Models of Counseling Course by SCP Editor

Posted on June 9, 2009

Dr. Bryan Maier (Biblical Seminary book review editor for Edification) is offering a 2 credit on-line graduate class entitled, “Models of Counseling.” Dr. Maier will run this course from 7/6/09 to 8/31/09. If you have ever wanted to study the historic models of counseling from a Christian psychology perspective, this class is for you. Dr. Maier understands the basics of these models, offers great insights, and careful thinking about the classic models of counseling using readings, short, stimulating videos, narrated PowerPoint slides and guided discussion boards. Click here to apply (non-degree status) for this graduate level, accredited course. Those in other grad programs may be able to transfer their credits to their own programs.

Psychology Words: Unconditional Positive Regard

Posted on July 28, 2008

[This is the last post for this month by guest blogger Dr. Bryan Maier (Biblical Seminary). He has been exploring questions stimulated by some of the classic therapeutic theories. In particular, Dr. Maier wishes that readers would be prompted to think how the Scriptures speak to concepts traditionally raised in theories courses. As in past posts, Dr. Maier raises a variety of questions for the reader to consider.]

I hope that my attempt to interact with Scripture and psychological theories has been thought provoking for you. If you want more of these type of discussions, I would encourage you to join us at our annual conference this September in Chicago (see this webpage for details). We will enjoy several keynote speakers and breakout sessions helping us to think through the role of hermeneutics in the building of a Christian Psychology. I will be presenting a paper on the Psalms of Lament.

For my final essay from psychological theories, I would like to look at the concept of unconditional positive regard from person centered therapy. The idea is that if we love (defined according to Rogers and our ethical standards) our clients well, they will in turn learn to love themselves which will embolden them to take healthy risks in their relationships and have less dysfunction. Upon hearing this, many Christian counselors either resonate immediately by attempting to utilize the power of love (especially the love of Christ), OR they reflexively label Rogers theories as narcissistic idolatry that distracts from truly loving God and loving others.

One of the key questions of course, is what does love mean, especially in the clinical setting. Rogers took an optimistic view of humans and assumed that every one of us has within us the desire to change in a more positive direction. The role of the therapist is find that desire and to help release its power. On the other hand, one of my colleagues often says that the task of counseling is convincing someone who wants to buy a car that what they really need is a horse. If this is love, it must be some kind of “tough love”. So we need to reflect on what love means.

Whatever love means, could it be as powerful as Rogers claims? If it is true that Jesus famous words “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 19:19, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:28-29) presuppose a pretty robust love of self (the passages don’t seem to make sense any other way), then it seems that there is a call to love others. But does this love make any difference in the lives of our clients? Can we love someone into changing? Can God? If so, what does this love look like? Is it the unconditional positive regard that Rogers speaks of? 1 John 4:19 claims that our love for others is based on God’s love for us, “We love because he first loved us”. Is our job as counselors to give our clients a taste of that love every time we meet? If so, how do we assess or measure the degree that we love? Is it solely a matter of content (we are telling them the right things) or is there an affective component? Can we love a client but not really like them, or vise versa?

Words: Suppression/Repression

Posted on July 22, 2008

[This is the third post for July 2008 by our guest blogger, Bryan N. Maier (Assoc. Prof of Counseling & Psychology at Biblical Seminary). He continues to give examples of how a Christian Psychologist interacts with the classic theories of psychotherapy.]

No class on theories would ever be complete without some attention to the groundbreaking theories of Sigmund Freud. Because of the volume and creativity of his work, he has provided ample targets for Christians and non-Christians alike. Therefore if someone is looking to find issue with Freud, they do not have to look hard. On the other hand, much of what Freud taught has become so much a part of the mainstream of counseling practice that very few realize how Freudian they really are. One Freudian concept that I am becoming more sympathetic to is the idea of repression. In fact I would go so far as to say that Freud’s concept of repression probably explains pretty well what is going on in Romans 1. Let me explain.

After his personal introduction (1:1-15) Paul begins his treatise on the gospel. In verse 18 he justifies the wrath of God in response to the evil and unrighteousness of fallen humanity. It is the last phrase of the verse that sounds psychoanalytic. Not only do human beings warrant the wrath of God, but they go on to “suppress” this knowledge. The passage goes on to explain what this means. It is not a lack of knowledge; God has provided all they need. Rather it is a willful choice to live in a way as if what is known is really not known. As a result, they begin to think differently (“their foolish heart was darkened”) and then actually start believing what they once knew to be lie. As a result, God gives them over to their twisted thinking which results in even more twisted thinking and “dishonorable” behavior. This vicious decline starts back in verse 18 with the “suppression” of the truth. The word in the original language means to “hold down” which sounds an awful lot like the idea of anxiety or unpleasant thoughts being banished to the unconscious where energy needs to be expended to keep them there. If human beings can deny something as fundamental as God’s existence and authority, their capacity (as well as our own) to deny many other things should not surprise us.

As we sit across from our clients, what might they be suppressing? Could it be God’s anger or maybe his goodness? Is it more difficult for Christians to suppress what they know about God than it is for an unbeliever? And what amount of energy is being expended to keep these thoughts apart from their conscious awareness? Put another way, how hard is it to “quench the spirit”? What do you think?

Cognitive Reframes

Posted on July 14, 2008

[This is the second guest blog from Dr. Bryan Maier of Biblical Seminary for July 2008. In this post he briefly considers cognitive reframes from the vantage point of Romans 6 and 7.]

In my last post, I looked at the concept of reinforcement from the theory of behaviorism to see how it interacts with scripture. In this post, I would like to think a little bit about the idea of a cognitive reframe. This is one of the primary tools of cognitive therapy which focuses on how one thinks about situations and the subsequent feelings and behaviors that emerge from such thinking. What is a cognitive reframe and is there any such thing in scripture? I don’t have the space to unpack all of the philosophical implications of cognitive reframing but for simplicity sake, I think most of us would agree that cognitive reframing at least involves choosing how we look at something for the purpose of modulating our emotions and behavior. At least two thorny questions come with this definition. The first is whether there is any true or objective way of looking at anything or if everything is merely just a mental reconstruction. The second question is whether we can actually choose how we see anything.

These two questions arise from Paul’s famous injunction in Romans 6:11 to “consider yourself to be dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus”. Here Paul seems to be saying that how you view yourself with regard to sin has a great impact on how you behave (vs. 12ff). How many of us have challenged clients to claim the freedom that this verse seems to promise? When we do this, are we calling them to believe something that is actually true? Are we really dead to sin? If so why do we keep on sinning (see Romans 7)? On the other hand, Paul could be saying that merely construing ourselves to be free from sin (regardless of actual reality) will provide an incredible boost in our personal war with evil. To the degree that I view myself as free, I will tend to act less as a slave – or more accurately, to the degree that I see myself as a slave of God and not sin, I will act more in line with the Master I own.

So it seems God is calling us to view things differently. But is he calling us to bring our cognitions in line with some kind of true reality or is he trying to introduce us to the amazing motivational tool of seeing lemons and thinking of lemonade? What do you think?

Christian Psychology meets traditional theories of psychotherapy

Posted on July 7, 2008

[Moderator's note: This post marks our first guest blog from Dr. Bryan Maier, Associate Professor of Counseling & Psychology at Biblical Seminary. Dr. Maier has an interest in Christian psychology, the integration of psychology and theology, and the history of psychology. He recently published his doctoral dissertation on James McCosh. Dr. Maier's first post considers how Christian psychology might look at a component of behaviorism. Dr. Maier will be posting weekly during the month of July.]

As interest in Christian Psychology grows, those of us who teach counseling and psychology will have a fresh opportunity to assess what we teach and how we teach in light of this new trajectory in our field. This last spring I taught a course on Psychological Theories at Biblical Seminary. As I was preparing for this course, the question continually emerged, “What difference does it make that I am sympathetic to Christian Psychology as I teach theories?” I could just teach from an historical perspective and outline the various approaches to how prominent figures have conceptualized humans, their problems and subsequent treatment approaches. Then I could also insert some kind of Biblical filter to eliminate some of the more blatant deviations from the Christian faith. But is that all there is to it? I think the Christian Psychology approach requires that we take all the information in our discipline seriously. Of course scripture takes precedence, not only as a filter but also as a reservoir of information about human beings that happens to be true. This month I would like to share my thoughts on the interaction of the Bible and four classic concepts within the field of Psychological theory. This will be more than just proof texts to either support or discredit a particular idea. In other words, I want to interact with scripture in a thick rather than a thin way. I would love to read your thoughts as you think along with me.

The first concept is reinforcement from classic behaviorism. To many counselors behaviorism is seen as superficial and manipulative, not the stuff of “real counseling”. Christians also disparage this idea especially if they have read anything by Skinner and accurately recognized his atheistic presuppositions. But when we speak of reinforcement are we not also talking about motives? Why we do what we do (even if the reason is lame) is a very philosophical question. Christian parenting books are abundant with formulas such as “If you want your child to do X, you need to simply do Y.” followed by the obligatory proof text, “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22.6).

Many marriage books about communication are similar “Do you want your spouse to understand you? Say it this way.” Are we not all at least closet behaviorists to the degree that we subscribe to such ideas or even when we try to motivate anyone to do anything?

Can I begin the discussion with the whole concept of rewards or reinforcement in Scripture? For example, Jesus seems to use reinforcement when he challenges his followers to resist the reward that comes from public recognition of one’s faith and to hold out for an even greater reward earned by praying in secret (Matt. 6:5-6). Whatever “the father will repay you” means, it is held out as something more reinforcing than public adulation.

So what do you think? Is Jesus more of a behaviorist than most of us would want to admit? To cite the old hymn, is there more “joy (or reinforcement) in serving Jesus” than in anything else?

Designed by Business Broker