My counselor friends give me a hard time about being such a 1's and 0's kind of guy.  One way to look at this is to just accept that this is a grey area.  You simply cannot define the point where skipping lunch once a month and skipping lunch every day becomes unhealthy.  I have difficulty with this because labelling someone as codependent becomes more of a judgement call.  In a discussion between Jesus and His family, there really is no definitive basis for saying whether Jesus is acting as a codependent, given this definition.  Essentially the discussion boils down to what is considered excessive caretaking -- with neither side being able to definitively qualify their position.  In this case, the only recourse is to defer to a qualified expert (say, a trained psychologist) to make a judgement call about whether the person's behavior indicates excessive caretaking based on perceived behavior.

I wonder if it is possible that the definition of codependency is inaccurate?  Is there a different way of defining codependency that would allow for a more precise identification of when a person is operating as a codependent and when he is not.  Sadly, I don't have the definitive answer, but I think I do have a proposal to consider.  Is it possible that the evaluation of an action centers on the person's moral motivation behind the action?

 The purposes of a man's heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out. - Proverbs 20:5 (NIV)

Scripture seems to indicate that the moral motiviation behind an action (i.e. the purposes of a man's heart) is something that can be known.  When Paul was defending his actions as an apostle, he ultimately appeals to the Lord as being the one who would judge his actions and that the standard to be used was the motivation of his heart (1 Corinthians 4:4-5).

Pages: 2 of 3 Previous Page Next Page
Actions: E-mail | Permalink