2009 January-- Society for Christian Psychology

The Politics of Spirituality

Posted on January 27, 2009

[Manager's note: Dr. Johnson continues his weekly blog posts on the topic of Spirituality and Christian soul care.]

One of the respondents to last week’s blog (Paul Martin) helped me realize that I was too simplistic in my remarks, so this week I would like to expand on the distinction I made between Christian spirituality and what I called the “faith-neutral generic spirituality” that is being advocated by some in contemporary psychology. It was suggested that there is no such thing as faith-neutral generic spirituality being advocated today.

In A Spiritual Strategy for Counseling and Psychotherapy, a classic in the field published by the American Psychological Association, Richards & Bergin (1997) helpfully distinguish between what they call “ecumenical spirituality” and “denominational spirituality” (p. 238). The latter involves content that makes it appropriate only for persons who belong to a particular religions tradition. The former contains no “theological content or meaning that would identify the intervention with a specific religious tradition.” The content of this spirituality is “general, flexible, and as universal as possible so that they can be accepted and used with clients from a variety of religious and spiritual traditions” (p. 239). That’s what I was referring to as “faith-neutral generic spirituality,” and still seems to me to be the primary approach advocated in most texts on the subject. Distinctively Christian spirituality fits better in the category “denominational spirituality.” However, even here, contemporary literature tends to focus on the diversity of clients’ religious orientations (Richards & Bergin, 1997; 2000)—and does not promote the same kind of openness and diversity regarding the therapist’s religious orientation and worldview assumptions.

The issue that I was trying to address was the stance that explicitly Christian psychologists should take today. Currently, the vast majority of the literature in psychotherapy and counseling that addresses spirituality forbid the counselor/therapist from being an advocate of any “denominational” position. Rather, the professional counselor/therapist is required to accept and work within the counselee’s religious values (1997, p. 135). Of course, therapy professionals need to be sensitive and discerning regarding any values issues, particularly those working in public mental health settings. But the current “regulations” regarding what therapists can say or do go beyond the rules for normal human discourse in a pluralist culture like ours, and they potentially inhibit the sensitive, discerning expression of some values of some therapists. But there really are two people in therapy, and there are good therapeutic and humane reasons to regard therapy generally as a genuine dialogue involving two persons, neither of whom should have “denominational prohibitions.” This is particularly grievous when secularists or ecumenical spirituality advocates do not have the same kinds of worldview strictures placed on their discourse. Why are the denominational spiritual values of therapists treated in this way? I would argue that it is not merely a concern to protect vulnerable clients (something that should concern all professionals), but primarily the powerful, pervasive, but implicit values of modernism that controls the discourse in the field. My last blog this month will unpack this challenge.

References

Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (1997). A spirituality strategy for counseling and

psychotherapy. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (2000). Handbook of psychotherapy and religious

diversity. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Filed Under Christian Psychology, Christian counseling, Christianity, Eric Johnson, Faith and Science, Soul Care, Spirituality, experience, worldview | 1 Comment