| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tangent
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 31
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| -theophilus- wrote: | | ... "I'm okay, you're okay" is un-Christian. |
Piffle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why is it piffle?
Not that I'm saying that I disagree with you, but can you back it up with reasoning?
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tangent
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I beg your pardon, I should have said that theophilus' suggestion that '"I'm okay, you're okay" is un-Christian' is a misrepresentation of the original meaning of "I'm OK, You're OK" in the book of that name.
"I'm OK, You're OK" teaches transactional analysis. As children we see that adults are large, strong and competent and that we are little, weak and often make mistakes, so we conclude "I'm Not OK, You're OK". As a consequence, the "Not OK" person has no confidence in himself and behaves as a child who always seeks adult help. The book wants us to affirm ourselves as complete and wholesome beings, and this is entirely in agreement with Christian principles. "I'm OK" means that God loves me and accepts me for who I am. When a person says "I'm not OK" he feels that people do not accept him and ultimately believes that God does not accept him.
There are profound psychological reasons why Christian counsellors would always promote the idea that "I'm OK, You're OK". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well now that I understand the meaning of "I'm OK, you're OK" in relation to the book I would still disagree. Before my disagreement was through thinking that "I'm OK, you're OK" meant acceptance of other religions as being equally valid, which ends up devaluing all faiths in the end. Now, I disagree with the statement because it downplays the need for our redemption.
I would assume that the main problem with "I'm OK, you're not OK" is that is is demeaning to the other, and sets one man above another. Your brief synopsis of the book seems to confirm this. As I said previously, the phrase that "none of us are okay" is better, as it retains parity between all men, while not forgetting the fact that we are all fallen, and not in the image God intended us to be. Salvation is also transformation. Negate the need for transformation and the need for salvation, Christ, is also negated.
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
This all depends on what we mean by the word 'OK', doesn't it?
If 'OK' means that we're good enough to manage without God's help and transforming power, then I don't think anyone's OK.
On the other hand, if 'OK' means that we've all got the capability (with God's help) to move in the right direction and to improve ourselves beyond where we currently are, then I think everyone is OK.
If 'OK' implies you're going to heaven when you die, then the phrase ought to be "I'm OK because of Jesus".
davelarge
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tangent
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| -theophilus- wrote: | | Well now that I understand the meaning of "I'm OK, you're OK" in relation to the book I would still disagree. Before my disagreement was through thinking that "I'm OK, you're OK" meant acceptance of other religions as being equally valid, which ends up devaluing all faiths in the end. Now, I disagree with the statement because it downplays the need for our redemption. |
I don't think you do understand the meaning of "I'm OK, you're OK" in relation to the book. It certainly does not downplay the need for redemption.
I'm a Christian who has also undergone training as a counsellor (the first of a three-year course) and have worked for an organisation of Christian counsellors. My training opened my eyes to some of the malpractices amateur Christians try to use in 'healing' people with psychological illnesses and I have been horrified by some of the blase and arrogant attitudes that some Christians have.
A case in point, a pastor tries to caste a demon out of young woman who has a psychological illness. After an hour and a half, he fiinds some excuse and leaves the woman with a gaping psychological wound. She is on the brink of losing her mind as a result. It is wrong and so monstrously bigheaded of the pastor to think he knows the answers when he is not psychologically trained and then to leave her husband to pick up the pieces afterwards.
The jargon "I'm OK, you're not OK" belongs firmly to the field of psychological illness. It does not negate salvation and it does not negate Christ. If a man with a broken leg visits his GP, does his GP negate Christ? Of course not!
What I'm asking is for you to accept people as Christ accepts us. Please don't condemn your fellow man as being "not OK" in the psychological sense. You mustn't castigate every man as having a psychological illness, we are all beautifully made. Most of us do not have broken legs that need to be healed, and likewise most of us do not have psychological illnesses that need to be healed. You mustn't confuse sin with psychological illness.[/rant]
| davelarge wrote: | This all depends on what we mean by the word 'OK', doesn't it?
If 'OK' means that we're good enough to manage without God's help and transforming power, then I don't think anyone's OK.
On the other hand, if 'OK' means that we've all got the capability (with God's help) to move in the right direction and to improve ourselves beyond where we currently are, then I think everyone is OK.
If 'OK' implies you're going to heaven when you die, then the phrase ought to be "I'm OK because of Jesus". |
"I'm OK, You're OK" has a specific meaning in relation to the book. If you use the phrase to mean something else then it will only cause confusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes we're obviously at cross purposes. I have never tried, nor ever will try, to heal someone with a psychological illness.
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1448
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tangent is right about the book's meaning of "I'm OK You're OK."
Mutual acceptance of people is a good approach for life.
There are differing methods of counselling and some seem to depend on finding something wrong in the subject. That seems to me as unsatisfactory but it is taught by some counsellors.
Anyone who tries to exorcise for hours especially if he is doing it by himself is being very irresponsible.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tangent
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jtheb wrote: | | Anyone who tries to exorcise for hours especially if he is doing it by himself is being very irresponsible. |
Or even if it is half an hour in a healing service and the pastor then abandons the victim to her own devices when it sends her into a psychotic state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
helena
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I entirely agree with Tangent. When I was training at Keele to work as a school counsellor the course director repeatedly reminded us that in counselling as in medicine the primary principle is 'Ne noceas' - Do not do any harm. The same principle should certainly apply in Christian counselling and I've been very worried by some of the people i've met over the years who claim to be counsellors after a one week course.
'I'm OK - you're OK' is about acceptance of yourself and other people. It's a book well worth reading, and Transactional Analysis (in the right hands) can be a very helpful form of counselling |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've met some people that seem to think their counselors because they can tilt their head to one side and nod in an understanding way.
 
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1448
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The ability to LISTEN is very important.
Having done the full ACC course I went on a secular "Person Centred" course this was really Rogerian counselling.
I found the "don't say something, sit there" approach a valuable rule to make one listen before replying and therfore really hear what the counsellee is saying.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyhow, we've got a bit off-topic.
Can we learn anything from people of other faiths?
I don't think anyone's commented on my proposal about culture. Can learning about contemporary and historical cultures help with biblical interpretation in any way?
davelarge
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1448
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | When Jesus commissioned the 72 disciples he told them to 'heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you."' (Luke 10:9). In doing so, the disciples were saying that their hosts were basically sound people - they were after all fellow Jews - but that Jesus had come to give them something special.
|
John as Jesus forerunner seems to have been fairly condemnatory. | Quote: | 7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
|
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
