- Image via Wikipedia
This article examines the role that diversity plays in the context of Fundamental Christians. Two different views of this group are presented. The first view, the one of the majority of the population, is primarily negative, portraying this group as rigid and pathological. A second view is one of acceptance and inclusion, arguing that this group has a right to practice their beliefs just like members of any other religion. Additional topics explored are the consequences of discrimination against this population and the competencies needed to serve this population in the mental health field.
INTRODUCTION
During the early part of the twentieth century, Protestant Christians were mainly divided into two major groups, Mainline Protestants and Fundamental/evangelical Protestants. This study will concern itself with the role of diversity in the context of the latter group, the Fundamental Christians.
This group exerts a lot of influence in the US and thus is relevant to the study of cultural and ethnic diversity. Their opposition to modern ideas and thinking is striking to other people’s view of the world. This group is also subject to much intolerance and ridicule for their conservative views. The purpose is to investigate what role diversity plays in the context of Fundamental Christians.
DEFINITION OF FUNDAMENTALISM
There are many definitions of Christian Fundamentalism, most of them pretty negative.
According to Spinney, (1991), definition of the term Fundamentalist Christian includes three components: theological, behavioral, and emotional. Theologically, fundamentalist Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Behaviorally, they practice a narrow piety that is strictly enforced by an intrusive scrutiny and severe discipline. Emotionally, they hold their beliefs with an anxiety that is rooted in a fear of rejection, which they intuit would be catastrophic. This usually begins when a youngster experiences the absence of parental approval upon which his or her sense of self-worth depends. Fundamentalists are seen as a part of a classification of persons that includes all who profess to belong to Christianity but are a subgroup of that segment of Christians who believe in a Bible without error and advocate the practice of a conservative life-style. In reality the boundaries are far less sharp than in the illustration.
The following is a description by Marsden, (2006): Fundamentalism is a conservative Protestant movement characterized by belief in the inerrancy of the Bible as the literal word of God. Human nature is seen as inherently flawed and sinful. Change for the better is possible only through a personal, “born-again” conversion experience. This transformation produces a life marked by acts of piety, zeal for evangelism, and adherence to a strict moral code. God and the devil, as well as angels and demons, are experienced as objective, personalized forces battling for possession of each individual’s soul. The Second Coming of Christ, which will bring about destruction of the secular world and establishment of the “Kingdom of God,” is believed to be imminent (Marsden, 2006). Specific beliefs and practices vary from group to group. Fundamentalism is “a mood as much as a set of doctrines and institutions” a mood of militant opposition to secular culture, liberal theology, and scientific views that challenge literal Biblical interpretation. The non-Fundamentalist world, including liberal Christianity, is believed to be evil, and thus incompatible with a “Christian lifestyle.” In their separation from the world, Fundamentalists tend to form tightly knit, closed communities. All questions, personal and political as well as religious, are referred to the Bible as interpreted by church leaders (Marsden, 2006).
ORIGINS OF FUNDAMENTALISM IN THE US
In 1870 almost all American all of Protestants considered America a Christian nation. Christianity was seen as the answer to all human problems and basis of all civilization. There existed an interrelationship of faith, science, the Bible, morality, and civilization. With the advancement of scientific knowledge, the effects of industrialization and rise of AntiChristian thought appeared abroad and in the US (Marsden 2006). Increased secularization of society gave rise the the Religious Right which began fighting against cultural changes such as the sexual revolution, feminism, gay activism and challenges to conventional family structure and against the inroads of theological modernism in mainline denominations. As a group, Fundamental Christians expressed concern that the secular segment of American society threatens their religious and moral values. As a result they formed conservative political, social, and religious movements to better meet their needs (Levy, 2009).
IDENTITY FORMATION AMONG FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANS
Individuals are attracted to fundamentalism for a number of reasons but studies show a pattern in that many converts are attracted to the order that fundamentalism brings to their previously chaotic lives. In typical fundamentalist churches people who have been distressed by marital difficulties, alcohol abuse or other disruptive behavior will say how they came to value the fundamentalist discipline. Those who feel disoriented by the mobility, impersonality, and plethora of choices of contemporary life are attracted to the stability of a close-knit community with clear values and unambiguous sources of authority (Marsden, 2005).
INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON ATTITUDES, VALUES, PERCEPTIONS, HUMAN BEHAVIOR, AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS RELATED TO FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANS
Christian Counselors who are also LGB allies
A study of Christian counselors who were also allies of the LGB community shows how these counselors were able to reconcile these two identities. The study concluded that these counselors successfully integrated the identities of being Christian and being an LGB supporter (ally).
What is gleaned from the Christian allies is that exploration of Christian-based beliefs—including addressing issues of judgment by the church, developing new notions of being and defining “Christian,” understanding the Bible in a holistic and historical– cultural context, and getting in touch with one’s spiritual sense of self—is potentially helpful for Christians who want to resolve conflicts and integrate Christian and LGB-ally identities. (Borgman, 2009) The less dogmatic a person is in religious belief, the more tolerance they have for ambiguity or unknowns. One study participant put it this way: “If a person is very dogmatic in what the Bible says, meaning that it may have been written two thousand years ago, but it applies equally today, then they would have trouble reconciling the identities of being a supporter of LGB groups and of Christian values. But to say that there are some central themes in the Bible that we ought to pay attention to, then other issues are less relevant.
Another study participant said: “Even though the theology and doctrine I was raised with would have said [being LGB] is wrong, I couldn’t look at [LGB people] and say they were wrong. I just didn’t feel I had the right to do that. It didn’t make sense to me . . . . I was being told one set of rules, but I was increasingly uncomfortable with that set of rules, based on how I experienced God . . . . I can remember going back to needing to expand God. It was one of the pivotal moments where I realized God is bigger than the church identifies with.”
Another put it this way: “What’s the bigger commandment? I began to understand that the bigger commandment is to love all people. And if that’s true, how can I discriminate who I’ll show love to and who I won’t show love to? And, what really is meaningful? Is it really meaningful who you associate with and love, or is it meaningful that you love and that you associate?”.
Another said: “I just accepted everything that was taught when I was growing up, and I wasn’t a critical thinker. Then I started looking at things differently. Now I realize that I can have different opinions than my parents and these are valid. I think there are a lot of Christians who are not critical thinkers . . . . I am, and it’s resulted in positive solutions” (Borgman, 2009).
Fundamentalist are often portrayed in a very negative light in counseling literature. According to Spinney, (1991), Fundamentalists are prone to depression due to their fear of rejection by their significant others. According to Spinney, Fundamentalist parents believe that the eternal welfare of their offspring is conditional upon their having embraced the Christian faith in a prescribed form. They feel compelled to make certain that a sufficiently pure doctrine is embraced by their children. If they do not embrace that faith, the parents experience ultimate failure. The anxiety over this matter is communicated to the children in direct and indirect messages. If the life-style of the parents reinforces the indoctrination, the seriousness of the spiritual dimension is hard to ignore. To fail to embrace the faith is understood by the children to create severe uneasiness for one or both of the parents. Children may realize that indicating they have embraced the faith will relieve the anxiety of the parents and gain approval. When parents are unsure of the adequacy of their own answers and use threats, guilt-producing messages, and punitive behavior to silence the inquisitive explorations for meaningful explanations, the children are left with little choice but to conform or rebel (Spinney, 1991). By ignoring some reality that could be upsetting to his or her professed beliefs, the fundamentalist may be preventing depression. All of us practice selective inattention at times, because it works to our advantage. To give up momentary comfort and suffer the anticipated painful consequences is hard unless one is convinced that the result is worth it. Many individuals decide to live with discomfort rather than risk the possibility of experiencing the greater pain that might result from exploring new truths. If the unexplored reality is judged by the significant others as damning heresy or sinful behavior, a person exploring in those areas would likely be labeled a heretic or a sinner and experience rejection. When fundamentalist groups try to prevent their members from hearing and reading material that may question their interpretation of the Bible or of history, that is an attempt to block out some reality. If the members heard the other side, they might be tempted to believe differently, which would put them in trouble with the group. Such an experience would be depressing if the group is the only social support the person has. To avoid that experience, fundamentalists filter reality and stay “safe.” (Spinney, 1991). A person with a false sense of guilt, which is rooted in the concern that other people’s expectations are not being met, looks for relief that comes from having done what other people believe is virtuous. Perhaps the message is heard that a Christian is obliged to share his or her faith with others. Telling other people about Christ is important. A great effort may be expended in this ministry, with an urgent need to get results. Because the underlying urgency is to gain acceptance for oneself, rather than to share something special with others, the individual sabotages his or her own attempts. Those spoken to about accepting Christ do not experience being cared for and resist the attempt to be converted. The hoped for recognition does not come. But the effort must be sustained with the hope that recognition will come. As long as there is hope, depression is avoided. This is a way fundamentalists avoid depression (Spinney,1991). On the surface the person is convinced that the motivation for all this effort and self-sacrifice is rooted in a love for God, but it is in large measure the fear of rejection or criticism by the group. The “cries for help” that evoke a sympathetic response from the “rescuers” in the fundamentalist congregation can be unique. They may have complaints such as having committed “the unpardonable sin.” Some will complain of “demon possession” Others may constantly be asking for prayer to resist some temptation. The refusal to make decisions without some type of divinely given certainty that it is the choice God wants them to make keeps them asking for prayer (Spinney,1991).
DISCRIMINATION OF FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANS
Fundamental Christians are parodied and marginalized by popular culture. Their views are dismissed by progressives and liberals. They are intensely disliked by a large segment of the mass public (Levy, 2009).
Hodge, (2002), calls social workers members of a “new class”. According to Hodge, contemporary society is characterized by a conflict between the old middle class (occupied in the production and distribution of material goods and services), and the “new class” which is occupied in the production and distribution of symbolic knowledge. (Hodge, 2002) . The new class includes those who work in cultural production professions such as academia, media, and those whose self interest is served by the expansion of government, such as social work.
Hodge maintains that Evangelicals and other people of faith such as Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and Muslims hold value positions (for example on abortion) that are at odds with those held by the “new class”. Functional secularism is demonstrated by a lack of importance attributed to religion. As the new class has grown more secure in its cultural dominance, overt hostility against Evangelicals and other people of faith have become evident in new class forums. The necessary conditions for oppression, a clash between ideologies along with a power differential have been set in place. Research shows that 92 percent of self-described Evangelicals felt that “Christian values are under attack in the United States”. Content analysis has revealed pejorative descriptions of conservative Christians and their beliefs on television, in comic strips, and college level textbooks on marriage, psychology, and social work. Some authors found that Evangelicals were 142 percent more likely to experience discrimination than religious progressives or liberals. This discrimination occurred disproportionately in university settings since these are presumably the venues for propagation of “new class” ideologies. This bias inhibits diversity and the free exchange of ideas, the very thing that the “new class” is supposedly striving for. In social work textbooks, Evangelicals are framed as being against “women’s rights”. Devout believers are depicted as “snakehandlers” and the “Religious Right” is said to support the “enforcement of morality”. Fundamentalists rocked by “scandal” are partisan zealots who are against the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.. Biblical beliefs are depicted as wildly “anachronistic” worthy of ridicule and inspiring racism. Evangelicals and other people of faith are called “minions” and are associated with the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, and wild militias preparing for violent insurrection. Hodge observes that it is difficult to imagine any other population being characterized in such a disparaging light. Hodge further states that this treatment is in violation of the Social Work Code of Ethics which calls for recognition of “the strengths that exist in all cultures” and specifically mentions religion as a category toward which the profession should strive to exhibit cultural sensitivity.
.
PROBLEMS THAT ARISE FROM DISCRIMINATION
Religious separatists are at best overlooked or misinterpreted and at worst maligned or removed from our notions of public discourse (Lewis C.K. 2007). This makes Fundamental Christians feel like they have to fight against the world. Many social workers and therapists lack religious values or knowledge of religion. Evangelical Christians report feeling of discrimination during therapy. They feel that the professional environment is hostile to their beliefs (Levy, 2009).
According to Hodge, (2002), Social Workers are biased against Evangelical Christians. Hodge calls conservative Christians “Evangelicals” because he believes that the term “Fundamentalist” is as derogatory to conservative Christians as the term “queer” is to the gay and lesbian community, implying “bigotry, ruthlessness, hatred, and a commitment to terrorism and militancy”. This is echoed by Spinney, (1991), a pastoral counselor who states: “In 1919 a World Conference on Christian Fundamentals acknowledged nine fundamental beliefs, and people who subscribed to them were referred to as Fundamentalists. Before long, however, the term came to refer to “a person with orthodox convictions who defends them with an anti-intellectual, antischolarly, anti-cultural belligerency” . In Spinney’s experience, a pejorative use of the term fundamental Christian may refer to either a position or a group with whom one has a strong disagreement. As the term took on these negative connotations, some chose new words by which to identify themselves, such as conservative or evangelical. (Spinney, 1991).
COMPETENCIES IN INTERACTING WITH FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANS
Even if we disagree with the Fundamentalists’ world-view and beliefs, they have a right to hold their beliefs and be respected by others with different views. Personal competencies include tolerance for divergent views and respect of fundamental Christians beliefs.
Levy, (2009), conducted a study that analyzed the expectations of evangelical Christians regarding Mental Health Counseling. According to Levy, achieving cultural competence is one way by which practitioners can increase their understanding and improve their efforts to engage evangelicals in social work treatment. A necessary component in developing cultural competence is the ability to have empathy and the act of listening with openness. By providing a place where evangelicals are invited to talk openly about their faith, social workers would be encouraging the inclusion of their religious faith and showing an acknowledgment of the personal importance of the strength of this faith. Levy suggests that when exploring religious issues with a client, clinicians should ask for the clients’ definition and understanding of concepts used. This honest inquiry will help to display a positive attitude by the counselor. Additionally the counselor should use the strength-based perspective by exploring the client’s useful qualities, skills, motivations and aspirations. One of the central values of the strength perspective is the belief that the client is the expert of his/her life.
Self-disclosure:
Working with evangelical Christians may require social workers to re-consider the concept of self-disclosure as it pertains to personal religious faith. Evangelical Christians will often ask a prospective counselor “Are you born again?” or Are you a Christian?”. Levy suggest that the social worker answer these questions briefly and then inquire as to the personal meaning behind these concepts. A typical response form evangelical clients is that their Christian faith is important to them and that they would like to have the counselor know the strength of their belief system. Evangelicals are often willing to talk about their born-again experience when a counselor asks them. When a social worker shows an honest interest in the faith journey of an evangelical, he/she is letting the client know that the strength of their beliefs is recognized. Evangelicals are also concerned that the counselor will judge them for what they believe. Levy suggests that clinicians be aware that by posing personal religious questions, evangelicals might just be seeking reassurance of their acceptance.
Homosexuality
Homosexuality is an area where social workers may experience ethical/value conflict when working with evangelical Christians. Counselors need to be especially mindful of their ethical responsibility toward understanding of clients who hold religiously conservative views of sexuality that are reflective of their culture (NASW, 1997). Counselors may be tempted to point out the cultural antiquity that may reflect the literal interpretation of the Bible. Personal faith is at the very core of an evangelical’s self-definition. Their faith is life-transforming. The clinician must be willing to include religious faith in counseling and thereby recognize the strength of that faith (Levy, 2009).
Supervision and education:
Supervision can nurture a practitioner’s growth in religious understanding as it pertains to cultural competence. By talking about a client’s religious background, supervision can be a time for practitioners to talk about some of the areas that may affect their work with evangelicals. It is recommended that social workers be taught to listen to religious themes in their clients’ narratives and to learn to understand their own beliefs. Above all, social workers must continue to learn to be mindful of cultural, social, and religious diversity and continue to treat each person in a caring and respectful manner. (Levy, 2009). The author suggests that to provide more effective services to an increasingly diverse society and to remain grounded in the NASW Code of Ethics, social work must work towards a more inclusive profession, one that includes both conservative people of faith and progressives. Failure to consider religious issues may be a particularly serious omission with clients who have been members of groups which adhere to rigid beliefs and practices (Levy, 2009).
Treating Former Fundamentalists
Many Fundamentalists feel no need to question their way of life. Others, however, find themselves unable to continue in their beliefs and experience what has been called “The Shattered Faith Syndrome”(Moyers, 1990). When faith in what has been their primary source of meaning and guidance collapses, ex-believers may feel lost and overwhelmed. Disruption of relations with friends and family who remain Fundamentalists may add to the former Fundamentalist’s sense of isolation. Severe depression is common (Moyers, 1990). The psychological impact of a Fundamentalist past may persist for years. Former Fundamentalists often report chronic dissatisfaction with life and difficulty finding direction. They may long for the certainty once known and express despair over their inability to regain a similar degree of security. Many distrust their own feelings and judgment. A persistent negative self-image is often the result of Fundamentalist belief that pride in oneself is sinful. Sexual inhibition, frustration, compulsions, and guilt may linger long after Fundamentalist condemnations of nonmarital sex have been rejected (Moyers, 1990). Former Fundamentalists may be troubled by obsessive fears and doubts. They may fear eternal damnation despite no longer believing in it. Those whose churches emphasized apocalyptic teachings may be disturbed by ruminations on what they might do if such prophecies were fulfilled. Some may doubt their decision to leave the Fundamentalist church, or feel that there is something seriously wrong with them, as Fundamentalist beliefs and practices seem to work well for those who remain in the church. (Moyers, 1990). Clients with religious conflicts need assistance in examining the impact of their religious experience on their personal growth. The therapist must be able to approach such clients from a position of neutrality. A neutral position is especially important in working with former Fundamentalists. A strong emphasis on negative aspects of Fundamentalism may provoke defense of beliefs and practices with which the former believer remains unconsciously identified. Criticism of Fundamentalism may be misconstrued as criticism of the client’s past involvement. There is often a sense of shame and embarrassment from having held beliefs which now seem untenable. It may be helpful to point out both positive and negative aspects of the client’s Fundamentalist experience, suggesting that while it once served a purpose in the client’s development, it has been outgrown. According to Moyers, (1990), Fundamentalism discourages awareness of other religions, the humanities, and modern critical thought. Education in church schools often furthers cultural and social isolation. Former Fundamentalists may be unaware of other approaches to spiritual and existential questions.
Some former Fundamentalists have unresolved questions about specific doctrines or scriptual interpretations. The therapist’s support for such questioning is in contrast to the limits set by the church and will help validate the client’s capacity for independent thought. (Moyers, 1990).
No longer guided by the unequivocal pronouncements of Fundamentalism, the former believer may feel awash in a sea of confusion. Old beliefs can no longer be maintained and there is no clear set of guiding principles to replace them. Former Fundamentalists may feel doubly isolated and misunderstood. Fundamentalist family and friends are likely to have little tolerance for the perceptions of those who have left their church. Others, who have not experienced it themselves, may not understand the intense and long lasting effect of a Fundamentalist background. An understanding therapist can provide an opportunity for the former believer to freely examine his or her religious past without fear of judgment. Former Fundamentalists have lost what was the central focus of their lives. As with any loss, there is an associated grief process. Recognition of the extent of the client’s loss will grant permission to mourn and work through the grief (Moyers, 1990). Fundamentalist doctrines emphasize human imperfection. The individual can do nothing good without divine grace. After receiving such grace in the “born-again” experience, connection with the divine is maintained through involvement with the Fundamentalist church. When the idealized image of the church and its leaders fails, the disillusioned believer losses the means of rectifying ( Moyers, 1990) his or her essentially worthless state. This is a severe blow to the self-esteem that has been established largely through association with the church.. According to Moyers, transference is likely to involve idealization of the therapist, who receives projections formerly carried by the church and its leaders. Some clients will defend against idealization by challenging the therapist, testing to see if they will again be disappointed by misplacing their trust.
Much of the psychotherapeutic process will involve the client’s reclamation of the personal authority once given up to the church and now perhaps projected onto significant others as well as the therapist (Moyers, 1990). In the literal view of Fundamentalism, an “evil” thought or feeling is as sinful as an evil deed. Continual self-monitoring and rigid self-control are necessary to avoid sinning. Denial, repression, and splitting are especially prominent defense mechanisms. The clinician must work slowly and gently in helping the former Fundamentalist uncover long-denied emotions. The client will need reassurance that there is nothing inherently wrong in having negative feelings, and that acknowledging them does not mean they will be acted out. Confrontational techniques should be avoided (Moyers, 1990).
Former Fundamentalists with Fundamentalist families are likely to need assistance in dealing with anger, grief, and pain stemming from family judgment and misunderstanding, as well as support in maintaining a personal outlook differing from that of their families. Family interactions may be dominated by attempts of the “faithful” to persuade their “lost loved ones” to return to the church. Some groups practice “shunning,” the prohibition of all contact with those who leave the church.
Moyers further states: “The psychotherapist unfamiliar with Fundamentalism must be prepared to deal open-mindedly with unusual beliefs and experiences, bearing in mind that the Fundamentalist outlook was once the most important factor in the client’s life”. As an aside, the preceding statement shows the profession’s bias against evangelical beliefs. Would the author call the client’s beliefs and experiences “unusual” if they were expressed by adherents to religions other than evangelical Christians?
ACTION PLAN TO SEEK OUT ADDITIONAL CULTURAL DIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANS
This learner started out as being quite biased against Evangelical Christians, viewing them as misguided, ignorant and fanatical. After doing the research for this paper, a different view came about, one of empathy and understanding. This population’s beliefs give meaning to their lives and are important to them. Their views should be tolerated and respected even if one does not share these views. Additional insights into this population will enable this learner to be a more helpful counselor with conservative religious clients.
CONCLUSION
Fundamental Christians should not be marginalized and excluded just because we may not agree with their beliefs and lifestyle. The code of ethics calls for tolerance of all religious beliefs. If we support some religious beliefs and not others, are we not being hypocritical? As a famous philosopher once said, “If we silence one voice, all the other voices run the risk of being silenced as well.”
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Biblebelievers.com http://web.archive.org/web/20060614220715/www.biblebelievers.com/
In their own words:”The purpose of this Web site is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and magnify the words of God. We seek to maintain a vast storehouse of sound, Bible-believing, information for those seeking the truth, the newly saved, and those who have been instructed in the word of God. “ Web site contains articles, books, biographies, audio messages, music files, a church directory, an online bookshop.
Borgman, A. L. (2009); LGB Allies and Christian Identity: A Qualitative Exploration of
Resolving Conflicts and Integrating Identities; Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 56, No. 4, 508–520 0022-0167/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0016691
An attempt to understand the process by which individuals who hold identities of being both a Christian and an ally of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals make meaning of and integrate these 2 identities. Interviews were conducted with 11 doctoral-level psychologists who self-identified as being LGB allies, as holding Christian-based beliefs, and as living in the mid-western United States. Data analysis revealed that integration of Christian and LGB-ally identities involves increasing awareness of conflict among one’s identities or values, experiencing confusion and dissonance, engaging in questioning and exploration processes, challenging and redefining the self, and identifying integration as a goal toward which one is moving as a way to manage and honor one’s identities. Questioning and exploration processes involved self-exploration and self-acceptance and exploration of Christian-based beliefs and beliefs about sexual orientation. The processes revealed that the Christian LGB allies exemplified personal qualities such as having a questioning mind and valuing integrity, spirituality, and congruence between beliefs and behavior. Experiences influencing conflict resolution and integration of identities were described. These included relationships, education and training, specific emotional experiences, and cultural factors such as experiences of oppression.
Hodge, D. R. (2007);Progressing toward Inclusion? Exploring the State of Religious Diversity; Social Work Research; Mar 2007; 31, 1; ProQuest Psychology Journals pg. 55
Explores perceptions of religious discrimination in social work educational programs. Hypothesizes that evangelical Christians would be more likely to report discrimination because of their religious beliefs than would adherents of more liberal traditions, such as theological liberals or mainline Protestants.
Hodge, D. R. (2005); Epistemological Frameworks, Homosexuality, and Religion: How People of Faith Understand the Intersection between Homosexuality and Religion; Social Work, 2005; 50, 3; Proquest Medical Library.
Some gays, lesbians and other progressives view orthodox religious believers as perpetrator of oppression. Conversely, many orthodox believers, or people of faith, believe that gays, lesbians and other progressives wish to marginalize them. Using Hunter’s epistemologically based distinction between progressive and orthodox worldviews to understand the differences in perceptions, this article explores how numerous people of faith understand reality involving homosexuality, both in the wider culture and in social work.
Hodge, D. R. (2002); Does social work oppress Evangelical Christians?; Social Work; 47, 4; ProQuest Psychology Journals pg. 401
Argues that social work, informed by “new class” ideology, oppresses Evangelical Christians. Discusses the rise of the “new class” along with its attendant ideology, which sanctions and legitimizes discrimination against Evangelicals and other people of faith. The role of social work, a “new class” profession, in the oppression of Evangelicals is profiled, and its inability to extend tolerance to this population is traced to its “new class” ideology, which inhibits it from functioning in accordance with its professed values and ethics. Consequently, the author suggests that social work is losing touch with numerous ethnic and religious minority groups, and unless the profession deconstructs the ideology that informs it, it will be unable to provide services to facilitate dialogue among the increasingly diverse populations of North America.
Levy, R. S., (2009); The expectations of evangelical Protestant Christians with regard to mental health counseling;Yeshiva University; 168 pages; AAT 3342737
This study examines the expectations of evangelical Protestant Christians in the area of mental health counseling. The relationship between their expectations of counselors who self-identify as Christian counselors and those who did not self-identify as Christian counselors was compared. The main research question was “What expectations do evangelical Protestant Christians have with regard to mental health counseling?”a brief explanation of ethics theory was provided in order to further the understanding of value conflicts that may arise between evangelical Protestant Christians and secular counselors. Among some of the areas of statistical significance were understanding, inclusion of religious behaviors and problems or issues that evangelicals expect to bring up in counseling. Acceptance was the only area that lacked statistical significance.
Lewis, C. K. (2007). Romancing the Difference : Kenneth Burke, Bob Jones University, and the Rhetoric of Religious Fundamentalism. Waco, TX, USA: Baylor University Press, p 10.
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/capella/Doc?id=10191391&ppg=10
Limiting one voice, no matter how pesky, opens the possibility to contain other defiant views. We must stretch our frames of acceptance to contain even the peskiest voices. Disruptive fundamentalists who seem to defy cultural norms. Fundamentalists as a mistaken adversary to be countered and included.
.
Marsden, G. M. (2006). Fundamentalism and American Culture. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, Incorporated,. p 249.http://site.ebrary.com/lib/capella/Doc?id=10160590&ppg=249
Discusses how Fundamentalism got its start, its turbulent years, impact on American culture
Fundamentalism as a social, political, intellectual, and American phenomenon
Moyers, James C. (1990); Religious issues in the psychotherapy of former Fundamentalists.; Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, Vol 27(1), Special issue: Psychotherapy and religion. pp. 42-45. [Journal Article] Database: PsycARTICLES
Discusses psychological problems of former members of Fundamentalist Christian churches. Psychotherapy with these patients may entail consideration of religious questions as well as treatment of more usual psychological conflicts, which may still be related to the Fundamentalist background. An understanding of basic Fundamentalist tenets and practices, as well as an awareness of the centrality of religion in the Fundamentalist lifestyle, is helpful in treating such clients.
Related articles by Zemanta
- 10 Reasons Why Modernist Christianity Will Die (gkupsidedown.blogspot.com)
- Why I Demolished My Own God (exchristian.net)
- A progressive perspective (boston.com)
- No longer a “Capital C” Christian (exchristian.net)
- The Case for Karen Armstrong (dailykos.com)
- A Hint of This, a Pinch of That – Wall Street Journal (online.wsj.com)
- Another Bigot (liveactivecultures.net)
- The One About Well Mr. Schaeffer That Depends On Your Definition Of Bad. (the-one-about.blogspot.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1dfdb6f1-0db1-4698-8407-d45aede49e27)
Recent Comments