Author Archives: Mark Lee Robinson

About Mark Lee Robinson

I am a psychotherapist and pastoral counselor who is the Executive Director of the Center for Creative Conflict Resolution. Most of my work is with systems (persons, couples, families, organizations) in which there is a high level of conflict. I am not a mediator but an educator. I teach people how to resolve any conflict that arises and, in the process, transform themselves and their relationships.

When we are overwhelmed by emotion

As events occur to us they cause emotion.  The quality of the emotions that arise for us is a product of the event that evokes them. We get to choose whether we feel but not what we feel. The feelings will dissipate once they are fully felt.

We do best when we fully feel all our feelings as they arise. If we don’t fully feel the emotions they may pass out of our awareness for the moment but they linger, often associating with similar feelings.

Sometimes the feelings are too intense in the moment and they get in the way of things we need to do.  So we disassociate from them. We will have to go back later and attend to them or they will take up residence as unresolved trauma.

Whenever we have an experience that resonates at the same or a similar emotional frequency, those old feelings will come back up. But at this point we will need to do more than just endure them. For healing to happen we need to acknowledge and embrace those old unfelt feelings. If we don’t, they just keep coming up again and again looking for someone to fully witness and validate them.

If, when those feelings come up for us, they are met with rejection, denial, and fear; they are not getting acceptance so healing doesn’t happen.  When they are acknowledged, welcomed, and embraced, their energy dissipates and we are at peace.

Because I Said So

[Cover story on the PD on Monday 5-2-2016 about the prosecution of “failure to comply”]

Most of us know that we can’t control other people’s choices. This knowledge doesn’t stop us from trying, of course, but we aren’t really surprised when we tell someone to do something and they don’t. Even when this someone is our child the fact that we have given a command doesn’t mean we will get compliance. As often as not, the order will be met with the query, “Why?”

In the larger social order we want there to be a force that will control errant behavior. We create a certain class of powers that are supported by law and appoint persons to have these police powers. We train them and we require them to take an oath to properly uphold the law. We feel safer because of the presence of those who are pledged to protect and to serve.

But from time to time someone with the badge may order us to behave in a particular way that doesn’t seem to be consistent with safety and public welfare. The command may not be within what we understand to be the law and may even be experienced as an abridgment of our rights. We resist.

While this resistance is understandable, it is also a response that weakens the authority of the law. It becomes an occasion for the decay of social order. It demands our attention. Is this an overreach on the part of the police or a rebellion on the part of the populace? We must be very clear about this. Both the police and the populace have rules they have to follow. And when the populace comes to believe that the police are not obeying the rules, rebellion is the result.

The populace is by nature unruly. The police are by design disciplined. It thus falls to the police to police its own. When we have cops who go beyond their appointed powers they undermine the authority of all police officers.

Rev. Dr. Mark Lee Robinson
Monday, May 02, 2016

Freedom of Contempt

This week the House Emerging Issues Committee of the Missouri Legislature failed to pass on Senate Joint Resolution 39.  This bill would place on the ballot a constitutional amendment to shield clergy, churches, and certain other businesses from government penalties and legal liability if they decline to participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony.   The authors of this bill frame it as protecting religious freedom.  In fact, were it to become law, it would protect the right to openly express contempt for certain persons under the guise of being an expression of “sincere religious beliefs.”

I am myself a Minister of the Gospel and am empowered by the State to sanctify marriages by signing a marriage license.  I have had couples come to me seeking my services at their wedding and I have had conversations in which we ultimately agreed that I would not do the service. But this was not because of my feelings about their lifestyle.  Most commonly it was because they showed me a lack of maturity in their relationship and I was willing to point this out to them.   As a result, they either decided not to wed, or to find someone who was not so frank with them to do the service.  But it was never because of who they were as persons.

Were I a baker I can easily imagine having to tell a couple that I couldn’t do their cake because I wasn’t skilled at what they wanted or because I was already too busy that weekend.  But what this bill seeks to protect is the right of a service provider to say to a person, “I will not serve you because I find some aspect of your being to be so odious and contemptible that I don’t want to have anything to do with you.”

While the bill itself doesn’t name any particular religion whose sincere beliefs would be preserved and protected, I do find a strong parallel in the Gospels to a sect called the Pharisees.  They were especially contemptuous of the behavior of one Jesus of Nazareth who had the troubling habit of partying with sinners and tax collectors.  While the contempt they showed for him is not something most people celebrate today, I can certainly see the importance of not discriminating against those who hold such views.  On the other hand, I don’t understand why it is necessary to protect those practices in the State Constitution.  It seems to me that we are better served by urging ourselves in the direction of greater maturity and health rather than protecting the rights of those who are less self-aware.

Many years ago I was in a meeting for my denomination, the United Church of Christ, as we were considering whether to ordain persons who were openly and actively gay.  Seated next to me was an anxious young man who spoke up against the resolution stating that, “We all have urges that we need to have help resisting.”  He believed he had to resist his own feelings of attraction to other men.  His fear of those feelings had led him to be contemptuous of himself and to ask the larger community to join him in that contempt.  How sad.

While I have compassion for the Pharisees, I don’t believe we are wise to enshrine such self-hatred into State law.

Rev. Dr. Mark Lee Robinson

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Because of Fear

The front page story about the man who went to Home Depot for help in making pipe bombs [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Friday, April 29, 2016] continues on page A6 right across from the stories on A7 of the continuing prosecution of the San Bernardino terrorist attacks and two stories from Baltimore; one about a man in a hedgehog costume with a fake bomb and the other about a 13-year-old boy who was shot while brandishing a BB gun designed to look like an automatic pistol.

Embedded in the story about the 13-year-old is a quote from a press conference given by Police Commissioner, Kevin Davis.

“Why this young man chose to leave his home with a replica semi-automatic pistol in his hand, I don’t know,” he said. “Why this young man chose to flee on foot when he was approached by two Baltimore police officers, I don’t know. Why that young man chose not to drop the gun and comply with the officers’ commands to stop? I don’t know that either.”

I do.

He left his home, the place of greatest safety for him, to go out into the streets where it is very unsafe for a young man on the cusp of becoming an adult. He took with him what he has been told will make him safe by an army of pro-gun activists.

When he was confronted by police he ran because he is emotionally flooded by fear and he doesn’t experience the police as a force for safety in his life.

When told to drop the gun he didn’t because he couldn’t decide whether he could give up the only thing in his grasp that gave him a sense of safety.

I often have conversations with folks who feel just that way. What troubles me most is that the Police Commissioner doesn’t seem to be having these conversations.

I get it that the police were scared too. They didn’t know the gun wasn’t what it appeared to be. They could not have known that they were not at risk. Everyone in this scenario did just what we could expect them to do. And the boy will live.

But we continue to live in fear, a fear born not just of the media but of our day-to-day experiences, a fear that causes us to flee or to freeze such that we do not understand each other and therefore cannot work together to create genuine safety.

Rev. Dr. Mark Lee Robinson
Friday, April 29, 2016

A Letter from Pakistan

I was delighted this morning to find this letter from northwestern Pakistan:

I was searching for some Conflict transformation stuff on internet and found some very impressive write up of yours on Just Conflict that really made my day! I really appreciate and honor this that somewhere, someone is getting benefit of your knowledge and thats what I call serving humanity that some angle people have been doing in the past for example discovering medicines for physical cure but yours one is more stronger as this works as medicine for spirit and moral which is needed more than any one else atleast where I belong to!

I am Raees Khan a Pakistani from North wester part of my country, graduated and working as humanitarian relief and Peacebuilder with the communities through the support of International organizations such as UN. I intend to use my skills and knowledge to bring peace and to play my role by proving my reason of existance in this world. I have a responsibility by nature to bring things to positivity rather than destruction…

very few people are understanding or working in this part of world as most of the humanity is impressed and controlled by materialism and hunted by capitalism. so I see that conflict resolanution is a disease that must be cured morally, spiritually and through “Power with” strategy….

I will read more and share more with you as I am so motivated reading from you on how to deal with the power over and specially extremism and anger in people…..I am also working on Youth in their role in conflict transformation…..and we need it much….

I have learned some very good approaches from USA and Germany through Nonviolent Communication and  opporunity to work wtih  Humboldt Berlin Univeristy in Conflict Management…

I hope to read good from you in future and wish you very best with your physical and mental health.

warmly,

Raees Khan

To curtail unlawful use of firearms

Handgun lying over a copy of the United States constitution and the American flag.

Herein is a proposal for changes in how we protect the American people from the unlawful use of firearms.  This proposal upholds the Second Amendment, recognizes that there are responsible gun owners whose actions can and often do promote the public welfare, but which makes it very much more difficult for persons to possess weapons that they are not able to safely carry because of reasons of their training or their temperament.  It would result in a system much more like that of Switzerland than of Australia except that the task of certifying responsible gun owners would fall to private corporations, not to a government agency.

To implement this proposal Congress would have to pass enabling legislation that would create the framework which States and local governments would adjust to meet local needs.  This legislation would have to meet the approval of the Supreme Court as being consistent with the safeguards of the Second Amendment and the Administration would have to diligently and effectively implement and honor its intentions and restrictions.

Some foundational tenets

On Rights and Responsibilities

One of the largest barriers to sane gun control is the assertion on the part of many Americans that they have a “right to keep and bear arms.”  This right is enshrined in the Second Amendment and has been affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court.  What this assertion fails to observe is that there are different types of rights.  Some rights are available for purchase as with mineral rights or water rights.  Some rights are universally available as with human rights.  But most rights are accessible only by virtue of being responsible.  Anyone can drive a car legally as long as they purchase a car, get a license, register the car, and buy insurance.  They can have the right if they demonstrate the responsibility.

Maintaining a balance of rights and responsibilities is essential for healthy, stable, and just relationships.  We don’t let our children cross the street without holding the hand of an adult until they are responsible for looking both ways.  They don’t get to go a friend’s house after school until they are responsible to call when they get there.  If we are in relationships where we have lots of responsibilities but few rights we feel oppressed. If we have lots of rights but few responsibilities we feel entitled… and we are oppressing someone.

We have established that the right to bear arms is one that is not available to those who have shown that they are not responsible (felons, domestic violence offenders…) and we have determined that there are certain weapons no private citizen may own (tanks, rockets…).  What we have not determined is what must be true before a private citizen may possess a particular firearm.  We have only determined what must not be true and even then we aren’t sure how we will know.  How does one demonstrate that one is responsible and thus entitled to the right?

An Understanding of “Militia” in the Second Amendment

The wording of the Second Amendment is a bit odd.  It reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If I may be permitted to paraphrase the wording without, I believe, altering its meaning but in fact making it clearer we might read it as, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because the security of a free State depends upon a well regulated Militia.”

About this reference to a Militia, the Supreme Court held in DC vs. Heller that, ““The “militia” comprised all males [sic] physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense…” and that the reason for this provision is “…so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.”

A militia is thus an organization that identifies and organizes persons so that they may act in concert for the common defense for the security of a free State.  It is not a gang or posse or band of vigilantes.

Polarization, Paralysis, and the Middle Ground on the private possession of firearms

We are routinely horrified by acts of violence against innocents by criminals and crazies.  Each new atrocity is met with demands that something be done but we are paralyzed as a nation by the polarization of positions by those who insist that the only way we will all be safe is if everyone carries a gun and those who insist that the only way we will be safe is if no one carries a gun.

The large middle ground however is the understanding that there are some people who should not be permitted to carry a firearm.  There are those who have demonstrated criminal intent, poor impulse control, or who are at this point in their lives in such a state of emotional overwhelm that holding such power is more a source of risk than of safety.  There is consensus that some people must not possess firearms.

And it is clear that some people may responsibly possess some types of firearms.  Indeed, some persons by virtue of their occupation must carry guns.  But there are also private individuals who care enough about the culture of firearms to respect guns and to use and care for them in a manner that respects and protects not only themselves but others.  There is consensus that some people may possess firearms.

What it means to be a Responsible Gun Owner

I don’t know of a comprehensive list of those things that one does to be a “responsible gun owner.”  It would include the use of trigger locks, best practices for storing and carrying firearms, training in the care and use a particular class of weapon, and routine practice to maintain skills and assess response times and strength.  While I don’t know what all belongs on the list I am quite confident that there are people who do.  And I am quite confident that there are persons who possess firearms who don’t adhere to those practices.

Ownership of Firearms or Possession of Firearms

In our efforts to limit who can have a firearm we have decided to limit who can purchase a gun.  We have made this an issue of gun ownership.  But it is largely irrelevant who owns the gun.  The issue is who holds the gun.  The concern is not for ownership but for possession.

Some May and some Must Not possess: who decides

When it comes to private persons in the United States, we have determined that there are some who may possess firearms and some who must not have them.  In our efforts to limit who may have firearms we have built those limits at the point of sale.  The person who is selling the gun (under certain circumstances) must do certain kinds of background checks to determine if a particular person is someone who is not barred from ownership.  This is the fox guarding the hen-house. It is in the dealer’s interest to find that the person is an eligible customer.

While to some it would make sense that it be a function of some aspect of government to make such a determination, one central motivation for the Second Amendment was to protect against over-reach by a government.  Thus the protection is for private citizens and there are those who fear that regulation by a governmental entity will not only infringe upon their rights but actually put them at risk.  So it will not be acceptable for the government to certify which persons have the right as is done in Switzerland.

So what I am proposing is that this determination of who may possess a firearm and who must not possess a firearm be made by communities of responsible gun owners.

How this might work in practice

I am not someone who has served in elected office.  I don’t know the legislative process so there are certainly aspects of how I envision this working that are faulty.  But here is a broad outline

Federal legislation

Congress would create legislation to extend a charter to certain types of corporations which entitle them to function as Citizens’ Militia.  This charter gives the organization the right to extend to its members the general right to possess a firearm of whatever class they have been certified to possess responsibly.  The legislation only needs to assert that such certification is evidence of fulfilling a responsibility such that the right can be claimed by an individual.

Supreme Court

The Court would them have to find that such a limitation was in keeping with the intent of the Second Amendment under the prefatory clause with respect to a well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free State.

State Legislatures

Each state will then determine whether the federal legislation is sufficient for the procedures of the state or whether additional regulations are necessary for Citizens’ Militia which choose to operate in that state.

Citizens’ Militia

Once the enabling legislation is in place, existing organizations may apply for a charter or new organizations may form.  I imagine that gun clubs and shooting ranges would be interested and I certainly hope the National Rifle Association would choose to participate.

It is my hope that the legislatures don’t over-function and try to regulate the details of how militias operate.  Certainly Militias would have to identify that members were who they said they were and would have to know what firearms they possess and be able to affirm that they have the necessary training and permits (in accordance with local law).  But it would fall to the militias to determine just what training was necessary, which firearms require which training, how often members need to re-certify, and such.  Procedures would need to be in place so that mental health professionals could alert Militias to emotional or mental issues that would make gun possession contraindicated [this may require “duty to warn” regulations].  Courts could similarly notify Militias when an Adult Order of Protection was granted.

Private Owners

Private owners will choose to join Citizens’ Militia so that they can have the right to possess their firearms.  Anyone who has in their possession a firearm and is not a member of a legally chartered militia and does not have certification for this class of firearm is committing a crime.

There will most likely be no house to house searches for hidden weapons and there will likely be those who refuse to join a Militia.  But those who do not will not be able to make a claim to insurance should the firearm be stolen or destroyed and their heirs will have trouble inheriting the gun.  Should their gun be used in the commission of a crime, the owner could face criminal charges even if they were not the perpetrator of the crime.

Gun Dealers

Gun sales would be much simpler.  Someone wishing to purchase a gun would have to first of all be a member of a Militia and would have to have certification for the class of firearm he or she wished to purchase.  The person making the sale would only have to certify that the buyer had appropriate documentation.

General Populace

Ultimately all of this is worth doing only if it means greater safety for the people of this nation.  Some will be quite concerned with the idea of an organization like the National Rifle Association being given a charter to determine who may and must not possess firearms.  They will need to be assured that there are safeguards.

No matter who makes the determination about the possession of firearms, at some point someone who has all of the necessary documentation will commit a crime with a firearm.  When that happens, the Militia and its members will not be criminally liable.  But the Militia will have to show that it used due diligence in making the determination about that person.

Should it be shown to be lacking, the Militia may face civil penalties.  A Citizens’ Militia that does not follow best practices in the certification of its members could be sued and could potentially lose its charter.  In this way the market will force the Militia to be diligent in the pursuit of its responsibilities.

This will not be very different from protecting against a fire.  We can follow all applicable building codes and have working smoke detectors but fires may still start.  But if the builder didn’t use a licensed electrician, the builder may be liable.

It is therefore in the interest of the Militia to be very cautious about who is a member and who is certified in a given class of weapon.

In Summary

By creating a well-regulated Militia and giving it the authority to determine who may and may not possess a firearm we elevate the status of its members to that of a “protector of the common good” because making this determination is necessary for the security of a free state.  It is for that purpose that the right to keep and bear arms is granted to private persons.  To possess a firearm for any other purpose than the common good is criminal and a violation of the safeguards enshrined in the Constitution.

Why God? Which God?

I am pleased to have been invited back to Parkway UCC to address the adult class again this year. I am on the schedule for October 11, 18, and 25 at 9:30 and 11:00. Having been given the chance to select my own topic, I will lead a discussion entitled

Why God? Which God?

For most of human history our individual identity was formed and expressed by the god or gods we worshipped. We were a member of a clan or tribe that had a god that gave us our identity and, if we were good, cared for us. While there are those who still ascribe identity to someone as a function of religion or ethnic association [we have folks who say that to be the President you must worship a Christian god] for the most part it is no longer true that one must have a belief in God. Indeed, it is likely that there are persons who are part of the Parkway community who identify as atheist or agnostic.

So if we don’t need to believe in a god, why bother? What benefit arises from a belief in and a relationship with a god? Given the role that religion plays in human misery, perhaps it will be better to live in a post-theist society.

I will show my hand here a bit to say that I observe a great many benefits to having a relationship with God. That will probably not surprise you. But I want to try to tease apart just what those benefits might be. It helps if we know why we are going to all the trouble to have a god in the first place.

Then, having clarified the benefits, we are presented with a great smorgasbord of potential gods. Which god is the best one for you? And what difference might it make if your god is not the same as the god held by others in your pew? Do we all have to worship the same god?

Does God know what is going to happen before it happens? Or is God limited by the Arrow of Time as are we mortals? Did God create us, or do we create God? Or are we mutually co-created? And what does that mean anyway? What is the relationship between science and religion? Does evolution argue against the power of God? Or does God create through evolution? Or does God evolve? Does God know everything? What is God conscious of and what is the relationship between my consciousness and that of God?

These are some of the questions we will consider as part of this class. I hope to see you in October.

JustConflict as a Contemplative Practice

The origins of JustConflict as a discipline do not go back to the intention of deepening spiritual awareness. It arose out of a curriculum I designed for working with abusive men. It was only as I clarified the practices and applied them to a broader audience that I discovered their potential as a contemplative practice.

We normally think of contemplation as closely considering something. A contemplative practice is something we do over and over in which we focus on a sound or thought or object or our breath or on a sensation or collectively on a chant or text. We normally do this in solitude or in the context of a small and safe community.

JustConflict starts in the most opposite of places. The object of our attention is the thing that bothers us the most in the relationship that is, at times, the most trying. One member of the Living School recently named the mother of her step-son as one of her teachers. This was not because she is so calm and wise but because she has the power to cause so much distress in her family and pain in her heart.

Our starting point is with a persistent pattern of conflict in a significant relationship. These are the places that have the greatest potential for our transformation. This is the place where I most want things to change. But it is also not a place of calm but of turmoil. This is not a place of clarity but of confusion. This is not me at my best but at my worst.

How then can this be a contemplative practice, even a form of contemplative prayer? Let us consider what contemplation is more from the perspective of what it does than what it looks like. What is the impact of contemplation?

It helps us know what truly is. It grounds us in reality. It connects us to ourselves in a manner that allows us to be more fully connected to all that is around us. It may be a kind of conversation in which we experience conversion to a more fully true and complete expression of who we are, who we are created to be.

This conversation is one which we try to have with the fullest and purest expression of divine love. But the energy and the intelligence which gives rise to all that is is present in all that is. So we can have that conversation with anyone or anything at any time. And if the goal of this conversation is conversion, then the best time and context in which to have it is in the one where I most want things to be different. It is when I am the most raw, on my last nerve, most wounded, vulnerable, frantic, and confounded.

At the Retreat: The Practice of Presence we will be sitting in silence, and chanting, and focusing on movement and breath. But we will also each select a persistent pattern of conflict in a significant relationship and discover a way of being that will reliably create what we need such that we don’t require or expect that others will change but such that we will be creating what they need as well.

Transparent to our emotions

“Am I just stupid or stubborn or what?   What makes it so hard for me to feel the feelings or accept the challenge to feel my feelings?  Why is it not just a natural thing to do?”

No, you are not stupid… you are defended.  There is a psychological mechanism that you have learned from the trauma of your childhood that protects you by shutting down the emotions.  There is nothing here that will actually harm you, but this part of you doesn’t know that.  You just have to gently and persistently open yourself to the emotions.

The hard part is that the emotions you are opening yourself up to are ones that come to you from the reality of not getting what you need.  They are all different varieties of hurt.  It is hard to be open to the hurt.  So remember that all emotions are transitory. Joy doesn’t last.  Sadness doesn’t last.  Feelings come and go.

We are just working to make ourselves transparent to the feelings.  We are working to become able to just allow them to pass through us.  We notice them. we honor what they are telling us, we observe their source, and we let them go.