After seeing this article in the Daily Mail about the burgoning rat population in New York City, I only have one thing to say:
The rat race is over.
The rats won.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Statcounter
Friday, October 23, 2015
Monday, October 19, 2015
Manic Monday: Liberal and conservative frustration . . .
I'm a conservative, which means I believe that Americans are smart enough to run their own lives without all that much help from the goverment. Government is needed to protect the public safety and provide certain public services.
I disagree with those who "lean left" about the role of government in certain areas, like health insurance, Social Security, environmental protection, and others. But I also admit to some frustrations with both sides of the aisle.
There are people who need health insurance and who will either go bankrupt from trying to pay for health care or die without it. How do they get insurance if they're unemployed or can't afford to pay the premiums? That was one of the points of the Affordable Care Act, to get insurance into the hands of those that needed it. What I objected to was the way it was pushed through Congress. Also, I think trying to address so many health care issues in one bill was biting off more than one could chew. One thing I would have liked to have seen in the bill was the ability to buy health insurance across state lines, which may have made obtaining health insurance easier.
And there are people who are disabled and can't work, or who can only work in certain jobs. I know families who deal with seriously disabled members--people with cerebral palsy, or severe autism, or severe mental illness, or Lou Gehrig's disease . . . I could make an endless list. How do you get medical treatment for these people? And how do you support the caregivers of these families?
The IRS, TSA, and EPA are probably the most hated governmental agencies in America. There are legitimate concerns about all three of them--overreaching authority, audits that might not be necessary, patting down people that don't need to be patted down, and other concerns. But there are people who cheat on their taxes, or who innocently have made mistakes and need help. The environment does need to be cared for, because dirty air, dirty water, contaminated land--all of them are health hazards. (And as a Christian, I am called to be a good steward of what has been entrusted to my care.) And, as much as we might not like to think about it, there are terrorists out there who want to kill Americans, on American soil, and we do need to find them before they can do their job.
On the other hand, we have 18 trillion dollars in debt, and it's fast rising. Social Security, Medicaid, and other government programs eventually will run out of money. You can tax and tax all you want, but unless Congress gets out of the habit of spending more than they receive, none of the financial problems of the US will be solved.
Neither liberals nor conservatives seem willing to work with each other to solve the problems we're facing. Nor do they seem to be willing to crawl into the other side's skin to try and see things from the other point of view, lest they be accused of "compromising". Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, while they disagreed with each other philosophically, had drinks together. At least they were willing to work together. When was the last time John Boehner and Barack Obama had drinks together?
I'm frustrated with both sides of the aisle, which is why I often think, "A plague on both your parties!" Both sides of the aisle make decisions about which I can do nothing, yet I have to live with many of the consequences of those decisions. As do the rest of us.
Is there just no way for both sides to work together without one side completely caving to the other, or one side being accused of "compromise" with the other side?
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
I disagree with those who "lean left" about the role of government in certain areas, like health insurance, Social Security, environmental protection, and others. But I also admit to some frustrations with both sides of the aisle.
There are people who need health insurance and who will either go bankrupt from trying to pay for health care or die without it. How do they get insurance if they're unemployed or can't afford to pay the premiums? That was one of the points of the Affordable Care Act, to get insurance into the hands of those that needed it. What I objected to was the way it was pushed through Congress. Also, I think trying to address so many health care issues in one bill was biting off more than one could chew. One thing I would have liked to have seen in the bill was the ability to buy health insurance across state lines, which may have made obtaining health insurance easier.
And there are people who are disabled and can't work, or who can only work in certain jobs. I know families who deal with seriously disabled members--people with cerebral palsy, or severe autism, or severe mental illness, or Lou Gehrig's disease . . . I could make an endless list. How do you get medical treatment for these people? And how do you support the caregivers of these families?
The IRS, TSA, and EPA are probably the most hated governmental agencies in America. There are legitimate concerns about all three of them--overreaching authority, audits that might not be necessary, patting down people that don't need to be patted down, and other concerns. But there are people who cheat on their taxes, or who innocently have made mistakes and need help. The environment does need to be cared for, because dirty air, dirty water, contaminated land--all of them are health hazards. (And as a Christian, I am called to be a good steward of what has been entrusted to my care.) And, as much as we might not like to think about it, there are terrorists out there who want to kill Americans, on American soil, and we do need to find them before they can do their job.
On the other hand, we have 18 trillion dollars in debt, and it's fast rising. Social Security, Medicaid, and other government programs eventually will run out of money. You can tax and tax all you want, but unless Congress gets out of the habit of spending more than they receive, none of the financial problems of the US will be solved.
Neither liberals nor conservatives seem willing to work with each other to solve the problems we're facing. Nor do they seem to be willing to crawl into the other side's skin to try and see things from the other point of view, lest they be accused of "compromising". Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, while they disagreed with each other philosophically, had drinks together. At least they were willing to work together. When was the last time John Boehner and Barack Obama had drinks together?
I'm frustrated with both sides of the aisle, which is why I often think, "A plague on both your parties!" Both sides of the aisle make decisions about which I can do nothing, yet I have to live with many of the consequences of those decisions. As do the rest of us.
Is there just no way for both sides to work together without one side completely caving to the other, or one side being accused of "compromise" with the other side?
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Family Friday: Birthday
I am 52 today, and I've spent the day enjoying myself.
Things are challenging . . . but I am still alive!
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Things are challenging . . . but I am still alive!
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Little footprints
"In 900 years of time and space, I've never met anyone who wasn't important." -- The Doctor, "Doctor Who"
This month is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month. Today, specifically, is set aside to remember those who were a moment on this earth but forever in the hearts of those who loved them.
Some years ago, I "met" a woman on CafeMom, a social media site, who was grieving the loss of twins. She lost one of the twins early in her pregnancy and then lost the other to a stillbirth. Later, she became a Facebook friend and once told me, "No one ever remembers."
She's no longer on Facebook, but I've always remembered her saying that. So I want someone to remember.
Here are those I remember:
This month is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month. Today, specifically, is set aside to remember those who were a moment on this earth but forever in the hearts of those who loved them.
Some years ago, I "met" a woman on CafeMom, a social media site, who was grieving the loss of twins. She lost one of the twins early in her pregnancy and then lost the other to a stillbirth. Later, she became a Facebook friend and once told me, "No one ever remembers."
She's no longer on Facebook, but I've always remembered her saying that. So I want someone to remember.
Here are those I remember:
Anna
Ana
Bobbie Lee
Caley
Cecile
Daniel
Grace
Hope C.
Hope K.
Ian
John
William
June
Sarah
Grace
Taylor
I know there are many others whose names I have forgotten or I can't remember. I remember them, too.
There is no foot too small that it cannot leave an imprint on this world.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Worship Wednesday: "Proving" it
"Everyone believes they are right, and everyone can 'prove' it by Scripture." This is one of my major complaints about modern Christianity.
Arguments about doctrine are nothing new. They've been around since the 3,000 were baptized in Acts 2. In Acts 15, we read about the Jerusalem Council, in which the question "should Gentiles be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses?" when they turned to God and accepted Jesus as the Messiah?
I'll take baptism as an example of "proving it".
The word "baptism" in the New Testament comes from the Greek "baptizo", meaning "dip, plunge, immerse". My own church, the Church of Christ, practices baptism by immersion. Baptists do, also; and I believe Pentecostals do. I'm sure there are others of which I am not aware. Churches of Christ use Acts 2:38-39, I Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-7, and others to "prove" that baptism is necessary, and use the Greek to "prove" that is must be by immersion.
There are others who practice baptism by sprinkling (Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and others). Isaiah 52:15 is used to "prove" that sprinkling is okay; also, Ezekiel 36:25. (I pulled these from this website, written by a Methodist minister.)
Some use pouring (which is probably also referred to as "sprinkling"); i.e., pouring water on top of the head. The Amish, among others, do this.
If you look at the website by the Methodist minister, you can see that he uses Scripture to "prove" his points. On the other hand, I have been in studies with Church of Christ people who have also used Scripture to "prove" their points. And, anyone that wants to tell me that "the verses on sprinkling are from the Old Testament, and Christ fulfilled the Old Testament, and the church was founded on the New Testament--may I point out that, at least in the tradition of the Churches of Christ, the Old Testament is used to justify several practices? (Nadab and Abihu, an Old Testament account, is often used to explain why Churches of Christ don't do certain things.)
I could probably use other examples: instrumental music, women's roles in the church, speaking in tongues, divorce, homosexuality . . . but for me, they all boil down to one thing: Everyone has a Scripture to "prove" that they are right.
So who is?
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Arguments about doctrine are nothing new. They've been around since the 3,000 were baptized in Acts 2. In Acts 15, we read about the Jerusalem Council, in which the question "should Gentiles be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses?" when they turned to God and accepted Jesus as the Messiah?
I'll take baptism as an example of "proving it".
The word "baptism" in the New Testament comes from the Greek "baptizo", meaning "dip, plunge, immerse". My own church, the Church of Christ, practices baptism by immersion. Baptists do, also; and I believe Pentecostals do. I'm sure there are others of which I am not aware. Churches of Christ use Acts 2:38-39, I Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-7, and others to "prove" that baptism is necessary, and use the Greek to "prove" that is must be by immersion.
There are others who practice baptism by sprinkling (Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and others). Isaiah 52:15 is used to "prove" that sprinkling is okay; also, Ezekiel 36:25. (I pulled these from this website, written by a Methodist minister.)
Some use pouring (which is probably also referred to as "sprinkling"); i.e., pouring water on top of the head. The Amish, among others, do this.
If you look at the website by the Methodist minister, you can see that he uses Scripture to "prove" his points. On the other hand, I have been in studies with Church of Christ people who have also used Scripture to "prove" their points. And, anyone that wants to tell me that "the verses on sprinkling are from the Old Testament, and Christ fulfilled the Old Testament, and the church was founded on the New Testament--may I point out that, at least in the tradition of the Churches of Christ, the Old Testament is used to justify several practices? (Nadab and Abihu, an Old Testament account, is often used to explain why Churches of Christ don't do certain things.)
I could probably use other examples: instrumental music, women's roles in the church, speaking in tongues, divorce, homosexuality . . . but for me, they all boil down to one thing: Everyone has a Scripture to "prove" that they are right.
So who is?
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Manic Monday on Wednesday: Last night's debate . . .
I didn't watch last night's debate. But I have heard news coverage and read social media, and while the news consensus seems to be that Clinton won, I've seen at least one poll where Sanders was declared the victor.
I heard about discussions regarding Obamacare, free college education, paid family leave, etc. etc. What I'm not finding, though, is a serious discussion of how it's all going to get paid for. This is what I see to be a major problem with certain proposals: where is the money going to come from to fund free community college, paid family leave, etc.?
You can "tax the rich" all you want, but you can only "tax the rich" so much; then you either have to stop funding for the programs you want, or redefine who is "rich" so that you get more money.
Sanders openly admits that he is a socialist. While socialism is about "equality for all" and looks good on paper, take a look at the countries where socialism has been tried.
Like Russia and Eastern Europe.
How'd that work for them?
(And before you mention Scandanavia, check this article.)
What people fail to understand is that there is no such thing as "free". I love having "freebies", I confess; and in the interest of full disclosure, my son did receive a so-called "freebie" through Medicaid. He, as well as many others, received Medicaid coverage through the Katie Beckett waiver, a special waiver allowing medically fragile children to qualify for Medicaid when the parents don't otherwise qualify. (Most parents use this as secondary, not primary, medical coverage.)
In writing about Medicaid, I feel the frustration: I know there are those who desperately need medical insurance. I know that there are those who will go bankrupt without medical insurance. (That was the main point of Obamacare--to get insurance into the hands that needed it. I just think that the Affordable Care Act was the wrong way to do it.) And there are others who will make valid arguments in favor of the very things Clinton, Sanders, and others want.
But I also know that someone has to pay for the freebies. And I don't think people are thinking about that part of the issue.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
I heard about discussions regarding Obamacare, free college education, paid family leave, etc. etc. What I'm not finding, though, is a serious discussion of how it's all going to get paid for. This is what I see to be a major problem with certain proposals: where is the money going to come from to fund free community college, paid family leave, etc.?
You can "tax the rich" all you want, but you can only "tax the rich" so much; then you either have to stop funding for the programs you want, or redefine who is "rich" so that you get more money.
Sanders openly admits that he is a socialist. While socialism is about "equality for all" and looks good on paper, take a look at the countries where socialism has been tried.
Like Russia and Eastern Europe.
How'd that work for them?
(And before you mention Scandanavia, check this article.)
What people fail to understand is that there is no such thing as "free". I love having "freebies", I confess; and in the interest of full disclosure, my son did receive a so-called "freebie" through Medicaid. He, as well as many others, received Medicaid coverage through the Katie Beckett waiver, a special waiver allowing medically fragile children to qualify for Medicaid when the parents don't otherwise qualify. (Most parents use this as secondary, not primary, medical coverage.)
In writing about Medicaid, I feel the frustration: I know there are those who desperately need medical insurance. I know that there are those who will go bankrupt without medical insurance. (That was the main point of Obamacare--to get insurance into the hands that needed it. I just think that the Affordable Care Act was the wrong way to do it.) And there are others who will make valid arguments in favor of the very things Clinton, Sanders, and others want.
But I also know that someone has to pay for the freebies. And I don't think people are thinking about that part of the issue.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
My name is Tina, and I have OCD . . .
You may have heard someone say, "Oh, she's so OCD; she alphabetizes her spices."
Or, "I'm so OCD, I must have the place totally clean before I can have anyone over."
Or, "He's so OCD, he has to have a neat desk all the time."
People smile and laugh at those statements.
Except, when you really have OCD, they aren't that funny.
My name is Tina, and I have OCD.
OCD stands for "obsessive-compulsive disorder." According to the website at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), about 2.2 million people suffer from OCD. It's more than just a desire for an organized house, or a neat desk, or the desire to get something done by a deadline.
The NIMH website goes on to describe people with OCD: "[they] feel the need to check things repeatedly, or have certain thought or perform rituals over and over. [Those] thoughts and rituals . . . cause distress and get in the way of daily life."
The difference between someone who just wants a neat house or a neat desk, and the person with OCD, is this: The "neat freak" will probably devote a Saturday to housecleaning, or an afternoon to organizing their desk. The OCD sufferer will scrub a floor over and over, yet it's never "clean enough". Or, they will straighten a desk, but it's never straight enough; and a box of paper clips placed on the wrong side of the desk causes anxiety. Or, they will imagine that if their desk isn't totally clean--or, if the paper clips are not arranged in piles of three and five (for example)--something horrible will happen to them as a punishment. Obsessions--the thoughts of anxiety and fear, and other unwanted thoughts--and compulsions--the behaviors people use to relieve the compulsive thoughts--control people with OCD. The obsessions, and the compulsions, are often debilitating, and they end up interfering with daily life. (Any of you that have ever seen the series "Hoarders" have seen a manifestation of OCD in action.) The people who do these rituals don't like them. Rather, they're driven by the thought, "I have to do it. I must do it. Something awful will happen if I don't do it."
I don't, to my knowledge, engage in compulsions. My OCD is what is called "pure O"--the distressing thoughts without the accompanying compulsive behaviors. I won't go into all of the details of what I call "the thoughts".
Part of the way my OCD manifests itself is in a disorder called scrupulosity. The dictionary definition of "scrupluous" is "diligent, thorough, and extremely attentive to details; very concerned to avoid doing wrong". Scrupulosity, the disorder, is described as "pathological guilt about moral or religious issues." This is not the same thing as the concern over getting things doctrinally correct. There are legitimate concerns about false doctrine addressed in the Bible, and I think it's important to line up what I believe with what the Bible says. Where scrupulosity comes in for me is the constant concern of, "But what if I'm wrong?" and nothing--no research, no sermon, nothing--will alleviate that fear.
My OCD began when I was around 14. I was sitting in church, and all of a sudden, I suddenly started thinking swear words. I think one of the words may have been the one that takes the Lord's name in vain. I was horrified. I mean, "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is one of the Ten Commandments--and this was happening in church, of all places! So I said a quick prayer: "Dear Lord, I'm sorry! I didn't mean to do this. Please forgive me and help me not to do it again. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen."
What was the next thing I thought? The word. Again. So I prayed another prayer. But the prayers didn't make the thoughts go away.
Part of my scrupulosity, I believe, came from a form of Christianity that emphasized the "don'ts"--no swearing, no sex before marriage, no exposing yourself to things that are "bad" or "unholy"--and if you even think about those things, you've committed a sin and you need to ask God for forgiveness. After all, there is such a thing as sinning in your thoughts. (Didn't Jesus say that anyone who merely lusted after someone had already committed adultery in their heart?)
It's not wrong to not swear (I don't like the language and I try not to use it), and abstaining from sex before marriage is something I strongly recommend. And there are some things, such as pornography, that I won't go looking for. But pure O is different. These are thoughts that drop into your head with no warning.
In trying to control the thoughts, I attempted self-censorship. I tried not to read books that had swear words in them, and when sex scenes came on TV or in the movies, I wouldn't look. Same with scenes that were overly violent or bloody. I can remember blanking out words in a book I was reading in an attempt to not read swear words (a form of Bowdlerization). And when people swore in front of me, or in movies, I got very offended (probably self-righteously so.)
When I became a Christian at age 18, it was only a matter of days before "the thoughts" returned. In fact, I remember going to a prayer night, or devotional, and making a list of things to pray about. The number one item on my list was, "My swearing--stop!" The prayers didn't help. The thoughts still remained; in fact, they got worse. I confessed "the thoughts" as sin a couple of times. I still struggled with them.
For years and years, I thought that "the thoughts" were just simply sin; sins against God. And I was embarrassed and ashamed. Christians didn't think like I was thinking. Christians weren't obsessed with swearing and other "bad thoughts". Didn't Jesus take away sin? Didn't he help with resisting temptation? So, why wasn't He helping me?
I can't remember when it was that I did a Google search about "the thoughts" and discovered the term "pure O". It sounded so much like what I was dealing with, and yet, I was reluctant to say, "I have OCD." Didn't OCD sufferers wash their hands 20 times a day, or stuff like that? I didn't do that. I couldn't have OCD.
One book I discovered that was helpful to me was by Lee Baer, called The Imp Of the Mind: Exploring the Silent Epidemic of Obsessive Bad Thoughts. That was where I first learned that "thoughts" were just that--they were thoughts. They were not good, nor were they bad. The stuff that simply dropped into your head--they just were. (Of course, if I were to pursue the thoughts, that would be another story . . .)
I've been in counseling for a number of years, with different counselors, about different issues, and I don't think I ever brought up the issue of "the thoughts". So they could never be dealt with. Finally, though, I swallowed, and during a counseling session with the person my husband and I see, told them both about "the thoughts", and told them that I thought I might have "pure O" in the form of scrupulosity. The counselor said that I might be on to something.
I swallowed again, did some research, looked for a counselor that took my insurance, was pretty close to me, and specialized in OCD . . . and found one. And since the counselor had email; I used that. I mean, do you know how hard it is to pick up the phone, call an office, and say, "I think I suffer from reoccuring bad thoughts"?
The person I'm now seeing confirmed that "thoughts" were just that, "thoughts". Thoughts that drop into your head don't make you a bad person. Everyone has them. Unfortunately, because of the way my brain is wired, and because of some things in my background, I end up obsessing over them; and trying to resist "the thoughts" only makes it worse. That's not sin. It's an illness. (I worry that I am using OCD as an excuse to sin, which I don't want to do. I think it would be a sin if I pursued some of the thoughts.)
Right now, we're working on reprogramming my brain. I wish that "the thoughts" would leave me alone. They have not. But these days, I don't see "the thoughts" as threatening or sinful. They just are. With some of "the thoughts", I take them to an extreme, to see just how ridiculous they are. The more ridiculous I see "the thoughts" as being, the less power they have over me. I believe this is the "help" that God provided and that God is using in my life.
I'm trying not to be offended by swearing, although I still don't use the words, and I'd rather people not swear around me. (There are times I understand the feelings behind the language.) I still dislike swearing and graphic sex scenes in books, and in my own writing, I prefer not to use them. On the other hand, I also think that my efforts to "shield" myself from "sinful" things seriously boomeranged where I was concerned. Not cussing didn't make me not think about cussing. Nor did attempting not to think about sex keep me from thinking about sex. It's also occurred to me that even Jesus heard swearing, and he even saw some pretty nasty stuff while he lived on this earth.
(I think we're seeing this "boomerang effect" in the case of Josh Duggar. The Duggar boys were taught to look away when a scantily clad woman walked by. The girls were taught to dress "modestly". Josh practiced courtship, instead of dating, with his wife Anna. This was the "recipe" for a successful Christian life . . . and it didn't work. Josh ended up molesting his sisters and cheating on his wife. This effort to "wall off" the "sinful world" backfired in a serious way.)
What are the answers to OCD? To scrupulosity? How do you handle "the thoughts" and not fall into sin? I don't know all the answers to those questions. In my opinion, if you're a Christian, and a bad thought drops into your head, and you're horrified by it and didn't seek it out--the odds are very good that you won't act on it.
I'm on medication for depression, and one med is supposed to be helpful for OCD. My main form of therapy is cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which is a way of re-teaching the brain healthier ways of thinking. I see a counselor weekly. Other people with OCD may need more intensive therapy.
This week is OCD Awareness Week. I'd like to think that the stigma from mental health doesn't exist anymore; sadly, that's not true. "Willpower" and "just getting over it" won't help mental illness. Telling people with OCD, "Just don't think about it," or "just don't do it", isn't going to help, either. People with a mental illness need help, not just words.
If you have OCD, even if it's "pure O", you don't need to suffer in silence and shame. There is help. I used Psychology Today's website to find the person I'm seeing now.
If you're a Christian and dealing with OCD, you're not suffering from unconfessed sin. You have an illness, and it can be treated. There's no shame in getting treatment. Getting treatment doesn't mean that you have failed God or that you have allowed yourself to fall into sin.
It just means that you are a person who has OCD.
Just like me.
My name is Tina, and I have OCD.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Or, "I'm so OCD, I must have the place totally clean before I can have anyone over."
Or, "He's so OCD, he has to have a neat desk all the time."
People smile and laugh at those statements.
Except, when you really have OCD, they aren't that funny.
My name is Tina, and I have OCD.
OCD stands for "obsessive-compulsive disorder." According to the website at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), about 2.2 million people suffer from OCD. It's more than just a desire for an organized house, or a neat desk, or the desire to get something done by a deadline.
The NIMH website goes on to describe people with OCD: "[they] feel the need to check things repeatedly, or have certain thought or perform rituals over and over. [Those] thoughts and rituals . . . cause distress and get in the way of daily life."
The difference between someone who just wants a neat house or a neat desk, and the person with OCD, is this: The "neat freak" will probably devote a Saturday to housecleaning, or an afternoon to organizing their desk. The OCD sufferer will scrub a floor over and over, yet it's never "clean enough". Or, they will straighten a desk, but it's never straight enough; and a box of paper clips placed on the wrong side of the desk causes anxiety. Or, they will imagine that if their desk isn't totally clean--or, if the paper clips are not arranged in piles of three and five (for example)--something horrible will happen to them as a punishment. Obsessions--the thoughts of anxiety and fear, and other unwanted thoughts--and compulsions--the behaviors people use to relieve the compulsive thoughts--control people with OCD. The obsessions, and the compulsions, are often debilitating, and they end up interfering with daily life. (Any of you that have ever seen the series "Hoarders" have seen a manifestation of OCD in action.) The people who do these rituals don't like them. Rather, they're driven by the thought, "I have to do it. I must do it. Something awful will happen if I don't do it."
I don't, to my knowledge, engage in compulsions. My OCD is what is called "pure O"--the distressing thoughts without the accompanying compulsive behaviors. I won't go into all of the details of what I call "the thoughts".
Part of the way my OCD manifests itself is in a disorder called scrupulosity. The dictionary definition of "scrupluous" is "diligent, thorough, and extremely attentive to details; very concerned to avoid doing wrong". Scrupulosity, the disorder, is described as "pathological guilt about moral or religious issues." This is not the same thing as the concern over getting things doctrinally correct. There are legitimate concerns about false doctrine addressed in the Bible, and I think it's important to line up what I believe with what the Bible says. Where scrupulosity comes in for me is the constant concern of, "But what if I'm wrong?" and nothing--no research, no sermon, nothing--will alleviate that fear.
My OCD began when I was around 14. I was sitting in church, and all of a sudden, I suddenly started thinking swear words. I think one of the words may have been the one that takes the Lord's name in vain. I was horrified. I mean, "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is one of the Ten Commandments--and this was happening in church, of all places! So I said a quick prayer: "Dear Lord, I'm sorry! I didn't mean to do this. Please forgive me and help me not to do it again. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen."
What was the next thing I thought? The word. Again. So I prayed another prayer. But the prayers didn't make the thoughts go away.
Part of my scrupulosity, I believe, came from a form of Christianity that emphasized the "don'ts"--no swearing, no sex before marriage, no exposing yourself to things that are "bad" or "unholy"--and if you even think about those things, you've committed a sin and you need to ask God for forgiveness. After all, there is such a thing as sinning in your thoughts. (Didn't Jesus say that anyone who merely lusted after someone had already committed adultery in their heart?)
It's not wrong to not swear (I don't like the language and I try not to use it), and abstaining from sex before marriage is something I strongly recommend. And there are some things, such as pornography, that I won't go looking for. But pure O is different. These are thoughts that drop into your head with no warning.
In trying to control the thoughts, I attempted self-censorship. I tried not to read books that had swear words in them, and when sex scenes came on TV or in the movies, I wouldn't look. Same with scenes that were overly violent or bloody. I can remember blanking out words in a book I was reading in an attempt to not read swear words (a form of Bowdlerization). And when people swore in front of me, or in movies, I got very offended (probably self-righteously so.)
When I became a Christian at age 18, it was only a matter of days before "the thoughts" returned. In fact, I remember going to a prayer night, or devotional, and making a list of things to pray about. The number one item on my list was, "My swearing--stop!" The prayers didn't help. The thoughts still remained; in fact, they got worse. I confessed "the thoughts" as sin a couple of times. I still struggled with them.
For years and years, I thought that "the thoughts" were just simply sin; sins against God. And I was embarrassed and ashamed. Christians didn't think like I was thinking. Christians weren't obsessed with swearing and other "bad thoughts". Didn't Jesus take away sin? Didn't he help with resisting temptation? So, why wasn't He helping me?
I can't remember when it was that I did a Google search about "the thoughts" and discovered the term "pure O". It sounded so much like what I was dealing with, and yet, I was reluctant to say, "I have OCD." Didn't OCD sufferers wash their hands 20 times a day, or stuff like that? I didn't do that. I couldn't have OCD.
One book I discovered that was helpful to me was by Lee Baer, called The Imp Of the Mind: Exploring the Silent Epidemic of Obsessive Bad Thoughts. That was where I first learned that "thoughts" were just that--they were thoughts. They were not good, nor were they bad. The stuff that simply dropped into your head--they just were. (Of course, if I were to pursue the thoughts, that would be another story . . .)
I've been in counseling for a number of years, with different counselors, about different issues, and I don't think I ever brought up the issue of "the thoughts". So they could never be dealt with. Finally, though, I swallowed, and during a counseling session with the person my husband and I see, told them both about "the thoughts", and told them that I thought I might have "pure O" in the form of scrupulosity. The counselor said that I might be on to something.
I swallowed again, did some research, looked for a counselor that took my insurance, was pretty close to me, and specialized in OCD . . . and found one. And since the counselor had email; I used that. I mean, do you know how hard it is to pick up the phone, call an office, and say, "I think I suffer from reoccuring bad thoughts"?
The person I'm now seeing confirmed that "thoughts" were just that, "thoughts". Thoughts that drop into your head don't make you a bad person. Everyone has them. Unfortunately, because of the way my brain is wired, and because of some things in my background, I end up obsessing over them; and trying to resist "the thoughts" only makes it worse. That's not sin. It's an illness. (I worry that I am using OCD as an excuse to sin, which I don't want to do. I think it would be a sin if I pursued some of the thoughts.)
Right now, we're working on reprogramming my brain. I wish that "the thoughts" would leave me alone. They have not. But these days, I don't see "the thoughts" as threatening or sinful. They just are. With some of "the thoughts", I take them to an extreme, to see just how ridiculous they are. The more ridiculous I see "the thoughts" as being, the less power they have over me. I believe this is the "help" that God provided and that God is using in my life.
I'm trying not to be offended by swearing, although I still don't use the words, and I'd rather people not swear around me. (There are times I understand the feelings behind the language.) I still dislike swearing and graphic sex scenes in books, and in my own writing, I prefer not to use them. On the other hand, I also think that my efforts to "shield" myself from "sinful" things seriously boomeranged where I was concerned. Not cussing didn't make me not think about cussing. Nor did attempting not to think about sex keep me from thinking about sex. It's also occurred to me that even Jesus heard swearing, and he even saw some pretty nasty stuff while he lived on this earth.
(I think we're seeing this "boomerang effect" in the case of Josh Duggar. The Duggar boys were taught to look away when a scantily clad woman walked by. The girls were taught to dress "modestly". Josh practiced courtship, instead of dating, with his wife Anna. This was the "recipe" for a successful Christian life . . . and it didn't work. Josh ended up molesting his sisters and cheating on his wife. This effort to "wall off" the "sinful world" backfired in a serious way.)
What are the answers to OCD? To scrupulosity? How do you handle "the thoughts" and not fall into sin? I don't know all the answers to those questions. In my opinion, if you're a Christian, and a bad thought drops into your head, and you're horrified by it and didn't seek it out--the odds are very good that you won't act on it.
I'm on medication for depression, and one med is supposed to be helpful for OCD. My main form of therapy is cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which is a way of re-teaching the brain healthier ways of thinking. I see a counselor weekly. Other people with OCD may need more intensive therapy.
This week is OCD Awareness Week. I'd like to think that the stigma from mental health doesn't exist anymore; sadly, that's not true. "Willpower" and "just getting over it" won't help mental illness. Telling people with OCD, "Just don't think about it," or "just don't do it", isn't going to help, either. People with a mental illness need help, not just words.
If you have OCD, even if it's "pure O", you don't need to suffer in silence and shame. There is help. I used Psychology Today's website to find the person I'm seeing now.
If you're a Christian and dealing with OCD, you're not suffering from unconfessed sin. You have an illness, and it can be treated. There's no shame in getting treatment. Getting treatment doesn't mean that you have failed God or that you have allowed yourself to fall into sin.
It just means that you are a person who has OCD.
Just like me.
My name is Tina, and I have OCD.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)