A Theological Evaluation of Structural Therapy

Anthropology

The primary anthropological issue with the structural theory by my estimation is that it views the individuals’ actions as mostly prompted externally. The underpinnings of this notion can be observed even in Minuchin’s early work with Montalvo when working at the Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic. As Yarhouse and Sells describe, “He considered the family structure of these youths- particularly how the factors of poverty have effects on family organization, which in turn prompts students to act out in ways that are harmful to them and society”.[1] This carries over into the structural theory itself as well because the exterior factors such as the family structures in place prompt the behavior of the individual.

I find this biblically problematic because the call for repentance this offers at the level of the individual is only really in terms of if the structures prompt harmful behavior, then the individual should be repentant of being part of the group of individuals that over time put that poor structure into place. But the guilt for the misbehaviors, whatever they may be specifically, then falls on the family entirely (with emphasis perhaps on the marital subsystem as it holds the most decision-making power). Biblically mankind is made in the image of God with moral agency. Individuals are responsible then for their own actions, and cannot use family structures or circumstances even as a scapegoat. From a pastoral perspective also, I wouldn’t have use of this idea. Regardless of family structures that might be tyrannical or even mentally and emotionally abusive, I have to aid my people in finding their identity in Christ foremost. Beyond this also, I am to give them the admonition to live above that, in a way that makes good use of the gift of free will and human agency and glorifies the Namesake of Christ.

Hamartiology

As described prior, the structural theory places its emphasis on the external factors (the structures in place) and the way in which they might prompt individual or group behaviors one way or another. Even the more specific aspects of the theory speak to this such as family subsystems. I believe subsystems such as gender, special interests, shared experience, personality traits, and more are very real. My aunt and uncle had ten kids. So why did I have such a special comradery with my cousin Jon? Well, we’re both male, we both enjoyed action figures, our imaginative play correlated (pretending to be pirates mostly), and I could go on. It makes beautiful sense in my opinion as a way of articulating that sort of phenomenon. However, the idea that those subsystems at the end of the day form the main prompts of my behavior is not Scriptural. They could be influential sure, just as peer pressure is. But there were times I remember adventuring alongside him when he paid no mind to “Keep Out” signs where I retreated from them. The structural therapist might say it is because regardless of those subsytemic similarities, each of our more immediate family structures prompted us differently. For the theologian however, it was because there was something in me that felt convicted, and my cousin didn’t feel that like I did.

The structural therapists have it backwards. It is the internal structures that mainly prompt human behavior. For everyone related to Adam that means we have a sin nature. There is no one righteous.[2] Not a single individual is unscathed by the fall. Families obviously are made up of several fallen individuals then and therein one finds the source of the outward dysfunction. It may seem like I am overemphasizing this point or blowing it out of proportion but to me it’s the fundamental argument being made and yet its backwards. If the therapist attempts to reform the family structures in place with no attention paid to the sin issue in the hearts of the individuals they might as well be rearranging furniture on the Titanic.

Bibliology

I consider myself an integrationist, but even I don’t like the rhetoric of Yarhouse and Sells on the subject of integrating this theory (I am more in line with the thinking of Gary R. Collins). They say that structural theory “operates under a set of theoretical assumptions that can fit appropriately with a Christian worldview…most notable is the respect for an external structure of rules and a hierarchical organization through which human growth can be maximized”.[3] As much as it’s a positive that they acknowledge that Christians have an absolute standard provided in Scripture, which I gather is what they mean by an external structure of rules, the latter end of the statement describing that is really troubling. No matter how many “Your Best Life Now” books that Joel Osteen and other wolves continue to peddle, the Bible is not a self-help book. Its purpose is not for the maximization of human growth. The truths within it are transformative and guide the believer in their sanctification, no doubt, but behavior modification is not the end goal, nor is it holiness.

When we treat Scripture as a tool for mere behavior modification or self-help, we are expressing a bibliology so low that it is a blasphemy to its Author. Mans Search for Meaning, by Viktor Frankl is a great book and there is a lot of wisdom there. However, the truth it offers will still leave me dead in my sin, even if I memorize it cover to cover. Scripture on the other hand is the fully inerrant, infallible, sufficient, and authoritative, breathed out Word of God. It is nothing less than that.

Soteriology

            Once more piggy backing off my former point, this theory offers nothing in terms of salvation. Successful families according to this theory set boundaries that are healthy, meaning, flexible and not too high or low, and the model of a “healthy family” does not extend beyond this description.[4] There is nothing added in regards to eternal stature, posture as Christians, or right standing with God. There is nothing salvific to be found in this, nor will one find the instantaneous ramifications of salvation such as our justification, initial sanctification, regeneration, or adoption. It is purely a secular theory and what it offers that is helpful in practice, as far as I can tell from the case study, could just as well be gleaned from observing Scripture and living as it requires us to live. The model of ideal life it hopes to help people achieve is foreign to what Scripture expounds as the directive for believers.

            I am six months married and pretty soon I will be thinking about having a family. Scripturally, I am to bring up my children in the way of the Lord. If I am trying to lay the foundations for a biblically reared household, my idea of a successful family can’t in any real way coexist with the mindset of this theory. There is no such thing as a healthy family that is unsaved. I find it difficult to imagine commonplace in this train of thought with an individual who cares not for eternal matters, especially pertaining to his or her family. Its so far outside the realm of a way in which a believer should be thinking about their family. As much as I want my kids to get along with one another, I want them to be upright in the eyes of God. Besides, healthy and successful is really subjective. Healthy according to who? To what standard of success? Its all relative if not for the purpose of pleasing God and His preference for the way in which we should live and behave as a family.

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), 116.

[2]  Romans 3:11

[3] Yarhouse and Sells, 134.

[4]  Yarhouse and Sells, 136-137.