September 25, 2007 · 9:51 am

Your negative mood and how you view your loved ones


When you experience negative emotion in your most intimate relationships, what do you do? A recent study published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology (54:4, 2007) suggests that we are inclined to place much of the blame on our loved ones. Instead of attributing the problems to external factors (as we tend to do when feeling good), many tend to attribute the cause of their unhappiness to their spouse’s character or behavior. The researchers suggest that when we feel happy we broaden our cognitive focus and when we feel unhappy, we narrow it down to the most salient (convenient?) factors–our spouse’s behavior.

A couple of other interesting factoids that came out of this study. When either partner is unsatisfied in the relationship, the woman engaged in more demanding behaviors (blaming, discussing, putting pressure on the other) as opposed to withdrawing behaviors. When couples improved their relational mood by attributing the positive change to either individual, they were less satisfied than when couples improved their relational mood by attributing the positive change to environmental factors.

Does this make sense to you? Why would couples have more satisfaction if they think external factors account for their positive mood than if they attribute positive change to one or the other? Are we suspicious of our spouse’s motives? Don’t really believe their good behavior will continue?

Here’s why this matters for therapists. As the authors say, we are generally trained to explore a couple’s presenting problem, investigate the history of the problem, and then intervene. They suggest that this will INCREASE the couple’s negative emotions and tempt them to choose a bad solution such as blaming the other or withdrawing. This may suggest that therapists begin couples counseling by increasing positive mood before jumping right into the problem. The authors also remind us of some of Gottman’s research that how a conversation begins has a huge impact on the rest of the conversation and influences the particular problem-solving skills a couple uses.

Leave a comment

Filed under counseling science, counseling skills, marriage

Tagged as ,

September 24, 2007 · 10:06 am

Are you a social loafer?


How involved do you get in advocacy? My most recent Pennsylvania Psychologist magazine explores the need for political and social advocacy by psychologists. Most of us Psychologists want our state organization to fight the evil empire of Managed Care but few contribute or work personally toward the cause.

Social loafing, says Ed Zuckerman, is when, “Members of a group make less effort to achieve a goal when they work together than when they work separately.” He goes on to say, “We appear to contribute less energetically when cooperating on a committee than if we had the same parts of the task to do alone. Why do we loaf? The main explanation is that people feel unmotivated because they think that their contributions will not be evaluated separately from the group’s and they require individual rewards for effort.”

Does that explanation ring true for you? It does seem that we sometimes have the, “someone else will do it” mentality and so place responsibility on others that should be our own. I see that in class group projects sometimes. Second, we sometimes have the “what will I get out of this” short-sighted mentality.

But what explains the way some groups get things done where individually, they probably could not succeed? A compelling goal, an awareness of need, a heightened sense of expectation for self and other, and active choice. When roles are assigned, complaints, passivity, procrastination increases says Zuckerman.  

Where do you loaf? Work? Tithing and other financial gifts? Volunteering at church? I know for me it is when my local Y wants me to participate in fundraising to help support my son’s gymnastics team. I pay a nice monthly fee. I buy his uniform. I pay my part of the coach fees for meets. So, it feels like I have already “given at the office. Let others do it.

Or what about church volunteering. I’m in full time ministry (teaching at a seminary, counseling part-time). Its all for God. So, do I have to also be willing to teach Sunday School, serve on committees, etc.? Despite my temptation to say no, I believe I must support the local church with my time. Uh, is 1x/month duty in the pre-k class enough? Someone will surely pick up the slack…

Leave a comment

Filed under Cultural Anthropology

Tagged as

September 21, 2007 · 9:08 am

Frederick Douglass on American Religion


At the conclusion of yesterday’s staff meeting, Diane Langberg read to us from the appendix of Douglass’ slave narrative. He felt compelled to clarify his views on religion, and Christianity in particular. As with all great literature, this piece is timeless and ought to be revisited by us from time to time.

His main point? American Christianity practiced in the South is/was not authentic Christianity. In fact, it is another religion altogether. Here are some tidbits:

…between Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference–so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked…. I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason,  but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels…. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members…. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The deal gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity.

Douglass then goes on to connect Jesus’ description of the Pharisees to American Christians.

“They bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers…. But woe unto you scribes and pharisees…you devour widows’ houses…You blind guides! Which strain out the gnat and swallow the camel.”  

Where is Douglass’ assessment of the hypocritical nature of American Christianity still true today? Where do we accept things that should not go together? It is always hard to see it for ourselves. We need those irritating prophets who offend us but make us think. Douglass was such a prophet. Unfortunately, we tend to ignore these prophets in their lifetime and then other prophets forget that the message they have been given is not for their own personal gain.

Should you want to read the whole appendix (and if you haven’t–read the whole book!), here is the link to the text.   

5 Comments

Filed under Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, church and culture

Tagged as

September 20, 2007 · 5:58 am

Famous speakers and their stories


Most speakers illustrate their points with stories. It helps the audience to use their senses, emotions, experiences, etc. in connecting at a deeper level with the concept being taught. I noticed a couple of speakers recently who told a story that nearly filled up the entire time they talked and only paid lip service to the points they were trying to make. These people had concepts in order to tell stories (of which they were the center!). On the surface, the speakers seemed very transparent and down-to-earth. It was refreshing to hear their struggles.

But something bothered me and then it hit me. I wonder if these speakers could talk for an hour on points and never tell a story about themselves. Since I’ve heard these speakers before several times, I suspect they could not.

So, here’s my question. Does becoming famous make you ego-centric? Or, does ego-centrism plus charisma lead to fame?

Here’s why I think this practice is dangerous amongst Christians. Instead of the story pointing to Jesus; It has Jesus pointing to the person.

4 Comments

Filed under Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, Cultural Anthropology, self-deception

September 19, 2007 · 5:33 am

Contractual Christianity?


Sean Roberts, one of the interns at our church, preached Sunday on Matthew 20 and the parable where the owner of the vineyard pays those who work only 1 hour a full day’s wage–the same he paid those who worked all day in the heat. During the sermon Sean mused that we, “default so often to a contractual christianity.” Either we ask “What do I have to do to get… [some hoped-for blessing]” or we ask, “I’ve done such and such–what do I get for that?”

Can you relate? Ever have someone with less experience get paid the same or higher than you? The owner of the vineyard reminds the workers that they got what they were promised. The problem, he said, was that the grumbling workers begrudged his generosity. Or how about thinking that if you are more consistent in your spiritual disciplines that you’ll feel closer to God, have a better marriage, etc? Contractual Christianity.

Sean, the pastoral intern, reminded us of two things. First, notice that there are two groups: those who know they have gotten more than they deserve and those who think they are owed more. Second, he also reminded us that the owner deals gently with those who are anger and bitter. That reminded me of how the father treats the son when the prodigal comes back. He gently encourages the older son to take joy in the opportunity for grace.

Sean left us with this thought. God’s generosity is far better than our ideas of fairness. 

Leave a comment

Filed under anger, Biblical Reflection

September 18, 2007 · 5:28 am

Leslie Vernick’s The Emotionally Destructive Relationship


On my recent trip I began Leslie’s new book, The Emotionally Destructive Relationship: Seeing it, Stopping it, Surviving it (2007, Harvest House. Leslie is a LCSW here in PA. I first met her when I was a seminary student and she was a staff counselor/supervisor at CCEF, a local counseling center. Leslie has now authored several books, each of which shows her biblical understanding of people coupled with wonderful interpersonal skill and insights as a clinician. I often tell others that she’s a counselor I’d send any of my family members to see (including myself).

So, I’m looking forward to reviewing this new book. Let me highlight some tidbits from the first chapter:

1. In chapter 1 she defines the emotionally destructive relationship. While abuse is always destructive, destruction in relationship can be much more subtle and not always malicious as we often imagine abuse to be. Further, single episodes may be abusive but not destructive. Hence this definition: Pervasive and repetitive patterns of actions and attitudes that result in tearing someone down or inhibiting a person’s growth (p. 26).
2. Difficult relationships are not the same as destructive.
3. 5 patterns that are always destructive: abuse of any kind, overbearing/overprotectiveness, overdependency and demanding to be the center of attention, deception of the other, and chronic indifference, neglect, or disdain.
4. Lots of couples are in emotionally destructive patterns and it is easy to blame the other for one’s own behavior. She gives a great illustration of a couple (p. 29f). Neither feels loved. She attacks and demeans; he withdraws then explodes. Each wants the other to change first and justifies his/her own behavior as a “normal” response to being sinned against. Both need to take responsibility to name their own sinful reactions to the world.
5. She ends with a 30 question test to help those discern if they are in an emotionally destructive relationship.

10 Comments

Filed under Abuse, book reviews

September 17, 2007 · 10:23 am

Research that brought me to tears


I confess, the other day I got teary over someone’s research (we New Englander men don’t really cry–its a disorder caused by enculturated individualism). Truth be told, I didn’t get choked up by the research but by the man who was reporting it. Mark Yarhouse closed out the annual conference of the Society for Christian Psychology by reporting the history of his research in the area of sexual identity (and its change) and sexual orientation. 9 years ago he began explore these areas. First he and Stan Jones critiqued the pro-gay psychological research and pointed out serious flaws. At the heart of the matter he was concerned about those who acknowledged same sex attraction but because of their deeply-held theological beliefs, did not wish to identify with the gay identity. Mainstream psychology has argued that these folks are suppressing their identity or being suppressed by fundamentalist culture. Isn’t it possible, Mark wondered, that these seemingly healthy individuals could acknowledge their sexual desires and choose not to make their identity or behavior based on desire. In the talk he told us of his attempts to dialog with pro-gay psychologists and psychiatrists. He took some heat, of course, but also gained the respect of others. Most recently, he has been constructing a model for helping clients explore the many facets of their sexual identity and changing what is in their power (how they interpret and respond to same sex attraction) and allowing what they cannot change to be.

Okay, you are probably wondering why this moved me. I was moved because here was a man showing great compassion to these faithful, struggling christians–double minorities in both the world and in the church. He has done this at great cost to himself and has had to hang on to the Lord under significant spiritual warfare. Here is a man not willing to get stuck in the political speak but willing to dialog with those many would consider enemies and to try to hear and understand–even when he knew it wouldn’t change the world. Here is a man willing to explore how people remain faithful to God while trying to understand their brokenness. Finally, I was moved by the love and wisdom shown to Mark in a letter from his sister. She encouraged his faith and reminded him what was true in language fitting of a classic pastoral care author.

Okay, I still can’t express why I was moved. But I wasn’t the only one. The speaker who came up to close the conference was also choked up. It is possible that scientific endeavors show us the hand and face of God. 

Mark’s latest book, Ex-gays? A longitudinal study of religiously mediated change in sexual orientation (IVP) is hot off the press (first author is Stanton Jones).   

3 Comments

Filed under christian psychology, church and culture, counseling science, sexual identity, sexuality

September 14, 2007 · 5:19 am

Restoration to the office of minister after a fall?


Can I share with you a great nugget Diane Langberg shared with me last week from Ezekiel? It was so good that I thought I’d like to share it here as a little snapshot of our AACC talk yesterday in Nashville.

Background: Diane has been thinking and writing about abuse of power and the impact of Christian leaders feeding on the sheep. Together and individually we have talked with churches about whether pastors who abuse or have significant moral and public falls should be restored to the office they formerly held. If you read the existing literature, authors fall into two camps: yes and never.

Now, consider this text: Ezekiel 44. Verse 10 speaks of the sins of the Levites (church leaders), “who wandered from me after their idols…” These leaders, “must bear the consequences of their sin.”  However, verse 11f says, “They may serve in my sanctuary, having charge of the gates of the temple and serving in it; they may slaughter the burnt offerings and sacrifices for the people and serve them. But because they served them in the presence of their idols and made the house of Israel fall into sin, therefore I have sworn with uplifted hand that they must bear the consequences of their sin…They are not to come near to serve me as priests nor come near any of my holy things or my most holy offerings; they must bear the shame of their destestable practices.”

If we apply this to falling after idols in our world, it sounds like the answer is yes there can be restoration to some forms of ministry but not to the most important or highest offices where the person represents the voice of the Lord. Senior pastors who fall from their position may (if repentant) be restored to lower level, nearly lay ministries but must not be returned to the highest offices in the church.

What do you think of this interpretation for today?  

7 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, pastoral renewal, pastors and pastoring, Repentance

September 13, 2007 · 5:25 am

AACC 2007 World Conference Presentation Today


Today, Diane Langberg and I will be giving a break-out session entitled: Working with Churches that are Dealing with an Abuser: A Model in Progress. If you want to see our PowerPoint slides click the page at the top entitled, “Articles, Slides and Other Things.”

2007 World Conference

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

September 12, 2007 · 1:15 pm

Ed Welch at the Society Conference


Ed talked this am about how he thinks about biblical counseling, integration, and Christian psychology. He sees Christian Psychology as founded upon two good ideas: (a) building a solid infrastructure for our Christian work (in the past christian counseling hasn’t done this well), and (b) helpful listening and dialog so that we can learn from each other (and we haven’t done this well in the past either).

He acknowledged that given his milieu at CCEF and Westminster Seminary, the issues of integration aren’t primary. They might well be for others but haven’t been for him.  He discussed how he sees secular literature. He reads it and enjoys it when stimulating and not so much when it is boring or overly preachy in worldview. As a teacher he asks his students to engage this literature and read it carefully.

What has been more of a primary focus for him is how we access Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ. He spent a considerable amount of his talk on making sure we see problems from Scripture’s multiperspectival approach. As example he used the concept of low self-esteem. In the 80s, biblical counselors rightly pointed out that low self-esteem was poorly masked pride and egocentrism (wanting to look more highly than we think we do).  And yet, he admitted that this is not all that Scripture has to say about the chronic feelings of not measuring up. First, there is the impact of Adam’s original sin. We are in places where we feel guilty because we do not measure up. Second, we must acknowledge the sin done to us and how that shapes our sense of self. As biblical counselors we need to have this rich understanding of problems and not treat issues such as self-esteem from only one perspective.

Ed’s talk was personal and open, as usual. Its really hard to dislike him or to disagree with him–even if I wanted to. I am biased as I have always liked listening to him muse about life. I am glad he has come and lent his voice to the conversation here. It will help those only exposed to radical forms of biblical counseling see a better example and also will help Ed see how others see biblical counseling.

Later in the day, Steve Zombory (Palm Beach Atlantic University) gave a talk entitled, “Why I am not a biblical counselor.” He brought to light some of the lack of self-critique within the movement, the stagnation that may come as a result of not interacting with developments of mind/brain research, of misrepresenting academic psychology. These are some of the complaints I have also raised. He did also suggest that biblical counseling lacks a broad understanding of suffering (I highly disagree) and doesn’t interact with serious pathology (I disagree here but understand that their public writings haven’t been as focused here as much as their teaching). Later, Welch and Zombory will have a public dialog. Should be good.

2 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian psychology