Depression Anxiety and the Child of God: April 2014

This is an excellent article written by my associate, friend and writer of the Forwarding to my Book

Depression Anxiety and the Child of God

The Core Values Model: Personal Identity and Values— Development, Influences and Transformation

Steven G. Rise PhD, LCSW-R

The past few decades have witnessed unprecedented changes in social and personal values across the globe. Technology, media, entertainment, politics and influential role models have profoundly shifted how societies define values relating to distinctive goals, what individual and community priorities will be, and what our guiding principles are as we define our specific lives and its direction. These influences clearly work on the conscious level, but more subtly on the unconscious level as well. What factors lie behind these dramatic individual and cultural value shifts? Even though each individual human identity is profoundly complex in its structure, and unique in its formation, we are still collectively impacted by these external influences.

Within every culture throughout history, the mother and father have the greatest degree of influence on their child’s identity and value system. Some of the changes in parenting styles that have been universally accepted include: the shifting value toward premature self-reliance, independence and antiauthority over obedience and conformity; the import of personal gratification over social responsibility; and choosing instant gratification rather than delaying pleasure for a superior goal.¹

As we evaluate our lives, we should be able to recognize that man’s most natural propensity is toward the path of least resistance. But obedience, social responsibility, and the disciplines needed to pursue higher goals used to be important virtues. There was a time not long ago when society saw its vested interest in developing people with the sense of personal responsibility, character and discipline more so than today. For these general societal shifts to occur, there must have been changes within our value system that impacted our identity as individuals, communities, and as a nation.

We need to be aware of how permeable our values are under the constant and subtle flow from societal and environmental sources. How we interact with our environment will in part determine what influences we will allow to be absorbed into our belief system. But even if it were possible to consciously avoid all of the extraneous influences that might undermine our values, our minds will still absorb societal norms unconsciously—you cannot swim without getting wet. A person cannot exist in an environment without being influenced by the community and cultural standards he lives within, and the patterns established by each of these variables.

A clear example of this can be observed by the stark contrast in entertainment at the present time compared to twenty-five years ago. Ethical and social issues are incessantly being pushed to the extreme; yet, it appears that even the most traditional mindsets have come to accept—or willingly tolerate—societal and moral degeneration with little reaction. Even if we consciously reject the present ethical and moral social changes, we are nevertheless desensitized to the degree that those changes impact our ideals unconsciously.

Contrasting all of these suppositions is an understanding that our core self is also undeniably influenced and affected by an external objective moral source, just as it is affected by external immoral sources. This does not imply a dualistic philosophy such as what the movie “Star Wars” suggests, where good and bad are equal entities, existing in a continual battle for control; rather, it confirms the foundation that all good rests upon—God, the Author, Creator, and Sustainer of all life. God’s objective truth is critical in the formation and sustaining of a standard of truth—albeit flawed within mankind’s limited subjectivity—and in understanding the values we knowingly and unknowingly base our life upon.

If we believe that God exists (a concept which in itself is comical, as if God’s existence is based upon what I think or do not think), we should be able to deduce that we do not belong to ourselves—rather we belong to the One who created us. However, mankind in his natural state believes he does, in fact, belong to himself. Humans spend their entire lives perfecting egocentrism as if self is the purpose of existence. Here is where much of man’s problems reside. As we hold onto “self” as the central theme to our life philosophies, to some degree, every recurrent egotistical thought and action will endorse and perpetually crystallize our negative core values by its own cognitive and behavioral reinforcement. Invariably, these self-focused actions will also create a ripple effect impacting other people, just as other peoples’ egocentric choices impact us.

As we live alone in the center of our own universe of self, we continually make choices based upon our own subjective experiences and cognitive reasoning primarily considering how our choices and the actions of others will impact or benefit ourselves.

This is not the same as Darwin’s survival of the fittest, because the issue is not survival. The issue is self-centeredness. Each person seeks his own wants, very often at the expense of another, because each considers his own rights and needs above the rights and needs of his fellow man; as his fellow man does the same we have turmoil. At its extreme, if this idea were multiplied by three hundred million, anarchy would result. What saves the human race is that we have been designed and created in God’s image, so the objective standard of truth abides within each one of us inherently.

Even though most people do not intentionally pursue truth, it still shows itself in our thinking and choices to some degree because we all hold to a basic universal standard of what should and what should not be. But the narcissistic individuality and self-absorption of man’s natural state also resides within and taints truth to various degrees, so that it becomes easier and easier to justify our personal choices, especially since everyone else seems to be considering his own rights and needs above the rights and needs of others, too.

So here we face our dilemma. Do we recognize this ongoing conflictual dynamic? If so, will we choose to live in the framework that we were created by God to function within, established in truth; or will we choose to stay in our present state of egocentrism? The deductive logic of why Christianity is true is outside of the scope of this writing. But if we do claim to be Christians, we should understand what that actually means, in addition to the profound spiritual resources available for us personally, so that we can experience the joy and peace God intended for us to live in through Jesus Christ.

Truth is not indefinable and elusive, nor is it subjected to opinion; truth is simply truth. Truth lucidly stands upon its own merit radiating itself as light in the darkness. The Christian’s main confirmation of truth is the Bible, which is the universal standard of truth as God’s spoken Word, revealed through His Son Jesus Christ. We can never fully comprehend all of the treasures contained in this compilation of books, but it is worthy of trusting and basing our lives upon because it is infallible in its tenets and principles. The Christian’s foundation of belief that the Bible is God’s standard of objective truth includes:

1. God is the source of all truth.²

2. He will ultimately judge the world according to His truth and righteousness.³

3. God has given us as his children the Holy Scriptures as a guide to follow in His truth. (Children of God, or those who are the spiritual lineage of Abraham, are persons who by faith have accepted God’s free gift of grace and forgiveness in His Son Jesus Christ, and have placed their trust and confidence in Him alone as the means of salvation.)⁴

4. We as God’s children believe in the Messiah, the Holy Christ, as the Scriptures foretold.⁵

5. The Messiah was revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.⁶

6. Jesus Christ is truth incarnate, and His claim as the source of all truth is exclusive.⁷

7. Jesus will allow judgment to fall upon those who will not accept the truth that He is the Son of God.⁸

8. God sent His Holy Spirit to fill us, empower us and guide us into all truth.⁹

9. God desires all men to understand, accept, and correctly explain the truth.¹⁰

There are many other Scriptural references to validate these principals, but for the purposes of this writing, the point is made sufficiently clear. If we hold to the tenets of Christianity, we must also recognize the fact that there is an objective truth imposed onto mankind that requires acceptance and conformity.

This is, however, in contrast to our post-modern societal philosophy, which states that there is no objective truth, and that “truth” is either relative or subjective. Again, although contrary to what God’s Word states, and in direct opposition to what God desires for His people, a large portion of the Christian community is seemingly willing to justify this compromise as well.

Yet, this inherent disagreement between objective truth and our subjective experiences appears as a paradox within the soul of every man, and is therefore the central dynamic within the Core Values Model.¹¹ To complicate this internal struggle further, even when we recognize the standard of truth, we inherently have great difficulty in conforming to that standard because of the required change, from what we have based our lives upon to something different, albeit superior.

Ravit Nussinson et al. discussed the rigidity of subjective thinking in regard to the changeable nature of judgment, saying: “People use subjective experience to make judgments but when they realize that that judgment is contaminated they use a metacognitive correction process to correct for the assumed effects of that contamination on judgment.”¹² This implies what Nussinson et al. refers to as the “immutability of subjective experience.”¹³ Essentially, subjectivity is so pervasive in our cognitive processes that even when we know that our perceptions and judgments are objectively incorrect, we are still naturally reluctant to alter that perception to fit in with objective truth. Equally or more pervasive is Nussinson et al.’s clarification that, “the correction process is confined to cognitive judgment and does not extend to the biased experience itself.”¹⁴ So then even when our individual subjective experiences contrast with our own personal judgments, we are still hesitant to alter those judgments. When our ability to judge situations in the present contradicts our personal values, which are based on subjective experiences, we still often fail to change our judgments.

This point reinforces the necessity of the universal standard of truth. This multifaceted, often incompatible fundamental dynamic between subjective experience and objective truth is the catalyst for how we develop our personal identity, and each person’s multidimensional individuality is more unique than his fingerprint.

Moreover, even though God and His standard of truth never change, our personal identity continuously changes because of our subjection to environmental factors and other external influences.¹⁵ Steven Hitlin observed that, “personal identity is the sense of self, built up over time as the person embarks on, and pursues goals that are not thought of as those of a community, but as the property of the individual.”¹⁶ Hitlin theorizes that each one of us is unique to ourselves because, even though values come from external sources, each person translates those values differently because they are interpreted by an exclusive set of subjective experiences.¹⁷ This point is critical to understanding why each of us stands as an individual, as a unique creation from inception, and continues to develop in uniqueness throughout our lifespan, because the foundation of our identities is exclusive to ourselves.

This exclusive formation serves as our distinct foundation to perception. Because of its complexity, observing the extreme examples of faulty identity formation will illustrate this construct more clearly. Consider the profound influence that childhood abuse has upon a person’s self-definition and personal identity. Phillips & Daniluk propose that since the early part of childhood development has the greatest impact on the formation of personal identity, child abuse has a significant impact on the creation of what they term a “contaminated identity.”

A healthy identity formation during this developmental stage should foster a positive sense of self as well as a sense of safety in the outside world, but victims of child abuse typically do not develop those characteristics. Instead, they perceive themselves and the world through the “abused victim lens,” which often results in identity characteristics such as a sense of being different, alone or invisible, as well as a confusing incongruence between how the abused people feels about themselves, and how they believe others perceive them.

The victim’s identity becomes entirely wrapped around the abuse experiences. Yet, most of the time this perspective requires a shift from “victim” to “survivor” in order to allow them to disengage from the trauma and acknowledge other aspects of their identity that are more reflective of reality. Thus, trauma therapy focuses on challenging those faulty assumptions about unworthiness, helplessness, self-blame and self-loathing—flawed self-perceptions and self-beliefs or values from the past that continue to influence present day interactions. By encouraging a more positive perception of self as well as an understanding of objective reality, the person can often separate the event(s) from their core identity.¹⁸

This is a critical component to restore psychological health, and foundational in the Core Values Model of psychotherapy. If we are able to learn how to differentiate the faulty conclusions we have subjectively deduced—or what others had inflicted upon us—from our intrinsic selves, we will see our inherent value more objectively.¹⁹

If we are not able to impartially differentiate our inherent value of self from the adverse environmental influences that impact our lives, then those adversative factors will instill faulty self-beliefs, which in turn thematically shape the defective core values that negatively impact the formation of our identities.²⁰ Valle & Silovsky propose that child abuse creates “stable internal attributions,” which influences the identity formation and subsequent perception of the world in the abuse victim. They thought that because the effects of child abuse are more deeply rooted in individual identity than external behavior, treatment is far more difficult as the problem is less controllable.

Faulty identity formation as the result of abuse can either be worsened, lessened or prevented depending on the reactions, to the abusive events, by primary relationships. If people in those primary relationships—such as a mother, father, sibling, spouse, etcetera—react negatively and do not provide positive support, understanding and validation, faulty identity formation is far more likely and it becomes increasingly more pervasive. Here we can see the importance of relationship in forming both positive and negative core values, as well as healing from negative and defective self-beliefs.

This also implies the foundational importance of love and validation for healing—two other central themes within Christianity that should be natural expressions of truth.²¹

The characteristic of self-blame also appears to have a significant impact on faulty identity formation because it generates other defective assumptions such as a sense of helplessness, worthlessness and self-loathing.²² From my experiences as a psychotherapist, it seems more unconsciously acceptable for a person—especially a child—to own false guilt from trauma and abuse rather than accept his helplessness or powerlessness in the situation.

These people often conclude that the false guilt still allows a degree of perceived control and power, which psychologically protects the person’s sense of self from its more crippling alternative. As we continue to mature as individuals, and left unchallenged, the false guilt we carry unconsciously will permeate every area of our being, including how we perceives ourselves and the world around us, and how we are supposed to interact within our environment.

Our values identify how we perceive self in relation to shared values. So, we base our personal value on how we perceive the important people in our lives value us. The severity of a negative situation’s impact validates itself over and over as the cycle self-perpetuates. Our flawed perceptions orient our values, and our values in turn orient and regulate our present-day perception, henceforth our feelings and choices in behavior or response. If, for example, based on prior abuse a person believes the world is not safe, he may demonstrate that negative core value by hypervigilance, paranoia or anxiety. If left unchallenged, the cognitive, emotional and physiological responses will continue to feed that negative core value situation after situation. Similarly, if a person believes he has no value because of perceived prior abuse or neglect—mental, physical or sexual—he might exhibit that negative core value by self-loathing, self-destructive, or self-defeating behavior, thereby sabotaging life success and relationships, which in turn reinforces and perpetuates his faulty negative core self-value.

Both positive and negative core values are universal; everyone has them to varying degrees of intensity and complexity based on our upbringing and our perception of life-events, our personality types, etcetera.²³ The younger we are, the more foundational both negative and positive core values are to us, ergo the more they will effect and impact our identities and our development.

Therefore, negative core values instilled through perceived childhood traumas are both more intense and complex, especially those flawed values instilled by one’s mother and father. As we develop and advance into adulthood, our faulty beliefs established because of present-day trauma are notably less intense and complex, and tend to thematically reflect our previously established core values rather than forging new ones. This is essentially because our framework of reference is increasingly larger as we age and experience more life-interactions. Therefore, trauma experienced post-adolescence is easier to differentiate from one’s personhood than those experienced during progressively earlier periods of development.

An example of this premise can be seen in “Carol,” a fifty three year-old woman who reported to be struggling with a faulty core value of unworthiness, and its emotional manifestations of chronic fear, guilt, and depression. She stated she had struggled with these feelings since childhood and it impacted every area of her life, especially her relationships. She could cognitively understand she was an intelligent, attractive and personable woman, but in her heart she still believed she was not “worth loving,” nor “good enough” or “smart enough” to accomplish her life pursuits (even though she is highly intelligent). At the age of thirty three, these problems were exacerbated by the still birth of her only child, which she was unable to emotionally resolve for the past twenty two years—being consumed by guilt, regret and shame—and not understanding the reason why. Moreover, the intensity of those negative feelings was that of a child, which is more powerful and consuming than those same feelings experienced in an adult.

In therapy, while using the EMDR²⁴ therapeutic process, Carol was able to follow these negative and shameful feelings back to her early childhood, to an incident that happened between she and her parents. She recalled at the age of three holding onto her mother’s leg while a man (presumably her father) was yelling at her. She cognitively concluded: “I did something wrong that I did not know was wrong, and I was punished for it.” As Carol continued processing this theme, she recalled that she was required to be on bed rest during her pregnancy. Even still, two days before her stillbirth, she got out of bed to walk a few friends back to their car after they visited her at home. As she was going back into her house, she picked up the newspaper, which was lying the driveway.

In hindsight, after so many years of unconscious conflict, Carol was able to connect these events under the same cognitive theme of: “I did something wrong that I did not know was wrong and I was punisher for it.” Ever since Carol made that connection, she has been progressively resolving the grief and loss of her son, and continues to report being free from the unwarranted guilt and shame that was thematically connected to these events.

Our personal identity is at the core of self. It is experienced as unique, but subjected to social modeling through the concept of values. Our identities are a living dynamic that has the ability to adapt, grow and change, like a sponge that continually absorbs and expels as new information is processed from our environments. So then, we may define values as a set of trans-situational goals, which vary in importance, and serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or other social body. Value identity is described to show how we perceive self in relation (comparatively) to our society’s values. Values therefore orient and regulate our actions as we relate to those around us. Subsequently, personal identity must then be produced, at least in part, through value commitments, or what we consider important or choose to align ourselves with in our external world.²⁵

Values give meaning to actions, and actions give meaning to values. Thus, the cognitive understanding of a value or belief gives meaning, either positively or negatively, to a behavior, just as a behavior, in return, confirms our values.²⁶ This concept validates the assertion: “If he really loved you, he would not treat you so badly.” This statement applies to both the abuser and the abused in that both are fulfilling a pre-developed role based upon their internal value systems.

Here lies the reason why many people stay in abusive relationships. If we base our value on the influences of prior abuse or neglect, we will tend to incorporate those faulty values into how we define love and our relational roles. We might perceive love as being controlling, while our counterpart might define love as being ill-treated.

Behavior that is influenced by our values is done so by external adaptations both consciously and unconsciously. Therefore, as implied previously, the abused person has the framework to become the next abuser in that the severity of the impact on his identity validates itself as the internal cycle continues. His flawed perception orient his values, and those values in turn orient and regulate his present-day perception. Thus, his feelings and choices are constantly fortifying each other in the relational dynamic of behavior and response.²⁷ An example of this can be observed when a person has a disproportionate reaction to a present-day situation (rage instead of mere frustration).

The present-day experience is actually an unconscious trigger to prior experiences that have been accumulated thematically within that person’s psyche.

Again, values are not derived from inherent variables, such as the ego, but rather from external influences developed in the superego. Like many theorists, Sigmund Freud understood several important components of personality formation and development. Yet, like many of the other philosophers, he fell short of recognizing the source of these truths. Ego development is one of Freud’s propositions of personality, which is comprised of ego, id and superego, and it still stands a century later as a plausible explanation.

To help understand the concept of superego, Freud expressed his notion of the pleasure principle, which states that we start our lives amoral and gradually gain our moral perspective from mother and father as our superego develops.²⁸ Our unprincipled young minds are basically controlled by the id, which is virtually pure impulse, feeling, and immediate gratification. As we develop from infancy into early childhood, our morality begins to mature. Guilt is developed at the same time as our moral development because we learn morality by reward and punishment. This may lead to anxiety for wrongdoing, or it may lead to anxiety over being caught for wrongdoing.²⁹

There is a fundamental difference between the driving forces of these anxieties that needs to be clarified. Our guilt can only come from the anxiety derived from contemplating or committing an act that goes against our value systems, thus serving as a preventative for repeated misbehavior. Our remorse from prior experiences prevents future misconduct. Anxiety over being caught for wrongdoing demonstrates a lack of conscience regarding the wrongdoing itself, which is necessary for the anxiety to be labeled as guilt. In such cases, the fear may be based in our distress concerning the punishment for our misconduct, which expresses a lack of remorse for the negative action and only a concern regarding the penalty. This potentially demonstrates moral indifference, or a deficit in superego development (which would also be termed malformed core values) and a self-centeredness that at its extreme is often found in sociopathic and narcissistic personality disorders. An exception to this principle is seen in children with Executive Function Disorder such as ADHD, or other impulsivity spectrum issues from biological origin. These children often live with chronic guilt as they lack the ability to apply what they had learned in prior experiences because they fail to process correctly in the present, yet realize in hindsight.³⁰

Freud further elaborated this thought by saying children desire their parents love, and fear losing that love. This dynamic is what initially structures our morality. He continues to assume that because of this dynamic; our conscience must be based in emotion, comprised of feelings like anxiety, guilt, shame and remorse. So then, since Freud believed that the voice of conscience is not necessarily mental, but may also be emotional; perception has the ability to catch our attention by triggering emotions and activating the feelings of shame, guilt and remorse.³¹

According to Freud, the superego comprises the moral functions of the personality. These functions include:

The approval or disapproval of actions and wishes on the grounds of morality
Critical self-observation
Self-punishment
The internal mandate for compensation or repentance of wrongdoing
Self-praise or self-love as a reward for virtuous or desirable thoughts and actions.³²

Very importantly, it is recognized that the functions of the superego are often unconscious. Although the superego’s moral demands and prohibitions begin to influence our mental lives from a very young age, they are nevertheless biased, being based on the skewed perspective placed upon us by our environment, namely our mothers and fathers or other flawed primary caregivers. This construct also implies how children naturally perceive love to be conditioned by performance, which furthers the formation of negative core values because love is understood to be based on what we do rather than on who we are.

It is also true, according to Freud, that while on the one hand psychoanalysis showed that human beings are less moral than they had believed themselves to be, by demonstrating the reality of our unconscious wishes, which we consciously repudiate and deny, it has demonstrated on the other hand that there are more and stricter moral demands and prohibitions in each one of us that we have no conscious awareness of.³³ This understanding is a critical component within the Core Values Model because it demonstrates the truth regarding the condition of our hearts, the conflict within our inherent depravity, the skewed values upon which we are trained, and this independent, objective truth, which shines as the ultimate standard superior to both our flawed perspective and the values that are instilled by our environment.

Perhaps most importantly, the parental images, which are interposed to form our superegos, are those of our parents’ superegos. Our parents tend to discipline us similar to the way their parents treated them in their own childhoods. Their own moral demands, acquired early in life, are applied to us, whose superegos in outcome reflect or resemble those of our parents. This characteristic has an important social implication. As Freud pointed out, it results in the perpetuation of the moral code of a culture or society and is responsible in part for the conservatism and resistance to change as social structures throughout history confirm.³⁴ Interestingly, the opposite is also true. Our culture has swung to the opposite extreme where liberalism is now the norm that resists the change necessary for a moral society.

Again, primary caretakers are responsible for bridging the outside world of resources needed to sustain life to the child. As the caretaker consistently instills how to receive and use his resources responsibly, the child gradually takes over the role of meeting his own needs.³⁵ How this process is defined and instilled is unique to every caretaker-child relationship. The parent or custodian cannot help but instill what he perceives to be true, based upon his own framework of core values, some of which are healthy while others are not. Most values lie somewhere in the middle to varying degrees of right and wrong depending on what is instilled, in addition to the structure of the child’s personality, temperament, genetics and biological complexion. If a parent gives without boundaries, children learn to feel entitled and become increasingly more self-centered and demanding.³⁶

Most young people use the words ‘want’ and ‘need’ synonymously because their convoluted understanding and definitions of such principles are established by the conscious and unconscious mispriorities of their role models, most importantly mother and father. If the primary people in a child’s life believe a larger house is the same as shelter, a new car is necessary for transportation or that designer produce and garments are synonymous with the basics of food and clothing, these values will be unconsciously instilled into the child as well. Moreover, if materialistic values are so easily transferred to a child, we may also assume the moral and integrity values are as well.

The Apostle Paul challenges us to learn to be content, whatever the circumstances are.³⁷ The natural propensity of man is to want more immediately after he receives what he thought would satisfy his desire. He longs for extra or different resources to meet the unquenchable longing for more or better. During the maturation process, most come to recognize that desires are insatiable. King Solomon discussed the futility of superficial possessions when he said:

And all that my eyes desired, I did not refuse them. I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure, for my heart was pleased because of all my labor and this was my reward for all my labor. Thus I considered all my activities which my hands had done and the labor which I had exerted and behold all was vanity and striving after the wind and there was no profit under the sun.³⁸

This concept applies to at least the physical, cognitive and emotional faculties, and its result is a skewed perspective, ungratefulness, and a chronic dissatisfaction with life. When the insatiable mantra of overindulgence is continually reinforced in a child’s life, it will eventually be ingrained and form into personality traits and thus distort his value system.

Compared to the rest of the world, Americans live on the eighth rung of the ten-rung ladder of life. Human nature tends to be inclined to look at the two rungs of prosperity above, and not consider the seven rungs of less-than that lies below. It is good to aspire, grow and pursue; this is a positive virtue instilled by God, but not at the expense of being discontent with our lives and our relationships. The struggle from our aspirations, growth and pursuits should instill a deeper sense of satisfaction in our lives and in our relational connections. When properly applied, these disciplined endeavors develop stronger and clearer standards, ergo a sound character and values system.

Conversely, if one’s parents withhold resources too stringently, children tend to give up and do not develop the confidence and hopefulness of reaching goals that have gratifying rewards.³⁹ This is not implying that those parents who choose to do without, or those who cannot financially afford superfluous possessions are instilling poor boundaries into their children. On the contrary, families who sacrifice their second income so that one parent, usually the mother, can be home with their children, tend to have more stable and flexible boundaries than the families who unnecessarily have two working parents.

⁴⁰ Children understand when both parents have to work so that the family unit can survive. Children can understand their parent’s values, and they recognize the mispriority of materialism as well, often perceiving that their parent’s hold material possessions as more important than they are when the family unit can afford for one parent to be home during those impressionable childhood years. Interestingly, these children often grow up and continue this pattern with their own children.⁴¹

So then the issue is not in the parents’ ability to provide, but rather in their unwillingness to provide. This criterion is measured especially on the emotional level. Miserly parenting negatively impacts the internal structure of a child, especially in his capacity to be demonstrative and responsive. When parents hold back attention, affection, praise, positive affirmation and love, they leave a deficit within their child, which plays a powerful role in understanding whom he is and what his inherent value is. The failure of a parent to imprint positive affirmations will often leave a negative imprint in its stead. This negative imprint, or faulty core value, often expresses itself as depression.⁴²

Concerning boundaries, both child and adult need to know where self ends and another person begins. The apparent correlation is observable between early compromised attachment and poor character development within a child. Subsequently, the resulting poor boundaries can lead to serious psychological and physical consequences.

On the psychological level, the child is susceptible to a misshapen core values system including a lack of cognizance regarding his sense of personal responsibility; unrealistic expectations; compromised morals and ideals; a lack of insight into consequences; emotional instability and deficits; difficulty in his ability to develop and maintain meaningful relationships; incongruent attitudes and therefore conduct; and limited, compromised personality development. On the physiological level, as one’s behavior is directly impacted by how he thinks and feels, to varying degrees he will have an inability to delay gratification (e.g. sexual promiscuity), impulsivity (e.g. stealing, fighting, etc.,), isolation from others, and difficulty following through consistently with school and employment.⁴³

A child’s subjective experiences, therefore, including the modeling and instruction by parental figures, caretakers and other important role models, have a profound impact upon his understanding and definition of self, and how his character develops both qualitatively and quantitatively. Who this child considers himself to be (core values) greatly influences how he perceives and thinks, both consciously and unconsciously, how he feels about himself and others, and the choices he will make initiating or responding to his environment. Again, one’s core values determine so many factors and influences several components of self, and the ways he expresses himself.

One apparent difference worth noting concerns Freud’s insinuation of substituting the role of God by the roles of mother and father. His study regarding the development of internalized parental authority as the source of moral imperatives (superego) became an important aspect of his psychoanalytic theory of character.⁴⁴ In doing so, morality becomes fallible because it is based on subjective experiences, as opposed to the objective truth established through God and His Word alone.⁴⁵ One point of agreement stated earlier by Hitlin and Freud is that values are not inherent.⁴⁶ They develop from external sources.⁴⁷ Similarly, to the many other theorists before and after him, Freud could see a part of the dynamic but missed the most influential source of values; this would be the foundation that our personal value is based upon, namely God. Therefore it is God who gives our lives meaning by defining our value, which is based on His unmerited and unconditional love, which in turn gives meaning to our actions.

Strawn et al. asserts that people with a healthy view of their mother and father also tend to have healthy self-esteem. Those people are also more likely to have a loving and accepting image of God. Similarly, people who are nurturing tend to see God as nurturing, and those who are critical tend to see God as critical, which reflects how our instilled values are projected onto how God is subjectively perceived. Our early childhood development often plays a considerable role in establishing these values.⁴⁸

As every theorist noted thus far, no relationship plays a more influential role in our lives than that of mother and father, which also supports the Core Values Model’s premise that relational connection needs to be the foundation of therapeutic intervention.

Our personal values are also based on our subjective experiences obtained throughout life, which develop our assumptions regarding self, others and our environment on both the conscious and unconscious levels, as well as our subjective responses to those experiences. This personal understanding of self stems from two different value systems: one functions on the conscious level, which asserts itself with intention, and the other unconsciously, where it appraises objects, actions, situations and people in relation to our personal values without engaging in much cognitive effort. These unconscious values serve as latent guides for evaluating our environment and interactions with the world. Together, the conscious and unconscious values form our value structures.

Value identities then result from when we identify ourselves in terms of the values we hold. These values are formed by: biological make up, familial system, race, ethnicity, gender, social class, occupation, level of education, and our spiritual belief system, and influence virtually every area of our being.⁴⁹ Value identity is how we perceive self in relation to another person’s personal and societal values. So then, our values orient and regulate our perceptions and behaviors.

To add to our complexity, value structures and value identity function within both components of subjective experiences and objective truth, each value being challenged by the inevitable internal conflict, consciously and unconsciously.⁵⁰ Each value is also being challenged by the external socially patterned value structures we live within. This social patterning is defined as any external interchange between self and our environment, including one-to-one, familial, and community interrelatedness. Understanding and processing the ever-changing dynamic of our self-definition is unquestionably multidimensional and intricate.

Because of our amazing and unique complexity, we can see how easily our interactions with other people are misunderstood, misinterpreted and prone to disagreements. This evolving incorporation of structures, patterns and values of personal identity are at the core of self. Within this context, we each stand entirely unique; yet each of us is still subjected to external influences. This is why a group of people can observe the same event and have very different recalls of what happened.

Hitlin et al. believes we are most in-touch with our core self, or personal identity, when we act in accordance with socially patterned value structures.⁵¹ This is because our conscious and unconscious value systems are in agreement. Because of this expanded application, understanding our values is crucial to understanding our interactional relationship with others. Hitlin describes five criteria for values that are important fundamentals to consider:

They are concepts or beliefs (subjective).
They pertain to desirable end states or behaviors.
They transcend specific situations (thematic).
They guide selection or evaluation of behavior or events.
They are ordered by relative importance.⁵²

Furthermore, our authenticity, or sense of being genuine, reflects the activation of our personal identities.⁵³ Thus we feel authentic when we behave in ways that uphold our values. This is problematic when authenticity is the emotional response to our faulty beliefs because those viewpoints can easily be assimilated into our core values system without being challenged by truth. Because we are being genuine, or what we believe to be truthful, we lack the insight necessary to recognize and understand that our values are faulty. If we feel authentic, there will be a lack of guilt, remorse, insight or conscience regarding how we express our values. At its extremes, we will see different personality disorders function because of the person’s lack of insight into how his faulty value system impacts his thinking, feeling and interaction with his environment. This is also why prejudice and hatred, and the terrible expressions of those feelings, can be so easily justified, as our identity is influenced by socially patterned value structures (e.g. Nazism).

Additionally, depending on our character, temperament and disposition, a lack of self-regard, the inability to internalize and retain love, and a self-abasing belief system might also be evident and fortified if we continue to justify a pattern of self-authentication, and make our maladaptive choices situation after situation throughout the days, weeks, months and years ahead. Hitlin postulates that “Our values are linked with present situations in two ways: first, they operate by affecting judgments and perceptions, either positively or negatively and secondly, they operate by impacting which decisions we find most desirable.”⁵⁴

Again, what we find desirable has the potential to be beneficial or destructive depending on if the personal values our situation is based upon is faulty or healthy. The relationship between our selves and the society in which we live is critically important. This is most notable in the present-day phenomenon where people are so rapidly desensitized to those things that were considered morally or ethically wrong only a few years ago.

This pattern of changed values is undoubtedly constructed in the value systems within one’s subjective experiences. Because of our natural propensity toward sin and the “path of least resistance”, our values are easily manipulated by our increasingly compromised societal values.

Francis Ianni described his findings on the influences that shape American teenagers’ behaviors, identities, and aspirations as they relate to peers, parents and society. He noted that teens who are confronted with many conflicting demands at home, school, peers, etc., do look to the adults in their life for guidance on major questions of values and future decisions that they face. Ianni found that in communities where parents, teachers and other adults take active responsibility, consistently articulating values and expectations, most teens would pass into adulthood successfully.⁵⁵

In contrast, the communities that struggle with poverty, conflict, and despair where important adult role models do not offer persuasive and consistent motivation and hope, or stable relational connections, many of the young people become discouraged, confused, cynical and angry. Even without appraising comparisons, universally, teens have an inherent understanding that they need guidance and affirmation.⁵⁶ Perhaps this lies within our objective truth because the principle is an essential need. Those teens who do not receive the needed attention are much more prone to act out their anger and confusion in dysfunctional behaviors and choices such as delinquency, truancy, unemployment and unwed pregnancies.⁵⁷

The points made by Ianni are considerable in attempting to deliberate the variables that play into the formation of our value system and personal identity, and how those internalized attributes of self are expressed in our thinking, feelings, behavioral choices and beliefs. Role modeling and proactive adult involvement and guidance are a critical component of how a young person formulates an understanding of self. One recent cultural phenomenon that undermines the primary relationship between child and role model can be observed on the modern teen-aged television shows. Many of these programs portray teens as self-governing and self-sustaining. Very often, when a parent or adult are a part of the script, they are portrayed as inept and idiotic, as the teen seemingly shines brilliantly with wisdom and the problem-solving skills necessary to resolve the crises at hand, despite the adult’s incompetence.

This continual, subtle falsehood has the ability to undermine a young person’s value system as they unconsciously absorb these messages as reality.⁵⁸

Ianni continues by contemplating the question whether we discover or actualize an internal “true self” or do we instead create or construct an identity from externally available alternative identities or identity elements. His findings were that both are true. The identity formation of adolescence is a process that involves both discovery and creation. He stated, “Just as biological endowment places limits on the adolescent identity, so the available roles presented to adolescents by the environment limit the possible identities they can construct.”⁵⁹ This notion adds validity to the obvious. The more time children spend in front of the television (subjective experiences), the greater impact its viewpoints have on their identity formation, and therefore their values.⁶⁰

In this statement, Ianni limits the responsibility of young people who live in “less than ideal” living situations, perhaps lacking positive adult guidance, support and interaction. Although there is accuracy on some levels regarding the critical impact mentors and other influential adults have on the formation of core values in children and adolescents, many children raised in these deficient environments do develop healthy values, most probably because of positive interaction, encouragement and motivation from their healthy role models.

Nevertheless, a substantial portion do not, as Ianni implies, because of the lack of positive influences who they value as important relationships.⁶¹ The issue being addressed has little to do with poverty, and everything to do with relational connection and love, especially with our primary caretakers, principally during early childhood development.⁶²

Although Ianni’s general principle is valid, that relational connection is critical for the healthy formation of our values, there are many other variables to consider in defining self. One outstanding point that needs to be made clear is that other people cannot meet the fundamental need, nor be the solution regarding “the limited identities a person can construct.” Having a relationship with God is the only influence that can fulfill this need.

As with many of the other authors who failed to consider the profound influence of objective truth at work within our lives, his results are indeed limited to the biased subjective interpretations of what truth is, or rather what he would like it to be.

As the adolescent continues to mature into adulthood, most of the personality formation has been established. Even though this is valid, our personalities have the malleability to change throughout adulthood as faulty subjective experiences (maladjusted values) are challenged, primarily with objective truth. A plethora of variables play into this complex interaction of who one is and how many variables of self can be altered. But truth is not simply another option of how one can choose to view self, others and the world in which he must interact.

Truth is the only reality of whom he authentically is. We never arrive at a complete understanding of truth and its transformational process on this side of eternity, but when we pursue it with intrinsic veracity, or nuda veritas, as our chosen option to base our lives upon, we cannot be disappointed. Reality and truth are always a stronger foundation than the faulty framework of illusion.⁶³

As mentioned in the opening paragraphs, because society changes, our personal values often change too. Also, as our values change, so do our attitudes. A simple theoretical example of this dynamic is clear when we become desensitized to our prior values which were developed during our upbringing: including the values of hard work, diligence when facing life challenges, and devotion toward the needs of other people. Because we base our judgment and value of ethics and morals on what we observe in society—on television and other sources of media—we increasingly feel more and more content, or authentic, following the new universal standards where we can justify our values of entitlement, lack of personal responsibility and selfishness. Thus, we grow more pessimistic in our perception, considering our life challenges as unfair. We authentically believe our newly forming value identity imposed by the present day social value structure. We also develop an expectation that other people should carry our responsibilities.

Hitlin et al. discusses this relation between attitudes and values by stating that, “Values exist as higher mental structure or as higher intellection than attitudes; thus, attitudes (emotion) express values.”⁶⁴ Negative attitudes are tied into negative values. A good example might be seen when a person perceives that he was verbally abused and thereafter maintains a victim’s perspective that justifies his negative attitude and reactions to other people. Or if a person is taught to distrust others and to fear the world, those negative or extreme values will express themselves by paranoia, hypervigilance and anxiety. The challenge lies in the transformational process from our faulty subjective experiences and values to objective truth. Even when we hold a strong intellectual knowledge base of objective truth, it is very difficult to submit our value system to the scrutiny of that truth.

At this juncture, the conscious and unconscious mind needs to be differentiated, as each complicates the process of change in different ways. Primarily, the conscious and unconscious mind both work on separate levels, and then again together, as each level of consciousness seeks to prevent change from taking place. Subsequently, mental defense mechanisms are employed unconsciously to avoid the anxiety of change, even when the change is beneficial.

Many of the subjective experiences that have accumulated within our identity establish the framework of both healthy and unhealthy perceptions of self, others and our environment in which we must interact. Examples relating to self include:

A healthy self-image versus a poor self-image—when I look at myself in the mirror, what do I focus on?
An optimistic versus a pessimistic outlook on life—is the glass half empty or is it half full?
Self-acceptance versus self-abasement—do I like who I am and who I am becoming, or do I hate myself?
Self-confidence versus anxiety—do I look forward into the future with assurance or do I feel trepidation and inadequacy?

Examples concerning others include:

Acceptance versus prejudice (preconceived critical judgment)—am I open and tolerant of new and different people, or do I avoid them?
Authoritative versus subjective roles (pecking order)—am I insistent to be in control, do I avoid control, or am I flexible to share it?
Superiority versus inferiority (who is perceived as better)—do I think that I am inherently better than others, do I see myself as fundamentally less valuable than others, or do I believe we all have equal inherent value?

Because of defense mechanisms and other variables, we may feel we are living in truth, but if it is based on emotion or a subjective value structure, it will invariably be flawed. Truth would then become blurred and compromised because it is based on societal and personal opinion that has become incorporated into our personal identity. So, we may genuinely believe we are living in truth, but we are not, because truth in its completeness cannot come from within a limited and imperfect human—perfection is not a component of mankind’s design. The only resource where unadulterated truth can be found is God, who has expressed truth to mankind exclusively through His only begotten Son, Jesus.⁶⁵

Jesus spoke of a stricter standard that did not measure our conduct, but rather the intentions and desires of our hearts (souls) because if our hearts are correct, our conduct will be as well.⁶⁶ There are people who might outwardly conduct themselves virtuously, but their hearts are corrupt. Equally, others may appear to be complete train wrecks, but they have virtuous and upright hearts that find their pleasure in God. Therefore, measuring a person from the heart allows us to genuinely know whom the person truly is.

Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.”⁶⁷ The foundation of self-definition is based in our core values and other previously mentioned variables that create self, and it is from those values that we express whom we are.

Therefore, even though our superegos instill a universal standard of moral limits, it does not change the desires of our hearts, only Jesus can do this.⁶⁸

As the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah stated, “The heart is more deceitful than all else, and is desperately sick; who can understand it?”⁶⁹ Even from a strictly secular perspective, Freud understood this basic principle of mans nature. Our inability to distinguish our own deceit demonstrates the unconscious mind protecting ourselves from the knowledge of our degeneracy, which also makes it difficult for us to see the need for redemption and conversion. This is where several defense mechanisms are deployed, unconsciously serving and protecting our minds from the inherent inconsistency within our souls, the guilt that would often follow, and the anxiety about making changes to correct our present dilemmas.

King Solomon also acknowledged that some are also deceitful with intention when he wrote, “Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil.”⁷⁰ This category of dishonesty functions on the conscious level because their divisiveness denotes strategy. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the human heart is selfish and destructive. While some plan evil deeds and carry them out to fruition (often seeing those plans as just and virtuous), others just wish those deeds were so. Jesus, while speaking to His disciples said, “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.”⁷¹

This is what sets Christianity apart from every other belief system—grace—God’s unmerited favor. If we can accept that there is a universal and objective moral standard of truth, we must also realize that it is impossible for mankind to meet those standards God had established. The only way mankind could be redeemed was for God Himself to fulfill His own requirements. Therefore, Jesus became a man to pay the penalty of all of mankind’s shortcomings, thereby transforming our motivation, to pursue God from hearts of gratitude and love rather than the fear of retribution.

This has important implications because by design, humans are created by God to be relational, and each person seeks a communal connection. God Himself established this precedent, which is evident as we observe the interwoven nature of the Trinity, and the interconnectedness of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We can see the perfect union of three separate persons as One.⁷² God also created us to be relational within our lives, too: “To know and be known by someone who shares blood and body, history and dreams.”⁷³

This is a fundamental human need. Human life necessitates relationships to live. Moreover, by God’s plan, we are purposed to also have a spiritual relationship with Him. As the Apostle Paul, speaking of our general knowledge, with clear implications of personal relationship, stated: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I have been fully known.”⁷⁴

The clearest example of God’s relational desire is found in the prayer of Jesus at Gethsemane right before He faced the anguish of Calvary’s cross. The Lord expressed His Father’s heart saying:

And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they may also be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me; for Thou didst love Me before the foundation of the world.⁷⁵

In these verses, we see a premier example of Jesus praying. His prayer is a model for us as it illustrates the kind of intimacy and confidence we can also share with the Father. Also, this prayer gives us insight into the character or relationship within God’s selfhood—the interwoven closeness of God the Son and God the Father. Greater still, this oneness that Jesus enjoys with His Father is an oneness that we are invited to join into through His Spirit too.

After the Sinai covenant was given, the glory of God left the mountain and descended upon the tabernacle to dwell in Israel.⁷⁶ In this Gospel account, Jesus is now recognized as that place of glory, replacing the temple, as God is reaching down to mankind through Him.⁷⁷ But now, the thought is of the glory of God passing to Jesus’ followers by indwelling them. Being filled with the Spirit means we have received a degree of God’s glory because we experience Christ within us. Yet much more so, Jesus prays that someday His followers will see the true glory, the true love, which has existed in heaven before the beginning of time.⁷⁸ This is unadulterated glory and love in its fullness and completeness. This is also where Jesus returned to, and we as Christians possess an invitation to join Him.

Conversely, this anticipated glory holds a counterpoint in the final sentences of our Lord’s Prayer. In verses 25-26, Jesus addresses God as “righteous Father,” reminding us that it is God’s perfect righteousness that must lead to judgment of the world, too. This is the perfect standard of truth that has been determined by God and instilled, to some degree, into the hearts of men, a standard that many choose to avoid, thereby avoiding God who established it. We cannot ever live up to that standard. We only need to recognize our deficits and allow God to transform our souls into the freedom of His truth. Again, this is a free gift that is solely based on God’s love, and His desire for us to intimately fellowship with Him.

Yet, in Jesus’ final words before His arrest and crucifixion, He said, “that I may be in them.” His final expressed desire is to love His followers and to indwell them; to fill them with the glory and joy He has known with the Father from before the beginning of time, so that their knowledge, love, joy and peace will be a living and powerful reality uniting His people together as one. God transcends the brokenness of man’s flawed values and his faulty, limited perception—which was instilled by imperfect people—with the glory of Himself, mediated through His Son Jesus, and experiences through His Spirit Who indwells all those who place their faith and trust in the sacrifice Jesus made on mankind’s behalf.

Therefore, it is clearly God’s intention that His children, His Church, “the body of Christ,” which is a significant component of the Believer’s social connection, abides in each other as a body, as we abide in Jesus through His Spirit, Who abides in the Father. As this interwoven relationship plays out, it should be obvious to the world that Christians have the ability to relate more deeply with others because God presses His children to grow deeply—with more transparency, humility, grace, patience and love—more than those who have not placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The church’s mission resides here: If it rests in the Spirit—thereby the Father and Son too—if it reflects God’s glory and love, if it shows a unity in its ranks born by a shared knowledge and love of God, its testimony will astonish the world.

The world will always be constrained because it only functions in the third dimension. Christians, in contrast, live within the construct of the fourth dimension, which is because of the regenerative power of God’s Spirit. Those who listen to the message of truth and believe are sealed in Jesus with His Holy Spirit as a pledge of their inheritance because they have been redeemed!⁷⁹ They also have access to the surpassing greatness of His power, and every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, in Christ!⁸⁰ Yet, we inevitably limit so much of God’s blessings because our ability to understand relationship and the dynamic of interrelation is formed in early childhood development. Therefore, God’s objective truth must persistently struggle against what we have subjectively and intuitively construed to be truth.

Again, as Christians we have the resources of objective truth working in and through us because of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.⁸¹ He dwells within every believer who had surrendered the authority of his life to God through His Son, Jesus Christ. Also as Christians, we submit our lives to the authority of God’s Word, which is objective truth in written form. Therefore, an even greater internal battle ensues between one’s collective subjective experiences and objective truth, each seeking to define one’s identity and its formation. The objective truth of God is the ultimate source on which values are to be based, including the spiritual influence and values found in our relationship with God, fellow believers, and the objective truth from the Bible.

Strawn et al. summarized this thought most articulately stating, “Therefore, for persons to whom belief in God is important, the self may be seen as the interpretive filter [subjective experience] through which they gain their understanding of God.”⁸² This affirms the belief that God and His truth impact the entire person, and the entire person is subjected to God and to His truth.

The Apostle Paul also recognizes that people are a work in progress when he shared, “For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”⁸³ God begins the process of transforming in truth when we trust Him by faith.⁸⁴

Truth is Jesus Christ Himself.⁸⁵ Henceforth, God will also continue the process of (re) building peoples’ lives from faulty and maladjusted subjective values they had built their lives upon to the solid foundation of Truth in Christ throughout their lives. Transformation is the process of being conformed into the image of Jesus Christ, and God will continue this work until Jesus comes back, or until the believer dies and goes to be with his Savior and Creator in heaven. Paul is actually confident of this fact, and those who are disciples of Jesus are too because God’s Spirit confirms this truth to them.⁸⁶

Jesus, who is the radiance of God’s glory,⁸⁷ is the only standard by which we must compare ourselves. It is only in Jesus that we will find the truth because He is Truth incarnate, and only that Truth can set us free. So then, daily time pursuing objective truth by being in God’s presence in prayer, studying His Word, and Christian fellowship are critical in combating the faulty value system instilled by society and opinion.⁸⁸ Values change subtly, usually without our noticing the undermining process under which we live. Therefore, fellowship is also important because it offers the encouragement we each need to get through the difficulty of our days, especially during those seasons of extreme trouble and suffering, and the accountability from people who also pursue God and His standard of truth, like mindedly reminding us what to keep our eyes fixed upon, and challenge us to press forward in the freedom and consistency of truth.

The views in this article might or might not be the same as SR Kraniak

Depression Anxiety and the Child of God

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Depression Anxiety and the Child of God: Sex, Depression and Anxiety - Strange bedfellows

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Sex, Depression and Anxiety - Strange bedfellows

Friday, April 25, 2014

Who are you- and your core values