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 , ,

October 3, 2010 · 10:55 am

Ever heard a sermon on Leah?


At this weekend’s conference Tedd Tripp is preaching on Jacob, Rachel and Leah and the matter of heart longings. I think this may have been the first time I have heard someone given an extensive reflection on Leah’s situation. For those of you unfamiliar with this biblical story, Jacob works 7 years for his future father in law in order to marry the younger, more beautiful sister Rachel. On his wedding night he consummated his marriage and discovers afterwards his heavily veiled wife is not Rachel but Leah. He must work another 7 years for Rachel.

Imagine the experience of being Leah. You know he wants someone else. He many even have called you by your sister’s name during that first night. The text says that God saw the Leah was unloved. Her first three sons are named by her in such a way to illustrate her hopes that she will be loved for giving Jacob sons. Her fourth son gives Glory. She appears to no longer pine for Jacob’s love.

Imagine that experience. We could focus on Jacob’s willingness to work 14 years for his first love. We can focus on the deception in the story. But imagine the loneliness of Leah. Imagine a husband who is wiling to have sex with you (and you bear him sons) but who clearly loves someone else more.

Tedd closed by reminding us that Judah, Leah’s son, is the one of Jacob’s son who is in the lineage of Jesus Christ. Notice that God favors Leah in spite of her pain.

4 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection

Tagged as , ,

October 1, 2010 · 10:48 pm

Preaching to the 20%?


I’m representing Biblical Seminary this weekend at the Shepherd Press Marriage & Family conference being held in Harrisburg. Dave Harvey opened the conference with a very good sermon on showing mercy and kindness to family members. He stressed the importance of Luke 6:36 and the need to show mercy to sinners just as God does for us. This goes against our typical human desires for revenge or at least punishment for the misdeeds of others.

But, without taking anything away from the good sermon I found myself asking this question. How would ______ hear the call to have mercy on a sinner spouse. ______ represents a person I know who has been emotionally and financially abused by her husband. She finally was able to bring truth to light and has a reprieve from his sin while he is living with his parents. However, she faces strong pressure by others to reconcile (despite little evidence of true repentance in the husband).  Knowing what I know about this woman, I suspect she would feel more pressure to have mercy and allow her husband to return to the home.

I think most sermons really preach to the 80%. 80% hear this and recognize that mercy may be shown in numerous ways. Even allowing truth to come to light is an act of mercy. Mercy may be treating someone better than they deserve but may not mean playing the part of the fool and thinking that a few tears and words are enough. But what of the 20% who are weighed down with guilt and assume that a general principle must be applied in a very black/white manner? How do we care for them when exhorting all Christians on to the Gospel saturated life?

I want to reiterate that I think Dave Harvey did a good job. I do think that it may be too easy for the rest of us to assume that the more vulnerable among us will be able to nuance the big virtues of the Christian faith; that they will know that to emphasize one (e.g., truth-telling) does not mean a rejection of another (e.g., forgiveness).

7 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, counseling

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 24, 2010 · 8:41 am

Receiving mercy leads to…bold sin?


You’ve just been caught doing something unlawful and harmful to others. You are stopped by the authorities. Time passes and you realize you will not be held accountable for your crimes. There will be no court case. There will be no punishment.

Would this make you more likely or less likely to continue your criminal activities?

My wife is reading a biography of US President Andrew Johnson. Johnson was VP under Lincoln and thus became president after Lincoln’s assassination. Johnson was roundly hated by both abolitionists and southerners. Fellow southerners saw him as a sell-out and abolitionists hated his obvious racist beliefs.

The biography noted that southerners were quite worried that they would face many northern reprisals for their actions during the Civil War. Not only were these reprisals not forthcoming, Johnson provided clemency to many of Confederate leadership. The biographer points out that when it was clear that individuals weren’t going to be held accountable, there seemed to be an increase in racial hatred and violence against freed slaves.

I know post Civil War politics was more complex than my simplistic statement above. And yet, consider this: can mercy embolden more sin? In fact, it may provide that temptation to sin more. Consider St. Paul’s comments in Romans 6. Do we sin more since we receive grace? Apparently, he felt the need to comment on this because we might be inclined to think that a free pass allows us to keep on going down the wrong road.

Just in case you think I’m suggesting we shouldn’t be merciful to sinners, I am NOT saying that. I’m grateful for unmerited favor in my life. I need more of it. However, let us be careful to recognize that mercy may produce in us something other than humble repentance.

5 Comments

Filed under Historical events, Repentance, 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 17, 2010 · 1:03 pm

Geographical Psyche? Does your location shape you?


Is “Mid-west Nice” an empty stereotype? What about “southern hospitality? Are people in the Northeast more neurotic than those in the West?

The most recently published American Psychologist (v. 65:6) has a couple of articles on the topic of geography and psychology that pique my interest and may give us some clues to the relationship between location and personality.

Nansook Park and Christopher Peterson (U Mich) look at regional variation in character strengths of cities say the following,

“The place where we grew up or currently reside is more than physical space. It defines who we are, how we think about ourselves and others, and the way we live.” (p. 535)

The authors used an Internet-based “self-report of character strengths” measuring 24 different strengths. These strengths are loosely lumped into two general categories, head strengths and heart strengths. By this they mean those that are more individualistic and intellectual vs. those that are more emotional and interpersonal.

Interestingly, the cities with the highest “head” strengths were LA, San Francisco, and Oakland and those with the lowest “head” orientation were Arlington, TX, OK City, and Omaha, NB [NOTE: this is a very large convenience sample, not a representative sample]. Those with the highest “heart” orientation were El Paso, TX, Mesa, AZ, and Miami. Lowest “heart” cities were Seattle, San Francisco, and Boston.

Then the authors correlated head and heart cities with 2008 presidential voting data. Head cities correlated with voting for Obama (.44) while heart cities correlated with votes for McCain (.46). These correlations are not huge but significant.

So, it may be that where you live influences the development of head or heart. Or maybe we tend to migrate to like-minded/hearted people. Also, the media in these cities have ways of influencing what we know and feel. Having lived near Philadelphia and Chicago, I can attest to the influence of the nightly news. Though Chicago is a larger city, the evening news was nowhere the crime/body count I watch in Philadelphia.

The second article explores, “Statewide Differences in Personality” (Peter Rentfrow, author). Rentfrow wants to give evidence that our stereotypes (e.g., “New Yorkers are outspoken, neurotic, and always in a hurry”) have a basis in reality. 3 different studies (1973, 2002, and 2008) reveal “surprisingly consistent geographical patterns for Neuroticism and Openness”

Neuroticism tends to be high in the Northeast and Southeast and low in the Midwest and West….Openness tends to be high in the New England, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific regions and comparatively lower in the Great Plains, Midwest, and Southeastern States.” (p. 549) [Openness, by the way, does not mean “nice” but openness to new ideas, change, etc.]

Rentfrow wonders what might account for these differences. Do people migrate to areas where others also have their same traits? Is it more the result of social influence? Or, is it the result of ecological influences (e.g., environmental or infectious disease load influencing disposition)?

He concludes with considerations of the impact of personality differences in regions. It matters because of consequences to social connectedness, political power, and overall health.

So, what do you think? How much does the region you live (or were raised in) influence your demeanor, personality, etc?

3 Comments

Filed under Psychology

Tagged as , ,

September 15, 2010 · 9:24 am

Prayers for the Maier family


Those of you familiar with my program at Biblical Seminary know that my dear colleague and his wife, Bryan  and Michelle Maier, have been battling her breast cancer for the last 3 plus years. Tuesday morning, the Lord called Michelle home. Please remember Bryan and his three young boys as they grieve the loss of their wife and mother.

If you have known Michelle, then you know she has been a fighter, turning back death numerous times over the last 9 months. But more than that, she was the drive and the organization behind Bryan. She made it easier for him to be the excellent but sometimes absent-minded professor that he is. When I saw them together, it was absolutely clear that she loved him but didn’t take him (or herself) too seriously. This means she knew Bryan well, his strengths and weaknesses, and cared for both equally well. She was one who knew how to speak the truth in love.

In her own right, she was an exceptional teacher with much experience in teaching learning and behavior disordered children. Even after coming to Philadelphia, she taught courses for teachers in training back in  Chicago.

I first met Bryan and Michelle at Wheaton College in 1995, before either of us had children. I have watched Michelle in times of strength and times of weaknesses. No matter the context, whether she was chasing down a toddler or lying in a bed trying to breathe, I always felt there was something very solid about her, about her faith, and her commitment to her family.

So, pray for the family. Bryan wishes to grieve well and to help his boys grieve do the same. There will be a viewing at the Huff and Lakjer Funeral Home in Lansdale, PA on Tuesday, 9/21 from 7-9 pm. The funeral will be held at First Baptist Church, Lansdale on 9/22 at 10:30 am. Graveside service afterward and reception to follow. Bryan has asked that those considering sending flowers to instead contribute to the future educational needs of his boys instead. I’ll post details about how to do that here as a comment when I have them.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

September 14, 2010 · 4:08 pm

The journey is the point?


This past weekend our family went camping at Blue Rocks Family Campground. One of the reasons we picked this place was because it allowed us to hike from our tent site up onto the Appalachian Trail and to a vista labeled Pulpit Rock. The map showed that the hike was approximately 1.5 miles to the top of a 1500 foot picturesque bump. The first 100 yards was rather fun. But this part of Pennsylvania is rocky, make that extremely rocky. In fact, it is so rocky that you cannot take a step without stepping on or over blue rocks. A step onto a flat spot is quite rare. I have heard from hikers that this part of the Appalachian Trail is the hardest of the entire length of the AT.

However, we had a clear blue sky, perfect temperature, and the promise of a great view from the vista. While strenuous due the steepness and the rocks we arrived at the “summit” in good time enjoying the quiet peacefulness of the woods. When we stepped toward the overlook, we were shocked to see a crowd of people waiting their turn to get a good look from the edge. Some of the waiting were hardy hikers carrying packs, tents, and sleeping bags. But others were dressed in clothes not best suited for hiking.

Turning to my left, I noticed a parking lot off through the trees. Ah, so we didn’t need to hike to see the vista after all. We could have driven up and gotten the same view without the effort. For a moment I felt robbed. Not so much because I wished we would have driven up to the vista but because my labors had to be shared with those who came up with ease. But then I realized I didn’t really come for the vista alone but for the good feeling and the experience of hiking up a trail, of being in silence (as much as you can with 3 hyperactive boys in tow), and surrounded by woods and rocks.

While those who drove up have their brief memories of the vista, I get to enjoy the hike even today every time I walk up or down stairs since my knees send me their complaints.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as ,