Boundaries---What's the Concern?

[mkgal1]

I didn't want to take away from DW1989's thread (and cause a debate there).....but I brought up another book by Dr. Henry Cloud and the response was this article (and a warning of the 'danger' of these books):

Authors Cloud and Townsend, state that the goal of Boundaries is to help readers achieve the relationships and purposes God intends for his children (28).They define boundaries as the characteristics that define a person.In the authors’ words, “they define what is me and not me (31).”According to Cloud and Townsend, knowing one’s boundaries is what helps one determine their responsibilities, so they can take control of their lives. The authors go on to say one’s boundaries develop in relationship with God and others, primarily in the early years of life.Boundary conflicts are most often due to inadequate or negligent nurture in these early years.These conflicts can only be resolved by following the authors’ nine-step procedure.One can apply this procedure to every kind of human relationship, including a person’s relationship to self and God.Finally, the author’s warn that applying this procedure will be difficult, and not without inner and outer conflict, but in the end it will be worth struggle, because people with boundaries live happily ever after.

In closing, Boundaries is another example of the psychological teaching that has infiltrated the contemporary church.For almost two thousand years, the Gospel, the Holy Spirit, and the Scriptures have been sufficient to convert the souls of men, and empower them to live godly lives.However, according Dr. Henry Cloud, and Dr. John Townsend, these are no longer sufficient.Now we need boundaries.Ironically, on page 39 the authors promote the necessity of their psychological teaching by stating, “Many people have been taught by their church or their family that boundaries are unbiblical, mean or selfish.”~http://pastor-ricks-musings.blogspot.com/2011/01/boundaries-book-review.html

For one thing.....I really take issue with the claim that Dr. Cloud and Dr Townsend ever suggested "the Scriptures aren't sufficient to convert the souls of men, and empower them to live godly lives". That's the author's [of this blog] words....not theirs (and--IMO--setting this book up against the Bible is a dishonest premise). What makes Pastor Rick's words any more "spiritual" than Cloud's and Townsend's (because he's offering his thoughts and opinions separate from the Bible as well)? If one is going to take the stance that the only writing we should be reading is the Bible---then that same person (IMO) is hypocritical to be writing a blog condemning written works that aren't the Bible. People have always interpreted the Bible with their own perspective---and there have been debates and discussions since the beginning (which I think is a positive---we need to hear another person's perspective--otherwise we never progress out of our own set way of thinking).

That aside----I really wanted this discussion to be focused on the Biblical support for Boundaries (and the principles related). What---specifically---are people concerned about to where it's common for warnings to be mentioned whenever the topic comes up?

 

[ValleyGal]

I always find it interesting when people assert that "psychological teaching ... has infiltrated the contemporary church." There seems to be no problem that physical temptations and discussions have infiltrated the church, or that scientific assertions and theories have infiltrated the church, or that our social lives are being infiltrated by the church....but yet you talk about psychology - a psychology that God himself created - and we are somehow ostracized for trying to understand this "beautifully and wonderfully made" part of our beings that the church for whatever reason thinks is a terrible evil. I, for one, think it's about time psychology enters the church so we can more fully understand what makes our lives tick. Psychology has a lot to offer the church, and in many cases, psych studies confirm what the Bible teaches about the human condition - social, emotional, inter-generational, romantic, etc.

One of the principles of boundaries is to take responsibility for your own resentment by following the verse that says "let your yes be yes, and your no be no." In other words, it's okay to say no, and it's okay to say yes. However, if you say yes when you want to say no, you will possibly become resentful to those you say yes to, even though it is not their fault that you said yes.

Another principle in boundaries is in 1 Th 4:11, 12 where it says to lead a quiet life and mind your own business...earning the respect of outsiders and not being dependent on anyone. God calls us to live in community - it's not good for man to be alone, don't give up the fellowship of the brothers, etc - but yet we should function independently so no one else has to look after us. It's about being responsible for ourselves, and to our close community (starting with family, as there is a verse that mentions a man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel).

Boundaries are absolutely biblical. It is "pop psychology" which confirms biblical principles - written in a book which helps lay-people understand how to apply these principles in daily life.

 

[mkgal1]

I completely agree with you that psychology isn't an enemy of the church (in fact---it could help a lot more people if it were embraced instead of battled against). Like you said, God created us and how our minds work---psychology is merely studying what God has created.

We can't understand spiritual principles if we haven't addressed unhealthy thought processes (and we can't address that without having a basic understanding of what is "healthy" and what's not). Like you inferred, there's a huge issue (seemingly under-addressed) with physical immorality in the church---yet that seems to often get excused as "we are just a bunch of sinful people". Shouldn't we be growing and maturing? Isn't that what Paul was urging the church to do (1st Corinthians 1-11; Ephesians 4; Philippians 4)?

I think the resistance is that people have set up two systems (opposing, in their minds): psychology and spirituality.....but I don't believe it has two be an either/or---I believe it is a nice unity of the two flows of information that enables us to mature.

 

[mkgal1]

This is from an article titled The Simple Scoop on Boundaries

Consider a few of the alternatives to self-control:

• Controlling relationships where people try to control each other
• Faith that is practiced out of guilt and drudgery instead of freedom and love
• The replacement of love as a motivator with guilt, anger and fear instead
• The inability to stop evil in significant relationships and cultures
• The inability to gain control of out own behavior and solve problems in our lives
• The loss of control to addictive processes
• The generational cycle of sin unable to be broken

These are to name a few. So, it is now no wonder why the need for Boundaries was felt so deeply. It talked about something so dear to the heart of God that He says it was one of the motivators for the sacrifice of Christ Himself: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” (Gal. 5:1) Jesus died to set us free: from sin, from the devil, from the world around us. And that is the essence of what Boundaries teach—freedom.

That's really (IMO) the Gospel message in a nutshell (Gal. 5)---as well as Boundaries in a nutshell. I see that as nothing but good....and the only way a person can have the Holy Trinity as their guide to life (and not the whims of other people).

 

[LinkH]

I haven't read the book. Maybe I share a bit of concern when people start to quote psychological theories religiously as if they are the end-all, be-all. In the 1980's, I sure got sick of hearing about raising self-esteem as the solution for everything. I've heard that the US lags behind many other nations in mathematical skills, but ranks highest when you score individual's assessments of their own math skills.

From what I know of their theory, they don't believe one person should 'control' another. I know that the US is a highly individualistic culture. The idea of 'boundaries' (the way I'm using the term) an individual has is different between cultures. In some cultures, older folks, the boss, or other people in positions of esteem or authority may exercise more control over other individuals. I don't think that is necessarily sinful. It's just a different culture, and Americans can be rather ethnocentric at times. We can think that if things don't fit our ideals of individual freedom, etc. that they are sinful or evil.

I have seen discussion on other forums where 'boundaries' seemed to be used by a wife who didn't seem to want to follow what the Bible said in Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, or I Peter 3 for example. 'Boundaries' could be used as an excuse to be selfish or not to help other people. I heard a whole sermon on one of these psychological theories, and I think it was boundaries, by a man with a PhD in a related field. He was also a pastor. But he barely referenced on verse, and his whole message was teaching people to say 'no' when people had too many expectations of them. I thought I didn't know if it was a good sermon for the Gen-Y audience he was talking to. We are to be 'in honor, preferring one another.' There wasn't a lot of emphasis on serving in his sermon. It might have been a good message for certain individuals. But I think church is a place to hear revelation from God, not psychology. If you have some intellectual or touchy-feely message to preach related to psychology, at least prove it really clearly from the Bible, IMO.

Not having read the book, I can't give my opinion either way about their books, conferences, etc. It does seem people can go to extremes on 'Boundaries' and use them as an excuse, but people do that with all sorts of theories.

 

[Job8]

Psychology has a lot to offer the church, and in many cases, psych studies confirm what the Bible teaches about the human condition - social, emotional, inter-generational, romantic, etc.

Psychology and psychiatry have nothing in common with Bible truth. They exclude the spirit and the Holy Spirit. Therefore they cannot possibly help Christians. All inner problems and issues are essentially spiritual. Those who are in Christ will find that Christ has the answers. Those who are outside of Christ will look to secular counselors and never find genuine answers. If anything, a lot of Christians have been deceived into thinking that psychology and psychiatry can do them some good. But anything that does not come from God the Holy Spirit cannot be an answer.

One of the principles of boundaries is to take responsibility for your own resentment by following the verse that says "let your yes be yes, and your no be no."

Since this Scripture is directly related to the taking of oaths, it is probably not appropriate in this context.

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil...

As to "boundaries", the only boundaries discussed in Scripture are geographical. The teaching of Christ regarding how we are to relate to those who oppose, hate, or manipulate us are found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 KJB, which is not an easy teaching to apply).

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake...

Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison...

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

 

[LinkH]

Job8,

I took a doctoral seminary in cross-cultural psychology as part of my PhD program. For the most part, I can't find anything that is anti-God in what I studied. Nothing comes to mind. Certain cultures are more collectivist, for example. You can do surveys or experiments to see how people respond or behave under certain circumstances. I don't see this stuff as evil. Some psychological theories may be. I wasn't studying Freud or Jung in the seminar. But I wouldn't preach based on it. I don't see a problem with using something related to psychology as a brief illustrated as long as the truth being taught is solidly Biblical.

 

[ValleyGal]

"All inner problems and issues are essentially spiritual."
Are you saying it's normal to get sick from the neck down, but not from the neck up> Sorry, but the brain happens to be very connected to the rest of the body, and just as things can go wrong from the neck down, they can also go wrong from the neck up. So psych problems can and do occur in the church.

As for inner problems, there are a lot of inner problems that are the result of inadequate socialization, inadequate attachment, broken hearts, trauma of all kinds, etc. We do not come with innate social functioning. It is taught through socialization starting at birth with attachment to a caregiver. An inadequate or insecure attachment can have devastating lifelong negative impact on boundaries in relationships.

Letting your yes be yes and no be no is definitely applicable here. It's not just about swearing an oath, but also about integrity in keeping your word. And the Bible says a lot about integrity.

Boundaries are not something you impose on others; they are about your own behaviour. If they are about your own behaviour, they can't be used to control other people. Instead, if you respect yourself enough to be respectful to others, then you will treat them respectfully and teach them that you are someone to be respected. And that you do not tolerate others disrespecting you - they can disrespect you all they want, but you do not have to subject yourself to it. You respect yourself enough to be around people who respect you in return.

Boundaries are also about keeping out the bad and letting in the good - just like geographical boundaries. Geographical boundaries let everyone know where your property begins, and they are not welcome to come in uninvited - except maybe to a select group who is welcome to come to the door and knock or deliver mail. And then it is up to you to open the door and whether or not that person knocking is someone you trust enough to let in. And if you do, you still might not invite them into your bathroom or bedroom, but the living room might be okay. Socially, it's the same with boundaries. You only let in the people you want to, in the capacity you want to. And it is healthy to only allow in ones who will respect you, who are trustworthy, have integrity, and healthy ways of relating. You want to keep out the bad - those who manipulate, put you down, insult you, abuse you, etc.

It is important to also know where you end and another person begins - just like with geographical boundaries. A lot of homeowners have a fence or other landmark that distinguishes their property from the neighbours (or walls in the case of condos or townhouses, etc). If you do not have this boundary socially, then you become enmeshed and codependent with others - very unhealthy patterns of social interactions. Again, boundaries is not about controlling others. It is about your behaviour and how you respond to others. And I think the Bible has an awful lot to say about how to treat others. But being enmeshed and emotionally unhealthy is not one of them.

 

[mkgal1]

But I think church is a place to hear revelation from God, not psychology. If you have some intellectual or touchy-feely message to preach related to psychology, at least prove it really clearly from the Bible, IMO.

Psychology and psychiatry have nothing in common with Bible truth

Perhaps the two of you missed the post where I linked "The Simple Scoop on Boundaries" where the authors cited the many Scriptures that they're basing the concept of "boundaries". I don't understand the need to pit one against the other (the Bible and the concept of boundaries or psychology in general).....in my mind, they go hand in hand.

Link is correct---we *are* to serve others......but that's the problem: how do we know who and when to serve (or when to go off alone--as Jesus did, often--in order to recharge, pray, and rest) with our limited time? That's where boundaries come in. We (along with the Holy Spirit) need to decide what God would like us to do with our time and efforts--and if we are just following after the squeakiest wheels, that may not be our "best yes". Those of us that are prone to the "disease to please" often feel powerless to say "no" and guilty when we say "yes" (guilty b/c we realize we aren't spending our time/energy wisely).

This is another take on the same concept (from someone else) *the first 4 minutes are mostly specific to that church....you can save a bit of time by beginning @ 4:06 minutes in:

Short version for those that wish to not watch the video: What we say "yes" to directs our life (and, by default, something else is getting a "no"). 1st Samuel 25 is a great example of a person (Abigail) making a wise decision that saved the lives of many (and spared David from committing an act that he'd be regretful of later). Without healthy/proper boundaries---that wouldn't be possible.

We can't allow ourselves to be directed by the Holy Spirit w/o boundaries (instead....we're leaving things up to the whims of other people, and I don't believe that's what God desires for us).

As VG has already explained, boundaries aren't about controlling other people....but that doesn't mean that abiding by them doesn't influence others (as in the account of Abigail and David):

"Praised be your good judgment! May you yourself be rewarded for having prevented me this day from shedding blood and taking matters into my own hands!"~1Samuel 25:33

Proper boundaries have a ripple effect (the way I see it) where many are benefited (think of all that benefited in this account).

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I do not understand why setting boundaries is not considered biblical or Christian. Jesus set boundaries with his disciples and others. He did not allow Himself to be trodden upon, as evidenced by withdrawing by himself to pray and worship the Father.

Boundaries, when applied properly show SELF RESPECT. IOW...cutting toxic people out of your life, or refusing to accept being treated a certain way is setting a boundary.

The problem with Christians who refute psychology is that it forces people, who are already struggling with issues, to feel worse, because the advice given is usually pretty bad...pray more, read more scripture, submit more. I don't doubt for a minute that God can cure...and cure in a heartbeat...as I've experienced that just over 2 weeks ago...BUT...perhaps God uses the doctors and medications to cure people. Who else would give these doctors the wisdom to make so many people's lives better?

 

[mkgal1]

ITA with you, RPD. I discovered another harmful effect from people pitting psychology against the church: it keeps people isolated and in a toxic environment with no genuine help. Either they accept the advice from the church (which....like you said....is usually lacking in any substance or truth) or they risk being shamed and sometimes shunned as "accepting worldly" advice. That's what cults do---they isolate and control. Look at the whole Josh Duggar fiasco for a good example.

As far as "God curing"? For things like addictions or abuse---that takes the involvement of the person afflicted (and often they'd answer with "no.....I'm NOT interested in being truly healed" as Jesus usually asked prior to healing a person.

 

[LinkH]

ITA with you, RPD. I discovered another harmful effect from people pitting psychology against the church: it keeps people isolated and in a toxic environment with no genuine help. Either they accept the advice from the church (which....like you said....is usually lacking in any substance or truth)

If someone is going to a church with neither substance nor truth, then maybe they should go to another church.

 

[LinkH]

I completely agree with you that psychology isn't an enemy of the church (in fact---it could help a lot more people if it were embraced instead of battled against). Like you said, God created us and how our minds work---psychology is merely studying what God has created.

Having never read the book, I don't know the answer to this, but is this boundaries thing really social science? Is it tested with any kind of empirical evidence? Or is it more of a theory used in counseling, something like a life-philosphy?

There is a lot of theory in psychology, some of it probably untested or untestable. Has 'cognitive dissonance' ever been empirically tested as a theory? It just seems to make sense.

 

[ValleyGal]

ITA with you, RPD. I discovered another harmful effect from people pitting psychology against the church: it keeps people isolated and in a toxic environment with no genuine help. Either they accept the advice from the church (which....like you said....is usually lacking in any substance or truth) or they risk being shamed and sometimes shunned as "accepting worldly" advice. That's what cults do---they isolate and control. Look at the whole Josh Duggar fiasco for a good example.

As far as "God curing"? For things like addictions or abuse---that takes the involvement of the person afflicted (and often they'd answer with "no.....I'm NOT interested in being truly healed" as Jesus usually asked prior to healing a person.

About 30 years ago, I attended a church where the outreach pastor dealt poorly with people in this way. My friend Ed - he was a new believer, he went for treatment and got clean from "hard" drugs but he still smoked cigarettes and on occasion, pot. The outreach pastor told him that unless he quit those too, he was going to *the hot place* and he needed to conform. Ed felt very judged, condemned, and decided Christianity was not the religion for him if it was going to condemn for non-conformity. It was new year's eve - he told me at midnight he was done with it, and went off to make a drug deal. While he was making the deal, it was shortly before midnight, and he got shot and died. In his heart, my friend did not want to give up his faith, but he did not want to be associated with a faith that was so out of tune with compassion for the human condition. At the time, I was ashamed too.... The worst part of it is that about 20 years the same scenario played out. Same pastor, same issue with addictions, same condemnation, only this time it was with my cousin, who committed suicide because of it. I often wonder how many others there are who have turned away from faith because of that pastor's "advice" to stop using without offering real, practical help in addressing addictions successfully. Psychology understands addictions (see Gabor Mate's vids on youtube), and psychology teaches the compassion that Jesus himself expects us to have on those who are sick and marginalized. But the church is too good for this.... and again, I am sometimes ashamed of my Christian affiliation because the secular world has a preconceived notion that we are all alike - self-righteous judges.

But I am grateful for movements like Freedom Session and Celebrate Recovery, which uses psychology and faith to compassionately address hurts, habits and hangups in a safe, genuine and caring environment where there will be no judgement because we are all in that same place. All of us. Those who think they are too good to attend, need to attend in order to address their self-righteousness.

If psychology and the church were so incompatible, then why are there so many Christian counsellors. In fact, if you read secular psychology articles, you will be able to find biblical backup scriptures for much of it. At least that's what I found when I was doing undergrad in child development, in social psychology, etc.

 

[mkgal1]

If someone is going to a church with neither substance nor truth, then maybe they should go to another church.

That's not quite what I said. What I posted was that when a couple is dealing with marital issues due to issues like addiction or abuse....the *advice* is typically lacking any substance (things like, "we will pray for you. God will work it out.....He's a big God....keep that in mind.").

 

[mkgal1]

Having never read the book, I don't know the answer to this, but is this boundaries thing really social science? Is it tested with any kind of empirical evidence? Or is it more of a theory used in counseling, something like a life-philosphy?

There is a lot of theory in psychology, some of it probably untested or untestable. Has 'cognitive dissonance' ever been empirically tested as a theory? It just seems to make sense.

I don't know what you mean by "I don't know the answer to this"....what was the question? Or are you just admitting to not really having any knowledge on this topic in general? Did you ever read the article I posted (The Simple Scoop on Boundaries)? That really sums it up.

To be honest.....I don't know what the proper term is for "boundaries" (I'm not a psychologist or a psyc student). It's basically the opposite of the "philosophy" or "theology" that we---as Christians---are to say "yes" to serve everywhere at church and that makes us a "committed Christian" (a philosophy or theology (?) I'm not a believer of, BTW). Some things are only proven and disproven by living them out (and up to each person to come to their own conclusions on).

 

[mkgal1]

VG~ I'm sorry to hear about your losses. Unfortunately, I've heard of many other similar outcomes (and that's one reason so many are leaving churches---the lack of "answers" they have for real life issues). I'm glad to hear of the churches that *are* truly addressing things like addiction and abuse. I heard someone say today that the way a person treats the vulnerable and the powerless (which--I would classify a person that's in the throes of addiction is 'powerless') is what separates the sheep from the goats (and I believe that).

 

[mkgal1]

This is from the book (an editorial):

In order to call themselves good Christians, many people have drawn overly flexible boundaries (unwilling to say no, always accommodating others' needs) or overly rigid boundaries (to the point of being righteous and judgmental). Psychologists and inspirational speakers Cloud and Townsend show readers how to set reasonable boundaries in order to follow the true path of Christianity.

and a review:

As a Christian, I continually struggled with feeling depressed from being a doormat, and being nice because it was "part of the abundant Christian life." Everyone spoke about Christianity as being a joyful, full life that I would love and never want to return to the secular world. Then why did I feel so miserable? Why did the secular world seem so appealing?

The answer was in "Boundaries". As I read the book, I could identify with something in every chapter. I'm the type of person who will let everyone else step all over me to keep themselves happy. As long as I didn't raise a ruckus, and the peace was kept, everything was okay, right? WRONG! Inside I was always seething with anger, and I was livid with the fact that I had to continually step out of the way for everyone else while they ran right over me.

Through reading this book, I realized that it's OK to set boundaries in all interactions; in fact, I now believe that it would be wrong NOT to set boundaries in things. Slowly but surely, with the help from this book's message, I've been setting boundaries for a happier life that's filled with more peace, joy, and abundance than ever.

IIRC.....it's the people that were coming in droves to these doctor's offices that had almost the same story as this one (they were Christian, but seething with anger and NOT enjoying the peace and joy that's mentioned all through the Bible). It's been ages since I read this book---and I actually got a lot more out of Dr Cloud's book (9 Things You Simply Must Do)...but, as I see it, this as a description of what "following Christ" really looks like (and that being a door mat *isn't* what's expected). IMO.....it portrays God as a much more compassionate God.

 

[mkgal1]

From another review (this --IMO--is really the whole basis of the book):

When you do things for others because you feel guilty, you can become angry and resentful. Anger turned inward can cause depression. This book will help you take charge of your life again. You can then become the person God wants you to be, not the person that others want you to be.

How is that NOT compatible with Christianity?

 

[Job8]

I took a doctoral seminary in cross-cultural psychology as part of my PhD program. For the most part, I can't find anything that is anti-God in what I studied.

I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding. It is not "anti-God" psychology but "the absence of God" psychology. Man's spirit and his relation to the Holy Spirit is excluded, which is understandable in the secular realm. But for Christians this is a primary issue, since our relationship to Christ governs our relationships with others.