Page 69 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 4

Comment Kevin J. Eames, PhD
(USA) is professor of
on Samuel Pfeifer’s psychology, department
chair, and director of in-
“Prayer – Psychodynamics, stitutional effectiveness at
Effectiveness, Therapy” Covenant College in Loo-
kout Mountain, Georgia,
in the United States. Also
Kevin J. Eames
adjunct professor at Rich-
mont Graduate Univer-
sity. PhD in Counseling
Psychology. Primary re-
I am grateful to Dr. Pfeifer for his thoughtful discourse
search interests include
on the relationship between prayer and psychotherapy,
the cognitive science of
particularly as it relates to the welfare of the patient. Mo-
religion and the articula-
reover, Dr. Pfeifer has highlighted some important pro-
tion of models of Christi-
fessional and ethical issues related to the use of prayer
an psychology.
as part therapeutic intervention. To highlight the contro-
versial view of prayer as a valid therapeutic intervention,
Dr. Pfeifer cites an article by Poole and Cook’s (2011) that
illustrates a curious dualism in the treatment of mental
illness. Poole opposes prayer with patients as a violation
of the boundaries that protect the patient from abuse and In doing so, Poole is practicing a kind of secularist foun-
ensure that the relationship is therapeutic. Conversely, dationalism where he is not required to offer empirical
Cook argues that prohibiting prayer in the exercise of support for his assertion. Instead, it is sufficient to cite
psychiatric care when there are no contraindications is to the diversity and pluralism of the 21st century, as if that is
impose “a boundary between the secular and the spiritual adequate justification to reject the validity of spirituality.
domains” (Poole & Cook, 2011, p. 95). Cook continues Moreover, although acknowledging the diverse and plu-
the argument by asserting that “secularity is a far from ralistic nature of society, such pluralism apparently does
neutral domain within which to conduct the therapeutic not extend to those for whom prayer would be therapeu-
encounter … It is an aberration of our secular age that tic. This position raises two issues: one professional, the
prayer understood as relationship with the transcendent other ontological.
might be considered unprofessional” (Poole & Cook,
2011, p. 95). The professional issue relates to the cultural competence
of thepractitioner. Sue (1998)has identifiedthree charac-
Note that Cook allows for contraindications for pray- teristics of cultural competence in psychotherapy: being
er, including prayer that is part of the patient’s idiom scientifically minded, knowing when to generalize and
of distress and would exacerbate rather than alleviate when to individualize the client, and the development
symptoms, ethical reservations about particular prayer of culturally-specific proficiency. Sue describes scienti-
requests, or different faith traditions. Cook does not as- fic mindedness as forming hypotheses about culturally
sert that prayer with patients should be analogous to the different clients rather than forming premature conclu-
prescription of antibiotics for bacterial infections. Cook sions, the latter of which occurs when therapists accept
allows for but does not mandate the use of prayer when it the “myth of sameness” (Wilson, Philip, & Kohn, 1995,
is in the patient’s best interest. By contrast, Poole argues cited inSue, 1998).Cultural competencealso involvesthe
proscriptively against prayer. ability to “place the client in a proper context – whether
that client has characteristics typical of, or idosyncratic
We live in a diverse, pluralistic society. The idea that the to, the client’s cultural group” (Sue, 1998, p. 446). Finally,
positive power of prayer is more important than profes- development of culturally-specific expertise relates to the
sional obligations (i.e. the implication that any religious clinician’s knowledge of their own worldview, knowledge
faith is necessarily true and that it should be privileged of the worldviews of the cultural groups with which they
over other beliefs) is unacceptable. Prayer is outside of are working, and the ability to intervene in culturally
respectable clinicalpractice inthe UKin the21st century, appropriate and sensitive ways. Research by Abernathy,
and the only responsible position is simply not to do it Houston, Mimms, and Boyd-Frankin (2006) apply Sue’s
(Poole & Cook, 2011, p. 95). model ofcultural competencethrough acase studyinvol-
ving the therapeutic intervention and role of spirituality
Professor Poole’s conclusion highlights the dichotomy and prayer in African American families.
between the secular and spiritual domains. First, Poole
privileges the belief that professional obligations should The ontological issue involves the nature of human
be privileged over religious beliefs with the implicit as- beings. Religiosity appears to be a fundamental characte-
sumption that secularism and its attendant materialism ristic of human beings and is evidenced across time and
should be privileged over the spiritual. across cultures. Barrett (2004) suggests that atheism, not

69 69