Page 171 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 3

Forum

We know hardly any such strong theistic psychothera-
peutic approachs/attitudes, but, in contrast, three kinds
of weak theistic ones:

Compartmentalized Theism: Privately, one has a strong
theism view, but this is separated from professional theo-
ries and practices. With clients with theistic convictions,
one takes their faith into account, respects religious per-
suasions. With non-theistic clients, one leaves the faith
aspect aside. Yet the effect of therapeutic interventions is
explained in isolation from faith, they can be used with
or without God.
Peripheral Theism: One proceeds as in “compartmenta-
lized theism”, but includes in the therapy some peripheral
theistic strategies such as prayer or values, perhaps even Agnes May, Training in religious
making preferential use of them. Yet one does not explain education and adult education.
them expressly as being dependent on God’s activity, does Since 1998 at the IGNIS Insti-
not make God’s activity expressly public. tute as editor, writer and adult
Inconsistent Theism: God’s live activity on all therapeutic educator for the correspondence
levels is repeatedly expressed. But alongside that there are course “Foundations of Christi-
other aspects of the therapeutic theories, methods and an Psychology”, since 2004 as
practice which do not require God or refer to him. God person in charge of this course.
is thus limited to a certain spiritual therapeutic area or to
a sector of the effective factors. But therapy should be not
only spiritual, but should also include other aspects, “spi-
ritual” again understood as something, which does not
permeate everything, but is an add-on. Strong theism, in
contrast, would e.g. also see God’s working in the effects
of medication.

Summarising concluding thought: The subject of this ar-
ticle is not the effectiveness of a strong theistic approach,
but its possibility and necessity as a result of God being
not an add-on assumption to naturalistic assumptions,
but an assumption which changes everything.

Points for discussion: Some may object that what we have
described as strong theism is too strong or radical for sci-
ence, psychology or therapy, or that strong theism the-
rapies are not really therapies. But why should a strong
theism not take its place in the market of possible theo-
ries and strategies? It is without doubt fundamentally dif-
ferent from naturalistic approaches and some psychothe-
rapists may prefer the latter or a weak theism approach.
But we suggest that strong theism should also be suitably
represented.

A second objection that some may voice is that not all
clients will agree to a theistic approach. Yet this applies
equally to a naturalistic approach. We therefore consider
it an ethical duty to disclose clearly to clients the neces-
sary information so that they do inadvertently open the
doors to a Trojan horse via the therapy.

(This summary was written by Agnes May, Germany)

171