May 30, 2008 · 3:16 pm

Barriers to race and gender reconciliation


From our faculty retreat, I was left thinking about some of our own barriers to reconciliation. Here is a few that I was thinking about:

1. Limited perseverance. I think we have a sense that it shouldn’t be so hard to do. We see the length of the journey and find ourselves giving up.

2. Me centered living. We shouldn’t have to work so hard because of other people’s sins against others in the past. People should honor my good intentions and when they are suspicious, I feel wronged.

3. Stories. I believe that stories are what we commonly use to keep people in boxes. Tell an anecdote about a person of particular hue and it becomes true of all. We know that isn’t true, but we do it just the same.

4. Individual rights. I have the right to be given all my rights. I shouldn’t have to give mine up so that you can have yours. Not fair! I deserve to be treated well.

I’m sure there are better ways to categorize these barriers but these are how I thought about them. The solution to all of these means that I see myself as in Christ and not protector of myself.

1 Comment

Filed under Race

Tagged as

May 28, 2008 · 9:53 pm

Overheard at Sandy Cove


In our discussion about race and implicit oppression:

If you manipulate history, you manipulate consciousness. If you manipulate consciousness, you manipulate possibilities. If you manipulate possibilities, you manipulate power.

Seems about right. When we tell a history in a particular way, we can change how we think about ourselves (we’re pretty good, right?) and change how what possibilities we consider and ultimately the power. We talked about this especially when white folk ignore or deny the Blackness of biblical figures.

Also overheard here at our faculty retreat: “That’s going to hurt. Us 40-50 somethings have played basketball both nights. We’re not a particularly in shape group and so we can feel the creaks and the pains a comin.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as ,

May 28, 2008 · 5:54 am

Things heard at Sandy Cove


Yesterday, we dwelt on Acts 15 and the story of the Jerusalem Council. Notice that even though the Gentiles had evidence of the Spirit, some considered them unsaved due to the lack of circumcision. We wondered what we burdens we place on others that are not Gospel burdens. We also noted that the solution was to not overburden Gentiles in their turning to Christ and not to so disturb the Jews in the area of idol worship (meat sacrificed to idols).

In our discussion of race in America, our speaker suggested that 11 am on Sunday morning is NOT the most segregated hour. But, the 6 pm news hour is just that (given the sense that black crime is the only kind of crime happening.

More later.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

May 27, 2008 · 12:21 pm

Retreating to the bay


The Biblical faculty are spending the next 3 days at Sandy Cove in MD for a retreat to discuss where we’ve been and where we’re going. Of particular focus is the next steps in racial reconciliation and how our curriculum will continue to change. Should be good. That said, I’ll probably not have much here until Friday as I hope to spend some time walking on the shore.

Sandy Cove Ministries

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

May 26, 2008 · 5:20 am

Top 10 Counselor Nightmares


No classes today because of the holiday. Next week, we’ll be discussing the perils and pitfalls of being a counselor. In partial jest here’s my “top 10” counselor nightmares. A few of these happened to me, some happened to my friends and others are just fears: 

10. Someone from your past shows up as a counselee or at a seminar you give and they know all your immaturities

9. You run into a counselee from a couple of years ago and although they are grateful for your help,  you don’t remember ever meeting them before

8. Spending the whole hour with a new client and your fly was down and open the whole time

7. Same as 8 but you passed gas

6. Its time to pray at the end of the session and as you go to pray for them you can’t remember their name and so you have to pray for your “brother” instead.

5. You worked really hard helping a resistant client learn something and then they come in and tell you that their aunt told them this amazing thing (the thing you have been trying to tell them for 6 months) and now they wonder why you didn’t help them.

4. You come to the waiting room only to find you double booked by mistake.

3. You’re at the hospital having a colonoscopy and you find out the nurse assisting is your client who probably hates you

2. You fall asleep in session for a few minutes and wake up wondering how long it has been and whether they noticed or not (they did!)

1. Subpoena and/or call from the licensing board

3 Comments

Filed under Psychology

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 22, 2008 · 10:04 am

Subtle Racism: How do you know it’s happening?


“You just know.” Well, how DO you know? It seems that in the US minorities are well aware of both explicit and implicit or subtle racialization. But on the other side, dominant culture (White) folk are quick to point out that certain comments (“you are so articulate” to a Black man) might not be racist. Stupid but not racist. So, whose being over-sensitive?

The latest American Psychologist (63:4) has comments and author reply to a previous article by Derald Wing Sue et al on the topic of microaggressions(in vol. 62, entitled: Racial microaggressions in everday life: Implications for clinical practice). 3 of the 4 commenters were defensive of Sue’s allegations of these microaggressions. And Sue replied saying that their defensiveness is ample evidence that white people can’t take the reality of racism. They always want to find other reasons for racist activity (i.e., oversensitivity of minorities).

End result? No good dialogue; distance; defensiveness. One guy questions one of Sue’s hypotheses in his article and suggests an alternative (innocently portrayed). Sue replies and says he of course considered (and rejected) that hypothesis and that the guy has a problem because he can’t deal with the reality of racism.

What got the commenters up in arms wasn’t the science in the article but Sue’s personal story of being asked to move to the back of a small prop plane to balance the weight out when 3 late arriving white businessmen were not asked to move. In a personal story, we make ourselves vulnerable to attack because it is our perceptions that we state as reality that tempt others to challenging what we “saw”. 

Unfortunately, the inability to talk about microaggressions is based on the problem of defensiveness of both sides and feelings of invalidation when one questions our sense of the world.

Leave a comment

Filed under Black and White, Psychology, Race, Racial Reconciliation

Tagged as , ,

May 21, 2008 · 5:11 am

Divorce & Remarriage V: Divorce on Demand?


In chapter 5 of Instone-Brewer’s (I-B) Divorce and Remarriage in the Church we come to Jesus’ reactions to the “any cause” debate raised by the religious leaders. I-B suggests that prior to the time of Jesus, divorce was only allowed for failure to provide clothing, sex, and food–and could be initiated by either a male or female (I am suspicious as to whether women really could initiate divorce…). But by the time of Jesus’ ministry, Hillel, a popularized the “any cause” divorce by his mis-reading of Deutronomy24:1. Hillel and his followers proposed two grounds for divorce: sexual immorality and “any cause” based on some fault other than immorality. I-B reports that women were in favor of the “any cause” clause. If a woman was divorced for immorality (or allegations thereof) she could be killed or at minimum lose her rights to her marriage inheritance. But the “any cause” divorce was quietly done and mean she would probably get some of her inheritance. I-B suggests that Joseph’s plan to divorce Mary quietly followed the “any cause” clause,

Joseph did not want to put Mary through the disgrace of a public trial, so he decided to use the quiet “any cause” divorce that did not require any proof of wrongdoing. Matthew considered that this would be the action of a “just man,” because Joseph could have ensured that he didn’t have to pay Mary’s marriage inheritance if he had decided to prove her guilty of adultery in court. (p. 57)

Countering Hillel was Shammai and his followers, who only saw sexual immorality as a reason for divorce. I-B reports that this controversy “was a matter of huge public debate” (ibid). So, we come to Matt. 19:3 where the rabbis ask Jesus his opinion on the matter. Is it lawful to divorce for any cause, they ask. I-B does not think that our commentators and translations get it right. The rabbis are not asking Jesus if divorce is okay but if “any cause” divorce is okay–based on his reading of this contemporary debate among the rabbis. But what of Mark 10 where the text doesn’t include the “any cause” type language? Here I-B suggests the analogy of someone asking if it is okay for a minor to drink. Here we all understand the question is about alcohol and not drinking liquid. I-B suggests the audience would never consider that what Moses enacted as law would be unlawful. Divorce is allowed, but is “any cause” divorce allowed?

Jesus ignores the debate and tells both groups their mistake per I-B. But when he directly answers, Jesus supports Shimmai’s position and rejects the “any cause” divorce.

I-B points out that most biblical scholars get hung up on the meaning of porneia and miss the context of the rabbinical debates of the day. Jesus, says I-B is only answering the specific question of how to interpret Deut 24:1 and NOT nullifying the other legitimate reasons for divorce that we looked at in previous posts (abandonment, failure to provide food, clothing, and conjugal love). Jesus answers the question at hand but focuses on marriage rather than divorce. I-B again uses the illustration of telling his wife to “just wear the dress” and having her think he means she shouldn’t wear shoes.

The rest of the chapter considers some other parts of Jesus’ teaching. He supports monogamy and when the rabbis try to suggest Moses commands divorce, Jesus retorts and says that Moses allowed it but did not command it (verse 8). I-B suggests that the rabbis heard the “because of your hardheartedness” like this: They heard him quoting Jeremiah 4:4 where divorce and stubbornness are mentioned together.

Jesus thought that people were being too quick to divorce, so he reminds them that Moses meant divorce to occur only when there was “hardheartedness”–that is, a stubborn refusal to repent and stop breaking marriage vows. (p. 63)

I-B reports that the disciples’ response reveals the bombshell of Jesus’ teaching (verse 10). If its like this, maybe it’s better not to marry.” Jesus is radical by suggesting that marriage was optional. Apparently, Jews always saw it as compulsory due to the command to be fruitful.

So, Jesus denies the “any cause” divorce and even suggests that attempts to divorce are not valid and therefore remarriage is an act of adultery. If you are following along in the book, be sure to re-read I-B’s summary of what he thinks is going on in Matt 19 on pp 65-66. He also reminds readers that the Gospel accounts cannot possibly contain all that was said but are shortened to get to the main point.

Mark wrote first and abbreviated the debate as much as possible, but Matthew wrote later, when the debate was more or less over and was less well known. He knew his readers might get confused, so he helped them out by putting a few details back in. (p. 67)

So, what do you do with these proposed ideas about the context in which Jesus is speaking? Are you suspicious that the church could have missed this context for so long? Even I-B raises this question and promises to answer it in a later chapter. If you do use this lens (that Jesus rejects the any cause divorce but supports the sexual immorality cause) then I think it begs the question whether Jesus would agree with hardheartedness as a cause for divorce as well (which I-B wants to have at the bottom of all appropriate divorces; we should forgive even adultery, but divorce only when stubborn refusal to repent is the issue). If that was his point, why was this not clearer in the text. On the other hand, contumacy has long been seen as the cause for divorce (excommunication) from the church. One is not cut off from the church because of any type of sin, but because of a pattern of stubborn refusal to repent and turn.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Sex, sin

Tagged as , ,

May 20, 2008 · 5:19 am

APA says sexual orientation isn’t biological but from yet to be determined factors


Last week I commented on sexual identity formation in little kids. It spawned a large number of comments, both on and off topic. Hesitantly, I will make another post on the topic of sexual identity–this time from a brochure published by my own clinical association.

The American Psychological Association (APA) has a pamphlet on sexual orientation and homosexuality designed to aid understanding and reduce prejudice. My friend, John Freeman, gave me this to me and pointed out an interesting line which we’ll look at in a moment. But first, let me summarize the pamphlet

Sexual orientation, according to the APA is

“an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.”

Right away it is clear they don’t really distinguish between attraction and identity and orientation and identity. You see the simple equation: attraction=orientation/identity. This is where Yarhouse’s studies with individuals within a gay affirming church give ample concrete evidence that such an equation is simplistic and mischaracterizes a set of complex issues. The reality is that one may recognize an attractional pull without it forming a private or public identity.

The APA document continues with the following,

“According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence.”

Again we see the attractions = orientation. This fits with the popular identity development theory that one moves from discomfort with to pride in attractions and accepts orientation as a given. Interpretive assumptions are given short shrift here.

Now to the good stuff. The brochure asks the question: What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? And here is their answer,

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientist to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

This is an interesting paragraph. The APA rightly recognizes that no one factor is likely to determine later orientation. In fact, we’re not really at a point where we can say one factor is X% of the equation. There is no equation yet. It doesn’t mean we won’t have a better sense of it in the future, but as of yet, the problem is not merely a biological process. So, this opens the door to choice and manipulation of one’s orientation unless one subscribes to behavioral naturalism–something most of us would not accept in other areas of life. Obviously no one is suggesting that sexual orientation is as transitory as a passing fancy. And yet the APA recognizes that even when folks don’t experience themselves choosing orientation, there is an interpretative and choice element however subtle and slow the process.

At this point the brochure turns to the problem of discrimination and its impact on gay and lesbian people. No matter your beliefs about homosexuality, you ought to recognize that there is great stigma and mistreatment for those so identified (and also for those who may not fit stereotyped roles but do not have a gay identity). Then the brochure covers the question of mental disorder. 

Is homosexuality a mental health disorder? No says the APA and I agree based on the definition of mental illness where it has to cause distress. Not all with a gay identity are distressed, period. This really isn’t the issue.

The brochure goes on but I will mention only one last section. They discuss the validity of therapy intended to change orientation. They state there is, “no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation is safe or effective.” First, this sentence is full of highly charged words whose meaning can be debated: adequate…safe…effective. What constitutes adequate? Safe? Effective? There is some data that is not merely anecdotal suggesting that change is possible and not unsafe (see Yarhouse and Jones’ Ex-Gays(IVP). Now, their data isn’t as strong as it could be, isn’t overwhelmingly positive, but neither can it be denied as an anecdote. On the flip side, there isn’t any adequately scientific data suggestive that change therapies are unsafe and ineffective. Both sides of the research agenda have the same set of weaknesses that one would expect in researching this particular population (i.e., convenience samples).

I agree with the APA that we therapist must respect and person’s right to self-determination. But the APA violates this very principle by disrespecting those who have carefully thought about change. It is a paternalistic stretch to say that every person who wishes to change orientation only does so because of biases or because of a fundamentalist upbringing. The APA wants to be sensitive to a client’s “race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion…” as long as their religion doesn’t guide them to see sexuality in a different light.

All in all, the APA takes a complex set of factors and ends up with, “It just is, so be nice!” I’m all for reducing mistreatment and violations of constitutional rights. But, I expect my scientific organization to spend my dues in a more balanced manner–faithfully representing what is true, whether attractive or not.  

13 Comments

Filed under Psychology, sexual identity, sexuality, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

May 19, 2008 · 10:05 am

Practicum Monday: Premature Termination in Counseling


Today in Practicum class we discuss matters around ending treatment or counseling relationships with our counselees. The one that causes interns most consternation is the premature termination by clients after only one session. The trainee is left to wonder why. “Did I fail to connect? Did I say something to offend them? What did I do wrong? Did they figure out I don’t know what I’m doing?” Usually, they report feeling like a failure. Here’s a secret: even experienced therapists feel this at times as well.

Well, let’s start with the murky data. Brogan, Prochaska & Prochaska (v. 36 (1999) of Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice & Training, 105-113) report that various studies reveal a premature termination after just one session stands somewhere between 20 and 57%. Some 30-60% drop out before the counselor thinks they should. And a meta-analytic study (of 125 studies) reports a premature dropout rate of 47%. Even though our research in this area is still weak (we don’t really know what factors to use to report premature dropout), the numbers are pretty high.

So, why do people stop counseling before they should? Why do our clients not return? We really don’t know as much as we would like. We do know that individuals in certain demographics are more likely (lower SES, lower education, minority status) to drop out. But even here, we don’t really know why. Is it client-counselor mismatch? Lack of understanding of the process of counseling? Lack of hope?

We do know that several factors do NOT seem to relate to premature termination (therapy mode, setting, and ages of clients).

While our research is still cloudy, it makes sense to consider the combination of client factors (motivation for personal growth, ability to have insight), environmental factors (financial status, family support or detraction, cultural support), and counselor factors (capacity to empathize and connect with the client’s perceptions, diagnostic and listening skills).

Trainees can ask these questions in their postmortems:

1. Did we share an understanding of the type and severity of the problems?
2. Did I give evidence that I understand their experience (beyond saying so)?
3. Did I give some evidence of the path forward and hope for the future without overselling it?
4. Did I acknowledge potential pit-falls, hopelessness, fear?
5. Was my client the “customer” or was someone else demanding it (e.g. parent)?   

5 Comments

Filed under counseling, counseling science, Psychology, teaching counseling

Tagged as , , ,