Friday's Faith - The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead - "The Most Faithful Love" ~Søren Kierkegaard - Part Four of Four

"If we are to love the men we see, then we are also to love those whom we have seen but see no more because death took them away.... 

"(O)ne must remember the dead; 

weep softly, but grieve long."

Friday's Faith

The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead

"The Most Faithful Love"

~Søren Kierkegaard

(1813 - 1855)

Part Four of Four

"Beloved, let us love one another.

1 John 4:7a (NASB)

The work of love in remembering one dead is a work of the most faithful love.

In order to properly test whether or not love is faithful, one eliminates everything whereby the object could in some way aid him in being faithful. But all this is absent in the relationship to one who is dead, one who is not an actual object. If love still abides, it is most faithful. 

Not infrequently there is talk about the lack of faithfulness in love among human beings. Then one blames the other and says, "It was not I who changed; it was he who changed." Good. And then what? Do you then remain unchanged? "No, as a consequence I naturally change too." We shall not here point out how meaningless this presumably necessary consequence is, whereby it follows of itself that I change because another changes. No, we are speaking of the relationship to one dead, and here it cannot be said that it was the one dead who changed. If an alteration enters into this relationship, I must be the one who changes. 

Therefore, if you will test whether or not you love faithfully, note some time how you relate yourself to one who is dead.

But the situation is this: it is certainly a difficult task to maintain oneself unchanged throughout time; the situation is also this: that human beings love to deceive themselves by all sorts of imaginings more than they love both the living and the dead. O, how many do not live in the conviction so firm that they would die for it---that if the other person had not changed, he, too, would have remained unchanged. 

But if this is so, is every living person in fact completely unchanged in relationship to one who is dead? O, perhaps in no relationship is the change so remarkable, so great, as that between one living and one dead---although the one dead is nevertheless not the one who changes. 

When two living persons are joined in love, each holds onto the other and the relationship holds on to both of them. But no holding together is possible with one who is dead. Immediately after death it perhaps can be said that he holds on to one, a consequence of the relationship together, and therefore it is also the most frequent occurrence, the customary thing, that he is remembered during this time. However, in the course of time he does not hold on to the one living, and the relationship is broken if the one living does not hold on to him. 

But what is faithfulness? Is it faithfulness that the other holds on to me? 

When death interposes separation between the two, the survivor---faithful during the first period---says, "I shall never forget him who is dead." O, how uncircumspect, because the one who is dead is a canny one to talk with, only that his cunning is not like that of the person of whom it is said, "You never find him where you left him," for the canniness of the one dead consists precisely in this, that one does not get him back again from where one left him. We are often tempted to think that men believe they can say to the dead just about what they wish, in view of the fact that he is dead, hears nothing, and answers nothing. But---but---take the greatest care of all for what you say to one who is dead. Perhaps you can say quite calmly to one living, "You I will never forget." And after a few years have passed, both of you probably will have good and well forgotten the whole thing---at least it would be unusual if you were unfortunate enough to meet up with a less forgetful person. But watch out for the dead! For one who is dead is a resolute and determined man; he is not like the rest of us who are able in fairytale fashion to go through many droll experiences and seventeen times forget what we have said. 

When you say to one dead, "You I will never forget," it is as if he answered you, "Good, rest assured that I shall never forget that you have said this." 

And even though all your contemporaries would assure you that he had forgotten it: from the lips of the dead you shall never hear this. No, he goes his own way---but he is unchanged. You will not be able to say to one dead that he was the one who grew older and that this explains your altered relationship to him---for one who is dead does not get older. You shall not be able to say to one who is dead that he was the one who in the course of time grew cold---for he has not become colder than he was when you were so warm, or that he was the one who became less attractive for which reason you could love him no more for he has become essentially no less attractive than when he was a beautiful corpse, something which does not, however, lend itself as the object of love, or that he was the one who has made new associations with others---for one dead does not make associations with others. 

No, whether or not you will begin again where you two left off, one who is dead begins again with the most scrupulous accuracy where the two of you left off. For one who is dead is a strong man, although one does not see this in him: he has the strength of unchangeableness. And one who is dead is a proud man. Have you noticed that a proud person, particularly in relationship to one he scorns most deeply, tries very hard to give no hint, to appear completely unchanged, to let the matter be as nothing, thereby to permit the despised one to sink deeper and deeper---only the one cherished by the proud person is benevolently made aware of the injustices, of errors, in order thereby to be assisted towards improvement. But one who is dead---who is proudly able as he to give no hint at all, even if he despises the one living who forgets him and his goodbye promise---one who is dead still does everything to make himself forgotten! One dead does not come to you and remind you; he does not look at you in passing; you never meet him; and if you were to meet him and see him, there would be nothing involuntary in his countenance which against his will could betray what he thought and judged of you, for one dead has his countenance under control. We should be truly careful about poetically drawing forth the dead for the sake of remembrance; the most frightful of all is that one dead gives no hint at all. 

Beware, therefore, of the dead! Beware of his kindness; beware of his definiteness, beware of his strength; beware of his pride! 

But if you love him, then remember him lovingly, and learn from him, precisely as one who is dead, learn the kindness in thought, the definiteness in expression, the strength in unchangeableness, the pride in life which you would not be able to learn as well from any human being, even the most highly gifted.

One who is dead does not change; there is not the slightest possibility of excuse by putting the blame on him; he is faithful. Yes, it is true. But he is nothing actual, and therefore he does nothing, nothing at all, to hold on to you, except that he is unchanged. If, then, a change takes place between one living and one dead, it is very clear that it must be the one living who has changed. On the other hand, if no change takes place, it is, then, the one living who in truth has been faithful, faithful in lovingly remembering him---alas, although he could do nothing at all to hold on to you, alas, although he did everything to show that he had forgotten you and what you had said to him. For no person who has really forgotten what one had said to him can express more definitely than one who is dead that it is forgotten, that the whole relationship to him, the whole affair with him, is forgotten. 

The work of love in remembering one who is dead is thus a work of the most disinterested, the freest, the most faithful love. Therefore, go out and practise it; remember one dead and learn in just this way to love the living disinterestedly, freely, faithfully. 

In the relationship to one dead you have the criterion whereby you can test yourself. One who uses this criterion will with ease abbreviate the prolixity of the most complicated relationship, and he will learn to loathe the mass of excuses which actual life usually has right at hand to explain that it is the other person that is selfish, the other person who is guilty of being forgotten because he does not bring himself into remembrance, the other person who is faithless. 

Remember one who is dead, and in addition to the blessing which is inseparable from this work of love, you will also have the best guidance to rightly understanding life: that it is one's duty to love the men we do not see, but also those we do see.  

Our duty to love the men we see cannot be set aside because death separates them from us, for the duty is eternal; but consequently our duty toward the dead cannot separate our contemporaries from us so that they do not remain objects of our love.

Friday's Faith - The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead - "A Work of the Freest Love" ~Søren Kierkegaard - Part Three

"If we are to love the men we see, then we are also to love those whom we have seen but see no more because death took them away.... 

"(O)ne must remember the dead; 

weep softly, but grieve long."

Friday's Faith

The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead

"A Work of the Freest Love"

~Søren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855)

Part Three

"Beloved, let us love one another.

1 John 4:7a (NASB)

From Works of Love

~by Søren Kierkegaard

(translated by Howard and Edna Hong)

The work of love in remembering one who is dead is a work of the freest love. 

In order properly to test whether the love is entirely free, one eliminates everything which in some way could constrain a person to an act of love. But precisely this is absent in the relationship to the one who is dead. If love nevertheless remains, this is the freest love. 

That which can constrain an act of love from a person is extremely varied and can hardly be catalogued. The child cries, the poor man begs, the widow importunes, considerations squeeze, wretchedness forces, and so on. But all love in action which is extracted in this way is not entirely free. 

The stronger the compulsion, the less free is the love. Usually we consider this with reference to parents' love for their children. If one wants to make an adequate description of helplessness and to sketch it in its most compelling form, one usually recalls an infant lying there in all its helplessness, forcing, so to speak, love from its parents---it forces, so to speak, because it really forces love only from the parents who are not what they ought to be. Therefore the infant in all its helplessness! 

And yet, when a person first lies in his grave with six feet of earth over him, he is more helpless than the child!

But the child cries! If the child could not cry---yes, there have been many a father and mother who have nevertheless cared for the child in the fullness of love; but, O, there have also been many a father and mother who at least many times would not forget the child. Our thought is not therefore to call such a mother and father outright unloving; but nevertheless love in them was so weak, so self-seeking, that they needed this reminder, this constraint. 

On the other hand, one dead does not cry like a child; he does not call himself into memory as the importunate do; he does not beg as does the pan-handler; he does not squeeze with consideration; he does not force you by visible wretchedness; he does not besiege you as the widow did the judge: one dead is silent and says not a word; he remains completely still and does not move from the spot---and perhaps he does not suffer evil either! There is no one who inconveniences the living less than the one who is dead and no one who is easier for the living to avoid than one dead. You can leave your child with a babysitter in order not to hear its cry; you can say you are not at home in order to avoid the solicitation of beggars; you can go about disguised so that no one will know you; in short, in relationship with the living you can use many precautions which perhaps still do not give you complete security, but in relationship to one who is dead you do not need the least precaution, and yet you are entirely secure. If anyone is of such a mind, if it best suits his scheme of life to be rid of the dead the sooner the better, without being challenged at all or becoming the object of any sort of prosecution, he can turn cold in approximately the same moment the dead one becomes cold. If only out of shame (certainly not for the sake of the dead) he remembers to weep a little in the newspapers on the burial day, if he merely takes care to show the dead this last honour, out of shame: then he can for all that, spit right in the dead man's---no not right in his eyes, for they are now closed. Naturally one who is dead has no rights in life; there is no public authority whose job concerns whether you remember the dead or not, no authority who mixes into such a relationship as sometimes in the relationship between parents and children---and one dead certainly takes no step to inconvenience or compel in any way.

---If, therefore, you want to test whether you love freely, observe some time how over a period of time you relate yourself to the one who is dead....

O, there is a lot of talk in the world about how love must be free, that one cannot love if there is the slightest constraint, that in matters of love absolutely nothing must be obligated. Well, let's see how things stand with this free love when one gets right down to this---how the dead are remembered in love, for the one who is dead does not compel one at all. Yes, in the moment of separation, when one cannot get along without him who is dead, there is a shriek. Is this the free love so much talked about, is this love for one who is dead? And thereupon, little by little, as the dead crumbles away, the memory crumbles away between the fingers and one does not know what becomes of it; little by little one becomes free of this---burdensome memory. But to become free in this way---is this free love, is this love for one who is dead? The saying puts it well: out of sight, out of mind. And one can always be sure that a proverb speaks accurately of how things go in the world; it is quite another matter that every proverb, Christianly understood, is untrue. 

If everything said about loving freely were true, that is, if it happened, if it were carried out, if men were accustomed to love in this way, men would also love the dead quite differently than they do. But the actual situation is that as far as other human love is concerned there is usually something coercive, daily sight and habit if nothing else, and therefore one cannot definitely see to what extent it is love which freely holds its object fast or it is the object which in one way or another coercively lends a hand. 

But with respect to one dead everything is made clear. Here there is nothing, nothing coercive at all. 

On the other hand, the loving memory of one dead has to protect itself against the actuality around about least by ever new impressions it gets full power to expel the memory, and it has to protect itself against time: in short, it has to protect its freedom in remembering against that which would compel it to forget. 

The power of time is great. One perhaps does not notice it in time, because time slyly steals a little bit away at a time. Perhaps one will get to know this clearly for the first time in eternity when one is required to look back again and around to see what he has managed to get together with the help of time and forty years. Yes, time has a dangerous power; in time it is so easy to make a beginning again and thereby to forget where one left off. Even when one begins to read a very big book and does not completely trust his memory, he puts in a bookmark. But, O, with respect to his whole life, how often one forgets to put in a marker in order to be able to find his place! And now through the years to have to remember one dead while he, alas, does nothing to help one, or whether he does anything or simply does nothing, everything goes to show how completely indifferent he is. 

In the meantime the multiplicity of life's demands beckons to one, the living beckon to one and say: come to us, we will take care of you. One who is dead, however, cannot beckon. Even if he wanted to, he could not beckon. He cannot do a single thing to make us captive to him; he cannot move a finger; he lies and crumbles away---how easy for the powers of life and of the moment to overcome such a weakling! 

O, there is no one as helpless as one who is dead, and in his helplessness he exercises absolutely not the slightest compulsion! Therefore no love is as free as the work of love which remembers one who is dead---for to remember him is something quite different from not being able to forget him at first. 

The work of love in remembering one dead is a work of the most faithful love.

To be continued...

Friday's Faith - The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead: "The Most Unselfish Love" ~Søren Kierkegaard, Part Two

"If we are to love the men we see, then we are also to love those whom we have seen but see no more because death took them away.... 

"(O)ne must remember the dead; 

weep softly, but grieve long."

Friday's Faith

The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead

"The Most Unselfish Love"

~Søren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855)

Part Two

"Beloved, let us love one another.

1 John 4:7a (NASB)

Excerpt from 

Works of Love

~Søren Kierkegaard

(translated by Howard and Edna Hong)

{Remember, Kierkegaard himself recommends you read his work aloud for best understanding of it!)

The work of love in remembering one who is dead is a work of the MOST UNSELFISH love.

If one wants to make sure that love is completely unselfish, he eliminates every possibility of repayment. But precisely this is eliminated in the relationship to one who is dead. If love nevertheless remains, it is in truth unselfish.

Repayment in connection with love can be quite varied. For that matter one can have outright profit and reward, and this is indeed the persistently common way, the "pagan" way, "to love those who can make repayment." According to this view the repayment is heterogeneous, something different from the love itself. But there is also a repayment for love which is homogeneous with love:  requited love. And there is still so much good in the majority of men that as a rule they will regard this repayment, repayment in the form of gratitude, of thankfulness, of devotion, in short, of requited love, as the most significant, although in another sense they will perhaps not admit that it is repayment and therefore consider that one cannot call love selfish insofar as it seeks this repayment.

---But in no sense do the dead make repayment.

In this respect there is a similarity between lovingly remembering one who is dead and parents' love for children. The parents love their children almost before they exist and long before they become conscious, therefore as non-beings. But one dead is also a non-being. And the two greatest benefactions are these:  to give life to a human being and to remember one dead; yet the first act of love has repayment. If there is no hope at all for parents, no prospect at all of ever having joy in their children and reward for their love---yes, there are still many fathers and mothers who would nevertheless do everything for children:  but there are also many mothers and fathers whose love would grow cold. It is not our intention hereby directly to declare such a father or mother to be unloving; no, but their love is nevertheless so weak or self-love so strong that they need this joyous hope, this encouraging prospect. And with this hope, this prospect, everything would be right again. The parents would say to each other:  "Our little child certainly has a long time ahead of him; there are many years; but in all this time we still have joy in him, and above all, we have the hope that at sometime he will reward our love, will in repayment make our old age happy, if he does nothing else."

The dead, however, make no repayment. One who remembers lovingly can perhaps also say:  "A long life lies before me, dedicated to remembering, but the prospect first and last is the same; in a certain sense there is no threat at all in the prospect, for there simply is no prospect." O, in a certain sense, it is so hopeless; it is such a thankless job, as the farmer says, such a disheartening occupation to remember one who is dead! For one who is dead does not grow and thrive toward the future as does the child: one who is dead merely crumbles away more and more into certain ruin. One who is dead does not give joy to the rememberer as the child gives joy to its mother, does not give him joy as the child gives her joy when to her question about whom he loves most, he answers, "Mother"; one who is dead loves no one most, for he seems to love no one at all. 

O, it is so dejecting that he remains quiet that is way down there in the grave while the longing after him grows, so dejecting that there is no change conceivable except the change of dissolution, more and more! 

True, he is not difficult as the child can be at times; he does not cause sleepless nights, at least not by being difficult---for, remarkably enough, the good child does not cause sleepless nights, and yet the one who is dead causes the more sleepless nights the better he was. 

O, but as far as the most difficult child is concerned there are still the hope and prospect of repayment of love:  but one dead makes no payment at all. Whether you are sleepless and expectant on his account or you completely forget him seems to be completely a matter of indifference to him. 

If, therefore, you wish to test for yourself whether you love disinterestedly, note sometimes how you relate yourself to one who is dead. Much love, doubtless most, would upon closer examination certainly show itself to be self-love. But the situation is this, in the love-relationship among the living there is still the hope, the prospect, of love as repayment, at least the repayment of reciprocated love, and generally repayment is made. But this hope, this prospect, together with the fact that repayment is made, makes a man unable to see with clarity what is love and what is self-love, because one cannot see with clarity whether repayment is expected and in what sense. In relationship to one who is dead. however, the observation is easy. 

O, if one were accustomed truly to love unselfishly, one would certainly remember the dead differently from the way one usually does after the first period, frequently rather brief, in which one loves the dead inordinately enough with cries and clamour.

The work of love in remembering one who is dead is a work of the freest (free-est) love.

To be continued...

Picture, thanks to Grieving Mothers
NASB = New American Standard Bible

Friday's Faith - The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead: "The Most Unselfish Love" ~Søren Kierkegaard, Part One

"If we are to love the men we see, then we are also to love those whom we have seen but see no more because death took them away.... 

"(O)ne must remember the dead; 

weep softly, but grieve long."

Friday's Faith

The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead:

"The Most Unselfish Love"

~Søren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855)

Part One

"Beloved, let us love one another."

1 John 4:7a (NASB)

~~~

In this hardened world we live in, even many Christians can be so ignorant as to say to us child-loss grievers, 

"Are you still grieving your child? Doesn't it make a difference for you that you have God?!" 

A good friend of ours, who is a Christian, actually said those words to Tommy and me, just one year after Merry Katherine's death. Thus, it is so refreshing to hear a brilliant man such as Danish philosopher, theologian, poet, social critic, and religious author, Søren Kierkegaard "get it" when he says quite the opposite in one of his premier writings, Works of Love. So, in the next several weeks, I would love to share with you some of the gold mine of his works by sharing large excerpts from his chapter nine entitled, "The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead."

It is important for us to know why this God-dedicated man could "get it" when so many Christians around us seem so maddeningly clueless: 

"Five of Kierkegaard's seven children died before he did."

~Wikipedia.org

~~~

Kierkegaard wrote about the love of God working intimately in the lives of individuals as opposed to the group-think we often see in today's church. In The Philosophy of Religion, Otto Pfleiderer wrote about Kierkegaard: "

"Hence (Kierkegaard's) passionate polemic against ecclesiastical Christianity, which he says has fallen away from Christ by coming to a peaceful understanding with the world and conforming itself to the world's life."

He went on to say,

"Kierkegaard can only find true Christianity in entire renunciation of the world, in the following of Christ in lowliness and suffering especially when met by hatred and persecution on the part of the world."

A note to the reader: Kierkegaard himself recommended that those who read his words, read them aloud: "I beg you to read aloud, if possible." This has been very helpful to me in being able to better understand their meaning.

~~~

From Works of Love:

(translated by Howard and Edna Hong)

Kierkegaard prefaces his book, Works of Love, with a prayer to the very God of Love. Here is an excerpt from his prayer: 

"How could love be rightly discussed if You were forgotten, O God of Love, source of all love in heaven and on earth, You who spared nothing but gave all in love, You who are love, so that one who loves is what he is only by being in You! How could love properly be discussed if You were forgotten, You who made manifest what love is, You, our Saviour and Redeemer, who gave Yourself to save all! How could love be rightly discussed if You were forgotten, O Spirit of Love, You who take nothing for Your own but remind us of that sacrifice of love, remind the believer to love as he is loved, and his neighbour as himself! O Eternal Love, You who are everywhere present and never without witness wherever you are called upon, be not without witness in what is said here about love or about the works of love."

~~~

In chapter 9 of his book, Works of Love, Kierkegaard first challenges us to go to the graveyard, "in order there to get a look at life":

"See, out here is the place to think about life, to get an overview with the help of this brief summary which abbreviates all the complicated extensiveness of relationships. How, then, in a piece on love could I leave unused this occasion for making a test of what love essentially is? In truth, if you really want to make sure about love in yourself or in another person, then note how he relates himself to one who is dead....

"...(W)hen one relates himself to one who is dead, in this relationship there is only one, for one dead is nothing actual. No one, absolutely no one, can make himself nobody as one dead can, for he is nobody; consequently there can be no talk here about irregularities in observations; here the living becomes revealed; here he must show himself exactly as he is, because one who is dead---yes, he is a clever fellow---has withdrawn himself completely; he has not the slightest influence, either disturbing or helping, on the living person who relates himself to him. One who is dead is not an actual object; he is only the occasion which continually reveals what resides in the one living who relates himself to him....

"But we do have duties toward the dead. 

"If we are to love the men we see, then we are also to love those whom we have seen but see no more because death took them away....

"...(O)ne must remember the dead; weep softly, but grieve long."

"How long cannot be decided in advance, because no one remembering can with certainty know how long he will be separated from the dead. But he who in love remembers one dead can make his own ~ some words from the psalm of David in which there is also discussion of remembering:

"If I forget thee, let my right hand forget its cunning; let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember thee, if I do not prefer thee above my chief joy..."

~Psalm 137:5-6 (KJV)

"Therefore, among the works of love, let us not forget this, let us not forget to consider

"THE WORK OF LOVE REMEMBERING ONE WHO IS DEAD.

"The work of love in remembering one who is dead is a work of the MOST UNSELFISH love."

...to be continued

Picture, thanks to "Grieving Mothers"
More about Søren Kierkegaard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard
Scriptures: NASB = New American Standard Bible, KJV = King James Version

Thursday's Therapy - "Is Mourning Madness?"

Grief is a profound emotional process with very real biological symptoms that can endure for months {as child-loss grievers, we would say grief can endure for years and even a life-time...}.

Thursday's Therapy

"Is Mourning Madness?"

~Slate.com

Is Mourning Madness?

The wrongheaded movement to classify grief as a mental disorder.

By Leeat Granek and Meghan O'Rourke

Posted Monday, March 12, 2012, at 6:45 AM ET

Is grief a disease? That is one of the crucial questions psychologists are asking as the American Psychiatric Association revamps its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), used by millions of mental health professionals to diagnose patients, for a fifth edition due out in 2013.

A group of psychiatrists have spearheaded a movement to include ongoing grief as a disorder, to be labeled “complicated” or “prolonged grief.” Others have proposed, separately, that a mourner can be labeled clinically depressed only two weeks after the loss of a loved one. The problem with both potential changes is that more people’s grief will be diagnosed as abnormal or extreme, in a culture that already leads mourners to feel they need to just “get over it” and “heal.”

In January, more than 10,000 mental health professionals, concerned about the credibility of the science behind several proposed additions to the manual, including the potential addition of complicated grief, have signed a petition calling for an "independent review"  of the DSM-5. Their concerns are worth taking seriously. Grief, even the ostensibly extreme variety that the DSM might include, is a universal and normal human reaction to the loss of a loved one. Unlike most disorders in the manual, it is a condition we will all experience. It is not a disease and it has no place in a book dedicated to listing mental disorders. In a culture that has largely turned grief into a private experience rather than a communal one, the decision to include grief in the DSM risks doing more harm than good, making it easier than ever to view those who are simply experiencing a painful rite of passage as abnormal.

A major problem with the proposal is that the symptoms of complicated or prolonged grief—such as yearning, sorrow, and sadness—look much the same as those of normal grief. The new diagnosis, spearheaded by two professors of psychiatry, Katherine Shear and Holly Prigerson, at Columbia and Harvard University respectively, would likely characterize complicated grief as a constellation of symptoms that can include intense feelings of sadness, bitterness, and loneliness; difficulty sleeping and concentrating, and detachment and agitation, among others. (Shear and Prigerson each have different definitions; it’s not yet clear what version would be adopted if it were included.)

But at least one large study found that these feelings were experienced by most mourners. And a survey we conducted on grief for Slate found that, out of nearly 8,000 people, the vast majority reported symptoms that resemble those of complicated grief. For example, 81 percent experienced sorrow; more than 72 percent reported overwhelming sadness, yearning, and nostalgia; and close to 60 percent reported trouble sleeping and feelings of longing. Even the advocates of including complicated grief in the DSM acknowledge that there is little qualitative difference between normal and pathological grief.

If the symptoms of complicated grief don’t look any different than those of normal grief, how can we tell the two apart? Right now, advocates for its inclusion argue that the major clinical difference between the two has to do with the duration of these symptoms. In their view, complicated grief can be identified as early as six months after a loss. But research indicates that many people are still in the grips of their grief at this point: In the Slate study, a quarter said they felt normal only “one to two years” after the loss. A mere 30 percent of the respondents reported feeling “normal” or symptom-free again within six months after a major loss. Another large study conducted by George Bonanno and his colleagues at Columbia University found that many mourners reported a long grieving process, with symptoms waning anywhere from six months post-loss to 18 months post-loss.

So what are the downsides of treating grief as a disease? For one thing, more people will be prescribed antidepressants that can have adverse physical and psychological side effects, including increased risk of suicide and addiction and withdrawal problems. (To date, the research has consistently shown that grief counseling and medications do not alleviate grief; they seem most helpful in the cases of people who had pre-existing mental health issues.) It also means that more people will feel shame and embarrassment about not grieving “properly” or getting over their loss fast enough. And the very language of “symptoms” and “duration” seems only to further diminish the significant event that precipitated these feelings in the first place—the death of a beloved person who can’t be replaced.

The inclusion of the diagnosis would be less troubling if we lived in a culture that better understood the fact that grief takes time—and knew how to support it. People used to wear mourning clothes for a year or more, and many cultures have mourning rituals that cluster around the first anniversary of a death. But in the 20th century, Americans began to see the experience primarily as a private and a psychological one rather than a communal one, popularizing Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’ tidy “stage theory” of grief (which moves from “denial” to “acceptance”), and valorizing a “muscling-through-it” approach, to damaging effect.

The truth is that grief is a profound emotional process with very real biological symptoms that can endure for months. For many mourners, grief brings with it feelings of isolation, since a person who occupied a crucial role in your life is gone. It’s easy to see how turning grief into a disease could lead to further feelings of being out of step with those around you—a feeling that already haunts many mourners.

It would be a shame for this to happen. Grief is part of what it means to be human—one of our most significant rites of passage. The majority of mourners do not need medical treatment. They need love, compassion, patience, and a little bit of understanding from their friends, families and colleagues. The truth about grief is that it hurts. It can hurt for a long time—even for years.

That’s because grief is intricately bound up with love. 

As Thomas Lynch elegantly put it,

“Grief is the price we pay for being

close to one another.

If we want to avoid our grief, 

we simply avoid each other.” 

article: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/grieving/2012/03/complicated_grief_and_the_dsm_the_wrongheaded_movement_to_list_mourning_as_a_mental_disorder_.html

Thursday's Therapy - TRAUMA Therapy Toolbox - Is Achieving the "New Normal" Similar to "Ye Must Be Born Again"?

Thursday's Therapy

TRAUMA Therapy Toolbox

Is Achieving the "New Normal"

Similar to

"Ye Must Be Born Again"?

After losing a child, it's as if "Ye must be born again," like Jesus said to Nicodemus.

Things once important to you will no longer be important...

How different we are!

As bereaved parents, to what extent are we facing that we are SO different that it is as though "we must be born again"?

When Jesus described to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again," it was so shocking to Nicodemus that he exclaimed,

"How is that possible? Can a man enter into his mother's womb again?"

It was obvious to him any individual is helpless to accomplish such a feat without miraculous supernatural help. Indeed Jesus was referring to a spiritual transformation that truly was humanly impossible without God's intervention.

So too, with us grieving parents, Child-Loss Grief is a process, a long process, similar to a caterpillar that has entered into the chrysalis awaiting to transform into a different being.

Likewise, we find ourselves undergoing a HUGE transformation process that will render us into a different person than who we were before, and perhaps as unrecognizable from before as the butterfly from the caterpillar.

Tommy says,

"When that policeman rounded that corner into my backyard while I was mowing the grass on that fateful day, I thought to myself,

'I don't know what he is going to tell me, but I know my life is never going to be the same from here on.'

I knew that for a certainty; I just didn't know that I, myself, even would become a totally different person. I didn't know that I was going to have to Re-Learn how to live."

*****

As a Compassionate Friend said to us at a TCF meeting one day,

"At one year of grief, I felt like a one-year-old. At two years of grief, I felt like a two-year-old... And now it's been four years, and I feel like I am just now four-years-old."

*****

Grief has pulled me open,

And I see that the life within me

will always embrace you.

And in that life is growth,

toward a destination I cannot imagine.

~Paul Bennett

*****

In reacting to an article in Time Magazine about grief and what is needed or not needed in order to deal with it, several grief and trauma experts (who are in a group with me in "Linked In" gave their responses:

I just read the article in the January 24 special report issue of TIME titled "Good News About Grief," by Ruth Davis Konigsburg who also wrote a book "The Truth About Grief."

(Click here if you'd like to read the entire article to which these experts are referring:)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2042372-3,00.html#ixzz1CMJH9Pb5

{Please note, the author of this article is a journalist, not a trained therapist, and she is reporting about loss and grief based on studies of the elderly who have lost one's spouse, NOT one's child, which involves a grief that is understood by most grief professionals as well as by society at large as being the worst grief a person can endure, and by its nature therefore is indeed complicated, and that complication is understood to be quite a normal phenomenon for such deep grief.}

Donna goes on to say,

I'm very interested in hearing the responses of other professionals to this article and the theories of this author. I am not too thrilled with this article. I fear it misrepresents the practice of bereavement care. The article makes it seem that repression of emotion and resilience are the same thing. Such a misunderstanding could have long term negative consequences for someone who reads this as an affirmation of repression. Personally, I have only been in this business a few years, but a great deal of my education in thanatology has been focused on the concept that

(G)rief is unique to each individual and there are no set methods for how one should proceed through grief.

This author (of the Time Magazine article) seems to believe that grief counselors tell their clients how to grieve, and in my experience nothing could be further from the truth. I'd be interested in hearing comments from other bereavement professionals.

~Donna Woker, (grief and trauma expert)

{Comment in pink is mine.}

*****

Below are responses other members of our "grief and trauma experts" gave back to Donna:

{The article states,}

"Our grief culture asserts that it's perfectly normal to get mired for a long time in a state of despair after losing a loved one."

Which culture would that be, because it certainly isn't the one I live in.

"The loss is always a reality" is a far cry from normalizing a long "state of despair."

As for outcomes studies, as a general rule the article's assertion that counseling services for those with "normal" bereavement patterns has little impact is true.

Most grieving people I've met in my practice needed some basic education about the impacts of loss on various areas of functioning, but once reassured that their reactions were "normal" they needed little else.

Scholarly research does seem to back up the idea that routine bereavement counseling for all who have suffered a loss is in fact unnecessary.

(However, Marley goes on,)

The literaure is VERY clear about the negative effects of complicated grief on both psychologiucal and physical functioning, and it is clear from various studies that intervening with complicated grief can be effective and meaningful.

~Marley Mills, LCSW

*****

I also agree that "grief therapy" is not necessary for most grievers - but education and facilitation can be very helpful to most and certainly is not harmful to any.

I think what I was most concerned about in the article is that she implied that if a person is stoic and simply ignores, or doesn't address, strong emotions, they will, merely by the passage f time, be fine. This is the worst "myth" of all the so called "myths." While it is true that some do not experience problematic emotions, I can't imagine that finding healthy and productive outlets and expressions for emotions would not be helpful for anyone.

When I educate about grief, I generally say that most emotions will find a way to be expressed. If we don't find intentional healthy and productive ways to express them, they will be expressed in ways we did not intend, and those ways are often unhealthy and possibly destructive.

I tend to follow the philosophy espoused by Alan Wolfelt and believe that a caring, educated, and compassionate "companion" is very healthy for anyone experiencing grief.

~Donna Woker

*****

While most people probably don't need grief counseling (which is fortunate, since most don't get it), all of us could use new language about grief that doesn't pathologize it and doesn't lock us into a conversation about when it will be over.

Even the consoling metaphor of "healing," with its implicit promise that we will feel better, leads us into the context of “sometime it will be over.” Worse, the hopeful metaphor of healing has a negative underside – the implication that something is wrong or broken when we are feeling grief.

I've been in a lot of conversations with grieving people since my book, Loving Grief, was published.

I’m amazed how many are clearly aware that the real work for them is to build their lives anew in a world that no longer holds that parent, child, spouse, lover, sibling or friend.

And they also, with remarkable frequency, recognize that in grief they are becoming bigger people –

(T)heir path is to grow more resilient, more deeply spiritual, more creative, more loving, more grateful for what they once had and what they have now.

Yet our culture and the language in which our culture speaks about grief does not support this deep personal, emotional and spiritual growth.

We need new language, language that embodies a new expectation about grief and loss – not an expectation that we will “get over” our loss or “get on” with our lives, but a conviction that all the losses of our lives are an opportunity for us grow into deeper, more empathetic, more conscious human beings.

We need to bring this new expectation of grief, and the language that embodies it, out of counseling sessions and into the world, where it will shape our cultural conversation about grief.

~Paul Bennett, Author of Loving Grief

*****

(A)s a certified grief counselor and certified thanatologist I have never told my clients how to grieve....on the contrary, as Donna stated,

(B)ecause we are unique, our grieving process is unique.

(A)s I say in my book Transform your Loss. Your Guide to Strength and Hope

(W)e do not forget, we learn to live with the loss. Many people asked me how could one "transform" the death of a loved one....and it is as you said, we can grow more spiritual, resilient and strong.

~Ligia Houben, author of Transform your Loss. Your Guide to Strength and Hope (www.transformyourloss.com)

*****

To Paul Bennett, Marsha says,

I agree with you about post loss growth not being understood in our culture....

I worked previously at a hospice for 18 years and the majority of people accepting an initial visit in the first 3 months post death had the unspoken question

“(A)m I normal?”

or

“Am I going crazy?”

Once their wide array of symptoms were normalized, their relief was palpable and they declined further service.

~Marsha Barnosky, LMSW, ACSW, ACHP-SW

*****

I specialize in helping people overcome grief after traumatic deaths such as suicidal or homicidal deaths, and my clients express extreme gratitude for grief therapy & support groups, as they often feel so alone in their process. George Bonanno's book The Other Side of Sadness is much more balanced, credible, and compassionate in its presentation.

While Bonanno also argues that most grievers are resilient and adjust without grief therapy, he also acknowledges that grief can be tough and discusses several things that help people adjust.

(Courtney also states in her blog,

Rather than the 5-stage model, several scientific studies indicate that people go through more of a wave-like pattern between two processes: loss-oriented and restoration-oriented.

~(see Stroebe and Schut, 1999, 2000, 2001).

~Courtney Armstron, LPC-MHSP,

Courtney's blog is http://traumatherapyalternatives.com

*****

I speak with the voice of a widow whose grief began prior to my husband's physical death (because grief begins at the very moment of the "terminal diagnosis.") In my book, From Fear to Faith, A Caregiver's Journey, I state with a soul unzipped and open for the world to see, the emotions of the caregiver - the fear, disappointment, the pleading with God for a release from the emotional and spiritual pain.

All said, grief is entirely personal - no one can tell another how and when to grieve. One must simply be there as a loving support, without judgment, without advice and without stating the "published myths" about what is acceptable and expected.

Grief is not a textbook, article or survey. Grief is a matter of the heart, soul and spirit - so individual that it cannot be explained or put into a thesis. May we all accept the grief of others as their path toward healing and their movement toward whatever is next. Let it be ...

Respectfully, "Joy"

~Joyce Marie Sheldon,

author of From Fear to Faith, A Caregiver's Journey

*****

Dr. Kübler Ross, first conceived her stages of grief to help folks understand some of their counter-intuitive feelings regarding the potential loss of their own lives.

An interesting note that the Time Magazine article did helpfully point out

Although Kübler-Ross implied an end point by identifying acceptance as the fifth and final stage, she also concluded that

"(T)he reality is that you will grieve forever."

~Dr. Kubler Ross