Tag Archives: Psychology

June 14, 2011 · 2:49 pm

Competing Models of Christian Counseling? Who is Right?


A couple of recent pieces have me thinking about (a) models of Christian counseling and, (b) the intramural conversation amongst Christians on which model is most Christian. One piece is David Powlison’s article in the Summer 2011 issue of the Westminster Today magazine (this link is to the magazine site but the current issue is not yet up). The second is by Ed Welch–a blog on Biblical Counseling Coalition website.

This is not a new topic for me. From my “About Me” page you can see that I have training in biblical counseling and also in clinical psychology. I respect the folks at CCEF who had a huge impact on my life and thought–especially that lovely editor they employ ;). While getting my PsyD I published on the historic divide between biblical counselors and Christian psychologists and the need to build bridges. I’m an associate editor for Edification, a Christian Psychology peer-reviewed journal.

All that to say, I have some thoughts on some ways we might move beyond right/wrong while still being concerned about building a clear, cogent, God-honoring model of Christian counseling.

Drop the labels

Yes, we should drop our labels. What is the difference between a Christian counselor, Christian psychologist, integrationist, or biblical counselor? These differences are as varied as the numbers of people who use them. Yes, there are probably some benefits to communicating a personal stance with one of these terms. But, for every benefit, there are probably any number of negatives, including the use of the label as a curse. “Are you that kind of biblical counselor” (whatever kind you find offensive)? “Are you a Christian who happens to be a psychologist or a Christian psychologist?”

In addition to dropping labels, we should also drop broad brush judgments. Calling Christian psychologists “syncretistic” is offensive and ill-fitting. Calling biblical counselors “psychology bashers” does not accurately portray their nuanced approach. Saying that psychology and biblical counseling is “fundamentally incompatible” (from either side of the debate) ignores the benefits that both sides gather from each other.

No labels? What then?

Facets. I’m sure there going to be problems with this idea too but let us choose to focus on facets of counseling models. For example:

  • How does Scripture shape counseling foundations and goals?
  • How do we learn from, utilize, and critique psychological constructs, data, etc?
  • How does typical human development trajectories influence our understanding of the change process?
  • How do we learn from those who do not share our epistemic foundations?
  • How do we articulate diverse counseling goals (suffering well? symptom reduction? discipleship? skill acquisition? insight?) as all working toward the common goal of glorying God and enjoying him forever.

Listen first, repent first

In Ed’s blog post (linked above on the BCC site), he captures the most essential characteristic needed if we are going to learn from each other. We ought to,

listen and enter into the world of the other person (or in this case the other counseling perspective) in such a way that the person representing the perspective says, “Yes, that’s me. You understand.”

It is a sad thing that we counselor types start with diagnosing other model builders without listening first to both the content of that model and the person behind it. We treat our fellow counselors in ways we would never treat a client. How should we listen to others? Can we see what they see? Can we see what they see that we tend to ignore? Can we see the benefits of what they do and the potential liabilities they see in our model?

Be willing to repent where you have unfairly labeled, categorized, and marginalized one who was working for Christ’s kingdom–even if you think you have been hurt more.

List own weaknesses first

Most debates, whether between thinkers or spouses, rarely succeed in winning over the other person. Why? Because we are too busy defending, explaining away, pointing out the weaknesses of the opponent to actually deal with reality.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear a counseling model builder express his/her models weaknesses or needed growth points first before exploring the deficits of the another? “My model doesn’t yet have a good understanding of ____. Your model does so much better with that and I want to learn from you.”

Build the center

Rather than start with the differences (which do indeed exist), what if we cataloged the similarities and areas of agreement among Christian models of counseling? In addition, what if we recognized those things we might not have noticed with out the help of those outside our own community. For example, Scripture may speak a great deal about loving neighbors but a particular model of psychology may flesh out what loving a very unique population of client ought to look like. Even if Scripture is sufficient, we do not diminish it when we acknowledge we hadn’t made a particular application without our neighbor’s help.

Acknowledge differences

We will not see eye to eye. We will disagree. Let us acknowledge these where they arise. Let us make sure the differences are real and categorize them into those that are peripheral and those that are substantial. For example, David Powlison speaks about the need for a counseling/care for the soul model back in the 1950s. Despite quality practical theology and discipleship programs, he asked,

But what was the quality [in the 50s] of corporate wisdom in comprehending the dynamics of the human heart? What sustains sufferers and converts sinners? Westminster Today, 4:1 (2011), p7

Right away I ask myself, are these the only two options (sustaining, converting) for Christian counselors? Is it possible also to have the role of treating symptoms? Teaching skills? Reducing suffering? I’m fairly sure that this initial difference is not really there. I suspect David does not reject mercy ministry to reducing suffering. But in dialog, he and I might end up agreeing that some biblical counseling models fail to focus on skill intervention in their quest to address the human heart. And we would likely agree that some christian psychology models fail to address the spiritual discipline of suffering well and the need for conversion. Might we end up agreeing that we want a full-orbed model that neither diminishes nor over-promises symptom care or sanctification?

Promote each other

Finally, we do well to promote each other at our conferences and learning communities. We encourage wide-ranging reading, critical interactions (note, not criticizing), and sharpening of each other. And we commit to lovingly correcting those of our “friends” who speak ill about our neighbors. We reject the fear of defending an outsider for fear of being rejected ourselves. 

 

11 Comments

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

Tagged as , , , , ,

May 27, 2011 · 4:27 pm

Introduction to Healing Trauma course


Starting July1 I will be teaching an on-line course, Healing Trauma in International Settings. Here’s the introductory video for students to watch during week one that tells what I plan to have them do during the course. Don’t worry, most of the course ISN’T watching me talk. You can see the full syllabus here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Seminary, christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling science, counseling skills, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

February 10, 2011 · 5:26 am

When theory, technique and person combine…


Am trying to write an academic journal article on clinical applications of Christian Psychology. Heady…I know. Too heady for me I think. However, in my study I ran across these quotes from

Leitner, L.M. (2007). Theory, Technique, and Person: Technical Integration in Experiential Constructivist Psychotherapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 17, 33-49.

From his abstract:

From an experiential constructivist position, the distinction between the therapist as a person, the therapist’s theory of psychotherapy, and techniques used within the therapy room is, in some ways, forced and arbitrary.

He starts out this article, after the abstract with,

“Becoming a psychotherapist is not about assembling a bag of tricks and learning the formula for matching tricks (i.e., techniques) with problems. What you do as a therapist emerges from who you are in the therapy room. And, when an intervention comes from who you are, it is no longer a technique.”

SO, it stands to reason that we ought to view therapists in their sessions in order to see what kind of people they are. We therapists often think in terms of theory to practice. But practice probably reveals a truer picture of our theory.

10 Comments

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

Tagged as ,

February 5, 2011 · 12:12 pm

Single session therapy?


Anybody ever found just one session of counseling productive (meaning you only went once but it was extremely helpful)?

Counseling takes time…usually. You want to get to know your client, hear their history, learn how they think and feel, what they have already tried, and walk with them into some new ways of thinking or responding to their life situations. This kind of work takes time, a lot of time in some cases. And the solutions take even more time.

But I suspect there are some folk who could benefit from just 1 hour of troubleshooting. If you have had one of those experiences, what happened? What was helpful?

8 Comments

Filed under counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

January 5, 2011 · 5:06 am

Additional information on the March 2011 sex trafficking and abuse conference at Biblical Seminary


I’ve mentioned the conference before here on this site. But here is additional information for those considering the conference in order to acquire either graduate academic or continuing education credit.

NOTE:

  • Conference dates: March 17-19
  • The conference is free for all attendees, only those who want CEs or grad credit will have to pay a fee
  • A PDF of the information below is available here: Please pass on to anyone who might be interested.

Continuing Education at Biblical Seminary

March 17-19, 2011

The Biblical Call: A Christian Response to Human Trafficking and Sexual Abuse[i]

Mental health professionals and clergy interested in attending this seminar may be able to acquire 10 contact hours of continuing education by attending this conference. Biblical Seminary is an accredited graduate institution and thus is qualified as a pre-approved provider of continuing education in the form of graduate coursework by Pennsylvania’s State Board of Social Workers, Marriage and Family Therapists, and Professional Counselors (§47-49.36) and Pennsylvania’s State Board Of Psychology (§41.59). (Attendees who wish to receive academic credit should follow directions in the footnote below.)

While Biblical Seminary provides verification of attendance and a transcript showing completion of the CE course, attendees are responsible to verify acceptance of these hours by their particular licensing boards prior to registering and paying for CEU credits.

The following information may be used to apply for approval to your licensing body.

Speakers:

Diane Langberg, PhD; Bethany Hoang, MDiv; Pearl Kim, JD; Robert Morrison, MBA; Philip G. Monroe, PsyD

Seminar Overview:

This conference continues the “Conversations on Christianity and Culture” series focusing on sexual violence and injustices in a variety of contexts: domestic and international settings and sexual abuse in Christian communities. Attendees will explore these issues from biblical, psychological, legal, and sociological perspectives. The conference will conclude with a focus on practical intervention and prevention strategies.

COST:

The conference is free for all attendees. Register here. Those who wish to receive CE credits will be charged $20.00 per CE unit (0-9 credits) or $180.00 for all 10 CE units. Attendees will be billed following the conference and certificate of attendance will be held until payment is received.

Educational Objectives:

  1. Become familiar with the psychological and sociological data regarding domestic and international trafficking phenomena and also sexual violence within Christian settings
  2. Describe common community and individual consequences resulting from these sexual traumas
  3. Consider biblical and theological factors relating to sexual violence
  4. Identify effective and practical interventions as well as preventative actions to treat and stop sexual slavery and sexual violence

Tentative Schedule:

Thursday, March 17

Speaker Title Time length
B. Hoang Biblical Call: Response to Violence (obj. 3) 1:15
D. Langberg Biblical Call: Global Violence against Women and Children (obj. 1-3) 1:15

Friday, March 18

Speaker Title Time length
B. Hoang International Human Trafficking (obj. 1) 1:15
D. Langberg Domestic Human Trafficking (obj. 1) 1:15
Breakout Sessions (choose two as each session is repeated; total length: 2:30)
B. Hoang Follow up from morning session (obj. 3) 1:15
D. Langberg Follow up from morning session (obj. 1-3) 1:15
P. Kim Spiritual Warfare and Criminal Prosecution (obj. 3) 1:15
R. Morrison Mobilizing all Christians in Effective Action Against Human Trafficking (obj. 4) 1:15

Saturday March 19

Speaker Title Time length
D. Langberg Sexual Abuse in Christian Organizations (obj. 1-4) 1:00
Panel (all speakers) Panel Discussion (obj. 1-4) 1:30

[i] This course is also available for one (1) academic credit. Credit students will be required to complete additional readings and coursework after the seminar. Those interested should view the course syllabus on our school’s website and complete a brief, online non-degree application. Cost for a one credit course is $447.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abuse, Biblical Seminary, christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Tagged as , , , , ,

November 29, 2010 · 10:14 am

“Niceness is a decision”?


Cover of "Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists,...

Cover via Amazon

For “light” reading over the break, I decided to read Anna Salter’s book, Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists, and other Sex Offenders (Basic Books, 2003). I’ve known of this book for some time and viewed her DVDs which cover a chunk of the book’s topic. **I don’t recommend you read this book at night or at all if you have any history of sexual abuse.**

The book reviews research on those who commit these kinds of crimes. What I found most helpful is her treatment of the problem of deception, common techniques, and how both the average person AND expert clinicians are easily seduced by the presentation and lies of offenders. She closes out the book with chapters on detecting deception and protecting children from abusers.

But one particular paragraph caught my eye. The context of what you read below is her discussion of the necessity of a double life (appearances of sincerity, likeability, honest, etc.) in order to gain access to children. As she says, “a surly and obnoxious person would have little access…” (p. 38)

“Niceness is a decision,” writer Gavin De Becker wrote in the The Gift of Fear. It is “a strategy of social interaction; it is not a character train.” There are days I want to tattoo this on my forehead. De Becker is right, but who believes him? (ibid)

Do you agree? Niceness is a decision not a character trait?

Niceness is an action, a behavior. Frankly, any of the fruits of the Spirit may be short-term behaviors as well. I can choose to be gentle or patient for a time. But true fruits come from Holy Spirit induced character change. But what bubbles up in us when no one is looking tells a bit more about who we really are.

We ought to be just a bit more suspicious about ourselves and be wary of the tendency to pat ourselves on the back for being nice–especially if we find ourselves doing calculations on the benefits we might receive for our good behavior.

7 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Christianity, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, deception, personality, Psychology

Tagged as , , , ,

November 22, 2010 · 10:10 am

Psychological mystery recommendation: White Lies


Just finished Anna Salter’s novel, White Lies. The book was published 10 years ago, so you may have already come across this great read. If not, Dr. Salter is a forensic psychologist with expertise in the area of sex offending. I highly recommend the book if you want to see how a psychologist goes about gathering data on a perpetrator so as to recommend treatment or predict future re-offending.

What I found most interesting was her use of sentence analysis (written and spoken) to highlight how we tend to deceive self and others. Lying comes in what we say and don’t say. At one point, the offender (a doctor) states that he started his residency at such-and-such a place but never mentions where he finishes it. She evaluates the sentence and tells the reader that the offender has told more of the truth than he planned. No one would say they started it somewhere unless they didn’t finish it there. Instead, you would say, “I did my residence at…”

Her work reminds me of some training I got from Eric Ostrov as an intern at a juvenile jail facility. Dr. Ostrov told us that people generally want to confess their sins–or at least a more acceptable version of them. They make themselves passive in an event, they confess a sin they wished they committed (e.g., crossing sexual lines with a client who seduced them) rather than the sin they did commit (inviting and manipulating a client into a sexual situation).

Long ago I had aspirations of becoming a forensic psychologist. In fact, I did some training and practice in my pre and post doc and had a job offer lined up. I ended up choosing to come to Biblical Seminary. While I don’t regret that choice, the work of exploring self and other deception still interests me.

Anybody out there read her other two novels: Fault Lines or Shiny Water?

Leave a comment

Filed under Abuse, counseling and the law, counseling science, Good Books, self-deception

Tagged as , , , ,

November 1, 2010 · 10:18 am

Coming to Peace with Psychology 6


After a long hiatus I return to my summary/review of Everett Worthington’s Coming to Peace with Psychology (IVP, 2010). If you are new here just search his last name in the search bar on my blog and you can quickly catch up.

Chapter 10 is the second chapter in the last section of the book (“What Psychological Science has to Offer Theology”). This chapter covers the limitations of psychological science. Up to this point he has been lauding the value of psychological science as a marriage partner with theology. In fact, the purpose of the book is to argue for such a relationship over those who he sees as being overly critical of psychological science (due mostly, in his mind, to the anecdotal nature of psychological theory).

What does he point to as the limits of his science?

  • Despite amazing advances in psychological science, counseling hasn’t changed much (hmmm, does he consider this a limit of science or is this a complaint about practitioners?)
  • Psychological science must focus on general truths and so may not be as applicable to any one person
  • Scientists are not without bias (but then he goes on to say that given the review process, truth is a lot more likely than not)
  • Science can’t reveal the eternal (but it can reveal things of eternal value)
  • Inability to precisely predict behavior
  • No ultimate “proof” (but, probability is possible)
  • Scientist biases include “heuristics” (picking answers from an “available” list), confirmation biases, etc. which reveal our human self-serving nature.
  • Emotional experiences tend to make us more certain of our perceptions and beliefs.
  • human limitations on what we can remember, understand, perceive, do.

Notice from his list that he focuses on common human limits of knowing. This is a good start but insufficient. It treats science biases in an individualistic manner. I find this ironic given that I believe he has much awareness of family systems. In fact, systems add an additional bias–group think as example number one. Funny too that he gave very few illustrations from science of these various biases. For the most part, he illustrated them from everyday life or from theology. So, we are left with a chapter that admits to some general limits on how far psychological science can take us but no clear acknowledgment of systematic biases in the world of psychological science.

Now, let me be clear. I am not one who believes that psychological science is always biased all the time. And even when it is, there can be much to be learned from it. Nor do I believe that those within biblical studies or theology are unbiased either. But, I do think we need to recognize how specifically these biases send psychological science in some wrong directions.

Leave a comment

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

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 , , , ,