Category Archives: Abuse

July 7, 2008 · 7:27 am

On Churches and sex offenders


It seems to be an increasing question these days: What should the church do when a sex offender finishes their sentence and wishes to return to church or join anew? I’ve written here on this before but want to return to the subject because it is controversial. Of the questions I get relating to this are,

  • Shouldn’t the church be a place where all sinners are welcome? 
  • If a sex offender is disallowed in church aren’t we removing the one thing they need (Christian community?)
  • Should victims of abuse have so much power as to say who can and cannot attend church?

Instead of answering this questions, I think churches need to have frank conversations about the following areas:

  1. Repentance. What is it? What are the fruits of it? What are signs of either inadequate or false repentance?
  2. Protection. There are more than 60 commands in the Old and New Testaments about protecting vulnerable members of society (widows, orphans, aliens, etc. ). True Religion, James says, is one that looks after the vulnerable. What does it mean to protect them. Is it enough to tell them that they are safe even though they do not feel so? Do we ever consider giving them power and some ability to say what they can tolerate?  
  3. Forgiveness/Restoration/Redemption/Reconciliation. These terms are sometimes used synonymously. They should not be. What does it mean to forgive? Does it mean I should act as if it never happened? Where does this idea come from? Restoration to God? The Body?
  4. The Church and access to it. As Christians we are called to meet together for worship and the teaching of the Word? What are the options we might think about that meet this calling but value that same calling for everyone? Can the “church” come to the sex offender? Is he willing to not demand rights to be in church but find ways to worship with other believers while also being concerned about the welfare of others?

That’s a start. If churches would be willing to explore these issues and delay answering the questions I noted at the beginning, I think they will have a better chance of ministering to all. And if either victims or sex offenders are so impatient that they will not allow the body to study the matter, then that probably says something about the interest to care well for all the sheep. If the offender becomes impatient and demanding, whining and complaining, then we have to question his/her interest in being ministered to. There may be other reasons they want in the church. As Anna Salter discovered in her interviewing many many offenders, some offenders see the church as a place of protection from scrutiny due to naivete.

12 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, church and culture, Repentance, Sex

Tagged as , , ,

June 25, 2008 · 5:38 am

Divorce & Remarriage VIII: 4 Biblical Grounds for Divorce


Last week I took a hiatus from reviewing Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church  (IVP). This week we explore chapter 8. I-B starts with a story about a woman whose husband attempted to murder her. Her church leaders decided that it would be okay for her to separate due to the threat to her life but that she could not divorce because the Bible didn’t allow it. He suggests that this is a common response to abuse in marriages: Separation for safety but no possibility of divorce unless adultery.

I-B makes this very clear response: “…[this] solution is not biblical. A couple should not separate without getting divorced, because Paul specifically says that married couples may not separate (1 Cor. 7:10-11).” (p. 94-5)

But we have already witnessed I-B argue that the OT allowed the victim to decide to divorce in the case of abuse, neglect, and adultery. Did the NT abandon these grounds? I-B reminds the reader,

He [Jesus] spoke about the ideal of lifelong marriage, the facts that divorce was never compulsory and that marriage was not compulsory, about monogamy and, of course, about his interpretation of “a cause of sexual immorality’–that it means only sexual immorality and not also “Any Cause.” So if Jesus believed that neglect and abuse were valid grounds for divorce, why didn’t he say something about them? (p. 95)

I-B infers that Jesus didn’t say anything because it was so obvious a reason. It was not considered controversial as was the “any cause” debate that was raging at the time of his ministry. He argues that Jesus didn’t teach about rape, manslaughter, the oneness of God either. Does this mean he didn’t believe those things either? Bolstering his argument is the fact that he reports that no other ancient Jewish literature debates the validity of divorce for abuse/neglect. Therefore, it wasn’t an issue needing attention. He goes on to tell us that what was debated was how one defined neglect (i.e., minimum quantities of clothing and food and conjugal love needed in order to avoid being considered in neglect of one’s spouse).

So, to underline this, the Matthew 19:9 passage is in regard to the question of Deut. 24:1 and the debate about whether any cause divorces were valid and not to say that no other grounds were possible.

So, I-B suggests that Paul teaches 3 grounds for divorce (implicitly) in 1 Cor. 7: neglect of food, clothes and sex. The reason why he talks about the obligations to care for the spouse and not to withhold is because of the known (at that time) grounds for divorce existing in Ex 21:10-11. Further it is assumed that Paul accepted the cause of unfaithfulness as grounds but that he doesn’t speak to this issue.

So how do we apply these grounds for today? While it is easier to assess unfaithfulness, I-B says that we too frequently neglect the matter of neglect that may have helped cause the rift that resulted in adultery (p. 101). Neglect doesn’t excuse adultery but, “it is important to realize that the fault is often not just one sided.” (ibid).

What about frequency of sex a reason for divorce? The rabbis thought men should provide sexual love at least 2 times per week, less if you were an “ass driver” (HIS words not mine), and nightly if you were out of work! Of note were NO rules for women as to how frequently they would need to offer conjugal love. Despite these pieces of advice, I-B reports that, “rabbis were reluctant to allow a divorce on the ground of refusing conjugal activity…” Further, notice that while Paul encourages both parties to see sex as something they owe each other, I-B points out that nowhere does he give permission for one party to demand sex from the other. “…Love is something that we give and not something that we take.” (p. 102). Still further, I-B suggests that we should not define conjugal love as narrowly as intercourse, “because this can become impractical or inappropriate in cases of illness or frailty.” (ibid)

I-B wants us to look at the principles. The husband that never allows his wife to buy make-up, occasional leisure items and the husband that provides weekly sex but no other kind of affection may not violate the technical side of things but certainly has missed the spirit of the biblical mandate to protect and care for her.  

What about the couple who no longer finds themselves in love? Can they divorce? I-B says it would be improper to read back the idea of being in love into the biblical passage. Love is an act, not a feeling.

I-B ends with the question about what can be said to the abused party. Here’s what he would say to an abused wife,

First, we can tell her that God’s law has taken such sin into account. God’s ideal for marriage is for a husband and wife to be faithful to each other and, as we saw in the [OT], for them to support each other with food, clothing and conjugal love. If these vows are broken, then there are grounds for divorce.

Since there is no question that the abusing husband is “neglecting” to support his wife, she should be aware that she does have the option to divorce him…

We should not forget, though, that Jesus emphasized forgiveness…so we should not advise this woman to divorce her husband the first time he breaks his vows. However, if he continues to sin hardheartedly (stubbornly or without repentance), Jesus says she may divorce him. In practice we have to depend on the individual concerned to decide when enough is enough, because we cannot know what goes on inside a marriage. We cannot know how much emotional abuse is happening, and even physical abuse is largely unseen or unreported. (p. 103-4)

I-B speaks of the false facade that we erect or allow to be erected about “happy” marriages that in fact are not. This is sad and not the way it should be. God does, however, know our secret sufferings and so he says this to the abused,

“God is not a ruler who sits on a high throne in isolation, ignorant of the suffering of his people. He aches with us, even in divorce, which he too has suffered. God loves you and knows your secret sufferings. he wants to help you and has given us practical laws to help deal with your hurt.” That is what we say to a person in a neglectful or abusive marriage. p. 106

—-

So, do you agree? Where does your mind go when considering these as grounds for divorce that the victim uses to decide if she or he has had enough? I have found that while some concede these, they are very afraid that some will cry “victim” when they are not. That these grounds will be used for all manner of excuses and that “victims” will assert that only they can know that they have been abused.

While it is true that some and even many will abuse the divorce rules in the bible, it doesn’t make them any less true.

27 Comments

Filed under Abuse, biblical counseling, Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, Relationships

Tagged as , , ,

June 16, 2008 · 12:54 pm

Are counselors and psychologists an impaired lot?


We’re closing in on the last of the school year. Two weeks to go. Tonight in our ethics class we’ll be discussing the matter of abuse of power, impaired clinicians, and similar issues. In the world of counseling we discuss the problem of impaired counselors/students/trainees when we talk about those who,

(a) do not have the requisite skills, 
(b) have character/attitude deficits, or
(c) reactions to current crises,

AND are unwilling or unable to repair the situation.

First, we ought to be aware of those who are attracted to being counselors. Jeffery Barnett, et al, report the following data from other studies (as cited in the 2007 Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 38(6), pp 603-612):

  • 70% of female psychologists had been either sexually or physically abused as children
  • 33% of male psychologists report the same
  • 33% of psychologists report being abused as adults
  • They feel the effects of these difficulties (and other family crises) just as non counselors
  • They may be less likely to get help due to knowledge and professional identity
    • 60% acknowledged being significantly depressed during some point of their career
    • 29% reported being suicidal at some point
    • 4% had made suicide attempts

Gizara & Forrest (2004 Professional Psychology: Research & Practice,35(1), pp 131-140) reported supervisors experiences of trainee impairment in APA accredited internships (doctoral level). Many of the supervisors had a hard time defining impairment in counseling but had sort of what I call the “I know it when I see it” mentality. What they often described were the disruptive, persistent relationalconflicts that are obvious to most. They did identify that it is hard for supervisors to address these matters because they (a) are trained to be empathic and to try to save everyone, and (b) not wanting to deal with conflict, destroy a career, or make oneself vulnerable to attack that they are holier than thou.

But, I noticed not much discussion or research regarding the one who doesn’t have obvious abrasive relational skills who is prone to using clients and others to make themselves feel good. This kind of person is dangerous not because they disrupt the counseling center but because they are so well liked that they make others overlook “minor” ethical infractions. Further, the person is rarely cognizant of their using others for their own sense of well-being.

To answer my question. No, I don’t think counselors are an impaired lot–at least any more than others. If we are aware of what drives us to be counselors (the good AND the self-serving), are willing to be counseled, discipled, held accountable, etc. (are willing to be transparent), and see our work as God’s first, then I think we are rather a safe lot.

Watch out for those of us who think we have arrived or no longer need teaching. I’m reminded of Aslan’s question to Prince Caspian at his coronation:

Aslan: Do you feel yourself sufficient to take up the kingship of Narnia?

Caspian: I-I don’t think I do sir. I’m only a kid.

Aslan: Good, If you had felt yourself sufficient, it would had been a proof that you were not.     

9 Comments

Filed under Abuse, biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, Psychology, Relationships, self-deception, teaching counseling

Tagged as , ,

June 14, 2008 · 5:13 am

Take your first course at Biblical, get a free gas card!


Okay, so it might not be an even swap, but it will pay for your gas to get to Biblical this summer. If you’ve never taken a course at my fine institution, here’s a little incentive for you to do so. We’re offering 2 counseling courses (Leslie Vernick’s 1 weekend course on Destructive Relationships and another 2 weekend course on counseling people with addictions) and two other courses. One course is mostly on-line with just one campus visit (Group life in an eWorld). So, check out this PDF flyer for details or www.biblical.edu for more details such as class dates/times.

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, addiction, Biblical Seminary, christian counseling, christian psychology, teaching counseling

Tagged as ,

May 23, 2008 · 5:49 am

The two sides of Power


In staff meeting today we listened to a Tim Keller sermon on political power (I wonder how many private practice psychology staff meetings do something neat like this!) from the text of Jesus conversations with Pilate. In talking about political power, Keller quoted Vaclav Havel on the topic. You can find Havel’s quote herewithin a speech he made after receiving the Sonning Prize in 1991. This speech was designed to answer these two questions:

“Why is it that people long for political power, and why, when they have achieved it, are they so reluctant to give it up?” 

I don’t have it exactly as either Keller or Havel said it, but both were making this point:

1. We want to use power in the service of all that is true, good, and right. We want to use power to better the world. While some may use power from the get-go for evil purposes, most do not.

2. But we also wan to use power in the service of self. Havel talks about use of power for self-affirmation. Self-affirmation, Havel says, is not “essentially reprehensible” but human. But without suspicious self-examination, a slippage happens–something like this, it makes sense that my important work means I get special privileges in order to do my work well. But then I begin to lose the difference between being enabled to do my job better and the self-affirmation that I so desperately crave.”

Regardless of how pure his intentions may originally have been, it takes a high degree of self-awareness and critical distance for someone in power–however well-meaning at the start–to recognize that moment [when we stop caring about the state and start only caring about self-affirmation]

I see similarities outside of power. When I counsel someone long silenced through abuse and neglect, I see someone who is readily aware of the impact of abuse of power. When that person develops their voice, they begin to exert power for the sake of truth, goodness, and all that is right. They say no to further abuse; they raise their voice so as to be heard. They learn to use power to draw proper boundaries. But like all, it is easy to use the power for self-affirmation and self-protection. It is easy to argue for its goodness and rightness and to become blind to the demanding side of self-affirmation.

Power is good, but humans with power must be vigilant to avoid the corruption. Vaclav Havel recognizes the need to stay vigilant. John Adams recognized the inherent corruption of power as he designed the separation of powers for the USA. And we look to Jesus who willingly gives up his right to power but uses his power to sacrifice himself for our sake.

Good to think about in this season of elections. Pray we have leaders who will question their tendency to self-affirmation. And pray that each of us uses power for justice and not for self alone.

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Cultural Anthropology, Great Quotes, News and politics, self-deception

Tagged as , , ,

May 6, 2008 · 5:44 am

Context and our perceptions


It shouldn’t be a surprise that context is everything when it comes to perception. Win the the 10 million dollar lotto and then have your car run over by a Mack truck (assuming no one was in it) and you probably laugh it off and go buy your dream car. Context changes how you perceive the event.

I had two reminders of the effect of context last Friday. First, I was on my way to a meeting and listening to an NPR show. The host of the show was interviewing Gary Marcus, NYU psychology prof and author of Kluge (a book on the mind). Though parts of his interview annoyed me greatly, he talked about contextual perceptions by pointing out this research tidbit (my words not a quote).

If researchers ask individuals (a) if they are happy, and (b) how many dates they have had lately they get one set of results. If they reverse these questions, the answer to the happiness question is clearly influenced by the answer to the dates question. I may in fact be happy until you remind me that I haven’t had any dates lately.

Second, at my meeting we were discussing perception of change in clients. Imagine this scenario:

You are working for 6 months with a man helping him to accept responsibility for his addictive behavior (you can substitute addictive with just about anything that needs change). The change has been painstaking but he has indeed begun to see his self-deception and begun to stop blaming his past for his present behavior. About this same time you hear that his wife would like to come in to a session. You invite her and when she comes with her husband you ask him to tell his wife what he has been learning. As he does you see her roll her eyes and smirk. You check in with her and she is absolutely livid. From her vantage point he hasn’t changed a bit. Sure, he’s not drinking anymore, he’s not beating her up, but did you know that he’s become rather obsessed with work, he still doesn’t call to tell her that he’ll be late and he won’t stop overspending each month. And worse for her, now he wants to have sex (in the past he avoided her) all the time. You acknowledge he has lots of work to do but you also realize she feels threatened to admit he has begun to change. If she does, maybe he’ll stop…

Notice how context influences our perceptions. If you think someone has come miles and miles in personal growth you likely get pretty excited. If, however, you focus on how far they have to go, your perceptions will be a bit more pessimistic.

Now here’s the challenge. How do we stop believing that our context is the only context for viewing experiences? It takes openness and empowerment and ability to see two things at once without demanding that one view overpower another. As Christians we must live in this bifurcated life. We are sinners…saved by grace. We are maturing…but never arriving. We are mistreated…and protected by God.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abuse, christian psychology, Cognitive biases, Insight, Psychology, Relationships

April 29, 2008 · 5:43 am

Bringing light to the porn and prostitution industries


This weekend I started reading Victor Malarek’s book, The Natashas: Inside the New Global Sex Trade. It is about the 4th wave or explosion of trafficked women from Eastern Europe who are enslaved as sex slaves around the world. Not fun reading but necessary for those interested in understanding the extent and effect of sex trafficking. [WARNING: If you have suffering sexual abuse, you do not need to read this book. It would only add to your trauma. This book is for those who do not know your experience!]

I suspect that this book would be useful for those struggling with temptations to visit massage parlors, prostitutes or view on-line pornography. Each of these illicit sexual encounters is designed to convey the message that the woman wants and enjoys providing the man with pleasure. While I recognize that some individuals pursue bondage and pain oriented pornography, most find coercive imagery counterproductive to their sexual fantasy. Hence, this book would be useful in that it has the capacity to blow up pleasure oriented fantasy. Tempted to look at porn? Recognize that the pictures you find enjoyable are likely made by those exploiting and enslaving women. She may be smiling at you but she may be doing so in order to avoid further torture or death.

The author is correct when he asserts that the sex trade benefits from complicity (using women for one’s own pleasure) and complacency (assuming the women are willing victims). Unfortunately, he has no real answer other than to expose the shame of countries and politicians that turn a blind eye.  

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, book reviews, News and politics, pornography, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, prostitution, Sex, suffering

Tagged as , ,

April 10, 2008 · 5:48 am

Local Group Therapy For Survivors of CSA


Penny Freeman, EdD, will be starting a 10 week group therapy group for women who have been sexually abused as children in the Doylestown, PA area. Penny is prof at Philadelphia Biblical University but will be doing this in context of her work as an associate of Randall B. Hicks & Associates.

Contact Marsha Hicks at 215.579.4116 to learn more about it if interested.

2 Comments

Filed under Abuse, christian counseling

Tagged as

April 1, 2008 · 4:30 pm

Facial change recognition speed and personality problems


Read a study recently where the researchers discovered that folks with a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder are markedly faster in their ability to discern subtle affective change in facial expressions than the general population. This data from the study also suggests that this population of people DO NOT make more mistakes in assessing mood than the general population.

Why would some folks be more sensitive to very subtle affect changes in others? The study didn’t attempt to answer that but I suspect it is because they (a) needed to be vigilant to potential danger, (b) they themselves are highly emotional, and (c) they have been “schooled” to believe that others are more right in their assessments and so they should accept other people’s feelings as more true. 

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, personality, Uncategorized

Tagged as

March 17, 2008 · 1:02 pm

Science Monday: Perpetrators have PTSD? New connections between attachment and PTSD


Unfortunately, many people experience violent or near death experiences. Some of those folks go on to have symptoms fitting the diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): intrusive memories/flashbacks cause them to reexperience the event coupled with attempts to numb themselves in some way and yet still finding themselves in a heightened state of vigilance all of the time.

Since the Vietnam War, we’ve learned a lot about this set of problems. The primary forms of treatment touted now are controlled and imaginal exposure to the traumatic event(s) coupled with relaxation, distraction, and cognitive reframes. And we continue to learn about the presence of PTSD in violent family dynamics as mentioned last Monday (3/10/08).

But here are two articles pointing to somethings I hadn’t thought much about:

1. Perpetrators of violent crimes sometimes experience PTSD from their crimes. A group of English researchers did a study of 105 prisoners who had committed intentional violent crimes. 46% experienced distressing intrusive memories (one aspect of PTSD) and 6% met criteria for PTSD. The more antisocial the criminal before the crime, the less likely they would actually experience distressing intrusive memories. So, those who are most uncaring don’t really struggle with these problems. Here’s a question: should you try to help perpetrators with their distressing, intrusive memories? Does having them lead them to be less likely to re-victimize? Or do they make them more distressed, more hypervigilant and therefore more likely to attack?

Biblio: Evans et al. (2007). Intrusive memories in perpetrators of violent crimes: Emotions and cognitions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 134-144.  

2.  Why is it that attachment literature and adult PTSD from child abuse literatures have been separate? Stovall-McClough & Cloitre of NYU ask this very question and review the literatures from each area. Attachment literatures come out of developmental theories while PTSD research tends to be CBT based. But the two are quite connected. Consider the authors points:

  • “As many as 48-85% of survivors of childhood abuse show a lifetime prevalence of PTSD…”
  • “As many as 80% of maltreated children [are] classified as [having a disorganized attachment pattern]…”
  • “…the theoretical mechanisms underlying the expression of both PTSD and [attachment problems], although developed separately, are notably similar.” How so? Both see powerful events stored in the mind that shape one’s sense of self and the world. Powerful and negative events are avoided in an “effort to contain the intensity of emotions triggered by attachment injuries or traumatic events
  • “When traumatic events are kept locked away or otherwise chronically avoided, the result is often long-term struggles with PTSD symptoms and ongoing fragmentation of memory and fear-related belief systems.” 
  • Both unresolved attachment problems and PTSD lead to dissociative and intrusive self-focused thought patterns
  • Unresolved childhood attachment problems (as opposed to secure or dismissing attachment styles) may predict PTSD in adults
  • Avoidance strategies which help the individual manage distress from the abuse may, in fact, increase emotional distress and cognitive disorganization. This is sad in that those best able to divorce themselves from those early experiences (which may protect them as a child) may set themselves up for the most pervasive PTSD. I suspect that avoidance strategies hinder the person from being able to carefully evaluate themselves in a clear and helpful manner. Thus at a later point when they can no longer avoid, they have little sense of self to use to understand their place in the world.

Biblio: Stovall-McClough & Cloitre (2006). Unresolved attachment, PTSD, and dissociation in women with childhood abuse histories. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 74, 219-228.

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Anxiety, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Tagged as , , ,