You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In an article entitled “The Privileged Position of Religion in the Clinical Dialogue,” Constance Goldberg (1996) suggested three approaches to understanding religious experience in clinical settings. These approaches are the metaphorical, the foundational, and the functional. Goldberg states, on the one hand, that the metaphorical approach involves a realization that the use of religious terminology is poetic, descriptive and evocative for the patient—nothing more. On the other hand, the foundational approach treats religious expression as that beyond which we seek no further understanding. Goldberg defines the functional approach as “the selfobject functions served by the matrix of religious meaning within which the patient lives” (Goldberg, 1996). She states that some therapists may be quite reluctant to take a functional approach, given their own religious beliefs, their lack of religious beliefs, or because they believe religious experiences are in a special category of meaning that is not within the realm of clinical inquiry.
Conversely, a trend is also developing in response to increased interest in spirituality and religion in the culture. That is, clinicians from various perspectives, including self psychology, are beginning to pay more attention to understanding the religious experiences of their clients. Edward Shafranske and Newton Maloney in an APA published text explore four reasons why religious issues should be included within the clinical practice of psychology.
We believe that this inclusion is justified in light of four interrelated factors: the professional ideal of cultural inclusion; the substantial
Page 193evidence of religion as a cultural fact; the developing body of theoretical, clinical, and empirical research literature concerning religion as a variable in mental health; and the appreciation of psychological treatment as a value-based form of intervention [p. 56].
James Jones, a clinical psychologist as well as a professor of religion and psycholog