![]()
SECTION II:
HOW THEN SHALL WE COUNSEL?
Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counselors they are established.
King Solomon
Proverbs 15:22 (King James Version)
To Believe or Not to Believe?
That Is Not the Question!
The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties.
Josh McDowell
More Than a Carpenter
Since Bergin (1980a) asserted that individuals implement their own values systems via their professional work, research has proven this to be the case time and time again (Bergin and Jensen, 1990; Shafranske and Malony, 1990; Kahle, 1997). We believe that individuals do implement their own values systems in their work, and we believe that this is not a problem in and of itself. However, this implementation of values systems is a problem if the therapist implements his or her values system without respecting the values system of the client or is either unaware of this process and/or denies that this is in fact the case. For the person of the therapist and the professional of the therapist are not any more mutually exclusive than are the person of the president and the professional of the president. So, rather than wasting time looking for some mythological switch to turn off, perhaps it would be best if we were to invest our time more wisely by searching for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or perhaps we could simply embrace the fact that therapists implement their own values systems every day they work. Everything else we'll discuss related to the integration of spirituality, religion, and psychotherapy hinges on this belief about belief! Since we both embrace the fact that the person and the professional of the therapist are not mutually exclusive entities, perhaps a brief summary of our values orientations would be important in explaining how we conceptualize spirituality in our personal and professional lives.
TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND A THERAPEUTIC WAY
We are both Christians. I (Peter) am a Lutheran and John is a Catholic. In other words, we're simply a Reformation apart. Although we're both Christians, we don't agree on everything within the realms of spirituality and religion. We both believe that the Triune God is our spiritual source, our maker, our comforter, our hope, and our God. Therefore, we strongly embrace the belief that a person's spiritual faith in God can be a powerful source of help and healing in his or her life. However, we also understand that certain beliefs about God can be a powerful hindrance in a person's life, sometimes creating a barrier that prevents individuals from experiencing healthy, balanced lives. Since we hold these beliefs to be true outside of therapy, it should come as no surprise that we hold these beliefs to be true inside of the therapeutic environment as well. Therefore, we approach the topic of spirituality in therapy in an intelligently cautious manner. We stand in reverence of power.
Since addressing the subject of spirituality in therapy involves more than just spiritual values, it may also be helpful for us to briefly summarize our values orientations related to “belief” and “truth.” On more than one occasion, we have seen a therapist's fear of talking about his or her truth orientation unintentionally contribute to avoidance of spiritual issues in therapy, even God phobia at times. We strongly believe that each and every therapist has beliefs, issues, and biases that can, and will, influence the therapeutic process. Therefore, we use the term belief intentionally.
We are aware that many of the popular theorists of today, particularly postmodern theorists, make use of the term assumption when speaking of the personal beliefs that guide them in the therapeutic process. We've heard a number of these colleagues explain that by using the term assumption, they experience greater freedom and flexibility in therapy because they are not as wed to a particular belief, position, or stance. Although we trust that their hearts may be in good places, we respectfully challenge the assumption that believing in something strongly necessarily leads to less freedom and/or decreased flexibility in therapy.
There are important distinctions between beliefs and assumptions. Assumption is defined by Webster's (1984) as “(a) something taken to be true without proof or demonstration, (b) presumption or arrogance, (c) a minor premise.” Webster's defines belief as “(a) the mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing, (b) mental acceptance of or conviction in the truth or actuality of something.” We don't want the very things on which we build our theoretical foundation to be “minor premises” or to assume something to be true without any proof or demonstration.
Of course, we understand that our postmodern colleagues, con-structivists, social constructionists, and deconstructionists alike, also intentionally choose the words they use. (Note: We are fully aware that those who identify themselves with one of these theoretical labels will undoubtedly disagree with the lumping together of the various schools of thought into the term postmodernists. However, we make no claim that this is an exhaustive critique of various theoretical positions underneath the postmodern umbrella. Hence, the grouping is intended and subsequent objections are noted, understood, and marginalized for the purpose of this very brief discussion.) Postmodernists likely prefer assumption to belief because they would explain that mental acceptance of or conviction in the truth or actuality of something is a modernistic way of thinking. They would likely even smile at our use of Webster's dictionary, questioning our modernistic assumption that a book could actually contain the true definition of a word. Of course, we are then left to wonder why these masters of parenthetical discourse do not pick up on their own modernistic assumption that a book could not contain a true definition of a word. Regardless, from a postmodern perspective, truth is viewed as a subjective, internally constructed or socially constructed reality that results in the creation of multiple truths and multiple realities. Consequently, they believe that there is no such thing as absolute truth (or “Capital T,” as they often refer to it).
Let us be very clear here. We love our postmodern colleagues and greatly respect their work related to challenging practitioners to think, in great depth, about epistemological and ontological issues. We simply believe that they, too, could benefit from some self-reflexivity related to the postulates they hold. C. S. Lewis ([1943] 1996) astutely asserted,
The scientist has to assume the validity of his own logic (in the stout old fashion of Plato or Spinoza) even in order to prove that it is merely subjective, and therefore he can only flirt with subjectivism. (p. 223)
A belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth is self-contradictory. For if the statement is true, the statement has proven itself to be false. This is a statement that is predicated on the foundation of absolute truth. Furthermore, if a person believes in the concept that there is no true reality, but rather only multiple realities, a person must be open to the possibility that one of those multiple realities could be the existence of an absolute reality. We use the term must intentionally, not based on our espoused belief system, but rather based on the belief system espoused by persons who hold this belief. Hence, a person who believes only in multiple realities must believe that absolute reality is a possibility if he or she is to remain consistent with his or her own stated beliefs. Of course a person does not have to be open to this possibility. He or she simply has to be open to this possibility if he or she chooses to avoid the suicide of thought. G. K. Chesterton ([1936] 1966) asserted,
But when people begin to talk about universal relativity, as if everything were as relative as everything else, so that presumably the very notion of relativity is itself relative, only relative to nobody knows what, they are simply knocking the bottom out of the world and the human brain, and leaving a bottomless abyss of bosh. (p. 141)
All human beings believe. Although they choose what they believe, they do not have a choice in whether or not they believe. To be human is to believe. As a popular rock group of the 1980s, Rush, asserted in one of their songs, “If you decide not to decide, you still have made a choice.” Furthermore, we'll even go as far as to contend that every human being believes in some form of absolute truth. For example, in the spiritual realm, the spiritual relativist who believes that every spiritual tradition simply uses different metaphors to worship the same deity is no less an absolutist than is the Christian who believes that faith in Jesus Christ as one's Savior is the only way to Heaven. Although these two people differ at the content level, at the process level they are both very much professing a belief in absolute truth. This holds true for atheists and others as well. Yes, even agnostics; for isn't the self-professing agnostic certain of his or her uncertainty?
We are fully aware that there are many people who would disagree with us on this point. In fact, make this assertion in many professional settings and you're likely to feel about as comfortable as Salman Rushdie at a Khomeini family reunion. However, we welcome this disagreement for we understand that to simply believe that there is no absolute truth does not make it so. This belief simply demonstrates that those who hold this belief absolutely believe in the truth that we are wrong on this point. In our opinion, to believe that a person does not believe does not demonstrate superior intellectual wisdom, but rather simply demonstrates an ignorance of the fact that this is a blind spot for the person who holds this belief. Let's move beyond truth by realizing that we can never move beyond Truth.
Copyright Andrew Kendall. Used by permission.
All roads lead to Rome; which is one reason why many people never get there.
G. K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy
Peter Senge and his colleagues (1994) use an excellent drawing of a mental model of cognitive thought processing (Figure 9.1) in their book to help illustrate the fact that assumptions and beliefs are different, but important, parts in a ladder of inference. Their illustration reaffirms the importance of increasing our awareness of the influence that both assumptions and beliefs can have on thought processes and behavior. Therapists who believe they do not believe and/or do not understand the process of a reflexive loop will undoubtedly experience difficulties inside and outside the therapy room.
FIGURE 9.1. The ladder of inference, a model of cognitive processing. (Source: Senge et al., 1994, p. 243)
We've heard several people assert that they do not have beliefs about spirituality. Some have suggested, “I reject all spiritual belief systems.” If a person chooses to reject all spiritual belief systems, that is fine with us. However, we refuse to enter into a collusion of ignorance if the person asserts that he or she “therefore does not hold any beliefs about spirituality.” For, to reject all spiritual belief systems is to hold a belief system about spirituality.
Denial of beliefs about spirituality is common in the mental health fields today. We can't tell you how many times we've heard a colleague assert that he or she does not hold beliefs about spirituality, but then follow this statement with an aspiritualistic diatribe that makes it very clear that he or she thinks spirituality is a crutch for the weak and cognitively limited. We've seen this blind spot contribute to problems in the therapeutic process when these therapists work with people for whom spirituality is an important aspect of their lives. We refer to this problematic process as the “entrapment of not owning.” If a therapist does not own and/or is not aware of his or her beliefs about spirituality, the beliefs will eventually own the therapist and the client, and subsequently become a hindrance in the therapeutic process.
Rather than try to achieve the impossible in becoming free of values in therapy, we embrace our beliefs in an attempt to increase our awareness of how our beliefs can potentially impact the therapeutic process. In the hit movie The Hunt for Red October (1990), Sean Connery plays the role of a Russian submarine commander, Captain Marko Ramius. In one memorable scene, he instructs the crew to turn the submarine around and speed directly into the oncoming path of two torpedoes that were fired from an enemy submarine. Obviously, many of the crew think Captain Ramius is making a reckless decision that will certainly end the lives of everyone aboard the submarine. However, by turning the sub completely around and speeding directly into the path of the potential danger, the sub is able to close the distance gap and make contact with the torpedoes before they are able to arm themselves, thus...
