[For the month of September 2008 we will be posting entries from Society members, Kathrin Halder and Wolfram Soldan of Germany. Regular readers will remember that Kathrin and Wolfram are colleagues at IGNIS, a training institute for Christian psychology. This post is written by Kathrin and explores the pros and cons of focusing on change methodologies.]

Have you ever had people in your life, church and esp. your classes that come up wanting to know how life works, what they can do to solve a problem in their or somebody else’s life, looking for some methods, strategies, steps to make it all easier? I understand their wish and often share it myself. Wouldn’t it be nice to have some easy rules, some methods and steps how we can help us and others psychologically?

This desire is not all together bad. Are there not creation orders, rules and regularities regarding man that can be investigated, that can be condensed into methods and strategies that give orientation and some reliability, that help to bring some direction into life that would else be even more chaotic? Is it not much better than raking around in disorientation, trying to reinvent the wheel (perhaps due to an individuality dogma)? And isn’t that something God uses. Are they not really his creation orders that he has given us for good use?

But at the same time most of us feel somewhat uncomfortable, knowing from others and ourselves that there can be something wrong with our search for methods, strategies, and five step programs. They can be an expression of the desperate attempt of fallen creation to be safe, of having life in one’s own hands, of being able to at least do something, of having some kind of power and control over life.

Perhaps natural science is so attractive to some for that reason. You have natural laws, you know if you combine two chemical substances you will have a certain fixed reaction. Things are regular and predictable so you have power over what you do.

Isn’t it sometimes the same motive that makes us look for things we need to do, so God’s blessing will flow, so we will get the new job, the perfect mate? Does that make us look for “spiritual laws”, for strategies that show us how sanctification or (physical) healing works, what steps we need to take to bring revival to pass? Or for methods and interventions that we use with individual disorders in order to cause symptoms to disappear and that make a client see us as competent?

So for one, we should question our motives in that matter, always asking ourselves whether we trust in Christ and his work or in the methods itself. And for the other we should come to hold a balanced position towards the usefulness of methods and helping strategies.

One the one hand methods and techniques are vitally important as “Finderegeln” (a German word almost impossible to translate, but could be seen as rules that guide our searching for something). They provide us with typical connections between things, e.g. between a certain disorder and an intervention, they guide our eyes towards a certain directions where often help has been found before. And that can and will often be helpful.

But on the other hand we should never restrict ourselves to just that direction, we should always be open to look at the individual situation anew. As Christian counselors we should always be ready to give all the “principles” we learned back to the Lord, waiting whether he will give it back to us or whether he shows us a different, perhaps more unusual way. If the Lord leads us so, would we be open to also go a way as radical as the one the Lord suggested to one of my colleaugues in prayer one time in a certain situation. He saw a man in a foreign city so consumed by trying to find the way with a street map that he didn’t even really see where he was. The Lord challenged him to set aside the map and ask him at every street where to turn next.

Although that will not always be the way, I am convinced our openness towards it would please the Lord and enrich us in our counseling.

[This is the 4th and final post by Dr. Sam Williams of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary]

Differences regarding how to teach Christian Counseling struck me about 2 years ago during a meeting with the chief counseling professor in an educational institution in which I had been teaching as an adjunctive professor. Leadership of this institution had changed hands and while I previously had carte blanche about what and how to teach, the new regime handed me a protocol, kind of a combination of curriculum and syllabus, from which they hoped I would teach. My initial reaction was a bit hurt, but still non-defensive and hopeful about being able to accommodate their approach.

How do we go about teaching Christian Counseling? What should the curriculum and syllabi look like? How much time, if any, should be devoted to biblical and theological training, to training in the secular psychologies, if any, and to practical nuts and bolts instruction and to discussion and supervision of real cases and real counseling?

And how much training in each of these domains is sufficient? Within each domain, what should be taught? What should the biblical/theological portion of the curriculum look like? Is systematics enough, or do they need OT and NT also. Do they need hermeneutics, so they can interpret and apply scripture in a systematic and intellectually defensible manner? How about Greek and Hebrew – are the original languages important? And then of course what about Christian ethics, church history, evangelism and missions? Are these relevant and important in assuring that the graduate in Christian Counseling has attained sufficient training and scholarship in those things distinctively Christian?

And then with respect to training in counseling or psychology, in a proper and maybe more accurately, secular sense? Do they need to study the metapsychologists – Freud, Jung, Rogers, Skinner, Beck, and Ellis? If so, how much? Is an overview sufficient, or should it be more extensive? Do they need to learn the theories and methods of various psychotherapies? How about research design and stats and experimental psychology, and developmental, and physiological or neuropsychological – how much of this do they need?

How do we provide practical hands-on training so that students complete our programs and are competent to care for souls? What is the best way to move from theory to practice, from the propositional to the personal? How do our students make the transition from case presentations to case wisdom? How do we teach students this particular form of Christian love that we call counseling?

The distinctiveness of Christian Psychology and Counseling is still in need of much development, and that won’t happen without an understanding not just of what CP (Christian Psychology) and CC (Christian Counseling) are, but also how to go about teaching it.

Our role as educators is one with great impact and not to be taken lightly, as we are reminded in James 3.1, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”

[This is the third blog entry this month by Dr. Sam Williams of SEBTS]

OK, picking up where we left off – CC, is distinctively Christian when it is properly related to and properly belongs to Christ, the person whose name it bears.

Maybe we could assert that Carl Rogers was not the originator of Person-centered counseling, God is.

Our definitive text, the Bible, is a collection of books and letters to persons, written by persons, from a Person, about a Person. And, as Christians we believe that lives are transformed, not by principles but by a Person.

We believe that a powerful Person greater than ourselves has come and can restore us to sanity. That’s good news.

Proposition: The Good News of God should be central to the process of Christian change and Christian counsel.

It would seem to me that Christian Counseling would bear the unique imprint of the Gospel of Christ.

How does the Gospel b/c an instinct, a style, an ever present vector in our counsel?
How do we b/c conduits, channels, means of grace?

Christian counselors, it seems to me, carefully think through the implications of the Gospel for any and every person and all types of problems.

If all of God’s promises are Yes in Jesus Christ then in what way does the Gospel meet this person at the point of their deepest need?

I am not saying that is all we should do, but I would say that is the most important thing we do.

Christ-ian counseling must, if it is to be worthy of the name of Christ, keep the main thing, the main thing. It should major on what the Bible and our faith majors on: Christ - risen, ruling and reigning, and in the process of redeeming you and me and our clients and our psychology and
counsel and everything else.

CC is a part of the Missio Dei, the mission of God.

Christian Counseling begins then, not with advice and guidance, but with an announcement of Good News.

CS Lewis, in a discussion about Christian apologetics once said that one need not defend a lion. What we must do however is “Let the Lion out of the Cage.” We must do the same thing in Christian Psychology and counseling.

This Lion would shock the mental health world, not only because of his power, but also because of his grace. He is not safe, but he is good.

Thus, it would seem to me that our particularly Christian worldview and the mega-narrative of the Gospel subverts and redeems the foundational narratives and metaphysical, epistemological, and anthropological presuppositions of the secular psychologies, rather than offering up junior versions of their systems.

by Sam R. Williams, Ph.D.

In my previous post, I posed a question about labels in Christian Counseling –integrated Christian counseling and biblical counseling, from my perspective anyway, being the most contemporary and popular.
In this post, I’d like to back the truck up a bit and ask another question that begs to be asked: What makes Christian counseling “Christian”? What is it that makes the adjective “Christian” an appropriate description of a given type of counseling?

The phrase CC is not copyrighted, so at the end of the day, it belongs to the public domain…every person will do what is right in their own eyes, and also coram Deo.

However, it does seem that simple respect for the fair and accurate use of words, not to mention respect for Christ and the root meaning of the word Christian – belonging to or resembling Christ; follower of Christ – makes this important.

AACC’s Christian Care Network provides a list of licensed or certified professional “offering care that is distinctively Christian” …so my question is what does, or should, make counseling “distinctively Christian?”
How is it that counseling might belong to or resemble or follow Christ?

Wade, Worthington, and Vogel (2007) in a recent Psychotherapy Research article, “Effectiveness of religiously tailored interventions in Christian therapy” acknowledged a lack of consensus in defining CC:

exploring Christian therapy empirically is complicated because there appears to be no clearly demarcated form of Christian therapy. It is defined variously as treatment offered by a therapist who is Christian, therapy using methods consistent with a Christian worldview, therapy using Christian practices such as prayer, or therapy that advertises itself as explicitly Christian. However, Christian therapy in general appears to share at least two characteristics: (a) It is labeled as explicitly Christian in orientation by the therapist or agency despite the fact that it may use many or a few techniques that are explicitly tailored to Christians (e.g., reading Scripture, praying), and (b) it attempts to provide clients who profess a commitment to Christianity with therapists who share that conviction. As a result, we have used these two characteristics to define Christian therapy for the purpose of this investigation. We note that, according to our definition, the therapists might or might not (a) self-identify as Christians (although it is reasonable to suspect that most will) or (b) use techniques that are explicitly tailored to Christians (e.g., quoting the Bible, praying).

So, in this study, W, W, and V settle for the least common denominator: CC is defined by the mere label (without regard for contents) and its recipients.

Is anyone happy with that definition??? Nonetheless, is this not the way it is, in vivo?

Houston, we have a problem here.

[This is the first post for August 2008 by guest blogger Dr. Sam Williams. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Counseling at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC and member of this Society. ]

It is interesting how often my own critical railings loop around and end up in my own front yard. I was recently taken to task by my friend Mike McGuire for using the terms “integrationism” and “biblical counseling” as a moniker for two of the more prominent types of Christian Counseling. (You can read more about that in the pending issue of Edification, the new journal for the Society for Christian Psychology.)

As a southwestern hippie (Phoenix, Tucson, San Diego), my own soul resonates reflexively with the “Don’t fence me in!” mentality. My default nature hates boxes and labels. I’m the kid on Christmas morning that tears boxes up to get at what’s inside - not the one who carefully detaches the ribbons and tape, gently removes the wrapping, and opens the box tidily to preserve it for future use. I don’t mean to tout that as a virtue – just as the way it is. As a Christian, semper reformandum is easier for me than the solas.

As I review my own course as a Christian psychologist, movement and transition are as prominent, and sometimes more so, than particular commitments. My transitions have been from pagan to Christian, and then within that worldview from perspectivalist to integrationist to biblical counselor to Christian psychology with biblical counseling as the preferred counseling mode.

I thought I would move the discussion toward two correlated topics:

1) Our journeys (sorry, I hate that word too…) as psychologists and counselors trying to practice/minister in such a way that our understanding of persons/problems/change becomes more accurate and our care for others more effective. How have you arrived at the point that you’re at now and what do you see God doing now as he chisels and molds your clay feet?

2) What about the boxes??? Should we do away with them? Are they helpful…or merely necessary evils? Do they create more problems than they solve? What label would you choose for yourself?

David Powlison once proposed two acronyms as a way around the liability of labels: VITEX (for Christian counseling models that believe that secular psychology makes vital external contributions) and COMPIN (for Christian counseling models that believe the Bible contains comprehensive or sufficient internal resources).

Others have proposed spectrums to describe the variety of Christian counseling models and counselors. Are the labels Christian Integration, Biblical Counseling, Christian Psychology legitimate and fair-minded ways to denominate what you’re up to? If so, how do they help?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[moderator’s note: this post is written by our director, Dr. Eric Johnson of Southern Seminary, and continues his theme of reviewing and reinterpreting key words in the field of psychology.]

Every well-developed psychology should have some model of human maturity, which should include some concept for the process of change and some idea of the goal towards which human maturation is heading. Maslow’s model of both has been widely adopted within modern psychology. It uses the term self-actualization for the maturation process and self-actualizing person as its goal. Should Christians adopt this terminology, or should we use some distinctively Christian terms to label the Christian process and goal?

From a Christian standpoint, there are a number of problems with Maslow’s humanistic notions on human maturation.

1. As understood by Maslow, self-actualization has to be interpreted literally. The self actualizes itself, exclusively. God is not intrinsic to the process Maslow is describing.
2. That is one reason why, according to Maslow (1954, pp. 7, 221), believers in dogmatic religions (like Judaism and Christianity) were unable to attain this level. Christians should assume Maslow understand his concept well and accept his interpretation of it.
3. In the Christianity scheme, the natural self is fallen, so Christian maturation requires the death of the self, in order to attain a new resurrected self (Ro 6:1-11). This is antithetical to Maslow’s model.

Sanctification is the term used in theology for Christian maturation. However, in every conceivable way, Jesus Christ is the real focal point for Christian maturation, so maybe there is a better term.

1. Christ is the image of God, the fulfillment of human nature, and therefore the exemplar of Christian maturity.
2. It is solely because of his life, death, and resurrection that Christians are able to mature Christianly.
3. He sent the Holy Spirit who alone gives us the capacity to mature Christianly and Christ now intercedes for us on the journey.
4. Therefore, the process of Christian maturation is sometimes called conformity to Christ (Php 3:10; Ro 8:29) or Christiformity, and the image of Christ is considered the goal of Christian maturation (Ro 8:29), which has been called Christlikeness.
5. The highest activity of the Christian is love. Christian maturation is intrinsically relational, and is not exclusively oriented around the individual self.

To be faithful to its distinctive orientation, Christian psychology needs terms that capture how central Christ is to the Christian maturational process and goal and how it is a fundamentally relational system, and not ultimately individualistic.

References
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

[Moderator note: This is the third post for June 2008 from our Director, Dr. Eric Johnson (Southern Seminary)]

The term “narcissism” deserves careful analysis from a Christian standpoint. In popular culture, it means a trait of self-centeredness and has negative connotations. However, contributors to object relations theory and self psychology have suggested that humans are born with narcissism, and if children are properly affirmed and challenged, they will grow up with healthy narcissism, that helps them meet their needs and realize their goals, while relating lovingly to others and respecting their needs and goals as well. Problems arise, they suggest, when children are not properly affirmed and challenged, leading them, in extreme cases, to develop narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), which is characterized by an inappropriate sense of self-importance and superiority over others, yet a strong need to be appreciated by others, and a pronounced sensitivity to criticism, all of which illustrates an ongoing effort to repair oneself from earlier relational deprivation.

The following are a few reasons why I think Christians should avoid using the word narcissism in a positive sense, as in “healthy narcissism.”

1) Narcissism was derived from the myth of Narcissus. He was a good-looking lad who fell in love with his image in a pool, became fixated with it, and fell into the pool and drowned. So the origins of the term suggest something unhealthy.
2) Sin is the biblical word for the native self-centeredness with which all humans are born. So narcissism would seem to be a good psychological word for this aspect of sin.
3) Christians have also historically recognized (e.g., Augustine, Jonathan Edwards) that God loves himself supremely. However, his self-love is Trinitarian, consisting of the mutual love of the trinity, so God’s self-love is intrinsically relational. For these and other reasons, we would never say that God is narcissistic in his self-love. Such Christians also concluded that God designed humans with a legitimate self-regard or self-love, similar to the self-preservation instinct of animals, and considered this to be part of the image of God, picturing the self-love that characterizes God, particularly as it develops into neighbor love. However, humans are to love God supremely (like God loves himself) and themselves and others secondarily (like God loves his creation).
4) Sin, however, has distorted and perversely radicalized our created self-love, resulting in a universal narcissism that promotes self above all else and therefore resists God’s supremacy.
5) Improper parenting can aggravate these conditions, resulting in NPD.
6) But the “healthy narcissism” found in “normal” humans, who live as the center of their universe and neglect their Creator, is ultimately no better, no healthier from a Christian standpoint.
7) Therefore, we ought to clearly distinguish sin’s distorted self-love from God’s design for humans. One way to do so would be to use the term narcissism only for that which is always unhealthy and antithetical to the theocentric orientation for which God designed humans, reserving it for the inappropriate self-centeredness of humans that flows from sin, including its distortions in NPD as well as the motivational orientation of apparently “healthy” humans who seek to live independently of God, using other terms—like self-regard or legitimate self-love—for good, God-created motives.

by Eric Johnson, Director of the SCP. This is his second post for the month of June. Dr. Johnson teaches at Southern Seminary, Louisville, KY and is the author of a recent text, Foundations for Soul Care, available from InterVarsity Press.

This month we are considering how words function in a human science like psychology, where one’s interpretations are often necessarily shaped by one’s worldview beliefs. This week we shall consider two levels at which words (and concepts) operate: a generic level, where different worldview communities can share a general definition of a concept, and a community-specific level, where the same topic is viewed within one worldview community. Let us consider the subject of wisdom. Over the past 20 years, wisdom has been the focus of increasing interest in psychology, especially in positive psychology. Of special note is the Berlin wisdom paradigm, in which wisdom is defined as “an expertise in the conduct and meaning of life” (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000, p. 124). This is a fine, broad definition for the general category of wisdom, under which every worldview community’s understanding of wisdom could presumably fit.

However, most well-developed worldview communities will have a distinct understanding of wise conduct and the meaning of life. A Christian psychology, for example, will define the meaning of life in theocentric terms, emphasizing some features over others. So a definition of Christian wisdom might be that it consists of excellent knowledge and love of the triune God, of others, and of oneself in Christ, formed in Christian community through grace-based, skilled practice, that enables one to work at overcoming evil and suffering in oneself, others, and the world.

This Christian definition is more wordy, but it is just as psychological as is the more generic definition. Neither the general concept nor the community-specific concept is more scientific than the other; they simply refer to different levels of the concept—one is broader in its application, the other applies only to a specific community with certain worldview beliefs that shape its understanding of wisdom. But both kinds of definition are necessarily part of a comprehensive, pluralistic psychology that aims at describing the wisdom of all human beings. And a Christian psychology can affirm them both.

The mistake of modernism (and modern psychology) has been to think that only the general (universal?) kind of definition was scientific—implicitly supposing that psychological concepts that only applied to one community would not be scientific. But that bias was due to positivist assumptions, and was a result of insufficient awareness of how worldview beliefs shape the human sciences. From a postmodern standpoint, such assumptions are no longer valid.

Reference
Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 122-136.

By Eric Johnson, Director of the SCP

This month we’re going to talk about words. One of the greatest challenges facing a Christian psychology has to do with language. All science is a function of language and is based on written texts, so the project of a Christian psychology has to be concerned about words.

What makes our task difficult today is the fact that contemporary Western science is dominated by naturalism and secularism, and psychology is no exception. As a result, a vast psychological literature has been written by the secular majority over the past 100 years. How ought Christian psychologists to deal with these texts?

The response of hyper-conservatives is the simple rejection of all words originated by secular psychologists. Counseling and diagnostic terms are considered especially offensive, for example, “cognitive-behavioral therapy” or “personality disorders”. In their defense, some caution here is in order, because such areas are more likely to be distorted by secular bias. But a more careful analysis of most such words will lead to the conclusion that the real problem is usually not the words themselves, but the worldview that contributes to their secular interpretation.

A special vocabulary is basic to a science. As scientists explore God’s creation, they discover new features of the world that have not been recognized before, so they have to devise new labels. As a result, Christians must resist a mindset that rejects all such terms, simply because of their source. Philosophers call such a reason the “genetic fallacy” and consider it invalid. Scientific terms should simply be evaluated in terms of whether they in fact label a feature of reality (e.g., some counseling strategies are more mental and warrant the label “cognitive”; some characteristics can be properly organized as a “personality disorder”). Christians simply must interpret them according to their own worldview.

When Christians identify terms that are distorted by a secular worldview, in some cases, they must reject them, and in other cases, it will be good enough to reinterpret them Christianly. But generally speaking, it would be silly for Christian psychologists to invent new Christian terms for phenomena that have already been designated with valid labels in contemporary psychology. To do so, would be to despise the gifts of the Holy Spirit from whom all truth ultimately is derived. So Christian psychologists should thank God for the development of an accurate, sophisticated, and comprehensive psychological vocabulary, and work with other worldview communities on its development

Mike McGuire
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

The saying “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” appears to apply not only to groups, but to individuals, for sin has been observed to be pervasive. To combine this with the idea of sin as pollution (see my last blog) is to realize that the corrupting influence of sin pervades all that we are individually and socially. Now, how might this pervasiveness of pollution provide potential insights for a Christian view of human dysfunction?
First, we might consider what we learn about humans from the Bible and think about what these aspects might be as they were fully functional in a pre-fallen state. If we observe humans as they are described in the Bible, we find they are physical, spiritual, moral, thinking, feeling, language using, sexual, familial, and social creatures, and we find they were placed in the perfect environment for such creatures to thrive. Thus each aspect functioned properly individually and one would reasonably expect that they functioned together in an integrated fashion. We also discover from the Bible that humans were created this way in order to exercise dominion over the earth and in order to fill the earth and subdue it for God.

Second, with this done, we might want to think through what it might mean for each of these aspects to be polluted by sin and thus for each aspect to dysfunction (assuming a pervasive sinfulness produces a pervasive dysfunction). Thus we humans become dysfunctional physically, spiritually, morally, cognitively, emotionally, linguistically, sexually, familially, and socially. Our God given ability to have dominion becomes dysfunctional. Sex and reproduction become dysfunctional. The integrity of the original humans becomes a bit disintegrated. Our thinking doesn’t quite line up with our feelings and our intentions don’t quite line up with our behaviors.

Now, if this brief analysis is correct, then sin is far more complex that we usually think of it. First, sin is not merely a moral fault: it pollutes that which was well designed, it corrupts it, and it causes it to dysfunction. Thus, moral reformation is thus not sufficient to cure all human dysfunction. Adding less pollution may prove helpful, but it doesn’t necessarily return the organism to a functional state. Second, this analysis describes the types of problems that people bring to counselors. Just reread the list and compare it to your counselees. Third, one does not have to be very creative to see the similarity of this list of dysfunctional aspects of humans and the history of counseling theories. Consider behavioral theories, developmental theories, cognitive theories, moral theories, cognitive-behavioral theories, family theories, postmodern (linguistic) theories, and biological theories. These theoreticians are not blind to the dysfunction; they are only blind to the divinely revealed, spiritual aspects of the dysfunction. They do not understand its ultimate cause and its true context. Fourth, the ultimate cleansing has been prepared, and we groan together with the creation waiting for that time. Fifth, until that time people need others who understand the cause and the context and who are willing to wade into the pollution found in this present world in order to help.

[Guest blogger Dr. Michael McGuire of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary considers the topic of sin from the perspective of Christian Psychology in the first of two posts]

The media is permeated with the compelling image of pollution damaging some pristine ecosystem, an image that portends problem for all humanity. Allow me to use this powerful image to launch a brief consideration of sin and Christian psychology.

In the biblical meta-narrative, God created a universe that was good, harmonious, and at peace. It functioned as it was designed to function. He populated this creation with creatures (angels, humans, and beasts), and He placed humans in a garden where they could live, work, get to know Him, and raise a family. Yet, the humans disobeyed the one rule He had given. They sinned and God placed creation under a curse. We observe Adam and Eve hiding from one anther and then from God. We see them blame others. Work becomes difficult. There are thorns. One child kills the other. Within a few chapters we discover that God needs to destroy most of humanity in order to cleanse the earth from its moral pollution.

Thus sin can be seen as a type of pollution that damages, disrupts and corrupts God’s harmonious creation. Now, this is not a new insight merely following our society’s present focus on the environment, for as seen above, this image is biblical. In addition, this concept can be found in some systematic theologies (for example, “pollution” in Berkhof and “corruption” in Grudem, and “defilement” in Culver).

Before going further, let me make it clear that I am not suggesting this is the only way to think about sin, for the Bible is rich in descriptive words for sin. Sin is characterized as darkness, death, ignorance, wandering off the path, falling short of the mark, and alienation. Yet, each of these negative descriptions of sin corresponds to a positive description of God and what He offers. He offers light, knowledge, life, the path, the standard and reconciliation. Although many of these descriptions are relevant to human behavior and thus Christian psychology, I want us to think about conceptualizing sin as pollution. This way of thinking about sin strikes me as particularly germane to our interests.

How so? The biblical meta-narrative presents the original universe at rest, and it conceives of the final state in a very similar way. The problems that occur in between are then associated with the time of sin and curse. Or we might say that God created a functional creation, sin polluted creation causing dysfunction, and God will one day again make things functional. This is relevant to those interested in Christian psychology for we live in this “in between time,” this time of dysfunction. We see individuals, marriages, and families that are not functioning as God designed them to function. We can at times make out the beauty of the original design, but we also see pollution, some tracing its origin to the original pollution, some created by other humans, and some self-generated. Even those who have sought to avoid the corruption that is in the world find themselves vexed by the pollution around them. One must wonder what the incarnation might have been like for the second member of the Trinity. The pure One living in a morally polluted and dysfunctional world. Little wonder that He was predicted by Isaiah to be a “man of sorrows.”

Thus, conceptualizing sin as pollutions is particularly relevant to those interested in thinking Christianly about humans, including their functioning and dysfunctioning. This is an image that we should recapture, for the image likely draws its remarkable force from the original moral pollution, that destroyed the original pristine environment, and that portended untold problems for all humanity.

[Editor’s note: This is the last post for the month of March, 2008. This post is the second of two from Wolfram Soldan of IGNIS.]

Last week we compared the Christian and secular approaches to virtue in general. This week I would like to take a look at the six core-virtues developed by Peterson & Seligman (2004) in their important, but secular catalogue of the virtues. As I mentioned last week, there are corresponding biblical terms, so I have added the key Greek terms to show the biblical origins of the Christian understanding of the core-virtues.
• Wisdom and knowledge (sophia, words derived from ginosko): Bible and Positive Psychology similarly understand wisdom as the practice of “the good life” and don’t equate it with intelligence. But in the Bible the aim of human wisdom and knowledge is directed explicitly to God and is closely tied to intimate and obedient relationship with him. This connection is made throughout the entire Bible, in doctrinal passages (e.g., Col 2:2), as well as proverbs, parables, and narratives.
• Courage (hypomone): Most often the Bible speaks about this topic in opposition to fear especially the fear of man. But the concept “endurance” (hypomone) comes close to the definition of courage developed by Peterson & Seligman. Even so, this term is also more associated with one’s relationship to God than with stable human traits (see for example to story of Peter in Jo 13: 38, 18:10f, 26f, 21:15ff).
• Love (agape): Humans are connected to each other by altruistic love according to Peterson & Seligman. Although Christians often consider agape to be the highest virtue, it is clear that in biblical understanding it is something that comes entirely from God, as a fruit (Gal 5:22), as a way (1Co 12:31b), as an outpouring (Rm 5:5), and at last even as God in the person of Christ (1Jn 4:16).
• Justice (dikaiosyne): The Bible and Positive Psychology agree that justice should rule social human relationships. Justice, however, in the Bible is based in one’s relationship to God (e.g., Mt 5:20, 6:33) and His (eternal) reign. (e.g. Ps 15, Prov 11) that consider the character-trait aspect, Paul is stressing the character of gift or grace so much, that justice as a (mere) human character-trait almost is vanishing. But even in the OT the justice of God or given by God is the much more important and more frequently mentioned topic than the aspect of character trait.
• Temperence (enkrateia): Very near to the meaning offered by Peterson & Seligman is the Greek root “enkrat(eia)” that does not convey the relational dimension as much as the other biblical virtue-terms do. But it is not often used (6 times: 3 times as a noun, elsewhere as a verb or adjective), and some Bible translations misread it as “abstinence” instead of temperance. The long passage on virtue in 2Pe 1 is very interesting. It contains several virtue-terms (besides one of the few uses of the term virtue itself, it includes the already mentioned endurance, and love as the ultimate goal), but all in a very clear relational context to God in an interesting hierarchical ordinance. In the middle of this list is enkrateia.
• Transcendence obviously is much more personal, intense, intimate and specific in its meaning in the Bible than one will find in contemporary Positive Psychology. In fact, the abstract term “transcendence” has no place in the Bible, since it doesn’t make a philosophical distinction between a divine and a creational realm, so much as a division between holy and unholy.

So a look at individual virtues underscores last week’s point that the virtues in the Bible have basically a relational quality, particularly focused on God. This leads us to question the modern Positive Psychology emphasis on virtues as stable character traits. Also, the possibility of faking the virtues is taken for granted. With this background, basing one’s science of the virtues on self-report questionnaires seems highly questionable (cf., Ps 139:23f). The very dynamic, theocentric and relational orientation to the virtues in the Bible makes it highly relevant to therapy, but it would seem to pose a big problem for serious empirical research (especially quantitative).

References

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Editor’s note: This posting is from Wolfram Soldan, colleague of Kathrin Halder at IGNIS–this month’s blogger.

I am not a “virtue-psychologist.” I encountered the topic while studying the opposite area of “sin” within the scope of forgiveness. Nevertheless I made some interesting discoveries, when I traced the concept in the Christian Bible.

We might say that the “Virtue-Bible” of positive psychology is Seligman and Peterson’s (2004) Character Strengths and Virtues, and it uses very ambitious expressions for describing the topic, e.g.: “fulfillment”, “the good life for oneself and for others”, “… effort, the willful choice and pursuit over time of morally praiseworthy activities” (p 17). The Authors try to distill six supposedly trans-cultural “core moral virtues” (p28f): “wisdom and knowledge,” “courage,” “humanity” (including love), “justice,” “temperance,” and “transcendence.”

As we will see, the Bible includes the term “virtue” (Gk. arete) as well as terms that correspond to the six “core virtues”: wisdom/sophia/knowledge/gnosis, courage/hypomone, love/agape, justice/dikaiosyne, temperance/enkrateia, transcendence/phobos theou). Of course, the interpretion of such important words is necessarily complex, so not everyone will agree my choices, but I invite you to investigate them for yourself.

The contemporary movement of positive psychology is dealing with very important topics that up to now only theologians or philosophers worked on. The merit of positive psychology is to highlight moral reality, which were not investigated by modern psychology for decades, because of its positivistic paradigm.

In typical modern psychology research, secular positive psychology authors stress the following qualities:
• measurability (in self-report questionnaires),
• trans-cultural generalizibility and
• the study of long-term individual, character-traits

However, questions can be raised about all three of these characteristics, as far as moral virtues are concerned, as we will see. On the other hand, sometimes the secular study of the core-virtues makes mention of their relational quality.

If I compare their orientation with the Bible’s approach to these topics, some significant distinctives can be seen:
The abstract term “virtue” is rare in the Bible. One finds “arête” in only two passages, used a total of four times; and none of them in the Old Testament (OT). “Arete” has a very specific meaning. To show this I will translate from the German Dictionary of the New Testament (Bauer/Aland 1988). “In the usual meaning of good behaviour, virtue … Phl 4:8 … 2Pe 1:5. … according to a linguistic usage that utilizes arete and doxa as synonyms and also finds his expression in the assorting of both terms beyond the OT (Is 42:8,12), the Septuagint renders hod, glory, brilliance (Hab 3:3; Zech 6:13), and also tohila, praise, extolling (Is) with arete.… Godly (showing of his) power, miracle, … also the strength of God. This is surely the meaning in 2Pe 1:3.” Both New Testament passages put “virtue” in the context of the grace and power of God, of faith and peace, and most importantly, a close relation with God (Phl: being in Christ. In 2 Peter, to being participants in God’s nature).

To summarize: Though the abstract term “virtue” is rare in the Bible, when mentioned it has to do mainly with a dynamic relation(ship) with God as its aim and center. Individual human character traits (the primary focus of secular positive psychology) is subordinate to this central relationship.

References
1. Bauer, W. (1988). Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. Berlin/New York: deGruyter

2. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Doing something that can really be called Christian Psychology greatly challenges us not only to change some of the content of our teaching, to add some Christian aspects, but to allow for a new paradigm of how to do research and how to teach. One of those fundamental paradigm shifts I want to focus on in this post is the shift of attention from the recognition object to the recognition subject.

While the common scientific paradigm calls a result valid only if it can be scrutinized by everybody, a biblical scientific paradigm focuses on specific features of a researcher’s heart as a prerequisite of a valid outcome of his studies. Although these prerequisites include a schooling of the intellect (where modernism could agree), this is not the main focus. In biblical thinking a researcher’s heart, the growth in his relationship with Jesus, his love and obedient submission to God will be first and foremost core prerequisites for a valid outcome in the most important questions and issues of life (of course not talking about all questions e.g. in biochemistry, neuroscience etc.). Real perception in main matters is not subject to our own good will, to common ways of scientific striving, to money released for research, but is dependent on revelation by God, is dependent on the right eye of the recipient as the famous philosopher and theologian Romano Guardini puts it:

“The prerequisite of recognition is, that the person has a right eye and ear for it… The most gloriest piece of art work can be there; but when somebody only has an eye for technical or economic matters, he might look at it, but he will not see, what is actually there.” (Guardini, 1976, p.22)

Many biblical references and Christian authors are unified in the answer to the question how we obtain revelation, how we get that right eye: “The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge.” (Pro. 1, 7) “Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.” (John 14, 21)

Calvin challenges to see the world through “biblical spectacles” (Calvin, 1960), Johann Georg Hamann to perceive it as a “philologus crucis” (Hempelmann, 1988, p.32), Anselm of Canterbury speaks of “credo ut intelligam” and Oswald Chambers focuses on our obedience as core prerequisite to revelation: “The revelations of God are sealed until we open them up by our obedience. They will never be opened up by your philosophing and thinking.” (Chambers, 1961, p.284)

Biblical thinking connects knowledge and obedient action closly. When somebody hears from God, hears His message in reality and acts not upon it, he will not understand, he will be like the man that forgets his image in the mirror: “Or if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror. He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like.” (James 1, 23-24)

When you read that far, you might be disappointed with this post, because it is not really new. Probably you heard of this connection of obedient action and knowledge before, perhaps you already reflected and perhaps even taught it.

But my question to myself and all of us is, whether we really live it. Is it not one more of those teachings we know very well, that we all nod our heads to, but that we finally leave in church (and/or confine it to themes directly related with the knowledge of God)? Does this connection really penetrate our entire professional life, are we really aware that it is God that in the end closes and discloses reality to us? Are we really aware that our heart, our attitudes, our loves don’t only have a vast impact on our sanctification, on our relationships, marriage etc., but also on our research activity as Christian Psychologists? Have we really understood that any study we do, is biblically to be called a vanity unless we as researchers are also changed by it? Do we know that we can’t claim to have studied forgiveness or love (or many other relevant subjects to Christian Psychology), if we can’t also claim that we came closer to the mystery of these matters, that we were touched deeply by God and were made able to live more forgiveness and love in our own lives.

We as Christian Psychologists need all the intellect and training we can get. We need to learn common strategies of how research is done. But above that we need a changed heart, a heart that acts upon God’s revelation so far received, so that He can reveal more and lead us as researchers more and more deeply into the mystery of man.

Calvin J. (1960). Institutes of the Christian religion. Philadelphia: Westminster

Chambers, Oswald (1961): Mein Äußerstes für sein Höchtes. Bern: Berchtold Haller Verlag

Guardini, Romano (1976): Die Existenz des Christen. München/Paderborn/Wien: Ferdinand Schönigh Verlag

Hempelmann, Heinzpeter (1988): „Gott ein Schriftsteller!“ Die Schriftlehre Johann Georg Hamanns und ihre hermeneutischen Konsequenzen. In: Theologische Beiträge, 19.Jg. 1988/3, Stuttgart: Brockhaus Verlag

[Editor’s note: This is the first posting for March, 2008 from guest blogger, Kathrin Halder. Ms. Halder is dean of a study program at IGNIS, a Christian Psychology program in Germany.]

Worship totally depends on our attitude of heart before God, on God’s blessing and not on our musical abilities…
“ok and that means that it doesn’t matter at all when it sounds totally awkward, we just suffer silently?”

We don’t need any more teachings that stuff our brain with knowledge, but we need messages that touch the heart… “…and when Christians stay academically ignorant, it is seen as a virtue?”

God does everything that matters in our life…
“…and that means we can just sit back and do nothing?”

Christian Therapy lives from spiritual and relational elements…
“and that means we don’t need real therapeutic techniques?”

Again and again I am confronted with and participate in such discussions, where different aspects of a theme are played off against others. Every side stresses something that can rightfully be considered as important and valuable. And I notice, more and more, how we try to make our life, that is full of of tensions and antagonisms, easier. I notice how we try to make themes that are defined by (seemingly) contradicting aspects, more understandable and manageable by just stressing one side of the “truth”.

And I notice that the first, obvious way for a solution that lies in the direction of an “AND instead of an OR” falls short, when we just mean to juxtapose the contradicting aspects. Three ideas regarding “the preceding and the secondary” finally helped me to word the related connection:

1. There is something “preceding,” that actually is of greater importance.
2. But the second aspect, the “secondary,” may not be neglected or underestimated.
3. And every understanding of the “secondary” must be shaped by the “preceding.”

Of course God’s working in our lives is the preceding, of course it is His grace that our growth and sanctification depend upon. But the necessity to become active, to frame our lives, to work on our growth actively may never be neglected. But the way how we frame our lives must be characterized by the preceding, as we are invited to ask God how we should answer to His working in our life, which steps we should take in detail.

And surely spiritual elements, the learning on a relational level is the preceding of Christian therapy. But the importance of good therapeutical techniques may not be underestimated. But the selection of the techniques, the answer to the question what to choose from a vast choice should be determined by the preceding, by our understanding of man as a relational being.

So I wish all of us, that we admit to the complexity of our existence, that we allow for the AND of different aspects also regarding our favorite themes.

This is my last installment of the SCP blog for February. We are continuing our discussion of Tjeltveit’s book, Ethics and Values in Psychotherapy. Although I will not be able to finish the discussion of Tjeltveit’s book on the SCP blog, I will continue a discussion of it on my blog, and readers are welcome to follow along there (www.psychologyandchristianity.wordpress.com).

In Chapter 7 Tjeltveit discusses the “social context of psychotherapy.” That is, he locates the practice of psychotherapy in the context of how it functions within society. He discusses psychotherapy’s medical heritage including bioethics and medical ethics and the two emphases of “the idea of the professional and a focus on the individual client” (p. 132). Other influences from medicine include reductionism in the form of limiting psychotherapy’s focus to a medical focus of symptom reduction. He seems to suggest that there is much more to biopsychosocial problems than merely what is understood in terms of a “medical issue”.

The other major social context in which psychotherapy occurs is business. Psychotherapy has become a “business relationship” (p. 139) in which there is an exchange of services that occurs in the context of economics (in which resources either contribute or impeded goals being met) and limited financial resources (of third-party payors, including government, insurance companies, employers, and so on). Tjeltveit observes that there is a risk of a kind of “ethical reductionism” (p. 141) to the extent that businesses “consider economic considerations alone” (p. 141).

I agree with Tjeltveit that psychotherapy occurs in the social contexts of its medical heritage and business. The challenge for Christian psychology is to reflect upon these social contexts and make intentional decisions about how Christian psychology ought to function within culture and society – to cast a vision for such innovative practice. I dare say that most Christians practicing clinical psychology and related mental health disciplines - most Christians providing psychotherapy - do so out of these social contexts but do not reflect upon the heritage or consider the implications.

Let’s think about this: How do you see these social contexts shaping the field and the practice of Christian practice for good or for ill? For example, the use of the “50-minute hour,” the fee for service model, and billing services to insurance or employers. What would a distinctively Christian psychology have looked like had it not been shaped as much as it has been by these social contexts? Are there places in our culture where this is occuring? How might we develop innovative practice in this area?

We have been learning about ethics from Alan Tjeltveit’s book, Ethics and Values in Psychotherapy. Last week we discussed the distinction between being an ethicist and being a moralist. In Chapter 5 Tjeltveit takes on the issues related to ways people understand “values.” He says, “We need to move beyond recognizing that ‘Therapy is not value-free’ to a well-developed understanding of the ways in which it is value-laden.” (p. 83).He then unpacks a few approaches to values (from pp. 84-85):

• values as psychological (e.g., when Skinner defines something as good based on how much reinforcement it provides; it simply describes what is valued)
• values as ethical (e.g., what ought to be valued rather than merely an account of what is desired)
• values as a means by which the powerful impose their will on the weak (an assertion, really, by those in power)
• values as choices (to be a genuine, authentic value is to have been chosen freely)
• values as authentic expressions of an individual’s nature (self-actualization)
• values as cultural and historical (context-specific)

When I first read the various approaches to values, I was struck by the variety, of course, but also what is often implicit in psychotherapy today. There are a lot of implicit assumptions about values based upon what is a genuinely free choice, what is authentic (because of our field’s emphasis on self-actualization), and, more recently, perhaps due to the influence of post-modernism, what is valued within a culture and what is imposed (by the majority, the privileged) on others (the marginalized). It isn’t always consistent, either. Nor is it taught explicitly. But these approaches to values exist in the field today and enjoy their status without having been argued for explicitly.

So what do you think? What is your definition of values? What definition of values best reflects a distinctively Christian psychology? How might one’s definition influence one’s clinical practice? Can definitions (of values) be matched with specific purposes in psychotherapy?

[Editor’s note: Mark Yarhouse is blogging for us during the month of February.]

Let’s continue our discussion of a couple of specific and relevant concepts from Alan Tjeltveit’s book, Ethics and Values in Psychotherapy, In chapter three Tjeltveit defines an ethicist, and he makes the distinction between psychotherapist as ethicist and moralist. An ethicist is someone who has knowledge and perhaps training, who shows discernment, careful evaluation, and good judgment, and who is recognized for these qualities within a community. Ethicists hold ethical convictions and influence others either directly or indirectly. According to Tjeltveit, a psychotherapist/ethicist can function in many ways, such as teaching, consulting, coaching, and advocacy, to name a few.

Tjeltveit contrasts being an ethicist with being a moralist. While an ethicist creates space for others to reason, draw their own conclusions, and make their own decisions, a moralist is one who attempts to impose his or her beliefs upon others.

One of the main fears secular psychologists appear to have about Christian psychologists is that Christian psychologists will function as moralists in therapy. My question is whether that is a legitimate concern? What influences exist that would lead a Christian psychotherapist toward being either an ethicist or a moralist? Do these same concerns exist for other psychotherapists? In other words, we do not want to treat Christian psychotherapists as different from other psychotherapists, if the same concerns exist for others who provide therapy out of central, organizing convictions about significant aspects of reality.

[Editor’s Note: This entry marks our first for February from guest blogger, Mark A. Yarhouse, PsyD. Mark is Professor of Psychology at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia, where he is the integration coordinator and directs the Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity. Consider joining him on his blog, Psychology and Christianity, as he discusses integration in his spring courses (Ethics and Family Therapy).]

I teach in the Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology at Regent University. In our Ethics course this spring we are reading Ethics and Values in Psychotherapy by Alan Tjeltveit. Although we read another book by Celia Fisher on the ethics code, we read Tjeltveit to think more rigorously about values in psychotherapy. In any case, we recently discussed the first couple of chapters. Here’s a brief summary.

Tjeltveit’s thesis is that psychotherapy is value-laden – that it is invariably value-laden. In the opening two chapters he lays this out and in chapter one, especially, identifies competing views. Here they are:
• Psychotherapy is inconsequentially value-laden
• Psychotherapy involves only mental health values
• Clients alone should choose therapy values
• Psychotherapy ought to be based on science, not values
• It is meaningless to claim that values or ethical assertions in psychotherapy can be true or correct
• Psychotherapy is not value-free. So what?

He unpacks the meaning of each competing claim and then points out the difficulties inherent in that claim. For instance, the claim that Psychotherapy is inconsequentially value-laden makes the assertion that, yes, the psychotherapist could say to a client, “You should honor your marriage vow and return to your spouse and fulfill your responsibilities to your children” (p. 3). But what do most psychotherapists actually do? They say something like, “Sounds like you’re really feeling sad. How long has this been going on?” (p. 4). Tjeltveit’s response is to say is such a response really neutral? Or are their implicit values in responses we commonly identify as neutral?

His thesis is that psychotherapy is value-laden and that therapy - all therapy - necessarily involves goals that are value-laden. Goals reflect commitments to values and an ethical theory (at least an implicit one), and Tjeltveit reasons that it can be helpful to reflect on ethical convictions and theories.

This may not sound groundbreakig depending upon your starting point. However, you may have come across professionals who make the competing assertions noted above.

Let’s get into it: What do you make of Tjeltveit’s thesis? What are your thougths about the competing views? What are the implications of the various approaches to values for a Christian psychology?

[Editor’s note: this is the last post by our January 2008 guest blogger, Dr. Edward Welch (Westminster Seminary, Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation). In this post Ed shares his concern that in our search for counseling methodologies we may unintentionally separate counseling from the Gospel.]

I anticipated a few more comments from the 1/21/08 posting about psychotherapy. In it I professed my confusion about the prominence of psychotherapy within Christian counseling, and I suggested that there is no reason for the category to exist since Scripture already addresses the matters taken up by Christian psychotherapy. I proposed that the real issue is this: how do we access and apply Scripture on topics that don’t appear in a Bible concordance?

Here is an example of how psychotherapy sneaks into biblical practice. I spoke to a woman this week about panic attacks. At first glance, Scripture is silent on these problems, but, of course, when we really listen to someone describe panic attacks they are all about fear and its physical accompaniments. With fear as the issue, Scripture is a fathomless well. It seems to specialize in fear.

Now let’s say that we have found some wonderful teaching (e.g., Ps.56:3, Ps. 27, Ps. 46, 1 Pet.5:7) and we have linked that teaching to the benefits of the cross. So far so good, but let’s say that this woman is unmoved by it all. Now what?

Off we go to the internet and find volumes on panic attacks. We browse Barnes and Noble and find practical workbooks. Now we are on to something. The spiritual teaching of Scripture can be augmented, we think, or replaced, by the very practical steps in the panic literature.

What might be happening in this scenario is that we are unskilled in biblical application. Scripture doesn’t supply an exhaustive methodology for anything. If it did, such a manual would certainly take the fun out of ministry. Instead, we are given with the wonderful opportunity of making Scripture accessible and meaningful. We are equipped with life-changing truth and love, then we engage in the challenging task of putting this into a specific methodology. Along the way we glean methodological ideas from friends, panic workbooks, and anything else as they come to the service of progressive sanctification in a person’s life, but these methodological slivers (e.g., consider contributing factors, carry a paper bag) simply spawn creative ideas on how to apply the biblical material that we already have. The problem comes when we miss the connection between a few methodological ideas and our theological foundations. That is when psychotherapy appears, and, when that happens, our counseling becomes increasingly partitioned from the gospel.

Any thoughts?

[Editor’s note: this is the 3rd post this month from guest blogger, Ed Welch, psychologist and faculty member at Westminster Theological Seminary and the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation. In this post, he muses about the prominence of psychotherapy when “normal” means of grace fail.]

Psychotherapy mystifies me. By that, I am not thinking about how it works; I’m thinking about why it is an essential and distinct category within Christian counseling practice. The Scripture addresses our entire world and worldview. How does psychotherapy manage to maintain its prominent position within Christian counseling?

Consider an analogy. Within pastoral care one counseling method has been to highlight demonic warfare and exorcistic strategies. If you are having unending quarrels with your spouse, and normal modes of ministry haven’t helped, the problem is that you are under demonic attack and demons have to be cast out. I admit that this ministry approach helps me to consider the place of the demonic in everyday life, but as I have observed this approach in action it sometimes seems that the reasoning goes like this: “I will apply ordinary means of sanctification first (e.g., turn, trust, love), but, for things I don’t understand and people who seem resistant, I have to go with the especially powerful methods of spiritual warfare. (I realize that this is cutting corners and raises a host of possible discussion topics, but I am just using this as an analogy).

With regard to psychotherapeutic methods within Christian counseling the reasoning might be similar: begin with Scripture, then, when Scripture is silent or the problem seems especially complex or recalcitrant, resort to the more powerful methodologies within psychotherapy. Instead of saying, “that is a tough one and I don’t know how Scripture addresses it, so I need more help in accessing Scripture” we assume our knowledge of Scripture is up to snuff and we look elsewhere for direction.

I am not saying that secular observations are useless. Sometimes they are useful, sometimes they aren’t. What I am saying is that the prominence of the psychotherapeutic may be connected to our own deficiencies in accessing and applying Scripture rather than inadequacies in Scripture. If that is true there is a nasty price to pay. The problem with the psychotherapeutic is that you can’t get from there to Jesus and the centrality of Jesus Christ and him crucified. When you finally move from the psychotherapeutic to the spiritual, Jesus can be an add on.

Here is a challenge for us. Let’s take data – especially data that tends to be overseen by the category of psychotherapy – and brainstorm on how Scripture accounts for it, goes much deeper, and guides actual ministry.