Emotions Conference review

On October 11th this year, I went to the Emotions conference, hosted by Premier Mind and Spirit. I think there are some important reflections on this that are worth making.

Firstly, I did find that the theological position reflected throughout the day was most definitely not one that suited me. from the worship in the morning (which, of course, meant music and singing) through the format of the day (lectures or talks, not workshops, which would have been very productive), through the positivity about the church and Christian faith that came across - I will mention this again later.

But I can cut through this, and find some positives in the day. Not all of the talks resonated with me, but that is pretty much what I might expect - I have some areas of interest and others that are not for me. Of course, that is why workshops, where I could choose the areas that interest me, would suit me better. But there were some very good, very engaging talks.

One of the best talks for me was Will van der Hart, talking about "perfectionism". It was summed up by the comment that perfectionism is not about excellence, and it is not a positive in any circumstances. In fact, it is about constant dissatisfaction with everything - because nothing is "perfect", and even if we spiritualise it, we are aiming at something impossible. The dissatisfaction at the present is not spiritual, it is psychotic, and it is dangerous, because perfectionists can never be satisfied with the good. Never mind the bad, which covers everyone.

The best part of the day for me was one of the stars of the mental health and faith world, Katherine Welby-Roberts. She talked about the problems she has with her faith and her illness, and how they do not always live in harmony with each other. She always has an honesty and openness about her, not sugar coating the problems, but also being honest about her journey. She remained positive, and it was clear that her illness, while impacting her life all the time, does not mean that she is miserable and gloomy - she is cheerful and smiling, and that shone through more than anything.

There is one more message that I remember, that is significant. It actually relates to my current earworm/favorite song, which is Ripples by Genesis. the message of the song is that you cannot change your past, you just have to live with it, like ripples in the water, you have had your impact, and have to live with it and move on.

Jonathan Clark was talking about worry, and made a similar point, that if we worry about things in the past, we cannot change them, so our worry is pointless. He made more points, but this one stood out for me - he explained how worrying is rarely productive. He also discussed a worry box, where you write anything you want to worry about on a piece of paper and put it in the box. One day a week, you take the pieces of paper out and can then worry about them. What he found was that, most of them, he no longer needed to worry about.


So there was some good material from the day, and it was useful. I did, however, feel that one vital area was missed, which is how to deal with situations where the church, or other Christians, are the ones exacerbating your mental illness. That is, where your faith (or the expression of it) was making your mental health worse. I am aware that there are many churches where those with mental health problems are welcomed and find a helpful community to work out their faith in. However there are also very many people with mental health issues for whom the church (in whatever form) is an abusive and dangerous place. Now, in truth, I would not expect a conference with this particular theological bent to be addressing this matter - the acknowledgement of it seems to be seen as a challenge to their core theology. But as Mind and Spirit is the only organisation I know of looking at faith and mental health together, this means that one of the issues I hear of again and again is swept under the carpet, and ignored.

So that is my sadness and disappointment. What was there was good, but there were gaps, blind spots, and it seems that these are the same blind spots I see so often. So where is the place that these topics - the ones that will disturb people - can be discussed?

Are we all psychotic?

I have been watchign the excellent series "Bedlam" on Channel 4, which has proved a very interesting and challenging series. Some people have raised some (very valid) questions about consent issues, but I do think it has provided some very important insight into the reality of mental illness and treatment. The consent issues are significant because most of those filmed are seriously ill.

I think my response to the consent issues are that many of them are controlled well at some point usually at the end, and one presumes they are then able to give informed consent. However I do accept that for some, informed consent cannot really be clarified.

However, one aspect that is covered especially in the final episode is that of the elderly suffering significantly, in some cases because of some trauma. What struck me is that they often express a fear of some unreasonable issue, that they do not quite believe what is around them. One believed that the hospital and doctors were all fake - actors, stage sets - and that something terrible was going to happen to them.

Not unlike some of the entertainment shows we see. The Truman Show comes to mind, but there are others. There have been all sorts of shows like "Beadles About" (I would have said Candid Camera, but that is really before my time), where precisely this situation happens. We watch programs like "I'm A Celebrity" where people have horrible things happen to them. Then I used to watch Fort Boyard, where volunteers take on all sorts of challenges, usually drawing on their worst fears.

All of this makes me wonder if these sorts of entertainments actually drive the psychosis we see in these people (and others too). If you don't know a hospital, it might be a set-up. A cruel one, but them so much entertainment is cruel. The presence of the TV cameras might not have helped this problem.

So what did people do before the television? Well, I think the problems were the same, it is just that the fears were different. Thirty years ago, it might have been the possibility of nuclear war. A hundred years ago - and for centuries before that - the fear of hellfire and damnation, or the other similar images from the religious teaching. This was the language in which fear was instilled.

All of which makes me wonder if some important aspect of psychosis in the population is the instilling of fear in people. We spend so long making people dread something, that when the brain has a challenge, it latches onto these fears. We might dismiss them, but they stay there, in our subconscious.

Religion that works primarily on fear is, I suggest, damaging to people, leading some of them into serious mental problems. Entertainment that works primarily on fear is damaging. As the bible says "Love drives out all fear" - true faith, true Christianity is about love, not fear. If you cannot explore your faith to me without using fear, then I want nothing to do with your faith.

Mental Illness

There has been an interesting flurry of activity in the last few days about mental illness. It was sparked off by Asda offering a fancy dress costume.

As someone who has a mental illness - depression - this was rather offensive. The image being given was that mental illness means psychopathic killer. We are not - some of us actually hold down proper jobs, live a full life, and control any urges we might have to kill other people, at least most of the time.

However, what has been more interesting is the response that has generated on twitter. Firstly, the outcry was sufficient to get Asda - and Tesco - to withdraw these costumes and apologise. But more importntly, today there has been a whole lot of responses using the #mentalpatient hashtag, with people posting pictures of themselves dressed as mental patients. That is, in their ordinary clothes, exactly as they normally are.

I have seen one question raised - why is it that getting kids to dress up as a mental patient promotes such ire, but dressing up as a serial killer is acceptable? Well actually I don't entirely think it is. Celebrating the mythological creatures of evil is one thing, and I know a lot of people have issues with this, but I do think that celebrating modern day killers, or celebrating outmoded stereotypes of mental illness is not acceptable.

There is a bigger problem here. The problem is one of perception of mental illness in our society. The mentally ill are seen as being dangerous - the image of the mentally ill as serial killers is subtly reflected in many peoples perceptions of the mentally ill. The truth is that one in three people will suffer from mental illness in their life. That means that everyone - every single person - will be affected by mental illness.

And yet many people are still scared of the phrase "mental illness", taking an assumption that those suffering from mental illness are dangerous to themselves and others. The reality is that a few are - although mostly this is only an issue when medication is failing. The mentally ill can be difficult or unpredictable at times, but then so can those without diagnosed problems. The vast majority of those with mental illnesses are quite capable of appearing to be perfectly normal people. As the #mentalpatient tag has shown.

The perception of mental illness has to change. Too many people are hurt by the negative image that it has in the public mind. I can only hope that the result of this is that we learn to see mental illness where it is - all around us, everywhere.

Mental illness

The perception of mental illness in the Western world is not very good. If I am honest, we have come a long way since we were burning schizophrenics because we thought that they were demonic. But we still stigmatise mental illness as something "dangerous" or "violent". The shootings in Newtown have only served to enhance this image, with quite a lot of debate about whether Adam Lanza was mentally ill or not, with the assumption that mental illness explains this sort of violent outbreak.

The problem is twofold here. The first problem is that mental health problems do not necessarily mean that sufferers are violent. Secondly, this would be a big problem if it did, because a very substantial proportion of people in the western world suffer, at some point in their lives, from mental illness. Let me address these two issues separately.

Firstly, mental illness exhibits itself in a whole range of forms. Many people who suffer from mental illness - including myself - are not particularly violent, any more than other people. Yes, some are violent, but then some people are violent without this as an excuse. There are also a whole group of people who suffer from mental illnesses who may react more violently than others, because they act out of frustration in being unable to cope with the world around them. The truth is that this is liable to be a violent outburst at a point where their particular frustrations are being vexed. This does not make them murderous, this does not make them liable to random shooting, any more than any other person.

Of course, there is the argument that violent acts, especially like the Newtown shooting, are definitively the act of someone who is mentally disturbed. There is a truth in this, that these explosions of violence are, often, the expression of someone whose mind has been warped by (often) hatred directed to them, by someone who has found no other way of screaming their anger at the world than in this way. But that is a short term mental aberration, something that can occur to anyone. It is not about mental illness. It is about how we teach people to deal with their frustrations, about how we train people to work out their frustrations, about how we actually deal with bullying in schools or workplaces. This is not about mental illness.

The other aspect to this is that we are, as a whole, very scared of mental illness. There is a terrific fear about people who suffer from it, that we might "catch" it from people, or that they might "go crazy" on us. While these are largely unfounded, it does mean that people do not talk about their mental illness. It means that the secrecy around this perpetuates, because it continues to be a problem "out there", and not something that affects anyone we could actually know.

The truth is that it almost certainly does affect someone that we know. In reality we all know someone who has some form of mental illness, because it actually directly affects near enough half of us, and indirectly affects every one of us (because every one knows someone who is directly affected). Mental illness is something that impacts and affects everyone, and the frustrations of not being able to talk about this, not being able to be open about it, are one of the things that drives some people to having to express themselves more aggressively, more violently.

What are the lessons we should be learning about mental illness from the Newtown shootings. Nothing is the simple answer, because mental illness is not a definitive factor in the shootings. It may be that Adam Lanza had mental health issues, but that does not mean that this was the reason why he shot the school up. The other lesson is that mental health needs to be talked about openly, because not talking about it is screwing us up, and is causing many of the problems that we blame them for.

The Noonday Demon

As a change from normal, this post is going to be a review and assessment of "The Noonday Demon", by Andrew Solomon, which is one of the most significant assessments of depression, from someone who has - and continues to - experience it

Overall, the book is 450 pages long, and the pages have a lot of words on them. What is more, the words are not quick and easy. It is a difficult book to read, not least because the subject matter is very difficult and challenging. He tells some of his own story, his own depressive breakdowns. He did not have an easy time of it. It is an interesting insight into what depression feels like, for those who have not experienced it.

However, this is not, to my mind, the most important or significant aspect of the book. Rather, he then explores what depression means and implies in modern (American) Society. As a Brit, there are some times when the discussion is not completely relevant, but interesting nonetheless. He covers a number of topics: treatments;demographics;addiction; suicide;history;poverty;politics and evolution. He finishes with an interesting chapter on hope, which I will return to later.

The treatments mainly cover the various medications, and their history and development. While interesting, the work is becoming dated (the book was published in 2002), and most of this data updated is available in the internet. However he does cover ECT, a treatment that it would appear is more common in the US than in Europe. The European model is far more based on medications and talking therapies, whereas the US model was, it would appear, differently structured. Of course, this may have all changed.

The demographics is an interesting section. What becomes clear is that the big-scale statistics indicating that 1 in 5 women and 1 in 10 men will suffer from depression at some time in their life is reflected across most sub-groups, although there are some interesting and important differences. What becomes clear is that there are no groups who are immune, there is no-one who can claim that they could never suffer. One interesting population is the Innuit, who have an 80% change overall of suffering, which may reflect a cultural difference, but is also very sobering reading. We also find in the poverty section that being poor does seem to be a stronger indicator for depression, especially unreported depression. Once again, the differences between the US and the UK become significant - and should make another good reason for keeping and supporting the NHS - the cost in the US of people who cannot afford to be treated is probably very significant, although it is incredibly difficult to quantify.

The section on addiction is quite sobering reading. What is clear is that addiction can easily hide depression, sometimes, it would seem, serving to hide it completely, and the depression only becomes an issue if the person breaks their addiction - at which point the depression that may have been a driver for their addiction may overwhelm them. It is, apparently, not uncommon for recovering addicts to take their own life, which may be related to a depressive breakdown because they are no longer handling it through their addiction. The suicide section is also a challenging read, and one of the best assessments of suicidal feelings that I have read. The psychology of suicide is very complex, and exceptionally difficult to analyse, not least because one cannot do post-event analysis.

The historical analysis is very useful from a church perspective, because there are some churches today that are still reflecting the position that the church held on depression and suicide from centuries ago. The fear of mental illness historically - both in the church and in society - is disturbing reading, but also shows that untreated depression (and other mental illness) has been an aspect of society for thousands of years. What is more, the indications are that most mental illness does not get better if untreated, but may be hidden because the stigma attached to mental illness is substantial.

This stigma is still significant, even though it rarely results in a lynch mob or stoning today, and this does make the politics of managing mental illness a challenge. Once again, the book addresses the US situation, but the challenges of providing the support and resources to the mentally ill is the same wherever you are. This is especially the case for depressives, who are, by the nature of their illness, not liable to be motivated to action and to campaign over years for change. The real political problem is that resources for the mentally ill are not seen as contributing to the economy directly, although in truth, they do enable people to be productive. What is more, politicians are aware of the stigma of mental illness, and so are very unlikely to admit to it, meaning that there are very few active and experienced campaigners in the positions of power.

The discussion of evolution is addressing the question of why, from an evolutionary perspective, depression is still a significant part of our makeup. The conclusions reflect one of the core issues with treatment, that it is not clear what causes depression, or how it should be treated. The problems come because the factors that cause depression also seem to have other impacts, other effects, that might be positive. If he comes to any conclusions, it is that depression may be a result of the society we live in and the challenges of adapting to this society. It could, therefore, be argued that depression is a normal response to the society we live in, and those who do not suffer from depression are the ones who are deluded, the ones who do not see reality properly.

His final chapter on hope is a positive end to a difficult book. However, it also reflects some of my experiences, and may show a place for Christianity in treatment of depression in particular, and mental illness in general. Hope is critical to most illnesses, and hope is something that Christianity can provide. This is not to deny that sometimes Christians and the Church crush and destroy hope, but Christianity is about hope, it is about a belief that there is something more than the world we see around us. That is a really positive note to end the book on, which I was glad about.

Is this book worth a read? Well maybe, if you have the stamina and strength for it. It is not an easy book to read, but it does provide a vital insight into what depression actually means to the sufferer and to the society that we live in. Of course, realism does not make for gentle reading.

Malcolm Bowden

Some of you may have heard Malcolm Bowdens 4thought.tv slot this last week, where he claims that depression, and other mental illnesses, are the choice of the individual who suffers from them.

He says that a "true" Christian can never be depressed, because it is incompatible with their faith.

He says, on his website, that he has been involved in counseling many people, with what he calls "True Biblical Counseling".

There is so much I could say about him, but I would pick up a few for now. Firstly, he seems to have a real thing about "True" Christians, as opposed, I guess, to "False" ones. This always sounds alarms for me, because, in the end, what he means is Christians who agree with him. It means that people who don't agree, or - more significantly - people who are not helped by his "counseling" are not "True" Christians.

That will really help someone if they are already suffering from depression or self-esteem problems, to be then told that they are not really a Christian either.

The other problem I have though is far wider than this. My problem is that he given Christianity a bad name. Now most people I know will happily acknowledge that his opinions are not representative, but people I don't know may assume that this is a representation of evangelical Christianity.

And what bugs me most is this quick-fix approach to mental illness. Actually, I see it in other places, although this is a particularly bad form of it, where the assumption is that some short term counseling, or a few prayers sessions, can cure everything. The real challenge for the church communities, for evangelical Christians as a whole, is can they live with, work with, and support people who have mental illness over years. Can we provide the long-term care and concern that people need? Can we get away from the quick-fix mentality that is so common in society, and pray with people, spend time with people, support people over the years they may need it?

I hope so. And I hope that Malcolm Bowden and his like are seen as a dangerous and minority extreme, and not the genuine, real, caring side of Christianity.