[C. Eric Jones, Ph.D. is our guest blogger for the month of August, and this is his fifth post. Eric is the Director of Undergraduate Psychology and Associate Professor of Psychology at the Regent University School of Psychology and Counseling]

In the final post of August I would like to draw attention to the Society for Christian Psychology conference held in September and its topic of human agency. Perhaps the take home message of social psychology is that most of us underestimate greatly the power of social situations to influence our thoughts and behaviors. We like to think (especially Americans!) we are the masters of our destiny, we can decide what we like, we are true individuals. Social psychology has numerous effects across hundreds of studies that show how wrong we are about our ability to control our social thoughts and behaviors. In fact, some of the classics of the field seem to represent our misunderstanding of our personal agency. For example, the original Milgram shock studies and the later replications suggest we will be obedient to the point of harming others. Rarely do any of us admit we would do such a thing before hearing the results of the study. When I ask students in class before revealing the results, most think less than 10% of people would go beyond moderate levels of shock when the study showed a clear majority did. The helping research by Latané and Darley also force us to consider situational forces that may influence our actions or inaction. The most counterintuitive finding from that line of research may have been that as the number of people present at the site of an emergency increases, the likelihood any person will help actually decreases. Scores of studies point out our personal ignorance concerning the external influences on our social thoughts and behaviors.

So what does all of this have to do with human agency? Let me suggest these findings provide an opportunity to ask ourselves whether our view of human agency is more informed by our collective culture here in the U.S. or more informed by our Christian theology. Said another way, is a Christian view of human agency closer to the message of social psychology or closer to my personal view of human agency? I have argued in previous posts that social psychology provides a somewhat inaccurate view of social thought and behavior because so many social psychologists begin with naturalistic assumptions about people, which I consider to be faulty. Even with problematic starting points, is it possible social psychology may be able to inform us about some serious flaws in our personal views about human agency? Have we conferred on ourselves unjustified levels of volition? I am not arguing social psychology is fully correct on the question of human agency as many social psychologists assume there is no such thing. However, it may serve us well to evaluate our views on the issue. Our view of agency is central to most everything we “choose” to do or “choose” not to do. If we are unclear of what we think or if our view differs from a mainstream Christian view of agency, we should begin rethinking. Below are some questions for us to consider individually and to respond to here on the blog.

1. Can I articulate my personal view of human agency?

2. Can I articulate a dominant cultural view of human agency?

3. Can I articulate a Christian view of human agency and provide Scriptural or theological support?

4. Is my personal view closer to a cultural view or a Christian view?

5. In what ways does my view and a Christian view differ?

I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter and if you would like to be involved in similar discussions, check out the conference information here on the site and join us in three weeks to hear some great talks and enjoy engaging discussions about human agency.

[C. Eric Jones, Ph.D. is our guest blogger for the month of August, and this is his fourth  post. Eric is the Director of Undergraduate Psychology and Associate Professor of Psychology at the Regent University School of Psychology and Counseling]

In my previous posts I have discussed a number of issues related to the centrality of our social nature and compared to metaphysical naturalism how Christianity can provide a better explanatory foundation to investigate human social behavior and thought processes. My background and training is in experimental social psychology. I am not a counselor or clinician, but I very much want to hear others’ thoughts on the questions below though they stretch beyond my direct experience. By keeping this portion of the post brief I hope to encourage you to contribute responses to the questions below or make comments related to the ideas presented in the questions – maybe even read the previous posts before commenting on this one.

I want to propose a simple idea. We in the Christian community are at some level comfortable with the current explanations of human thought and behavior provided the discipline of psychology. I say at some level because if we were all completely satisfied this site would not exist and you would not be spending your time reading this blog on a regular basis. I propose this idea in order that we may all take a few minutes to consider just how different the assumptions of secular psychology are, how different the corresponding explanations of various behaviors are, and how different the assessments, counseling techniques and therapies are from ideally Christian ones. Clearly this is a flight of the imagination, but with the intended result of inspiring us to consider how to move beyond where we are and how much those around us need us to make these advances. Please do enrich others by reading this blog, prayerfully considering these issues, and by contributing your thoughtful comments. Thank you in advance for making this a great forum for everyone looking to press on toward greater understanding of the person.

1. According to your faith tradition, to what extent is the social aspect of humans central to your view of human nature?

2. To what extent does current research and theory reflect a Christian perspective on our social nature?

3. To what extent can Christianity contribute to advancing psychology’s view of our social nature?

4. Is your theologically-based view of our social behavior accurately reflected in the application of your professional experience (i.e., counseling, etc.)?

5. If Christian psychology can influence secular psychology’s view of social behavior and social nature, what degree of benefit would we expect to experience in clinical/counseling areas?

[C. Eric Jones, Ph.D. is our guest blogger for the month of August, and this is his third post. Eric is the Director of Undergraduate Psychology and Associate Professor of Psychology at the Regent University School of Psychology and Counseling]

My first post proposed Christian psychology should move toward research of social behavior because our social nature is so central to the image of God from which we have been created. I also suggested the research should be empirical in nature as that is the epistemological form that currently holds the strongest voice within the academic field of psychology. Last, I proposed we should begin our studies using integration methods and Christian psychology methods as together they will produce complementary benefits over time. Last week I discussed the advantage a Christian approach has when explaining positive social behavior. In this post I want to discuss the philosophical advantage Christian approaches have over current approaches in defining the very nature of social behavior.

In 1972, Elliott Aronson released the landmark book entitled The Social Animal. Still popular and in use today in its tenth edition, this text offers a more entertaining introduction to social psychology than a typical textbook. This book is so engaging that it is easy to miss some of its implicit messages. The title alone draws a parallel between the nature of humans and the nature of animals. Surely we cannot deny dogs and certain other animals are social. And if they are social, can we be so different than they are? This is a not the place for a full theologically-based discussion of the differences between animals and humans, but based on the creation account it seems we are different. In fact, being created to commune with God and others defines who we are and all we do. We do not see this same communal purpose assigned to other creatures. So many animals are social, but social in a different way than humans are social.

In 2005, Roy Baumeister contributed The Cultural Animal to the social side of the human nature conversation. The message of this book goes beyond a more simplistic social nature of humans and proposes we are cultural which, among other things, means we are “designed” to be interdependent. This concept of interdependence is a good jump ahead in the discussion, but interdependence is restricted to such arenas as division of labor.

Using an evolutionary psychology perspective as Baumeister does, can we realistically expect to reach a description of human nature consistent with Christianity’s view? I think not because of the word “designed”. In evolutionary psychology the word is used because it is assumed evolutionary processes guided the way in which we process social information for instance. Of course evolutionary processes are also assumed to be blind in respect to meaning, purpose and intent, but clearly focused on survival. So from an evolutionary psychology perspective we are not “designed” in the fullest sense. Not being truly designed makes reaching beyond, or even to, interdependence quite a task. Why should we all try to get along all the time? Why should we not take advantage of weaker others or others who are unaware of our less than virtuous intentions? Isn’t the best way to survive to act like we’re a good part of an interdependent community, but in reality we are the only ones not contributing or cheating the community? As long as evolutionary psychology is the philosophical foundation for human nature explanations, those explanations will fall short of reflecting our true communal nature and show instead how instrumentally focused the social nature of humans is.

I suppose we should be happy secular psychology is showing signs of gradually getting closer to a Christian view of human nature and purpose, but can we not do better? Can Christians in the field of psychology not define our social nature in a way that is both consistent with mainstream Christian theology and advances research on social thought and behavior? Perhaps a more fundamental question first, do we understand the benefits of Christians helping to steer the direction and meaning of human nature in social research?

As always questions, answers to questions, and comments are welcome. Don’t let diffusion of responsibility nip a great discussion in the bud.

[C. Eric Jones, Ph.D. is our guest blogger for the month of August, and this is his second post. Eric is the Director of Undergraduate Psychology and Associate Professor of Psychology at the Regent University School of Psychology and Counseling]

My last post proposed Christian psychology should move toward research of social behavior because our social nature is so central to the image of God from which we have been created. I also suggested the research should be empirical in nature as that is the epistemological form that currently holds the strongest voice within the academic field of psychology. Last, I proposed we should begin our studies using integration methods and Christian psychology methods as together they will produce complementary benefits over time. In this post I want to discuss the philosophical advantage Christian approaches have over current approaches in the study of positive social behavior.

Social human behavior is studied in many areas of academia. However, I will restrict the discussion to work in experimental social psychology and work in positive psychology. By and large, social psychologists have held naturalistic views of humans and their behavior with perhaps a strengthening of the use of this philosophy in the field with the emergence of evolutionary psychology over the past two decades. Thousands of studies have been conducted and published over the past hundred years and yet it is interesting to note the lack of studies on positive social behaviors. Explanations for ignoring the study of positive social behaviors may include historical events that birthed the ideas for studies (Adolf Eichmann and the Milgram obedience studies; the Kitty Genovese murder and the Latané & Darley helping studies) and the need to address the effects of negative social behavior such as aggression and prejudice.

Let me propose as another possible explanation for the relatively negative focus within the field that the most logically formulated research questions of a naturalistic philosophy are negative, not positive. That is, if we assume people act and think according to a naturalistic evolutionary psychological perspective, then we see people’s actions and thoughts characterized by survival, competition, and selfishness. Given this negative view of human nature, it should be no surprise the study of ingratiation preceded the study of gratitude by three decades, for instance. In fact, mainstream social psychologists did not make the move to gratitude until those in positive psychology began the trend. Simply put, the naturalistic views of many social psychologists and their explanations of positive social behavior are philosophically incompatible.

The field of positive psychology studies a number of social phenomena among the human virtues and strengths that define the field. Although some researchers within the field hold a naturalistic view of humans, others hold a humanistic view of human nature. It is interesting to note that as the study of social behavior shifted from classic areas of study in social psychology to positive areas of study within positive psychology, there has been a philosophical shift to some extent. Could it be that many mainstream social psychologists with naturalistic views find it difficult to explain positive social behavior in ways consistent with their philosophy of human nature? Researchers with humanistic views of humans may have an advantage generating parsimonious explanations of positive behavior compared to researchers with naturalistic views of humans. However, historically humanistic theorists have had difficulty generating compelling explanations for more negative behaviors. And though humanists may have an edge in the explanation of positive behavior at one level, foundational aspects of their explanations, such as why people have innate drives toward reaching human potential, are less satisfying.

The deficiencies of naturalistic and humanistic philosophies when explaining positive social behavior and thought should open the door for Christian philosophies to more elegantly explain human social phenomena. Positive social thought and action are obvious considering the intended communal nature of creation. Gratitude, forgiveness, kindness, and fairness are building blocks of our social world from a Christian perspective. These same concepts are explained as either illusions or in a less than clear fashion from a naturalistic perspective. Humanistically speaking, we see these concepts consistent with the philosophy, but the explanations become rather fuzzy when we ask about the ultimate purpose or meaning of positive behaviors.

A Christian philosophy of human nature provides clear advantages over naturalistic and humanistic philosophies when explaining positive social thought and behavior. These advantages can be used as Christian psychologists work to move the definition of the person toward a more Christian view. Our efforts to influence the world concerning a Christian view of the person must begin at these foundational levels of research or we risk having our views marginalized among researchers and passed over for consideration in the applied areas within the discipline of psychology. The study of positive behavior may present the greatest opportunity for Christian researchers to share with the world God’s view of who we are intended to be.

A few questions to consider:

To what degree was the historical drift away from positive social behavior due to a predominantly naturalistic philosophy?

Given the current dominant naturalistic philosophy among many social psychologists and the humanistic philosophy of some of those in positive psychology, can both philosophies coexist long term in the study of positive social behavior or will one eventually win out?

In what ways can we as Christians intentionally and systematically invest in defining positive social behavior in order for our research views to compete with the research views of naturalistic and humanistic researchers?

[C. Eric Jones, Ph.D. is our guest blogger for the month of August, and this is his first post. Eric is the Director of Undergraduate Psychology and Associate Professor of Psychology at the Regent University School of Psychology and Counseling]

For those in my department, the running joke as we discuss most anything in psychology is that at some point I will say, “everything is social psychology”. To qualify, I understand many important areas of psychological study are not social, but as discussions of humanity or an individual move toward meaning and purpose the social aspects become more and more apparent. As time has passed this “joke” has become less humorous and more of a personal charge to understand the fundamental social nature of humans and how that nature is exhibited in daily life. As you are likely familiar with the idea, let me very briefly assert the theological and psychological centrality of our social nature when defining humans. The creation account notes the purpose of humanity is for communion with God, other humans, and all of creation. When asked which is the most important commandment, Jesus answers very relationally when He says to love God and others. Psychologically speaking, Baumeister and Leary (1995) masterfully present an argument for the centrality of our social nature in their frequently cited article on the need to belong.

Let me get right to the point here. Many of us recognize these ideas when they are brought out in discussion. Many of us have thoughtfully considered these ideas. Not many in our culture live as if we are fundamentally social, however. We certainly have a culture that is social on the surface, but much of our social activity seems more individually directed as our culture dictates. Are we mostly social on the surface or are many of us on the path to the reflected social nature of the Trinity? If we answer the former, we should consider what we as Christian psychologists can do to address such an issue.

As a possible starting point, let me suggest we engage the ideas of the self, social influence, virtues and other social concepts in various fields of study. If Christian psychologists want to change the way social concepts are applied and how people think of their selves, we must do the difficult work of moving beyond the theoretical and we must empirically study social behavior. Empiricism remains the dominant voice in secular psychology today and if we insist on distancing our efforts from empiricism we will not influence those we intend to influence. This is not to say Christian psychology should be completely defined by empiricism, rather empiricism must play a substantial role or we run the risk of being marginalized.

Of course obstacles exist in attempting empirical psychology from a Christian perspective. The potential of empirical data conflicting with Scripture is one commonly discussed problem. Might I remind us all that just as errors are possible when interpreting empirical data, we may make errors when we interpret the “data” of Scripture. It may be our scriptural interpretation is faulty, not that Scripture is faulty. Second, an apparent conflict between the Scriptural and the empirical may be due to the fact the data has provided us with an incomplete picture of the investigated phenomenon. Other explanations can dull the point of this argument, but this and other arguments against philosophically-based Christian research are insufficient to halt our push to conduct empirical studies from a Christian perspective.

Another obstacle for Christian empirical research centers on the question, how do we best perform empirical studies of social behavior? Do we use an integration approach or do we pursue a Christian psychology approach? I answer yes. Much has been written about the differences between an integration approach and Christian psychology approach to empirical psychology. Here I only mean to propose a possible way to move ahead toward a more accurate understanding of social behavior from a Christian perspective beginning with the premise that both an integration approach and a Christian psychology approach are better methods for empirical investigation than any using a philosophical foundation of naturalism.

Although the integration approach better fits the current APA method of discovery compared to Christian psychology, the philosophies underlying integration studies include (some would argue “are tainted by”) non-Christian ideas. The Christian psychology approach provides explicitly Christian philosophies, but rarely extends from the theoretical realm into the empirical arena. A simultaneous two-step procedure may be beneficial for our purpose of establishing a Christian understanding of social behavior.

Integration: Certainly Christians have been performing valuable research from an integration view for years. But without even conducting additional research, we can learn much from empirical evidence based on non-Christian philosophies.  Given the vast amount of existing studies in social psychology and related fields, it could be helpful to simply systematically reinterpret those studies through a Christian framework. In terms of conducting research, the specificity and richness of secular psychological theory allows for potential rapid expansion of integration research efforts. In other words, we can use existing concepts from other philosophical foundations to immediately conduct research that will be accepted by the APA community.

Christian psychology: Although integration research is beneficial, as noted above, it may never produce the promised distinctiveness of Christian psychology research programs. Unfortunately the benefits of a broad, high-quality Christian psychology research program are likely well into the future, if they are ever realized. The main obstacles for this research program are time for researchers in Christian academia to conduct research, sufficient number of research experts to conduct high-quality research, funding for Christian based research, and the development of sophisticated theory and concepts leading to testable hypotheses.

The point here is the immediate benefits of an integration-based approach combined with the pure Christian foundations of a Christian psychology approach over time outweigh the negatives associated with either perspective. Better to rely on two epistemological sources than only rely on one. Instead of focusing on the negatives of each approach, we may have the best of both worlds as time passes if we engage in both approaches at this point in time.

In sum, to offer a reasonable alternative to exclusively philosophical naturalistically-based research we must decide to take action, decide what models will direct our efforts, and decide what area to make specific plans to research. I have suggested we take action, we use both an integration approach and a Christian psychology approach, and we begin with research in the area of social behavior. The big question is, will we take strategically determined steps to produce meaningful empirically-based research as described above? A multitude of other questions bounce around in my head as I consider these ideas and I look forward to hearing your responses, questions, and discussions on the following:

How do we use the existing Christian researchers to move the efforts ahead?

How do we develop the next generation of researchers for this endeavor?

How do we generate funds to support research from a Christian perspective beyond masking the wording and dialogue of our studies (that is giving Christian concepts secular names)?

Is it reasonable to think Christian academics can agree upon strategic directions for research so as to best use our limited resources?

Are the obstacles of time and funding impossible to overcome for the Christian psychology approach?

Is our generation of Christian researchers here to build the runway so the next generation can fly?

 References:

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

[Leslie Vernick LCSW is our guest blogger for the month of July, and this is her fourth post. Leslie is a licensed clinical social worker, popular speaker and author of 6 books on Christian living. She is the Director of Christ Centered Counseling and you can visit her at www.leslievernick.com or read her weekly blog at leslievernick.blogspot.com]

I did not originally intend to blog about this, but sometimes God has other ideas. Last week my editor, Paul Gossard, from Harvest House Publishers, e-mailed me a request from one of his other authors and I thought I’d share it with all of you. David Eckman PhD, has a fantastic opportunity to train thousands of counselors, mental health workers, and psychologists in counseling skills with Christian values in China. He’s looking for more help and maybe God would call you or me to step outside our normal professional practice for a few weeks to help him. 

When I was in college I thought  it might be nice to do some missions work but since I hated bugs and loved my blow dryer I didn’t’ think I was a good candidate.  But my church has always been missions minded and many years ago, before it was so popular, began offering short term trips. In the mid 1990’s, during one of our church’s commissioning services I remember thinking,  I wish I could do something like that!  Later on I approached our mission’s pastor and volunteered my services but I never dreamed that he’d actually take me up on my offer.  Before long I received a call from someone at Faith Academy, a K-12 school for children of missionaries serving in the Far East. The principle asked if I would come over to Manila, Philippines for two weeks to teach some counseling skills to their staff around sexual abuse as well as provide counseling for missionaries and teachers in marital distress.

I remember feeling scared to say “Yes” and I quickly began to think of reasons I should say “No”.  For example, I had never been out of the country before, never used a passport, and I would have to travel all by myself. In addition, I hadn’t written any books yet, didn’t have a PhD, wasn’t a professor, and I didn’t read my Bible every day.  Why would God want to use me? I argued with Him that he should pick someone else. The Lord confirmed to me that I was indeed inadequate for the task but he assured me that this was my job if I wanted it. So I said “Yes” and began to learn what it means to walk by faith. Living in this great country doesn’t afford us a whole lot of opportunities to have to totally depend on God. When He took me out of my comfort zone, it put me on my knees!

My first mission trip was around 1995, before laptops were common. To prepare, I photocopied a suitcase full of notes because I knew I would not be equipped to teach for three hours a day for 10 days without lots and lots of notes. Back on my knees!  Since that first trip I’ve returned to Manila twice, taught in Russia, Romania, Hungary and Iraq (I’m still waiting for a call to teach in Paris). It’s been on these trips that my faith has grown and I’ve seen miracles with my own eyes.

For example, there was the time when I was in Siberia, Russia. I invited myself to go along with my husband’s sports ministry mission trip. Since I had no athletic value, I volunteered to train church leaders in counseling skills.  On our way to the Moscow airport where we were catching our plane to Siberia, a van stopped our bus and asked us to hand carry hundreds of Russian Bibles into Siberia in our already stuffed suitcases. We didn’t know if we could fit them all in let alone cover the costs of overweight baggage. But they begged us and told us it was impossible for their ministry to pay shipping charges. By faith, each of us packed as many bibles as our suitcases would hold.  We got them all in, but our bags were so heavy we feared we wouldn’t be able to afford the extra fees.  But as all 20 of us hauled our bags over to be weighed, the airline official miraculously waved us through and didn’t charge us a penny more. We safely delivered all the Russian bibles although most of our suitcases ripped after arriving and we had to duct tape them closed when we traveled home.

While my husband’s volleyball team was teaching evangelistic sports camps, I taught pastors and church leaders Biblical counseling skills.  On the last day of class, an elderly woman came up to me and said, “I heard you were coming on the radio. I’ve traveled 2 hours by bus each day to hear you talk about how to help people from the Bible.  I was raised an atheist, I want you to tell me how to know God.” I was flabbergasted. I had assumed all week I was talking to believers. Little did I know that this precious woman came to the church hungry to know God.

The second week I taught in Siberia, I had the rare opportunity to train secular counselors, psychologists and even several psychiatrists in cognitive behavioral techniques. Although I would not consider myself an expert in this area, I am well trained compared to those in Siberia.  I lectured (always through a translator), we did role plays, shared case histories, and took breaks to sip tea and munch on Russian chocolate. Privately many of them asked me what famous person influenced me the most in my counseling practice.  In those moments I told them about Jesus.

Three years ago through an amazing set of circumstances, two colleagues and I traveled to Northern Iraq at the invitation of the city government to train counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists in post traumatic stress disorder, depression, suicide assessments and other general counseling skills. In the evenings, we ministered to believers who were thirsty for encouragement and sometimes needed specific counseling help. 

I’ll be honest with you. The work is sometimes tough; especially teaching through a translator who you aren’t sure is saying what you mean. The pay is in spiritual dollars and you often have to provide your own transportation costs. But the rewards are great and the opportunity to stretch your faith is enormous.

You and I have training that most of the world does not have. I’d like to challenge you to give some of your time and expertise to teach other professionals in a foreign country what you know. If you’d like to know more about the opportunity in China, go to www.thebeijingproject.org/

I wish I could share more of what God has taught me through these missions’ trips but if you’d like to see some photos, you can view them at http://www.facebook.com/LeslieVernickFanPage?v=photos&ref=ts and go to the photo albums. There are two pages to browse.

Perhaps we’ll meet in China.

[Leslie Vernick LCSW is our guest blogger for the month of July, and this is her third post. Leslie is a licensed clinical social worker, popular speaker and author of 6 books on Christian living. She is the Director of Christ Centered Counseling and you can visit her at www.leslievernick.com or read her weekly blog at leslievernick.blogspot.com]

Ten years ago my mother became very ill. A persistent cough and difficulty breathing sent her to her doctor for help. Bronchitis was the diagnosis, antibiotics the cure. “Don’t worry,” he said. “You’ll be much better soon.”

My mother didn’t feel better, she got worse. She wheezed. She couldn’t sleep. Her breathing became labored. Her doctor now added asthma to her diagnosis and prescribed an inhaler plus new antibiotics. But my mother’s symptoms didn’t subside and eventually she required an ambulance ride to the hospital. There she received the bad news that she didn’t have bronchitis or asthma after all. She had lung cancer.

Last week I blogged about David’s sin against Bathsheba and her husband, Uriah, and diagnosed it as an abuse of power. David came from humble origins but for some time after he became king, he felt entitled to use his position to get whatever he wanted.  He commanded Bathsheba to his bed and sent Uriah to the front lines of battle when an unplanned pregnancy resulted. This diagnosis of David’s abuse of power startled some readers who e-mailed me privately to let me know that they had never thought of David’s sin in that way.

As Christian counselors, it’s especially crucial that we name a problem correctly. I’m not only referring to DSM-IV TR accuracy. For us to be most effective we must not only look at the symptoms someone presents but also the deeper heart themes that rule him or her.

Whether or not we ever write an official diagnosis on an insurance form, when we counsel someone, we have particular ideas about what is going on in a person’s life and heart that shape the direction we take in counseling. For example, if King David had come to you or to me for counseling over this situation in his family life and ministry, how different would his treatment protocol have been if we had diagnosed his problem as an adulterous affair, an inappropriate sexual relationship, or sexual addiction? What would have been the outcome if we had focused on treating David’s depression rather than confronting his abuse of power as Nathan did?

People come to a therapist because they don’t feel good either emotionally, spiritually, and/or relationally. They want our help and their goal is to feel better. How we define “what’s wrong” impacts not only our understanding of them and their problem, but the kind of treatment plan we implement. An antibiotic is great medicine for someone sick with bronchitis, but it is impotent against cancer. In the same way sometimes I’m afraid that when we focus on treating symptoms, we may inadvertently enable our clients to remain blind to the growing cancer (sin) in their own heart.

Let’s look briefly at an actual case I worked with. I’m providing only the bare bones to illustrate my point but if you’d like, you can read more about it in my book, How to Live Right When Your Life Goes Wrong, (chapters 1 and 8).

Jack came to see me with his wife Mary as a last resort. Mary said “I can’t live like this anymore. Jack’s always mad at me. He screams and curses and I feel like I’m going to have a nervous breakdown.” She continued, “We’ve been to lots of therapists and nothing has made any significant difference in our relationship. I’m ready to end it.”

Jack reluctantly acknowledged his behavior was hurtful to Mary but defended himself by saying that he wouldn’t get so mad if Mary didn’t annoy him all the time. She wouldn’t shut up when he didn’t want to talk anymore. She didn’t respect him like he wanted. She was disorganized and from Jack’s perspective not submissive enough.

Mary defined their marital problem as “I don’t know what to do to make Jack happy.”  In the past, counselors focused on helping Mary better meet Jack’s needs, biblical roles for marriage, communication and conflict resolution skills and some anger management techniques for Jack. But just like my mother, those treatment plans weren’t working. Jack and Mary’s marriage was getting sicker and sicker.

It was time to reevaluate the diagnosis. First, Jack’s anger problem isn’t because of Mary or his disappointing marriage. Couples therapy is as ineffective to solve their problem as my mother’s antibiotic treatment was to cure cancer.  Jack’s angry responses are not because of what Mary does or doesn’t do. Jesus tells us, “Out of the overflow of our heart, our mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45). A difficult marriage or person doesn’t make us respond with fits of rage. Jesus says however, those angry words that come out of our mouth expose something going on in our heart.

Jack’s ugly temper was the fruit, not the root of his deeper heart issue. What was going on in Jack’s heart that needed radical treatment?  This may sound simplistic but in a sense it was. Jack wanted what he wanted and used biblical support to defend that he should get what he wanted. For example, he’d say, “I’m not asking for anything unreasonable. I just want her to listen to me when I want to talk with her.” Or “I just want her to show respect and stop arguing with me.”

When Jack didn’t get what he wanted, he became demanding and threatening. He used his temper to bully Mary so that she’d give in.  When she refused or failed to do what he demanded, he used ugly words to punish her.

The tricky thing about this kind of case is that there is an ounce of truth in some of Jack’s statements. Of course it would be nice if Mary would respect or accommodate her husband, but if we turned our attention toward helping Mary as a treatment goal, we would be misdiagnosing what’s wrong and allowing Jack’s problem to get worse. No one always gets what he or she wants all the time and important growth is processing maturely our legitimate feelings of hurt, anger and/or disappointment when we don’t get everything we want or feel we need.

James asks, “What is the source of conflicts and quarrels among you? (James 4:1).  Pride and selfishness is James’ diagnostic assessment. In this case Jack felt entitled to get what he wanted from Mary because he believed her role as his wife was to always meet his felt needs. She had no right to say “no”.  Jack didn’t see Mary as a person created in God’s image who had her own needs and feelings, desires and dreams. Rather, Jack related to her as an object to control, someone to use to get love, support, physical affection, and to make his life easier.

Although Jack gave lip service to the sinfulness of his temper outbursts, Jack continued to use rage to get what he wanted because it worked. Jack had never been confronted with his selfishness and entitlement thinking, or his lack of love and his unbiblical ideas about marriage in any of his previous counseling although most of it was done by pastors and Christian counselors.  There is no real change on the outside until we confront and work through what’s going on in the heart.

A change for Jack isn’t merely learning anger management or conflict resolution strategies, but like King David, Jack needed to repent of his self-centeredness and lack of love. Then treatment could focus on Jack learning to love his wife as a person separate from him as well as teaching him how to tolerate his own unpleasant feelings when Mary doesn’t love him perfectly or like he wants her to.

Friends and colleagues, we are not so different from King David or Jack. We may not have the power of a king, but we all seek some kind of control over our kingdoms and the people in them. Just like Jack and David, our heart is full of pride, anger, envy, selfishness, greed, fear, lust, and laziness and if we’re not mindful, we will be just as tempted by them and just as blind to them as King David and Jack were.

As Christian counselors, I pray that we press hard to expose the heart issues, the things that keep us stuck, keep us sick, keep us from being all that Christ calls us to be both in ourselves as well as with those God allows us to serve.

[Leslie Vernick LCSW is our guest blogger for the month of July, and this is her second post. Leslie is a licensed clinical social worker, popular speaker and author of 6 books on Christian living. She is the Director of Christ Centered Counseling and you can visit her at www.leslievernick.com or read her weekly blog at leslievernick.blogspot.com]

It was a regular Sunday morning, my husband and I attended worship at our home church. Our senior pastor was on vacation so an associate pastor was preaching.  His text was Psalm 51, David’s prayer of repentance after Nathan the prophet confronted him with his sin against Bathsheba and her husband Uriah.

My pastor began describing the background of what led up to Nathan’s confrontation.  He shared the familiar story about David’s adultery with Bathsheba and how after Bathsheba became pregnant, David covered up their affair by having her husband, Uriah, put in the front lines of battle so he would be killed.  Immediately I felt troubled and I was distracted throughout the rest of the sermon.  Although my pastor’s emphasis was on God’s great mercy and forgiveness not David’s sin, I could not focus.

I have learned to pay attention to those internal moments as Holy Spirit led. This was not the first time I felt sick after a pastor or speaker labeled David’s sin as adultery and his relationship with Bathsheba as an affair. I even cringe when the paragraph headings of my Bible describe David’s behavior in that way.

David’s relationship with Bathsheba was not mutual or consensual.  It was not an affair. It is better described as David’s lustful craving coupled with an abuse of his power.  David took Bathsheba to his bed because he could, he was the king. In the same way he misused his military authority when he later ordered Bathsheba’s husband to the front lines of battle in order to cover up his first sin (For the story read 2 Samuel 11 and 12).

When God’s prophet, Nathan, confronted David, Nathan told him a story describing a rich and powerful man who selfishly used his might to take something from another person who was helpless to stop him.  David didn’t recognize himself in Nathan’s story but became outraged at such injustice. When Nathan said, “You are that man,” David saw himself and his heart broke.

After the sermon was over I told my husband I needed to talk with our pastor. I whispered a quick prayer, approached him and asked if he had a minute. Graciously he responded positively.

 I said, “I know your sermon wasn’t focused on David and Bathsheba but do you think Bathsheba had a real choice?” 

Surprise engulfed his entire face. He humbly said, “I never thought of it that way.” I went on to explain my concerns and how Nathan named David’s sin as an abuse of power, not of sexual misbehavior. Bathsheba is never mentioned because she was a victim, not a willing participant.

I went home hoping that the next time he preached about David’s sin with Bathsheba he would describe it as Nathan did, but the good news is that wasn’t the end of the story.

The next day I received a phone call from another one of my pastors wanting to discuss a marital altercation from the previous evening that he thought was abusive.  He described what happened and then added, “Pastor shared with me what you told him yesterday about David’s abuse of power and I’m wondering if this incident isn’t similar?”

My jaw dropped and my heart rejoiced. Instead of seeing this couple’s problem as sinful anger or marital conflict, he recognized the deeper heart issues. Her husband felt entitled to his wife’s compliance and when she didn’t give him what he wanted, he used his physical power to block her right to choose. Her husband misused his authority as her husband to get his own way and he believed he had every right to do so.

I share my story in this blog for two reasons. First, one of my passions as a Christian leader, counselor, author, and speaker is to educate other Christians about the misuse and abuse of power, especially in a family. Jesus warned his disciples against using their legitimate power or authority inappropriately.

He said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:41-46). Biblical headship never entitles one to misuse that authority simply to get his own way, whether it is in a church, a company, community, or in a family.

At the heart of most domestic abuse is the sinful use of power to gain control over another individual. The weapons used are physical strength, outbursts of anger and verbal threats, emotional battering and intimidation, economic control, sexual pressure or domination, and/or spiritual one-upmanship. One person in the relationship seeks to control the other by using anger, money, and the scriptures. I have seen many hurting individuals and families devastated by inadequate counsel in these situations simply because his or her counselor did not perceive the imbalance of power and control in the relationship. Instead of putting an axe to the root problem, he or she focused on anger management, conflict resolution, improved communication, or headship/ submission issues.

Jesus cautions those of us who do have positions of authority – parents, husbands, pastors, elders, counselors, teachers, and other leaders not to misuse those God-ordained positions for self-centered purposes.  These roles are given to us by God to humbly serve those individuals or groups that have been entrusted to our care, not to have our egos stroked or to get our own way. If my seminary trained pastor had never thought about David’s sin as an abuse of power, perhaps there are some Christian counselors who don’t understand this problem very well either. I’m begging you to spread the word in the spheres of influence you have so that this problem is not only identified, but addressed Biblically.

My other reason for sharing this story is that we are called not only to be wounded healers, burden bearers, and compassionate listeners, but also to use carefully crafted words to be truth tellers. God uses not only his Word, but ours to breathe fresh air into stale perspectives, to shed light in the dark corners of a difficult life circumstance, and to comfort and calm a confused mind.

Our words have the potential to expand well beyond the counseling hour and I’m grateful that I got to see how God used my simple conversation that Sunday not only to change a pastor’s perspective, but to rescue a broken and scared woman from danger.

I want to challenge all of us to use our words about whatever particular burdens that God has put on our heart to make a difference in our church, our school, with our counseling colleagues, and in our community.

I hope we never forget that our purpose is to be like Christ, a compass for radical change, to right wrongs, light the darkness and to always point true north.

[Leslie Vernick LCSW is our guest blogger for the month of July, and this is her first post. Leslie is a licensed clinical social worker, popular speaker and author of 6 books on Christian living. She is the Director of Christ Centered Counseling and you can visit her at www.leslievernick.com or read her weekly blog at leslievernick.blogspot.com]

So let us realize our limitations. We are something and we are not everything.

Blaise Pascal

As Christian counselors and psychologists we have all witnessed comrades who have been intoxicated by the praise of others. Several months back I was speaking on one of my books at my local Christian bookstore and afterwards two young women eagerly approached me. Rather than purchase my book they wanted me to autograph their arm. I felt silly signing my name on their flesh.

In the past I’ve been asked to autograph programs and napkins (thankfully unused napkins) from events I’ve spoken at. It not only troubles me that people put others on such wobbly pedestals but I’m disturbed when I notice that I’m liking it a bit too much.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with receiving and enjoying positive feedback, but I know myself well enough that positive affirmations can become intoxicatingly seductive and can blind us to our darker side. In our celebrity studded society it is very tempting and easy to become deceived by what I call the “awe” factor.

We have read and listened to tragic stories of athletes, politicians and other leaders who became captured by the lie that they were better than they really were. In my clinical practice I’ve supervised interns as well worked with licensed and respected counselors, pastors, professors, and church leaders who have fallen prey to the praise of humankind and in the process, often stepped over the line of professional and appropriate behavior.

When I’ve worked with these individuals and we’ve examined the steps that led them to cross professional boundaries or abuse their power, we usually find that grandiosity played a significant role. They believed themselves to be above temptation. They thought they were smarter and stronger than they were. They told themselves that they were the lone exception to the normal rules of professional conduct or that their inappropriate behavior would not receive the same tragic consequences as others faced.

 They swallowed the sincere words of their clients and admirers but forgot that much of who they are remains hidden from most people’s eyes. Some individuals still held captive in their remnants of their own delusion later lament, “I can’t believe I did such a thing.” 

“Why is it so hard to believe?” I ask.

Could it be because they’ve forgotten their humanity and they’ve lost sight of their weaknesses and their nature to sin? They can’t believe they could have done such a thing because in their own eyes they should have been smarter or better than that.  

The apostle Paul reminds us, “If you think you are standing strong, be careful not to fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12). In our clinical training we are given tools to develop therapeutic competence and effectiveness, but as Christian therapists, we must pay every bit as much attention to our inner life if we want to guard our heart against the lure of grandiosity. The failure to do so not only hurts us, it deeply wounds those we serve.

Here are a few ways I have found helpful. If you have found other ways to stay sober from the intoxicating effects of praise please share them with me and the rest of us.

Stay Mindful of Your Smallness

I think we can learn some valuable lessons from the life of King Saul.  Initially, Saul felt small and inadequate when God chose him to be Israel’s first king.  He replied to Samuel the prophet, “But am I not a Benjamite, from the smallest tribe of Israel, and is not my clan the least of all the clans of the tribe of Benjamin?  Why do you say such a thing to me” (1 Samuel 9:21)? 

Many of us begin our professional journeys mindful of our smallness and feel scared when God calls us to ministry. We feel grateful and humbled that God would use us to minister his truths to others.

But after Saul became king, he changed. He no longer felt small and his heart grew arrogantly confident.  Instead of consulting with Samuel the prophet of God, Saul began to make decisions on his own and lied to Samuel about following the Lord’s instructions.  Finally Samuel, God’s prophet, confronted King Saul’s deception. He said, “Stop!  Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.  Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel…”  (1 Samuel 15:17, italics added)? 

King Saul’s pride problem is a battle we all face.  Although we may initially recognize our smallness and humble ourselves, we can easily become puffed up by the admiration of others as well as our own accomplishments. We start to think that God is blessed to have us on his team and that it’s all about our gifts and abilities and accomplishments.  In these moments it’s important to remember that all of the good in us is not from us, but rather from God (1 Corinthians 4:7).

 Jesus often uses the illustration of a child to help us understand how crucial humility is to our own spiritual and emotional well-being. Jesus knows that if we forget our smallness we will lose our way in our journey through life. 

Be As Honest With Yourself As You Can

A healthy person isn’t a totally together person but rather someone who is internally free enough to see the good things God has put inside of her as well as the sinful and immature parts that continue to need growth and forgiveness.

I do not enjoy observing myself at times craving more and more praise and affirmation but when I catch myself wanting it and am able to name it for what it is, it protects me from sliding down a very slippery slope. The psalmist affirmed that God desires truth in our innermost being. (Psalm 51:6).

Stay Connected with People in Close Mutual Relationships

It is not possible to be totally honest with ourselves without being connected to other people. The scriptures speak of our proclivity toward self-deception and remind us that God’s word and God’s people help us see ourselves more truthfully.

Real and authentic relationships with people who know us well provide a powerful anecdote to the “awe” factor. It’s hard to stay as wonderful as my clients’ think I am 24/7. My husband is my reality check. His feedback is usually much more accurate than any of my clients.

In addition, I meet with a spiritual director once a month. In order to be honest with him I have to be honest with myself but this has been of great help to me in guarding my heart and staying mindful of my smallness. I also belong to a group of professional women whose lives are like mine. It’s helpful because they experience the same struggles and the same temptations and we are able to talk honestly and freely together and hold each other accountable. I invite them to speak into my life and I listen attentively to what they say.

People who are caught in the web of grandiosity are not willing to be open and vulnerable with their peers, their friends or their family. They either think too highly of themselves to believe that anyone can teach them anything new or helpful, or they are too self-conscious, protecting their false self-image and shielding themselves against wounded pride to seek help.  They’d rather not know or have anyone else know that they aren’t doing so well. Yet the psalmist prayed, “Let a righteous man strike me – it is a kindness; let him rebuke me – it is oil on my head.  My head will not refuse it” (Psalm 141:5).

The opposite of grandiosity is humility. Gary Thomas encourages us to make the necessary effort to cultivate a humble heart.  He says, “Humility is at root a celebration of our freedom in Christ; we are freed from having to make a certain impression or create a false front.  Humility places within us a desire for people to know us as we are, not as we hope to be and not as we think they want us to be or even as we think we should be.  Real growth cannot begin until we come to this point.”

Reference

Gary Thomas, Seeking the Face of God (Nashville: Nelson, 1994), 126

[Rev. Stephen P. Greggo, Psy. D. is Professor, Counseling Department, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL. His interest areas are in counseling and Christian worldview, contemporary clinical practice, groups, supervision and raising up the next generation of mental health professions for kingdom service.  He is the author of Trekking toward Wholeness: A Resource for Care Group Leaders (2008), InterVarsity Press. Dr. Greggo is our blogger for the month of June, and this is his fourth post.]

My inquiring mind surveyed the surrounding crowd standing in the painfully slow line waiting to present our passports at Borispyl Airport outside Kiev. The invitation for spring break 2010 was to teach an intensive course on Christian counseling in theological perspective to pastors, counselors, and ministry leaders from throughout Ukraine.[i] My eyes took in the appearance, attire, and distinguishing characteristics of fellow travelers. Such diversity! What imaginings, products, ideas, and worldviews were about to be introduced by the vast company gathered in this queue? Related to my own assignment and purpose, I contemplated the material I was about to bring within Ukrainian borders.

In the United States, evangelical seminaries and Christian universities offer a vast assortment of professional mental health degrees and lay counseling training. Each may proffer a well crafted vision statement with claims to be biblical, Christ-centered, Spirit guided and/or unapologetically Christian. These academic programs promote a variety of perspectives on the relationship between modern psychology and Christian theology. The differing positions are so critical and distinct that much attention is given to this subject both formally in courses and informally in clinical supervision. Eric Johnson (Ed.) and Inter-Varsity Press (IVP) will soon release a revision of the popular text, Psychology and Christianity: Five Views (2010).[ii] There has been significant advance in recent years within the various views, and progress has been made in facilitating direct communication between position proponents.

There is no hiding that I have considerable enthusiasm to explore the variety of views on how to manage the interface of faith and counseling. Yet, the invitation to survey such matters with Christians around the world is both an awesome opportunity and humbling responsibility. The invitation to travel to Kiev to address this subject matter in a graduate level seminar was an indication that the evangelical church in Ukraine was alert to complexity of this subject. Trends in US seminary education do make their way overseas. Familiarity with the intricacies of the range of positions on psychology and Christianity affords me the awareness that there is a substantial amount of American church history linked with the leanings and arguments of each carefully articulated perspective. The tension that persists between science and theology stems from heated discussions regarding epistemology that are deeply embedded in the USA context. Central to the historical evangelical movement is an understanding of the fundamentals of the faith and how these are to be rigorously defended against the encroachment of modernist, liberal values. The controversies associated with the connection between Christ and Culture is plainly apparent in Christian counseling. Accordingly, when one lifts such discussion from the American context and exports a view of helping to another culture, it is critical to monitor the cultural weight attached to principles purported to be exclusively biblical.

During preparation, prayer was lifted over the issues, content, and passions that I would offer as a representative of a major evangelical seminary and most importantly, of Jesus Christ. The truth of Scripture is the same, yesterday, today, and for eternity. This core conviction does not imply that the theology or ministry principles developed from the Scriptural text are culturally value-free. The course I was to teach would explore the controversies related to the relationship between psychology, theology, and biblical material as these are fused to formulate a technology of helping. In my own approach, an underlying theme would be cultivated under the premise that these learners would benefit from viewing a practical example of a helping technology that is biblically sound, theologically consistent, and pastorally effective. Small care groups are an effective means to shepherd and mediate soul care within a Christian ecclesiology.  Could it be that small group helping methods offer a culturally relevant fit to address the limitless needs so pronounced in local ministries across the globe? Sample group helping endeavors would be included in this particular course as illustrations of how biblical and empirical approaches might be effectively aligned. The three considerations that directed me to mention groups in an international context will be exposed in this blog. Perhaps readers will have reason to dispute these notions, provide clarifications, or offer additional reasons to extend the effort.

First, given the descriptions provided to me regarding the spiritual and mental health needs of evangelicals in the destination culture, raising awareness of group helping approaches was desirable for pragmatic reasons. If the anecdotal ‘need’ assessments that I was given were at all representative, providing support via one-to-one conversation was bound to be a limiting intervention strategy. Second, group methods were given preference due to cultural considerations. The private and individualized counseling session is the modality given optimum attention by Christian helpers in the USA. The popularity of this format could tie to biblical principles or it may be that the one-to-one counseling session is favored due to our own cultural preferences. In a social framework that esteems the collective over the individual, it might be wise to deliver helping technology via small groups where cohesion and unity itself is a vital intervention. Third, groups may offer a less offensive method to distribute information and support due to role distinctions. In environments where those in need of assistance are leery of authority or have past experience with inconsistent levels of commitment from authority figures, it would be reasonable to downplay helper roles that accent the degrees of separation between the specialist/expert and help seeker.

It is evident that there are divisions between Christians in the USA regarding the relationship between psychology as a science and an orthodox theology grounded in Scripture. Have these divisions and distinctions become our standard academic export? Thinking globally, it may be useful to consider the unique history of Christianity within the host culture before exporting specific epistemic tensions regarding specific disciplines. It would be ideal if those of us who train kingdom-oriented counselors in the US and abroad pray earnestly over this question. During this month of June, these blogs have been aimed at stimulating discussion over the place of groups within our Christian helping efforts. In the not too distant future, group approaches may be an area where Christians from other cultural settings will have community-oriented strategies worthy of importing to the US!

As June draws to a close, allow me to express gratitude to Eric Johnson, Scott Holman, and the board of the Society of Christian Psychology (SCP) as well as to Tim Clinton and the leadership of the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC) for the privilege of blogging for the entire month. It’s truly an honor to spread thoughts on groups as a valid helping approach via the valuable and quality web presence of SCP.

---

[i] It is important to thank Sergiy Tymchenko of the Research Education and Light Center (REALIS) in Kiev for this teaching opportunity and to Nyack Seminary for its support of this REALIS cohort with a counseling emphasis (www.realis.org).

[ii] Eric L. Johnson, Psychology and Christianity: Five Views, with contributions by David G. Myers,

Stanton L. Jones, Robert C. Roberts & P. J. Watson, John H. Coe & Todd W. Hall, David Powlison, (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL; 2010).

[Rev. Stephen P. Greggo, Psy. D. is Professor, Counseling Department, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL. His interest areas are in counseling and Christian worldview, contemporary clinical practice, groups, supervision and raising up the next generation of mental health professions for kingdom service.  He is the author of Trekking toward Wholeness: A Resource for Care Group Leaders (2008), InterVarsity Press. Dr. Greggo is our blogger for the month of June, and this is his third post.]

For members of the Society for Christian Psychology (SCP), making an informed referral for counseling care is a familiar activity. Colleagues, valued students, family members and even transitioning clients seek endorsements for who and where to go for help. The identified need might be addressed through a range of activities: spiritual formation, pastoral direction, coaching, counseling or psychotherapy. Does a small care group appear near the top of the list as a potential referral resource and viable treatment option? If it does, is there a corresponding group with an appropriate purpose readily available? The degree to which mental health research may have a legitimate bearing on how Christians design ministries for people helping is certainly a matter of debate. For those who decide to follow the research, there is ample evidence that pastors, Christian leaders and mental health professionals would be prudent to strategically network to increase group initiatives.

Not long ago, the American Group Psychotherapy Association (AGPA) commissioned a task force to articulate an established set of scientifically credible, clinical practice guidelines.[1] Mental health professionals are expected to construct treatment plans whenever indicated in accordance with established ‘best practice’ procedures. Evidence-based approaches and empirically supported treatments derived from research trials shape the standards of care. This impressive task force, a virtual who’s who in the relevant literature, was charged with the responsibility of summarizing research findings that are stable enough to conceptually guide real life therapy procedures. For those invested in the utilization of group methods, these guidelines are worth careful consideration when planning, implementing and evaluating. Those with faith convictions rooted in Christianity who operate under professional credentials make a dual commitment. We align with our profession by staying abreast of the latest clinical literature. We reflect our faith priorities by consistently evaluating prominent trends from a Christian worldview thoroughly informed by Scripture. Since the SCP movement strives to separate modern, establishment psychology from a psychology grounded within a biblical and historical Christian theology, let me be clear on this point. Evidence-based approaches represent the epitome of contemporary, mainstream therapeutic thought. These are the source for ‘best practice’ criteria. Thus, it is necessary for Christian practitioners to grapple seriously with the underlying principles.

In the initial section of the task force report on creating a group, there is a fascinating statement that instantly struck a nerve. When a mental health professional considers the launch of a group, two essential audiences must continuously be acknowledged and addressed. The most obvious one without a doubt is the population of clients who could potentially enter the therapeutic endeavor. The other one, though perhaps obscure, is actually the more critical. This influential audience is the network of peers, referral sources, payers and invested caregivers who ultimately make decisions regarding treatment. This audience, for better or worse, is often the silent partner with a vast potency to greatly impact the viability and success of the helping group.[2] The evidence suggests that raising a successful helping group does take an entire village. Productive and sustainable groups require their own support and resource association.

Group methods are a particularly useful option when there is a surrounding social context that values and esteems their existence. Counseling groups thrive when there is an encouraging buzz amongst those who offer therapeutic services to stimulate interest and sustain client investment. Small groups activate and rely on an intense level of interpersonal process. This may be a unique mechanism to produce therapeutic change, but the method itself can challenge and produce strain. As participants encounter these demands, there is a legitimate need for collaborative endorsement from trusted leaders to forge realistic expectations and sustain member commitment. The broader Christian community, reflected in both the academy and the church, could be the ideal informational and social resource to nurture care groups. The church does hold body life in high regard and vital fellowship is valued. The gospel narrative has much to say on the subject of how members function within social groups. Redemption, sanctification, ecclesiology, family life and the direction/purpose of human development are theological topics that do converge through the way of the cross on how believers relate to others.

Clinicians are trained to follow the implications of the latest research. It is interesting to note what’s happening regarding groups. A special section on group therapy recently appeared in the academic journal Psychotherapy Research (2010).[3] Notice this at the outset. There is sufficient credible group research to warrant this exclusive attention in a clinically oriented, academic journal. The overview to this particular volume was provided by Gary Burlingame, faculty member in the psychology department at Brigham Young University and prolific author/researcher in academic publications on the effectiveness of small group care.[4] For starters, Burlingame reiterated ‘old but gold’ news regarding two nearly undisputed findings based upon decades of clinical research. Granted, general agreement amongst psychological researchers is never simple to achieve. This makes these preliminary statements that form the basis of understanding rather important. First, there is consensus that sufficient empirical evidence does exist to conclude that group is an effective modality when weighed against individualized care. When treatment outcome is important, the research is generally favorable. There is no research-based substantiation for the common practice of downgrading group to ‘economy class’ or maligning this method to a ‘step-down’ service. Second, groups are a constructive option for diverse populations. In other words, group applications are viable across a broad spectrum of severity and range of difficulties. For those with group interests, these findings are worth sharing. This impressive evidence may serve to expand the audience providing leadership support. This is the audience that those interested in purely Christian approaches have good reason to cultivate.

A blog is not the platform to report a review of research. It is a fine forum to bring impressions out into the open to stimulate peer exchange. Here is my observation based upon Burlingame’s overview and the subsequent journal articles. Group research is growing in its sophistication and there are efforts that have improved controls for potential confounding errors. In addition, there is progress in gleaning information on the unique aspects of group treatment itself, namely, the impact of being with others. The hallmark of group is its potential to activate ‘process,’ otherwise known as relational communication. There are efforts underway to establish reliable and valid measurement tools for research and clinical applications to identify the contributions of small group process variables such as cohesion, participation, giving and receiving feedback. When such tools are applied, our understanding of group dynamics is increased, not only in the realm of the academic and abstract, but in the actual medium of client care. Overall, there is ample reason to be confident in group treatment designs and our ability to track growth related to clinical/interpersonal objectives. A related impression will be highlighted in this blog next week- the emerging international collaborative endeavor to expand research into group methods. This important trend is of interest to those who train people helpers to serve across the globe.

Visitors to this web site are dedicated to the exploration of Christian psychology.  It is best that I express my objective directly. What would it take to elevate groups to a higher place on our list of referral resources? Surely, this would require an increase in well designed, targeted leader-directed care groups that have blueprints consistent with contemporary practice guidelines. It would also require that Christians ponder the implications of small group process variables (e.g. cohesion, interpersonal risk taking, participation, and giving/receiving feedback) from a biblical perspective. There is certainly room to add quality research that investigates distinctively Christian fellowship variables within select care groups. Rather than groan over the lack of such systematic efforts that are plainly Christian, it might be worth following the available research. It does offer useful directions to build small care communities that are of considerable interest to those who can see a connection between behavioral change, relational skills, character building and Christ-likeness. To refine our Christian oriented care groups, it would be worthwhile to follow the research.

---

[1] Howard Bernard, Gary Burlingame, Phillip Flores, Les Greene, Anthony Joyce, Joseph C. Kobos, Moyln Leszcz, Rebecca R. MacNair Semands, William E. Piper, Anne M. Slocum McEneaney & Diane Feirman, “Clinical practice guidelines for group psychotherapy,” International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 58(4), (2008): 455-542.

[2] Ibid, p. 258.

[3] This journal is a publication of the Society for Psychotherapy Research dedicated to the promotion of scientific research in therapy that is international and multidisciplinary.

[4] Gary M. Burlingame, “Small group treatments: Introduction to special section.” Psychotherapy Research, 20(1), (2010): 1-7.

[Rev. Stephen P. Greggo, Psy. D. is Professor, Counseling Department, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL. His interest areas are in counseling and Christian worldview, contemporary clinical practice, groups, supervision and raising up the next generation of mental health professions for kingdom service.  He is the author of Trekking toward Wholeness: A Resource for Care Group Leaders (2008), InterVarsity Press. Dr. Greggo is our blogger for the month of June, and this is his second post.]

Why conceal convictions in a blog? One of mine is prominently displayed in these June Society for Christian Psychology (SCP) blogs. Groups offer a powerful, interpersonally rich helping method for promoting growth and change. What priority level might be established for group approaches amongst those dedicated to a fully Christian psychology?

Let’s recall that pesky though powerful little phrase from the epistle tagged as the New Testament book of proverbs. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed (Jam 5:16, English Standard Version). Lifted from the closing lines of the letter, the context contains instructions on critical matters such as how to cope with sickness, suffering and rejoicing. Scribed here are practical methods for bringing one’s concerns before the Lord, to others or both. The key message regarding this necessary procedure to address sin is straightforward. Confession to the Lord is automatic and assumed.^[1] Beyond essential prayer communication with a Holy God, this verse plainly endorses an essential, interactive human process. The practice of the Christian faith in reference to cultivating a God-honoring character requires an interpersonal forum. The distinction between a primarily horizontal social discussion and true Christian fellowship is that the Lord is not only acknowledged but also intentionally included. Believers are to express to others their disabling struggles, temptations and sin-inclined tendencies. To confess is to offer a transparent statement to another recognizing that the Holy Spirit has initiated a call to a better, Creator-pleasing manner of living. The act of spelling out a specific matter for targeted change in a relational setting is thus turned into an occasion for worship and intercessory prayer. Divine grace is accessed. The essential reversal in direction that is the core of repentance is underway with mutual support. A threefold cord- between self, others and the Lord- is braided to bind the effects of sin on the human heart.

Perhaps it isn’t legitimate to identify a verse from Scripture as pesky. Yet speaking candidly, this particular NT proverb-style instruction messes with our culturally supported notions of privacy, autonomy and right to self-determination. A verse with that impact can certainly be irritating. It disrupts the status quo.

Confession is the honest, frank and full sharing of critical heart issues in areas where the Holy Spirit is demanding a change in one’s living pattern. This explains why a group response to open confession that flatly normalizes or rationalizes the concern may not be attending to the Holy Spirit. Confession incorporated into an interpersonal exchange cannot be reduced to a basic technique for guilt reduction. Rather, it is a fellowship-saturated process for heart conditioning. There is an imperative social component to the forthright expression of burdens that interfere with realized holiness. Mutual awareness of the internal, relational or behavioral dilemma is intricately linked to the cure for sin-based concerns. The proposition beneath these blogs may not be earth-shattering but the intent is heart-care oriented. There is a vital tie between the Biblically prescribed transformational forum for confession and our methods to inspire Christian care and cure. So, here’s a thought to place before those with interests in Christian psychology. Does the message of this verse raise legitimate questions regarding our Western preference for individual-oriented, client-controlled, and psychologically sophisticated methods of helping and soul care?

The wisdom found in James is not unique.  Elsewhere in Scripture we read: whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy (Pro 28:13). Notice the correlation in this proverb between confession, forsaking and prospering. Confession as a remediation strategy cannot be reduced to catharsis. This is not mere ‘chimney sweeping’ to quote the old colloquial phrase used to describe psychoanalytic talk therapy. Ultimately, since confession is more about a relational process to foster change than it is a technique to reduce intrapersonal angst, it is worthwhile to consider features and conditions likely to enhance its corrective impact. This brings me to a crucial point that has been rumbling within my reflections on contemporary Christian counseling.

My current calling is to train the next generation of those who will accept the privilege of providing soul care. The one-to-one counseling setting has numerous advantages for contemplating hindrances, fostering insight, and realizing change. This explains the widespread tendency to adopt a medically derived model for therapeutic encounters with its heightened emphasis on patient autonomy and confidentiality. The dialogue component of confession fits rather snugly into defined clinically-oriented encounters where there is a neatly identified helper and dependent seeker. The benefits to this one-on-one style helping routine are not in dispute. The source of my unrest is this. Are there embedded principles of sanctification and mutual soul care in Scripture, such as those associated with confession, that would urge those dedicated to a Christian worldview to grant group oriented methods heightened importance? There may indeed be a biblical rationale to give helping groups more prominence in our research priorities, writing, and counseling practice. Does the dominate dyadic approach deserve its essentially undisputed position as the ultimate forum for addressing matters of the heart from the vantage point of a Christian worldview?

A recent journal article from a European author on the theological dimensions of soul care articulated a poignant reminder of an essential platform of the reformation as articulated by Martin Luther.[2] The mutual dialogue of the brethren (mutuum colloquium fratrum) was viewed as the proper forum for confession over an exclusively formal priestly function. Luther’s effort to

“de-clericalize” pastoral care moved the locus for confession from designated priests to the broader spiritual brotherhood. Mutual pastoral care is a reformation ideal. The implication is that when addressing an individual’s desire to cope with the burdens of suffering or to stimulate holy living, mutuality is a central guiding principle. There are ramifications for how roles are defined in pastoral care regarding the status designated to helper and help seeker. Further, there is much to derive from the realization that the Holy Spirit mediates grace through believers engaging with believers. My expertise lies in clinical practice, not historical theology. Still, I am intrigued by the potential applications. Does the contemporary emphasis on counseling and soul care as a tightly restricted, ethically and professionally regulated, private therapeutic dialogue too closely resemble the icon of priestly pastoral care that drew Luther’s heavy attacks? There could be other soul care methods that are well suited to approximate the cultivation of priesthood of believers so central to the reformation platform. If so, it indeed could be that group helping methodologies deserve more prestige, attention and honor in Christian circles.

Is that verse from James really so pesky? It does prompt a thorough evaluation of current notions of privacy, Christian community and the process by which the Spirit accomplishes changes in mind, heart, and actual behavior.

---

^[1]Robertson, A.T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997, S. Jas 5:16

[2] Dober, Hans Martin, “What Can the Pastor Learn from Freud? A Historical Perspective on Psychological and Theological Dimensions of Soul Care.” (2010) Christian Bioethics, 16 (1), 61-78.

[Rev. Stephen P. Greggo, Psy. D. is Professor, Counseling Department, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL. His interest areas are in counseling and Christian worldview, contemporary clinical practice, groups, supervision and raising up the next generation of mental health professions for kingdom service.  He is the author of Trekking toward Wholeness: A Resource for Care Group Leaders (2008), InterVarsity Press. Dr. Greggo is our blogger for the month of June, and this is his first post.]

Seen any good movies recently? This conventional conversation starter offers a superb connection tactic. An outstanding way to warm up a chat is to discuss freshly viewed films. Two sensible assumptions authenticate the approach. Nearly everyone splurges resources on blockbuster entertainment. Furthermore, an inner voice, resembling that of Roger Ebert, surfaces when viewers are offered center stage to issue sound bite pronouncements on the latest hits from box office. Thumbs up or down, there’s a compelling urge to share the passion, drama, hero worship or absurdity bound up in high tech cinematography. Thus, this entrée into conversation activates the magnets that unify an interpersonal encounter. A lively exchange can draw us out of our shuttered and sheltered selves. Before long, the dialogue achieves a rhythm. Stories are pouring and great moments are relived. Of little consequence is whether the flick thrilled, bored or bombed. Sharing our media experience creates common ground.

Let’s experiment to see if an adaptation of this query can jump-start a blog: seen any good groups recently? What small groups have you experienced within the past seven to ten days that earn the qualifier of ‘good’?

Now if you consider your response and come up blank, there is no need to feel isolated. Even in this wired, digital age, an uneasy sense of disconnection and alienation is more conventional than it is exceptional. A disquieting awareness that one is functioning on the outskirts of the small groups that surround is actually not out of the ordinary. Those likely to frequent this SCP blog may have insights to share about such an observation. How can we make sense of the following remarkable contrast? This observation is of particular interest when it describes those who personally identify with Jesus Christ as Lord. My observation is that Christians frequently report feeling disconnected. It may take far less effort to recall memorable clips from well-crafted, larger than life media stories, than it does to remember intimate interactions with others. Here’s the point. Are believers invested in intimate interpersonal communities where the realities of life are shared, the self is actively crafted, and love for God and neighbor is cultivated? Those invested in Christian psychology do well to ponder the implications of such a trend in light of our biblical anthropology, ecclesiology, and model of sanctification.

Good small groups have distinguishing features. Yalom’s landmark research on the curative factors in helping groups does offer useful categories. Those grand therapeutic concepts depict the forces generated when people gather in intentional high touch settings. For example, relationships within defined small groups can spark a resurgence of hope, provide reassurance that our sensations are not unique, offer a natural forum to impart information or host a prime opportunity to display care for others.[1] For this blog, my intent is to stimulate images of a good group by placing emphasis on a recent experience that just so happens to coincide with this research.

Allow me to respond to my own opening invitation. Yes, I have experienced a good group recently. Honestly, if transparency can communicate via cyberspace, writing this blog is in part a coping method to mourn its passing and celebrate its achievement. This group came to its planned and intended conclusion. When Tuesday arrived, there was no bright and early supervision group to host and guide. Its completion, and the absence of that relational exchange, left an internal void. This was no surprise. A few weeks ago, when traveling overseas in a distant time zone with day and night hopelessly confused, a warming thought entered my awareness during an awakening prayer. “This is a new Tuesday morning Lord. Watch over what’s happening in my supervision group back home. Those exchanges are sure to be rich.” In my mind’s eye, I could visualize the faces of those interns. The strain, growth and ‘truth spoken in love’ that bounces around in all that lush interpersonal space is palpable!

Two basic indications qualify this group as good. Participants had a sense of anticipation and expectancy prior to gathering. “When that happened, I knew I could bring it to group.” Or, “Even though I was unsure how to describe what’s going on, bringing this to supervision group seemed right.” These phrases reveal that members hold the group near even when they are apart. An internal awareness is operating that others are available to listen and support. This sense of support indicates that a productive group is happening. As leader, it was a joy to observe such anticipation and expectancy.

 Another sure sign a group is good is when select meaningful exchanges are revisited like productive flashbacks. Members report, “I remembered what we said in group...” “The conversations here came back to me…” Such replays are refreshing, motivating, enlightening and most often associated with a specific person, sub-group or group event. Sometimes the cherished fragment carried forward is as simple as a hurried yet genuine moment of prayer. Striking interactions from this particular group are presently quite accessible in my memory.

 The identification of this supervision group as ‘good’ is based upon retrospective evaluation. Numerous doubts arose regarding its usefulness during its 30-week life. Still, this group eventually worked. Intriguingly, I facilitated another supervision section with an identical purpose, structure, format, demographics, location, and time frame. While that parallel assembly fulfilled its purpose, it cannot be nominated for the honorable stamp of ‘good’. Consistent peer collaboration was never realized. My mind will linger long over the distinguishing features. Why was one group good and the other merely adequate? What made the member, group, leader and interactive variables unique? What made the presence of the Lord appear close at hand in the one and distant in the other?

 As an academic clinical supervisor, leadership of this cohort was my assignment and professional responsibility. Should the Lord not redirect the flow of my personal life or the grand scheme of history, the opportunity will return next semester. The memories mentioned stir my anticipation for the good groups that lie ahead. Given my role and the innate power differential between supervisor and supervisees, is there anything odd about a professor savoring publicly such highlights from a good group of counselors in training? The answer is, perhaps. From another perspective, while I began the academic year in my formal position to guide a cluster of interns, the experience ended with the Lord granting me the privilege of working in partnership with new colleagues. Now, that’s a good group.

 A few years back an ad hoc gathering of therapists recorded the positive experience they enjoyed as a peer consultation group in a published journal article.[2] The forum these licensed clinicians created was not intentionally therapeutic or supervisory. This group was for the mutual pursuit of skill development. According to reports, two important outcomes of that collegial endeavor were evident: clearer case conceptualizations and tighter intervention applications. Most noteworthy from those recollections is how the sense of Christian fellowship, blessing, and a powerful spirit of unity were so easily and honestly attributed to the movement of the Holy Spirit.

It will be my honor to blog for SCP during June. Group work will indeed be my chosen theme. This accounts for this kick-off question to connect with readers. Seen any good groups recently? My conviction is that guiding others into small groups that move one another towards mutuality are a gospel oriented enterprise. These may inspire serious self-reflection, enhance relational flexibility and most importantly, be the instrument for the redemptive activity of the Holy Spirit. Small groups need not share interesting or stimulating exchanges at only the level of movie reviews to reach common ground. Rather, conversations that stir the passions, drama, hero worship or absurdities bound up in the layers of our lives become a mutual service to encourage one another.  By the Lord’s grace, this pulls participants further into the experience of Christ’s remarkable love. Beyond common ground, this becomes sacred ground. Lord, with gratitude I thank you for this good group I recently experienced!

---

[1] Irvin D. Yalom and Molyn Leszcz, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, 5^th ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2005), pp. 1-18.

 

[2] Sandra F. Anderson, Marion S. Noble, & Helen F. Shaw, “Peer Consultation among Christian Therapists,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, (2005): 254-258.

[by Peter Hampson, Head of Department of Psychology, University of the West of England, Bristol. Professor Hampson is our blogger for the month of May, and this is his fifth post]

Believing can be a subtle balancing act.  Ludwig Wittgenstein once wrote that “an honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air.  His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it is really possible to walk on it” (Wittgenstein, 1984, CV, 73e). I’ve long intuitively assumed that there is a more than a grain of truth in Wittgenstein’s assertion.  Staying on the tightrope is an achievable skill, slipping off always a possibility, with increasing practice and trust falling becomes less and less likely.  Reasonable faith becomes better balanced.

But why is the rope so narrow? What is on each side? Why do we wobble?  I once blithely assumed the tightrope to be suspended over an abyss of unbelief, with little by way of solid philosophical support, but now I am much less sure.  It seems more likely that the tightrope charts a route with naïve, fundamentalist belief on one side and naïve rationalism or scientism one the other.  One can fall either way, both are forms of misplaced faith, and only a whisker divides these positions.  And one reason why we wobble from time to time may be that creation is ambiguous and Christianity paradoxical; while these are both strengths, they easily appear as weaknesses, and we’re tempted by the apparent certainty on one side or the other. 

I’ve been recently thinking along these lines having been privileged to talk through related issues with leading theologians in the Radical Orthodoxy group, for whom ‘paradox’ is a fundamental idea.   Christian psychologists, I suspect, could have useful things to say about how we handle paradox and ambiguity, and examples of both paradox and ambiguity are not hard to find in the Christian tradition.

Ambiguity, the possibility of perceiving one thing or event thing in more than one way, is to some extent inherent in the way creation presents itself.  With ontologically naturalist spectacles on we can see the world as nothing but the product of blind physical and biological forces of chance and intrinsically purposeless processes.  Or, through religious spectacles, all appears as gift and donation, somehow bearing the imprint of the Divine Logos.  In reality, of course, the universe is both naturalistically and theologically explicable, but to hold the two accounts in dynamic equilibrium may require a grasp of the philosophical limits of science, and a view of theology that moves beyond fideism.

Christianity is also replete with paradox, where apparently different or seemingly incommensurable things somehow co-exist.  A classic example is the doctrine of the incarnation beautifully expressed at Chalcedon (AD 451) as ‘our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity.’  The definition later asserts that Christ is ‘acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ.’  The finite, contingent, and changeable ‘joined’ but without admixture or confusion with the infinite, the necessary and the unchanging. 

Humans themselves are also curious hybrid creatures, half brute, half angel.  Virtues, too, have paradoxical qualities.  As Chesterton (1908) points out the courageous person, such as a Christian martyr, desperately wants to live and loves life, but yet holds on to it lightly.  In charity, we somehow manage to love the unlovable.  True humility walks the tightrope between hubris and demeaning, self deprecating behavior.  The list goes on.

So how do we handle paradox, and what psychological processes are involved?   The question is a large one but there are some suggestive pointers.  First, I suspect, paradox is not the enemy of everyday reason at all, but rather shows us its limits.  Physicist and psychologist, K Helmut Reich, for instance, has formally argued that trans domain or ‘relational and contextual reasoning’ of a ‘both…and’ variety is needed to handle paradox (Reich, 2002).  Also, in certain cases, language itself is strained by religious paradox, and its univocal use is better replaced by expressions based on analogy and metaphor.  But I also think that we need to consider other sensory modalities and cognitive functions a little more when reflecting on paradox.  Imagination, illusions, even the kinesthetic sense, may be as important as the verbal and the propositional when ‘intuitively grasping’ a paradox.  There is more to thinking and understanding than words.

After all, Wittgenstein himself was fond of reminding us that good, therapeutic philosophy, helpful when on the tightrope, often involves showing rather than telling, and we know that the auditus fidei invariably gives way to the visio Dei in the classic Christian tradition.  Hearing makes way for imagination and sight, as words fail and fall away. 

The psychology of poetry, not rational thought, may be a good route into this as well, since, “The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens.  It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head.  And it is his head that splits’” (Chesterton, 1908, p. 27).

Reference

Chesterton, G.K. (1908).  Orthodoxy.  London: John Lane, The Bodley Head Ltd.

Reich, K.H. (2002). Developing the horizons of the mind: relational and contextual reasoning and the resolution of cognitive conflict.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1984). Culture and value. Trans. Peter Winch, ed. G.H. von Wright. 1977; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

[by Peter Hampson, Head of Department of Psychology, University of the West of England, Bristol. Professor Hampson is our blogger for the month of May, and this is his fourth post]

In my last posting I considered the ‘acceptance’ and ‘mindfulness’ phase of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and tried to make some links with Christian prayer.

 The second key component of ACT is, of course, the commitment phase where the client is assisted and encouraged to act in accordance with key values.  But whose values, to what is the client ‘committed’, and how should that commitment be characterized?  I realize that there has recently been much debate in the Christian psychological community as to the nature of values in counseling and therapy (see especially Hodges, 2009 for an extremely useful recent contribution), but I should like to take another brief, sideways look at these issues.

First of all, ‘whose values’?  More technical accounts of ACT relate the method to its behavioral underpinnings in relational frame theory (ACT-RFT).  Proponents of this interpretation typically criticize related humanist and motivational interviewing approaches for being imprecise in their definitions of value.   By contrast, ACT-RFT locates the technique, fair and square, in a functional analysis of behavior and strives for precision.  So, in a recent account of ACT-RFT we read, somewhat reductively, ‘Values are ‘freely chosen’ consequences of patterns of activity which establish reinforcers for that activity that are intrinsic in engagement with that activity’, (Plumb, Stewart, Dahl and Lundgren, 2009, p. 92).

Of course this a tight definition true to the canons and lore of behavior analysis and doubtless useful as far as it goes.  But a close reading suggests it to be effectively an expression of individual, personal preferences implying a commitment to realizing one’s ‘inner self’ As it stands, not surprisingly perhaps, the behaviorial definition aims to be basically ‘scientific’ and morally neutral (as if such were possible), but in practice it turns into a variety of moral emotivism.  Values are the outcome of activities, the ‘goods achieved’ we might say, which establish reinforcers which then become ‘motivators’ for those activities.  All this sounds perilously like, ‘do it if you are motivated to do it and value it because you find it reinforcing’! 

In reality, things are a little more subtle. We are told, ”Clinically clients are encouraged to examine what matters to them in different life domains.  The client and therapist usually work together throughout therapy to clarify the values of the former.  While working with the client in this way it is not the therapist’s purpose to influence which values the client endorses, but rather to help him or her contact naturally occurring reinforcement for living consistently with his or her chosen  values, whatever they may be.”  (Plumb, Stewart, Dahl and Lundgren, 2009, pp. 94-5).

But here we have it again: if something leads to naturally occurring reinforcement for living in accordance with what I, as client, feel to be right, then, subtext, it is right. One doesn’t have to be a Chomsky to spot the circularity. We have ‘freely chosen’ as values those consequences of activity which establish reinforcers for engagement in that activity, which we then deem valuable, presumably simply because we find the engagement reinforcing.  Values are motivating consequences of actions which we find to be reinforcing; consequences which we find reinforcing are valuable!  We always knew that the Law of Effect was circular.  There’s no harm in that for lever pressing, but once ‘values’ are invited into the circle, we spiral too easily into the abyss of moral emotivism.  Admittedly, therapists assist clients in ‘clarifying’ values, but it seems to be inescapable that at root it is the client’s individual values and preferences, ‘whatever they may be’, which are being affirmed here. In many past and cultures this would have been thought astonishing.  Now, we blithely celebrate it as ‘freedom of the individual’.

In which case, the answer to my second question is straightforward. In one sense, that to which the client is committed is ‘themselves’ and their (individually) defined and desired outcomes.  And how is their ‘commitment’ to such values expressed?  Well, we’re told, there is a need for ‘flexible persistence’.

Don’t get me wrong. There is undoubtedly much that is good in ACT and much, I am sure, that genuinely helps people.  I admit I have deliberately caricatured the approach to accentuate some of its key features.  At its best, used by a skilled and wise therapist, secular ACT-RFT is no doubt a valid affirmation and exploration in act of the client’s sincerely held and philosophically defensible inner values.  But at its worst, I fear, it may reflect an individualized culture which has lost touch with serious Christian moral discourse, has lapsed into moral expressivism, and which equates the good with being ‘true to oneself’.

Can the approach be redeemed?  As a non-therapist I am ill equipped to suggest, bottom-up, how a therapeutic technique such as this should be reformulated, maybe some are already doing so.  But I can offer a top-down, framing, Christian architectonic.  For the Christian, values cannot simply be my ‘individual desires’, or ‘augmental reinforcers’ or ‘inner preferences’; they must be shared, Gospel values.  Moreover, a commitment to act in accordance with them seems to me at least to point inevitably to virtuous action.  We act to realize Christian values by enrolling in the school of virtue. What else is possible? 

Encouraged by this, perhaps we can be even more ambitious and put the two reconstructed components of ACT back together, raising up the first, and redeeming the other.  If acceptance (in ACT) potentially has a prayer dimension, since discernment is required, and action potentially has a virtue component, since it should continually aim for the Good, the True and the Beautiful, do the two parts fit easily together?  I suggest that they do, without remainder, and that to ‘pray constantly, and act resolutely and virtuously with God’s grace’ is Christianity-in-ACT. 

My speculative polemics aside, the Collect of the Monday of the 5^th week of Easter in the Roman Lectionary is probably a good place quietly to leave this topic:

‘Father, help us to seek the values that will bring us eternal joy in this changing world.  In our desire for what you promise make us one in mind and heart.’

References

Hodges, B.H. (2009). Realizing values in a complex world: caring for other.  Edification: Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology, 3(2), 2-22.

Plumb, J.C., Stewart, I., Dahl, J. and Lundgren, T. (2009). In search of meaning: values in modern clinical behavioral analysis.   The Behavior Analyst, 32(1), 85-103.

[by Peter Hampson, Head of Department of Psychology, University of the West of England, Bristol. Professor Hampson is our blogger for the month of May, and this is his third post]

Readers patient and kind enough to read my previous two postings may wish quickly to review them before reading this one.  Equally patient readers who have not read my last two postings may find it helpful to do so first.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread!  I am neither a therapist nor a counselor and approach this topic with some circumspection, but I have been aware for some time of the ‘third wave’ therapeutic approach known as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT).  As many readers will know far better than I do, ACT is a branch of cognitive-behavioral therapy.  Originally known as ‘comprehensive distancing’, it rests on neo-behavioral approaches to complex behavior and behavior change based on stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory, but has also been influenced by Buddhist approaches to mindfulness. As its label suggests, ACT emphasizes the acceptance and mindfulness of experiential states and commitments to act in accordance with one’s core values (Hayes, Kirk, Strosahl and Wilson, 2003). 

Revealing my ignorance further, I do not know if anyone has yet thought about ACT from a rigorous, Christian psychological standpoint; so I’d like to learn more about this, but it strikes me that the approach, as it stands, has much to offer but is greatly in need of ‘redemption’ by a Christian meta narrative.  Let me suggest, in broad brush strokes, how I think this could be accomplished; others may wish to take this forward.

Consider first the acceptance and mindfulness dimensions.  In an important paper, Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette and Strosahl (1996) introduced the idea of ‘experiential avoidance’ and argued “that many forms of psychopathology can be conceptualized as unhealthy efforts to escape and avoid emotions, thoughts, memories, and other private experiences”, (1996, p. 1152).  They went on to suggest that “experiential avoidance, as a functional diagnostic dimension, has the potential to integrate the efforts and findings of researchers from a wide variety of theoretical paradigms, research interests, and clinical domains and to lead to testable new approaches to the analysis and treatment of behavioral disorders”, (p. 1152).

Instead of repressing, blocking, or otherwise turning away from challenging cognitions and affect, ACT clients are taught to ‘just notice’ their inner life especially unwanted, negatively or emotionally-charged thoughts, images and desires.  One ACT method, for instance, encourages the client to imagine sitting by a river and to think of their thoughts as written on leaves which gently float away down the stream.  The purpose of this and other techniques is apparently to ‘defuse’ otherwise pycho-toxic events by breaking the identity between client and thought, and re-situating the thought in the broader context of the ‘transcendent’ self, itself potentially independent from particular cognitions and affects which might otherwise overwhelm or swamp it

Leaving aside the philosophical mine field that we could enter at this point, and the method’s overall therapeutic efficacy, we can ask what is generally useful about this aspect of ACT and how might it be improved?   What I suspect is good, both psychologically and potentially spiritually, is the openness to and acceptance of experience which it promotes.  Cognitive defusion, acceptance, and contact with the present moment in ACT resonate strongly for me with the honest acknowledgement of all our desires in prayer that I noted two weeks ago. Turner (2001) sees the first step in prayer as the same as the first step in self knowledge: “It is to learn how to trust absolutely in the love of God for us.  And the most immediate effect of that trust is that we will learn how to stop pretending about ourselves, particularly in prayer. This is a quite obvious kind of liberation and has a quite natural kind of attractiveness about it, at least at first, like a sigh of relief at dropping a great weight”, (Turner, 2002, pp. 98-99).

So where’s the difference?  For the Christian psychologist, the self, involved in ACT or otherwise, cannot simply be the autonomous self of secular therapy.  It must, like prayer,  be grounded in God, who is, as Meister Eckhart puts it, “more intimate to me than I am to myself”,  and so  prayer gives back to God not only my desires and confusions but my very self. With this understanding, my unwelcome thoughts no longer float away on a Buddhist or secular stream, but are freely given back on the river of life which leads back to its source.

“If we can manage nothing else in prayer we can manage patience, perseverance and trust.  In the lovely phrase of Simone Weil, prayer is a ‘waiting for God’.  It is a waiting with our wants placed in the presence of his wants: and from that waiting emerges, ever so slowly, a wanting that he should do it, whatever ‘it’ is.” (Turner, 2002, p. 109).

“Pray always, says St Paul (Ephesians 6.18).  He means it, I think, even, or especially when trying out ACT.  For the Christian, experiential acceptance can only logically become prayer.  Only thus can it become self-transcendent. Otherwise, I suspect, it is bound to fall back into the solipsistic, ‘transcendental’ self, in its theologically reductive immanence.

References

Haves, S., Wilson, K.G., Gifford, E.V, Follette, V.M. and Strosahl, K. (1996). Experiential avoidance and behavioral disorders: A functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and Treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 1152-1168.

Hayes, S.C., Kirk D., Strosahl, K. and Wilson, K.G (2003). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy : An Experiential Approach to Behavior Change. New York: The Guilford Press.

Turner, D.  Faith Seeking. London: SCM Press, 2002.

[by Peter Hampson, Head of Department of Psychology, University of the West of England, Bristol. Professor Hampson is our blogger for the month of May, and this is his second post] 

I have recently greatly enjoyed reading Bishop Tom Wright’s excellent book, Virtue Reborn (Wright, 2010; US title After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters).  Wright is well known as an insightful and skilful scholar able to communicate clearly and with great verve to academic and lay audiences alike, and the present offering will only enhance his reputation. 

This is a book designed for the general reader but I would also recommend it to specialists of various sorts including Christian psychologists.  Wright’s case is that the time is ripe for a renewed understanding of virtue ethics and character in Christian life.   A long time ‘after virtue’, we have ‘virtue reborn’.

Many of us working on and thinking about the virtues and character have been influenced by the recovery of this tradition in philosophy and theology by scholars such as Elisabeth Anscombe and Alasdair MacIntyre.  These thinkers, and others, have skillfully reintroduced the concepts drawing on their philosophical and medieval and theological roots, particularly Aristotle and Aquinas.   Their influence began to spread long before the current interest in virtues by positive psychology.

For those in the broadly Catholic tradition there is something very familiar about all this talk of virtue.  Intellectual ideas about virtue, practice and character resonate for many of us with buried memories of school days and sermons in which tacit and practical understanding of such concepts remained even if they had to some extent lost their full intellectual genealogy.  But I have been concerned for some time that fellow Christians from Reformed and more Biblically based Protestant traditions may fail to appreciate the critical importance of virtue ethics, for psychology, therapy, the Christian life and our world as a whole, because of their understandable suspicion that the approach owes more to Athens rather than Jerusalem, draws on philosophy rather than Scripture, reinstates an emphasis on works, not grace, and ignores the importance of justification through faith.  All of these are regrettable misunderstandings, but my guess is that they may be blocks for professionals and lay alike, which possibly prevent the full and nuanced application of a virtue approach in therapy (though see Russell, 2009 for a welcome contribution).  If I am right, we need to acknowledge these barriers honestly and openly.

This is why Wright’s work is so important.   A respected Biblical scholar, he is able to construct a powerful case for the importance of virtues and character using Scriptural sources in preference to philosophical arguments.  Here is a work which complements existing treatments. He also grasps the importance of practice and expertise in the moral life.  Virtue and character are acquired through hard work. He writes: “Character is transformed by three things.  First, you have to aim at the right goal. Second, you need to figure out the steps you need to take to get to that goal. Third, those steps have to become habitual, a matter of second nature”, (Wright, 2010, p. 27).  It can be intellectually and emotionally reassuring for some of us to have a position validated from another perspective, but in this case it is also timely and helpful.

Wright discusses the need for virtues in the context of two dynamics.  The first is the dilemma of the rich young man who asks, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” The young man already believes and keeps the law but while necessary this is insufficient.  Wright points out that Jesus challenges him to a radical transformation of character with his instruction, “Follow me!”  Notice here the title of the US version of Wright’s book, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters.  The rich young man already believes, now he needs to act.  The US title is well pitched for an audience which may be suspicious of virtue but strong on faith.  Marketing people do have their skills it seems!

But how shall he act?  Wright then points out that the challenge to the young man to act virtuously, to model himself on Jesus, cuts across two of today’s more popular individual approaches to morality.  The first is the often mentioned familiar alternative to virtue theory, the following of moral rules. The assumption that morality is effectively what happens when we abide by a list of ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ runs deep in our culture.  Rules, or prescriptions how to behave, have their roots in Kantian ethics as well, of course, in legalistic approaches to Christianity based on the Decalogue or on church strictures.  It is easy to see the limits of this.   The second approach is more insidious I think.  This is moral emotivism. According to this position, rather than being bound and controlled by dead laws, I must act according to my deepest feelings as to what is good and right.  I must act ‘authentically’ so as to be true to my ‘inner most self’.  The roots of this approach are complex and emerge variously in the Romantic movement’s reaction to rationalism, the expressivist approach to morality of logical positivism, and the rise of existentialism in the C20th.  I suspect, too, that an over emphasis on self actualization, the ‘right to choose’, and philosophically naïve notions of ‘freedom’ may also have been contributory factors.

As Wright points out the formation of character and the pursuit of virtue in a Christian context, transcends both of these positions, and lifts them to a new level.  He is at pains to develop an approach to virtue that is grounded in grace, inspired by prayer and worship, and modeling on the perfection of Christ. 

In next week’s blog I shall try to pull together some of these strands with those from my last posting.

References:

Russell, D.A. (2009). Identifying character strengths and virtue as the efficacious component of the therapist’s person. Edification: Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology, 3(2), 49-57.

Wright, T. Virtue Reborn. London: SPCK, 2010, (US title: After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. New York: Harper Collins, 2010).

[by Peter Hampson, Head of Department of Psychology, University of the West of England, Bristol. Professor Hampson is our blogger for the month of May, and this is his first post] 

What happens when we pray and do Christian psychologists have anything useful to say about it?  This thought prompted me recently to revisit the short and highly readable chapters on prayer in theologian Denys Turner’s excellent Faith Seeking (Turner, 2002).  I’m not thinking of empirical studies in the psychology of religion apparently designed to test the casual efficacy of intercessory prayer.  I don’t wish to enmesh us here in questions of their methodological adequacy or their theological or philosophical probity.  Instead, with Turner, I want to consider what are some important psychological conditions associated with prayer and (briefly) the theological assumptions behind them.

What I find particularly helpful about Turner’s account is that his starting point resonates strongly with my own experience.  He writes: ‘I had never read anything [on prayer] which started from the low levels of good practice from which I knew I started.  So I decided to speak out of my own personal experience of praying within and out of my own mental and emotional chaotic inadequacy’, (Turner, 2002, p. 91).

As an example of honest, clear observation and introspection, informal qualitative analysis, combined with theological sophistication, Turner’s is a model of its kind and a good starting point for Christian psychologists interested in the topic.  His main thesis is that prayer is not in the last analysis ‘talking to God’ or being in a particular ‘state of mind’ or ‘experiencing’ any particular feeling, nor is it in not being in any particular state of mind or feeling, for it is the trusting acquiescence of our will and all that that entails in and to God.

To some extent this is not new. As we know, the tacit models of God and of prayer that we hold can, of course, be barriers in preventing us from having a full and meaningful prayer life.  I say ‘of course’, but it is easy to overlook this.  Think of God as a ‘super-Being’ and we too easily invite Him to meddle as an efficient cause among other causes and thereby reduce his status to a mere being among other beings, and fail to realize that God is the source and final cause of all being.  Think of prayer univocally as ‘talking to God’, and we risk reducing our potential participation in the Trinitarian life, with God, through Christ and the Spirit, to a form of supernatural email.  But in reminding us that prayer involves the proper orientation of the will we are up against another barrier, for as Turner states:

“Prayer is an act of the will, not of thought or feeling, and we do not understand this because in our modern culture we have intellectually lost touch with any usable meaning of the word; we have come to mean something like a tyrannical force at odds with desire, a force opposed to what we want.  It is not surprising therefore that we have lost touch with that power in us which, in older cultures, was called ‘will’.  For the great classical writers of classical and premodern times meant by ‘will’ some thing more like our deepest desires, or sometimes, our ‘hearts’: at any rate, the place where our treasure is.” (Turner, 2002, p. 98).

One consequence of a recovered understanding of the will is that we realize that we have to bring our desires – all our desires – before God in prayer, for only that way do we slowly begin to see their true nature. Indeed, counter to what many of us may have been taught in childhood, distractions, according to Turner, are one of the “effects of prayer, they are how prayer reveals to us where lies the land of the heart, they are the material of what Thomas called the ‘hermeneutic of desire’,” (Turner, 2002, p. 108). Psychologically then, whatever else it is, prayer is clearly an act of acceptance and discernment.  We lay our hearts open before the Lord and learn what is within them.  Warts and all, this is what God accepts. We do not do this to act on all our desires, of course not, but, with God’s grace, we seek to accept, understand, redeem and perfect them.

Theologically speaking, however, prayer cannot change or manipulate God or otherwise control that which holds us in being.  In fact, as Turner reminds us, we do not pray to God so much as God prays through us.  Prayer “is our act only as one with the work of the Spirit within us, when our spirit and the Holy Spirit are, as Bernard of Clairvaux used to say, unus spiritus.  For there is only one prayer, and that is the prayer of the Father to the Son and of the Son to the Father, and that prayer is called by the name of the Spirit”, (Turner, 2002, p. 105).

I cannot do full justice to the richness and sophistication of Turner’s account in a short posting but there is much to ponder on here.  I recommend that readers take time to read and meditate on his reflections, not mine.

Reference

Turner, D.  Faith Seeking. London: SCM Press, 2002.

[Eric Johnson is the Professor of Pastoral Care at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the Director of the Society for Christian Psychology. Eric is one of our guest bloggers for the month of April.]

I have had a number of encouraging experiences in the past year that demonstrate that God is building greater unity in the Christian world in the fields of psychology and counseling. I mentioned last year the great time I had participating in a conference of the Association of Biblical Counselors. This was one of the first times that a biblical counseling group had invited someone who is not a self-identified biblical counselor to speak at its conference. It seemed to me to be a breakthrough. They have invited me back to participate in this year’s conference next month (May 20-22).

Then, in February of this year, about 40 leaders in the biblical counseling movement met together to form the Biblical Counseling Coalition (see www.faithlafayette.org/bcc). Biblical counselors from across the spectrum of the movement are joining forces to work together in the common cause of counseling that is based on the Bible. We pray that God will prosper the BCC and cause biblical counseling in America to flourish through this act of unification.

A couple of weekends ago I was also encouraged when I attended the 2010 conference of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS). CAPS has been around for over 50 years, seeking to promote a Christian approach to psychology and psychotherapy and counseling, as one of the more academic organizations of Christians in the fields of psychology and counseling. In the past, CAPS has been strongly identified with the integration approach, and that emphasis certainly dominated this year’s conference. However, SCP has been dialoging with CAPS for a couple of years, and in response, the CAPS board has been engaged in discussions that appear to be leading to an official change in their formal endorsement of the integration model to a formal embracing of a more inclusive stance that welcomes all Christian approaches to psychology, including the Christian psychology approach. It appears that CAPS new aim is to become the major “umbrella organization” of Christian academics in the fields of psychology and counseling, something that SCP would very much support.

A number of developments concretely demonstrate their new openness. To begin with, at this year’s conference, a “professional development group” for Christian psychology was officially begun, to be led by Timothy Sisemore, an associate editor of Edification (the SCP journal). Second, CAPS and SCP have both agreed to sanction a membership fee discount for those who are also members in the other organization. We hope to make that change on our side within the next two weeks. And as another sign of good will, Peter Hill, the editor of the Journal of Christianity and Psychology (the CAPS journal), has asked Timothy Sisemore to edit a special issue dedicated to the topic of Christian psychology in 2011. This is a remarkable series of events that also indicates that God is building unity in his body among Christians in psychology and counseling, for which we are very thankful, both to God and to the CAPS leadership.

One other note: I met a Russian Orthodox priest at the CAPS conference, Father Gregory Jensen. He is very committed to the development of Christian psychology from an Orthodox perspective and has the competences to make a real contribution to such a project, and he tells me he has many friends who could also contribute. He was very happy to find out about the Society for Christian Psychology, and I was very happy to find out about him, particularly since we have had so little involvement from the Orthodox community in SCP. I pray that our meeting was a sign of God’s leading in this direction.

So today I am filled with renewed joy and gratitude to God for what he is doing in drawing his people in these fields together. I wonder what he will do next.

[April is our month for guest bloggers, and this weeks blog is written by Valerie Murphy  LCPC, SD, BCPCC, Director and Therapist for Foundation Counseling and Training]

Over the last few years, I’ve sensed a heart-felt pull to discover what it means to know God in such a way that it leads me to an ever deepening desire to be like Christ… by that I mean to be like Christ in full surrender and in freedom from the attachments to “be like God.”  This being like God has been Satan’s pull into the worldly perspective since the fall, just as He had enticed Adam and Eve through false logic and reason, to pull away from God and to go it on their own.

To expand this theme, I’d like to start with a personal story about my life that I believe pertains.  My husband and I are approaching the empty nest stage of family relationship with our adult children (or at least it appears it will happen in the not too distant future!).  Out of the emptiness we foresee with the upcoming loss of our children’s presence, we now have a new addition of a tiny toy poodle to our family and are expecting one more from another litter shortly.  Clearly the addition of these puppies is a way of adding interest in our home and to fill a love spot for us until the grandbabies arrive. 

As we’ve been learning all the ins and outs of current trends in puppy training, we’ve studied the pack mentality of the dog.  Successful training from this viewpoint requires us, as owners, to become the “leaders of the pack,” or if you will, the Alpha dogs within our home.  In watching videos and reading current literature on this subject, I’ve begun to realize a very deep draw inside myself which is very different from all the pulls over the years where I’ve desired to “do things on my own” or to follow my own visions and plans or my own ideas of what my life should look like.  Rather, this draw is to truly live out life under the “Leader of our pack;” our Alpha Jesus Christ, under the authority of God the Father through the Holy Spirit.

The desire to do things on my own or for the sake of “my own kingdom” is, I believe, the “tragedy” that is referred to by Oswald Chambers in his book, The Place of Help.  Oswald Chambers states that, “not until we realize that there is something tragic at the basis of human life shall we recognize the love of God,” or I believe truly KNOW Him.  As I’ve looked at the “tragedy” of life for myself, my clients and the world at large, perhaps it isn’t so bad after all to follow a Leader that sets a vision for the good of all, has plans in place, disciplines and guides us in our roles, and walks with us on our journey of representing Him.  It is not the vision that I or those I serve might design; yet we have to remember that, like Christ, we do each have a God-given role.   Though the priorities and plans He establishes as our Leader are different than those we envision, we do walk in good stead as we “imitate Christ” in surrender and abandonment to the One True God.

Part of my journey with knowing God and the Biblical encouragement for my clients in falling under God’s leadership has been further developed as I’ve delved into the depth of our Leader’s care and the fulfillments He has shared with mankind from the beginning.  In Genesis there was profound satisfaction innate in the garden; free of the left-empty longings and the desires that exist on the fallen earth.

The 21 P’s

Can you imagine participating in the PRESENCE of the CREATOR (Gen 1:26-27) in the paradise garden that God created for man?  God shared His PERSONAL TOUCH (Genesis 2:7) and very breath with His creation.  He filled the earth with the abundance of His PRAISE (Gen 1:31; 2:12).  There was PERMANENCE (Gen 1:30) with all His shared Words, as well as, the PEACE (Gen 2:2) and rest that only He can bring.

From the beginning mankind was deeply connected to God and held a certain PRESTIGE (Gen 1:27), having been made in Their image.  Man was given a specific POWER (Gen 1:28, 2:19), PURPOSE (Gen 1:26) and set PRIORITIES (Gen 1:28) which included a mandate of PROCREATIVITY (Gen 1:12, 28) and PRODUCTIVITY (Gen 2:15).  Genesis expresses God’s clear PRIZING (Gen 1:28) of His created ones.

God was abundant in His PROVISION (Gen 1:30; 2:7; 9; 10; 16) for man.  He formed a special PLACE (Gen 2:8) full of life and an extravagance of food, drink and PLEASURE (Gen 2:9) for the senses.  There was an abundance of treasures as well.  PROTECTION (Gen 2:17) was given through God’s request to limit the eating of a certain fruit from a specific tree within this garden of delights.

God was full of praise for His creation, yet he also left man with the POTENTIAL PROMISE (Gen 2:18) of relational satisfaction with the coming of the PRESENCE of the OTHER (Gen 2:22) that became a PROMISE FULFILLED (Gen 2:23) in the creation of woman.  This relationship of mankind was truly good and ignited PASSION (Gen 2:24) from a sense of PURITY (Gen 2:25).

As I study the greatness of God within these brief chapters of His Scriptures, I want to be like Christ and to follow Him to God and out of what Oswald Chambers refers to as the “not reasonable but tragic.”  I believe this tragedy is founded on Satan’s lure upon mankind’s thinking from the very beginning for us to imagine what it would be like to “be like God.”  The identification of the left-empty P’s that motivate our clients, as well as ourselves, uncovers the deepest longings, desires and the drives that lead  us away from God’s plans for us and that motivates us to replace our following of Christ and the promptings of the Holy Spirit with our own misguided leadership.     

This is just the beginning of what it means for me to know God and to encourage my clients in knowing Him.  He formed each one of us individually from the beginning.  He has the perfect fulfillment of all that we could ask or imagine according to His plans and work within us.  He knows our deepest hungers, thirsts and needs (and He knows puppies will not fill them)! 

Lord, help us to turn away from our drives to be like You, to satisfy ourselves and our visions, and to essentially replace You as the Alpha and the leader of the pack.  Let us turn towards being image bearers of Yourself through being like your Son in full surrender to You and Your Glory!

I would appreciate any of your thoughts.

[For the month of April we have a variety of guest bloggers. This week's post is authored by Dr. David Jenkins, Associate Professor of Counseling, Center for Counseling and Family Studies at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA]

When Eric Johnson asked if I would be a guest blogger, I knew the post would take place a couple of weeks after we celebrated Easter.  I have always appreciated the Society for Christian Psychology and the simplicity of its mission statement.  So my first thought on what this blog’s focus would be was, “What are the implications of the resurrection for the theory, research, and practice of Christian psychology?”  While continuing to prayerfully consider what my contribution might be, I became increasingly convinced that this was the direction to take the discussion.  It was reassuring to have the presentation topic confirmed.  I became a bit unsettled, though, because as I spent time pondering this topic, I realized I had taken it for granted and not really thought through this before-at least not in any kind of systematic way.  “Yikes,” I thought, “I’m supposed to blog on this for public display to the SCP!”

So what follows are some thoughts about what difference the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ makes for Christian psychology.  While I hope I can inform to some degree, my intent is more to spur some discussion among you.  I’ll present some general thoughts first and then some implications for the theory, the research, and the practice of Christian psychology.

 General Implications

Because of the resurrection, Christian psychology should be characterized by pervasive qualities of:

• 1. Hope (Rm 8:20-25).
• 2. Life (Mt 22:29-32).
• 3. Freedom (Rm 6:5-14).
• 4. Evangelism (Ac 26:22-29).
• 5. Transformation (Php 3:20-21).
• 6. Purpose (1 Cor 15:12-22).

 Theory Implications

Higgins (2004) identified aspects of useful theory.  Useful theories are: testable, coherent, economical, generalizable, and explanatory.  Interestingly, he added a sixth aspect beyond these common five-generativity.  Isn’t that fascinating?  Good theory should also “give birth and life” to further theory.  I believe a suitable word to go along with this is “heuristic”-the theoretical work of Christian psychology should guide in the investigation and discovery of who God is, what He’s like, and what that means for those created in His image. 

The resurrection means that what we presently see, touch, hear, smell, and taste is not all there is to this story of being human.  We are not in a “closed” universe, meaning that God has always been and remains active and immanent.  Surely, this ought to stimulate “holy” (i.e., set apart) theory that’s qualitatively different than what modern psychology presently offers.  And as Christian psychology seeks to recover and nurture its historical identity found within biblical Christianity, “resurrecting” that identity after a century of neglect, division, and abuse seems like an appropriate way to describe this effort.  In what ways do you believe the theory of Christian psychology is shaped by the resurrection?

 Research Implications

Jones (2002) described functions of research: modification, illustration, explanation, exploration, affirmation, prediction, and correction.  Although space doesn’t permit elaboration on each of these functions, a couple of examples will clarify this point.  The resurrection “modifies” what I know and believe about persons created in the image of God.  The resurrection “illustrates” the pattern of creation, fall, and redemption present in the universe, but particularly in human beings.  You could construct similar thoughts regarding the other functions of research.

Beyond these implications, the resurrection should affect the “content” of Christian psychology’s research as well as its “process.”  Probably more than any other, the general implication of hope should influence our research.  Topics such as resilience, optimal functioning, and the power of a well-lived life seem uniquely suited to a discipline whose foundational beliefs include the resurrection.  What other research content and process areas do you believe are uniquely shaped by the resurrection?

 Practice Implications

Sizemore (2006) outlined elements of a counseling model derived from a Christian psychology perspective.  He included elements regarding the nature of epistemology, persons, health, pathology, and treatment.  What we believe about what we know and how we know it is radically affected by the resurrection.  Let’s face it-even the apostle Paul identified the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the defining issue of the reality of our faith.  To believe in the resurrection requires us to step outside of naturalistic approaches to our work with persons.  Once again, I believe the general issues of hope, death as a precursor to life, freedom, making God known, transformation, and purpose influence my intentionality as a practitioner of soul care.  How is your work with people affected by the resurrection?

 Conclusion

I love Jesus…and, really more importantly, He loves me!  I am a living example of the resurrection power of Jesus Christ.  Some of you may know part of my story, and the details really aren’t that important to our purposes here.  But just know that God took me from hopelessness, death/destruction, bondage, darkness, distortion, and futility.  He brought me lovingly and radically into hope, life, freedom, knowledge of Him, transformation, and purpose!  I’m certain many of you can testify to the same “resurrection power” in your own life.  May God continue to bless this project of Christian psychology and those who are part of it!

I look forward to your comments and contributions!

 References:

Higgins, E.T. (2004). Making a theory useful: Lessons handed down. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 138-145.

Jones, I.F. (2002). Research in Christian counseling: Proving and promoting our valued cause. In T. Clinton & G. Ohlschlager (Eds.), Competent Christian counseling (pp. 641-657). Colorado Springs, CO: Waterbrook.

Sizemore, T.A. (2006). The five domains: A Christian psychology model for counseling. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from Society for Christian Psychology Web site: http://www.aacc.net.net/email/media/scp_2.ppt

[We will have several guest bloggers for the month of April. This first post is by Scott Holman, the SCP Blog Moderator.]

I recently attended a unique mens retreat in which space was provided for the men present to be broken and transparent before God and other men. The result was deep change and healing for many present. As I reflect on the dynamics of the retreat, it occurred to me that a significant factor in being transformed by God into the image of Christ is the level of broken transparency we bring to relationships in general, but particularly with God.

The level of transparent reality we bring into relationship with God and others greatly affects how intimate we are capable of being and subsequently, how much transformation we experience. True intimacy in relationships depends on the trust and safety of exposed hearts, and these hearts are changed as they commune together with God through Christ. There is something healing about exposing your heart to another safe person.

The problem is that we are often “veiled” in our relationships through defense mechanisms, false selves, and sinful habits of hiding and manipulating. If our inner world is veiled to ourselves (through a lack of self-awareness) and others, we are incapable of deep relationships. Out of a sense of self-protection, we often work and maneuver ourselves to maintain distance and control in our relationships. When we make a choice to stop this pattern though, there is great potential for intimacy and healing. We can “un-veil” ourselves before God and others through confession, transparency and authenticity. Such authenticity requires taking risks in our relationships, risks in laying down our false selves in the presence of others. When our inner world is un-veiled to ourselves and others in the presence of God, there is great potential for transformation, healing and growth in Christ-likeness to occur.

As tempting as it is for those who are troubled and hurting (and those of us who counsel them) to make transformation the goal of transparent relating, it is not. Transformation is not the reason we are transparent and authentic – intimacy is – intimacy with God and others. When transformation becomes the goal, our transparency can become manipulation, an attempt to barter with God. A false self that presents itself as authentic can work to earn love. When intimacy is our goal however, transformation is a side effect that is left completely in the hands of our sovereign and good God. God has designed us for relationship, and the more of “us” that is unveiled in the context of safe relationship with him and others, the promise we have from Scripture is that we shall be changed. But this change rarely occurs in the way and at the rate we desire, so it is necessary to stress that deeper relationship is the goal of transparent relating.

Perhaps it is helpful to differentiate between brokenness and transparency for the sake of clarity. Transparency can be defined simply as the absence of pretense or deceit, an honest acknowledgment of what is in the heart and mind, without any judgment as to the goodness or badness of what is revealed. Brokenness (in a biblical sense) adds to transparency a repentant sorrow for what is in the heart and mind along with a desperate desire for Jesus to grant healing and forgiveness. Broken, transparent intimacy is at the heart of biblical discipleship (e.g., “blessed are the poor in spirit,” and “blessed are the pure in heart” (Matt. 5:3, 8).  This is developed in two key texts, 2 Corinthians 3:16-18 and Hebrews 10:19-25.

“But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” (2 Cor. 3:16-18 ESV)

The ESV Study Bible note on 2 Cor 3:16 is helpful here – “Just as Moses was able to enter into God’s presence without a veil (Ex. 34:34) so too when one turns to the Lord in faith, the veil of separation from God and incomprehension of him brought about by a hardened heart is removed” (emphasis mine). The more we turn to the Lord in faith, the more we are un-veiled. In Christ, we can come before God and one another without the veils of our false selves and all our sinful attempts to find life without God. These veils have been removed with Christ’s death and resurrection for us.

At Jesus’ death, the curtain or veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51), opening the holiest presence of God to all people who trust in Christ’s sacrifice. Once the most dangerous place for sinners, the holy presence of God is now the safest place for the broken and the sinful because of the new and living way of Christ. The implications of this are staggering for us.

“So, friends, we can now-without hesitation-walk right up to God, into “the Holy Place.” Jesus has cleared the way by the blood of his sacrifice, acting as our priest before God. The “curtain” into God’s presence is his body. So let’s do it-full of belief, confident that we’re presentable inside and out. Let’s keep a firm grip on the promises that keep us going. He always keeps his word. Let’s see how inventive we can be in encouraging love and helping out, not avoiding worshiping together as some do but spurring each other on, especially as we see the big Day approaching. (Heb 10:19-25 The Message)

Through the sacrifice of Christ, we are enabled to come before him without timidity or pretense. Indeed, we are called to come before Him with boldness, transparency and unveiled confession, knowing that we shall be completely accepted, loved and forgiven. We can be “confident that we’re presentable inside and out,” which takes the pressure off us to perform or pretend. As we do this with brothers and sisters in Christ we shall be changed as we together behold His glory – for this is why we were made.

[by Leslie Vernick, DCSW, LCSW. Leslie is in private practice, Director of Christ-Centered Counseling www.leslievernick.com, and is our blogger for the month of March. This is her fifth blog]

Recently my husband and I were heading to Florida for a much needed vacation. Right after we dragged ourselves through airport security we sat down to reassemble ourselves.  Glancing up at the airport information center, we observed a troubling and odd scene going on behind the desk.

“Inappropriate!”  “Weird” were the words my husband and I muttered to one another as we watched a uniformed male employee repeatedly stroke a female employee’s face sitting in front of him.

What is he doing?” I asked.

“Is he giving her a facial massage?”my husband queried.

“No. I think he’s putting some sort of cream on her face.” I said.

We continued to stare.  “There must be some rules against employees publically touching one another like that,” I said. So taken with this inappropriate display of public affection by these employees I encouraged him to snap a picture with his cell phone. Then as I stood up to leave I saw things from a totally new perspective.

The woman was confined to a wheelchair. Her arms and hands curled tightly at her sides, useless. Her friend and fellow employee was tenderly rubbing moisturizer or makeup in to her parched skin. My heart sank. How quick I was to jump to conclusions and to judge his actions as wrong. How naturally and automatically I made up a story about what I saw when in fact, I did not see clearly at all.  

At first glance this man’s behavior appeared unquestionably wrong and inappropriate. It was only when I saw things from a different vantage point did I discern that his actions were actually the opposite. They were loving, kind and gracious.

 In the same way, Jesus repeatedly attempted to show the Pharisees of his day that everything wasn’t so easily explained in terms of what they thought was lawful or right and wrong.

For example, Rahab the prostitute was spared by Joshua because she protected the spies from being captured (by lying about which way they went) even though one of the Ten Commandments tells us not to bear false witness (see Joshua 6:25). Jesus did not follow the Jewish law when the woman was caught in adultery as the crowd expected. Instead of sentencing her to death by stoning, he said “Whoever is without sin cast the first stone.” (Luke 14:3-6)

The Pharisees condemned Jesus as a lawbreaker when he healed on the Sabbath yet he challenged their deeply held beliefs by asking them, “Which one of you wouldn’t rescue a son or an ox on the Sabbath if they had fallen into a deep well?” (Luke 14:3-6). Jesus taught that doing good, helping others, and loving well was more important to God than legalistic adherence to biblical law.

What does that mean to us as Christian counselors? Each session our clients invite us to peer into a small section of their life story. At times they actually give us the power to judge what they’re doing (thinking, or feeling) as right or wrong, biblical or sinful, godly or not.

On my weekly blog (www.leslievernick.blogspot.com) I’m often asked questions about whether or not something is biblical. In other words, does God approve or disapprove of what I’m about to do?  Here are a few recent examples I’ve blogged about.

“Am I disobeying God or dishonoring my mother when I put boundaries around her contact with my children?” Or “Is it biblical for my daughter to get a legal annulment from her new husband because she’s discovered he lied to her about who he really was? Had she known these things before hand, she would not have married him.” Or “Is it lawful for me to separate from an emotionally abusive husband? My church tells me that God hates divorce and I’m not allowed to leave under any circumstances.”

Sometimes when I read these tragic situations with their final question asking me what I think God says is right and what’s wrong I imagine how Jesus must have felt when the Pharisees tried to trap him. Is there only one right biblical answer for every situation?

At times I see Christians, including some biblical counselors, use the bible as a rule book to find what God says is permissible and/or unacceptable. But even Jesus had exceptions to his laws and the higher law of love always triumphed.  Biblical love never implies that we always do what the other person wants or prefers, but loving means we actively seek the other person’s long term best interest, including setting boundaries, implementing consequences, or initiating separation when those actions are done to help bring a sinful person to their senses and change.

How we answer these types of questions (or don’t answer), has great implications for our counselees. It may shape our client’s picture of God as well as whether or not she learns to discern God’s voice for herself (John 10:4, 27).

In closing, I try to ask myself some crucial questions when facing these kinds of dilemmas.  

• 1. What is the whole counsel of God on this matter, not just one or two verses?
• 2. What is the context? Not just the biblical context but also the client’s life story context. We can’t just take a single observation and make a judgment upon it. Just as I was very wrong in my initial assessment at the airport about what was truly happening, sometimes we can’t always discern what’s right and what’s wrong. Changing our vantage point might open our eyes to an entirely different perspective.
• 3. What are the biblical exceptions? When were they permitted, or even sometimes commended? When the woman poured expensive perfume on Jesus’ head, the disciples judged it to be a waste of a valuable resource. Jesus thought otherwise and through this example, taught us that what seems right or even logical isn’t the only biblical way to make a good decision. Although what she did was extravagant Jesus said she’d always be remembered for her great love (Matthew 26:6-13).

In striving to be Christ-centered in my counseling, I am learning more and more that there is often more than one biblical answer.  My job isn’t to judge or decide for my client what’s biblical. Part of my job is to help my client see his or her situation from different vantage points, (for example, temporal, eternal, short term, long term), talk about what God might be up to in her particular situation and how to listen to the Holy Spirit so that she can walk by faith, not by sight.

[by Leslie Vernick, DCSW, LCSW. Leslie is in private practice, Director of Christ-Centered Counseling www.leslievernick.com, and is our blogger for the month of March. This is her fourth blog]

Scott Peck opens his best-selling book, The Road Less Traveled with the statement “Life is difficult.”  Trials and troubles come to saint and sinner alike. No one is immune. But it is often suffering that brings a person to the counselor’s office. As Christian counselors we have a unique opportunity when people are hurting because they naturally seek answers from God, often asking the questions, Why God? Why this? Why now? Why me?

I’ve come to understand that there are two types of suffering; necessary suffering and unnecessary suffering. It’s important that we learn to distinguish them because we will approach them differently in the therapeutic process.

Let’s first look at necessary suffering. Necessary suffering is important. It is part of God’s plan to teach us to stay away from dangerous things as well as to mature us. When a child puts her hand on a hot stove, the pain warns her to remove her hand immediately. If she ignored her pain it would result in more intense suffering and perhaps even permanent damage (which is unnecessary if she listened to her pain).

The apostle Paul tells us that suffering builds character (Romans 5) and James tells that we can experience joy in the midst of our trials and troubles if we remember that they are used to build perseverance which help us run the race of faith with greater endurance (James 1:2,3).

Suffering is necessary because it wakes us up from our spiritual sleepiness and teaches us what really matters. Whether we realize it or not, even as believers, many of us are held captive to the lie that we need something other than God to fulfill us and make us happy. When we put our hope in something or someone other than God to give us what only he can give, he will surely frustrate us. He doesn’t do it to punish us but rather to rescue us from our disordered attachments and delusions; from our foolishness and self-deception. Sorrow teaches us to let go of our love affair with false or lesser things and seek harder after God.

Necessary suffering is used by God to dismantle our internal story line about how life should work, what brings inner happiness and what’s truly important. Life’s disappointments and sorrows are unwelcome but necessary gifts to help us see view reality correctly. C.S. Lewis writes, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains; it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” Necessary suffering helps us find God and our true selves instead of losing our way through life feasting at the table of cheap substitutes.  

Necessary suffering is a result of living in a sinful and broken world. Things are not as they should be. Our goal with individuals who are in the midst of this kind of suffering is to help them express their honest emotions, grieve their losses, and to eventually find hope or some purpose in the midst of them. Like mining for diamonds in the mud, the Christian counselor helps his/her client extract what’s good from the bad, what is beautiful from the ugly. Jesus said, “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33). We are not alone in our suffering. Jesus knows the pain of living in a broken down world. He is present to help us, to guide us and to comfort us. Our suffering is not meaningless and God will redeem it if we let him.

In contrast, unnecessary suffering results from our poor response to necessary suffering. It rises out of our unrealistic expectations, the lies we believe (our tell ourselves), our bad habits, poor choices, and our negative emotions such as self-pity, envy, greed, jealousy, resentment, pride, and shame. This kind of pain results from our immature or rebellious way of handling life and our inability and/or refusal to see things truthfully.

When working with someone experiencing sorrow upon sorrow, in addition to being empathic with whatever necessary suffering they are experiencing, we must help our client understand the ways she may play an active role in creating unnecessary suffering.

Let me give an example. A woman shared with me that her only son was recently killed in a motorcycle accident. She said, “I can’t be thankful for all things but I have learned I can be thankful in all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:18).

She continued, “I am thankful that I had him with me for 24 years. I’m thankful that he died doing something he loved. I’m thankful that he knew the Lord and I’ll see him someday. I’m thankful that I have so many friends who are helping me through this horrible time.”

This woman was hurting but her grief in facing such a loss was not compounded by additional pain she would have experienced had she told herself such things as, “God must be punishing me for something I’ve done.” Or “If only I hadn’t allowed him to buy that motorcycle, he’d still be alive.” Or “Why my son? It’s not fair. I only had one child and now he’s gone.” Or “My life is ruined, I’ll never be happy again.”

She didn’t isolate or withdraw from her social support and she worked hard to remind herself of God’s goodness and love even in the midst of a tragedy. Necessary suffering was doing its work in her life and wasn’t intensified by additional sorrow that wasn’t necessary.

On the other hand I’ve had many clients who live in a chronic state of misery because of their unrealistic expectations, poor choices, or negative lifestyle habits yet they fail to connect the dots that their suffering is self imposed and unnecessary if only they would change their ways.

 Most of the time there is some combination of both kinds of suffering. Understanding the difference, has helped me to be wiser in the way I approach those that are hurting.

[by Leslie Vernick, DCSW, LCSW. Leslie is in private practice, Director of Christ-Centered Counseling www.leslievernick.com, and is our blogger for the month of March. This is her third blog]

In my past two blogs I’ve invited discussion about creative techniques we can implement to help our clients experience deeper truth or make positive changes. As we’ve learned, showing is always more potent than telling in the counseling process. How we do that can take a multitude of approaches and this week I’d like to share some specific ways I’ve incorporated illustration and story in my practice.

Barker (1996) holds that metaphor and stories are particularly useful to do the following:

Illustrate a particular point

Suggest possible solutions to a problem

Promote insight or awareness

Motivate or plant ideas in a counselee’s mind

Overcome and bypass resistance

Reframe or redefine the problem

Remind people of their resources

The creative use of illustration, story, and metaphor were an integral part of Jesus’ teaching style and are generously woven throughout Scripture. They help us grab a hold of deep spiritual truths as well as bypass the watchdog left brain.

Illustration:  We all experience counselees who typically blame their poor reactions to provocative situations on an external stressor instead of taking personal responsibility for how they’ve handled the situation. During a session they may say something like, “If she wouldn’t have aggravated me I wouldn’t have yelled at her that way.” The implication being that it is his wife’s fault that he lost his temper and that the goal of counseling should be to get his wife to stop doing whatever upsets him.

I don’t have the space in this blog to flesh all the different approaches one could take in this case and there may be a time where talking with the wife about her provocative behavior is appropriate. However, I have found when trying to break through these kinds of circular interactions, quoting scripture (or assigning it as homework) regarding how one should speak or  the consequences of biting and devouring one another, usually fails to produce the desired internal change of greater personal reflection and acceptance of responsibility.

But here is an illustration that stops the blame game. In my office I keep a small jar of seemingly clean water. Unknown to my clients, at the bottom of the jar is some dirty sediment. When a person is habitually blaming outside forces for his or her own poor response, I’ll pull the jar off my shelf and hold it by the bottom so that the sediment is unseen. I ask him if the water looks clean. He usually nods, yes.

Then I vigorously shake the jar of water. The sediment becomes obvious and the water is now dirty. I ask, “Did shaking the jar make the water dirty?”

The immediate answer is often “yes”. Then he pauses and reflects a little more, realizing that shaking the jar didn’t make the water dirty, it was already dirty, shaking only made the dirt obvious.

This opens a window to explore his new awareness and what it means for his interactions with his wife. Certainly people and life provoke us, but what comes out of our mouth in those moments has more to do with the contents of our heart, than the particular situation. My jar illustration shows Christ’s words, “Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.” (Luke 6:46). I could have shaken (provoked) the jar until my arm fell off and if the water was truly clean, it would not have become dirty. Shaking simply exposed the dirt that had been there all along.

This simple yet powerful illustration helps people see that their reactions and responses to difficult people or situations expose the darker contents of their own heart. These qualities usually stay hidden (at least from our client’s own awareness) until provoked. Seeing the dirty contents of one’s heart is a good thing so that we can begin to repent, take responsibility and change.

Story:  In my counseling practice I often tell stories or assign my clients to read stories or watch movies as homework. The editors of Futurist magazine assert that storytellers will be the most valuable workers in the twenty-first century.

I worked with a woman who felt depressed and was morbidly obese. In addition she chronically masturbated and fantasized how her life “could” be but never actually did anything to change it. Please understand that I am not commenting on whether or not masturbation is biblical in this blog nor am I presenting an entire case. I’m showing how I used a story to get her unstuck.

After some time of trying all sorts of approaches, I finally asked my client to read the fairy tale “The Little Match Girl”.  If you recall, the story is of a poor girl who froze to death by lighting matches trying to stay warm while having fantasies of a crackling fire, a Christmas dinner, and a loving grandmother.

The story helped my client see herself and her own impoverished, empty life. She saw how she used masturbation (lighting matches) and fantasy to warm herself instead of connecting with and loving real people as God has made us to do. Most importantly it motivated her to move forward in making healthy changes because she could now see that she too, was freezing to death.  

Let me close with a short story I sometimes use with a client when he or she is quite sure the difficult moment they are in will last forever or means that nothing good will ever come of it. You can find various versions on the internet. It goes something like this:

There was an old farmer that had only one horse and one day his horse ran away. The neighbors came to console his terrible loss. “This is awful,” they cried.

The farmer said, “Oh I don’t know, it could be good or it could be bad.”

A month later the horse came home – this time bringing with her two beautiful wild horses. The neighbors became excited at the farmer’s good fortune. “Such lovely, strong horses,” they exclaimed. “What a fortunate man you are.”

The farmer said, “Oh I don’t know, it could be good or it could be bad.”

Some days later the farmer’s son was riding one of the wild horses when he was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors said, “Such bad luck!”

The farmer said, “Oh I don’t know, it could be good or it could be bad.”

A war came and every able bodied young man was send into battle. Only the farmer’s son was exempt because he had a broken leg. The neighbors said, “This is good, he doesn’t have to go away.”

And by now you know what the farmer said.

None of us know what good things can come from the bad things we experience or what difficulties we will encounter even in life’s blessings. Suffering and blessing is in all things. It’s not either/or, but both/and.

 

Barker, P.(1996). Psychotherapeutic Metaphors: A guide to Theory and Practice. New York: Brunner/Mazel.