A Theological Evaluation of Strategic Therapy

Anthropology

Yarhouse and Sells explain that one ought to consider the theological application of strategic theory both in terms of the theory itself with its philosophical assumptions, as well as the technique and interventions it offers.[1] My issue is not with the latter. Although it seems ridiculous at times, as case studies describe, I believe its effectiveness is probable. What troubles me more so is the underlying philosophy it stems from. The anthropological and hamartiological implications have soteriological ramifications that need explored. Questions of moral agency and responsibility, as well as human autonomy go unanswered. Applying the same reasoning of mechanical systems to the human family system is a leap assumed and moved on with. With cybernetic theory assumed in a human context, human beings are understood, not as separate, but as responsive within an ongoing group, specifically the family.[2] This undergirds all that follows, with Bateson and Jacksons double-bind communication example, and on, until symptoms are viewed as problems between people rather than within them.[3]

As a believer, when I read this, the anthropological and hamartiological problems appear to me as inseparable. If my issues (sins) are not solely mine, but are more so due to miscommunication within my family unit, it is not me inwardly who needs reorganized but my family outwardly.[4] This is antithetical to the picture Scripture paints of humanity as beings of moral agency, which comes from having been made in the image of God, and therefore responsible for their own sinful state. Just as much as we are victims of the fallen world we inherit (or flawed family system), we ourselves are the perpetrators who create it and are responsible for it. The world and the family system etiology (which this theory shifts the framed paradigm of psychopathological thought towards[5]) is made up of individuals, and each are fallen because the individuals that it consists of are fallen.

Hamartiology

Beyond this, some of the polarized paired constructs of strategic conceptualization that Cloe Madanes expounds bring light to just how flawed the philosophical presumptions of this theory are, as well as how accurate Jay Haley’s description of the theory as “strategic humanism” really is.[6] Madanes concepts of involuntary vs. voluntary behavior, helplessness vs. power, metaphorical vs. literal sequences, hierarchy vs. equality, and hostility vs. love, are not conceptualizations of human behavior congruent with a Christian worldview. Even with the latter, in which actions within families are motivated or interpreted to be either anger based, or love based[7], this kind of thinking has no place in Christian thought. The example of parenting in which actions of punishment are hostility/anger based, and actions of instruction are love based, is a foreign concept to the Biblically literate believer. It is deeply problematic to ignore the reality of sin and instead replace it with concepts that are only reactive notions rooted in one’s feelings about the actions and motivating feelings of others around them. What is being offered is a never-ending cycle where no one is held responsible, personally killing their sin, or progressing in their sanctification.

Scripture instead provides a way of personal repentance, rather than familial reorganization. Punishment, instruction, wrath, and love, are not juxtaposed by the Almighty. Rather, punishment and instruction are tethered forms of His discipline. He disciplines those He loves, pours out His wrath for the good of His people and the glorification of His Namesake, and none of these concepts are contrary to His loving nature. The philosophical framework offered in strategic therapy is only palatable to a humanist mindset and has no basis in Scripture.

Bibliology

According to Yarhouse and Sells, “the strategic therapist is seen as central in helping the family alter the symptoms/problems that bring them to therapy.[8] This isn’t a statement to be taken lightly by any means. The issue is one of authority. The therapist is, in practice at least, omniscient and infallible. They are the primary healer and their wisdom is what is elevated as ultimately authoritative. As Christians however, our morality and truth are absolute because we believe in a Sovereign and Just moral law giver, and source of truth. To bring back into scope the hamartiological issue, who is to say anyone is actually missing the mark if the mark is ultimately relative? This is why it is so problematic for anyone to adopt a humanistic philosophy rooted in relativism for the sake of therapy when what they need is to be aligned to an absolute moral standard. It is the equivalent of selling one’s car for gas money. A standard that changes isn’t a standard.

The Word of God is the only authority that is unchanging as well as absolute because it’s authority correlates to its authorship. We know that it is inerrant and infallible because the Author is. We know that it has proved to be unchanging because of the Authors attribute of immutability. It is sufficient because the Author is. It is therefore folly to rely on an authority for true change apart from God because apart from God there is no truth. Finally, Scripture clarifies the Holy Spirit as the primary Counselor and “doer” in terms of sanctification. It isn’t a self-help doctrine, rather, it is a work of the Holy Spirit. He is the primary Counselor, which means that our job is only to aid in the individual’s submission to that Work of His as it is expressed accordingly in Holy Scripture.  

Soteriology

It is true that families are interconnected systems, and that each members behavior influences others, and that this perpetuates unhealthy patterns that are prone to multiply over time. However, Christian thought reaches deeper than this, understanding the “dysfunction” affecting individuals and the broader community around them (in this case their family), to be the brokenness of sin.  Instead of this, what is posited by Haley and Erickson is an amoral perspective on individual behavior (indicated by their use of the word “dysfunction” rather than “pathology”).[9] The emphasis is on the functionality of the system, and says nothing of sin or the need of a Savior. Nothing of eternal value is offered in this theory.

When I think Scripturally about a family that was transformed together, I think of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16. In a single night he went from imprisoning Paul and Silas to feeding them, cleaning their wounds, and his entire family being baptized. What created the ripple effect transforming he and his family was the saving work of Christ. For the unbeliever, that is the only hope. External transformation has no effect on internal transformation (eternally speaking), but internal transformation does offer a ripple effect externally. Mere outward reorganization of the family still leaves that family dead in sin, regardless of how well they get along at the dinner table. There must be inward regeneration or else all that is external is vain.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Yarhouse, Mark A., and Sells, James N. Family Therapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017.

[1]  Mark A. Yarhouse and James N. Sells, Family Therapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 103.

[2]  Yarhouse and Sells, 89.

[3]  Yarhouse and Sells, 93.

[4]  Yarhouse and Sells, 91.

[5]  Yarhouse and Sells, 90-91.

[6]  Yarhouse and Sells, 91.

[7]  Yarhouse and Sells, 94.

[8]  Yarhouse and Sells, 98.

[9]  Yarhouse and Sells, 104.