Tag Archives: christian psychology

January 27, 2012 · 1:34 pm

Translating EFT into Christian Psychology? Publication notice


My friend and colleague Mike McFee (Eastern University) and I recently had an article published in the latest edition of the Journal of Psychology & Christianity (v. 30, pp 317-328). In it we tried to tackle how someone from a Christian Psychology perspective might interact with Emotion-Focused Therapy, a popular treatment protocol.

Here’s how we started our paper,

Emotion-Focused Therapy (EFT) is a rapidly growing treatment system offering empirically based treatment for couples and families. As with many current secular theories of psychology, EFT is embedded in humanistic assumptions which propose a few challenges to the Christian practitioner…. Using the methodology of Eric Johnson…this essay explores the practices of translating EFT into a Christian Psychology.

Next we identify a problem for counselors. We say that being christian and thinking christianly is supposed to influence all that we do. But, the truth is much of what goes on in Christian counseling doesn’t look that much different from counseling from markedly different ideologies. Both are compassionate and use similar techniques. The problem isn’t always bad integration but that we haven’t defined well the various levels of translation between two languages (i.e., humanistic founded EFT and Christian psychology).

The rest of the essay explores the two languages and 3 kinds of translation possibilities depending on the context and need, rather than is a one-size-fits-all approach. We conclude with a case example and actual dialog to show one kind of translation work.

What are the 3 kinds of translation? You’ll have to read if you want to know? There has to be SOME mystery, right?

7 Comments

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

Tagged as , , , , ,

January 12, 2012 · 5:52 am

How to evaluate a counseling model or intervention: Step four


Picking up on this series that was started last week, we come to the next-to-last step. Thus far I have suggested that whenever you are exploring the next best thing in counseling, you should

  • start with a healthy dose of suspicion about the motives and goals of the author. What are they trying to sell you?
  • Read with an open mind. Can you see what they observe about life?
  • Evaluate the author’s assumptions, worldview, etc. Be willing to be challenged!

Now we come to step four.

Step Four: Let yourself be critiqued

How might their observations and assumptions challenge your own? Sit with this a bit. Don’t worry that you will lose your faith. It never hurts to have our beliefs and values refined and challenged by our critics. Maybe some of your values are uncritically formed. How might these assumptions cause you to refine and renew your own? Can you eliminate some faulty logic?

Be willing to state some of the weaknesses within your own system of beliefs and assumptions. I wish every model builder would start with their own flaws. But, most of us are better at pointing out the speck in our brother’s eye than addressing the log in our own.

Finally, our next step will be to possibly adopt some portion of the model or intervention into our own repertoire.

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as , , , ,

January 6, 2012 · 9:42 am

How to evaluate a counseling model or technique: Step three


In my two previous posts I suggested that the best way to evaluate “the next best thing” in counseling models or techniques is to start with a healthy dose of suspicion and then to read with an open mind as you try to enter their world and see what they see. Now, moving on to step three, I recommend that you take a look under the hood.

Step Three: Evaluate Assumptions

Whether you are considering adopting a whole model of counseling or merely a technique, you want to step back a bit and assess what assumptions and presuppositions color the author’s view of the world. If you adopt any portion of the model, you will be likely to adopt some portion of their assumptions. In evaluating assumptions, I find it best to ask yourself a few questions,

1. What presuppositiong, worldview, beliefs, etc. bleed through on their pages? Do they focus most on nature? Nurture? Individualist? Communitarian?

2. What ideas and values seem to be most prominent for this author, especially about human nature, health, healing, struggle, etc.

For some authors (especially model builders) assumptions are handed to you on a platter. When Carl Rogers said that he believed that humans had a drive to find health and wholeness, he made his assumptions quite well known. However, during the 80s and 90s, many psychologists stopped trying to build models. They hid behind “eclectic” and focused on “what works.” Well, “what works” (aka utilitarianism) is an assumption that we ought to be aware of. Many current authors have returned to try to build a better explanatory model for human flourishing. For example, Mark McMinn has penned an integrative psychotherapy model (reviewed here in past years) attempting to bring together cognitive and affective and spiritual models. Despite the return to model building, most popular trade book authors rarely discuss their own assumptions.

Still sound fuzzy? Just what are we looking for and what do we do with it once we find it? Consider these made up examples.

Author one: “…her problem? Her love tank was empty, had a huge hole in it from the way she was treated by her father.” Assumptions? You can see a little Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and a statement that present problems are the result of victimization from the past. This will surely impact the author’s ideas for treatment.

Author two: “…her problem? She struggles to connect her whole brain when processing emotions. Neural networks need to be developed and used to cool down her hypothalamus. she…” You can see here that the focus is on neural networks, possibly brain chemistry issues, and an overactive hypothalamus. You might not hear anything about will, choice, right thinking or experiencing. This client is a product of her brain. This will surely impact the author’s ideas for treatment.

Now, a word of caution. Just because we discover assumptions that we don’t agree with, it doesn’t mean we have to chuck the model or technique. Rather, we are merely trying to understand some of the straggler assumptions that might cling to the parts we buy into. I used to start all of my model evaluations with this step. However, I found that I was more likely to wholesale reject their observations if they were wrong in their assumptions. But everyone sees—even if poorly. And observations can be very helpful—even if fixated on one small aspect of life.

In our next step we will seek to let their assumptions challenge, correct, or refine our own (rather than just believing what we have always believed is airtight correct).

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as , , ,

January 3, 2012 · 10:26 am

How to evaluate a new counseling model or technique: Step one


Being a professor of counseling I get lots of questions like this: “What do you think of _____ (a new or popular counseling model/intervention)? These days, I’m being asked about coaching models, neurofeedback, EMDR, EFT, brainspotting, the use of SPECT scans, the use of psychiatric medications, nutritional supplements, and the like. In past years, I might have been asked about theophostic ministry, DBT, or ECT.

To be honest, I haven’t read every counseling model to the nth degree. I know a bit about a lot of models and a whole lot about some models. So, I try to be careful not to offer too much critique on what I don’t know first hand. That said, I do think there are good ways to go about evaluating any new model and proponents’ claims of efficacy. Over the next few posts I plan to show you how I try to investigate any new (to me) model:

Step One: Start with Suspicion

What? Shouldn’t we give them a fair shake? Yes, of course. And we will. But first, I do think it is helpful to ask yourself, a few key questions about what you are being sold.

  • Who is promoting this model/intervention? What financial benefit are they seeking?
  • What claims or promises do they make about their successes? Do they seem reasonable? Overly optimistic?
  • What supporting evidence is offered? Anything other than anecdotes from the inner circle of disciples? Any empirical evidence?
  • Do supporters distance from everything that has gone on before? How do they connect to mainstream models?
  • How transparent are the authors about what is being done?

None of these questions will answer our ultimate question of the value of any new model. There are excellent new models with almost no empirical evidence. Conversely, there are those who connect their intervention to a piece of mainstream research but do so only tangentially (thereby giving the appearance of scientific support but lacking validity and reliability (i.e., much of the change your brain popular models)).

A model that starts in the popular sphere may turn out to be good. Yet, we still want to gather the data about the motives and purpose of the new model. Take coaching for example. There is good evidence that coaching techniques work. However, much of what you find in popular places (bookstores and the Internet) is about someone trying to make a buck, either to coach you or to sell you a certification to become a coach. Thus, it is important to look at “packaging” to see what we are being sold. We may well want to buy the “product” but buyers need to know that sellers don’t usually talk about the weaknesses of their product.

Watch out for those models that over-sell their results, especially in the area of “complete freedom” from suffering. These are almost always unsupported by empirical evidence and certainly do not line up with good theology. We want complete removal of mental pain. This isn’t a bad desire, but it does set us up to buy the “next best thing” without proper critical evaluation. And well-meaning friends may tempt us to try out some new technique because it worked for them.

And yet, we need to be open to the possibility that there is something new on the horizon. Truthful anecdotes still have some merit. And so, tomorrow I will suggest that step two includes “reading with an open mind.”

4 Comments

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

Tagged as , , , , ,

December 15, 2011 · 5:02 am

Characteristics of a competent counselor?


I’ve published another blog post on the Seminary’s faculty blog site. This time, I’ve written a bit on 7 characteristics of a competent counselor. Readers here may remember there was a famous book  by Jay Adams by the title, “Competent to  Counsel”. I’m not trying to compete with that title but rather to focus on the character of the counselor. Too often we worry about the beliefs of the counselor. While beliefs, assumptions, models are very important, they are secondary to the character of the counselor. Having the right model but unable to be kind is a counseling fail. Frankly, choose the kind and humble counselor over the “right” thinking counselor if you have to make the choice between the two. The humble counselor is more likely to keep out of the way of the Spirit’s work in your life.

What are the seven characteristics I look for in my students and that I hope I exude in increasing measure? Read on here.

3 Comments

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

Tagged as , , ,

November 11, 2011 · 5:17 am

Counseling as Global Mission of the Church


A few days ago I wrote this for our seminary’s blog regarding how counseling supports the global mission of the church. If you are interested in international counseling work…you need to read this blog and follow the link I promote.

Counseling as Global Mission of the Church.

Leave a comment

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling science, counseling skills, Cultural Anthropology, ethics, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

May 17, 2011 · 5:56 am

What is the difference between a trial and a stressor?


Words matter. The words you use to describe an event really do shape how you will view it and how you will respond to it. For counselors, the words they use to conceptualize a client/case will shape how they see clients and how they will attempt to intervene. This is why I take considerable time in my Practicum class to practice case conceptualization.

Most beginning counselors are good at collecting information. But, for most, that data might well be a hopelessly knotted  ball of twine.  Where to start pulling? How do we make sense of the various pieces of data? And since data never comes to us uninterpreted, which “data” do we tend to gravitate to? Behaviors? Family history? Motivations? Biology? Environment? Client beliefs? But even more confusing are the words we use to describe these sectors of life–and the meaning they convey!

Stressor v. Trial?

Here’s how language influences case conceptualization. Your client experiences long-term family discord due to an adult child with schizophrenia. The family member routinely goes off medications and the police have to be called in order to transport him or her to the hospital after threatening self-harm. Your client comes to counseling to seek support for handling this difficult situation. As you can imagine, the client feels alone, worn down, and wondering how to keep going despite no sense that the situation will get better any time soon.

What do you imagine might be the impact of calling this family situation a trial? And how might you view it differently if you called it a stressor. Notice any differences? Benefits of each? Drawbacks of either? In your mind, are they equivalent? (See Eric Johnson’s brief discussion of these two words and their similarities/differences in regard to Christian psychology in his Foundations for Soul Care, p. 240)

Here is my thinking. Within Christian tradition, a “trial” signifies a difficult time or season but from a spiritual or divine perspective. It conveys a purpose–a testing or proofing of one’s faith. We tend to view trials (or desire to at least) from an eternal point of view, “testing of your faith produces perseverance…”  (Jas 1:3). Notice that while “trial” does signify difficulty, the focus is largely on the purpose it serves.

On the other hand, a “stressor” is something that causes stress or distress in a person’s life. Notice that this word carries no sense of eternity, divine value or purpose. It merely describes a facet of life that is troubling a person’s life.

Imagine with me a counselor who uses “trial” to describe the distress in the life of the client mentioned above. How do you expect that might shape the counselor’s view of the situation and thus response sets to that client? Would our counselor be more likely to view the trial as something to endure, more likely to engage in spiritual conversations so as to find comfort and peace in the middle of the storm? Would their conversations tend toward the hope of heaven? Is it possible that using the language of trials might cause a counselor to ignore the real-time experience of distress?

Now imagine the counselor who uses “stressor” to describe the same distress. Would this counselor be more likely to discuss in detail the physical, psychological impact of living with a mentally ill and unstable family member? Would this counselor then be more focused on finding ways to decrease the moment-by-moment stress levels? Is it possible that using the language of stressor might cause a counselor to ignore an eternal perspective?

Hopefully, you can see the value of both word meanings and the interventions described. It is possible to use the language of trials and focus in on the details of how that trial impacts the client. And it is possible to use the language of stressors and keep in mind an eternal perspective. Whatever language, the interventions off stress education and reduction and hope building are necessary interventions.

If you are a counselor or counseling student, observe the language you use to describe your clients and their lives. How does that language influence your view of them and the interventions you might use with them?

6 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, counseling skills, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

May 6, 2011 · 12:45 pm

Guest post/article on www.christianpsych.org


For those interested in Christian psychology and its future, you can read a short essay I wrote on the topic here

Check out the site for other interesting blog entries. It shows the diversity of ideas and interests in the field.

3 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, Psychology

Tagged as

October 19, 2010 · 5:46 pm

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


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

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

Some things we shouldn’t do:

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

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

What can we do?

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as , , , , ,

October 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 , , , ,