RSS

Monthly Archives: March 2010

Christian Sex Therapy Training

Richmont Graduate University in Atlanta is host to the Institute for Sexual Wholeness, a group led by Doug Rosenau, Michael Sytsma, and Deb Taylor that offers post graduate level in sexuality related issues. Graduates of the training program meet criteria for certification by the American Board of Christian Sex Therapists. The training this weekend is the Basic Issues in Sex Therapy training. This is offered every other year, and they have asked me to join Michael and Doug in teaching it the last few times its been offered. This is a lot of fun, although providing a training like this over a weekend is fairly draining. My part of the training for the weekend included information on ethics in sex therapy, research in sexuality related areas, theological perspectives on sexuality, and gender and sexual identity. Other topics covered by Michael and Doug included multicultural perspectives, assessment and history taking, sex therapy theories, and sex therapy history. I was reminded once again how important it is for the church to address matters of sexuality within our own communities, how difficult it is to do so, and the challenges in providing good and accurate information that can really improve this important area for individuals, couples and families.

 

Up In the Air: Colloquium on Alternative Training Programs for Pilots

Regent University’s Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology welcomed Deborah A. Boehm-Davis, Ph.D., Chair of the Psychology Department at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. Dr. Boehm-Davis is past-president of Division 21 (Applied Experimental & Engineering Society) and the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Her presentation was titled, “Can old dogs learn new tricks? Developing and evaluating alternative training for pilots.”

Dr. Boehm-Davis shared her framework for understanding aviation performance. This immediately caught my attention because I do not enjoy flying as much as you would think, particularly given how frequently I fly. But I am a big fan of aviation safety. I usually spend most of my time not thinking about it. But if I were to think about it, I would like to focus on improving aviation safety, and if Dr. Boehm-Davis recommends we look at training, then that sounds good to me. What Dr. Boehm-Davis does is she approaches improving training by looking first at things like task analysis and then moves to knowledge elicitation and eventually to procedural steps, methods, and selection rules.

It was interesting to learn about how the hierarchy in the cockpit can lead pilots to ignore information from others. This has led to work on “crew resource management” with emphasis on improving communication. Her team helped develop protocols and then embed them in manuals and training procedures. They were also able to compare the use of the new procedures and the use of the typical procedures. From a research standpoint, this involves improving inter-rater reliability among raters and evaluating pilots for whether they follow established procedures. The results were that the new procedures had a positive and sustained impact on performance in both simulators and in flight, as well as based on instructor evaluation and self-assessment.

And this was just procedural training. Dr. Boehm-Davis also reported on her research on conceptual training, so that pilots have a better understanding why certain procedures are in place, as well as exemplar training for specific issues that may be particularly challenging (like flying with a small child attached to the windshield).

The presentation exposed students to the many ways in which psychology is vital in various real-world applications and concerns. Let me just add that, as someone who has a vested interest in the results of this research (someone who has to fly often) let’s hope that these improvements are being used consistently today. Actually, Dr. Boehm-Davis reiterated the stats on how safe flight is relative to other forms of transportation — an important cognitive exercise for all of us who travel!

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 19, 2010 in Colloquium

 

You Can’t Take It With You

This past weekend I saw the play You Can’t Take It With You at the Regent Theatre.

Here’s part of the plot synopsis:

At first the Sycamores seem mad, but it is not long before you realize that if they are mad, then the rest of the world is madder. In contrast to these delightful people are the unhappy Kirbys. Tony, the attractive young son of the Kirbys, falls in love with Alice Sycamore and brings his parents to dine at the Sycamore house on the wrong evening. The shock sustained by Mr. and Mrs. Kirby, who are invited to eat cheap food, shows Alice that marriage with Tony is out of the question. The Sycamores find it hard to realize Alice’s view. Tony knows the Sycamores live the right way with love and care for each other, while his own family is the one that’s crazy…

Believe it or not, I was actually in this play when I was in high school. It was my only foray into the theatre. I played “The Man” (or “G Man”), the lead federal agent who comes to investigate Ed’s pamphlets and ends up arresting everyone. If I recall correctly, the key for me was to have a part that didn’t require a lot of memorizing lines. Whenever you play “The Man” or some other character with no name, you have a good shot at limited lines! In any case, when I did the play and took on the character of “The Man”, I asked the director if I could fire the cap gun, and she eventually let me do that on the last night of the show. Funny memory. BTW: the actor who played “The Man” in the Regent production did a great job with it, far better than I ever did. (Although I did notice he didn’t actually fire the gun. But it was not the last show of the run, so you never know what he might do!)

The point of the play is that it is important to do what you love. It is about rethinking expectations others have for you, especially in the area of just making money for the sake of making money, particularly if you do not enjoy the work you do. I know many people who have spent years in business or another field that they really don’t like but they do it for the money. I think there is something to be said for the underlying message here: that, if possible,  try to position yourself in a job that you delight in, something that you personally find satisfying. From a Christian perspective, work is done to honor God, and so what is done is not as important. Christians can value so many occupations, and Christians are instructed not to measure a person by their appearance or wealth but by their worth as made in the image of God. There is an intrinsic dignity in being human. As far as work itself: The key is how a person does his or her work and toward what end – to bring honor and glory to God.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 14, 2010 in Off Topic

 

Understanding Sexual Identity Therapy

This past year I’ve dealt with an interesting challenge that faces Christians who produce scholarship in controversial areas. My area is sexual identity, and I’ve been researching and providing services in this area for many years now. There are not many models for how to do integration in this area, and there are few people even doing it. So the challenges are plentiful.

Specifically, the topic I’m addressing is how to provide clinical services to people who are sorting out sexual identity issues. The model I’ve been developing (and the accompanying framework I’ve been co-developing with Warren Throckmorton) is referred to as sexual identity therapy (SIT). What is SIT and how did it come about?

SIT is essentially a client-centered and identity-focused approach to navigating sexual identity questions or concerns. It has often been contrasted to reorientation therapy and gay affirmative therapy. It is based on the idea of helping people reach congruence, so that they live and identify themselves in a way that is consistent with their beliefs and values. Sexual attractions or orientation may or may not change, but the overall emphasis is on identity.

How did this approach come about? My earliest involvement with SIT traces back to a concept paper published in 2001 that suggested an alternative model of sexual identity development, which refers to how the act of labeling oneself (as gay, lesbian, bi, or choosing not to do so) is experienced developmentally over time. I was particularly interested in people I was working with in my clinical practice who did not integrate their same-sex attractions into a gay identity. This led to a series of studies comparing people who experienced same-sex attraction and identified as Christian. I compared a group that integrated their same-sex attractions into a gay identity to a group that dis-identified with a gay identity and the people and institutions that support a gay identity.

At the same time I was working with clients who were either sorting out sexual and religious identity conflicts or had tried to change their sexual orientation through involvement in professional reorientation therapy or Christian ministries. The people I saw at that time did not experience as much success in their change effort as they were led to believe was possible. They were discouraged, and some would frame their experience in an “all or nothing” way, such that they either changed their orientation or they were gay. They did not feel another option was available to them.

So my involvement with SIT was to explore a way of doing therapy that provided these people with a professional approach that would respect their beliefs and values and would allow for direction or trajectory that was meaningful even if their orientation did not change. Many people who came to see me at that time were conservative Christians, and many at the end of what was developing into SIT chose not to identity publicly or privately as gay; rather, they formed a primary identity around other aspects of who they were as a person, such as their religious beliefs and values.

In my practice today, SIT revolves around four central concepts that came from that early concept paper and subsequent research: (1) a three-tier distinction between same-sex attraction, a homosexual orientation, and a gay identity, (2) weighted aspects of identity, (3) attributional search for sexual identity, and (4) congruence. First, the three-tier distinction is between same-sex attraction, a homosexual orientation, and a gay identity. The idea is that more people report experiencing same-sex attraction or having a homosexual orientation than the number of people who identify as gay. Being gay is a unique sociocultural phenomenon, and it is a self-defining identity label that not all people who experience same-sex attraction adopt. Such a distinction creates room for using descriptive language while exploring identity considerations. Most people I work with choose to describe their attractions rather than embrace a gay identity.

Second, I discuss weighted aspects of identity, by which I mean that people consider many factors when they make decisions about public and private sexual identity labels. These ‘aspects of identity’ include biological sex, gender identity, attractions, intentions, behaviors, and beliefs/values. People often decide that one or more of these aspects of identity are really important to them, such as behavior (e.g., choosing chastity) or beliefs and values (e.g., Christian morality), and they give it greater ‘weight’.

Third, I join people on what I refer to as an ‘attributional search’ for identity. This means exploring with clients the meaning that they make out of the fact that they are attracted to the same sex. I don’t assume that their attractions are the result of childhood sexual abuse, biological predispositions, parent-child relationships, or any other particular theory; rather, I discuss with them how they make meaning out of their attractions. Many will cite these theories; some will discuss “the fall” as the cause of their attraction to the same sex.

The fourth and final key concept for me is congruence. This means helping people line up their behavior/identity and beliefs/values. I have found this to be a natural result of the first three key concepts.

What has been interesting is that this past year I have seen some people in the gay community claim that SIT is really reorientation therapy, and I have seen some people in the conservative Christian community claim that SIT is really gay affirmative therapy (at least functionally so at one stage in therapy). The first mischaracterization—that SIT is really reorientation therapy—came up this past year when a gay psychologist involved in the scientific review process attempted to portray SIT as conversion therapy to get other reviewers to reject proposals in which SIT was mentioned. This was resolved amicably when it was acknowledged that the recent APA task force report identified SIT as an identity-focused model and not as reorientation therapy.

The other mischaracterization—that SIT is really gay affirmative therapy (at least at one stage)—happened recently when someone in conservative Christian circles made the claim, and it is a statement worth responding to so that it is clear why this is a mischaracterization and not an accurate understanding of SIT.

Before I do that, let me offer one observation on this idea that I am defending SIT against assertions that it is either reorientation therapy or gay affirmative therapy. What’s interesting is that these are the two polarized positions in the models of therapy offered to sexual minorities today. The whole purpose of developing SIT was to offer an alternative to these two polarized positions. It is interesting to me that those most invested in this debate will not allow a third option to develop; rather, they appear to need to frame the debate in the two models they know.

The focus in SIT is sexual identity not sexual orientation. Again, much of my work is with people who have tried to change and had modest success with it, and so they are looking for other meaningful ways to grow and develop, and sexual identity is one way to do that, particularly for those who focus on other aspects of who they are as a person.

As to the charge that SIT is gay affirmative therapy. Gay affirmative therapy tends to assume that a person is gay, that they are discovering this about themselves. The therapist simply creates a safe place to discuss “coming out” and is mindful of issues such as bullying and family dynamics, etc., that make “being gay” difficult. It tends to rest on the metaphor of discovery. That is, a person discovers that they are gay—they have been all along. There is much more to gay affirmative therapy, but this gets at one way to understand it at least at a general level.

The way I practice SIT is based not on the discovery metaphor but on the metaphor of integration. People have choices to make about whether they integrate their same-sex attractions into a gay identity or not. If they choose not to, they often form a positive identity around other aspects of who they are as a person. One of the most salient aspects of identity for Christians is an identity that is “in Christ.” But in creating space in therapy for a person to make a genuine choice about identity, there is by necessity the option of making other choices (otherwise the choice was not a genuine one to begin with). So a person might choose to integrate same-sex attractions into a gay identity. That is a possible outcome when a person is given an opportunity to genuinely choose to dis-identify with a gay identity.

A related question is this: Is creating a space for people to make choices so unusual in therapy? I would answer no. People make choices all of the time in therapy, and some of those choices are not ones I would choose for them. For example, I provide a lot of marital therapy. I want the couples I work with to stay married. However, some decide to divorce. For them to genuinely choose to stay in their marriage means that they could also choose to dissolve the marriage. It is a choice, and it is not a choice that I make for them. This principle of client autonomy and self-determination is a central principle in how therapy is practiced today, and it is based on many things, including case law that established a patient’s right to informed consent to treatment in medical ethics.

The concern that has been raised about whether SIT is gay affirmative therapy raises a broader and more fundamental question about the place for Christians in the mental health fields. This is not limited to the topic of homosexuality. The question is: How ought Christians to position themselves in the field? Do they provide therapy in a direction toward a certain outcome? Do they provide information and opportunities for clients to make their own choices? If so, at what point might those choices run contrary to the values of the Christian mental health professional? This happens in many controversial areas, as well as areas that are not that controversial. It is more of a fundamental question about the role of the mental health professional, and there are legitimate disagreements among Christians in this area.

Some people will assume that Christians in the mental health field should function like they are a particular kind of pastoral care provider. Although there are many ways in which pastoral care providers practice, I see pastoral care providers as representing their faith tradition in a very intentional way. They hold up a standard and provide pastoral care to help people move toward that standard of orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right practice). Orthodoxy and orthopraxy is not determined by the counselee but by the pastoral care provider in the sense that he or she represents the faith tradition and its doctrines out of which the care is being provided. Some people view licensed mental health professionals in the same way; that is, they should counsel in a specific direction because they represent Christian commitments in a particular way. This is a point for discussion among Christians in the field.

Others would view licensed mental health professionals as different than pastoral care providers in some important ways. They would see a licensed Christian psychologist, for example, as entering enter into a fiduciary relationship with the public, a relationship built upon trust, and part of that trust is built upon the assumption that the services provided are in keeping with the standards in the field as it is currently governed by the state in which the psychologist practices. So a group of one’s peers (psychologists, in this case, not Christian psychologists necessarily) would reflect on what is standard practice for addressing the topic of homosexuality in clinical practice. In this context, one might look at SIT as helping to provide a kind of therapy that the broader field can support, even as it stands in contrast to gay affirmative therapy (and reorientation therapy). This is important in part because gay affirmative therapy would be an unrealistic option for some religious clients.

Indeed, SIT provides an alternative that safeguards client autonomy and self-determination in making decisions about identity and behavior. With respect for client autonomy and self-determination comes the possibility that a client may make choices about identity that go against the values of the Christian mental health professional. But we can respect the client’s right to make that choice.

Note: This is cross posted on the ISSI web site here. Warren Throckmorton has offered his own perspective on the SIT Framework here.

 

Tags: , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers