Cognitive Reframes
July 14th, 2008[This is the second guest blog from Dr. Bryan Maier of Biblical Seminary for July 2008. In this post he briefly considers cognitive reframes from the vantage point of Romans 6 and 7.]
In my last post, I looked at the concept of reinforcement from the theory of behaviorism to see how it interacts with scripture. In this post, I would like to think a little bit about the idea of a cognitive reframe. This is one of the primary tools of cognitive therapy which focuses on how one thinks about situations and the subsequent feelings and behaviors that emerge from such thinking. What is a cognitive reframe and is there any such thing in scripture? I don’t have the space to unpack all of the philosophical implications of cognitive reframing but for simplicity sake, I think most of us would agree that cognitive reframing at least involves choosing how we look at something for the purpose of modulating our emotions and behavior. At least two thorny questions come with this definition. The first is whether there is any true or objective way of looking at anything or if everything is merely just a mental reconstruction. The second question is whether we can actually choose how we see anything.
These two questions arise from Paul’s famous injunction in Romans 6:11 to “consider yourself to be dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus”. Here Paul seems to be saying that how you view yourself with regard to sin has a great impact on how you behave (vs. 12ff). How many of us have challenged clients to claim the freedom that this verse seems to promise? When we do this, are we calling them to believe something that is actually true? Are we really dead to sin? If so why do we keep on sinning (see Romans 7)? On the other hand, Paul could be saying that merely construing ourselves to be free from sin (regardless of actual reality) will provide an incredible boost in our personal war with evil. To the degree that I view myself as free, I will tend to act less as a slave – or more accurately, to the degree that I see myself as a slave of God and not sin, I will act more in line with the Master I own.
So it seems God is calling us to view things differently. But is he calling us to bring our cognitions in line with some kind of true reality or is he trying to introduce us to the amazing motivational tool of seeing lemons and thinking of lemonade? What do you think?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Cognition…Toward a Christian psychology.
There is a notable difference between ontological cognition prior to being born again and being born again, becoming a new relational, psychological, emotional creation in Christ. Understanding of and implementing the critical dichotomy requires scriptural clarification of the redeemed cognitive psychological relational re-structure. The necessary structure re-configures logic of ontological philosophy and in-depth analytic psychology.
First cause cognitive psychology and philosophy constitutes ontology within scripture. Humanist psychology and philosophy configures in second cause, non-communion grace relatedness with God, first cause and its progression is in/of salvation relatedness with God. The humanist anthropological formation of the human mind is in/of second cause personal original sin natural grace relatedness. This constitutes the secular cognitive primordial ontological base. Structurally re-constituting this cognitively occurs in conversion of the faulted unconscious/conscious internalizing born again salvation, being a new creation, in secure redeemed unconscious/conscious cognition. Increased internalization by client and therapist, mutually in our helper Holy Spirit’s comfort and counsel, within the scriptural cognitive frame generates ontological and epistemological sanctifying enactment.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Colossians 3:3 immediately springs to mind. “For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” This seems clear that it is I HAVE died, past tense, done.
My next thought was to consider what the word “consider” means. The NT Greek Lexicon says it is the word logiðzomai, which is “consider,” “reckon,” “take account.” The lexicon goes on to say, “This word deals with reality. If I “logizomai” or reckon that my bank book has [X] in it, it has [X] in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions.”
We say that the Bible is God’s revelation. This implies that something is revealed. Presumably, what is revealed is truth. Otherwise, why is it a concern that we can be deceived? If there is no truth, what is deception? Besides this, there are many verses that seem to clearly state that the message is truth.
I already have to pick through the litter of the world to glean the truth. Are you suggesting it is the same with Scripture? This sounds like forked-tongue communication to me. Hmm…, forked-tongue…, reptilian…, serpent…, hmm…
My answer to your question is probably obvious. God calls us to true reality. (Philippians 4:8)If it is just a motivational gimmick and you tell me to make lemonade from my lemons, hey, we could start wondering, are they really lemons? How do we know? In this scenario, my mind quickly degenerates into all of life and existence is surreal. I think, therefore I am, I am, therefore I think, I think. Am I? Are you?
As I understand it, cognitive therapy does not operate on motivational gimmicks but endeavors to cause the person to evaluate whether their operational cognitions are true. Perhaps a pragmatic “true or not if it makes you feel better think it” approach does exist in CBT. If it does, then we can just keep the baby and throw out the bathwater.
As Christians, we are at an advantage since in comparison we have a corner on how to know truth. Let us invite everyone into the corner with us!
July 30th, 2008 at 6:46 am
D.R. Stevenson,
Thanks for challenging me. My goal in these essays is to merely think through (or rethink) some of the classic ideas from psychology in light of a Christian psychology approach. So many of my questions are rhetorical.
In light of that, I am not arguing with what Scripture clearly says. We are indeed dead to sin and God expects us to view ourselves that way. But is this a cogntive reframe in light of how we experience ourselves most of the time? Are we to will ourselves to believe something that doesn’t seem to be true in our day to day lives? How do we do that? In my own way I suppose I am challenging the idea that we can actually change our feelings and behavior merely by choosing to believe something. Put another way, does repeating over and and over again, “I will believe X” actually lead us to believe it, at least to the point that we feel and behave differently?
I agree that God calls us to face reality and the reality is that we are dead to sin (because the Bible says so). However, because we are flawed, that which is true is often not intuitively recognized as such.
Finally, I think we can and do reframe events in our life all the time for our own purposes whether the reframe matches up with truth or not. For example, the coach is choosing not to start me because he has not had a chance to see how skilled I really am. This is much more motivational than the conclusion that my skills (or lack thereof) warrant my place on the bench.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Dr. Maier,
My response wasn’t meant as a personal challenge. I apologize that I didn’t indicate this. My own head thoughts operate in this fashion. Think the thought, challenge with… but this. A dialectical process perhaps.
While I understand that your “What do you think?” is rhetorical, it is also an invitation for conversation, particularly on a blog site.
In response to your paragraph which begins “In light of,” 1.yes, 2.no and 3.no.
1. Yes, considering that we experience sin as very much alive we academically reframe our thoughts.
2. I say no because I don’t think we can will ourselves to belief. Will ourselves to behavior yes, possibly to thoughts, but not belief. This continues to the no answer for your third question. At least, it is my experience that I cannot will myself to believe something for which I see no evidence. However, perhaps that is because of my proclivity for skepticism and not true for all.
It does seem to be true that changes in certain behavior can cause changes in some feelings, which given the circumstances give evidence to also change cognition. Obviously, there are many qualifiers here.
I also agree that we do not intuitively recognize that we are dead to sin. It is also hard to realize academically. I ask myself, “What in the world does that mean? It sure doesn’t seem like it can mean what it sounds like it means!” I chew on it and I wrestle with it, including in forums like this where I can converse with other minds. I’m not sure what happens then. It seems that I wrestle (AKA reason) to the point where perhaps I have gained enough evidence and it then becomes faith, and thus belief. Alternatively, perhaps it is that God opens my mind to understand in a new fashion, or perhaps it is both. Perhaps reason leads to faith leads to God giving understanding. It is then easier for belief, behavior and feelings to fall in line. An increased grasp of Colossians 3:3 is a personal example. Angry thoughts towards self that “I should be dead because I am bad” are hit with Colossians 3:3 thoughts. “Whoa! I AM dead already! The “bad me” IS dead!” I relax. (Feelings) Possibility of suicide decreases. (Behavior)
Finally, yes, I agree that we can and do reframe our thoughts. Perhaps that is what we are doing when we “think on these things,” “set our mind on things above”, “renew our mind” and “looking unto Christ the author and finisher.” Through truth revealed in Scripture, we can hone experiential truth. This is where we have more to offer than the secular world.
If I believe that the coach is not starting me because he doesn’t know my skills, I am likely to feel better than if I believe it is because I don’t have the skills.
Although, maybe not. In actuality, it probably depends upon the intermediate thought or chain of thoughts) behind the automatic thought, that causes the feeling. For example, I could believe that the coach doesn’t know how skilled I am because no one pays attention to me. Perhaps I believe I am not worthy of attention. Perhaps he doesn’t know because believing that I am not worthy of attention I have not shown my skills. Therefore, I go into a funk because my reasoning has circled around and reinforced the core belief that I am a nobody. In the other condition, I could believe that my lack of skills warrant my place on the bench. Yet, my emotions are not negative because the underlying thoughts are optimistic that while I am currently lacking these skills I am on my way up. If the thoughts behind the conclusion that lack of skills warrant the place on the bench are “I am unsuccessful, I will never succeed, I will always fail, I am a failure,” the resulting feeling from that conclusion will be negative. Then there’s a 3rd alternative.(or 4th or 5th and on) Perhaps the coach is saving my strength for another part of the game where he needs my unique contribution to the team.
There are probably numerous manners, motivation and direction in cognitive reframing. We may wish to hold on to our schema/core belief and thus we interpret things in ways that reinforce our schema. Perhaps I don’t want to forgive so I refuse to look at the situation in another fashion. I may be willing to consider other options because it might help me feel better.
I appreciate that you allow me to converse on this blog. It helps clarify my thoughts and beliefs. I learn best in situations where I can verbally bounce brains with others. Therefore, thank-you to all you officially approved bloggers, for allowing us little people to join in to the conversation.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:43 am
D.R.
I was indeed grateful that you challenged me because it allowed us to continue our discussion and for me to expand on what I think about cognitive reframing.
I guess in summary I would say that we have a great deal of power to see things however we want to. We also occasionally have the capacity to see the truth. I think what God calls us to do in Scripture is “live as if the way I (God) see things is the truth; trust me”. We may not feel it either before or after we obey, so choosing to see something a certain way with the goal of feeling better probably doesn’t have much Biblical warrant. However, we do have the “precious promises” that God deems enough until we see him face to face. We are to live as if these promises are true.
Thank you for interacting with me on this fascinating topic. BTW your view of yourself as one of the “little people” is probably in need of some cognitive reframing, don’t you think?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Dr. Maier,
Agreed. That is, I agree with all these things you say in your summary. Beyond good feelings not being guaranteed, there is another reason that believing in order to feel better does not have Biblical warrant. A “Biblical” goal is to glorify God. Faith, obedience and submission to Him as our Creator are ways God works in us so that our lives glorify Him. (Obviously, I am not a health, wealth and prosperity proponant.) This isn’t to say that the goal of feeling better is a “sinful” goal. It is only natural that we seek to escape pain. I suppose that I see “feeling better” as a natural consequence of getting our minds back into alignment.(renewing)
Re: “little people” needing cognitive reframing. Well…, I have that one down academically; Gentile/Jew, Male/Female, Slave/Free and so forth.
Experientially,it is a different matter. I have often found myself cast into the role of “little people.” I have no degree or title, and I am female to boot. Thus, I externally acquiesce to what seems to be the majority vote of the powers that be (AKA authorities) and preemptively call myself “little people.” — This is probably an example of the complexity of cognitive reframing. It is more than “think it and you’ll believe it, believe it and you’ll feel better.” The heart must somehow get involved. Other thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors have also tendriled into the mixture. Cognitive reframing as a concept sounds so simple yet it seems that nothing is so simple as we might wish.