers a distinction between healthy work in service of a transcendent goal and workaholism. The fourth, Cain, deals with being unrealistically overwhelmed by a heavy burden. Finally, the story of manna distinguishes hoarding from enjoying. OVERCOMING EATING DISORDERS: ADAM AND EVE VERSUS ERYSICIITHON Biblical Narrative Eating disorders include a wide range of problems from dangerous anorexia to being a few pounds overweight, and they have become highly noticeable in modern society. A report in 1999 claimed that since the introduction of television in several of the South Pacific lslands a few years earlier, the number of eating disorders there had increased fivefold. However, eating disorders are not an mvention of modern civilization. Ancient literature also features stories of anorexia, overeating, and the like. The Bible offers its own approach to eating. and there is a striking difference between the story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit and the Greek myth of Erysichthon, who ate himself. Several motifs in the two stories are indeed amazingly similar, yet the stories offer totally different views on eating. Erysichthon, as portrayed by Ovid in his Metamorphoses, wickedly chopped down an old huge tree that was sacred to Ceres, the goddess of grain. Ceres punished him by giving him an insatiable appetite. The more Erysichthon ate, the hungrier he became. He finally sold his own daughter for food. However, with Neptune's help, she changed her form and escaped her slavery. When Erysichthon learned that she had this ability. he continued to sell her over and over. Even this. however, did not supply him with enough food, and he finally devoured himself. Similar to the Genesis story of the Garden of Eden. this story includes an attack on an important tree and a problem involving eating, but here the similarities end. Adam and Eve were not angry and hostile. They did not chop down a sacred tree, although they did yield Varwus Disorders 107 to temptation and ate the forbidden fruit. Also, no deity tried to help or rehabilitate Erysichthon, as God did to Adam and Eve. Food was the medium of punishment for Erysichthon. Adam and Eve sinned by once eating forbidden food, but they were not punished with selfdestruction through food. They could still eat well and enjoy food, al. though they had to work harder for it. "By the sweat of your brow, you shall eat bread" (Genesis 3: 19), but they could indeed have good food. Production and the preparation of food became one way for people to express their creativity and to enjoy God's bounty. Erysichthon was then unlike Adam and Eve. He was an angry, vicious man who destroyed everything around him: ( 1) the sacred tree, (2) a man who tried to stop him from attacking the tree, (3) his daughter, and (4) himself. Adam and Eve were not inherently wicked. Their act of eating the fruit was propelled perhaps by misguided sensuality or philosophy, but not by depraved hostility or cruelty. Indeed, Erysichthon resembled more closely the serpent in the Garden of Eden, who sought to destroy Adam and Eve with no tangible benefit to himself beyond the false thrill of causing trouble for them. The serpent's end too was similar to Erysichthon's. He would crawl on his belly, which seems to indicate that after having induced the people to sin through eating he would himself never enjoy the full pleasures of the belly (i.e., joy in eating). For both Erysichthon and the serpent, eating is a punishment, for they can never enjoy it or be satisfied with it. "On your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life" (Genesis 3: 14). The Greek myth offers no resolution to Erysichthon's eating problem except his self-destruction. The Bible's response is very different. God intervenes in the manner of an expert therapist, not only to save Adam and Eve, but also to relax the strain that had developed in their relationship. The Bible develops the approach that eating, like all activities of this earth, should be sanctified and made into a form of service to God. Physical pleasure can enhance human holiness. Thus the Bible ordains that some foods may be eaten while others are prohibited, and people must express gratitude to God for their food (e.g., Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 8: 10). Eating is a form of expressing and contributing to the joy of life and of marking special occasions such as Sabbaths and festivals. Both the nutrition and the pleasure of eating offer people a means of enjoying and sanctifying God's creation and their role in it. 108 BIBIJCAL STORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELJNG Clinical Implications The Bible's approach to food has great practical significance for treatment of eating disorders. Eating must not stem from aggression or loneliness nor should withholding of eating be used as an attempt to establish boundaries. In these cases the underlying attitude toward eating is destructive, and this negativity will be manifested in the eating disorders. A healthy individual approaches food in the context of one's entire life. It can and should be enjoyed without descending to gluttony. Likewise, one may eat moderately and keep to a desired weight without vomiting what is eaten. One can have a healthy appetite without degenerating into insatiable hunger. One can eat moderately without starving to death. A good therapist will approach eating disorders by seeking to change underlying attitudes to food that are projections of a miserable and unfulfilled personality. For a healthy individual, eating becomes a means of social and spiritual communication. DRUNKENNESS AND DISRESPECT: NOAH Biblical Narrative The story in Genesis 9 of Noah's drunkenness and the insult from Ham and Canaan, his son and grandson, presents a number of important themes: (I) a picture of Noah as the survivor of a world catastrophe, (2) the problems of substance abuse, and (3) father-son relations. We shall look at another aspect-how to relate to the human body and especially to nakedness. This story takes on increased significance in an age when the Internet has added new dimensions to the use of pornography. Leaving the ark after the great flood had receded, Noah turned to farming, which he had always loved, and he planted a vineyard (Genesis 5:29 and 9:20). When the grapes ripened, he made wine, and he drank himself into a deep sleep. His son Ham came into the tent and saw his father sleeping drunk and naked "in the middle of his tent," which might mean not on a bed but on the floor. "And Ham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father, and he told his two brothers outside" (Genesis 9:22). Instead of helping his father m his debased condition, Ham and his son Canaan mocked and degraded Various Disorders 109 :-.l'oah. They acted with a distinct lack of respect for a human being. Ham may well have been expressing his own low self-image by seeking to bring Noah down to his own level of misery. Nakedness is not frequent in the Hebrew Bible, and modesty of dress has been normative in Jewish tradition through the ages. The ancient Israelites did not show any known interest in depicting the naked body in portraits or statues. The human body, in biblical teaching, was created by God and, although man may do evil with his body, the body is inherently good and can accomplish many good things. Modesty guards the sanctity of the body and of human sexuality. Ham, however, sought to capitalize on Noah's nakedness and vulnerability to demean him. Shem and Japheth, Noah's other sons, heard Ham's story and brought a cloak to cover Noah. They entered the room backward and covered him without seeing his nakedness. They showed the respect that Ham did not. All this contrasts with classical Greek art, which gloried in nakedness, whether the sublime beauty of the statues by Phidias and Praxiteles or the exhibitionist paintings of vulgar figures and obscene acts on drinking vessels. Particularly in the latter, the human body and sexuality are treated not as sacred but as hostile, insensitive, and grotesquely physical. Sexual intercourse becomes a means to proclaim one's manhood by degrading and dominating others, not to achieve greater intimacy and commitment and certainly not to create. Sexuality was widely associated with orgiastic phallic cults and with drunkenness (e.g., Dionysus). These cults may have arisen to some extent due to an innate need to seek a nobler expression of sexuality. They did not succeed, however. Greek mythology recounts numerous stories of gods committing rape. The Greeks, in a sense, rendered fearful homage to drives that they would not control or sublimate. Sexuality in this form cannot be fulfilling, and the physical cannot connect maturely with the emotional or spiritual. By requiring modesty of dress and behavior, and indeed perhaps even by the practice of circumcision, the Hebrew Bible offers the means to sublimate and redirect physical drives into a mature pattern of life and to find fulfillment in a sexuality that focuses on intimacy and mutual respect. In our story, Noah blessed the respect for a fellow human being that Shem and Japheth showed even to a person in a debased condition. He cursed the poor behavior shown by Ham and Canaan, who 110 BIBLJCAL STORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSEJlNG found in human lowliness and nakedness a reason to show disrespect to a fellow human being. Clinical Implications This story is important for modern society, which is oversexed but unsatisfied. Nakedness between two lovers should be an essential means of establishing intimate knowledge. It is a private act and deeply personal, and the very opposite of the public exhibitionism and exploitation of the human body. A therapist must help patients to accept their own bodies and care for them respectfully as temples of the soul. They must not mutilate or disfigure them in any way. On the other hand, they must not glorify their bodies at the expense of good character. Such worship of the physical becomes almost idolatrous. Our society's obsession with sex is an outright denial of the deep sexual component of human relations. A therapist must help patients feel comfortable in their physical beings without becoming obsessed by seeming physical perfection and symmetry at the expense of the spiritual. The biblical approach to therapy would insist that the patient learn to harmonize body and soul. The two are indispensably unified. Trying to sever this unity leads to disaster. WORK VERSUS WORKAHOLISM: ADAM Biblical Narrative Labor unions and workers' strikes are thought of as part of twentieth-century history. It may be surprising then to learn that a very ancient Mesopotamian epic, Atrahasis, tells· the story of a strike. The Igigi gods had labored 3,600 years digging canals. Physically and emotionally spent, they finally smashed their tools, surrounded the palace of the Annunaki gods, and threatened violence if they did not obtain relief. The attempt to achieve some suitable balance between work and leisure appears often through history, and many Americans have trouble effecting this harmony between work and play. Such imbalance can lead to workaholism or to the neglect of responsibilities, to the extremes of the work ethic or of the life of total leisure, which are really two sides of the same coin. Various Disorders Ill The Hebrew Bible discusses the issue of work in its very earliest chapters. God placed the first people in the Garden of Eden to "work it and to guard it" (Genesis 2: 15), though not to work all day every day on backbreaking labors as the Igigi did. God had already established the principle that people should work six days and cease to work on the seventh, just as he had created the world in six days and rested on the seventh (2: 1-3). In those first days of history, people did indeed work. In that beautiful garden. the physical burden was not crushing and people had ample opportunity for study and for personal growth. When, after eating the forbidden fruit, the people were sent out of the Garden of Eden. their work became harder. They could plant their crops and often harvest little more than thorm, and thistles (3: 18): yet, their work could also be creative and joyful. For they did not have to eat only what nature offered ("the herbs of the field," 3: 18). but with creative effort they could produce bread and other wonderful and enjoyable things-"By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread" (3: 19). This statement offers humans an opportunity, not a curse. Work can continue to be a means of expressing God-given creativity and of producing enjoyable things, thereby becoming a means of blessing and not merely a crushing burden. The Scripture outlines many ideas and laws on these topics of work and rest-the weekly Sabbath and the Sabbatical year and the many rules on how to manage one's employees. The essential point is that work is not merely a way to earn great sums of money. More important, both work and rest become ways to sanctify one's life and to come close to God. Although God does want us to work, we must learn that success comes from God, not directly as a result of our labor. When we understand and accept this, we are free to create and grow, and we learn to leave other burdens to God. Clinical Implications Modern human beings hold an ambivalent attitude to work. We seem obsessed with it, not out of an intrinsic love for the process of creativity but almost out of a compulsion to work for work's sake. However, we cannot wait to retire, to enter an equally polarized life of leisure for leisure's sake. Totally lost in this polarity is the biblical connection of work and rest both rising from a deeper purpose. The 112 B1B11CAL STORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSEJJNG therapist must instill in the patient a desire to work for some significant purpose. which has the intrinsic meaning of allowing an expression of creativity. One must also rest and refresh oneself from the rigors of work, but rest does not simply mean mindless leisure in which the inner self is lost. Rest must be part of the entire human enterprise as a pause, which is itself part of one's life's work. Such a stance would do much to overcome the workaholic/playaholic cycle in modern society, which compartmentalizes a soulless work and a mindless play. The therapist must inculcate in the patient a psychological sabbath-a pause to rejuvenate one's strength. UNREALISTICAUY IIEA VY BURDENS: C'AIN Biblical Narrative The Hebrew Bible is a great book with many varied interpretations. Here is another view of Cain, which uncovers a wholly different slant on that important story. We all complain occasionally about being overworked, having too much to do, and being stressed. For some people, however, everything in life appears to be an unbearably heavy burden. They may acquire many things, but they do not seem able to enjoy them ~asily. Relationships for them are typically more burdensome than easy and loving. They may have a strong-even punitive-sense ofresponsibility, but often they overburden themselves with matters for which they have no moral or social obligation. This can result in not being properly able to fulfill duties that they truly should fulfill. Cain, the first son of Adam and Eve, was a man of many strengths and abilities. However, as he grew up he became deeply enmeshed and dependent on the land he farmed so that it was difficult for him to give of himself or to relate lovingly, especially to his brother, Abel. Both Cain's actions and his conversations with God in Genesis 4 reveal much of his view of the world. First, he decided to bring an offering to God. This in itself was a fine gesture. However, Cain also saw the sacrifice as a heavy burden so that he did not do it wholeheartedly and did not give his best produce. God was displeased with Cain's approach and spoke to him-but mildly, in very careful phrases, Varwus Disorders 113 Why are you angry? And why is your countenance fallen? If you do well, shall you not be uplifted; and if you do not do well, sin couches at the door, and unto you is its desire, but you may rule over it. (4:6-7) It was not important for Cain to offer a particular sacrifice but simply to do well, God told him. However, Cain, as usual, had not done what he demanded of himself, and he became very distraught and hostile. God tried to make Cain understand that it was necessary for him only to d,o as well as he could, "If you do well, will (you) not be raised up?'' Cain, however, could not really understand that; he thought that God was demanding too much of him, overburdened as he already was. He reacted with intense anger by killing Abel. Then, when God again tried to approach him, Cain expressed his distraught state by lashing out at God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" (4:9). Cain's words belied his thoughts-Why do you expect me to carry the burden of being my brother's keeper? Cain's hostility toward Abel was, at least in part, the result of his mistaken feeling that he alone was saddled with the responsibility of being Abel's guardian. In hopes of breaking through Cain's destructive pattern, God finally told him that he could no longer till his land but must wander away from it. Cain responded in a phrase that expressed again the terrible burden under which he saw himself living. Similar to the Greek Atlas, Cain feels he bears the world on his shoulders-"Greater is my sin than I can bear" (4: 13 ). The sin was not only great. It was "greater than he could beai' Cain then went on to voice another debilitating concern. People will hate him and reject him. Cain's set of personal problems was closely connected to his inherent feelings of rejection. God's reaction to his offering may have exacerbated those feelings, and now even his land, in a sense, rejected him. People too will hate him. Behold, You have driven me today from the face of the land and from before you I shall be hidden, and I will be a vagabond and a wanderer in the land and whoever will find me will slay me. (4: 14) Cain was crying out to God from the mire of rejection in which he was wallowing. So God gave him a sign, not a sign of Cain's evil deed but one that showed God cares for him and will protect him and did 114 B/BJJCAL STORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSEIJIVG not reject him even after his great crime. However, Cain must try to change. It seems likely that he did change, inasmuch as he went on to a productive life-had a family and even built a city (4: 17). His descendants were very creative and successful, inventing new technologies and forms of music {4:20-22). God tried to help Cain face his problems realistically. When Cain was unwilling or unable to handle this, God changed tactics, altering Cain's lifestyle while giving him a show of support by means of a sign. Clinical Implications Our society often confuses laborious, unpleasant tasks with serious work. Enjoying what one does seems to be a sign that it is not serious. Work must be onerous and performed under great pressure. The Bible offers a different view, suggesting that such an attitude may be rooted in passive aggression. We should instead learn to work in a way that suits our own personalities. If we see our giving as being an unrealistic burden, we may not be giving the right thing in the right way. If we are truly giving of ourselves, the sense of burden will lift, and underlying resentment will dissipate. We must learn that it can feel good to express ourselves by giving of ourselves. This is an important lesson in this highly depersonalized world. HOARDING OR ENJOYING: MANNA Biblical Narrative People all too easily lapse into thinking that success is measurable in the accumulation of wealth and material objects. What matters more is that one should enjoy what one does have, using it wisely to pursue useful goals. Wealth can help one to live a more complete life, but one cannot place reliance or trust in money instead of in God. The Israelites ended their long enslavement in Egypt and went to freedom in the wilderness of Stnai. Freedom was wonderful, but it carried with it many adjustments to new responsibilities. People be- Varwus Disorders 115 gan to worry about how they would eat, although they had many cattle and other food supplies with them. They even remembered somewhat overfondly how they "sat by the meat pots as we filled up with bread" (Exodus 16:3). Certainly this was an illusion, for slaves in Egypt did not eat well. God now promised that, "I will rain down to you bread from the heavens, and the people will go out and gather each day's portion that day, so that I will try him whether he will go with my Law or not" (16:4). This food, or manna as it was called, would cover the ground around the camp, and each person would gather what the household needed for that day, one omer per person. Even if they tried to collect more or less than they needed, they would still find, upon returning to their tents, that they had one omer for each member of the household (16: 18). Moses had an additional instruction-"Let no one leave over from it till morning" ( 16: 19). God was providing food for the Israelites in a miraculous manner, and he was also providing an important lesson about the meaning of work. God does want people to work and be productive; however, the relationship between work and income is more apparent than real. One's sustenance is provided by God not by one's own labor. God gives everyone what he wants them to have. People should use and enjoy God's bounty and should not hoard up for tomorrow. Certainly, in the long run they will not "take it with them." A man might save up wealth and end up leaving it to people he does not like, perhaps even his wife's next hm,band. Some Israelites did not listen to Moses and tried to save some manna overnight only to awaken the next morning and find "that it was rotten with worms and it stank" ( 16:20). The first lesson of the manna then was that hoarding is counterproductive to the real purpose of working and possessing. Conversely, one day in the week, Friday. people were supposed to gather a double portion of manna. The added manna was needed because none would be provided on Saturday- the Sabbath. On the Sabbath, people would eat from the double amount gathered on the previous day. The people were to learn that they must not hoard and then they were to learn that sometimes planning is necessary. All this would depend on the realistic needs of the moment. In any case, the purpose of earning is not unending acquisition for its own sake. It is to fulfill God's will in this world. 116 B1B11CALSTORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSEUNG Clinical Implications The acquisition of material goods is important to enhance the enjoyment of life. Having enough food in the house is important. Likewise, having financial security can ease one's mind. The problem arises when the individual is done in by the process of acquisition. The aim of enjoyment becomes distorted into hoarding the material itself. No level of security is enough; the individuals need to put more aside, far more than they will ever need, and they will never enjoy it. The idea of "saving for a rainy day" is betrayed. The rainy day never comes but the present sunny days are obscured by the fear of rain clouds. The therapist must work with a patient such as this to achieve a deeper kind of security, somewhat independent of material possessions. Chapter 7 Overcoming Family Problems INTRODUCTION A striking difference emerges in the patterns of biblical and Greek families. The biblical matriarchs were devoted both to their husbands and to the raising of their children as continuations of the covenant with God. They intervened strongly and successfully in family affairs and were profoundly important in maintaining both the high quality of the covenental relationship and the unity within the family. The Bible and the rabbinic writings regard women as equal and sometimes superior to their husbands in spirituality and in prophecy. Through the various vicissitudes and disagreements of the lives of the founding families, the husbands and wives were able to support and enjoy each other while carrying out the duties that God had placed upon them. The children in these families grew up in a milieu where fulfillment was not found in narcissistic acquisition of goods nor by destroying their relatives. Instead, satisfaction was found in a steady development toward building a nation with a unique theocentric unity. This development was affirmed anew in each generation by the fathers blessing the children. Of course, there were some sad failures in biblical families too. Abimelech, the son of Gideon and his concubine, murdered all but one of his seventy brothers in an attempt to become ruler. Perhaps his outsider status left him feeling unblessed by his father (Judges 9:5). In David's family, David's son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar. Amnon was then murdered by Absalom, another son. Absalom later led a revolt agairn,t David. Another son of David, Adonijah, tried to seize the throne from Solomon, the designated successor, and was put to death. The text explains that David did not sufficiently discipline him ( 1 Kings I). David still managed to build a line of royal succession that ruled Judah for over four centuries until the Babylonian con117 118 BIBUCALSTORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSEUNG quests. Some of the Davi die kings were outstanding personalities, including Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others. The narrative of Oedipus illustrates an important principle in the Greek family. As the father recedes as a threat, previously repressed sibling rivalry and hatred becomes free to emerge. This is because the earlier banding together of the sons was not done out of any filial love or mutuality of purpose, but out of a devil's pact against the murderous father. Consider, for example, the story of Castor and Pollux, half brothers who, by all accounts, seem to get along quite well with each other. Perhaps no paternal threat exists. Nevertheless, their friendship seems to be without purpose. They join in adventures that typically involve violent exploits such as rape ortheft. This type of bonding through violence is exactly what Jacob criticizes in Simeon and Levi. Castor and Pollux do nothing to build families in which to raise future generations. The children they beget are generally born of rapes and casual relationships (Apollodorus iii, 1. 2). Five family narratives are presented in this section. The story of Rachel and Jacob explores how a husband and wife can learn to trust each other even if the relationship was formed in a deceitful manner. Achan's story shows the impossibility of successfully covering up a family problem rather than dealing with it. The story of David and Bathsheba returns to the problem of how to overcome a less than honorable beginning of a relationship. The fourth story, that of Rebecca. Isaac, and Eliezer, discusses the qualities that should be involved in a healthy approach to mate selection, since choosing a mate wisely goes a long way toward having a happy family. Finally, the story of Boaz and Ruth illustrates how mutuality of kindnesses can lead to a deep bond between partners. FORGIVING DECEIT: RACHEL AND JACOB Biblical Narrative Mate selection, to be successful, need not be a clear-moving, unruffled process with no problems or imperfections. Facing great troubles in his own life, but at the same time working toward God's prom- ise of a great future. Jacob found a woman of unusual compassion, whom he grew to love very deeply. The road to marriage and after, Overcoming Family Problems 119 however, was beset with many difficulties. The story of Jacob finding his wife (actually his four wives) parallels his parents' story in several motifs. Jacob too journeyed from Canaan eastward and met his future wife by the well in Haran, yet the stories are different in important ways. Eliezer had traveled as a representative of a wealthy family, his camels laden with good things. Jacob left his father's home as a fugitive, fleeing his brother Esau, who had threatened to kill him because of the paternal blessing that he accused Jacob of stealing from him (Genesis 27:41 ). Jacob came to Haran alone and without worldly possessions. Poor as he may have been in worldly goods at that moment, Jacob's soul had been greatly buoyed by his wonderful dream (28: 1Of). He saw a ladder with its top reaching into the heavens and angels going up and down on it. Standing above the ladder, God promised Jacob that he would bless him in all his endeavors and that he would be the father to a great nation. Jacob would find great trials ahead, but this vision greatly uplifted him. After a long journey, hearrived at Haran and stood before the well. Jacob was a man of great intellect and deep feeling. Certainly, he knew the story of Eliezer's visit to Haran and to that very well. ~ow this same scene aroused in Jacob thoughts of his mother and also symbolized to him at many levels God's promises of his great spiritual and historical future. The shepherds, with three flocks of sheep, were gathered waiting for more shepherds to come, for it took a number of men to move the large stone that covered the well. Jacob inquired about his Uncle Laban, Rebecca's brother, and was told that Laban's daughter, Rachel, was approaching with her sheep. While they were still talking, Rachel came near. After all his trials, the sight of Rachel by the well aroused in Jacob the longing for home, family, and, above all, his mother, Rebecca, to whom he was especially close (25:28). And it was when Jacob saw Rachel, the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the flocks of Laban his mother's brother, and he [Jacob] drew near and rolled the stone off the mouth of the well and watered the flocks of Laban his mother's brother. (29: 10) Three times the Scripture mentions the connection to Rebecca. Rachel must have stood in amazement, watching the stranger perform so prodigious a feat of strength as to move the stone by himself. Jacob, 120 BIBLICAL STORIES FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING however, was using not only muscle power but deep spiritual inspiration. Rachel must have been amazed too as he gave water to her sheep and then came over and kissed her and broke into loud weeping. Jacob was a strong and thoughtful personality who could see Rachel's beauty both in her form and in her character, yet he recognized that the future held many uncertainties and that her beauty too would one day waste in the earth (to use the Talmudic expression). Regaining his self-control, Jacob then explained that he was her father's nephew and Rebecca's son (29: 12). Jacob stayed with Laban and later agreed to work for him for seven years after which he would marry Rachel. Rachel was a very beautiful girl; however, this was not the only factor in Jacob's mind. Indeed, Scripture first mentions her beauty only somewhat later (29: 17). More important, Rachel was very nurturing. Jacob could see this in the way she handled her sheep (29: I 0). She had a special love for children too and her years of barrenness later before the birth of her sons Joseph and Benjamin were very trying to her. She also showed an ability to let Jacob care for her. Jacob was perhaps much like Rebecca in this ability to take the initiative in caring for others. When Jacob came to the well at Haran, it was he who watered the sheep, and later when Rachel despaired over her childlessness, it was Jacob to whom she turned for help (30: I). Rebecca, likewise infertile in the first years of her own marriage, had prayed to God for herself just as Isaac, her hu