It used to be that psychotherapists avoided conversations about faith, spirituality and religion. That is changing. And now, as the psychotherapeutic world begins to embrace the possibilities (or resourcefulness) of entering into conversations of spirituality with their clients, many Christian therapists are applauding the shift. They now feel freer than ever to encourage clients to seek spiritual ends in addition to the pursuit of personal and relational healing.
With this shift, the general use of prayer has now been sanctioned as an effective resource for therapy. Therapists, both Christian and secular, can be found promoting the use of prayer as a therapeutic resource with the rationale that the use of prayer is efficacious to bring about healing. Even though prayer is utilized more than ever, a therapist may not pray in the name of a particular god. To do so would be a crime against modern liberalism's, and thus American Psychology's, belief in neutrality.
So, before Christians get too excited, we need to consider what we believe prayer is about. As Hauerwas and Willimon put it, "such a defense of prayer begs the question of content. What does it mean to pray 'in the name of Jesus?'" And to what end is prayer intended?
The question of prayer in the therapy office only points to a greater problem.
The greater concern is that, for Christians, the therapeutic language and culture of America has superseded the language and culture of the church. That is what I want to address. I will attempt to articulate a few reasons for my growing discomfort that the therapeutic language and culture is more formative for American Christians than the language and culture of the church.
With the coming age of postmodern thought in America, the modern views of the self are being historically situated and critiqued as social constructions of the cultural ideologies and agendas of the United States. Christians interested in psychology, psychotherapy, or cultural understandings of "the self" would do well to consider the insights of these critiques. One of the biggest players in this critique of the American self and the current practice of psychotherapy is Philip Cushman. In both his book
Constructing the Self, Constructing America (1990) and article "Why the self is empty: toward a historically situated psychology" (1990), Cushman applies social constructionist theories to the field of psychotherapy and its subject, the self. Using this method, Cushman argues that the present American configuration of the self is empty:
It is empty in part because of the loss of family, community, and tradition. It is a self that seeks the experience of being continually filled up by consuming goods, calories, experiences, politicians, romantic partners, and empathetic therapists in an attempt to combat the growing alienation and fragmentation of its era.
The empty configuration of the self needs transformation according to Cushman because it inherently leads to self-disappointment. However, the field of psychotherapy is a product (and beneficiary) of the same configuration and its current techniques and theories only perpetuate the problem of the empty self. Essentially, psychotherapy is a process of transmitting and encouraging state sanctioned cultural values, as opposed to a process of uncovering causation for objective illness within the self-contained individual. Cushman ends both his book and article with a fatalistic tone not yet believing the field of psychotherapy is capable of reorganizing itself to fashion an alternative configuration of the American self.
Cushman’s analysis highlights that the previously valued community traditions within the United States became fragmented and lost relevancy due to the "scientific" nature of psychology. He is not alone. Many other voices within the world of psychotherapy suggest the loss of community traditions, specifically the church, as the dominant culture that shaped Americans gave way to the new moral tradition of psychotherapy. Victor Frankl (1984), speaking of Western Europeans and Americans, stated that "man has suffered another loss in his more recent development inasmuch as the traditions which buttressed his behavior are now rapidly diminishing," and as a result "people who nowadays call on a psychiatrist would have seen a pastor, priest or rabbi in former days." The role of the psychotherapist, again, due to the "scientific" nature of psychology, trumped the importance and relevancy of the pastor as one who has wisdom regarding the healing of life’s emptiness and inherent dissatisfactions.
If Cushman is correct, the present therapeutic culture is hardly more than a cultural offspring of the events in the United States. To call something a product of culture is a sly way of saying it is not universal; it is not built upon solid science. If psychotherapy, being developed out of a cultural understanding of the self, is not based upon a universal, scientific reality, then Christians must reassess our commitment to this culture and its values. Our acceptance of its healing institution, the psychotherapists office, as a necessary institution for healing reveals how we've allowed ourselves to be co-opted into the shifting winds of our culture rather than standing firm on the foundation of the teachings of the church and our scriptures.
Have you noticed the therapeutic language and culture in your church? How does this analysis shape your understanding of why it is happening? How do you respond to it?
::Esteban::
Comments (5)
This is interesting! From what little I know of psychology...and theology...I totally agree there is overlap between my understanding of the definition of psychology and what I've learned of the spiritual journey with a living God. Your premise that historical psychotherapy that ignore spirituality being only partly helpful at best makes sense to me.
You seem to make two assumptions that I thought worth pointing out: 1) I hear you saying that there is a decline in American's valuation of community and 2) that decline is driven by the growing role of psychotherapy. Its not so clear to me that either of these assumptions are helpful in thinking about our current perception of self. Only because to paint a rosy picture of the good 'ol days (or hold a view of an oversized role of psychotherapy) doesn't account in a realistic way for choices made by many individuals in previous generations.
Why did (and do) people choose to not participate in a religious community? Is it b/c of the emerging perceived role of psychotherapy...or b/c the religious community just doesn't do it for them? I mean it comes down to individuals making a choice for their own personal benefit. Each person chooses to go to church or a psychotherapist (or neither or both) based upon their own experiences and recommendations of others they trust. So if valuation of church community is declining, it doesn't seem helpful to blame alleged misinformation by psychotherapists as the cause.
I've come to see that if there is a change in a social pattern there is reason for it...and it ultimately results in a better world (Rom 8). So based on your initial premise of overlap between psychotherapy and spiritual journey...perhaps a shift away from traditional church community to a study of the human experience (now called psychology) is helpful...and not the end of the story. I can imagine there's huge room for improvement in church communities...and need for more awareness and study of the human experience. Ultimately our view evolving in such a way that offers hope for church community supportive of individual's experience of the spiritual journey through a integrated understanding of self. The dissection of self into concepts of mind, body and spirit was perpetrated by the ancient Greek philosophers...and we are still living out the consequences of that analysis.
So I'm processing as I write and wonder if this current trend of integrating mind and spirit within the knowledge base we call psychology isn't a step toward reintegrating our perception of self. Yay, for an integrated self...and wholesome lifegiving community!!
Excellent post! (write more of them please :)
In my opinion there is not only an overlap, but there is a disappearing line between the two.
I am not decided on this yet, there are many pro's and con's to both sides of this question, but I am not sure that I am entirely comfortable with (and perhaps becoming opposed to) incorporating these kinds of methods (such as prayer and other "churchy" terminology) into psychology and theraputic endeavors. What does this do to those people who, then, walk in the doors of a Church? What expectations will they have? Will they take Church and turn it into a "me focused" therapy session? Does this then create an idea that prayers are just lifted thoughts, non-specific, and general to any diety... or even to... nothing? How dangerous would this be to the Church in general?
On the other hand, Church is a place where people who believe in Christ should seek rest and healing-- so a general acceptance of the restorative powers from the Holy Spirit would be a nice wave in thinking indeed.
At the moment, I'm leaning pretty heavily towards the "opposed" line of thinking.
Anyway, great post!
I've spoken several times at Revelife about my girlfriend who died of a rare form of lung cancer. She was a psychotherapist with a robust practice. She was a wonderful vibrant woman. In the first couple of months of our courtship she kept insisting that, by default, I should have a therapist. She had one which I learned from her is common practice among therapists. I'd always answer her questions and address issues from a Buddhist perspective. One day she said to me, "You're incredible. Every time I think I've pigeon-holed you, you blow me away. Forget about psychotherapy. You don't need it."
Psychotherapy has it's value but it's wise to remember that it is still developing in its understanding of the human psyche just as are many philosophies and religions. Yet psychotherapy is not something to throw out with the bathwater. There are people of many religious faiths who discard science in general but because of this they are missing worlds such as that of quantum physics which, at least in my mind, supports the faith in something inexplicable that so many religions promote.
About prayer...I'm not sure if the debate is over psychotherapists praying for their patients, psychotherapists supporting their patients' use of prayer for self healing, or both. I believe that it would not hurt for therapists to be supportive of a patient's desire to pray. I do believe it would be harmful for a therapist to bring his or her own religious belief into discussion in the relationship.
If I was a therapist I would certainly pray for the happiness of my patients. I would not pray for them to become Buddhists just as if I was still a Christian I would not pray for them to "find Christ". When you pray for someone's happiness you are trusting that God will take care of the rest. When your prayer shifts to conversion you become more focused on your personal agenda than the real happiness of the person you are praying for. You may think that a person has to become a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc. to become happy but you or I are not the God of other people. Having faith that your prayer for their happiness will be answered in the best way for them is what is important.
I believe it is also important for therapists, if they pray for their patients, to keep that to themselves and even then there are pitfalls. If I'm praying for someone with an agenda in my prayer I might tend to let that seep into my dialog with that person. It might seem odd to a patient if one day I start probing to find out if something out of the ordinary happened last week and my disappointment might seep through if I feel my prayer isn't being answered the way I'd like it to be.
A word about prayer and agenda. I don't want someone praying for me to convert to their religion. What that person is really doing is praying that I give validity to their beliefs by joining them. That person is also viewing me as inferior in understanding to them. This kind of prayer is based on selfishness and self doubt. That person might as well pray that after seeing his new car I run out and buy the same model and color because I agree it's the greatest car ever made. I believe that one should pray for one's happiness and let the cards fall where they may. Even when we pray in secret, prayer seeps into our relationships and people feel that. If I'm praying for someone to become like me that is going to show itself on various levels of the relationship. At what point do I become frustrated and break off the friendship with the person because that person isn't becoming at all like me?
As for the good old days, I seem to remember stories about lawlessness, and about Calvinists who believed dancing was the devil's work, and about women being burned alive because they were witches, and about slavery, and about voting being a right of white men only. Not the kinds of "community" I would care to be associated with today. My whole life I've heard parents and grandparents talk about the good old days which right there is a contradiction because the good old days of a grandparent aren't the same good old days of a parent. Although we can learn from the past, those who pine for it seem sadly to have found their present lives somewhat empty.
"The empty configuration of the self needs transformation according to
Cushman because it inherently leads to self-disappointment. However,
the field of psychotherapy is a product (and beneficiary) of the same
configuration and its current techniques and theories only perpetuate
the problem of the empty self. Essentially, psychotherapy is a process
of transmitting and encouraging state sanctioned cultural values, as
opposed to a process of uncovering causation for objective illness
within the self-contained individual. Cushman ends both his book and
article with a fatalistic tone not yet believing the field of
psychotherapy is capable of reorganizing itself to fashion an
alternative configuration of the American self."
I can only judge what I read from your post. It is well written but I have a problem w/ this. He's right to point out that the empty self needs transformation but more important than that is that prayer and meditation do just that. Psychotherapy helps to understand and heal the wounds that cause the empty self to react. So I fundamentally disagree w/ the idea that it doesnt' uncover "causation for objective illness
within the self-contained individual" because it actually does uncover (unveil) "causation for objective illness
within the self-contained individual." Vikter Frankly is one just one of many psychotherapists that seeks to integrate a higher/spiritual transformation in his patients. There are lots of therapies out there that do this and it's a little silly to paint all therapy with such a broad brush without any real evidence. Show some statistics, other leading voices that not only agree but back up their critiques. Create a more thorough historical narrative that backs up your point or Cushman's argument. That would help this post a lot.
p
The magic words, "in the name of Jesus Christ," are essential for us to use God for effective prayer. We make our request, and God answers however his will is for us. In fact, we can use those words with a command to God to work through us, such as, "I am delivered from child abuse, in the name of Jesus Christ," or "I am delivered from (and then put in the sin or vice we want to be rid of), in the name of Jesus Christ." Chanting is always good in a religion to get God's attention. We are not giving just an ordinary prayer spoken aloud. We may say a short sentence making the request, with those words, to cause God to act through us, as we allow the will of God to happen, leading us to become the recipients of a miracle at hand. A Christian may become an effective Faith Healer, just using the power of Jesus' name, or at last resort, and if the attempt to get results immediately is important enough, we Christians may use the phrase, "We plead the blood of the Lamb, in the name of Jesus Christ!" Try it!