Category Archives: counseling science

October 7, 2010 · 12:41 pm

Do you belong to a tribe?


Dan Shapiro has an extremely interesting article in the latest American Psychologist (65:7), entitled, “Relational Identity Theory: A Systematic Approach for Transforming the Emotional Dimension of Conflict.” In it he describes a “tribes” experiment where he has a group of people break up into 6 groups. After each group forms its own identity (50 Minutes), he sends in an alien creature who says,

I have come to destroy earth. I will give you one opportunity to save the world from utter destruction. You must choose one tribe as the tribe for everyone. You must all take on the attributes of that tribe. You cannot change or bargain over any attributes. If you cannot come to full agreement by the end of three rounds of negotiations…the world will be destroyed. (p. 634)

He reports that he has done this exercise nearly 100 times and across a wide diversity of participants. Nearly every time the world blows up. Tribes “clung to their invented identities, amplified their differences, and ended up in deadlock and destruction.” (p. 635)

Why? Emotional dimensions of conflict are not addressed. He believes that many see political conflicts as primarily rational conversations rather than emotions entangled with identity and loyalty.

What makes for a tribe? Shapiro sees three things: Likekinded, kinlike, and emotionally invested in group’s enhancement. As tribes work and live together and face external threats, they “rigidify” their identities and beliefs–even with other groups who are nearly identical. He quotes a line from Freud–narcissism of minor differences–to illustrate how trivial differences may spawn vociferous debate and hostility. In a footnote, he notices that certain events can make for greater tribal warfare: one leader argues too much for their own positions, a leader is seen as aggressive, a group feels slighted, too many voices in the discussions, and no consideration given for the process of negotiation.

How do you reduce tribalism and thus political stalemates? He lists some tasks:

1. Identify lines of loyalty (figuring out the groups with interest in a tribe)

2. Paying attention to identity concerns (what are tribe’s concerns in negotiating with another group?)

3. Addressing these concerns by supporting autonomy and building affiliation across groups.

Seems this works even in marriage counseling. Though in marital conflict, there may only be one tribal member for each tribe, you can see how emotions maintain the conflict and that when one is able to repeatedly join with the concerns of the other, the rigidity decreases over time.

And notice how other-centeredness breaks down tribal differences. Kinda fits with Philippians 2…

Leave a comment

Filed under counseling science, 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 , , , ,

September 21, 2010 · 4:00 pm

Coming to Peace with Psychology 4


Worthington’s Relational Model of Integration

**In case you are tempted to snooze through this long post or get bored by the endless attempt to construct a relationship between psychology and christian faith, skip to the last paragraph!**

In the conceptual world of integrating psychology and Christianity, there are four common depictions: Christian faith trumps psychology, psychological science trumps Christian faith, dialogical model, and parallel but separate levels of explanation. In Coming to Peace with Psychology (IVP, 2010), we have seen in the previous two posts that Everett Worthington wants to argue that psychological science (a) has something to offer beyond theory, (b) can teach us something about ourselves and God that Scripture does  not reveal, and (c) can interact with, influence, and be influenced by Christian faith. In sum, he argues for a relational, interactive levels of explanation view of integration.

Beginning in chapter six, he lays out a relational model, akin to a deepening love relationship,

…the fields of Christian theology and psychological science will become more committed to each other to the degree that we are satisfied with the union, invest in the union and don’t play around with alternatives (such as a conflict model). I believe that, in fact, psychological science and Christian theology are already married. In some ways it is like an arranged marriage. Because God reveals the divine character through both special and general revelations, the two disciplines are joined together. The question we face is, how committed will each discipline be to this arranged marriage? (p. 101)

In chapter seven and eight, Dr. Worthington digs deeper into the proposed relationship partners (psychological science and theology) and illustrates each domain’s way of collecting “data” and subsequent conflicts between the two. Psychological science deals in the realm of material.

Scientists can believe in many nonmaterial causes within reality but simply exclude them from the “map” of a particular science. They do so because, by convention, that science aims to explain materialistic relationships among variables. By analogy, an aerial photograph will not reveal the presence of an underground river…even though the photographer knows [it exists] (p. 107).

This material (data) is best collected using observational, correlational, and experimental methods. He acknowledges (ever so briefly) limits to these kinds of studies, especially alluding to the biases inherent in psychological hypotheses. Moving on, he reviews the nature of theology, its subsets (biblical, exegetical, historical, etc.), and methods reading its “data.” Finally, he reviews the relationship between the two. “At their root there is no conflict between God’s truths as revealed in Scripture and nature” (p. 115). However, both disciplines suffer from human error (e.g., errors in scientific conclusions, errors in translating or interpreting Scripture) and so he does not want to prioritize theology over psychology (the primary reason for this book—to correct what he sees as a mistake within some in Christian psychology).

What is the real problem between psychology and theology? In chapter eight, Dr. Worthington points out three problems that lead to unnecessary perception of conflict between the two disciplines:

  • trying to integrate clinical psychology and theology (rather than psychological science)
  • using a filter approach that presupposes a higher authority given to theology
  • denial that one can learn about God through nature by some Christian thinkers

While not devaluing clinical psychology, Dr. Worthington does not believe it to be “apt relational partner” to theology (though maybe more helpful to practical theology). Why? He lists a couple of reasons: clinical psychology is anecdotal, experiential and therefore not objective; clinicians may be more prone to having less theological training while pastoral counselors may have less than adequate knowledge of empirically supported treatments; therapists view people through their models rather than seek to construct data informed models.

Next he goes after Eric Johnson for his views on Scripture. Worthington wants to take Johnson to task for failing (his perception) to admit the weaknesses within human activities of theology and the interpretation of Scripture. While Johnson wants to argue for the uniqueness of biblical authority in Christian psychology, Worthington wants to argue for the ability (albeit limited) of general revelation to reveal surprising information about the nature of persons—even to those who reject Christian faith. I suspect that both agree with the other but see an imbalance (not enough credit given to Scripture re: human nature vs. too much credit given to Scriptural interpretation and not enough acknowledgment of disagreement amongst Christians).

Finally, Worthington concludes this chapter by summarizing his view of the impact of sin on science. His main point is that he is opposed to a Dutch Reformed emphasis on the noetic effects of sin. He quotes passages that state that nature communicates about God and the humans are therefore responsible for knowing God. He does not believe, however, that nature is sufficient in telling us about God and so we need Special Revelation for salvation. In the end, he wants mutual respect and humility to reign between experts of each domain in order to promote harmonious dialogue and learning.

A Challenge

In the remainder of the book Dr. Worthington intends to illustrate what psychological science has to offer the “marriage” between the two. Books like this are written to try to bring balance to what is perceived to be imbalanced. Here, Worthington thinks too little credit is given to researchers’ ability to perceive human nature in ways that might reveal new things about the nature of God and humanity—things beyond Scripture. In another book, you might find more criticism of the biases of psychological research and the failure to acknowledge the impact of belief systems on data collection and analysis. Notice both sides are reacting against a perception of bias and control.

Here’s the challenge. Whether you lean toward Worthington’s arguments or those that give priority to Scripture and the Christian faith, consider where your views might be shaped by (a) experiences of being mis-represented by someone on the other side, and (b) too easy use of an obvious error on the other side (e.g., Worthington seems to brush over the problem of presuppositional biases in science or gives general revelation too much credit when Rom 1 tells us that humans deny its message well; Johnson seems to brush over numerous biblical interpretation conflicts, fails to interact deeply with current psychological research). Instead, see if you can build your view by first detailing the weaknesses (or mis-uses) of your discipline or view and then construct a proposed relationship from a positive framework that accounts for the aforementioned weaknesses rather than builds off of the mistakes of your epistemological opponent.

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as , , , , ,

September 20, 2010 · 9:58 am

Coming to Peace With Psychology 3


In my previous posts I have introduced Everett Worthington’s, Coming to Peace with Psychology: What Christians can Learn from Psychological Science (IVP, 2010). Dr. Worthington wants to explore a better conception of the relationship between psychology and Christianity—something better than ideas in conflict or even dialogue partners. Rather than being suspicious of psychology, he wants us to see that we can learn much about human nature and God from psychological science. He argues that use of scientific research can overcome some of our tendencies to use anecdotes and partially supported theories to explain behavior or predict outcomes.

In chapter five, Dr. Worthington begins by saying, “I want to see God more clearly. Psychological science can help” (p. 75). Without denigrating God’s self-revelation through the Bible he focuses on the human side of the relationship, “…I have a part in this two-way relationship. I must try to discern what God has revealed to us….The more I consult, the greater chance I have of knowing God better” (p. 76). Just how does he consult? He reads the Word, he listens to the Holy Spirit, he consults with fellow believers, reads theologians, and uses spiritual disciplines to reflect (think) on truth. “To see God more clearly, know God better and love God more, I might supplement God’s special revelation (and associated practices in the church ) by consulting God’s general revelation…as revealed by clinical psychology, sociology…or psychological science” (p. 77).

Thus, Worthington states that though Scripture is sufficient for the “necessities of salvation,” it does not answer all the questions we ask and so is not the only resource we need for certain subjects. So, can psychological science teach us about human nature (and by extrapolation, God)? Yes, says Worthington. Using the example of self-control he argues that scientific method can teach you about your “moral muscle and how to strengthen it” (p. 81). Now, readers of this blog will quickly point out that sometimes psychology seems to develop answers/descriptions to human problems that seem in opposition to the answers/descriptions given by Christianity. In response, he focuses on two problems: the failure of some in psychology to use rigorous scientific methods (thus encouraging biases) and the failure to discern the difference between description of human corruption and prescription (of who God is or what he wants).

Finally, he concludes this chapter by stating that though psychological science and theological inquiry speaks different languages (scientific methods vs. literary analyses) from different perspectives (human vs. divine), we ought not believe that the two ways of knowing are unable to “enrich and cross-pollinate each other.” Instead, they perform checks and balances on each other’s findings and interpretations.

Those of you familiar with the Levels of Explanation theory of integration will note that Worthington’s view is a bit more relational (hence that is what he calls it) and interactive than merely consigning the two methods to opposite corners of the ring. In my next post, I’ll give more of his detail regarding his “relational model.”

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as , ,

September 3, 2010 · 5:31 am

Coming to Peace with Psychology 1


In the first chapter of Coming to Peace with Psychology: What Christians can Learn from Psychological Science (IVP, 2010) Ev Worthington makes this point: We’re not as good at predicting human behavior as we would like to think. Science can help us. Or, the flip side, we are really great at formulating post hoc explanations (after we read scientific data) that help us think that we knew it all along (p. 28). You know, like when you get the answer of some piece of trivia, you feel you knew it all along. He provides several examples of surprising data that prove that we aren’t that good at predicting human behavior. Why is this important? We humans need help understanding our world. We don’t always make good choices even though we have massive data about humanity (biblical, experiential, etc.). So, he asks at the end of chapter one, how does psychological science relate to theology given that theology looks not to “thin slices” of large amounts of data but to Scripture?

In chapter two, Ev shows how his approach to the scripture/science relationship differs from previous attempts. He starts with the origin of the debate, makes an allusion to the Renaissance but quickly turns to the issue of counseling because it is in counseling where Christians are most concerned about whether they are receiving godly or ungodly wisdom. He points to usual suspects: secular models, rejection of Christian worldview, especially in academia, rejection of traditions and authorities. These cultural phenomena lead many Christians to be wary of liberal, free-wheeling, therapists. The call for “Christian counseling that was centered on biblically consistent beliefs and values was answered by Christians trying to integrate current counseling theories with Reformed theologies.

While there are variations on this theme, Worthington thinks one belief ties them together: Scripture and our human interpretations of it provide a clearer picture of reality than do human attempts to read general revelation. And, those disciplines that cover the nature of person (vs. “harder” sciences) have more distortion to them. Thus, there is a need to develop Christian filters to get rid of distortions in psychology.

He then singles out a few individuals who have diverse but generally favorable takes on the filter model: Robert C. Roberts, Eric Johnson, and David Powlison. Each has a different take on the problem of psychology and theology but all agree that there needs to be some critical evaluation of the underpinnings of psychological science. Interestingly, he dismisses each view (gently) for not being able to survive mainstream psychology.

Following these three, he points to three scientists who happen to be Christian: Malcolm Jeeves, David Myers, and Fraser Watts. Each, says Worthington, uses some form of a perspectivalist approach: two disciplines looking at overlapping data from different points of view (and asking different questions).

He ends the chapter saying that psychological science (Not psychotherapy) can be the bridge between science and theology–though I’m not sure he has spelled that out yet. Further, instead of just making Scripture trump (filter model) or Psychological research trump (Myer’s approach), we need a longer dialog when there seems to be conflict between Scripture and psychology.

He will take up “who do we trust during a conflict” in the next chapter.

Some thoughts. For those looking for deeper philosophy of science dialogue, you will need to look elsewhere. This is not Worthington’s focus. Rather, he wishes to give scientific endeavors some room at the table so that it can be taken seriously. To do so, he needs to show how both the filter and the separate-but-equal approaches miss the mark.

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as , ,

August 31, 2010 · 5:09 am

Coming to Peace with Psychology I (Review)


I’ve arrived as a blogger! No, I’m not getting paid to write and I’m not getting millions of hits each day. But I am getting a new perk. Someone has seen fit to send me complimentary books just in case I might wish to review them here. Free books! Do you know how cool that is? To an academic and book lover, it is just about the best perk ever.

[I guess this is a good time for a disclaimer. I only review books I find interesting. And even if the book comes wrapped in Ben Franklins (this one wasn’t for some reason), I promise to tell you what I really feel about the book]

Today, I received Ev Worthington’s new book, Coming to Peace with Psychology: What Christians Can Learn From Psychological Science (IVP, 2010). You may be familiar with Dr. Worthington’s work on marriage enrichment, marriage and family therapy, and forgiveness. This is my first experience with him writing about the relationship of psychology and Christianity. Here are a few of his thoughts from the introduction and the enclosed “Author Q & A” about why we might need a new book on this topic:

  • “In this book I will claim that we can know people better, and even know God better, by heeding psychological science.” (p. 11)
  • “People have been integrating theology and psychology for years, but a vast majority of the integration has come from psychotherapists. Only a small minority of integrators have been psychological scientists…. While psychotherapists try to generalize about human nature on the basis of the clients they have seen and the models of helping they were trained in, psychological scientists measure the whole range of people–those 15 percent who were clients with some psychotherapist and about 85 percent more who are not.” (Author Q & A)

Wow. He lays down the gauntlet. The problem with previous integration has been the emphasis on anecdotes from therapists. If only we had more integration models by scientists. In fact, he is right–to a degree. Much of integration is highly theory driven. But is that bad?

[Rabbit trail: What are the common “sins” of theologian integrators? Clinician Integrators? Research Integrators? Theologians put far too much emphasis on their constructs and exegesis; clinicians put too much emphasis on “what works”; researchers put too much confidence in p values. In fact none have the corner on the market of truth. But again, Worthington’s book may be very helpful. He is right that both clinicians and biblical counselors fail to interact deeply enough with psychological research. Either they dismiss scientific methods by pointing out its weaknesses or they generalize from a small data point into a grand theory even though the data cannot bear the weight of the theory.]

Let’s hear some more from Worthington about the direction of his book:

  • His theses: Psychological science helps both Christians and non-Christians (a) understand God’s creation in human beings, (b) know about God more because the study of image bearers points to God, and (c) live more virtuously. (p. 13)
  • So, he sees psychology as a common grace to refine us all. This is very interesting. Usually integrative literature has cited common grace as what allows humans to rightly perceive. Here, the discipline IS common grace.
  • The relationship between psychology and Christianity is an “emerging marriage”– one that has possibilities of conflict and yet greater intimacy.

Finally, you might be interested in just what approach Ev Worthington will take in connecting psychology and Christianity. In the past some have described integration as a recycling project, a filter to get rid of non-Christian worldviews, a recasting effort, or a perspectival or level of explanation project. He mentions two: filter and perspectival approaches. The filter tries to have theological/biblical constructs as interpreting science. He finds this problematic. The perspectival model tries to separate the two disciplines as different ways of knowing.

So what does Worthington suggest? A new model he calls a relational approach.

That’s enough for this post. Next post I’ll make some comments on his first section (where he addresses some of the problems in previous integration by pointing to some psychological science).

4 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling science, philosophy of science, Psychology

Tagged as , , , ,

August 16, 2010 · 10:33 am

Counseling those with chronic conditions


My friends and colleagues here at Biblical Seminary–Jenn Zuck and Bonnie Steich–are teaching a class this weekend about the role of counseling in helping those with chronic conditions. Need CEUs anyone? Info here.

This is such an important issue given our increase in capacity to manage or maintain life with chronic conditions. Some cancers now are more like chronic conditions. HIV can be a chronic condition. And of course there are the more well-known problems such as MS, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, neuropathy, diabetes, liver dysfunction, etc.

How do you respond to those who seem to be struggling with a long-term condition? Especially when the condition is vague and not visible to the eye? Do you get worn out comforting that person?

I just read a study where they assessed whether major life events or daily hassles were more negatively impacting chronic pain conditions. It turns out that daily hassles increase chronic conditions symptoms far more than do major life stressors. It makes sense but also challenges us to consider how we might overlook the “normal” life of counselees and secretly want them to stop their whining and complaining about how hard it is to …

1 Comment

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, suffering, teaching counseling

Tagged as , , , ,

July 26, 2010 · 10:53 am

Ecstasy (MDMA) as treatment for PTSD?


Back from vacation and reading up on my piles of emails. This one came via my Medscape.com subscription to psychiatric news–Ecstasy-assisted Psychotherapy May Help Patients with Treatment-Resistant PTSD. You can read about it here on WebMD.

Interesting…a date rape drug being used to treat PTSD. There is some irony here I think in that many a date-raped woman was taken advantage of when slipped this drug.

How is it purported to work? By reducing or blocking symptoms (intrusive, emotionally laden feelings when thinking about traumatic events) and thereby allowing therapy to do its work. The therapy was done in an intensive manner rather than spaced out as most people do therapy. One wonders if prolonged exposure therapy was used as the therapy. If not, would PE therapy do as well or better than traditional PTSD therapy and MDMA?

4 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Anxiety, counseling, counseling science, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Psychiatric Medications, Psychology

Tagged as ,

July 12, 2010 · 1:48 pm

Emotional Arousal: Too much or too little?


I am doing some prep for my upcoming class on the treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). [Links: summer institute brochure, and CEU information for LPCs] Many theorize that BPD is really a problem of emotional (over) sensitivity resulting from a combination of psychological factors (trauma, loss, attachment injuries, or chronic invalidation) and biological predispositions (high base-line emotional experiences, slow return to baseline once activated, and chronic and inappropriate scanning environment for danger).

If a person is prone to intense emotional experiences, they are likely to get the message that their emotional expression is out of line. Thus, they may either try to avoid emotions (leaving them less aware of how they feel and maybe more likely to be taken advantage of) or give in and respond out of their full expression (leaving them less likely to be able to solve the problem given their high state of arousal).

Are you a person of high emotional arousal? Do you know or live with one? Do you struggle with thinking that high arousal is wrong? Theoretically, most of us do not think strong emotions are wrong. But practically those who experience their own intense emotions and those who live with them do think they are wrong. “I shouldn’t feel this way…she shouldn’t feel that way.”

Counselors do not seek the goal of eliminating or even tempering emotions. What they seek is to avoid the “why” or “because” that often follows the strong feelings. It appears that the big problem is not the feelings but the beliefs and interpretations that one holds during and after the emotional experience. I feel this way because…(I’m stupid, a loser) or because…(others hate me) leads to cementing emotions and beliefs together in such a way that lead to more easily experiencing invalidation.

Looking to get into this a whole lot more in a few weeks (July 30-31)!

4 Comments

Filed under counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, Psychology, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

June 22, 2010 · 4:40 pm

Christian interventions in counseling


Regular readers of this blog will know that I believe that Christian counseling is not merely counseling done by Christians or merely the use of specific christian interventions. Rather, Christian counseling is founded on Christian/biblical ways of perceiving the world, the problems in it, and the goal of imaging Christ from start to finish.

However, it is good to think about the specific use of certain christian practices in counseling: meditation, prayer, bible reading and application, casting out demons, absolution, etc. How are we to think about these practices? Do they have a place in professional counseling? What are limits we ought to place on them? When should we refrain? How do we secure informed consent?

Elsewhere I have published on the guidelines we ought to consider when using Scripture in counseling. I will not repeat them here but for those who have not read that article, I do think Scripture is something that CAN be used in counseling–even OUGHT to at times. What is of more importance to me is HOW and WHEN and WHY.

Let me here consider the most commonly used practice: prayer. Here are some shaping values before we consider any practical application.

1. Prayer is talking and listening to God. It is not a technique and should not be treated as such. It is not magic. It is, from a Christian perspective, sharing one’s heart, praising, questioning, interacting with the Creator of the universe who remarkably wants to relate to me. At its heart prayer is submissive acknowledgment of God–even when praying like Job.

2. Prayer then needs to be a free act without trace of coercion. The one praying must not be coercive (you talk to God not at another person). The one being prayed for ought not feel obligated to say anything.

3. People have diverse (and not always happy) experiences regarding prayer, faith, relationship with God, etc. So, what is comforting to you may be triggering for another.

4. Prayer is intimate. Prayer often results in our setting aside defenses and becoming vulnerable and needy.

5. Prayer is power. Praying for someone gives the one praying a position of power.

So, how might a counselor consider these values and use prayer in counseling.

1. Assessment of client. What is my client’s faith tradition, experiences with prayer, history of abuse by leaders of the church, understanding of God? Have they ever felt coerced to pray, coerced by the prayers of others? Have they been publicly prayed against? Do they value prayer?

2. Assessment of self. Why am I praying for my clients (out loud)? What messages am I trying to communicate? What do my prayers reveal about my own faith?

3. Consent. Have I explained why I pray for my clients? Do they really have the right to say no?

4. Review. How are my prayers received? What impact, if any, do they have?

What does this look like for me? I don’t pray with every client. I don’t choose to start my sessions with prayer (at least the first one) until I have a better sense of my client’s experience with prayer. I work very hard not to use prayer as an effort to disarm (though I think it can do this) or to preach a message, but only to make supplication to God for healing, for care for the downtrodden. When I use imagery in prayer I make sure that it is grounded in common biblical images (God as shepherd, Christ as lamb, etc.). I never ask clients to pray but many of them choose to do so. And, I do let clients pray for me when they want to. It is part of how believers care for each other.

I do believe that prayer is extremely important but that I do not need to do it to be actively asking God for healing or guidance. I will say that when conflictual couples pray, they often find that it is hard to stay angry and embittered and pray. It can be helpful, either in reducing bitterness or by discussing bitterness and its impact.

It should not be used when clients do not want it, might be confused by it, or if it is not authentic to the counselor. It is considered good professional ethics to utilize resources from a client’s life. However, it would not be good to fake (e.g., my praying in a way that would please a member of a cult, an atheist praying as if he or she believed what she said, my talking to God even though I am no longer practicing as a Christian, etc.).

7 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, ethics, Psychology

Tagged as , ,