The Reality and the Image of God in Psychotherapy

Abstract

I have suggested that the plea for increased respect for the religious patient's perspectives demands a willingness on the psychotherapist's part to acknowledge the unique reality of the patient's relationships with religious objects, a reality which extends beyond the assumptions and predicates of standard interpersonal models of human behavior. At the same time, the psychotherapist can legitimately expect of the religious patient a willingness (notwithstanding the customary resistances) to expose his or her religious feelings and relationships to the type of analysis which attempts to clarify the nature and quality of the interpersonal or psychodynamic bases and implications of religious material. The psychotherapist can not arbitrate moral claims and decisions for the patient, nor rightfully present himself as possessing the single, "true" understanding of religious experience. Yet the therapist can invite the patient to examine the moral implications of his psychological experiences and the psychological impact and consequences of his religious experiences. What knowledge we as psychotherapists possess about human nature can be used to influence changes in the lives of our patients which they find useful and relevant for living in the world they have created for themselves. But we must, I think, humbly anticipate qualities of human nature and relationship whose ultimate meanings may defy every convention and paradigm.

Working With the Sacred: Four Approaches to Religious and Spiritual Issues in Counseling

“…Authenticity is a particularly relevant concern for the religious constructivist who seems to operate in a position of pseudoreligious authority without the formal legitimacy of a religious tradition (Pargament, 1997). As argued by Spero (1985b):…”

“…However, some questions can be raised about this orientation. Some clinicians argue that it is not enough to accept the client's ontological beliefs about religion on a phenomenological level; ideally, the clinician should agree with the client on the existence of religious or spiritual realities (Spero, 1985b). The personal beliefs of the constructivist may differ substantially from those of the client, and the manipulation of the client's sacred symbols and metaphors to a secular end could come across as insincere and inauthentic.…”

Understanding and treating perfectionism in religious adolescents.

“…They would find it easier to distinguish between neurotic versus healthy religiosity (Spero, 1985b), and are more willing than secular therapists to question and explore clearly “erroneous” beliefs (Worthington et al, 1996). They are also less likely to imply that the patient’s religious beliefs have only psychological meaning, an implication that religious patients are likely to experience as a narcissistic injury (Spero, 1985a). While religious people will sometimes request a nonreligious therapist because they fear being condemned by a religious therapist for what they perceive as sinful behavior, the nonjudgmental and empathic attitude of the therapist will lack the full therapeutic impact if the patient is thinking to himself or herself; “Of course the therapist accepts me, he does not even understand what’s wrong with this behavior.”…”

Parallel dimensions of experience in psychoanalytic psychotherapy of the religious patient.

“…While this assumption can be defended, it conflicts radically with the worldview of most religions. And such conflict, as has been demonstrated elsewhere, influences treatment in both obvious and subtle ways (Bergin, 1980a, b Spero, 1985b; Wile, 1977). The remnants of psychologism in advanced object relations theory of religious experience may confound the psychotherapist’s ability to explore the patient’s reality, such that the fullest value of paying attention to the central dimensions of religious experience may never be achieved and the unique relationship between the individual and the Object called God may go unexplored.…”