Category Archives: christian psychology

December 21, 2010 · 4:02 pm

Christian anxieties?


In light of the holiday stresses and anxieties, I bring you a couple of thoughts regarding “Christian” anxiety.

Everyone faces anxiety at times in their life (unless you lost your amygdala) But some anxieties are unique to evangelical Christians:

1. What if I am out of God’s will? What if I make the wrong choice?

2. What if I committed the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

3. What if I am missing out on the blessing of God? What does it mean if I don’t feel thankful?

4. What if God wants me to stay in this awful situation? What if my situation is God’s punishment for previous sins?

5. What if I’m not sure I believe? Am saved? Have faith?

6. Is God holding out on me because I have weak faith?

I’m sure there are more you could list (feel free to add to this!) that are unique to Christians.

When working with someone struggling with these kinds of intrusive spiritual fears (aren’t all fears intrusive?), I have noted that they often

  • struggle with frequent guilt
  • are comforted by voices around them telling them that they are okay…but the comfort doesn’t last very long as cognitive efforts to convince them they are wrong fail
  • work very hard to do Christian service–sometimes to the point of compulsion

If you or someone you love struggles with these fears consider the following recommendations

1. Listen for the deepest concern. What if’s are almost always present in anxiety. What if I’m not saved? What if God isn’t going to give me my desires? Instead of responding to the surface fear, listen between the lines for deeper concerns (without debating them). For example, fears about not being sure about faith may really be a deep sensation of guilt and or failure to be perfect.

2. Validate AND encourage re-evaluation of the meaning of the fears. Always begin with validation—communicating that (a) it is clear the counselee has a real problem that needs attention, (b) such concerns are painful, BUT—and this is important—, (c) it might be possible that they have mis-identified their spiritual problem. Fear tends to deceive the mind and misdirect attention away from more important matters (e.g., a worry about germs focuses attention on cleanliness but away from underlying fears of being out of control).

3. Counter fear with STOP and MEDITATE techniques. Most people have their self-soothing techniques. Unfortunately, some of these can add to the anxiety. For example, repetitive “Lord save me” prayers will only lead to more belief that you may not be saved. Look for these repeated responses to fear and try to stop them–even if they seem rather religious in nature. Instead, look to meditate on some other part of the bible or of the character of God–something completely out of the orbit of the fear.

4. Develop alternate goals. Most anxious people would like not to be so. Who can blame them? But eliminating anxious spiritual thoughts may not be a good goal. And, the efforts to do so may only increase the spiritual angst. Yes, medication and preceding efforts may reduce anxiety, often the fears remain active in the background. An alternate goal might include (a) resisting the old dialog that engages the fear as important, (b) choosing to use the stimulus of the fear to focus on a specific person in need (a shut-in who needs a call, praying for someone else, etc.). These alternate tasks will reduce the anxious person’s thoughts about self…and thus reduce their anxiety.

1 Comment

Filed under Anxiety, christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling skills, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

December 6, 2010 · 2:20 pm

Serious mental illness and Christianity: Questions about responsibility


Today marks the end of the semester and the end of Counseling & Physiology. At the end of this course I ask students to talk amongst themselves regarding what they have learned in the course and what questions remain. The most frequent questions have to do with this:

What of a person’s struggles can be viewed as physiological; what is spiritual? What is the client responsible for?

[I should explain. We looked at problematic behaviors (e.g., cursing, aggression, etc.) after brain injury and the physiology of bipolar disorder. The class took bodily weaknesses quite seriously and recognized that sometimes our expectations of individuals exceeds capacity.]

At the end of this post I’m going to give you what I think are some better questions to ask. But first: Simultaneously, a couple of my old blog posts are getting a lot of attention these days–both having to do with the problem of serious mental illness, faith, and the response of the church. I highly recommend you skim the posts (both are incredibly short) but hang out with the comments.

https://wisecounsel.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/serious-mental-illness-and-faith-what-to-do/

https://wisecounsel.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/living-faith-bombshell-honest-wrestling-with-mental-illness-and-divorce/

These two posts are some of the most viewed and most commented on. Each and every comment reveals a world of heartache, alienation, and confusion about how one should think about mental illness, healing, responsibility, and the Christian faith. Clearly, we have not talked about this problem enough in the church–either to those with chronic mental illness or to their loved ones. Far too many are suffering alone.

Does it matter what of your problems are physical and what are spiritual?

Let’s say that you are a parent of a 3-year-old. Due to no fault of your own, your child misses their afternoon nap. It is now 6 pm and your child is both hungry and tired. She sees some candy and begins to whine for it. You know that you will feed the child in 15 minutes. You decline to give the candy and your child now has a temper tantrum. What do you do? Or, what SHOULD you do? You most likely provide mercy and kindness as you try to calm the child down. If the child screams, cries, and maybe even strikes you…has she sinned? Yes. Does it matter at the moment? Probably not so much as you acknowledge the child is limited by her lack of sleep.

Now, let’s extend the analogy. Would you treat your 40-year-old spouse in a different manner if they also had a tantrum because they were tired and they wanted dinner NOW? Of course, you would determine their moral capacity to be greater than the 3-year-old.

Back to our question…is it necessary to consider the division between spiritual and physical problems? Here’s why I think not. Problems are problems. Physical problems are spiritual problems in that we don’t do things only with our body and leave out our spirit. And spiritual problems always include the body. We don’t have spiritual experiences outside our neurons. Further, I still have to respond to the 3 or 40-year-old now (illustration above). Yes, I need to discern how to respond. Do I teach, comfort, discipline, rebuke, encourage? Am I responding with grace and mercy? Less important (though highly desirable) is my efforts in trying to keep the problem from happening again. Isn’t that really what is behind the physical/spiritual question: Who is going to make sure that x problem is taken care of?

Here are some better questions:

1. What can I do to help bring increasing comfort, hope, and encouragement–right now?

2. What response is my client capable of–right now (post hoc)?

3. What spiritual or physical interventions might be of help–right now?

4. How can I encourage my client to accept/respect their body (and its limits)–right now?

5. How can I encourage my client to see the hand of God in their life–right now?

6. What community resources and/or involvement can be made available–right now?

Notice the emphasis is on practical/mercy ministry, increasing insight, and commitment to seeing self from God’s point of view (rather than “normal”, “acceptable” as defined by church or larger community).

7 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, Psychiatric Medications, Psychology, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

November 30, 2010 · 5:23 am

Life amidst brokenness?


As one who makes a living listening to brokenness, there are times when troubles seem everywhere. Everyone is swimming in a pool of their own tears–to quote the former PBS motivational speaker John Bradshaw. Sometimes, the pool seems pretty deep…cancer, mental illness, sexual abuse, infidelity, mania, marital discord, identity confusion, etc.

If not careful, we counselors can begin to believe that brokenness is the ONLY reality–a dreadful position if all we have to offer our clients is a knowing sad smile. On Sunday I went to a class on Isaiah, what some call 2nd Genesis because of the prophetic descriptions of re-birth and redemption of Israel through the work of Emmanuel.

In the class, someone said something that has been banging around in my head. It went something like this (gist, not quote)

It is not a challenge to see brokenness around us–that is easy. The challenge is to see God’s re-creative activity. Oddly, we call reality (God’s activity in redeeming us) a myth and prefer myth (superficial Christmas peace) over the reality of God’s working through brokenness to make us whole. I repeat, the challenge is to see God’s recreation and Glory.

Not sure how much of that was said and how much of that is just my own thoughts. But, still, the challenge for us is to see re-birth and not merely dying and death. What looks like an ugly stump (Isaiah 11:1) to us is a fruit bearing shoot.

See if you can catch glimpses of growth and rebirth today!

4 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, Doctrine/Theology, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

November 1, 2010 · 10:18 am

Coming to Peace with Psychology 6


After a long hiatus I return to my summary/review of Everett Worthington’s Coming to Peace with Psychology (IVP, 2010). If you are new here just search his last name in the search bar on my blog and you can quickly catch up.

Chapter 10 is the second chapter in the last section of the book (“What Psychological Science has to Offer Theology”). This chapter covers the limitations of psychological science. Up to this point he has been lauding the value of psychological science as a marriage partner with theology. In fact, the purpose of the book is to argue for such a relationship over those who he sees as being overly critical of psychological science (due mostly, in his mind, to the anecdotal nature of psychological theory).

What does he point to as the limits of his science?

  • Despite amazing advances in psychological science, counseling hasn’t changed much (hmmm, does he consider this a limit of science or is this a complaint about practitioners?)
  • Psychological science must focus on general truths and so may not be as applicable to any one person
  • Scientists are not without bias (but then he goes on to say that given the review process, truth is a lot more likely than not)
  • Science can’t reveal the eternal (but it can reveal things of eternal value)
  • Inability to precisely predict behavior
  • No ultimate “proof” (but, probability is possible)
  • Scientist biases include “heuristics” (picking answers from an “available” list), confirmation biases, etc. which reveal our human self-serving nature.
  • Emotional experiences tend to make us more certain of our perceptions and beliefs.
  • human limitations on what we can remember, understand, perceive, do.

Notice from his list that he focuses on common human limits of knowing. This is a good start but insufficient. It treats science biases in an individualistic manner. I find this ironic given that I believe he has much awareness of family systems. In fact, systems add an additional bias–group think as example number one. Funny too that he gave very few illustrations from science of these various biases. For the most part, he illustrated them from everyday life or from theology. So, we are left with a chapter that admits to some general limits on how far psychological science can take us but no clear acknowledgment of systematic biases in the world of psychological science.

Now, let me be clear. I am not one who believes that psychological science is always biased all the time. And even when it is, there can be much to be learned from it. Nor do I believe that those within biblical studies or theology are unbiased either. But, I do think we need to recognize how specifically these biases send psychological science in some wrong directions.

Leave a comment

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, counseling science, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

October 22, 2010 · 5:07 am

Normalizing Psychiatric Problems: Pro and Con


One of the hallmarks of the Biblical Counseling movement has been the clear articulation that psychiatric problems are not different in kind from any other set of problems. This assertion is made by some for a couple of reasons:

  1. To make sure everyone knows that the bible speaks to every kind of experience. if one draws lines between “regular” anxiety and pathological anxiety, those who meet the criteria for a DSM diagnosis might think that biblical material cannot speak to their situation–that they need to go elsewhere for help. God cares for and addresses every concern.
  2. To level the playing field between professionally trained counselors and biblical counselors. If the roots of human problems are common no matter the outer expression of them, then pastors and lay counselors can understand the issues (pride, suffering, fear, despair, etc.) and walk alongside anyone. One may not need special training to help another.
  3. To communicate to the healthy that they are not different from the more obviously unhealthy. The point is to reduce stigma and promote unity.

Consider the pros and cons of this viewpoint.

Pro:

  • Reduction of stigma and ghettoization
  • Increase normalization (“so, I’m not so different from others) and similarity with the rest of humanity
  • Increase the confidence and courage of leaders to address and dialogue about all forms of suffering

Con:

  • Decrease in interest in the specific experiences of suffering thus narrowing problems down to a simplistic cause (sin?)
  • Possible over-confidence of some leaders leading to a reduction of empathy and listening to the experiences of other; failure to consider body/mind issues not specifically elaborated on in the Bible.
  • Failure to recommend outside helpers with specific expertise and training; dismissal of the need to have professional counselors who may have greater practice with certain kinds of interventions\

When I teach my Psychopathology course I want my students to see just a bit of themselves in descriptions of people with thought disorders, addictions, eating disorders and the like. I want to normalize these kinds of problems so that students don’t think of clients with the problem as somehow different from their own experiences. While I may not binge, I may be able to empathize with those who do. However, I do not want them to think their brief binge as exactly the same as someone else’s experience. Otherwise, they might assume it would be easy to “just say no” to the binge.

When I teach my Physiology course, I want my student so to see the complexity of the brain and body and thus recognize the unique forms of suffering some go through. I want them to realize just how little we understand how much the body influences our experience of the world and of self. However, I do not want them to medicalize psychiatric problems. If they did that they might believe that counseling has little influence on psychiatric disorders. They might think that biblical reflections on anxiety and depression have no place in the healing of serious problems in living.

What is your experience regarding christian leaders handling of psychiatric problems? Do you see too little normalization? Too much? Do you see minimization of psychiatric suffering?

7 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, counseling science, Psychology

Tagged as , , , , ,

October 21, 2010 · 5:24 am

Reminder for Christian Counselors: We are voice, not Word


In G. Campbell Morgan‘s commentary on John, Morgan comments on John’s own recognition that he was not the foretold Christ but one who preceded the Christ and pointed to him. He says (commenting on chapter 3:22-36),

Then followed the last great statement. I have never read these final words of John without feeling their dignity and majesty. None greater ever feel from human lips. “He must increase, but I must decrease.” ….There was no unwarranted derogation of his own personality or work; but the content of the star as its lustre is lost in the rising glory of the sun.

….John the evangelist was thus showing the difference between the voice and the Word…

Surely this is what counselors must remember. Too often we want to be the sage wisdom, the Word. We want to be listened to; to be seen as wise. But, let us never forget that we are only conduit to the Word.

3 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, Biblical Reflection, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, Uncategorized

October 19, 2010 · 5:46 pm

Suffering for Christ? How should we respond to discrimination due to faith?


In 1 Peter 2: 12 we are commanded to, “live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.” Peter goes on to tell us that our good deeds include showing proper respect for everyone. And still later he reminds us to follow the actions of Jesus who did not retaliate when he was insulted and mistreated at the cross.

Recently, a friend was mistreated due to her faith. Actually, the mistreatment was based on assumptions rather than facts. The one doing the mistreatment made false allegations about my friend’s beliefs and attitudes. This was in a professional setting where my friend expected to be treated as any other and not singled out like this. Thankfully, the episode was brief. But what if it wasn’t? How should we respond to mistreatment for reasons of faith?

Some things we shouldn’t do:

1. Sarcasm and biting back. One of the things that bothers me in the political arena is the amount of sarcasm and belittling used against each other. Not that this behavior is new–it isn’t–but it does seem more intense than before. It would seem that the goal for liberals is to catch conservative family values defenders not living up to their standards.  And conservatives put down liberals for being open to anything and everything (except conservatives). When attacked for reasons of faith, let’s not spend our time making public comments about the missteps of our accusers.

2. Say nothing at all. Silence isn’t always wrong but it may not be right either. It can be good to overlook some mistreatment as a mercy to the attacker. Sometimes when we know someone is having a bad day or is themselves a recipient of mistreatment, we may choose to overlook hateful comments. However, saying nothing as a matter of course may also eliminate an opportunity to speak truth in love to the offending party.

What can we do?

1. Deserved or undeserved? First, we can check to see if we have brought an attack on by our own behavior. If we have, we ought to address the matter right away. If the attack is not the result of our own foolish actions, then this is not about us but about God. Hopefully, this little bit of assessment can take the personalized part of the pain out of the equation.

2. Work to understand. Where are these comments coming from? What might be revealed behind the hurtful statements about our attackers experiences? It is possible that their attack comes from a bad experience from another person of faith who did not represent well the true meaning of Christianity. We can then validate their pain even if not their expression of it.

3. Speak the truth in love via a point of contact. Look for the value that you share together. Speak to that issue first. Often, some issue of respect, justice or shared concern can be a point of contact to engage an attacker. MLK wrote a letter from his jail cell in Birmingham, AL to white evangelicals who had written to ask him to stop raising tensions via nonviolent protests. He begins with a point of contact–their shared faith, their genuine good will and sincerity regarding their concerns. He attempts to speak their language first about the necessity of prophetic voices among God’s people. Surely he moves on to accuse them of inaction and maintaining the status quo–thus not caring for all of God’s people. But he ends with invitations to dialogue more and even requests that they forgive him if he has overstated their complicity in the problem of Jim Crow. In professional worlds, we may begin with discussions of shared ethical standards. We may want to point out failures by our accusers to keep their own standards, but first we need to establish common ground.

4. Bless, do not curse. Look for ways to bless and/or encourage an accuser if at all possible. Find reason to offer mercy rather than retaliation.

5. Activate, do not withdraw. In professional settings, use the existing system well so you can to gain a hearing,  and not just for yourself. Remember, the Apostle Paul uses his Roman citizenship to seek justice against false accusers and abusers. Using his right to appeal to Caesar enabled him to speak to numerous individuals and groups that he might not otherwise have met. It was this simple act that God used to spread the Gospel to Europe and then to the whole world.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, ethics, Evangelicals, Psychology, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , ,

October 15, 2010 · 1:02 pm

Save the Date! March 17-19 2011


Dr. Diane Langberg and Bethany Hoang (IJM) will be doing our next Conversations with Christianity and Culture seminar March 17-19, 2011 on the topic of sexual abuse in the christian community. They will also be speaking about sex and human trafficking.

This is a free conference at Biblical Seminary. I’ll post on-line registration information here when it is available but I’m tell you this now so you get it on your calendar.  You won’t want to miss their presentations.

We expect to offer CEUs for mental health providers for the conference (probably very nominal fee) and academic credit too (in the form of ind. study) for those wanting to do some further work on the topic.

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling science, counseling skills

Tagged as , , , ,

October 12, 2010 · 4:34 pm

Skype counseling? Know of anyone doing it well?


I recently set up an acct with SKYPE to participate in an upcoming meeting. I’ve had past requests to use SKYPE in counseling people unable to come to the Philadelphia area. While I’m open to doing this (at least for brief consultations), there are a number of issues to resolve. I’m interested in hearing from readers having used it for counseling (feel free to remain anonymous). What was it like? How were confidentiality and informed consent handled? Was any mention of jurisdiction mentioned? Not sure what I mean, read on to consider these issues:

  1. Confidentiality & Privacy. Are SKYPE video conferences really private? What is the likelihood that someone can tap in?
  2. Informed Consent. Read any good Telehealth informed consent forms lately? Seems that you have to consider how to deal with crises that might be happening in another state. Insurances cannot be used. What about what files are maintained? I believe it is possible to record SKYPE calls.
  3. Jurisdiction. It is clear that licensed mental health practitioners must not practice in another jurisdiction (i.e., state) without getting licensed or approved for that jurisdiction. But what about consultations? What about Internet based interactions? Which state has jurisdiction? Some seem to think that the state of the “caller” is going to want to maintain control of the care of its citizens. Others think that informing “callers” that the point of service resides with the Counselor will be enough. Check out what they say at eCounseling.com.

This is what is known as a “Point-of-Service” issue. In our terms of service which both clients and counselors agree to upon eCounseling.com sign up, it states the following in section 5.8: 5.8 POINT-OF-SERVICE. For a client who resides outside their eCounselor’s state of residence and professional licensure, there is an important issue that should be understood by clients before counseling begins: By utilizing these counseling services, the client agrees that he or she is soliciting the services of a professional outside of his or her state of residence. By doing this, the client agrees that the “point-of-service” of counseling is to occur in the counselor’s state of residence and licensure, not the client’s. In essence, the client is using the telephone or the Internet (the “information highway”) to virtually travel to the counselor (the counselor’s state of professional practice). Hence, counselors are accountable to and agree to abide by the ethical and legal guidelines prescribed by their state of licensure and residence. By agreeing to solicit the counselor’s services, the client agrees to these terms. If you do not understand, or have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to ask the counselor about this issue, or contact eCounseling.com support at support@ecounseling.com DISCLAIMER: The above should not be construed as legal advice. If you have questions about legality or liability, please contact a qualified legal professional.

What do you make of these issues?

5 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling skills, Psychology

Tagged as , , ,

September 30, 2010 · 9:01 am

Coming to Peace with Psychology 5


We turn to the last section of Everett Worthington’s Coming to Peace with Psychology (IVP, 2010) entitled, “What Psychological Science has to Offer Theology”.

Chapter nine has the goal of exploring psychological tools and what they can do. Worthington rightly points out that all sciences derive from philosophy. They are an attempt to conceptualize reality “by observing, measuring and quantifying life experiences.” (p. 149). He then summarizes Thomas Kuhn’s work on the concept of scientific revolutions–that is most of science is an effort to support existing hypotheses until the current paradigms no longer work at which point a revolution occurs in thinking. Then Worthington points out another way of looking at scientific progress–the creation (happenstance or not) of new tools results in massive new data that may change our perspective on reality.

Worthington seems to prefer this model and wants to explore the “new tool” of psychological science. In his mind psychological science is a new theological tool. Wait, you might say, how is it a theological tool? He would argue that it helps us understand humanity better thus it teaches us something about the God who created us.

Here are two of the “tools” he mentions for looking into the mind: Peripheral nervous system measures that get at subtle experiences of stress; face twitch recording that get at highly subtle psychological reactions. Both may help us understand reactions/behaviors that cannot be easily verbalized.

The remaining portion of the chapter defends the value of science in spite of its shortcomings. Yes, science is flawed, but to Worthington it is “still useful.” He wants to remind readers that science isn’t as cold and impersonal as it is often portrayed. It can teach about development of children,  about religious behavior, about human strengths, etc.

If there is a problem, says Worthington, it is that “we [scientific tool users] do not often refer back to the purposes of psychological science–to think the thoughts of God, to know the Creator by learning about the creation.” (p. 166)

I think it is helpful to remember that tools like these do produce data–data worth looking at and learning from. However, it appears we don’t do well with our approach to this data. Either we are too enamored with its glittering images as if it were spoken from the mouth of God or we reject it because it must be biased and a waste of time. Careful critical evaluation of self and data are necessary. What are our blind spots? Are we too enamored with data? Or do we think we already know all we need to know?

2 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling science, Psychology, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,