The reading response forum for Clinical Foundations I at Fuller Theological Seminary's Graduate School of Psychology.
START AT THE BOTTOM
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Week 10 Reading Responses
Week 10
Required Reading: Johnson Article, Jones & Butman, Chapter 1 Recommended Reading: Jones & Butman, Chapter 2
35 comments:
Rebecca Kulzer
said...
1. Jones and Butman argue that it is important to take an integrated approach to evaluating psychotherapy theories using both a constructive and destructive approach. This allows one to analyze the relevance and applicability of the theory without immediately dismissing the whole theory(pg 20-21). However, I was confused by the conclusion which pointed out that although some Christians readily accept Rogerian therapy because it advocates unconditional positive regard, the theory is actually incompatible with Christianity. Are we supposed to throw out entire theories or take out what is compatible and leave the rest?
2. I strongly agree with the quote, “We would contend that good “integrators” must not only review research, but do research as well,” (Jones& Butman, p. 22). It is unfortunate that many Christian psychologists use research less than typical psychologists. This only propagates the opinion that Christians spout theories and believe that proof is unnecessary. In my opinion, those who are dedicated to truly integrating faith and psychology will seek to “do research.”
1. This first chapter discusses the integration of Christianity and psychology, and much of our energy this quarter has been spent on figuring out what that really means. In the first chapter it states that integration should happen “naturally and inevitably” (Jones & Butman, p. 19). Over the past 10 weeks, has this been the case for you? If you have felt tension or dissonance as you have gone through this process, what issue(s) have you spent the most energy thinking over?
2. I agree that Scripture is sufficient but does not give us specific instructions on how to act in every single situation we encounter (Jones & Butman, p. 26). For example, when someone comes to a pastor with a sexual sin, it is not enough to point them to the Bible and tell them to just “flee from sexual immorality” (New International Version, 1 Corinthians 6:18). Yes, it is important to use Scripture to instruct other believers. Yes, it is important to flee from sin. However, we cannot leave that person with just that because they need accountability, support, love, etc. In the same way that Christians find various ways to run from sin, there are many ways that therapy can be performed. This is where the Holy Spirit can truly guide us to discern what is in line with Christianity.
Sarah Moon, November 25, 2009.
In response to Rebecca’s first comment:
I think what he is saying is that we need to evaluate each approach and see that there are both positive and negative aspects of the theories. Rather than agreeing with every part of the theory and/or disagreeing with the entire approach, we need to be open to accepting that there are things about a certain theory that is partly in line with Christianity. We should not just blindly dismiss theories because of what we might think is not consistent with our faith.
1. I appreciate Jones and Butman’s (1991) call to Christian therapists to critically evaluate counseling theories. The vision they present assists Christian therapists intentionally apply their philosophical assumptions, their worldview, to create an informed approach to practice. It is helpful to have a methodology of appraisal to evaluate other theories, ultimately providing a framework for understanding and articulating concepts such as personality, health and illness.
2. Jones and Butman’s (1991) “vision of personhood” (p. 58) sets the stage for Christian therapists to begin thinking about personality theory. Addressing concepts such as the Imago Dei, the sin nature, free will, human motivations and man as a holistic being is helpful. The discussion of wholeness and holiness is interesting. On the one hand, I have heard it said that an individual may be considered psychologically healthy, but cannot be truly healthy without a relationship with Jesus Christ. On the other hand, I have heard it said that humans can never be truly healthy, due to the sin nature, until made perfect after Christ returns. I have also heard it said that psychological health and spiritual health are distinct concepts, as well as heard it said that they are interrelated. I suppose this depends on one’s definition of health. What is your working definition of psychological health? What factors will you use to evaluate whether your client is moving towards health (or illness)?
Response to Rebecca Kulzer:
1. Regarding your first question, I agree with Sarah’s response. It sounds like Jones and Butman (1991) are advocating for an eclectic approach to therapy. I also agree that research is an important tool. While some therapists do not feel called to engage in research, the professional community as a whole can support (research is expensive!) and encourage integration research. As a side note, just as scripture can be misinterpreted, research can be conducted and interpreted incorrectly, so I think both disciplines require caution and wisdom.
References Jones, S. L. & Butman, R. E. (1991). Modern psychotherapies: A comprehensive Christian appraisal. Downers Grove: IVP Academic.
1)I was a little confused with the statement by Jones & Butman (1991) that integration of psychology and theology "implies that the goal is the fusing together of what are and should properly be two distinct conceptual disciplines" (p. 19). I assumed that this meant, similar to what Dr. Brown has pointed out, that psychology and theology should not be put together as if they could be the same but that theology and psychology should be dialectically compared. Does this seem to be what Jones and Butman are saying?
2)Jones & Butman continually pointed to the human error in all fields of study including theology--"God's counsel is not always synonymous with the counsel of a Christian" and "people are fallible, fallen, and finite" (p. 27). And yet, they use Christianity as a lense through which to look at psychological theory and practice. Do you find this to be inconsistent?
In response to Rebecca K #2...Even though I am doing a PsyD degree in order to avoid some research, I think you make a very good point. Christians have often been criticized for doing a poor job at their professions--causing the secular world to dismiss what Christians have to say. Some examples are: film, music, dance, literature, and so forth. This means we should either stop labeling everything "Christian", do our work in a way that reflects Christ, or live with an awareness of our inability in light of God's ability.
1)I found myself getting really irritated with the critique of integration. Whenever I hear opinions like the Bible is all sufficient, we need to be certain this is real truth, I start to cringe (pg 26). I feel like I am being put in a box, I feel like those critiques are suffocating me and my faith. Often we get so focused on making sure everything lines up with exact words of Scripture and forget that the Bible is not meant to be a rule by rule account. 2) Butman and Jones offer a flow chart about the roots of our psychological theories on page 31. I find it very helpful to trace ideas that we hold as normal and some what intuitive to their source. Then we can begin to see the outside cultural influence on that way of thinking. In response to Sarah Moon: I felt like they were saying integration just happens, but through Intro to Integration, I am realizing it takes a lot of personal examination. Integration requires us to examine beliefs engrained in us and that is just tricky. I feel like Jones and Butman highlighted that integration is a complicated process, but I still feel like they simplified it.
1. Jones and Butman describe the postmodern therapeutic space as an environment “where faith is neither good nor bad, true nor false, but simply irrelevant” (p. 24). Faith is such an integral aspect of Christianity; yet, culture has convinced us that this essential part of Christianity isn’t necessary in our emotional healing. What other aspects of Christianity has culture convinced us is irrelevant and how do we address this in our practices? 2. Jones and Butman state agape love (in conjunction with effective approaches based on scientific research) should be emphasized in the Christian approach to helping people (p. 34). Since agape love is not easily exhibited and scientific research is constantly evolving, this advice would guide the therapist on their journey of continual personal and professional growth.
Response to Melissa’s statement #1: I agree with your view of Jones and Butman’s advice regarding theoretical orientation. I found their figure of psychotherapy systems (p. 31) to be very helpful. It is crucial for therapists to take time to understand the roots of their theoretical orientation.
1.) Jones & Butman (1991) give some good examples of properly quoted texts being used out of context to create an argument that is diametrically opposed to what the original author intended. The misuse of Koch’s quotes should be a lesson for us as we write, certainly, but even more so as we read for our classes. Just because something is properly quoted and cited does not mean it is an accurate reflection of what was meant. Sometimes we need to use those references to read the original piece in order to decided if it was represented faithfully (Jones & Butman, pp. 28-29).
2.) The authors claim “we have to be more than pragmatists (using whatever works)” and look at the deeper meanings and theories behind the techniques (Jones & Butman, 1991, p.34). I’m not sure this is entirely true. Perhaps this is true of some techniques that are more questionable to Christians such as hypnosis, but if we are accepting what the authors implied earlier, that all truth is God’s truth, then wouldn’t it follow that techniques that promote healing are good to use? Should I not use Rogerian techniques because Rogers’ self-actualizing tendency is incompatible with the doctrine of the fall and original sin?
Jonathan Wellman, November 29, 2009
Response to Melissa’s #2: I think psychological health overlaps with spiritual health but the two are still distinct. I cannot claim that one cannot have a psychologically healthy and fulfilling life while following some other worldview, especially if we are only considering a relationship with Christ as “spiritually healthy.” I think embracing your religious beliefs, whatever those happen to be, are very important for psychological health. Does one really think the Dali lama is not psychologically healthy? I’m sure with his emphasis on peace, love, and helping others, he is perfectly mentally healthy. That does not mean he is furthering God’s kingdom or is going to receive eternal life, but I still think he is healthy. So we need to be careful when we use terms like spiritual health. Is it Christ or nothing from simply a health standpoint (as opposed to a theological one)? Or can any sincere belief lived out make one spiritually healthy, even if it does not grant salvation?
1. I really liked the section where Jones and Butman give psychologists a way to appraise certain methodologies in the field. In this section, the authors present important questions that should be addressed in the appraisal process. One section that stuck out to me was the part on the model of abnormality. The authors present the question of how sin fits into the model of abnormality. What do you guys think? Also, they discussed the model of health. They asked, “What does the theory propose the truly healthy individual is like?” (p. 33) I would add also ask, “How does the model of a healthy person fit into what God thinks a healthy individual is like?” What do you think?
2. Johnson discusses how our view of God and perception of truth can be distorted (p. 17). He states that Christian should not think that they are immune to this, but they should be aware of the biases they might have as a result of “sinful resistance” to the truth. Johnson states that there should be a response of “humility that leads the Christian to submit to the truth wherever found, to weight confidence according to the evidence, to seek new knowledge, and to relinquish false beliefs in the light of further evidence” (p. 17). I find this to be powerful in that we are reminded to be humble and to continue to learn.
Response to Christie’s first comment:
I can understand your frustration and feeling of restriction. However, I don’t think that the authors are intending to say the Scripture is all sufficient in a rule based manner. I think that they are saying that Scripture is truth in that it provides us with a foundation. What we do in therapy should line up with the foundations of the Bible. This should further provide us with freedom to do therapy a variety of ways. If you read Sarah’s first comment it is really helpful.
1. Johnson states that the field of psychology is not objective, but instead influenced by the context of our history (16). I agree with Johnson, however, I believe very little of how we see ourselves, the world, and others is objective. In my Psychology of Religion class in undergraduate school, we discussed the origins of religion. In summary, we discussed the religious belief came out of the evolution of human intellect and thought and their need for meaning and organization. God, an aspect of religion, is also subjective. Does this mean that this proves whether God exists or not. No, I simply state this to suggest that we can all have some understanding of God, and share this with each other. We can then gain a better understanding of God’s kingdom, Christ’s lordship, and Christian psychology.
2. Jones and Butman nicely describe one of the main reasons for integration, which is to use the Bible as “a foundation and starting point for knowledge” (27). This does not mean to use the Bible to override any secular thoughts. Just like the writers of the Bible had foundational knowledge through spoken word and narratives, we today can use the scriptures to develop thought that integrates our faith and study in psychology. Our practice can be deeply informed by the Bible as well as shaped by modern thought as we develop a better understanding of mental health.
3. In response to Jay’s second comment: I can only answer the question about using techniques that heal despite incompatibility with doctrine with a simple YES we should use them. As we learn more and more about humans and society through the lens of psychology, we gain a better understanding how to approach the problems that arise. As Christians, we should be more and more aware of the progress that psychologists are making and join them in all their efforts to promote mental health. There will continue to be ethical and practical issues that will conflict among mental health workers, but we should all agree that our purpose is to help individuals that can be functional in the larger community. This alone is a biblical idea.
1.Jones and Butman talk of a "tested Christian psychotherapy theory" and that "it is vital that Christian scholars develop thoroughly Christian approaches to counseling" (1991, p. 23). That seems entirely too subjective to me. Christians are subject to the temptations of sin just as everyone else, if not more so at times. I think it's incredible audacious of the authors to imply that some model of therapy formed by Christian(s) is what is missing in the field of psychology (pp. 22-24). I don't think a particular model by itself will be effective in treating individuals as each person is unique and therefore so it the technique/treatment that will work best for that person.
2.Although I thought the Johnson article hit on some very important truths, it seemed to overemphasize a distinction between Christians and non-Christians (Johnson, 1997). I don't agree with the us versus them mentality. Also, some of the statements that are made seem contrary to what the Bible teaches and also to the article itself. An example of such a statement is in the section on "contending for God" where Johnson states "yet, modern psychology demonstrates a pervasive alienation from its master; God is not in any of its theories or practices" (1997, p. 20). Maybe God isn't specifically talked about in the theories, but He is very much in the theories and practices. Later on, Johnson gives a contridictory statement when he says "because of God's creation grace, the vast majority of the theory and research of non-Christians will be valuable" (1997, p. 23). I experienced some uneasiness about what he was really trying to say as it seemed he would sway back and forth between beliefs on psychology and theology/Christianity.
In response to Alex's first comment: When I first read the statement "God is subjective", I immediately felt an impulse to argue with that. However, when I sat for a minute and thought about it, I completely agree. It's not that God changes according to each person, but He can be experienced in so many ways and I think He should be. How are we to understand a mulit-dimensional God if we only allow ourselves to experience Him in the ways we've encountered? God is so much bigger than just our small sample of experiences. You make a very good point and I think we fail to realize that our "truth" is never His whole Truth.
1) It is refreshing to come across Christian literature and textbooks that are not afraid to admit certain things. Specifically, Jones and Butman's section about not rejecting a theory because of its materialistic nature but rather synthesizing it through a Christian worldview and learning from it (p.22) was what jumped out at me. They mentioned this with regard to Skinner as an example. Instead of writing off Skinner as atheistic babble, they seem to suggest that the truth of the Christian worldview has plenty of room for other input. Instead of rejecting it, it can fall under the umbrella of all truth which can still very much be "Christian." This reminds me of what Rob Bell says about affirming truth wherever he finds it. Are there any truths, however, that we are simply unwilling to make room for. That is...what things might you all never affirm as truth in your worldview, no matter how much evidence supported it? Just putting it out there.
2) I appreciate that Jones and Butman see the importance of being critical about existing integration research. I do see a bit of a contradiction though. They mention first that the bible is infallible but humans are fallible so biblical interpretation is always subjective. They say the same about science in general (p.28). Then, on the next page they express how people doing integration deserve criticism because they may have "theological naivete." I would like to know what they mean by theological naivete. At what point are they able to draw the line between the fallible human argument, and the idea that some theological interpretations are so obvious that the word "naivete" can come into their assessment of it? Maybe they don't mean it so blatantly but it still seems to be a bit of a contradiction to me.
Response to Christie's #1:
I think you make an excellent point that using the bible as a handbook to literal truth is limiting. I wonder what it is that the authors actually seem to claim. They quote John Calvin on one hand, then they use the word infallible on the other hand. Not inerrant. I guess further reading would give us more answers but for now I am actually confused. Are they suggesting the thing that you, Christie, find suffocating? Or do they believe that there is truth apart from the bible?
Johnson argues that psychology ignores the religion and religious experience are ignored in introductory psychology texts (p. 14). I can't help but wonder if this isn't just a little bit of complaining that misses the point. While Christians may think that Christ is the Lord of All, this cannot be the central focus of psychology. What of the Taoist? What of the Muslim? Are they just neglected because they aren't "in Christ." The reason (in my mind) that religion is neglected in introductory psychology texts is because of the way that this is handled (read: poorly). Just as Creationism isn't science and shouldn't be taught as such, I have issues with an explicit discussion of psychology that requires religion to be included in the discussion. This isn't to say that I don't think it should be discussed. I don't think that the APA should decide what my theological stance should be, or how to interpret scripture. Not talking about it in the text books actually allows us to talk about it more openly, and to actually talk, rather than argue in court.
2) I find that the Johnson article rubs me the wrong way based on the theology that it expresses. While I am very interested in the integration of psychology and Christianity (I'm at Fuller) I find that Johnson's theology is counter to my own. Instead, I think I prefer Rob Bell's interpretation that all truth is God's truth, and so Christians have access to all truth, even if it isn't labeled "Christian." I don't think that requiring something be labeled as Christian makes it good. The flip side of this for me is this: what does it say of our psychology if we need to put Christ first within it in a way that the client has direct experience with. Is this not abusing the client by forcing my theological views upon them in the guise of a therapeutic encounter where all attempts to maintain their own religious experience are re-framed as resistance?
3) At Christine Turner's first comment: I totally agree. It may be that I have issues with authority, that I don't like being told what to do. But, I think it is more the case that I want to be in a position where God and I a free to interact with each other. The theology expressed in some of these views makes me think that God is in a cage. How can Christ free me from Sin and Death if he is nothing but a caged lion?
1. I liked Jones & Butman's statement that "the appropriate time for apologetic efforts is when the views actually are raised up against God" (p. 21). As psychologists and Christians we must be able to distinguish between psychological theories that blatantly contradict God versus those that simply fall under areas of dogma rather than doctrine, and that are not issues of salvation. Additionally, I think we need to be careful not to discredit and entire theory for having some discrepancies with our faith.
2. I found it interesting that psychologists tend to be socially and politically more liberal and less religious than the general population (p. 24). Consequently, if this field tends to encourage such behaviors and beliefs, how can the Christian psychologist guard against losing their convictions, but still be compassionate, open minded, and willing to have their faith questioned?
3. Response to Christie's 1st comment: I definitely agree that Christians need to be careful not to be overly rigid in their beliefs and their dependence on Scripture. Often it seems that those who become legalistic and rigid are fearful of questioning their faith and thus automatically dismiss anything that seems to contradict or not fit with literal interpretations of the Biblical text. However, in my opinion, what good is faith if you cannot question it and end up putting God in a box?
1. I agree with the idea presented in the Johnson article that Psychology is not as objective as it thinks it is. Granted, there has been a historical tendency to see the importance of an objective clinician, but I think that the newer ideas that show the clinician as a person with thoughts and opinions are more realistic. In light of Johnson's look at how the field of psychology fits within the idea of knowledge relating to God, humans cannot be objective, because that means they could have enough knowledge to move beyond themselves. From a definition where knowledge comes from God, or even a non-Christian view where there is some outside source of knowledge, it would be logical that objectivity is not as possible as it has been thought.
2. Jones and Butman bring up a good point on page 21 when they speak of integration as destructive when it tries to destroy all that is not from what the general public views as from God. My own personal reaction to this is to distance myself from people who would do this, so I cannot even imagine the reactions of those who aren't associated with Christianity. In being psychologists who identify with Christ, shouldn't we then follow his example and accept those in who are not what the establishment always thinks as in alignment with God? If we destroy them, we destroy not only our clientel, but the hope that they would want to be around us.
response to Hannah:
I think what Jones & Butman are trying to say is close to what you guessed. They are very much in favor of psychology being informed by faith so that faith is the driving factor which motivates how we view the people we want to help. Butman makes his students sing a song "I am special" each year that affirms that they are valued children of the Kingdom. What they mean about the two disciplines could be a reference to the origins of psychology being against religion, and therefore distinct from it.
1. Johnson claims that knowledge cannot be added to God for he is omniscient (p. 19). He used scripture to support his claim, which states that "fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom." Subsequent verse states that "knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."
2. The author also makes a claim that it is important to broaden the field of psychology by incorporating scriptures with it (p. 22). That there is potential for new theories and ideas within Scriptures. I recall Dr. Dueck stating that the Judeo-Christian culture has several thousands years worth of knowledge in it. Since God is the creator, I think it is vital to have proper understanding of mental health in his perspective instead of ours.
Response to Rebecca Kilman Liu: My undergrad was a Christian institution, so there was really not much stigma stuck to the field of psychology being anti-Christian. Actually I was surprised to find out how unfriendly the field of psychology may be towards Christianity after coming to Fuller.
1. Jones and Butman, on page 22-23, say that “good ‘integrators’ must not only review research, but do research as well. This implies active involvement in the process of doing science, informed by enlightened notions of philosophy of science. Good integrators must be committed to evaluation and assessment of their endeavors. Currently, the community of Christian psychologists is weak in this area”.
I think this resonates with me for a couple of reasons. First, I think all practitioners should strive to be the best at what they do, or at least the best they can be, and that entails being on the cutting edge of research in their “area of expertise”. Coming from a counseling program I found it discouraging that so many of my peers were turned off by research. Professional counselors seem like an underdog in the world of mental health counseling and therefore need good representation to give them a good name. That means staying on top of your game, being knowledgeable of the latest research in your area of expertise.
Similarly, Christian psychologists seem, at least somewhat, like a minority as well. Furthermore, I feel like Christian psychologists are even stigmatized (e.g., a lot of people don’t think Christianity and psychology are compatible). We also need good representation that comes from establishing highly competent practitioners all over the US that identify themselves as Christians.
In addition, I would like to see more Christian psychologists producing research. I think you need to utilize research to show that you are an effective therapist. That seems particularly important in a culture that may question whether or not a Christian psychologist can have the same kind effectiveness as a secular psychologist. It also seems like publishing research is what makes your name significant, that’s what makes you a star in this profession. I’m wondering if more christian psychologists published, if that would begin to mitigate the power of the stigma of the Christian psychologist.
2. On pages 33-34, the authors talk about models of health and abnormality and how we need to evaluate them in light of our religious beliefs. I’m wondering, how do you think your views of health and wellness are colored by your beliefs as a Christian? For example, I tend to gravitate more towards a wellness model, where the goal is to thrive in life, as opposed to a medical model where the absence of disease is wellness.
Response to Sarah’s first question: I think one of the things I’ve thought about a lot is how might my professional path be altered by my faith and desire to be a part of the manifestation of the kingdom of God on earth. For example, I’ve never really had a desire to work with the homeless. However, as this quarter has progressed and I’ve thought about how God wants me to live, how that might interact with my professional identity, and heard stories of other Fuller grads; I wonder if I could commit myself to something as significant as combatting homelessness.
1) Jones & Butman describe Christian critics of psychotherapy as "zealous to protect the faith from distortion or perversion" (p. 21). Radical statements like this, characteristic of the "destructive" mode of integration, make me a little uncomfortable, as I didn't realize that by developing a therapeutic modality, one was attacking the Christian faith or even addressing it at all. I do see the merit in approaching therapeutic perspectives in a critical manner with the ability to embrace what is good and helpful and reject what is distorted (more of a constructive approach), but I don't think that means we have to be constantly on the defensive.
2) The "criticisms of integration" (starting p. 25) are interesting in light of reading Velvet Elvis, which asserts that "all truth is God's truth." This echoes Jones & Butman's quoting of James 1:17: "Every good and perfect gift is from above..." This really resonates with me personally, as I have found truth and beauty and goodness in places that may be thought of as far away from God. What do all of you think about this idea?
Response to Sarah's #2: I think that integration will inevitably happen to some extent for the Christian psychologist, even if it's not an explicit goal of the psychologist, just because our own values do influence our therapy whether we'd like to admit it or not. Integrating thoughtfully, however, is a much more complicated process, and I don't think that necessarily comes naturally. Over the past 10 weeks I have been wrestling with what it means concretely, specifically, in therapy, for my beliefs to influence my work. How does it change the way I speak to clients, or the things I say,or the attitude with which I approach therapy? I don't think these are simple questions!
1)Jones and Butman (1991) make clear that they are recognizing the work of professional therapists and of the church as symbiotic in nature. The connections which these two fields share are uncanny and difficult to ignore. It seems though that there has been a determined separation between the two areas of study by those who want to “Christianize” psychotherapy and/or modify secular traditions to fit more appropriate biblical models. The authors maintain that though they wish to develop a, “tested Christian psychotherapy model”, they are far from that lofty goal (p.23).
2)I am relieved that Jones and Butman clarified their position on biblical truth vs. God Himself as the all-sufficient means for understanding life (p. 26-27). Many times it seems the bible is viewed as a manual on how to live one’s life. In psychotherapy it is especially important to leave room for God’s intervention via the Holy Spirit. Though we as Christians believe in the efficacy of biblical wisdom when applied to our daily lives, this same book we hold dear can be wrongly perceived by an outsider, non-Christian who comes to therapy only to be barraged by a clinician with a bible in hand.
In response to Takisha’s #1: I think you ask a great question by probing into what other areas our culture has undermined our Christian beliefs. I am going to state the obvious here and venture to guess that Christian morality has been greatly undermined by our culture. Just think of the last several films you have seen. Have there been any positive portrayals of Christian characters? If there is a Christian character present, most likely he or she is the moral police amongst the other characters, quick to judge, has no fun, lives life in a box, etc. The character of Angela from the sitcom “The Office” comes to mind. Not only is she constantly commenting on what moral violations are present in the office, she is also the biggest hypocrite, regularly acting and speaking in ways that are immoral!
1. Regardless of a client’s religious convictions, Johnson states that a Christian counselor should “help others move as much in the direction of God’s mind regarding human normality and maturity as is possible” (p. 25). At first, this seems contrary to Rogers and even APA standards. But I think the trick is doing it in a natural and subtle way that respects and honors the client. After all, we all have an ideal image of the self that leaks into therapy.
2. Jones and Butman say that we as Christians believe that we are sufficiently guided towards truth by the Holy Spirit and the body of Christ (p. 27). The part that has always been tricky for me is the term “sufficiently.” What happens when two people look at the Bible, claim to be Spirit-led, and have the support of a community of believers, and still come to different interpretations? It is hard to hold strong convictions and humility that all facts are interpreted at the same time.
David Choi, December 1, 2009.
In response to Christie’s first comment:
I also cringe when people make this argument. I think the issue is what the Bible is sufficient for. If we’re talking about being the foundation for a theological worldview, I would say yes, the Bible is meant for that. But as far as being a manual for specific fields of study, I would say the Bible never claims to be for that.
1) I agree with Johnson that even as Christians who are supposed to follow the only ‘way,’ we should adopt a spirit of humility (p. 17) and give credit where credit is due. All truth is God’s truth! I don’t want to be intimidated by a tradition separate from my own that points to the same wisdom and discipline and self-lessness that Jesus exhibited, just because it is not under the umbrella of Christianity. I know this makes certain people nervous. My grandmother, for instance, would be wrought with concern if she knew I went to yoga classes for exercise. Over thanksgiving, my aunt used her powers of exhortation to try to persuade me that the Harry Potter book series is opening minds to satanic spiritual conjuring. I, on the other hand choose to celebrate the gift of my body in thankful exercise and to enjoy any literature or story which highlights Christ-like heroes who are tempted with greed, but choose compassion and using their powers for the good of all. I believe that Jesus is the only way, and that the fact is it is HIS way. He decides, not us. He sees hearts not us. I hope that in my career as a therapist I can rely on His sight to see the truth and love in a heart that may not profess the actual name of Christ.
2) Jones & Butman’s discussion of the sufficiency of the scriptures (p. 26-27), bring up two conflicting thoughts for me. On one hand, I do think that the Bible is the source of poignant Truth. On the other, I think that the accounts recorded in the Bible are of such diverse literary genres that varying interpretations can be questionable, and even dangerous. Our human history gives evidence of this. So, while the scriptures are invaluably full of wisdom and guidance, figuring out what that wisdom is and how to apply it to our current modern life is intensely complex. I think that’s why I appreciate Jesus’ teachings so much. He consistently points to the same simple truths and acts. Give to the poor. Care for the unfortunate. Choose forgiveness over hate. Choose compassion over self-promotion.
I agree with Chris’ comment on not demanding religion be included in intro psych textbooks. Even if we believe that God loves all, created all, knows the mind, psyche, etc. of all and that He can even guide and shape and heal such, not everyone agrees. Not everyone believes in His power to heal, His genuine care, or even His existence. Yet, this doesn’t mean they don’t have a psyche. It doesn’t mean they don’t have a psychological experience and exploration.
1. I found interesting the two stages of faith that Jones and Butman described on page 22. It conveys that integration is more than just collecting "good" ideas from certain theories. Integration is putting those ideas into practice through therapy or research. I agree with that concept.
2. In the Johnson article, something he said stood out to me. He states that our primary goals as Christian therapists are to "see human nature a) as it is and b) the way God does" (Johnson, 1997, p. 14). This reminds me of the importance of viewing each client as a child of God. We should see them and love them as they are, the way God does. Having this perspective will enable God to work through us as therapists.
In response to Sarahs 2nd question:
That is such an interesting question! I had never thought of all the layers of mental and spiritual health before as distinct yet interrelated. I think that both concepts are very subjective and vary from person to person. For me, someone who is healthy is someone who is striving to learn and grow and develop themselves. Someone who has a good perspective on their live and the events that occur in their life. Someone who is both challenged and loved in relationships with others. I could go on and on! Good question.
1. In Johnson's (1997) article, he mentioned the diverse approaches to integration and how, in many Christian circles, the emphasis is put on Christian counseling and not the integration of Christianity and Psychology (pp. 23-24). In fact, Psychology is a bad word to some Christians. This resonates with my life in that my mother continues to tell people that I am in school to become a Christian counselor and emphasizes the fact that I am studying at a Seminary. That section of this article made me profoundly thankful to be studying at an institution that doesn't shy away from Psychology but embraces it, striving to learn from the field in order to better serve Children of God, both believers and non-believers.
2. I was confused as to what Jones and Butman were getting at in writing, "Genuine listening is risky. If we really listen, we may have to adjust our view of the facts, revise our sense of their relevance..." (1991, p. 36). It is almost as though they are of the opinion that therapists will be swayed by the opinions of every one of their clients if they listen to them too closely. I thought the whole point of therapy was listening, especially Rogerian therapy? I agree that one must be grounded in their faith, but I think it is unjustified to think that therapists have no mind of their own as to be so easily shaken.
In response to Amber's 2nd comment: I was also relieved by their opinion of Scripture being useful but not the ultimate source. I was afraid that they held a much different view. Since clients may come in with no religious background, it would be naive of us as therapists to think that Scripture would hold any merit with a client gives no value to it.
1. While speaking about Christians in the field of psychology, Johnson states, "while the psychology teacher would avoid condoning homosexual behavior when teaching on sexual orientation, and yet foster awareness of the sin of homophobia (p. 25)." I like this statement as it says, hate the sin, love the sinner. I feel like sexuality issues have been "ignored" by the Christian community for sometimes, and widely accepted in the secular community. I feel this is a place that the church needs to step in, and love on people, instead of shunning them.
2. On page 18, Jones and Butman discuss a common view of psychology that is held by the Christian community. This view hold that psychology is unnecessary, because the Bible has all of the answers to psychological problems. This discussion resonated with me on a personal level. God gave us the Bible to learn, but he also gave us the church community, and our experience to learn from. If by communicating with others and studying God's own creation, we can find better ways of helping people, why is this so wrong to some people?
In response to Rebekah Kilman Lui's statement 1-
I can resonate with your statement. I feel like I was supported by many people in my church by my decision, but I still felt like a minority thought that studying the Bible would give me all the answers. Though I agree that the Bible does shed great light on psychology, I believe we can also learn through God's creation of nature, humanity, and all life.
1. One thing I really appreciated about Jones & Butman (1991) is that they approach theology and psychology as separate disciplins and respect the value and place for each individually, but still believe that Christianity can be integrated into psychotherapy (pg 19). Do you believe there is ever a place for "Psychotherology or theopsychology?" (pg. 19). 2.Jones and Butman argue that Rogerian therapy is "radically incommensurate with the faith" despite the fact that it "superficially resembles one understanding of agape love" (pg. 35). Do you agree with this critic or disagree? In response to Hannah #2: I did find that part of the chapter inconsistent. However, in my desire to resolve those comments, I wonder if they were trying to point out that pastoral counseling or scripture quoting is not the answer for Christian psychologist in every situation. Perhaps they were pointing out the need for a diverse use of therapy techniques and Christian interventions instead of a one-size fits all "God's wisdom" category? Also, I believe it is important to define "Theology" and God differently. Because theology is the study of God by humans, I believe it can be wrong, even though God is not. I am a little uncomfortable with the wording used in the book, however.
1) Jones & Butman say that the goal of the redeemed life is holiness, and not necessarily wholeness (p. 57-58). That is a good point for us as Christian therapists because part of our work is to restore wholeness in people, but that can exclude Christ in client’s lives. How can we make sure to encourage holiness along with wholeness in Christian clients? And what about non-Christian clients?
2) Johnson says that creation grace is a part of God’s truth in the world, so secular people who study the world (psychologists, biologists, etc) tap into that truth (p. 23). This means that as Christians we do not need to disregard all research and theories performed by secular psychologists. Sometimes there may be an error in interpreting God’s revealed truth in creation, but that does not mean that all science has no value.
Response to Candace’s response #2: I agree with you that the Bible doesn’t contain all of the answers we need to help psychological problems. It links in to the Bible’s purpose, to show who God is, who His people are, and how to have a relationship with Him. There is a lot of information on how to live life to the full in relationship with God, but it is not a handbook of mental disorders. God revealed truth in other places than in the Bible, like you said Candace about the Christian community and creation. Psychology taps into studying God’s truth in creation.
1. The text says that "the task of the Christian scholar is to 'study reality in the light of biblical revelation'" (p. 20). I really appreciate the discussion on the value of looking at humanity in terms of God’s redemptive grace and at the same time valuing the study within the field of psychology (p. 32). While we cannot have a complete understanding of psychology within looking the our Christian context, we cannot rely solely on scripture of practice of psychotherapy, and it is necessary to have the field of psychology. Our interventions and theory for practice as Christians who will someday be psychologists, should be grounded in book scripture and psychological theory. 2. I liked the section that discussed the caution necessary when integrating psychology and theology. I think that it can be detrimental to assume that one can always completely integrate the two and that they will complement one another. There are definite times when they do not, and we need to look at and seek to understand why they may clash. I would argue that that process is equally important for a Christian psychologist. 3. In response to Rebecca Kulzer’s second comment: I agree that research is invaluable in the field and is also a great way to “do” integration,” however I would add that just as one may be called to specific work such as pastor, teach, organize, or be a therapist, one can be called to be a researcher, but that does not always mean that within psychology, every psychologist is called to do both therapy and research. It is important to recognize that this can be a meaningful experience of some, and not for others, and that is ok too, because God calls us to unique tasks.
1) I really appreciated reading the Jones and Butman reading. This is the kind of material I thought we would be reading and studying in our Intro to Integration class, more practical or concrete in a sense (not that our readings in Integration haven’t been thought-provoking and beneficial). I really appreciated the balance the authors use in investigating both perspectives; they uphold psychology as a useful Christian method of healing while still cautioning practitioners of areas where it would be easy to be misled from the truth of Christ. It was important to me that the authors affirmed dialogue (with all those with a voice/opinion) because to not engage in dialogue is to be held back in fear, active involvement in the process (which is a real challenge to Christians in whatever field they are in), and careful listening to those that have gone before us (which implies a humility and willingness to learn). (Jones and Butman, 1991, p. 22-23).
2) I really connected with the Jones and Butman reading because in the past, I have experienced a lot of criticism from “psychology bashers”, Christians who believe that psychology is “completely secularized”(Jones and Butman, 1991, p. 18) and that the Bible is the only reference we need when it comes to healing the human condition. I wonder if these same people would refuse medical help when dying of a physical condition, similarly claiming that the Bible was all that was needed to heal a person? Why has psychology become known as a “bad science” or science in general seen as “bad” or untrustworthy? Are we so afraid of finding truth in any other avenue? It was so refreshing to read the authors counter arguments upholding psychology as a useful tool in understanding people and, from a Christian understanding of human nature, a useful method of facilitating Christ’s healing. Also, that all truth is God’s truth, wherever it is found. (Jones and Butman, 1991).
Kim Richardson, December 3, 2009
Response to Sarah Moon’s 1st Comment: Integration is by no means an easy thing. I have increasingly realized this over the past 10 weeks. I agree that integration should and does happen “naturally and inevitably” (Jones and Butman, 2001, p. 19) for those whose Christian beliefs are already integrated strongly in their sense of self and motivation. But this is not to mean that integration doesn’t happen without intentionality. I think it is both.
1) I really appreciated reading the Jones and Butman reading. This is the kind of material I thought we would be reading and studying in our Intro to Integration class, more practical or concrete in a sense (not that our readings in Integration haven’t been thought-provoking and beneficial). I really appreciated the balance the authors use in investigating both perspectives; they uphold psychology as a useful Christian method of healing while still cautioning practitioners of areas where it would be easy to be misled from the truth of Christ. It was important to me that the authors affirmed dialogue (with all those with a voice/opinion) because to not engage in dialogue is to be held back in fear, active involvement in the process (which is a real challenge to Christians in whatever field they are in), and careful listening to those that have gone before us (which implies a humility and willingness to learn). (Jones and Butman, 1991, p. 22-23).
2) I really connected with the Jones and Butman reading because in the past, I have experienced a lot of criticism from “psychology bashers”, Christians who believe that psychology is “completely secularized”(Jones and Butman, 1991, p. 18) and that the Bible is the only reference we need when it comes to healing the human condition. I wonder if these same people would refuse medical help when dying of a physical condition, similarly claiming that the Bible was all that was needed to heal a person? Why has psychology become known as a “bad science” or science in general seen as “bad” or untrustworthy? Are we so afraid of finding truth in any other avenue? It was so refreshing to read the authors counter arguments upholding psychology as a useful tool in understanding people and, from a Christian understanding of human nature, a useful method of facilitating Christ’s healing. Also, that all truth is God’s truth, wherever it is found. (Jones and Butman, 1991).
Kim Richardson, December 3, 2009
Response to Sarah Moon’s 1st Comment: Integration is by no means an easy thing. I have increasingly realized this over the past 10 weeks. I agree that integration should and does happen “naturally and inevitably” (Jones and Butman, 2001, p. 19) for those whose Christian beliefs are already integrated strongly in their sense of self and motivation. But this is not to mean that integration doesn’t happen without intentionality. I think it is both.
1) Johnson (1997) asserts "the problem that Christians in psychology may unwittingly work with non-Christians in ways that go against the agenda of redemptive grace and God's creation order". (pg 25). The way I interpret this is that if a therapist is a Christian, they have a "duty to address sin in therapy". Otherwise, they are in a sense complicit in sinfulness. He gives the example of a non-Christian client that feels guilty about an ongoing extra-marital affair. Johnson makes the jump that a non-Christian therapist's goal would be to assist the client in "quelling his conscience". It seems like a non-Christian therapist would have the same type of questions and concerns as a Christian therapist since an ongoing extra-marital affair is commonly damaging to a person's own ego. Johnson seems to make the case that all non-Christian values are not real values. I find this hard to believe. In other words, even a non-Christian therapist would address the self-destructiveness of the behavior, which is perhaps another word for sin. Is Johnson under-estimating the innate spirituality and intuition of non-Christian therapists?
2)In addition to a duty to address sin in therapy, Johnson also places within the Christian therapists responsibility to keep the client from gaining more distance from what he calls Kingdom values, and an obligation to not play a role in that distancing. Therapy to Johnson is the place where values are materialized, formed, or renewed, "Much counseling about issues relating to moral choices, motivation, guilt, purpose, in life, interpretation of stress, and self-acceptance has an essentially religious core." (pg. 25) How might a Christian therapist respond to critics who see this view as a Christian sense of ownership of morality? And, how is a therapist to take on so much responsibility for their client's learning of values, while maintaining a sense of mystery and trust in God who transcends all value and truth?
1) Johnson (1997) asserts "the problem that Christians in psychology may unwittingly work with non-Christians in ways that go against the agenda of redemptive grace and God's creation order". (pg 25). The way I interpret this is that if a therapist is a Christian, they have a "duty to address sin in therapy". Otherwise, they are in a sense complicit in sinfulness. He gives the example of a non-Christian client that feels guilty about an ongoing extra-marital affair. Johnson makes the jump that a non-Christian therapist's goal would be to assist the client in "quelling his conscience". It seems like a non-Christian therapist would have the same type of questions and concerns as a Christian therapist since an ongoing extra-marital affair is commonly damaging to a person's own ego. Johnson seems to make the case that all non-Christian values are not real values. I find this hard to believe. In other words, even a non-Christian therapist would address the self-destructiveness of the behavior, which is perhaps another word for sin. Is Johnson under-estimating the innate spirituality and intuition of non-Christian therapists?
2)In addition to a duty to address sin in therapy, Johnson also places within the Christian therapists responsibility to keep the client from gaining more distance from what he calls Kingdom values, and an obligation to not play a role in that distancing. Therapy to Johnson is the place where values are materialized, formed, or renewed, "Much counseling about issues relating to moral choices, motivation, guilt, purpose, in life, interpretation of stress, and self-acceptance has an essentially religious core." (pg. 25) How might a Christian therapist respond to critics who see this view as a Christian sense of ownership of morality? And, how is a therapist to take on so much responsibility for their client's learning of values, while maintaining a sense of mystery and trust in God who transcends all value and truth?
I'm the author of Assaulted by Joy: The Redemption of a Cynic, What Women Wish You Knew about Dating, and co-author of What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew about Sex.
35 comments:
1. Jones and Butman argue that it is important to take an integrated approach to evaluating psychotherapy theories using both a constructive and destructive approach. This allows one to analyze the relevance and applicability of the theory without immediately dismissing the whole theory(pg 20-21). However, I was confused by the conclusion which pointed out that although some Christians readily accept Rogerian therapy because it advocates unconditional positive regard, the theory is actually incompatible with Christianity. Are we supposed to throw out entire theories or take out what is compatible and leave the rest?
2. I strongly agree with the quote, “We would contend that good “integrators” must not only review research, but do research as well,” (Jones& Butman, p. 22). It is unfortunate that many Christian psychologists use research less than typical psychologists. This only propagates the opinion that Christians spout theories and believe that proof is unnecessary. In my opinion, those who are dedicated to truly integrating faith and psychology will seek to “do research.”
Jones & Butman, 1991
Rebecca Kulzer
1. This first chapter discusses the integration of Christianity and psychology, and much of our energy this quarter has been spent on figuring out what that really means. In the first chapter it states that integration should happen “naturally and inevitably” (Jones & Butman, p. 19). Over the past 10 weeks, has this been the case for you? If you have felt tension or dissonance as you have gone through this process, what issue(s) have you spent the most energy thinking over?
2. I agree that Scripture is sufficient but does not give us specific instructions on how to act in every single situation we encounter (Jones & Butman, p. 26). For example, when someone comes to a pastor with a sexual sin, it is not enough to point them to the Bible and tell them to just “flee from sexual immorality” (New International Version, 1 Corinthians 6:18). Yes, it is important to use Scripture to instruct other believers. Yes, it is important to flee from sin. However, we cannot leave that person with just that because they need accountability, support, love, etc. In the same way that Christians find various ways to run from sin, there are many ways that therapy can be performed. This is where the Holy Spirit can truly guide us to discern what is in line with Christianity.
Sarah Moon, November 25, 2009.
In response to Rebecca’s first comment:
I think what he is saying is that we need to evaluate each approach and see that there are both positive and negative aspects of the theories. Rather than agreeing with every part of the theory and/or disagreeing with the entire approach, we need to be open to accepting that there are things about a certain theory that is partly in line with Christianity. We should not just blindly dismiss theories because of what we might think is not consistent with our faith.
I'm using my free pass on this one.
Thanks.
1. I appreciate Jones and Butman’s (1991) call to Christian therapists to critically evaluate counseling theories. The vision they present assists Christian therapists intentionally apply their philosophical assumptions, their worldview, to create an informed approach to practice. It is helpful to have a methodology of appraisal to evaluate other theories, ultimately providing a framework for understanding and articulating concepts such as personality, health and illness.
2. Jones and Butman’s (1991) “vision of personhood” (p. 58) sets the stage for Christian therapists to begin thinking about personality theory. Addressing concepts such as the Imago Dei, the sin nature, free will, human motivations and man as a holistic being is helpful. The discussion of wholeness and holiness is interesting. On the one hand, I have heard it said that an individual may be considered psychologically healthy, but cannot be truly healthy without a relationship with Jesus Christ. On the other hand, I have heard it said that humans can never be truly healthy, due to the sin nature, until made perfect after Christ returns. I have also heard it said that psychological health and spiritual health are distinct concepts, as well as heard it said that they are interrelated. I suppose this depends on one’s definition of health. What is your working definition of psychological health? What factors will you use to evaluate whether your client is moving towards health (or illness)?
Response to Rebecca Kulzer:
1. Regarding your first question, I agree with Sarah’s response. It sounds like Jones and Butman (1991) are advocating for an eclectic approach to therapy. I also agree that research is an important tool. While some therapists do not feel called to engage in research, the professional community as a whole can support (research is expensive!) and encourage integration research. As a side note, just as scripture can be misinterpreted, research can be conducted and interpreted incorrectly, so I think both disciplines require caution and wisdom.
References
Jones, S. L. & Butman, R. E. (1991). Modern psychotherapies: A comprehensive Christian appraisal. Downers Grove: IVP Academic.
Melissa Gardner Curri, November 28, 2009.
1)I was a little confused with the statement by Jones & Butman (1991) that integration of psychology and theology "implies that the goal is the fusing together of what are and should properly be two distinct conceptual disciplines" (p. 19). I assumed that this meant, similar to what Dr. Brown has pointed out, that psychology and theology should not be put together as if they could be the same but that theology and psychology should be dialectically compared. Does this seem to be what Jones and Butman are saying?
2)Jones & Butman continually pointed to the human error in all fields of study including theology--"God's counsel is not always synonymous with the counsel of a Christian" and "people are fallible, fallen, and finite" (p. 27). And yet, they use Christianity as a lense through which to look at psychological theory and practice. Do you find this to be inconsistent?
In response to Rebecca K #2...Even though I am doing a PsyD degree in order to avoid some research, I think you make a very good point. Christians have often been criticized for doing a poor job at their professions--causing the secular world to dismiss what Christians have to say. Some examples are: film, music, dance, literature, and so forth. This means we should either stop labeling everything "Christian", do our work in a way that reflects Christ, or live with an awareness of our inability in light of God's ability.
1)I found myself getting really irritated with the critique of integration. Whenever I hear opinions like the Bible is all sufficient, we need to be certain this is real truth, I start to cringe (pg 26). I feel like I am being put in a box, I feel like those critiques are suffocating me and my faith. Often we get so focused on making sure everything lines up with exact words of Scripture and forget that the Bible is not meant to be a rule by rule account.
2) Butman and Jones offer a flow chart about the roots of our psychological theories on page 31. I find it very helpful to trace ideas that we hold as normal and some what intuitive to their source. Then we can begin to see the outside cultural influence on that way of thinking.
In response to Sarah Moon:
I felt like they were saying integration just happens, but through Intro to Integration, I am realizing it takes a lot of personal examination. Integration requires us to examine beliefs engrained in us and that is just tricky. I feel like Jones and Butman highlighted that integration is a complicated process, but I still feel like they simplified it.
1. Jones and Butman describe the postmodern therapeutic space as an environment “where faith is neither good nor bad, true nor false, but simply irrelevant” (p. 24). Faith is such an integral aspect of Christianity; yet, culture has convinced us that this essential part of Christianity isn’t necessary in our emotional healing. What other aspects of Christianity has culture convinced us is irrelevant and how do we address this in our practices?
2. Jones and Butman state agape love (in conjunction with effective approaches based on scientific research) should be emphasized in the Christian approach to helping people (p. 34). Since agape love is not easily exhibited and scientific research is constantly evolving, this advice would guide the therapist on their journey of continual personal and professional growth.
Response to Melissa’s statement #1:
I agree with your view of Jones and Butman’s advice regarding theoretical orientation. I found their figure of psychotherapy systems (p. 31) to be very helpful. It is crucial for therapists to take time to understand the roots of their theoretical orientation.
1.) Jones & Butman (1991) give some good examples of properly quoted texts being used out of context to create an argument that is diametrically opposed to what the original author intended. The misuse of Koch’s quotes should be a lesson for us as we write, certainly, but even more so as we read for our classes. Just because something is properly quoted and cited does not mean it is an accurate reflection of what was meant. Sometimes we need to use those references to read the original piece in order to decided if it was represented faithfully (Jones & Butman, pp. 28-29).
2.) The authors claim “we have to be more than pragmatists (using whatever works)” and look at the deeper meanings and theories behind the techniques (Jones & Butman, 1991, p.34). I’m not sure this is entirely true. Perhaps this is true of some techniques that are more questionable to Christians such as hypnosis, but if we are accepting what the authors implied earlier, that all truth is God’s truth, then wouldn’t it follow that techniques that promote healing are good to use? Should I not use Rogerian techniques because Rogers’ self-actualizing tendency is incompatible with the doctrine of the fall and original sin?
Jonathan Wellman, November 29, 2009
Response to Melissa’s #2:
I think psychological health overlaps with spiritual health but the two are still distinct. I cannot claim that one cannot have a psychologically healthy and fulfilling life while following some other worldview, especially if we are only considering a relationship with Christ as “spiritually healthy.” I think embracing your religious beliefs, whatever those happen to be, are very important for psychological health. Does one really think the Dali lama is not psychologically healthy? I’m sure with his emphasis on peace, love, and helping others, he is perfectly mentally healthy. That does not mean he is furthering God’s kingdom or is going to receive eternal life, but I still think he is healthy. So we need to be careful when we use terms like spiritual health. Is it Christ or nothing from simply a health standpoint (as opposed to a theological one)? Or can any sincere belief lived out make one spiritually healthy, even if it does not grant salvation?
1. I really liked the section where Jones and Butman give psychologists a way to appraise certain methodologies in the field. In this section, the authors present important questions that should be addressed in the appraisal process. One section that stuck out to me was the part on the model of abnormality. The authors present the question of how sin fits into the model of abnormality. What do you guys think? Also, they discussed the model of health. They asked, “What does the theory propose the truly healthy individual is like?” (p. 33) I would add also ask, “How does the model of a healthy person fit into what God thinks a healthy individual is like?” What do you think?
2. Johnson discusses how our view of God and perception of truth can be distorted (p. 17). He states that Christian should not think that they are immune to this, but they should be aware of the biases they might have as a result of “sinful resistance” to the truth. Johnson states that there should be a response of “humility that leads the Christian to submit to the truth wherever found, to weight confidence according to the evidence, to seek new knowledge, and to relinquish false beliefs in the light of further evidence” (p. 17). I find this to be powerful in that we are reminded to be humble and to continue to learn.
Response to Christie’s first comment:
I can understand your frustration and feeling of restriction. However, I don’t think that the authors are intending to say the Scripture is all sufficient in a rule based manner. I think that they are saying that Scripture is truth in that it provides us with a foundation. What we do in therapy should line up with the foundations of the Bible. This should further provide us with freedom to do therapy a variety of ways. If you read Sarah’s first comment it is really helpful.
Lauren Brighton Nov. 29, 2009
1. Johnson states that the field of psychology is not objective, but instead influenced by the context of our history (16). I agree with Johnson, however, I believe very little of how we see ourselves, the world, and others is objective. In my Psychology of Religion class in undergraduate school, we discussed the origins of religion. In summary, we discussed the religious belief came out of the evolution of human intellect and thought and their need for meaning and organization. God, an aspect of religion, is also subjective. Does this mean that this proves whether God exists or not. No, I simply state this to suggest that we can all have some understanding of God, and share this with each other. We can then gain a better understanding of God’s kingdom, Christ’s lordship, and Christian psychology.
2. Jones and Butman nicely describe one of the main reasons for integration, which is to use the Bible as “a foundation and starting point for knowledge” (27). This does not mean to use the Bible to override any secular thoughts. Just like the writers of the Bible had foundational knowledge through spoken word and narratives, we today can use the scriptures to develop thought that integrates our faith and study in psychology. Our practice can be deeply informed by the Bible as well as shaped by modern thought as we develop a better understanding of mental health.
3. In response to Jay’s second comment: I can only answer the question about using techniques that heal despite incompatibility with doctrine with a simple YES we should use them. As we learn more and more about humans and society through the lens of psychology, we gain a better understanding how to approach the problems that arise. As Christians, we should be more and more aware of the progress that psychologists are making and join them in all their efforts to promote mental health. There will continue to be ethical and practical issues that will conflict among mental health workers, but we should all agree that our purpose is to help individuals that can be functional in the larger community. This alone is a biblical idea.
1.Jones and Butman talk of a "tested Christian psychotherapy theory" and that "it is vital that Christian scholars develop thoroughly Christian approaches to counseling" (1991, p. 23). That seems entirely too subjective to me. Christians are subject to the temptations of sin just as everyone else, if not more so at times. I think it's incredible audacious of the authors to imply that some model of therapy formed by Christian(s) is what is missing in the field of psychology (pp. 22-24). I don't think a particular model by itself will be effective in treating individuals as each person is unique and therefore so it the technique/treatment that will work best for that person.
2.Although I thought the Johnson article hit on some very important truths, it seemed to overemphasize a distinction between Christians and non-Christians (Johnson, 1997). I don't agree with the us versus them mentality. Also, some of the statements that are made seem contrary to what the Bible teaches and also to the article itself. An example of such a statement is in the section on "contending for God" where Johnson states "yet, modern psychology demonstrates a pervasive alienation from its master; God is not in any of its theories or practices" (1997, p. 20). Maybe God isn't specifically talked about in the theories, but He is very much in the theories and practices. Later on, Johnson gives a contridictory statement when he says "because of God's creation grace, the vast majority of the theory and research of non-Christians will be valuable" (1997, p. 23). I experienced some uneasiness about what he was really trying to say as it seemed he would sway back and forth between beliefs on psychology and theology/Christianity.
In response to Alex's first comment: When I first read the statement "God is subjective", I immediately felt an impulse to argue with that. However, when I sat for a minute and thought about it, I completely agree. It's not that God changes according to each person, but He can be experienced in so many ways and I think He should be. How are we to understand a mulit-dimensional God if we only allow ourselves to experience Him in the ways we've encountered? God is so much bigger than just our small sample of experiences. You make a very good point and I think we fail to realize that our "truth" is never His whole Truth.
1) It is refreshing to come across Christian literature and textbooks that are not afraid to admit certain things. Specifically, Jones and Butman's section about not rejecting a theory because of its materialistic nature but rather synthesizing it through a Christian worldview and learning from it (p.22) was what jumped out at me. They mentioned this with regard to Skinner as an example. Instead of writing off Skinner as atheistic babble, they seem to suggest that the truth of the Christian worldview has plenty of room for other input. Instead of rejecting it, it can fall under the umbrella of all truth which can still very much be "Christian." This reminds me of what Rob Bell says about affirming truth wherever he finds it. Are there any truths, however, that we are simply unwilling to make room for. That is...what things might you all never affirm as truth in your worldview, no matter how much evidence supported it? Just putting it out there.
2) I appreciate that Jones and Butman see the importance of being critical about existing integration research. I do see a bit of a contradiction though. They mention first that the bible is infallible but humans are fallible so biblical interpretation is always subjective. They say the same about science in general (p.28). Then, on the next page they express how people doing integration deserve criticism because they may have "theological naivete." I would like to know what they mean by theological naivete. At what point are they able to draw the line between the fallible human argument, and the idea that some theological interpretations are so obvious that the word "naivete" can come into their assessment of it? Maybe they don't mean it so blatantly but it still seems to be a bit of a contradiction to me.
Response to Christie's #1:
I think you make an excellent point that using the bible as a handbook to literal truth is limiting. I wonder what it is that the authors actually seem to claim. They quote John Calvin on one hand, then they use the word infallible on the other hand. Not inerrant. I guess further reading would give us more answers but for now I am actually confused. Are they suggesting the thing that you, Christie, find suffocating? Or do they believe that there is truth apart from the bible?
Johnson argues that psychology ignores the religion and religious experience are ignored in introductory psychology texts (p. 14). I can't help but wonder if this isn't just a little bit of complaining that misses the point. While Christians may think that Christ is the Lord of All, this cannot be the central focus of psychology. What of the Taoist? What of the Muslim? Are they just neglected because they aren't "in Christ." The reason (in my mind) that religion is neglected in introductory psychology texts is because of the way that this is handled (read: poorly). Just as Creationism isn't science and shouldn't be taught as such, I have issues with an explicit discussion of psychology that requires religion to be included in the discussion. This isn't to say that I don't think it should be discussed. I don't think that the APA should decide what my theological stance should be, or how to interpret scripture. Not talking about it in the text books actually allows us to talk about it more openly, and to actually talk, rather than argue in court.
2) I find that the Johnson article rubs me the wrong way based on the theology that it expresses. While I am very interested in the integration of psychology and Christianity (I'm at Fuller) I find that Johnson's theology is counter to my own. Instead, I think I prefer Rob Bell's interpretation that all truth is God's truth, and so Christians have access to all truth, even if it isn't labeled "Christian." I don't think that requiring something be labeled as Christian makes it good. The flip side of this for me is this: what does it say of our psychology if we need to put Christ first within it in a way that the client has direct experience with. Is this not abusing the client by forcing my theological views upon them in the guise of a therapeutic encounter where all attempts to maintain their own religious experience are re-framed as resistance?
3) At Christine Turner's first comment: I totally agree. It may be that I have issues with authority, that I don't like being told what to do. But, I think it is more the case that I want to be in a position where God and I a free to interact with each other. The theology expressed in some of these views makes me think that God is in a cage. How can Christ free me from Sin and Death if he is nothing but a caged lion?
1. I liked Jones & Butman's statement that "the appropriate time for apologetic efforts is when the views actually are raised up against God" (p. 21). As psychologists and Christians we must be able to distinguish between psychological theories that blatantly contradict God versus those that simply fall under areas of dogma rather than doctrine, and that are not issues of salvation. Additionally, I think we need to be careful not to discredit and entire theory for having some discrepancies with our faith.
2. I found it interesting that psychologists tend to be socially and politically more liberal and less religious than the general population (p. 24). Consequently, if this field tends to encourage such behaviors and beliefs, how can the Christian psychologist guard against losing their convictions, but still be compassionate, open minded, and willing to have their faith questioned?
3. Response to Christie's 1st comment:
I definitely agree that Christians need to be careful not to be overly rigid in their beliefs and their dependence on Scripture. Often it seems that those who become legalistic and rigid are fearful of questioning their faith and thus automatically dismiss anything that seems to contradict or not fit with literal interpretations of the Biblical text. However, in my opinion, what good is faith if you cannot question it and end up putting God in a box?
I'm using my last free comment this week.
1. I agree with the idea presented in the Johnson article that Psychology is not as objective as it thinks it is. Granted, there has been a historical tendency to see the importance of an objective clinician, but I think that the newer ideas that show the clinician as a person with thoughts and opinions are more realistic. In light of Johnson's look at how the field of psychology fits within the idea of knowledge relating to God, humans cannot be objective, because that means they could have enough knowledge to move beyond themselves. From a definition where knowledge comes from God, or even a non-Christian view where there is some outside source of knowledge, it would be logical that objectivity is not as possible as it has been thought.
2. Jones and Butman bring up a good point on page 21 when they speak of integration as destructive when it tries to destroy all that is not from what the general public views as from God. My own personal reaction to this is to distance myself from people who would do this, so I cannot even imagine the reactions of those who aren't associated with Christianity. In being psychologists who identify with Christ, shouldn't we then follow his example and accept those in who are not what the establishment always thinks as in alignment with God? If we destroy them, we destroy not only our clientel, but the hope that they would want to be around us.
response to Hannah:
I think what Jones & Butman are trying to say is close to what you guessed. They are very much in favor of psychology being informed by faith so that faith is the driving factor which motivates how we view the people we want to help. Butman makes his students sing a song "I am special" each year that affirms that they are valued children of the Kingdom. What they mean about the two disciplines could be a reference to the origins of psychology being against religion, and therefore distinct from it.
1. Johnson claims that knowledge cannot be added to God for he is omniscient (p. 19). He used scripture to support his claim, which states that "fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom." Subsequent verse states that "knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."
2. The author also makes a claim that it is important to broaden the field of psychology by incorporating scriptures with it (p. 22). That there is potential for new theories and ideas within Scriptures. I recall Dr. Dueck stating that the Judeo-Christian culture has several thousands years worth of knowledge in it. Since God is the creator, I think it is vital to have proper understanding of mental health in his perspective instead of ours.
Response to Rebecca Kilman Liu:
My undergrad was a Christian institution, so there was really not much stigma stuck to the field of psychology being anti-Christian.
Actually I was surprised to find out how unfriendly the field of psychology may be towards Christianity after coming to Fuller.
1. Jones and Butman, on page 22-23, say that “good ‘integrators’ must not only review research, but do research as well. This implies active involvement in the process of doing science, informed by enlightened notions of philosophy of science. Good integrators must be committed to evaluation and assessment of their endeavors. Currently, the community of Christian psychologists is weak in this area”.
I think this resonates with me for a couple of reasons. First, I think all practitioners should strive to be the best at what they do, or at least the best they can be, and that entails being on the cutting edge of research in their “area of expertise”. Coming from a counseling program I found it discouraging that so many of my peers were turned off by research. Professional counselors seem like an underdog in the world of mental health counseling and therefore need good representation to give them a good name. That means staying on top of your game, being knowledgeable of the latest research in your area of expertise.
Similarly, Christian psychologists seem, at least somewhat, like a minority as well. Furthermore, I feel like Christian psychologists are even stigmatized (e.g., a lot of people don’t think Christianity and psychology are compatible). We also need good representation that comes from establishing highly competent practitioners all over the US that identify themselves as Christians.
In addition, I would like to see more Christian psychologists producing research. I think you need to utilize research to show that you are an effective therapist. That seems particularly important in a culture that may question whether or not a Christian psychologist can have the same kind effectiveness as a secular psychologist. It also seems like publishing research is what makes your name significant, that’s what makes you a star in this profession. I’m wondering if more christian psychologists published, if that would begin to mitigate the power of the stigma of the Christian psychologist.
2. On pages 33-34, the authors talk about models of health and abnormality and how we need to evaluate them in light of our religious beliefs. I’m wondering, how do you think your views of health and wellness are colored by your beliefs as a Christian? For example, I tend to gravitate more towards a wellness model, where the goal is to thrive in life, as opposed to a medical model where the absence of disease is wellness.
Response to Sarah’s first question:
I think one of the things I’ve thought about a lot is how might my professional path be altered by my faith and desire to be a part of the manifestation of the kingdom of God on earth. For example, I’ve never really had a desire to work with the homeless. However, as this quarter has progressed and I’ve thought about how God wants me to live, how that might interact with my professional identity, and heard stories of other Fuller grads; I wonder if I could commit myself to something as significant as combatting homelessness.
Jamie Rehmel
I am using my free pass on this one.
Thanks,
Rebecca
1) Jones & Butman describe Christian critics of psychotherapy as "zealous to protect the faith from distortion or perversion" (p. 21). Radical statements like this, characteristic of the "destructive" mode of integration, make me a little uncomfortable, as I didn't realize that by developing a therapeutic modality, one was attacking the Christian faith or even addressing it at all. I do see the merit in approaching therapeutic perspectives in a critical manner with the ability to embrace what is good and helpful and reject what is distorted (more of a constructive approach), but I don't think that means we have to be constantly on the defensive.
2) The "criticisms of integration" (starting p. 25) are interesting in light of reading Velvet Elvis, which asserts that "all truth is God's truth." This echoes Jones & Butman's quoting of James 1:17: "Every good and perfect gift is from above..." This really resonates with me personally, as I have found truth and beauty and goodness in places that may be thought of as far away from God. What do all of you think about this idea?
Response to Sarah's #2: I think that integration will inevitably happen to some extent for the Christian psychologist, even if it's not an explicit goal of the psychologist, just because our own values do influence our therapy whether we'd like to admit it or not. Integrating thoughtfully, however, is a much more complicated process, and I don't think that necessarily comes naturally. Over the past 10 weeks I have been wrestling with what it means concretely, specifically, in therapy, for my beliefs to influence my work. How does it change the way I speak to clients, or the things I say,or the attitude with which I approach therapy? I don't think these are simple questions!
1)Jones and Butman (1991) make clear that they are recognizing the work of professional therapists and of the church as symbiotic in nature. The connections which these two fields share are uncanny and difficult to ignore. It seems though that there has been a determined separation between the two areas of study by those who want to “Christianize” psychotherapy and/or modify secular traditions to fit more appropriate biblical models. The authors maintain that though they wish to develop a, “tested Christian psychotherapy model”, they are far from that lofty goal (p.23).
2)I am relieved that Jones and Butman clarified their position on biblical truth vs. God Himself as the all-sufficient means for understanding life (p. 26-27). Many times it seems the bible is viewed as a manual on how to live one’s life. In psychotherapy it is especially important to leave room for God’s intervention via the Holy Spirit. Though we as Christians believe in the efficacy of biblical wisdom when applied to our daily lives, this same book we hold dear can be wrongly perceived by an outsider, non-Christian who comes to therapy only to be barraged by a clinician with a bible in hand.
In response to Takisha’s #1:
I think you ask a great question by probing into what other areas our culture has undermined our Christian beliefs. I am going to state the obvious here and venture to guess that Christian morality has been greatly undermined by our culture. Just think of the last several films you have seen. Have there been any positive portrayals of Christian characters? If there is a Christian character present, most likely he or she is the moral police amongst the other characters, quick to judge, has no fun, lives life in a box, etc. The character of Angela from the sitcom “The Office” comes to mind. Not only is she constantly commenting on what moral violations are present in the office, she is also the biggest hypocrite, regularly acting and speaking in ways that are immoral!
Amber Blews, December 1, 2009
1. Regardless of a client’s religious convictions, Johnson states that a Christian counselor should “help others move as much in the direction of God’s mind regarding human normality and maturity as is possible” (p. 25). At first, this seems contrary to Rogers and even APA standards. But I think the trick is doing it in a natural and subtle way that respects and honors the client. After all, we all have an ideal image of the self that leaks into therapy.
2. Jones and Butman say that we as Christians believe that we are sufficiently guided towards truth by the Holy Spirit and the body of Christ (p. 27). The part that has always been tricky for me is the term “sufficiently.” What happens when two people look at the Bible, claim to be Spirit-led, and have the support of a community of believers, and still come to different interpretations? It is hard to hold strong convictions and humility that all facts are interpreted at the same time.
David Choi, December 1, 2009.
In response to Christie’s first comment:
I also cringe when people make this argument. I think the issue is what the Bible is sufficient for. If we’re talking about being the foundation for a theological worldview, I would say yes, the Bible is meant for that. But as far as being a manual for specific fields of study, I would say the Bible never claims to be for that.
1) I agree with Johnson that even as Christians who are supposed to follow the only ‘way,’ we should adopt a spirit of humility (p. 17) and give credit where credit is due. All truth is God’s truth! I don’t want to be intimidated by a tradition separate from my own that points to the same wisdom and discipline and self-lessness that Jesus exhibited, just because it is not under the umbrella of Christianity. I know this makes certain people nervous. My grandmother, for instance, would be wrought with concern if she knew I went to yoga classes for exercise. Over thanksgiving, my aunt used her powers of exhortation to try to persuade me that the Harry Potter book series is opening minds to satanic spiritual conjuring. I, on the other hand choose to celebrate the gift of my body in thankful exercise and to enjoy any literature or story which highlights Christ-like heroes who are tempted with greed, but choose compassion and using their powers for the good of all. I believe that Jesus is the only way, and that the fact is it is HIS way. He decides, not us. He sees hearts not us. I hope that in my career as a therapist I can rely on His sight to see the truth and love in a heart that may not profess the actual name of Christ.
2) Jones & Butman’s discussion of the sufficiency of the scriptures (p. 26-27), bring up two conflicting thoughts for me. On one hand, I do think that the Bible is the source of poignant Truth. On the other, I think that the accounts recorded in the Bible are of such diverse literary genres that varying interpretations can be questionable, and even dangerous. Our human history gives evidence of this. So, while the scriptures are invaluably full of wisdom and guidance, figuring out what that wisdom is and how to apply it to our current modern life is intensely complex. I think that’s why I appreciate Jesus’ teachings so much. He consistently points to the same simple truths and acts. Give to the poor. Care for the unfortunate. Choose forgiveness over hate. Choose compassion over self-promotion.
I agree with Chris’ comment on not demanding religion be included in intro psych textbooks. Even if we believe that God loves all, created all, knows the mind, psyche, etc. of all and that He can even guide and shape and heal such, not everyone agrees. Not everyone believes in His power to heal, His genuine care, or even His existence. Yet, this doesn’t mean they don’t have a psyche. It doesn’t mean they don’t have a psychological experience and exploration.
Mary Alexandra Jacobs, 12.02.2009
1. I found interesting the two stages of faith that Jones and Butman described on page 22. It conveys that integration is more than just collecting "good" ideas from certain theories. Integration is putting those ideas into practice through therapy or research. I agree with that concept.
2. In the Johnson article, something he said stood out to me. He states that our primary goals as Christian therapists are to "see human nature a) as it is and b) the way God does" (Johnson, 1997, p. 14). This reminds me of the importance of viewing each client as a child of God. We should see them and love them as they are, the way God does. Having this perspective will enable God to work through us as therapists.
In response to Sarahs 2nd question:
That is such an interesting question! I had never thought of all the layers of mental and spiritual health before as distinct yet interrelated. I think that both concepts are very subjective and vary from person to person. For me, someone who is healthy is someone who is striving to learn and grow and develop themselves. Someone who has a good perspective on their live and the events that occur in their life. Someone who is both challenged and loved in relationships with others. I could go on and on! Good question.
1. In Johnson's (1997) article, he mentioned the diverse approaches to integration and how, in many Christian circles, the emphasis is put on Christian counseling and not the integration of Christianity and Psychology (pp. 23-24). In fact, Psychology is a bad word to some Christians. This resonates with my life in that my mother continues to tell people that I am in school to become a Christian counselor and emphasizes the fact that I am studying at a Seminary. That section of this article made me profoundly thankful to be studying at an institution that doesn't shy away from Psychology but embraces it, striving to learn from the field in order to better serve Children of God, both believers and non-believers.
2. I was confused as to what Jones and Butman were getting at in writing, "Genuine listening is risky. If we really listen, we may have to adjust our view of the facts, revise our sense of their relevance..." (1991, p. 36). It is almost as though they are of the opinion that therapists will be swayed by the opinions of every one of their clients if they listen to them too closely. I thought the whole point of therapy was listening, especially Rogerian therapy? I agree that one must be grounded in their faith, but I think it is unjustified to think that therapists have no mind of their own as to be so easily shaken.
In response to Amber's 2nd comment:
I was also relieved by their opinion of Scripture being useful but not the ultimate source. I was afraid that they held a much different view. Since clients may come in with no religious background, it would be naive of us as therapists to think that Scripture would hold any merit with a client gives no value to it.
posted by Heather Patterson Meyer
I would like to use the last of my freebies for this week. (3/3) Thank you.
1. While speaking about Christians in the field of psychology, Johnson states, "while the psychology teacher would avoid condoning homosexual behavior when teaching on sexual orientation, and yet foster awareness of the sin of homophobia (p. 25)." I like this statement as it says, hate the sin, love the sinner. I feel like sexuality issues have been "ignored" by the Christian community for sometimes, and widely accepted in the secular community. I feel this is a place that the church needs to step in, and love on people, instead of shunning them.
2. On page 18, Jones and Butman discuss a common view of psychology that is held by the Christian community. This view hold that psychology is unnecessary, because the Bible has all of the answers to psychological problems. This discussion resonated with me on a personal level. God gave us the Bible to learn, but he also gave us the church community, and our experience to learn from. If by communicating with others and studying God's own creation, we can find better ways of helping people, why is this so wrong to some people?
In response to Rebekah Kilman Lui's statement 1-
I can resonate with your statement. I feel like I was supported by many people in my church by my decision, but I still felt like a minority thought that studying the Bible would give me all the answers. Though I agree that the Bible does shed great light on psychology, I believe we can also learn through God's creation of nature, humanity, and all life.
1. One thing I really appreciated about Jones & Butman (1991) is that they approach theology and psychology as separate disciplins and respect the value and place for each individually, but still believe that Christianity can be integrated into psychotherapy (pg 19). Do you believe there is ever a place for "Psychotherology or theopsychology?" (pg. 19).
2.Jones and Butman argue that Rogerian therapy is "radically incommensurate with the faith" despite the fact that it "superficially resembles one understanding of agape love" (pg. 35). Do you agree with this critic or disagree?
In response to Hannah #2:
I did find that part of the chapter inconsistent. However, in my desire to resolve those comments, I wonder if they were trying to point out that pastoral counseling or scripture quoting is not the answer for Christian psychologist in every situation. Perhaps they were pointing out the need for a diverse use of therapy techniques and Christian interventions instead of a one-size fits all "God's wisdom" category? Also, I believe it is important to define "Theology" and God differently. Because theology is the study of God by humans, I believe it can be wrong, even though God is not. I am a little uncomfortable with the wording used in the book, however.
1) Jones & Butman say that the goal of the redeemed life is holiness, and not necessarily wholeness (p. 57-58). That is a good point for us as Christian therapists because part of our work is to restore wholeness in people, but that can exclude Christ in client’s lives. How can we make sure to encourage holiness along with wholeness in Christian clients? And what about non-Christian clients?
2) Johnson says that creation grace is a part of God’s truth in the world, so secular people who study the world (psychologists, biologists, etc) tap into that truth (p. 23). This means that as Christians we do not need to disregard all research and theories performed by secular psychologists. Sometimes there may be an error in interpreting God’s revealed truth in creation, but that does not mean that all science has no value.
Response to Candace’s response #2:
I agree with you that the Bible doesn’t contain all of the answers we need to help psychological problems. It links in to the Bible’s purpose, to show who God is, who His people are, and how to have a relationship with Him. There is a lot of information on how to live life to the full in relationship with God, but it is not a handbook of mental disorders. God revealed truth in other places than in the Bible, like you said Candace about the Christian community and creation. Psychology taps into studying God’s truth in creation.
Jenn Greiner 12/3
1. The text says that "the task of the Christian scholar is to 'study reality in the light of biblical revelation'" (p. 20). I really appreciate the discussion on the value of looking at humanity in terms of God’s redemptive grace and at the same time valuing the study within the field of psychology (p. 32). While we cannot have a complete understanding of psychology within looking the our Christian context, we cannot rely solely on scripture of practice of psychotherapy, and it is necessary to have the field of psychology. Our interventions and theory for practice as Christians who will someday be psychologists, should be grounded in book scripture and psychological theory.
2. I liked the section that discussed the caution necessary when integrating psychology and theology. I think that it can be detrimental to assume that one can always completely integrate the two and that they will complement one another. There are definite times when they do not, and we need to look at and seek to understand why they may clash. I would argue that that process is equally important for a Christian psychologist.
3. In response to Rebecca Kulzer’s second comment: I agree that research is invaluable in the field and is also a great way to “do” integration,” however I would add that just as one may be called to specific work such as pastor, teach, organize, or be a therapist, one can be called to be a researcher, but that does not always mean that within psychology, every psychologist is called to do both therapy and research. It is important to recognize that this can be a meaningful experience of some, and not for others, and that is ok too, because God calls us to unique tasks.
Brittany Rice December 3, 2009
1) I really appreciated reading the Jones and Butman reading. This is the kind of material I thought we would be reading and studying in our Intro to Integration class, more practical or concrete in a sense (not that our readings in Integration haven’t been thought-provoking and beneficial). I really appreciated the balance the authors use in investigating both perspectives; they uphold psychology as a useful Christian method of healing while still cautioning practitioners of areas where it would be easy to be misled from the truth of Christ. It was important to me that the authors affirmed dialogue (with all those with a voice/opinion) because to not engage in dialogue is to be held back in fear, active involvement in the process (which is a real challenge to Christians in whatever field they are in), and careful listening to those that have gone before us (which implies a humility and willingness to learn). (Jones and Butman, 1991, p. 22-23).
2) I really connected with the Jones and Butman reading because in the past, I have experienced a lot of criticism from “psychology bashers”, Christians who believe that psychology is “completely secularized”(Jones and Butman, 1991, p. 18) and that the Bible is the only reference we need when it comes to healing the human condition. I wonder if these same people would refuse medical help when dying of a physical condition, similarly claiming that the Bible was all that was needed to heal a person? Why has psychology become known as a “bad science” or science in general seen as “bad” or untrustworthy? Are we so afraid of finding truth in any other avenue? It was so refreshing to read the authors counter arguments upholding psychology as a useful tool in understanding people and, from a Christian understanding of human nature, a useful method of facilitating Christ’s healing. Also, that all truth is God’s truth, wherever it is found. (Jones and Butman, 1991).
Kim Richardson, December 3, 2009
Response to Sarah Moon’s 1st Comment:
Integration is by no means an easy thing. I have increasingly realized this over the past 10 weeks. I agree that integration should and does happen “naturally and inevitably” (Jones and Butman, 2001, p. 19) for those whose Christian beliefs are already integrated strongly in their sense of self and motivation. But this is not to mean that integration doesn’t happen without intentionality. I think it is both.
Kim Richardson, December 3, 2009
1) I really appreciated reading the Jones and Butman reading. This is the kind of material I thought we would be reading and studying in our Intro to Integration class, more practical or concrete in a sense (not that our readings in Integration haven’t been thought-provoking and beneficial). I really appreciated the balance the authors use in investigating both perspectives; they uphold psychology as a useful Christian method of healing while still cautioning practitioners of areas where it would be easy to be misled from the truth of Christ. It was important to me that the authors affirmed dialogue (with all those with a voice/opinion) because to not engage in dialogue is to be held back in fear, active involvement in the process (which is a real challenge to Christians in whatever field they are in), and careful listening to those that have gone before us (which implies a humility and willingness to learn). (Jones and Butman, 1991, p. 22-23).
2) I really connected with the Jones and Butman reading because in the past, I have experienced a lot of criticism from “psychology bashers”, Christians who believe that psychology is “completely secularized”(Jones and Butman, 1991, p. 18) and that the Bible is the only reference we need when it comes to healing the human condition. I wonder if these same people would refuse medical help when dying of a physical condition, similarly claiming that the Bible was all that was needed to heal a person? Why has psychology become known as a “bad science” or science in general seen as “bad” or untrustworthy? Are we so afraid of finding truth in any other avenue? It was so refreshing to read the authors counter arguments upholding psychology as a useful tool in understanding people and, from a Christian understanding of human nature, a useful method of facilitating Christ’s healing. Also, that all truth is God’s truth, wherever it is found. (Jones and Butman, 1991).
Kim Richardson, December 3, 2009
Response to Sarah Moon’s 1st Comment:
Integration is by no means an easy thing. I have increasingly realized this over the past 10 weeks. I agree that integration should and does happen “naturally and inevitably” (Jones and Butman, 2001, p. 19) for those whose Christian beliefs are already integrated strongly in their sense of self and motivation. But this is not to mean that integration doesn’t happen without intentionality. I think it is both.
Kim Richardson, December 3, 2009
1) Johnson (1997) asserts "the problem that Christians in psychology may unwittingly work with non-Christians in ways that go against the agenda of redemptive grace and God's creation order". (pg 25). The way I interpret this is that if a therapist is a Christian, they have a "duty to address sin in therapy". Otherwise, they are in a sense complicit in sinfulness. He gives the example of a non-Christian client that feels guilty about an ongoing extra-marital affair. Johnson makes the jump that a non-Christian therapist's goal would be to assist the client in "quelling his conscience". It seems like a non-Christian therapist would have the same type of questions and concerns as a Christian therapist since an ongoing extra-marital affair is commonly damaging to a person's own ego. Johnson seems to make the case that all non-Christian values are not real values. I find this hard to believe. In other words, even a non-Christian therapist would address the self-destructiveness of the behavior, which is perhaps another word for sin. Is Johnson under-estimating the innate spirituality and intuition of non-Christian therapists?
2)In addition to a duty to address sin in therapy, Johnson also places within the Christian therapists responsibility to keep the client from gaining more distance from what he calls Kingdom values, and an obligation to not play a role in that distancing. Therapy to Johnson is the place where values are materialized, formed, or renewed, "Much counseling about issues relating to moral choices, motivation, guilt, purpose, in life, interpretation of stress, and self-acceptance has an essentially religious core." (pg. 25) How might a Christian therapist respond to critics who see this view as a Christian sense of ownership of morality? And, how is a therapist to take on so much responsibility for their client's learning of values, while maintaining a sense of mystery and trust in God who transcends all value and truth?
1) Johnson (1997) asserts "the problem that Christians in psychology may unwittingly work with non-Christians in ways that go against the agenda of redemptive grace and God's creation order". (pg 25). The way I interpret this is that if a therapist is a Christian, they have a "duty to address sin in therapy". Otherwise, they are in a sense complicit in sinfulness. He gives the example of a non-Christian client that feels guilty about an ongoing extra-marital affair. Johnson makes the jump that a non-Christian therapist's goal would be to assist the client in "quelling his conscience". It seems like a non-Christian therapist would have the same type of questions and concerns as a Christian therapist since an ongoing extra-marital affair is commonly damaging to a person's own ego. Johnson seems to make the case that all non-Christian values are not real values. I find this hard to believe. In other words, even a non-Christian therapist would address the self-destructiveness of the behavior, which is perhaps another word for sin. Is Johnson under-estimating the innate spirituality and intuition of non-Christian therapists?
2)In addition to a duty to address sin in therapy, Johnson also places within the Christian therapists responsibility to keep the client from gaining more distance from what he calls Kingdom values, and an obligation to not play a role in that distancing. Therapy to Johnson is the place where values are materialized, formed, or renewed, "Much counseling about issues relating to moral choices, motivation, guilt, purpose, in life, interpretation of stress, and self-acceptance has an essentially religious core." (pg. 25) How might a Christian therapist respond to critics who see this view as a Christian sense of ownership of morality? And, how is a therapist to take on so much responsibility for their client's learning of values, while maintaining a sense of mystery and trust in God who transcends all value and truth?
Post a Comment