Sunday, 25 October 2009

• Does the Language of Psychotherapy Have a Place in the Church?

  For Christians, the therapeutic language and culture of America has superseded the language and culture of the church.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.
  
  An article by James D. Hunter (2000) entitled, "When psychotherapy replaces religion," exposes the syncretism woven deeply into the fabric of faith for American Christians. For example, when a Presbyterian youth minister was asked, " 'Do you ever invoke the name or the example of Christ' with your work with kids on moral issues?" he said no, because " 'For these kids, the symbols [of the faith] don't mean anything.' "
  
  We must ask, how can Christian "symbols" mean anything unless someone, or a community, teaches them, specifically the church? The youth in that church will grow up speaking the language of the therapeutic over and against the language of the Christian faith. Or, even worse, they might believe that the therapeutic language is Christian!
  
  In other numerous examples, Hunter reveals that Christians are not comfortable with using the languages of their faith, such as sin, and are quick to teach the importance of therapeutic language such as self-esteem to their relationship with God and others. Even conservative Evangelicals, like James Dobson, have done this when it comes to parenting or marriage advice. The selective mixing of languages is not harmless. My concern is that it distorts the language of the Christian faith and morphs it into just another institution for the current configuration of the self.
  
  The Current Configuration of "The Self"
  With the coming age of postmodern thought in America, the modern views of the self are being critiqued as social constructions of the cultural ideologies and agendas of the United States. How we understand "the self" in America is not based upon science or a universal understanding. It is cultural and as such will fade away. Christians interested in psychology, psychotherapy, or cultural understandings of "the self" would do well to consider the insights of the critiques coming from these historical studies.
  
  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 contructionist 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. It is not a scientific endeavor, but a moral one.
  
  From Religious Direction to Therapy
  Cushman’s analysis highlights that previously valued community traditions within the United States became fragmented and lost relevancy due to the assumed "scientific" nature of psychology. He is not alone. Many other voices within the world of psychotherapy suggest that 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 appearance of psychology, has trumped the importance and relevancy of the pastor (or other church leaders) for Christians as one who has wisdom regarding the healing of life’s emptiness and inherent dissatisfactions.
  
  Duped
  Christians, like the youth minister mentioned above, along with the rest of society, have been duped into believing that when we go to see a therapist we will be receiving help that is founded upon reliable science. Thankfully, Christian and non-Christians alike are revealing how false such a perspective is. What we receive when we see a therapist is moral training disguised as "neutral" and "scientific."
  
  In being duped, Christians have rejected the use of our own moral traditions and instead relied upon the moral tradition of psychotherapy. But now that we can see psychotherapy for what it is, do we still want to use it? Is it too late to return to the traditions of the church? I'm afraid that the Christian tradition has lost so much meaning for Christians as compared to the American therapeutic tradition that we don't know how to return. So, what we'll do is keep trying to convince ourselves that the therapeutic is really the language of the God and the Bible.
  
  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?
  
  

  • 5:55 PM
  • 332 Views
  • 16 eProps
  • 7 Comments