Good Question….does the reality of unconscious processes undermine Christianity? (continued)
[ Final
Draft: Oct 5, 2002 | Part One: The
experimental/research data ]
The Biblical Data.
I discussed this a little in the intro to the piece on the Existence of the Soul, but here I need to develop the 'practical anthropology' a bit further, and relate it to automaticity, priming, mimicry, and especially negative automatic stereotyping.
The approach I want to take here is three- fold:
…………………………………………………………………..
First, a thumbnail of a Judeo-Christian view of automaticity-looking processes, and their relationship to consciousness.
The Christian view of humanity is that people are created as individuals, and with dissoluble and defining relationships with everything else in their context--God, other people, physical reality (including their own bodies). They are a swirling mixture of individuality, physicality (i.e., their bodies exert influences upon their most-transcendental decisions, and vice-versa…e.g. placebo effects), and sociality (i.e., they are constantly aware and influenced by perceived others/Others in their experienced world).
As individuals they have individual agency, and individual character, much of which is 'borrowed' from their context, and much of which is 'shared' with others in that same context. They are like their parents, but different. They are like their friends, but different. They are like the people in their culture, but sometimes different. And they are even different within themselves! They have competing values, competing desires, competing intra-influences. And they change, reflecting sometimes conformity tendencies and sometimes reflecting contrarian tendencies.
But they are essentially social from the first design…They are internally structured after a conscious and intra-social (i.e., Trinitarian) God. They are pre-built with notions of other minds, intentionality, trust, reciprocity, and communication. They wake up in a social context, after years of abject dependency on the 'whole village'. They regulate behavior with an eye on social and communal values (expressed in 'expectations'). They learn first by mimicry, then by instruction/education, then by reflection upon social/psychological experience, and then by personal selection of a future-basis-for-learning paradigm of life/values (deliberately retaining some prior learning, and deliberately rejecting other prior learning).
They are malleable--at the core--and seem built for learning. Every new item of education or experience 'changes the mix' of virtually all past experience and education (stored in memory). This is a force for change. But they are also built for constancy--their goals and strategies work for 'coherence' and 'consistency' in their attitudes and worldview and beliefs. This is a force which resists change.
The biblical data seems to portray a 'spiral model' of character development, which could be expressed in two different ways:
1.
Subjectivity creates Objectivity, which
modifies existing Objectivity, which conditions subsequent Subjectivity.
2. Thinking becomes doing, doing becomes habits, habits become character, and character becomes thinking.
Both of these models mean the same thing: your current mental choices will eventually affect your future mental choices (if left 'undisturbed'). Your choices (inside, subjectivity) always flow to the outside-mind world (objectivity), and become the operating base for your future mental activity.
This spiral of 'ingressive development', so to speak, was meant for good. In a perfect world, each good choice would result in a 'better' world, and in sequence, higher leverage and easier future choices of the good. Practice makes perfect. More of good makes better. Everybody helping everybody else get better.
This "ingressive spiral", as it were, is expressed in biblical images as 'organic'. For example, tree will always be a tree, but it can be shaped in many different ways. Each new branch can be "tended" to grow in a certain direction, and the longer it grows in this direction, the more difficult it is to change that direction. The branch gets thicker and less malleable, and only minor adjustments can be made later.
In a non-perfect world, the spiral could go awry…I could respond to life with increasing callousness, increasing complacency, increasing hostility, increasing arrogance, and increasing detachment--and after a while, it would simply be 'who I was'--and I would quit apologizing for that lifestyle, and eventually, begin to value it and divinize it... This process is sometimes known as 'hardening of the heart' in scripture, and God is portrayed as intervening in human lives to 'slow' and sometimes 'interrupt' this process, before 'full automaticity' is "granted" to the aberrant agent (under principles of self-definition and self-development, in the context of moral government of the universal community--e.g. Romans 1 & 2).
But also built into the system are calls to break out of the cycle. There are those who call us to awareness, to alertness, to caution. We have friends (and institutions) who warn us of our trajectory, and encourage us to efforts of reform and renewal. We have conscience and the 'social voices inside' which almost never seem to die. They may give up on a given issue (after we repeatedly ignore them), but they will awake refreshed and enthusiastic upon the morn! There are development epochs even, that seem to biologically trigger self-review (e.g., first and second adolescence, mid-life, menopause) and cultural rituals of passage that do the same (e.g., graduations, birthdays at legal age markers, New Years). There is the gift of discontent, which when coupled with the power of the binary operator 'negation', allows anyone to visualize an alternative future, a different life, a better situation, changes that need to be made. This ability to create (in our minds) environments which do not actually exist (yet), allows the perception-behavior link to create hopes, dreams, longings, desires, needs, and eventually, perhaps even plans and subsequent actions, to change our trajectory in life, and to create an incrementally-different 'us'.
The voices and influences that beckon us to conformity are filled with contradiction. The culture has many different, competing, and contradictory sub-cultures. Social groups have sub-groups which have counterstereotypic traits. The inherent (but generally non-destructive) inconsistency in every human model, teacher, parent, hero, or 'target of mimicry' insures that we never go too long without having at least a couple of choices in our option-bag…Brainwashing--to reduce the internal 'competing factions' into one monolithic one--is an exceptionally difficult, expensive, and error-prone process. We are literally fountains of freedom, cauldrons of creativity, and nozzles of novelty--even as 'stable' as we think ourselves to be!
The bible
calls humans to awareness and alertness to this cycle, encouraging us to
self-examination, to reflection on values, and to commitment to the good. It
recognizes that good action becomes good character, and that good actions can flow from good character (as in
automaticity). Biblical injunctions to 'train
up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from
it' and 'Keep your heart with all vigilance,
for from it flow the springs of life' and 'train
yourself in godliness' are all indicative of the basics of
'automaticity'.
In addition, the New Testament calls followers of Jesus to radical re-evaluation of status and values, with commensurate changes in social behavior, affect, and goals. The New Creation in Christ image is replete with implications for radical transformation of existing social relations and self-perspective, and the call to walk in the servant footsteps of Jesus includes a call to 'put off' the 'old patterns' (some/many of which would likely be pathologically-developed, stereotypical, automatic processes).
Thus, at an overview level, automaticity and mimicry (and "reverse mimicry"--in which we are called to become models to others of love, gentleness, and service) are essential components in the biblical view of persons.
…………………………………………………………………..
Second, a map of some of the social/cognitive psychology terms and concepts to biblical themes, statements, or understandings.
In this section, I merely want to illustrate possible mappings between some of the social psychology concepts and biblical themes. These are not particularly striking or amazing, by any means, simply because both disciplines are looking at the 'same data'--real life. But it is instructive to notice how 'real-world' and 'appropriate' many of the biblical injunctions and perspectives are.
Research Concept
|
Representative
Biblical data
|
Comments
|
|
Automaticity, creation of |
train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it (Prov 22.6) train yourself in godliness (1 Tim 4.7) But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil (Heb 5.14) |
|
|
Automaticity, pervasiveness of |
Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life (Prov 4.23) The good man brings good things out of the
good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the
evil stored up in his heart. For out of the
overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. (Lk 6.45f) |
This is also implicit in all the calls to vigilance, relative to our behavior in the NT. |
|
Difficulty of control |
Can Ethiopians change their skin or
leopards their spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.
(Jer 13.23) Don’t you know that when you offer
yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom
you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to
obedience, which leads to righteousness? .. Just as you used to offer the
parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery
to righteousness leading to holiness.
When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of
righteousness. (Romans 6) |
Notice that the 'ever-increasing wickedness' contains the ingressive spiral idea. |
|
Mimicry |
Make no friends with those given to anger, and do not associate with hotheads, or you may
learn their ways and entangle yourself in a snare. (Prov
22.24f) Whoever walks
with the wise becomes wise (Prov 13.20) And be
kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving
each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Therefore
be imitators of God, as beloved
children; 2 and walk in love, just as
Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us (Eph 4.32ff) You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. (Lev 20.23) Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away
by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure
position. 18 But grow in the grace
and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Pet 3.17f) Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” (I Cor 15.33) |
The countless references to 'imitate God' and 'imitate Christ' are the foundational call for Christian behavior. The influence of bad examples can only be countered by awareness and cognitive rejection (perhaps constructing an inhibitory auto-process, similar to what can be done with egalitarian goals). "Here (1 Cor 15.33) Paul cites a popular proverb, first attributed to the comic playwright Menander but in common circulation by Paul’s day. It was the common advice of Greco-Roman moralists and Jewish wisdom teachers to avoid morally inferior company (in the Old Testament, Ps 119:63; Prov 13:20; 14:7; 28:7) |
|
Awareness, monitoring |
Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching (1 Tim 4.16) Then pay attention to how you listen; for to those
who have, more will be given; and from those who do not have, even what they
seem to have will be taken away (Lk 8.18) But let a man examine himself…but if we judged
ourselves rightly, we should not be judged. (1 Cor 11) Examine yourselves to see whether
you are in the faith; test yourselves (2 Cor 13.5) If anyone thinks he is something when he is
nothing, he deceives himself. 4 Each one should test his own actions. (Gal 6.3f) I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. ‘Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die (Rev 3) We are not of night nor of darkness; so
then let us not sleep as others do, but let
us be alert and sober (1 Thes 5.6) Come to your senses! (1 Cor 15.34) |
Consider also all the many passages on critical thinking at everythg.html, plus all the NT injunctions about detecting and rejecting false teachers. |
|
Automaticity, recreation of |
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of
this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Rom 12.2) Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil
practices, and have put on the new
self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the
image of the One who created him —a renewal in which there is no distinction
between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian,
slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Col 3.9ff) |
Since this renewing involves the 'bearing fruit' motif, this process creates 'frequent and consistent' experiences of charity, forgiveness, acceptance, etc, which would become the 'new self' which practices righteousness. |
Again, there should not be anything particularly surprising in this, since much of this is common to general moral education. The heightened calls to vigilance and the heightened dependence on mimicry-requiring-action (living like Jesus) was perhaps a bit different from moral instruction of the day. [The content of the systems, however--especially as relates to status and social categories--was strikingly different. But that's another story…]
…………………………………………………………………….
Third, I want to map specific counter-stereotypic strategies from the research data to specific biblical passages and motifs, to see to what extent the biblical approach is 'in synch with' known socially-beneficial interventions/mediations.
This is the most significant part of the discussion, since early Christianity was surprisingly 'victorious' over class and status distinctions (documented several places in the Tank). The NT ethical and pastoral approaches--when compared to the social psychology research data on stereotype activation, for example--will give us some insights as to how that happened (and perhaps suggest how we might recover that unity today).
The approach will be to cycle through the research data again, excerpting statements on what worked in reducing implicit prejudice and in countering racial/gender/outgroup stereotypes (and related problems). For each statement, we then explain how a NT practice might reflect the same approach (at least in theory), and in some cases, note what that 'might look like' today. [Needless to say, I can only make the briefest and most tentative suggestions as to 'what this might look like', since implementation issues can be quite complex, and I personally am 'challenged' in the pastoral skills arena (responsibility-avoiding smile here).] There will be a 'precision challenge' in this matching process, of course, since the research data will discuss a very precise intervention, and the biblical data will speak in general, common-language terms. Accordingly, there is a distinct possibility, in each of these interventions below, that the biblical data 'worked' because of other factors than the ones I assume were involved. Many of these social influences are interconnected in everyday experience, so it is not always clear which influence might have been the most contributory to an intervention's success.
I need to make four additional notes about this data and my comments:
The New Testament approach to this problem is to 'assume the best stereotype' going into the experience. One of the most fundamental tenets in the new believer's faith was that Christians were re-made in the image of Christ, and were sources of love and faithfulness for them. In encountering a Christian 'outgroup member', the theologically-consistent believer would 'believe the best' (I Cor 13) about the target, and expect goodness, kindness, Christlikeness, etc. from the member of the social outgroup. Oddly enough, the statement above suggests that this procedure would actually cause a 'net gain' in the interaction, since if I thought the outgroup member was going to act graciously, then I would be induced (under this principle) to produce that exact type of (excellent) behavior! Thus, this mimicry-projection would make for better relations between the various subgroups.
In a modern setting, this could be as simple as describing righteous/gracious acts by outgroup members, before a congregation, class, reading or video audience. A closer possible example might be to have the outgroup member speak before a group about some past such action, describing his/her motivations, affects, thoughts, etc., and then have a discussion, Q&A, or more social-oriented post-meeting gathering. Encounters between the ingroup/outgroup members in this afterward meeting would then be subject to the principle above.
AND
“In support of this logic, Moskowitz and Sussman (1999) have found that activated goals lead to perceptual sensitization, so that goal-relevant words capture and direct attention at speeds where conscious control over attention cannot operate. Goals were controlling implicit cognitive responses. An implication of this finding, as well as the findings of the current research, for stereotyping is that the intent to be nonstereotypic need not be described as the 'hard choice' that one consciously and effortfully uses to overcome the impact exerted on judgments by the 'easy choice' of stereotype activation and use (Fiske, 1989).” (Moskowitz et al./1999)
Those familiar with the NT will recognize in this statement
the exhortations of Paul such as "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is
noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is
admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." (Phil 4.8) and "Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set
your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of
God. Set your minds on things above,
not on earthly things." (Col 3.1). And, in the 'reduction of
activation', we are to avoid thinking about less-than-laudable goals: "Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ,
and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
" (Rom 13.14) As we noted in our overview, 'renewal of the mind' was a
central method of progressive improvement in goodness. Meditation on the
character of the gentle, meek, servant-hearted, loving Jesus and study and
meditation on the written Word of God, as the revelation of HIS character and
good-heart, were central fountains of new life, transformed character, and a
changed world. According to this principle, the more the early believers thought about love,
goodness, faithfulness, benevolence, acceptance, the more their unconscious
perceptual 'apparatus' would selectively attend to these elements in perceived space.
Accordingly, they would notice more good, more love, more kindness, and could
reciprocate it or honor it by public notice. What a powerful tactic! The
good-heart looks for the good,
and finds more of it than those who don’t---even in the same environmental
setting.
In a modern
setting, this is clearly implies the teaching of the content of the
scripture (e.g., the new status of believers, the imperatives of love, the call
to pervasive integrity and ethical consistency), and the continual reminder of
the central "mimic-exemplars" of the Cross-bearing Jesus, the
Son-giving Father, and the Warmth-producing Spirit. The emphasis should be on
the positives (for this
principle--negatives will fall in a different principle, below).
AND
"After being primed and asked to form an impression of a
target person, some of their subjects were
then informed that the experimenter was concerned with their personal responses
and they were asked to put their names on their responses. The rest
of the subjects in the group were told to keep their responses anonymous. They
predicted that subjects in the group who were
not responsible for their judgments would engage in "social loafing"
and in their effortless evaluation of the target person be guided by the primes.
However, subjects who were responsible faced a conflict between the goals of
preserving resources and being accurate. Resolving this conflict led them to be
more effortful and careful in their judgments;
they could not afford to loaf and simply rely on the most accessible
explanation provided by the primes." (Gollwitzer and
Moskowitz/1996, p.383)
It should go without saying that this 'accountability manipulation'
(chuckle) is also a beautiful part of NT teaching. "We shall all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ,"
Paul says, and this accountability is before One who did for us exactly what He asks
us to do for one another--"Love one
another as I have loved you", "forgive one another, as Christ forgave you", "freely you received, freely give"…Additionally,
accountability considers Jesus' view
of those we treat/mistreat: "Do not by your eating destroy your
brother for whom Christ died" (Rom 14.15)
In a modern setting, this accountability needs to be taught (and perhaps visualized) to the believers. This might first require some theological explication, since some believers might confuse this believers-only judgment with the more universal judgment of all individuals. Once any theological fog is dissipated, the believers can be encouraged to 'prepare an account' of how they did in the various ethical directives enjoined upon us by our Lord. [Romans 14.13 makes this look like an 'active', Powerpoint-type, "management review" presentation--instead of passive Q&A--so this might be a great way to 'structure' such a self-examination. I personally use this PPT-approach to examine how I am doing.] Even aspects of the universal judgment in Matt 25 can be used to indicate some of God's priorities as topics for the presentation (e.g., "I was hungry, and you gave me food…"), as well as the judgment letters in Rev 2-3.
This effect would be generated by the sample biblical injunctions to 'outdo one another in praising one another'
(Rom 12.10) and 'honor all men'
(1 Pet 2.17). Paul consistently did this, for example, in his letters--he is
CONSTANTLY praising his co-workers and fellow-believers and model Christians.
He is always thanking God for them. Consistently 'looking for the best' in a
'suspected stereotyper' (smile), and then verbally, legitimately, sincerely,
and publicly recognizing this good quality or this good action, will not reduce
your own prejudice,
but--according to this principle--it may reduce the prejudice of others toward
your own 'outgroup'. [Notice, incidentally, that God intends to do
this as well at the judgment: "Therefore judge nothing before the
appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden
in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. " (I Cor 4.5, see also Rom
2.29)
In the modern setting, of course, you can't do this in such an selective, 'engineering' fashion, since the biblical injunctions are for EVERYBODY to praise and honor everybody else. So, initiatives in this space will focus on public forums (verbal/communal, written/published, etc) in which identified members praise and/or express appreciation for some other identified member's qualities or actions.
This is essentially the feedback mechanism required to alert us that we--as bearers of light and life in the world--have acted destructively and treacherously. In the NT, one form of this is the 'berate-ment' (smile) given by the NT authors to those who in those days acted as we might have acted more recently. The NT 'calls on the carpet' non-egalitarian behavior in a number of places, and this rebuke (back then) would have served in this 'punishment' capacity. Sample passages would include the rich-over-poor partiality in James 2, and the elite-vs-poor disconnect in the Communion Supper in 1 Cor 11. At an individual level, the true believer should experience more grief than guilt, since his/her empathetic relationship with the offended brother/sister should produce a personal emotional experience ("weep with those who weep…"). Additionally, the NT teaches that the Spirit inside the believer can bring such mistakes to our hearts for confession, apology, correction, restitution (if applicable) and fresh/heightened commitment to renewal and improvement.
In a modern setting, this might be exercised in a self-review class, in which past encounters with outgroup members were reflected on (privately) and assessed for conformity with the law of love and the principles of the Body. And a second tactic would be to assist the development of empathy, by circulation of (anonymous) stories of how an outgroup person felt during/after being treated in such a way…More tentatively, there may be governance situations in which someone who refuses to address their problem in this area might be restricted from working on specific projects that require lower levels of stereotyping. One must be careful here, to not exclude such a one from growth-facilitating service in other areas of responsibility and one might keep the explanation for the restriction very private--between only the underdeveloped believer and the committee chairperson, for example. This latter case would require much more careful and gentle governance discussion than I can do here (or at all, probably)--but the principle should be clear.
This, of course, is the bane of this problem. What motivation do people have to see others 'better'? Bargh's discouraged voice in "The Cognitive Monster: The Case against the controllability of automatic stereotype effects" (1999) points out that this is an additional problem over and above the major one of lack of awareness. It takes effort and will to correct these, and it takes a goal to expend the will/effort, and it takes motivation to formulate/adopt a goal. In the ancient world--as in the modern world--these issues just didn't 'touch' the average stereotyper. Like today, the 'guilty' just didn't see the problem…But in the NT, the social world was very, very different. There were several major motivations to reduce stereotyping: everyone was needed for the work, all were leveled in the forgiven church, truth and accuracy of judgment were commanded by the Lord, love was the central ethic, and the only people who weren't chasing you to kill you were these outgroupers! These people were precious to your God, who was precious to you…and these people "visited you when you were in prison"…
In modern settings, this teaching must be recovered (or at least brought to a higher level of vividness). Some of this would be through careful exegesis--especially with explanation of how status/divisions worked in the ancient world and how the daily life of the church reflected true egalitarianism--but some would come by letting all the people share 'their stories' of their experiences of the same grace that touched your/our lives. The common experience of forgiveness followed by celebratory gratitude and freedom, would forge an experienced commonality between us. And again, those that love my Jesus, I have found that I have an immediate love for them…
AND
“Recent findings suggest that forming implementation intentions indeed inhibits the automatic activation of stereotypical beliefs and prejudicial feelings (Gollwitzer, Schaal, Moskowitz, Hammelbeck, & Wasel, 1999). When participants had furnished the goal intention to judge the elderly in a nonstereotypical manner with respective implementation intentions ('Whenever I see an old person, tell myself “Don't stereotype!”'), the typical automatic activations of stereotypical beliefs (assessed through pronunciation speed in a semantic-priming paradigm) was no longer observed. Implementation intentions were also found to effectively suppress the automatic activation of the gender stereotype. When experimental participants who had formed the goal intention to judge an introduced woman in a nonstereotypical way were asked to form an additional implementation intention ('Whenever I see this person, I will ignore their gender!'), no automatic activation of stereotypical beliefs about this woman (assessed through the latency of color-naming responses in a primed Stroop task) was observed. Finally, implementation intentions were observed to suppress the automatic activation of prejudicial feelings in a study on homeless people. When participants' goal intentions to judge the homeless in a nonprejudical manner were furnished with respective implementation intentions ('Whenever I see a homeless person, I ignore that he is homeless'), the automatic negative evaluation of the homeless (assessed in an affect priming paradigm) vanished...These data imply that forming implementation intentions can be used as an effective self-regulatory tool whenever goal pursuit is threatened by the intrusion of unwanted habitual thoughts and feelings.” (Gollwitzer/1999)
The topic of implementation intentions ("when X occurs, I will do Y") is a fascinating one, and offers great hope in this area of stereotype inhibition. Goals that include implementation plans are achieved three times more often that goals without specific plans. This being the case, I find it interesting to note that some of the NT ethical instructions are phrased in semi-implementation forms (and related situationally-specific forms, too), and many would 'suggest' a suitable implementation formula. Consider how a believer might respond (with an implementation intention) to:
·
From James:
o
When tempted, no one should say,
“God is tempting me.”
o
Religion that God our Father accepts
as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their
distress...
o
My brothers, as believers in our
glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into
your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby
clothes also comes in. If you show
special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat
for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my
feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil
thoughts?
o
Suppose
a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you
well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what
good is it? In the same way, faith by
itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
o
With the tongue we praise our Lord
and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s
likeness. Out of the same mouth come
praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be
o
Now listen, you who say, “Today or
tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business
and make money.” Why, you do not even
know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears
for a little while and then vanishes.
Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and
do this or that.” As it is, you boast
and brag. All such boasting is evil
o
Is any one of you in trouble? He
should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the
elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of
the Lord.
·
From Paul:
o
Share with God’s people who are in
need
o
Bless those who persecute you; bless
and do not curse.
o
Rejoice with those who rejoice;
mourn with those who mourn.
o
Do not be proud, but be willing to
associate with people of low position
o
If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
o
Accept him whose faith is weak,
without passing judgment on disputable matters
o
Instead, make up your mind not to
put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.
o
So then, whenever we have
opportunity, let us work for the good of all, especially for those of the
family of faith.
·
From John:
o
If anyone has material possessions
and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be
in him?
o
If anyone sees his brother commit a
sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life.
·
From Peter:
o