1.Maybe I have not yet learned enough about Rogers, but Roberts comment about selves being in some sense theological and then asserting, "certainly Rogers does not believe that that is what selves are," to me is remarkably bold in the worst sense of the word. Rogers was training for the ministry and even attended seminary, albeit the most liberal one he could find. Therefore, to blantantly claim Rogers had no belief of the self as being theological in any sense, seems to be borne, not have careful research, but instead out of Roberts biased view of humanist philosophy (Roberts, p. 266).
2.Roberts refers to unconditional positive regard as a technique. But my understanding from class is that mirroring, reflecting, and reframing are Rogerian techniques while the parts of the therapeutic triad are more like parts of a therapist's whole being, at least in the therapy room. Do you think Roberts does a disservice to Rogers and to the argument Roberts himself is making by referring to positive regard as mere technique? (Roberts, 268)
1) It seems that the client in Client Centered Therapy is expected to be passive, only responding to the empathetic gestures of the therapist. Roberts mentions that Rogerian therapy leaves little room for biblical virtues such as patience and self-control (Roberts, p. 270). I agree that unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence are a great foundation for a therapist, but how can a Christian therapist help his/her clients to develop virtues?
2) As Christians, we believe that humans are created for relationship with God. Without God, even the most “self-actualized” person is going to have a void inside (Roberts, p. 271). So how should a Christian therapist deal with a client that does not believe in any sort of higher power? Is there any way to subtly evangelize without being unethical? How do we deal with a non-spiritual client who talks about feeling empty?
In response to Jay- I agree that Robert’s statement may have been more an emotional reaction than an educated response. I do not claim to know a lot about Roger’s life myself, but later the article mentions Rogers having an interest in Ouija boards, spirit mediums, and the after life (Roberts, p. 271). Perhaps at first Rogers did not want to include any theological ideas in the “self” (perhaps he was rebelling against his religious upbringing), but later he realized that spirituality was a fundamental component of one’s being.
1. Roberts concludes in one of his points that "If, on the other hand, persons can come fully to accept themselves as wanting organismic satisfaction, there will be complete congruence between the way they are and the way they see themselves..." (1985, p. 264). I'm conflicted about how I react to this statement. I don't know that will should ever really feel complete congruence. The Bible tells us that the battle is a spiritual one, so in one sense, I believe it may be problematic if we ever have a sense that there isn't a battle inside of us between the flesh and the spirit.
2. Roberts gives us this quote from Carl Rogers: "...doing what 'feels right' proves to be a competent and trustworthy guide to behavior which is truly satisfying" (1985, p. 271). Both as therapists and Christians how are to to interpret what "feels right"? How do we know if what is feeling right in the moment is of God or from our own human heart, with all of its flaws?
Nikki Frederick, November, 2, 2009
In Response to Rachael Wittern:
I believe if we are listening to the Holy Spirit who is IN us, we are constantly subtley evangalizing. It will be difficult, though, to "keep quiet" about the God we know fills voids when a client doesn't know his or her maker and we have nothing else that can help. Hopefully by us being attuned to the worth of every person, we will create a realtionship that will at least plant a seed for God to grow in the future.
1. There were points in Roberts' article that made me cringe and there were points that made me nod emphatically in agreement. One point of agreement transcends any other issues, in my opinion, because of it's claim to the reality that exists in therapy. This reality is that the person who is the client is a person made in God's image who Christ came and died for (Roberts, 266). The implication here is that this is a reality for me as the therapist with a Christian worldview, but it may not be the reality for the client who may have any number of worldviews in his/her back pocket. I wonder what the conversation would be like if an atheist client asked me, "Bobby, why do you care about me as a person in the context of our therapy?" My answer may collide directly with his/her worldview, yet it is the foundation and basis of my empathy and unconditional positive regard for them. This is positively ironic to me.
2. "...if we have not mastered unconditional positive regard, how can we think we are living by the Christian ethic?" (Roberts, 269) This resonated with me because it called into question the importance of my own spiritual development in conjunction with my professional development. I can read every textbook and master every technique (theoretically) but if I am not in touch with what it means to emit complete love and mercy toward others the way Christ did for me, then I am really not equipped as a therapist, am I? Certainly not as a Rogerian.
Response to Jay's #2 Jay, you make an excellent observation. Is unconditional positive regard something you can "add to your tool belt" and learn, or is it a way of life? I think that you and I may believe the answer to that question is clear cut, but it is interesting to think that somewhere there exists a type of therapist who actually has no unconditional positive regard for their clients, yet somehow manages to exhibit unconditional positive regard as a "technique." What would therapy like that look like?
1. When thinking about Rogers, I am inclined to agree with Butman in his emphasis on the instincts and inclinations of the self as not an inerrant guide (Butman, 262). He urges us to think about the fact that no part of our self is untouched by sin, and while it is important as Christians to recognize where we have been true to others over self, that it is equally important to realize that the deepest desires of our being are not always going to lead to actualization, and may indeed cause us more trouble than a standard imposed on us by the outside.
2. Roberts talks about love as the primary dipostition or motivation of our heart (Roberts 264). He explains that since we were created to love, first God and then our neighbors, it is not so much our actions or the consequences of our actions that concerns God so much as the content of our hearts. I would disagree that to look only at our hearts, and not to take the measures of our actions (e.g. the fruit) into consideration as a reflection of the level of love is foolish. I understand how Roberts is looking at God knowing what we are truly like without needing to see the actions and consequences, but if he is looking to support Rogerian self actualization by talking about a penchant to love, it is equally important that we look at the outward manifestation of that.
Response to Rachel: I think in a mode of therapy where there is little direction, we as therapists cannot help our clients to develop anything that they do not choose to develop. If virtue does not come up as important to them, it is functionally impossible to bring it up in true client-centered therapy.
1) I find it interesting that Roberts compares Rogers’ therapeutic technique of “unconditional positive regard” to Christian love or fellowship. Initially he draws on similarities between the two practices then follows shortly by contrasting the ways in which they are different. It seems Roberts ultimately believes that unconditional positive regard can be taught in graduate programs and adapted by any Joe or Jane Therapist as a therapeutic technique while Christian love, the true agape is something altogether deeper and transforming for the person (in this case the therapist) who intends to show it to another (p. 267-268).
2) I like the correlation Roberts draws between congruence and integrity of the Christian person. Roberts maintains that in the Christian walk, integrity is not so much the ability to hold onto one’s own self esteem or keep one’s self-concept intact but it is to resist temptation, possibly overcoming the urge to think poorly of oneself. He further goes on to say that this integrity is like Rogers’ concept of congruence, in which the Christian strives to stay “whole” while struggling through strenuous circumstance (p 269).
In response to Bobby Salimi’s #2
You make a good point in questioning the development of skills and therapeutic techniques for service purposes only. It seems that we could master every textbook theory and style and still fall short as helping professionals if we are not spiritually engaged in listening to those who are hurting. Integrating the elements of our faith and involving our spiritual selves in the therapy room seems to be true congruence as Rogerian therapy calls for.
1. One interesting comparison that Roberts makes is between Roger's unconditional positive regard and Christian love. Roberts seems a bit harsh towards unconditional positive regard, basically calling it a technique that people are trained in to make a lot of money (Roberts, p. 268). He says agape love leads people to leave comfort and serve the poor, just like Jesus did. I agree that Christian love is deeper because it comes from God, but I also think that there are many Rogerian therapists who have more noble motives than just earning money.
2. I am curious as to how Rogers would respond to Roberts when he compares the Rogerian ideal of doing what "feels right" and the Christian using discipline to become what the faith culture defines as "right." Roberts seems to think that the latter can also be a form of autonomy and is not inconsistent with Rogerian theories (Roberts, p. 272). My guess would be that Rogers would disagree and say the individual should not have conditions of worth placed on them by religion.
David Choi, November 2, 2009.
In response to Nikki's 2nd comment:
I think that is the million dollar question when it comes to discernment. I think it is wise to test feelings to see where they are coming from. When God speaks to us, I think usually, there are multiple ways. For example, God may speak to us through the Bible, other believers, or circumstances. The more of these that align with our feeling, the safer I would feel about the source of the feeling.
1. Roberts talks about the conditions that the society places on us, that the "society has trained us that parts of our experiences and behavior are unacceptable" (Roberts, p. 267) Looking back at my own experiences I often heard my parents and friends tell me what I won't be able to achieve and what I can not do. Very few were able to direct me, telling me that I am capable and what I can do.
2. As some have already pointed out, the comparison of unconditional regard and agape is quite interesting (p. 268). Due to the nature, I think agape is more difficult. There is a definite boundary between a therapist and a client and the setting which the interaction happens is somewhat limited. On top of that the therapist is paid to carry out his/her role. Such factors will make it easier to unconditionally accept and regard the client. However, for Christians, their interaction is not just limited to church, but can meet on regular basis. And their role and boundary is not always so clearly defined, which opens up a lot of possibility to see different aspects of the person in various setting. Such factors would make it difficult for Christians to have agape even if agape and unconditional regard are to be the same.
In response to California: I think the congruence and integrity piece is also similar to what I mentioned above. Therapist needs to be congruent in therapy, and not necessarily outside of therapy. However, For a Christian integrity has to be a part of his/her life all the time. Or else it is or can be a sin. However, it is really difficult to do so all the time.
1) Peace with self versus peace with God? I think Roberts brings up a valid point in talking about the lack of transcendence in Rogers model (though for a psychological theory it has a lot to offer). "Christian peace is primarily peace with God (p. 271)." I am looking through the lens of faith but it is hard for me to see how I could authentically have peace with myself without first having peace with God. However, this peace with self idea is something missed in the church. We are always struggling (as Roberts pointed out)and it seems to have become the more "Christian" way of life. But from peace with God should come a peace with self.
2) Following along Rogers line of thinking, rather than negating it, one might find that the "despair lurking in the breast that only the breath of eternity can dispel" is a longing for truly unconditional positive regard--Christ's (p. 271). It strikes me that Rogers says we need this UPR and yet no human is truly capable of giving us this. Roberts thoughts on Rogers' interest in the afterlife excited me because it reminds me of how powerful this longing for God that God placed in our hearts is.
In response to Jay...Roberts wrote, "training people in such Christian virtues as gentleness, compassion, mercy, humility, and gratitude" and yet he criticizes Rogers for using agape love as a tool in therapy(p. 266,p. 268). Apparently, we are allowed to train Christians but we are not allowed to train graduate students.
Both of your questions seem to hit on the same basic theme that as Christians psychotherapist we will have clients who disagree with our religious beliefs and how do we interact with them while being congruent? First, I think you let the client lead. If he or she does not want God to be part of the discussion you say okay or you refer, if you have decide to be a Christian only psychologist and feel you must. As far as virtues go, I don't think we are teaching all the virtues, but certainly love, joy (in a sense), patience (often), and self-control are all aspects of psychological health as well as Biblical virtues. Finally the only way I know to subtly evangelize without being unethical is "preach the gospel at all times - if necessary use words." -St. Francis of Assisi
1. Roberts (1985) views Rogers’ concept of self to be the result “not of his concept of a self, but of his beliefs about what exists” (p. 266). If this is true, Rogers’ worldview has impacted his approach to therapy. How therapists define concepts like the self and human nature is affected by their beliefs and values. Rogers believes that people are basically trustworthy and able to direct themselves towards productive living. What is your view of human nature and how does this affect your approach to therapy?
2. During Roberts’ (1985) discussion of unconditional positive regard and agape, he states the quality of most Christian fellowship is poor because of the “superficiality of Christian ethics and the shallowness with which the Christian virtues have been assimilated by most Christians” (p. 269). What do you think of this statement and has this been your experience? This is harsh criticism and I wonder what Roberts experienced to have categorized most Christian fellowship so negatively. While Roberts chose not to show unconditional positive regard to most Christians when writing this section of the article, his call to listen fully and be less quick to judge is clear. While the spiritual life spills over into the professional life, it sounds like Roberts is calling for professional training to remind and sharpen the spiritual life. Would professional training in the art of listening and demonstrating unconditional positive regard sharpen one’s spiritual life? This training might not only assist professionals in the practice of positive regard and being less judgmental of their clients, but also of those in their community and church.
Response to Woo C. Kim’s first post:
You can do what God has created you to do in His strength! The points you raise about potential difficulties of agape in the therapy office are valid. It would have been interesting if Roberts (1985) had provided a more detailed definition and discussion of agape in the context of therapy.
References
Roberts, R. (1985). Carl Rogers and the Christian virtues. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11, 263-273.
1) I experienced Roberts speaking to unconditional positive regard falling short of Christian Agape love as a little self righteous. I've been involved with a church essentially my whole life. And, unfortunately, I would often take the genuine care of a therapist over what I've experienced as Agape love from fellow Christians. Is "Agape love", as it is practiced by many Christians across the US not simply a technique as well? Do Christians really always exhibit love for a neighbor as an end in itself? Questionable. I'm also not sure a $65 session with a client exemplifies a therapist doing it for the "high income"(268).
2) Roberts talks about Rogers emphasis on congruence, and how his theory leaves no room for virtues such as “patience, perseverance, courage, and self control”(269). I’m wondering if an emphasis on patience, perseverance, and self control might not be implicit in the therapist allowing the client to dictate the direction of therapy and relying almost solely on open ended questions rather than directive ones that mean seem more pertinent at the time. In addition, it seems like continually showing unconditional positive regard could necessitate patience particularly when the therapist experiences the client as frustrating.
Response to rwitten question 2.
I feel like any form of explicit evangelism would be unethical. However, I feel like the experience of a fully accepting relationship in addition to possible self disclosures could certainly serve as a mouthpiece for God. Religion and spirituality seem like such common topics, I can’t imagine either not coming up at any point during a therapeutic relationship of reasonable length. I would be willing to acknowledge my beliefs and allow my behavior within the context of the relationship to speak for me.
1. Roberts states, “Again, in others of the virtues the mature Christian reflects God’s character in his or her own, being more or less conscious of the modeling relation” (271), which simply means that the more actualized Christian models God’s character in their own character in a more natural, authentic way. Is there ever a sense that a “mature Christian” must resist some aspect of their humanity to image God’s character? To be like God, does it ever mean that human beings must be inauthentic?
2. In Roberts discussion of autonomy, he states that all human beings have different “natural” behaviors (272). So like Mother Teresa, Roberts says that some people are inclined to pursue selflessness while others are not. Many people, particularly Christians, try so hard to be counter-cultural that they end up behaving in inauthentic ways. At tension with this is behaving in ways that stretch the human beings with the intentions for growth. I think this important because it includes the idea of behaving in ways that embraces the uniqueness of the individual as well as challenges the individual to remain connected to the environment that fosters maturity.
3. In response to Rachel Wittern’s 2nd comment: To answer your question in the simplest way, I believe that we can deal with patients who are facing the void they are experiencing by empathizing and stepping into their world and remembering our own experiences of emptiness. Jesus became a human, bringing himself into the human experience of limitation and void. He cried, laughed and felt all kinds of other emotions with his fellow humans. As therapists, we can do the same by being present with clients, but not directly addressing the idea that they need to look outside of themselves to find wholeness.
1.I thought it was interesting how Roberts compared unconditional positive regard to Christian love (p. 268). The main difference between the two is that unconditional positive regard is a technique and agape love is not a technique. He says that it is something that “induces people to turn their backs on comforts and security, and to go to obscure places to serve the poor and inarticulate” (p. 268). I think this is something that we should always remember as we are Christians doing therapy. We might not want to approach unconditional positive regard as a technique but really think of it as love from God. It is the Holy Spirit in us that allows us to love our clients unconditionally. Understanding this will help us to remember the purpose God has for us as we help our clients and provide them with unconditional love. Furthermore, we can set aside comforts and security in order to go deeper places with the client.
2.The main point that Roberts makes is that Rogers fails to incorporate any kind of relationship with God into his theory. Basically, a person can self-actualize without being in relationship with God. An individual does not have to face what will happen after death or what their relationship with God should be (p. 271). I think that we can use Christianity as a foundation for the techniques that Rogers provides. Rogers does not paint the whole picture but gives us tangible ways of expressing God’s love and Christian integrity.
In response to Alex’s first comment/question: I think that you ask a really good question. It gets to the heart of what Rogers says self actualization is and what Christians might say self actualization really is. I think that there is a battle between sin and holiness. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we are asked to deny our sinful nature and be holy in a relationship with Christ.
1. When reading the personality description. (p.263) I was confused. As Christians we are called to live lives that exhibit the qualities that were listed, but I do not understand why they are listed as personalities. I thought personality described the temperament of a person; my personality is not naturally one that exhibits those qualities, (we all have sin natures), so what did he mean by personality? 2. If there is one thing that I appreciate about Rogers, it is his dedication to prove his theories with empirical evidence (p. 265). Roberts argues that Rogers left the definition of self and self concept vague (p. 265), but I would agree with Rogers that it would be difficult to prove unconscious aspects with research. Rogers proved what he could and admitted confusion when he could not. 3. Response to Jay, I do think that Roberts was doing Rogers a disservice by limiting unconditional positive regard to a mere therapy technique (Roberts, 268). I experienced Roberts as having a rather negative tone when discussing Rogers. Since Rogers’ principle of the therapeutic triad seems to be modeled after God’s relationship with His children, I find it odd that a theologian would critique Rogers.
1. The article states that “Self-acceptance implies other-acceptance” (Roberts, 264). Consequently, from a Rogerian perspective, is it necessary for a therapist to accept themselves before they can consider others with UPR? Is this perhaps why Scripture instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves? It seems that often individuals either value and accept others but don’t value themselves, or vice versa. How would Rogers explain someone who has high self regard but low regard for others?
2. The article discusses the actual self, true self, and ideal self a great deal. However, I wonder how these three concepts would fit with a Christian view of human nature in which one might hold the belief that mankind is born innately sinful and thus, not prone to self actualization and positive development apart from Divine intervention? Additionally, what about the concept of putting on a new self once one is in Christ? How does that Christian concept fit? Would the “new self” be the ideal self, or the true self?
3. Response to Rachael's 1st question:
I agree with your struggle regarding Christian virtues and their place in psychotherapy. It is difficult sometimes to know whether or not one should seek to instill such virtues in their clients, or if that would be overstepping and imposing one's beliefs inappropriately on the client. Balance is key, but where exactly the proper balance is found, I do not know for certain. Particularly if one is trying to maintain congruence.
1. In Roberts evaluation of Rogers use of unconditional positive regard, it seems that Roberts is looking at the concept in a linear way (p 268-269). He mentions that graduate studies are trained and practice using unconditional positive regard as a technique; whereas, Christian love is not a technique. I don’t think graduate school training differs much from the training clergy receive in seminary, or when med students training in bedside manner in medical.
2. Roberts argues that Rogers congruence makes no room for characteristics such as perseverance and patience (p 270). I think the nature of client-centered therapy develops both of these characteristics, and many others, in the therapist as they continue practicing and becoming a better therapist that are able to effectively track with their clients.
Response to David’s 1st comment I agree that Roberts seems a bit harsh on Rogers regarding Unconditional Positive Regard and Christian Love. What I get from Rogers is that as Christians, the love of God should be able to flow through us to our clients in a non-judging manner, which is what he calls unconditional positive regard.
1) The discussion on agape and unconditional positive regard strikes me as disingenuous (p. 268). While it may be the case that unconditional positive regard is a technique that is learned, one could say the same of any other human way of relating. Parenting may be innate, but parenting well would require that parents learn new ways of being, and practice them. Christian love may be a new quality or expressions that (only?) Christians have access to as a gift from God, but that does not mean that they know how to use it well. Surely the evangelist on the street corner, calling people to repent and warning sinners that they are going to hell may be doing so out of his or her Christian Love for others, but there seems to me to be a better way to show that love, one that requires new techniques and learning things that come out of that innate(?) gift. 2) In the discussion of the absence of transcendence, Roberts (p. 271) says that the Christian view of the self is one that is determined by the relationship with God. While I can see the value in that, and I believe that humans are social creatures who thrive best in community with others, there seems to be a desire for enmeshment here. Why must my value come from utter dependence on God? Why are Christians (who follow an incarnation God) more concerned with transcendence than transformation? It seems to me that redemption and salvation aren’t about escaping life, but having it abundantly (which I define very differently from the Joel Olsten’s and Creftlo Dollars of the world). 3) Response to Ashley Wilkins : I always wonder about the discussion of sin, and how it touches all parts of us. Does that mean that our Original Glory is destroyed by Original Sin? What do we mean by sin in the first place. There are many Christian terms that get thrown around that make me wonder if we truly know what they mean when we say them. I think my definition of Sin would be different than someone from a more fundamentalist background.
1) When I was working at a juvenile hall in San Diego as a Counselor, I found it incredibly difficult to teach the youths anything that did not come from within their narrow frame of thought. If the ideas were not from a context that they were familiar with, they would easily reject the lessons and quickly shut down to conversation. Roberts points out that Christians have something to learn from the non-Christian techniques of Carl Rogers (Roberts, 269). I think that something is wrong with our faith when we begin to compartmentalize the world into Christian and non-Christian, Godly and ungodly. We would be better to recognize the universe as saturated with God, and to pursue wisdom and relationship in the unique ways it all reflects the Creator.
2) Whenever I read about Rogerian Theory, I always wonder what he would say regarding human sin. He clearly states that humans are capable of continual, positive growth given the appropriate environment, but it is very clear that no such environment exists. The people of this world (currently, in the past, and in the foreseeable future) are not perfect beings capable of showing unconditional positive regard. I don’t think that there is even a hope that all humans one day would be able to achieve such a thing. I wonder what Roger’s image of a perfect relational world would be then?
In Response to Bobby Salimi: I don’t think that we have to master the teachings of Jesus before we enter into clinical practice as a Rogerian therapist. Ultimately, I think that a therapist heart shows up in the therapy room, and that the client sees the desire to help more important than the actual ability to. That’s not to say that we should throw out our empirically based therapy techniques, but we should remember that God made us human and expects us to help others in brokenness.
1. Roberts states basically that, although it is true that God created us to be in relation with Him and our neighbors, what we are LIKE is more significant to our character and (how shall we say?) "spiritual" standing than what we DO or the consequences thereof (pg. 2). Thus, He echoes Jesus' emphasis on the importance of our motivations and the state of our heart. This struck me as a reminder of how I see myself, and how we should try to see our patients. Focusing on the self-concept, or this "ideal" "saint" (pg. 263) Roberts references, will only leave us feeling hopeless and defeated. However, striving toward true empathy, really seeing where the heart of client is, and what motivations are driving them, is a better place to start.
2. Roberts criticizes Rogers for stressing the essential nature of "congruence" in his theory, but leaving no place for "integrity" (pg. 269). I would ask Roberts to please explain his definition of integrity. To me, the term denotes high levels of honesty and commitment to the common good. Integrity involves a moral humility because it submits itself to accountability. To have integrity is to be transparent, when wrong or right, and to be prepared to alter one's course if it is deemed wrong or destructive. Apparently, Roberts does not read Rogers' theory as adhering to such, but I think Rogers call for "congruence" is almost a call to active integrity.
In Response to Jay's 2nd Comment:
Actively showing a client unconditional positive regard could be looked at as a "technique." However, the call to "congruence" commands we behave as genuinely as possible. Given this, unconditional positive regard could only be genuinely given when a therapist is truly drawing on the authentic empathy within herself/himself for the client. The two are so closely related, it does do a disservice to label UPC to a mere technique without qualifying it as irrevocably connected with the source of empathy.
1. Roberts writes, "So there develops an incongruence between what the person really wants to do (or how one really feels about himself or herself) and how one behaves (or, more importantly, thinks one is feeling about oneself)" (Robers, p. 264). When reading that phrase, I couldn't help but think of Paul's writing "for I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing" (Romans 7:19 ESV). This incongruence that Roberts writes about is ages old. In my opinion, it is our sin nature. How do we come alongside our clients who perpetually fall into the same rut over and over, doing the things that they don't want to do, the things that make them feel badly about themselves?
2. I feel that Roberts sells Rogerian therapy short when he writes that "Rogerian therapy aims to enable the client to become more transparent to himself or herself and this process is thought of as bringing into consciousness what is not in consciousness" (Roberts, p. 265). Rogerian method is so much more than that! It is about making the client feel valued, creating a safe space for them and letting their voice be heard. Do you feel that this was an intentional slight to Rogers?
In response to Nikki's first point-- I'm with you. I'm not so sure that complete congruence is possible due to our sin nature and human brokenness. If that is our goal, I don't think it will be achieved this side of heaven.
1. Rogers reminds us that there is something powerful about listening (Roberts, 269). This type of listening that Rogers promotes is rooted in unconditional positive regard rather than judgment. The connection Roberts makes between Christians and therapists is interesting because it seems like it should be a given for those who are followers of Christ. I spent some time processing how our church communities, our friendships, and our families would look like if we all understood how powerful a listening ear could be. It reminded me of the theological basis for families that Balswick and Balswick talks about. If listening without judgment became a foundational part of our relationships with others, I think there would be greater degrees of unconditional covenant, grace, empowerment, and intimacy (Balswick and Balswick, 21).
2. Roberts states that some Christians may believe that the "Rogerian full functioner is not yet the self that he or she truly is," and the way to realize the deeper, darker areas of the heart that need healing would be to look to Christ (Roberts, 271). Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and how do you think that affects you as a Christian psychologist working in secular work places?
Sarah Moon, November 4, 2009
In response to Alex Lazo's first comment:
I think that God calls Christians to be honest and authentic about who we are, which usually means that we are bringing our mess, guilt, sin, shame to the surface. I think as we realize the depth and depravity of our own sin, as well as the realization of how much we need Christ, we become more of who God intended us to be.
1. I am a little confused by the way in which the author describes personality traits. I thought personality traits didn't fluctuate, but instead were stable over time (such as extroversion vs. introversion). The author talks about "engendering" the personality traits such as generosity, patience, meekness, etc. (Roberts, 263). So I suppose I am confused by the way he views personality traits versus character development.
2. I loved when the author wrote about love being "a disposition of the heart" (Roberts, 264). The measurement of our love is not determined by our behaviors as much as it is determined by our inner selves. Therefore, God cares less about our actions as he does about the condition of the heart.
In response to Amber's first comment... I found the authors comparison of unconditional positive regard and the Christan ideal of love to be interesting also. It would seem as though unconditional love is shown more through the actions and behaviors of the therapist than it is on the disposition of their heart. However, Christian love is shown more on the disposition of the heart more so than ones actions. Interesting comparison.
1) In Dr. Dueck’s Introduction to Integration class this week, we talked about a narcissistic client and how difficult that would be in client-centered therapy. I would think that it would be difficult to address and change the client’s narcissism and help him to love others in such a non-directive modality. But Jones & Butman (p. 257) say in regards to being self-actualized, love is an element of a person’s full potential, and being selfish is not. How do you reconcile these two ideas?
2) Jones & Butman (p. 265-268) critique Rogers from a Christian perspective, and comment on the individualism present in Rogers model of personality and health with the emphasis on inner reality, the true self, and removing conditions of worth from the person. Individualism is valued in American culture today, but people need give and take from other people and communities to thrive. I agree with the authors that it would be healthier to support meaningful connections to communities as a part of therapy.
Response to Rachael Wittern: As I have considered a career in psychology as a Christian, I have pondered the issue Rachael brings up about “self-actualized” people still having a “void” inside because they still lack a relationship with God. How can people realize their potential and live meaningful lives apart from God? Is there any place for even implicit integration of my Christian faith in the therapy room doing client-centered therapy?
1) Roberts argues that is not through actions/behaviors/outcomes but rather “a person’s characteristic motives, which constitute love, and consequently his or her ways of looking at others,” (264). Therefore, Roberts is arguing that the formation of self is essential to Christianity and the “Reciprocal Self” because it is through our motives that we love others and fulfill the requirements of following Christ. I agree with Roberts that the motives behind our behaviors are important. We shouldn’t serve or give from a heart that is bitter or resentful or from the root of selfish motives, but with the intentions of showing genuine love. The motives indicate the genuineness of the behavior/action and therefore the outcomes. However, although I understand the context from which Roberts’ is arguing from, I would be hesitant to say that “He does not need to look to our behavior, still less to its consequences, to know what we are like” (Roberts, 264). Although God does know our inner hearts and motives before we act through behaviors, Roberts makes it sound like there is no emphasis on behavior at all, and behavior is still very important in Christianity. Christ said that we would be known as his followers through love, which manifests itself in not only who we are but also what we do, for many Scriptures (example, Luke 6:45) speak of behavior and words coming from the overflow of the heart. Therefore, if our motives truly are to love, then our behavior will match those intentions. (Roberts, 263-264)
2) Although the overall principle is one I’ve heard before, I like Robert’s comparison of integration to Rogers’ theory, specifically the aspect of congruence and integrity. Roberts seems to critic Rogers’ theory for leaving no room for integration despite the fact that Rogers places a great deal of stress on integration (I would argue that integration is not a separate “part” of a theory but should be the foundation). Robert specifies that integration in the sense of congruence and integrity is “not so much the invulnerability to attacks on one’s self-esteem, as it is the capacity to deal successfully with temptations (some of which may, no doubt, be temptations to think lowly of oneself)” (Roberts, 269).
Kim Richardson, November 4, 2009
Response to Rachael Wittern: I agree with Nikki that because the Holy Spirit is IN us, we invite (perhaps prior to session through prayer) and rely on the Holy Spirit to be present in the therapy room, for it is the Holy Spirit who reveals Himself to others (whether indirectly through us or not) and heals through relationship. As Christian therapists we open ourselves to be used by God to be tools to healing but also I think there is an aspect of trusting that we will be given words to say to our client (not a conversion conversation, but the conveyance to the client of understanding and care for them as an individual and within a communal context). So that when we are asked about our faith or about a void in the sense of spirituality, we don’t need to worry about what we will say necessarily but trust that the Holy Spirit will be there to meet those concerns (Mark 13:11, Luke 12:11). Also, I think that the fact that the client is searching and realizes there is a void is the first step that will intrinsically propel him or her to look and seek through their own methods, and God will always be found when He is sought after (Matthew 7:7).
1) In the article, Roberts sums up how psychopathology develops in Roger's theory. When discussing this topic he states, "Thus, they eat, sleep, protect themselves against harm, seek good company and opportunities for creative self-expression, and so forth (p. 264)." In this way, in Roger's theory, people will behave in a manner that enhances themselves. As we have learned, Rogers assumes that humanity has intrinsic good qualities, and people will try to attain these. I have a problem with Rogers deciding this, out of what seems to me as thin air. I believe that everyone is born in the image of God, and thus has an intrinsic moral fiber. Without God, how does Rogers just assume this comes about? I would think without God, people would do exactly what Rogers says by trying to enhance themselves, however I think this will be by any means possible. I don't think a moral fiber would exist.
2)I love when Roberts states, "On either interpretation, the Christian will want to inject Rogers with a large does of supplementary material (p. 272)." I cannot agree with this more. I believe Rogerian therapy is wonderful, but by itself, empty. God fills the whole in the therapy, and the "self-actualization" can only happen when a person finds their identity in God.
In response to Rebecca Rouse question 1:
Perhaps what you are thinking about when you say introvert/extrovert is temperament. Temperament is different than personality, but I still believe it is subject to change. I think back to my high school years, and I have a slightly different personality and temperament than I did then. Also, I have been told that we want to try to balance ourselves. For example, on taking the Myer's Briggs Test, I came out as super extroverted (what a surprise, I know!)and hardly introverted. I was told that I should try to balance that out more, and that the goal was to be a balanced person. So, that in itself, suggests that personality can change. I hope that helped!
1)I have trouble with Roberts statement on page 266 when he is comparing unconditional positive regard to agape love, and calling it just a technique. Just because it is not perfect like God’s agape love does not mean it embody the same concept. And hasn’t Dr.Simpson been saying that Rogerian therapy is not just a set of techniques, but applicable principals in any therapy. Roberts keeps referring to it as techniques
2) On the other hand, I appreciate Roberts description of the transformation that happens in our lives because of God’s unconditional love. “In response to God’s kindness, they become more responsive to other’s needs for kindness( p 268). God’s covenantal love towards us moves and changes us to be agents of love as He has shown love.
In response to Hannah #1: In terms of peace, a lot of times we validate our decisions because we felt God’s peace (which very well might be the case). But I think what is happening more times than not is that we are assimilating or accommodating things in our life so we are experiences a place of equilibration. Not so much peace as a sign, but we have reasoned enough in our mind to accommodate or assimilate. One of my professors in college in a Poetic and Wisdom Lit class said that even the fools have peace in their decisions. Just a thought, whether relevant or irrelevant.
1.When reading Roberts’ article, and particularly the comments on unconditional positive regard as a strong analogy for the love the comes from God (Roberts, p. 267), I agree when I take it at face value. However I believe that there is a very fundamental difference between Rogers’ theories and our Christian tradition, and that is found when looking at the very nature of humanity. I don’t think it is possible to draw other comparisons, without first discussing these differences. Rogers’ view of humanity is that we are inherently good, and need to be reminded of this. He believed that sin was outside of the body, however from Augustinian Christian tradition, we believe that humanity is sinful apart from God (Cooper, 2003, p. 98). Therefore, I would say a more accurate analogy for unconditional positive regard in Rogers’ theory, is grace within the Christian tradition, which we desperately need.
2. I would agree with Roberts in that God does “liberate” us from our own self-rejection, through His love and grace (Roberts, p. 268). I am encouraged that as a Christian who will hopefully ☺ some day be a psychologist, I can relate to this model of client centered therapy in a profound way when looking at the similarities and parallels it holds to my own Christian tradition and experience. Furthermore, I view the process of doing therapy as an opportunity to share God’s love and grace with clients and in that way, acting as an instrument for God’s glory.
Candice, I really appreciate your thoughts on how God fills the empty space in therapy and without God, it is empty. I think that this is especially important for us to recognize as Christians who are training to be therapists.
1. On page 265 Roberts argues that Roger's "concept of the self and the difference..." is compatible with Christian Ethics. What are some biblical examples of this connection? 2. It is interesting to be that the focus of this article is on Rogers when all of the readings we have read of Rogers are about the client(pg. 266). Perhaps the point of this therapeutic technique is to focus on the client, then a therapist may begin to see the image of Christ.
In response to Nikki #2: First of all, I think we must always ask for God's guidance in our decisions in the therapist's chair. Secondly, I think knowing scripture is an important part of understanding if "what feels right" to us is really the right thing to do. Christian therapist are confronted with ethical and spiritual decisions at ever turn. After all, our job is essentially a spiritual one, right? Knowing scripture and praying continuously (along with knowing the ethics code, of course) need to be at the heart of our decisions in therapy.
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.
31 comments:
1.Maybe I have not yet learned enough about Rogers, but Roberts comment about selves being in some sense theological and then asserting, "certainly Rogers does not believe that that is what selves are," to me is remarkably bold in the worst sense of the word. Rogers was training for the ministry and even attended seminary, albeit the most liberal one he could find. Therefore, to blantantly claim Rogers had no belief of the self as being theological in any sense, seems to be borne, not have careful research, but instead out of Roberts biased view of humanist philosophy (Roberts, p. 266).
2.Roberts refers to unconditional positive regard as a technique. But my understanding from class is that mirroring, reflecting, and reframing are Rogerian techniques while the parts of the therapeutic triad are more like parts of a therapist's whole being, at least in the therapy room. Do you think Roberts does a disservice to Rogers and to the argument Roberts himself is making by referring to positive regard as mere technique? (Roberts, 268)
Jonathan Wellman, Nov 2, 2009
1) It seems that the client in Client Centered Therapy is expected to be passive, only responding to the empathetic gestures of the therapist. Roberts mentions that Rogerian therapy leaves little room for biblical virtues such as patience and self-control (Roberts, p. 270). I agree that unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence are a great foundation for a therapist, but how can a Christian therapist help his/her clients to develop virtues?
2) As Christians, we believe that humans are created for relationship with God. Without God, even the most “self-actualized” person is going to have a void inside (Roberts, p. 271). So how should a Christian therapist deal with a client that does not believe in any sort of higher power? Is there any way to subtly evangelize without being unethical? How do we deal with a non-spiritual client who talks about feeling empty?
In response to Jay- I agree that Robert’s statement may have been more an emotional reaction than an educated response. I do not claim to know a lot about Roger’s life myself, but later the article mentions Rogers having an interest in Ouija boards, spirit mediums, and the after life (Roberts, p. 271). Perhaps at first Rogers did not want to include any theological ideas in the “self” (perhaps he was rebelling against his religious upbringing), but later he realized that spirituality was a fundamental component of one’s being.
Rachael Wittern
1. Roberts concludes in one of his points that "If, on the other hand, persons can come fully to accept themselves as wanting organismic satisfaction, there will be complete congruence between the way they are and the way they see themselves..." (1985, p. 264). I'm conflicted about how I react to this statement. I don't know that will should ever really feel complete congruence. The Bible tells us that the battle is a spiritual one, so in one sense, I believe it may be problematic if we ever have a sense that there isn't a battle inside of us between the flesh and the spirit.
2. Roberts gives us this quote from Carl Rogers: "...doing what 'feels right' proves to be a competent and trustworthy guide to behavior which is truly satisfying" (1985, p. 271). Both as therapists and Christians how are to to interpret what "feels right"? How do we know if what is feeling right in the moment is of God or from our own human heart, with all of its flaws?
Nikki Frederick, November, 2, 2009
In Response to Rachael Wittern:
I believe if we are listening to the Holy Spirit who is IN us, we are constantly subtley evangalizing. It will be difficult, though, to "keep quiet" about the God we know fills voids when a client doesn't know his or her maker and we have nothing else that can help. Hopefully by us being attuned to the worth of every person, we will create a realtionship that will at least plant a seed for God to grow in the future.
1. There were points in Roberts' article that made me cringe and there were points that made me nod emphatically in agreement. One point of agreement transcends any other issues, in my opinion, because of it's claim to the reality that exists in therapy. This reality is that the person who is the client is a person made in God's image who Christ came and died for (Roberts, 266). The implication here is that this is a reality for me as the therapist with a Christian worldview, but it may not be the reality for the client who may have any number of worldviews in his/her back pocket. I wonder what the conversation would be like if an atheist client asked me, "Bobby, why do you care about me as a person in the context of our therapy?" My answer may collide directly with his/her worldview, yet it is the foundation and basis of my empathy and unconditional positive regard for them. This is positively ironic to me.
2. "...if we have not mastered unconditional positive regard, how can we think we are living by the Christian ethic?" (Roberts, 269) This resonated with me because it called into question the importance of my own spiritual development in conjunction with my professional development. I can read every textbook and master every technique (theoretically) but if I am not in touch with what it means to emit complete love and mercy toward others the way Christ did for me, then I am really not equipped as a therapist, am I? Certainly not as a Rogerian.
Response to Jay's #2
Jay, you make an excellent observation. Is unconditional positive regard something you can "add to your tool belt" and learn, or is it a way of life? I think that you and I may believe the answer to that question is clear cut, but it is interesting to think that somewhere there exists a type of therapist who actually has no unconditional positive regard for their clients, yet somehow manages to exhibit unconditional positive regard as a "technique." What would therapy like that look like?
1. When thinking about Rogers, I am inclined to agree with Butman in his emphasis on the instincts and inclinations of the self as not an inerrant guide (Butman, 262). He urges us to think about the fact that no part of our self is untouched by sin, and while it is important as Christians to recognize where we have been true to others over self, that it is equally important to realize that the deepest desires of our being are not always going to lead to actualization, and may indeed cause us more trouble than a standard imposed on us by the outside.
2. Roberts talks about love as the primary dipostition or motivation of our heart (Roberts 264). He explains that since we were created to love, first God and then our neighbors, it is not so much our actions or the consequences of our actions that concerns God so much as the content of our hearts. I would disagree that to look only at our hearts, and not to take the measures of our actions (e.g. the fruit) into consideration as a reflection of the level of love is foolish. I understand how Roberts is looking at God knowing what we are truly like without needing to see the actions and consequences, but if he is looking to support Rogerian self actualization by talking about a penchant to love, it is equally important that we look at the outward manifestation of that.
Response to Rachel:
I think in a mode of therapy where there is little direction, we as therapists cannot help our clients to develop anything that they do not choose to develop. If virtue does not come up as important to them, it is functionally impossible to bring it up in true client-centered therapy.
1) I find it interesting that Roberts compares Rogers’ therapeutic technique of “unconditional positive regard” to Christian love or fellowship. Initially he draws on similarities between the two practices then follows shortly by contrasting the ways in which they are different. It seems Roberts ultimately believes that unconditional positive regard can be taught in graduate programs and adapted by any Joe or Jane Therapist as a therapeutic technique while Christian love, the true agape is something altogether deeper and transforming for the person (in this case the therapist) who intends to show it to another (p. 267-268).
2) I like the correlation Roberts draws between congruence and integrity of the Christian person. Roberts maintains that in the Christian walk, integrity is not so much the ability to hold onto one’s own self esteem or keep one’s self-concept intact but it is to resist temptation, possibly overcoming the urge to think poorly of oneself. He further goes on to say that this integrity is like Rogers’ concept of congruence, in which the Christian strives to stay “whole” while struggling through strenuous circumstance (p 269).
In response to Bobby Salimi’s #2
You make a good point in questioning the development of skills and therapeutic techniques for service purposes only. It seems that we could master every textbook theory and style and still fall short as helping professionals if we are not spiritually engaged in listening to those who are hurting. Integrating the elements of our faith and involving our spiritual selves in the therapy room seems to be true congruence as Rogerian therapy calls for.
Amber Blews, November 2, 2009
1. One interesting comparison that Roberts makes is between Roger's unconditional positive regard and Christian love. Roberts seems a bit harsh towards unconditional positive regard, basically calling it a technique that people are trained in to make a lot of money (Roberts, p. 268). He says agape love leads people to leave comfort and serve the poor, just like Jesus did. I agree that Christian love is deeper because it comes from God, but I also think that there are many Rogerian therapists who have more noble motives than just earning money.
2. I am curious as to how Rogers would respond to Roberts when he compares the Rogerian ideal of doing what "feels right" and the Christian using discipline to become what the faith culture defines as "right." Roberts seems to think that the latter can also be a form of autonomy and is not inconsistent with Rogerian theories (Roberts, p. 272). My guess would be that Rogers would disagree and say the individual should not have conditions of worth placed on them by religion.
David Choi, November 2, 2009.
In response to Nikki's 2nd comment:
I think that is the million dollar question when it comes to discernment. I think it is wise to test feelings to see where they are coming from. When God speaks to us, I think usually, there are multiple ways. For example, God may speak to us through the Bible, other believers, or circumstances. The more of these that align with our feeling, the safer I would feel about the source of the feeling.
1. Roberts talks about the conditions that the society places on us, that the "society has trained us that parts of our experiences and behavior are unacceptable" (Roberts, p. 267)
Looking back at my own experiences I often heard my parents and friends tell me what I won't be able to achieve and what I can not do. Very few were able to direct me, telling me that I am capable and what I can do.
2. As some have already pointed out, the comparison of unconditional regard and agape is quite interesting (p. 268). Due to the nature, I think agape is more difficult. There is a definite boundary between a therapist and a client and the setting which the interaction happens is somewhat limited. On top of that the therapist is paid to carry out his/her role. Such factors will make it easier to unconditionally accept and regard the client. However, for Christians, their interaction is not just limited to church, but can meet on regular basis. And their role and boundary is not always so clearly defined, which opens up a lot of possibility to see different aspects of the person in various setting. Such factors would make it difficult for Christians to have agape even if agape and unconditional regard are to be the same.
In response to California:
I think the congruence and integrity piece is also similar to what I mentioned above. Therapist needs to be congruent in therapy, and not necessarily outside of therapy. However, For a Christian integrity has to be a part of his/her life all the time. Or else it is or can be a sin. However, it is really difficult to do so all the time.
1) Peace with self versus peace with God? I think Roberts brings up a valid point in talking about the lack of transcendence in Rogers model (though for a psychological theory it has a lot to offer). "Christian peace is primarily peace with God (p. 271)." I am looking through the lens of faith but it is hard for me to see how I could authentically have peace with myself without first having peace with God. However, this peace with self idea is something missed in the church. We are always struggling (as Roberts pointed out)and it seems to have become the more "Christian" way of life. But from peace with God should come a peace with self.
2) Following along Rogers line of thinking, rather than negating it, one might find that the "despair lurking in the breast that only the breath of eternity can dispel" is a longing for truly unconditional positive regard--Christ's (p. 271). It strikes me that Rogers says we need this UPR and yet no human is truly capable of giving us this. Roberts thoughts on Rogers' interest in the afterlife excited me because it reminds me of how powerful this longing for God that God placed in our hearts is.
In response to Jay...Roberts wrote, "training people in such Christian virtues as gentleness, compassion, mercy, humility, and gratitude" and yet he criticizes Rogers for using agape love as a tool in therapy(p. 266,p. 268). Apparently, we are allowed to train Christians but we are not allowed to train graduate students.
Response to Rachel #1 & 2:
Both of your questions seem to hit on the same basic theme that as Christians psychotherapist we will have clients who disagree with our religious beliefs and how do we interact with them while being congruent?
First, I think you let the client lead. If he or she does not want God to be part of the discussion you say okay or you refer, if you have decide to be a Christian only psychologist and feel you must.
As far as virtues go, I don't think we are teaching all the virtues, but certainly love, joy (in a sense), patience (often), and self-control are all aspects of psychological health as well as Biblical virtues.
Finally the only way I know to subtly evangelize without being unethical is "preach the gospel at all times - if necessary use words." -St. Francis of Assisi
1. Roberts (1985) views Rogers’ concept of self to be the result “not of his concept of a self, but of his beliefs about what exists” (p. 266). If this is true, Rogers’ worldview has impacted his approach to therapy. How therapists define concepts like the self and human nature is affected by their beliefs and values. Rogers believes that people are basically trustworthy and able to direct themselves towards productive living. What is your view of human nature and how does this affect your approach to therapy?
2. During Roberts’ (1985) discussion of unconditional positive regard and agape, he states the quality of most Christian fellowship is poor because of the “superficiality of Christian ethics and the shallowness with which the Christian virtues have been assimilated by most Christians” (p. 269). What do you think of this statement and has this been your experience? This is harsh criticism and I wonder what Roberts experienced to have categorized most Christian fellowship so negatively. While Roberts chose not to show unconditional positive regard to most Christians when writing this section of the article, his call to listen fully and be less quick to judge is clear. While the spiritual life spills over into the professional life, it sounds like Roberts is calling for professional training to remind and sharpen the spiritual life. Would professional training in the art of listening and demonstrating unconditional positive regard sharpen one’s spiritual life? This training might not only assist professionals in the practice of positive regard and being less judgmental of their clients, but also of those in their community and church.
Response to Woo C. Kim’s first post:
You can do what God has created you to do in His strength! The points you raise about potential difficulties of agape in the therapy office are valid. It would have been interesting if Roberts (1985) had provided a more detailed definition and discussion of agape in the context of therapy.
References
Roberts, R. (1985). Carl Rogers and the Christian virtues. Journal of Psychology and
Theology, 11, 263-273.
Melissa Gardner Curri, November 3, 2009
1) I experienced Roberts speaking to unconditional positive regard falling short of Christian Agape love as a little self righteous. I've been involved with a church essentially my whole life. And, unfortunately, I would often take the genuine care of a therapist over what I've experienced as Agape love from fellow Christians. Is "Agape love", as it is practiced by many Christians across the US not simply a technique as well? Do Christians really always exhibit love for a neighbor as an end in itself? Questionable. I'm also not sure a $65 session with a client exemplifies a therapist doing it for the "high income"(268).
2) Roberts talks about Rogers emphasis on congruence, and how his theory leaves no room for virtues such as “patience, perseverance, courage, and self control”(269). I’m wondering if an emphasis on patience, perseverance, and self control might not be implicit in the therapist allowing the client to dictate the direction of therapy and relying almost solely on open ended questions rather than directive ones that mean seem more pertinent at the time. In addition, it seems like continually showing unconditional positive regard could necessitate patience particularly when the therapist experiences the client as frustrating.
Response to rwitten question 2.
I feel like any form of explicit evangelism would be unethical. However, I feel like the experience of a fully accepting relationship in addition to possible self disclosures could certainly serve as a mouthpiece for God. Religion and spirituality seem like such common topics, I can’t imagine either not coming up at any point during a therapeutic relationship of reasonable length. I would be willing to acknowledge my beliefs and allow my behavior within the context of the relationship to speak for me.
1. Roberts states, “Again, in others of the virtues the mature Christian reflects God’s character in his or her own, being more or less conscious of the modeling relation” (271), which simply means that the more actualized Christian models God’s character in their own character in a more natural, authentic way. Is there ever a sense that a “mature Christian” must resist some aspect of their humanity to image God’s character? To be like God, does it ever mean that human beings must be inauthentic?
2. In Roberts discussion of autonomy, he states that all human beings have different “natural” behaviors (272). So like Mother Teresa, Roberts says that some people are inclined to pursue selflessness while others are not. Many people, particularly Christians, try so hard to be counter-cultural that they end up behaving in inauthentic ways. At tension with this is behaving in ways that stretch the human beings with the intentions for growth. I think this important because it includes the idea of behaving in ways that embraces the uniqueness of the individual as well as challenges the individual to remain connected to the environment that fosters maturity.
3. In response to Rachel Wittern’s 2nd comment: To answer your question in the simplest way, I believe that we can deal with patients who are facing the void they are experiencing by empathizing and stepping into their world and remembering our own experiences of emptiness. Jesus became a human, bringing himself into the human experience of limitation and void. He cried, laughed and felt all kinds of other emotions with his fellow humans. As therapists, we can do the same by being present with clients, but not directly addressing the idea that they need to look outside of themselves to find wholeness.
Alex Lazo 03 November 2009
1.I thought it was interesting how Roberts compared unconditional positive regard to Christian love (p. 268). The main difference between the two is that unconditional positive regard is a technique and agape love is not a technique. He says that it is something that “induces people to turn their backs on comforts and security, and to go to obscure places to serve the poor and inarticulate” (p. 268). I think this is something that we should always remember as we are Christians doing therapy. We might not want to approach unconditional positive regard as a technique but really think of it as love from God. It is the Holy Spirit in us that allows us to love our clients unconditionally. Understanding this will help us to remember the purpose God has for us as we help our clients and provide them with unconditional love. Furthermore, we can set aside comforts and security in order to go deeper places with the client.
2.The main point that Roberts makes is that Rogers fails to incorporate any kind of relationship with God into his theory. Basically, a person can self-actualize without being in relationship with God. An individual does not have to face what will happen after death or what their relationship with God should be (p. 271). I think that we can use Christianity as a foundation for the techniques that Rogers provides. Rogers does not paint the whole picture but gives us tangible ways of expressing God’s love and Christian integrity.
In response to Alex’s first comment/question:
I think that you ask a really good question. It gets to the heart of what Rogers says self actualization is and what Christians might say self actualization really is. I think that there is a battle between sin and holiness. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we are asked to deny our sinful nature and be holy in a relationship with Christ.
Lauren Brighton Nov. 3, 2009
1. When reading the personality description. (p.263) I was confused. As Christians we are called to live lives that exhibit the qualities that were listed, but I do not understand why they are listed as personalities. I thought personality described the temperament of a person; my personality is not naturally one that exhibits those qualities, (we all have sin natures), so what did he mean by personality?
2. If there is one thing that I appreciate about Rogers, it is his dedication to prove his theories with empirical evidence (p. 265). Roberts argues that Rogers left the definition of self and self concept vague (p. 265), but I would agree with Rogers that it would be difficult to prove unconscious aspects with research. Rogers proved what he could and admitted confusion when he could not.
3. Response to Jay,
I do think that Roberts was doing Rogers a disservice by limiting unconditional positive regard to a mere therapy technique (Roberts, 268). I experienced Roberts as having a rather negative tone when discussing Rogers. Since Rogers’ principle of the therapeutic triad seems to be modeled after God’s relationship with His children, I find it odd that a theologian would critique Rogers.
1. The article states that “Self-acceptance implies other-acceptance” (Roberts, 264). Consequently, from a Rogerian perspective, is it necessary for a therapist to accept themselves before they can consider others with UPR? Is this perhaps why Scripture instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves? It seems that often individuals either value and accept others but don’t value themselves, or vice versa. How would Rogers explain someone who has high self regard but low regard for others?
2. The article discusses the actual self, true self, and ideal self a great deal. However, I wonder how these three concepts would fit with a Christian view of human nature in which one might hold the belief that mankind is born innately sinful and thus, not prone to self actualization and positive development apart from Divine intervention? Additionally, what about the concept of putting on a new self once one is in Christ? How does that Christian concept fit? Would the “new self” be the ideal self, or the true self?
3. Response to Rachael's 1st question:
I agree with your struggle regarding Christian virtues and their place in psychotherapy. It is difficult sometimes to know whether or not one should seek to instill such virtues in their clients, or if that would be overstepping and imposing one's beliefs inappropriately on the client. Balance is key, but where exactly the proper balance is found, I do not know for certain. Particularly if one is trying to maintain congruence.
Jessica Nunnally, Nov 3, 2009
1. In Roberts evaluation of Rogers use of unconditional positive regard, it seems that Roberts is looking at the concept in a linear way (p 268-269). He mentions that graduate studies are trained and practice using unconditional positive regard as a technique; whereas, Christian love is not a technique. I don’t think graduate school training differs much from the training clergy receive in seminary, or when med students training in bedside manner in medical.
2. Roberts argues that Rogers congruence makes no room for characteristics such as perseverance and patience (p 270). I think the nature of client-centered therapy develops both of these characteristics, and many others, in the therapist as they continue practicing and becoming a better therapist that are able to effectively track with their clients.
Response to David’s 1st comment
I agree that Roberts seems a bit harsh on Rogers regarding Unconditional Positive Regard and Christian Love. What I get from Rogers is that as Christians, the love of God should be able to flow through us to our clients in a non-judging manner, which is what he calls unconditional positive regard.
1) The discussion on agape and unconditional positive regard strikes me as disingenuous (p. 268). While it may be the case that unconditional positive regard is a technique that is learned, one could say the same of any other human way of relating. Parenting may be innate, but parenting well would require that parents learn new ways of being, and practice them. Christian love may be a new quality or expressions that (only?) Christians have access to as a gift from God, but that does not mean that they know how to use it well. Surely the evangelist on the street corner, calling people to repent and warning sinners that they are going to hell may be doing so out of his or her Christian Love for others, but there seems to me to be a better way to show that love, one that requires new techniques and learning things that come out of that innate(?) gift.
2) In the discussion of the absence of transcendence, Roberts (p. 271) says that the Christian view of the self is one that is determined by the relationship with God. While I can see the value in that, and I believe that humans are social creatures who thrive best in community with others, there seems to be a desire for enmeshment here. Why must my value come from utter dependence on God? Why are Christians (who follow an incarnation God) more concerned with transcendence than transformation? It seems to me that redemption and salvation aren’t about escaping life, but having it abundantly (which I define very differently from the Joel Olsten’s and Creftlo Dollars of the world).
3) Response to Ashley Wilkins : I always wonder about the discussion of sin, and how it touches all parts of us. Does that mean that our Original Glory is destroyed by Original Sin? What do we mean by sin in the first place. There are many Christian terms that get thrown around that make me wonder if we truly know what they mean when we say them. I think my definition of Sin would be different than someone from a more fundamentalist background.
1) When I was working at a juvenile hall in San Diego as a Counselor, I found it incredibly difficult to teach the youths anything that did not come from within their narrow frame of thought. If the ideas were not from a context that they were familiar with, they would easily reject the lessons and quickly shut down to conversation. Roberts points out that Christians have something to learn from the non-Christian techniques of Carl Rogers (Roberts, 269). I think that something is wrong with our faith when we begin to compartmentalize the world into Christian and non-Christian, Godly and ungodly. We would be better to recognize the universe as saturated with God, and to pursue wisdom and relationship in the unique ways it all reflects the Creator.
2) Whenever I read about Rogerian Theory, I always wonder what he would say regarding human sin. He clearly states that humans are capable of continual, positive growth given the appropriate environment, but it is very clear that no such environment exists. The people of this world (currently, in the past, and in the foreseeable future) are not perfect beings capable of showing unconditional positive regard. I don’t think that there is even a hope that all humans one day would be able to achieve such a thing. I wonder what Roger’s image of a perfect relational world would be then?
In Response to Bobby Salimi:
I don’t think that we have to master the teachings of Jesus before we enter into clinical practice as a Rogerian therapist. Ultimately, I think that a therapist heart shows up in the therapy room, and that the client sees the desire to help more important than the actual ability to. That’s not to say that we should throw out our empirically based therapy techniques, but we should remember that God made us human and expects us to help others in brokenness.
1. Roberts states basically that, although it is true that God created us to be in relation with Him and our neighbors, what we are LIKE is more significant to our character and (how shall we say?) "spiritual" standing than what we DO or the consequences thereof (pg. 2). Thus, He echoes Jesus' emphasis on the importance of our motivations and the state of our heart. This struck me as a reminder of how I see myself, and how we should try to see our patients. Focusing on the self-concept, or this "ideal" "saint" (pg. 263) Roberts references, will only leave us feeling hopeless and defeated. However, striving toward true empathy, really seeing where the heart of client is, and what motivations are driving them, is a better place to start.
2. Roberts criticizes Rogers for stressing the essential nature of "congruence" in his theory, but leaving no place for "integrity" (pg. 269). I would ask Roberts to please explain his definition of integrity. To me, the term denotes high levels of honesty and commitment to the common good. Integrity involves a moral humility because it submits itself to accountability. To have integrity is to be transparent, when wrong or right, and to be prepared to alter one's course if it is deemed wrong or destructive. Apparently, Roberts does not read Rogers' theory as adhering to such, but I think Rogers call for "congruence" is almost a call to active integrity.
In Response to Jay's 2nd Comment:
Actively showing a client unconditional positive regard could be looked at as a "technique." However, the call to "congruence" commands we behave as genuinely as possible. Given this, unconditional positive regard could only be genuinely given when a therapist is truly drawing on the authentic empathy within herself/himself for the client. The two are so closely related, it does do a disservice to label UPC to a mere technique without qualifying it as irrevocably connected with the source of empathy.
Mary Jacobs, November 4th 2009
1. Roberts writes, "So there develops an incongruence between what the person really wants to do (or how one really feels about himself or herself) and how one behaves (or, more importantly, thinks one is feeling about oneself)" (Robers, p. 264). When reading that phrase, I couldn't help but think of Paul's writing "for I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing" (Romans 7:19 ESV). This incongruence that Roberts writes about is ages old. In my opinion, it is our sin nature. How do we come alongside our clients who perpetually fall into the same rut over and over, doing the things that they don't want to do, the things that make them feel badly about themselves?
2. I feel that Roberts sells Rogerian therapy short when he writes that "Rogerian therapy aims to enable the client to become more transparent to himself or herself and this process is thought of as bringing into consciousness what is not in consciousness" (Roberts, p. 265). Rogerian method is so much more than that! It is about making the client feel valued, creating a safe space for them and letting their voice be heard. Do you feel that this was an intentional slight to Rogers?
In response to Nikki's first point--
I'm with you. I'm not so sure that complete congruence is possible due to our sin nature and human brokenness. If that is our goal, I don't think it will be achieved this side of heaven.
--posted by Heather Patterson Meyer
1. Rogers reminds us that there is something powerful about listening (Roberts, 269). This type of listening that Rogers promotes is rooted in unconditional positive regard rather than judgment. The connection Roberts makes between Christians and therapists is interesting because it seems like it should be a given for those who are followers of Christ. I spent some time processing how our church communities, our friendships, and our families would look like if we all understood how powerful a listening ear could be. It reminded me of the theological basis for families that Balswick and Balswick talks about. If listening without judgment became a foundational part of our relationships with others, I think there would be greater degrees of unconditional covenant, grace, empowerment, and intimacy (Balswick and Balswick, 21).
2. Roberts states that some Christians may believe that the "Rogerian full functioner is not yet the self that he or she truly is," and the way to realize the deeper, darker areas of the heart that need healing would be to look to Christ (Roberts, 271). Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and how do you think that affects you as a Christian psychologist working in secular work places?
Sarah Moon, November 4, 2009
In response to Alex Lazo's first comment:
I think that God calls Christians to be honest and authentic about who we are, which usually means that we are bringing our mess, guilt, sin, shame to the surface. I think as we realize the depth and depravity of our own sin, as well as the realization of how much we need Christ, we become more of who God intended us to be.
1. I am a little confused by the way in which the author describes personality traits. I thought personality traits didn't fluctuate, but instead were stable over time (such as extroversion vs. introversion). The author talks about "engendering" the personality traits such as generosity, patience, meekness, etc. (Roberts, 263). So I suppose I am confused by the way he views personality traits versus character development.
2. I loved when the author wrote about love being "a disposition of the heart" (Roberts, 264). The measurement of our love is not determined by our behaviors as much as it is determined by our inner selves. Therefore, God cares less about our actions as he does about the condition of the heart.
In response to Amber's first comment...
I found the authors comparison of unconditional positive regard and the Christan ideal of love to be interesting also. It would seem as though unconditional love is shown more through the actions and behaviors of the therapist than it is on the disposition of their heart. However, Christian love is shown more on the disposition of the heart more so than ones actions. Interesting comparison.
1) In Dr. Dueck’s Introduction to Integration class this week, we talked about a narcissistic client and how difficult that would be in client-centered therapy. I would think that it would be difficult to address and change the client’s narcissism and help him to love others in such a non-directive modality. But Jones & Butman (p. 257) say in regards to being self-actualized, love is an element of a person’s full potential, and being selfish is not. How do you reconcile these two ideas?
2) Jones & Butman (p. 265-268) critique Rogers from a Christian perspective, and comment on the individualism present in Rogers model of personality and health with the emphasis on inner reality, the true self, and removing conditions of worth from the person. Individualism is valued in American culture today, but people need give and take from other people and communities to thrive. I agree with the authors that it would be healthier to support meaningful connections to communities as a part of therapy.
Response to Rachael Wittern:
As I have considered a career in psychology as a Christian, I have pondered the issue Rachael brings up about “self-actualized” people still having a “void” inside because they still lack a relationship with God. How can people realize their potential and live meaningful lives apart from God? Is there any place for even implicit integration of my Christian faith in the therapy room doing client-centered therapy?
Jenn Greiner 11/4
1) Roberts argues that is not through actions/behaviors/outcomes but rather “a person’s characteristic motives, which constitute love, and consequently his or her ways of looking at others,” (264). Therefore, Roberts is arguing that the formation of self is essential to Christianity and the “Reciprocal Self” because it is through our motives that we love others and fulfill the requirements of following Christ. I agree with Roberts that the motives behind our behaviors are important. We shouldn’t serve or give from a heart that is bitter or resentful or from the root of selfish motives, but with the intentions of showing genuine love. The motives indicate the genuineness of the behavior/action and therefore the outcomes. However, although I understand the context from which Roberts’ is arguing from, I would be hesitant to say that “He does not need to look to our behavior, still less to its consequences, to know what we are like” (Roberts, 264). Although God does know our inner hearts and motives before we act through behaviors, Roberts makes it sound like there is no emphasis on behavior at all, and behavior is still very important in Christianity. Christ said that we would be known as his followers through love, which manifests itself in not only who we are but also what we do, for many Scriptures (example, Luke 6:45) speak of behavior and words coming from the overflow of the heart. Therefore, if our motives truly are to love, then our behavior will match those intentions.
(Roberts, 263-264)
2) Although the overall principle is one I’ve heard before, I like Robert’s comparison of integration to Rogers’ theory, specifically the aspect of congruence and integrity. Roberts seems to critic Rogers’ theory for leaving no room for integration despite the fact that Rogers places a great deal of stress on integration (I would argue that integration is not a separate “part” of a theory but should be the foundation). Robert specifies that integration in the sense of congruence and integrity is “not so much the invulnerability to attacks on one’s self-esteem, as it is the capacity to deal successfully with temptations (some of which may, no doubt, be temptations to think lowly of oneself)” (Roberts, 269).
Kim Richardson, November 4, 2009
Response to Rachael Wittern:
I agree with Nikki that because the Holy Spirit is IN us, we invite (perhaps prior to session through prayer) and rely on the Holy Spirit to be present in the therapy room, for it is the Holy Spirit who reveals Himself to others (whether indirectly through us or not) and heals through relationship. As Christian therapists we open ourselves to be used by God to be tools to healing but also I think there is an aspect of trusting that we will be given words to say to our client (not a conversion conversation, but the conveyance to the client of understanding and care for them as an individual and within a communal context). So that when we are asked about our faith or about a void in the sense of spirituality, we don’t need to worry about what we will say necessarily but trust that the Holy Spirit will be there to meet those concerns (Mark 13:11, Luke 12:11). Also, I think that the fact that the client is searching and realizes there is a void is the first step that will intrinsically propel him or her to look and seek through their own methods, and God will always be found when He is sought after (Matthew 7:7).
Kim Richardson, November 4, 2009
1) In the article, Roberts sums up how psychopathology develops in Roger's theory. When discussing this topic he states, "Thus, they eat, sleep, protect themselves against harm, seek good company and opportunities for creative self-expression, and so forth (p. 264)." In this way, in Roger's theory, people will behave in a manner that enhances themselves. As we have learned, Rogers assumes that humanity has intrinsic good qualities, and people will try to attain these. I have a problem with Rogers deciding this, out of what seems to me as thin air. I believe that everyone is born in the image of God, and thus has an intrinsic moral fiber. Without God, how does Rogers just assume this comes about? I would think without God, people would do exactly what Rogers says by trying to enhance themselves, however I think this will be by any means possible. I don't think a moral fiber would exist.
2)I love when Roberts states, "On either interpretation, the Christian will want to inject Rogers with a large does of supplementary material (p. 272)." I cannot agree with this more. I believe Rogerian therapy is wonderful, but by itself, empty. God fills the whole in the therapy, and the "self-actualization" can only happen when a person finds their identity in God.
In response to Rebecca Rouse question 1:
Perhaps what you are thinking about when you say introvert/extrovert is temperament. Temperament is different than personality, but I still believe it is subject to change. I think back to my high school years, and I have a slightly different personality and temperament than I did then. Also, I have been told that we want to try to balance ourselves. For example, on taking the Myer's Briggs Test, I came out as super extroverted (what a surprise, I know!)and hardly introverted. I was told that I should try to balance that out more, and that the goal was to be a balanced person. So, that in itself, suggests that personality can change. I hope that helped!
-Candace Coppinger
November 4, 2009
1)I have trouble with Roberts statement on page 266 when he is comparing unconditional positive regard to agape love, and calling it just a technique. Just because it is not perfect like God’s agape love does not mean it embody the same concept. And hasn’t Dr.Simpson been saying that Rogerian therapy is not just a set of techniques, but applicable principals in any therapy. Roberts keeps referring to it as techniques
2) On the other hand, I appreciate Roberts description of the transformation that happens in our lives because of God’s unconditional love. “In response to God’s kindness, they become more responsive to other’s needs for kindness( p 268). God’s covenantal love towards us moves and changes us to be agents of love as He has shown love.
In response to Hannah #1:
In terms of peace, a lot of times we validate our decisions because we felt God’s peace (which very well might be the case). But I think what is happening more times than not is that we are assimilating or accommodating things in our life so we are experiences a place of equilibration. Not so much peace as a sign, but we have reasoned enough in our mind to accommodate or assimilate. One of my professors in college in a Poetic and Wisdom Lit class said that even the fools have peace in their decisions. Just a thought, whether relevant or irrelevant.
1.When reading Roberts’ article, and particularly the comments on unconditional positive regard as a strong analogy for the love the comes from God (Roberts, p. 267), I agree when I take it at face value. However I believe that there is a very fundamental difference between Rogers’ theories and our Christian tradition, and that is found when looking at the very nature of humanity. I don’t think it is possible to draw other comparisons, without first discussing these differences. Rogers’ view of humanity is that we are inherently good, and need to be reminded of this. He believed that sin was outside of the body, however from Augustinian Christian tradition, we believe that humanity is sinful apart from God (Cooper, 2003, p. 98). Therefore, I would say a more accurate analogy for unconditional positive regard in Rogers’ theory, is grace within the Christian tradition, which we desperately need.
2. I would agree with Roberts in that God does “liberate” us from our own self-rejection, through His love and grace (Roberts, p. 268). I am encouraged that as a Christian who will hopefully ☺ some day be a psychologist, I can relate to this model of client centered therapy in a profound way when looking at the similarities and parallels it holds to my own Christian tradition and experience. Furthermore, I view the process of doing therapy as an opportunity to share God’s love and grace with clients and in that way, acting as an instrument for God’s glory.
Brittany Rice, November 5, 2009
In response to Candice, comment 2:
Candice, I really appreciate your thoughts on how God fills the empty space in therapy and without God, it is empty. I think that this is especially important for us to recognize as Christians who are training to be therapists.
Brittany Rice, November 5, 2009
1. On page 265 Roberts argues that Roger's "concept of the self and the difference..." is compatible with Christian Ethics. What are some biblical examples of this connection?
2. It is interesting to be that the focus of this article is on Rogers when all of the readings we have read of Rogers are about the client(pg. 266). Perhaps the point of this therapeutic technique is to focus on the client, then a therapist may begin to see the image of Christ.
In response to Nikki #2:
First of all, I think we must always ask for God's guidance in our decisions in the therapist's chair. Secondly, I think knowing scripture is an important part of understanding if "what feels right" to us is really the right thing to do. Christian therapist are confronted with ethical and spiritual decisions at ever turn. After all, our job is essentially a spiritual one, right? Knowing scripture and praying continuously (along with knowing the ethics code, of course) need to be at the heart of our decisions in therapy.
Post a Comment