Vol. 23
No.3
Fall 2000
|
Main
Sessions: |
Special
Session: |
|
|
Comment:
Response to Mary Fraser |
||
PCR Sessions at AAR Annual Meeting
November 18-21, 2000 in Nashville
|
Copies of papers for the sessions
are available online.
|
||
|
Andrew Kille, Presiding, Santa Clara University Newark Narratives: City Girls Tell Tales Out of School Self and Other: Piaget and Postmodernity Serpent-Handling Christians Psychology of Religion: the Need for an International Organization |
|
|
PCR FRIDAY DINNER
|
There has been a change of plans for this year's PCR Friday dinner. The dinner will be held at 7 p.m. on Friday, November 17 in Ristorante Volare, in the Opryland Complex. Cost will be about $27-$30 plus tax and tip. Graduate students are welcome, and their meals will be at half price. Vegetarian selection available. Please plan to join us! |
|
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18 9:00 A.M.-11:30
A.M.
|
WORKS IN PROGRESS |
|
THEME: SEEING CLIENTS
|
Trevor Watt, Canisius College, Presiding To Tell the Truth: Truth Telling in Psychotherapeutic Encounters A Multi-Therapeutic Approach to Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Clinical Data for the Psychotherapist and Pastoral Counselor |
|
BUSINESS MEETING
|
Lucy Bregman, Temple University, Presiding |
|
PCR PAPERS ARE ONLINE PCR-LIST |
Return to index.
|
Bonnie Miller-McLemore (Vanderbilt University) will be presenting a paper in the Ethics Section, "The Search for a Child-Friendly Theology: Reflections on the Indictment of Parents and Christianity." Bonnie will take another look at the extensive indictment of parents and Christianity sparked largely by the work of Alice Miller, briefly describing and critically analyzing it in the service of answering a more difficult, constructive question: if "much Christian theology has been rooted in the threat of punishment," as Philip Greven argues, why has Christian theology paid so little attention to creating a more child-friendly theology that sets new precedents for interactions with children? Can an alternative course be drawn from scripture and other Christian sources, a course that provides a better means of guidance and discipline? Kelly Bulkeley (Santa Clara University) has organized a two-year panel on "Dreams and their Interpretation" for the Comparative Studies in Religion Section. In Nashville the panel's first meeting will focus on 1) presenting the latest research findings of religious studies scholars who have devoted sustained critical attention to the phenomenon of dreaming, 2) highlighting and reflecting upon the complex methodological and theoretical issues involved in the comparative study of dreams and their interpretation, and 3) stimulating new research projects in this area of scholarship. This year's panel will include Jon Alexander (Providence College), Marcia Hermansen (Loyola University of Chicago), Lee Irwin (College of Charlston), Jeffrey Kripal (Westminster College), and Serinity Young (New York Public Library). D. Andrew Kille (San Jose) will preside over a session of the Psychology and Biblical Studies section of the SBL devoted to "The Pathogenic and Therapeutic in Biblical Texts and Interpretations" on Monday morning. A second session of the section on Tuesday morning will include a review of Donald Capp's recent book Jesus: A Psychological Biography (Chalice Press, 2000). |
Return to index.
|
Jenny Yates (Wells College) is collecting Jung's writings on the Self for Princeton University Press. She recently selected and introduced Encountering Jung on Death and Immortality for Princeton. Melvin Miller (Norwich University) has recently edited (with S. Cook-Greuter) Creativity, Spirituality, and Transcendence: Paths to Integrity and Wisdom in the Mature Self (Ablex, 2000); (with A.N.West) Spirituality, Ethics, and Relationship in Adulthood: Clnical and Theoretical Explorations (International Universities Press, 2000); and (with P. Young-Eisendrath) Integrity, Wisdom, Transcendence: Spirituality of the Mature Self (Routledge, 2000). The latter anthology includes a chapter by PCR member Demaris Wehr. Hendrika Vande Kemp (Fuller Theological Seminary) is currently thinking about the positive psychology/positive emotions movement (cf. the January 2000 American Psychologist). She and a colleague are planning a book that would critique this movement from a historical and theoretical perspective. Components would include an examination of a balanced Biblical theory of emotions, an exploration of the Christian virtues, the fruits of the Spirit, and a variety of psychological movements that are, in effect, positive psychologies. Hendrika welcomes correspondence with PCR members who have ideas on this topic and who might be interested in contributing a book chapter. Jim Jones (Rutgers University) is on leave from Rutgers during the 2000-01 year, serving as a visiting professor of religion and psychology at Drew University. He will also be teaching a course at Union Theological Seminary in New York. D. Andrew Kille (San Jose) has just completed his volume on Psychological Biblical Criticism for the Augsburg Fortress Press series "Guides to Biblical Scholarship." The book compares and critiques interpretations of the Genesis 3 garden narrative from Freudian, Jungian and Developmental perspectives. With luck, the book will be ready by the November Annual Meeting. |
Return to index.
|
Response to MARY L. FRASER, PH.D. |
I read with interest Kirk Bingaman's article on engaging Freud in theological education and most particularly in the field of pastoral care and counseling. As one who did engage Freud along with many other thinkers of his century old generation, and as one who also studied and studies more contemporary thinkers in psychology, theology and religious studies, I am not convinced that Freud remains seminal in understanding the human brain, the religious sensibility or the practice of psychotherapy. In fact, after years in the academy as student and graduate student, years in psychotherapeutic practice and years in pastoral ministry, I am convinced that the academic world needs to bring itself up-to-date in critical thinking and engagement. Lest I sound as though I am unconsciously involved in "psychical splitting" or the defense of my particular mainline denomination through a "polished" theology, I add quickly that reading Freud, neo-Freudians and the shifts toward a Self psychology that occurred in the 1960's has been not only interesting as a study of the history of thought, but also helpful in exploring mind as multidimensional and complex. Surely, Freud was one of the forerunners a century ago in launching a new way of approaching individuals, culture and religion. However, others were also making large contributions in different and yet exacting ways. Those others, such as Martin Buber, Dorothy Day, William James and, yes, even Carl Jung, responded to very present and real issues of culture and religion in ways that continue to leave Sigmund Freud open to critical evaluation. This area of critical exploration remains wanting within many academic circles. Rather than end discussion of Freud and his theory of religion by stating how brilliant he was or by saying that those who disagree must somewhere in regions unbeknownst to them be psychically splitting, it would be more fruitful to show curiosity and intellectual interest in critical comments and honest disagreement It is not true that theological students and seminarians are noncritical thinkers. Today, many are coming from professional backgrounds that involved them in high standards of critical engagement. However, I do think that the majority of seminary students are heading out into jobs in which they are given responsibility to very real and present matters of human living: birth, death, sexuality, justice issues, worship, and the spiritual lives of others. The question for many students may not rest in whether Freud developed a brilliant theory of religion but in how his theory creates healing and wellness in this fractured and wounded world. The beginning place for dialogue moves from this different question. As a man who did not take a courageous stand toward a budding Nazi Germany as it quietly infiltrated Austria during the early years of the last century, as a man who was calmly racist, sexist and even anti-Semitic, Freud's brilliant discussion of the theory of religion left him nowhere really except as justified in his own quiet self-loathing as a Jew in a culture that fed anti-Jewish statements to its members in subtle and blatant ways. One might really ask whether Freud's ideas on religion were attempts to distance himself from his race, religion and subculture within a violent and repressive generation. And, finally, one might stand a comparison with other thinkers and intellectuals of the time who were brave enough to apply their great intellects, at cost to themselves and their families, in pursuit of a world in which people need not be evaluated on race, religion or birth. Many today continue to pursue such a world, and I would maintain that it is in such pursuit of balance , harmony , self awareness and coherence of self and world that genuine healing and wholeness is discovered and lived. |
|
My
criticism of Freud . . . emerges more from his consistent avoidance
of any position that might have threatened his own work or self,
even while others underwent great suffering on behalf of their principles,
other people or faith.
|
My criticism of Freud (and I think for many who employ some type of religious work), emerges more from his consistent avoidance of any position that might have threatened his own work or self, even while others underwent great suffering on behalf of their principles, other people or faith. Whatever theory of religion or profession of disbelief Freud developed, it was not inspired enough or great enough to give him that magnitude of character that is distinguished by unswerving compassion for other people individually and culturally. In addition, much of what he wrote is more unbelievable than biblical myth and story. I am not sure why we continue to make so much of this man other than as a historical figure who paved the way for a much different and more effective psychology of mind and psychotherapy of personality. Let's leave it at that and move on. Mary L. Fraser, Ph.D. |
|
I very much appreciated Mary Fraser's response to my article, "Teaching Freud in the Seminary," and believe that in certain ways her essay helps to balance my earlier remarks. I, too, share her conviction that Freud's theorizing on the human brain and the practice of psychotherapy is no longer as seminal. However, when it comes to his theorizing on the origin of religious feelings and sentiments, and more specifically, his emphasis on the intrapsychic juxtaposition of images of God and parental imagoes, I believe that Freud still has something important to teach us. Ana-Maria Rizzuto's case studies, for example, still stand out as important clinical data, lending support to Freud's thesis that one's God-image is intimately and inextricably linked to the object relations of early childhood. Those of us who practice pastoral counseling or psychotherapy see this illustrated again and again. True, Freud was entirely too dogmatic about the precise birthplace of images of God - the oedipal years of development, in every time and place-but the fact is that he has made us as a culture stop to consider the extent to which an individual's God-image and his or her parental imagoes have, so to speak, grown up together. I am, therefore, by no means extolling, uncritically, the virtues of Freud, nor am I suggesting that seminarians are obligated to recognize his brilliance. What I do believe, though, is that in dismissing Freud outright before ever encountering his writings on religion, we are, as Rizzuto has argued, missing an important piece of data about the developmental history of our clients and students, not to mention ourselves. |
|
|
.
. . if his legacy is more than description, if he (Freud) actually
helped to "shape" our culture and the Western psyche, then moving
beyond Freudian theory and the Freudian critique of religion may
be easier said than done
|
I must admit that I am a bit nervous with the suggestion to move beyond the discussion on Freud, particularly when, in the past few years, so much has been made about coming to grips with his impact on Western culture. For example, just two years ago, the debate over the Library of Congress' exhibit on Freud - "Conflict and Culture" - was intense and highly charged, as historians, clinicians, scientists and other researchers weighed in with opinions on Freud's legacy. The implication, of course, is that the culture as a whole has yet to move beyond Freud. Indeed, there is even speculation that we will never be able to completely move beyond him, since, as Paul Ricoeur has noted, we as a culture have internalized more than a few Freudian assumptions. On the one hand, if Freud was merely "describing" Western culture and the Western psyche, then I suspect we can move beyond him without too much difficulty. However, if his legacy is more than description, if he actually helped to "shape" our culture and the Western psyche, then moving beyond Freudian theory and the Freudian critique of religion may be easier said than done. Consequently, I remain convinced that a serious discussion of the explanatory and hermeneutical power of Freudian theory is still timely and relevant, even while readily acknowledging its inherent limitations - scientism, misogyny, reductionism and so on. Finally, I would agree that today's seminarians bring with them a certain level of maturity, having previously been involved in careers that demanded no shortage of critical thinking. That said, I want to also state that this is something of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the second- or even third-career seminarian brings a wealth of experience to his or her seminary training, as well as solid critical-thinking skills. On the other hand, the critical thinking or critical engagement is, from my experience in the classroom, more of a problem-solving or "fixit" variety. This should not be a surprise, since many second-career seminarians, coming out of careers in law, business and computers, to name a few, have been trained to be problem solvers. Even several of my students who were former nurses, who were exceedingly loving and compassionate, had difficulty getting used to the fact that ministers are called to be, not so much problem solvers, but rather wounded healers. |
|
the
fundamental question is not whether Freud articulated a brilliant
theory of religion
|
The question, then, to be sure, does not revolve around whether Freud formulated a brilliant theory of religion. Instead, the more basic and fundamental question is, to what extent does a Freudian hermeneutics of suspicion prepare the way for a deeper and more nuanced understanding of self and others, of God and religion? What our more mature seminarians may discover, following an encounter with Freud, is that while their problem-solving skills and critical thinking have grown and evolved, their knowledge of self and God may not have grown at the same pace. To repeat, the fundamental question is not whether Freud articulated a brilliant theory of religion. Rather, the question is whether Freud's theory puts us in touch with the deeper layers of human personality, and with certain fundamental issues related to the human psyche - e.g., the way parents and God have been imaged and reimaged. A psychological hermeneutics of suspicion-Freud's or anyone else's - it should be noted, is never an end in itself, but only a means to the end of knowing the depths of ourselves, in preparation for working, ministerially, in the depths of other people's lives. Kirk A. Bingaman, Ph.D. |
|
Many PCR members are teachers in various educational settings, and while there is no official "PCR canon" of books used by everyone, there are several authors and texts that many of us regularly use in the classroom. To encourage a discussion about what works and doesn't work in the teaching of these authors and texts, we invite PCR members to describe their pedagogical strategies, techniques, and experiences. The first contributor to this discussion is Bill Parsons of Rice University, who offers the following thoughts on the notoriously difficult task of introducing the basic ideas of C.G. Jung. "What I do is start with Memories, Dreams, Reflections. I usually assign the "Confrontation with the Unconscious" chapter because that's where he describes in an experiential way his own encounter with the collective unconscious. I frame the whole thing using Peter Homans' mourning hermeneutic (drawing on MDR's first chapter, where Jung talks about his inability to idealize Christianity) so the students can see how Jung created a kind of new psychological religiousness. Then I assign the section in Two Essays on Analytical Psychology entitled "Individuation." I assign it because it's the theoretical parallel to the chapter I assign from MDR, so now the students see something about the "core" of Jung from both a therapeutic-experiential and theoretical perspective. Then I go on to "apply" Jung, and here I like Ann Ulanov's essay on the Wizard of Oz; it's so good and works well with the students. I haven't used other essays of Jung's for applications (Answer to Job and the Trinity are just too opaque for undergraduates), but his essays on UFO's are interesting and can be connected to contemporary TV shows and movies. If you have any comments on Bill's approach to Jung, or other thoughts about teaching PCR-related material, please let us know! |