Spiritual formation training in the George Fox University Graduate Department of Clinical Psychology.
McMinn, Mark R. ; Borrelli, Joshua ; Lee, Jessica L. 等
Doctoral training in clinical psychology is a rewarding and arduous
task. In half a decade's time, students move from learning basic
Rogerian skills of empathy in their first year to delivering specialized
evidence-based interventions at the end of training. In the first year
most don't know how to compute a standard error of measurement. By
the end of training they routinely interpret psychological assessment
results with a sophisticated understanding of the psychometric basis of
testing. At the beginning of training a dissertation seems like a
monumental task--a huge mountain that must be climbed. By the end they
have climbed the mountain and may have engaged in other research
projects as well. During an intensive five years, students move from
being novices in the field of psychology to being experts deserving of a
doctoral degree.
But all this professional formation comes at a cost. Throughout
training students often experience fatigue, frustration, and struggle. A
demanding training environment can have implications for personal
relationships, including relationships with God (Fisk et al., 2013).
Some find their spiritual life and identity to change quite dramatically
amidst the rigor of doctoral training. The risk is that professional
acumen comes at the cost of spiritual vitality.
The Importance of Spiritual Formation
Whereas spiritual formation and particular prayer practices may be
useful to anyone in any vocational context, the rigor and demands on
emerging psychologists make it especially important for doctoral
students to consider their spiritual well-being and related issues of
formation. Spiritual formation generally encompasses both educational
endeavors as well as the more in depth process of spiritual direction.
This combination of education and experiential practices is intended to
deepen faith and spiritual growth (May, 1982). Focusing on the spiritual
health of the developing psychologist is not only an important aspect of
training, but it may also allow for increased self-awareness that helps
eliminate bias toward others and therefore enables the practice of
psychology in an ethical manner (American Psychological Association,
2010).
Spiritual Formation in an Evangelical Quaker Context
George Fox University is affiliated with the Northwest Yearly
Meeting, a group of Christians who meet and worship in the tradition of
Friends (Quakers). That said, the school attracts faculty and students
from a variety of Christian denominations and traditions, and the
Graduate Department of Clinical Psychology (GDCP) attempts to train
students to understand a broad range of religious and spiritual
perspectives (McMinn et al., in press). Still, the evangelical Quaker
influence remains a prevalent part of the campus community as well as
the semi-rural town of Newberg where the GDCP resides.
Quaker spirituality is deeply experiential, with an emphasis on
finding Christ in the present moment and in present circumstances.
Quakers have long avoided distinctions between sacred and secular,
instead emphasizing God's presence everywhere, in every moment, and
in every person (Bill, 2005). One of the great human challenges then is
to be attuned to the presence of God amidst whatever circumstances one
may experience. The fundamental tasks of spiritual formation are to pay
attention, to see God in unlikely places, and to grow in relationship
with God as we observe God's presence and work in our midst.
Richard Foster, also an evangelical Quaker, began his classic book,
Celebration of Discipline, these words: "Superficiality is the
curse of our age... The desperate need today is not for a greater number
of intelligent people, or gifted people, but for deep people"
(Foster, 1988, p. 1). Because we have a strong applicant pool and
selective admission into the GDCP, we find this to be a community of
intelligent and gifted people. Nevertheless, can we also be a community
of deep people, attuned to one another and to the ways of God? We have
attempted to do so through the curricular and extra-curricular methods
described in the first part of this article. However, as will be seen
later in the article, we have not been entirely successful in our
spiritual formation efforts. Spiritual formation training in the GDCP is
very much a work in progress.
Faculty Plan for Spiritual Formation
The GDCP existed at a seminary prior to transitioning to George Fox
University in 1990. The training model at the seminary assumed that
students would be trained in graduate level knowledge in both theology
and psychology. Over time this expectation seemed increasingly
unrealistic and undesirable, especially as students expressed both
exhaustion with the rigor of training and more interest in learning
psychology than theology. in 2008, the GDCP implemented an extensive
revision of the integration curriculum that had two primary goals.
First, we attempted to increase integrative dialogue between religious
scholars and psychologists in the classroom by having most of the
integration classes team-taught. In order to do this, we lowered the
expectation of graduate level knowledge in biblical, historical, and
systematic theology. Rather than content-oriented lecture courses, we
opted for dialogical instruction that modeled and encouraged
interdisciplinary engagement over mastery of content. Second, we
enhanced the spiritual formation component of our integration training.
Prior to the 2008 curriculum revision, students took only one
course in spiritual formation--a two-hour introduction during the first
semester of their first year. As a result of the revision, students now
take three courses. In their first year they still take a two-hour
introduction to spiritual formation and spiritual disciplines. This is
primarily focused on the intrapersonal nature of spiritual formation.
The course is designed to offer a variety of exposures to spiritual
practices so that students can find what best fits them in their
spiritual journey. The course encompasses a one-day retreat, which
focuses on prayer practices with an ecumenical breadth in hopes that
students might find resonance with one or two that they could then own.
These prayer practices are offered generally in a participatory fashion
as well as paired with a visit to a Trappist monastery, where a monk
speaks about the contemplative tradition. This praxis part of the course
is designed to provide additional tools to cope with the stress of
graduate training and promote spiritual health.
The course is also intended to be hospitable to students coming
from various Christian traditions and backgrounds and therefore draws on
ecumenical resources. The syllabus includes readings dating as far back
as the early desert tradition of the Christian faith paired with
contemporary treatments of desert prayer by Thomas Merton (1970) and
Henri Nouwen (1981). Given the Quaker heritage and cultural context of
the university, there are readings and various discussions from Richard
Foster's (1988) Celebration of Discipline. Students write a short
spiritual autobiography, in which they examine their spiritual journey
as it intertwines with life and their desire to become a psychologist.
Students also write an exploratory essay in which they first identify
and then examine a particular historical figure, prayer practice, or
topic related to psychology and spirituality. From these papers,
students generate 15-minute individual presentations to the class. The
class is divided up into small groups and each week there is a topic to
discuss within this same small group. The aim is to develop a sense of
community in the midst of the larger GDCP. The movement of the course is
to go from solitude to prayer to community, thus focusing on one's
spiritual health before being able to reach out to others.
In their second year they take a course structured as series of two
one-day community retreats. The focus of the second year experience is
the interpersonal and community dimensions of spiritual formation.
During their third year of training students participate in a service
project and meet to discuss spiritual formation as reaching out to a
hurting world.
In addition to these curricular strategies for promoting spiritual
formation, faculty attempt to make the GDCP a community where faith is
supported and encouraged. We meet together for community worship on a
monthly basis, professors often begin class with devotional thoughts or
prayer, and both clinical- and research-mentoring teams provide
opportunities for transformative relationships to develop.
After five years of implementing the revised integration
curriculum, including the enhanced spiritual formation training plan,
the faculty recognized that more changes are needed. In 2013, a team of
students led by one faculty member conducted a consultation project to
evaluate the effectiveness of spiritual formation training in the GDCP.
The team's findings give some reason for hope while also suggesting
that the current plan falls short of its intent.
Student and Alumni Perspectives on Spiritual Formation Training
Each year students in the third-year consultation course complete
an applied project to assist a local organization. On occasion the
organization they choose is the GDCP, making it an internal
consultation. One of the 2013 consultation projects involved evaluating
student and alumni perspectives on spiritual formation training in the
GDCP and then providing feedback to the faculty. The primary data
collection involved an electronically administered questionnaire
consisting of both qualitative comments and quantitative rating items,
completed by 38 alumni and 50 current students.
In the consultation course students learn to distinguish
traditional research design and methods, which they learn in other
courses, from focused program evaluation. With program evaluation the
primary emphasis is to understand an organization and provide targeted
feedback and recommendations based on a particular question that has
been defined by the organization. The question identified for the 2013
consultation was, "How is the current curriculum accomplishing the
overarching goal of facilitating students' spiritual
formation?" Rather than presenting findings as would be typical in
methods and results sections of a research-oriented journal article, our
focus here is to highlight the main themes emerging from the particular
consultation question.
Students and Alumni Value Spiritual Formation
Alumni and students at every level of training affirmed that
spiritual formation is important to them personally, and that they are
eager for spiritual formation to be part of their professional
development. Presumably, this desire for spiritual formation is one of
the factors drawing students to an explicitly-Christian doctoral program
in psychology. On one hand, this suggests a good match between students
and faculty goals. Students come to the GDCP with high expectations for
how they will be formed spiritually, and it is a high priority for
faculty to provide formation opportunities for students. On the other
hand, high expectations can easily cause frustration and disappointment
when they are not met.
Modest U-Shaped Satisfaction Ratings
The overall satisfaction ratings with spiritual formation in the
current curriculum were modest, hovering around the midpoint of the
rating scale provided. This suggests that high student expectations and
faculty goals are not being fully translated into the formation
opportunities that everyone seems to be hoping for.
It is noteworthy that satisfaction ratings tend to have a U-shaped
distribution with first-year students, fourth-year students, interns,
and alumni reporting greater satisfaction with their spiritual formation
training than students in the second and third years of training. Still,
satisfaction ratings across the board are lower than we would like to
see. In previous program evaluations of research training (Hill &
McMinn, 2004) and clinical training (McMinn & Hill, 2011) in
explicitly-Christian doctoral programs, students have tended to rate
their training experiences lower than faculty and alumni. Ratings of
spiritual formation training at George Fox University seem to fall into
a similar pattern. It seems that the stress of graduate school,
especially as students slog through the middle phases of training, lends
itself to feelings of frustration and disappointment. Nonetheless, it is
important to consider students' perspectives in training, even if
those perspectives are tainted to some extent by the stress of graduate
school. Later we describe some new strategies we are now implementing
that should help address some of the concerns raised by students in this
program evaluation.
Blurred Distinction between Integration and Spiritual Formation
With the 2008 curriculum revision the faculty attempted to
distinguish between spiritual formation courses and integration classes.
Spiritual formation courses were to emphasize personal growth, cohort
cohesion, and service to the underserved, all of which would fit within
Bouma-Prediger's (1990) categories of faith-praxis and experiential
integration. Integration classes were to focus more on interdisciplinary
and intradisciplinary integration (Bouma-Prediger, 1990), helping
students think through the connections between psychology and theology
and apply them in clinical settings.
Though this distinction between spiritual formation training and
other integration training seems compelling to the faculty as well as
the team of students conducting the 2013 program evaluation, student and
alumni comments on the questionnaire make it evident that the
distinction is less clear to them. They tended to respond to questions
about spiritual formation training by referring to all aspects of
training that involve integrating faith and psychology. The distinction
between spiritual formation and other integration classes is important
to communicate given that spiritual formation training and integration
classes have significantly different goals, even if not mutually
exclusive. Finding that students tend to conflate the two has caused us
to consider the importance of both a clear spiritual formation mission
statement and effective ways of communicating that mission.
Religious Involvement across Cohorts
The consultation project did not involve collecting longitudinal
data, so care should be taken in interpreting the data obtained. It is
striking, though, to see that whereas 96% of respondents reported
regularly attending church prior to training, 81% of students and 69% of
interns and graduates reported currently attending church. These data,
taken together with the multisite data reported elsewhere in this
special issue (Fisk et al., 2013), suggest the need for more detailed
research on the nature of what appears to be declining religious
involvement throughout graduate training at explicitly-Christian
training programs. Fisk et al. (2013) pose various explanations for
this, including the possibilities that students' faith is eroded by
the ideological tensions between psychology and Christianity, that
students rearrange their faith such that formal religious involvement
becomes less important to them, that students gain more confidence in
their own abilities and as a result end up relying less on God, or that
students are simply depleted by the overwhelming demands of graduate
school and end up attending church less as a result. Clearly, more
research is needed to better understand what happens to religious
involvement during graduate training in explicitly-Christian doctoral
programs in clinical psychology.
Flexible Pathways for Formation
Among the various qualitative comments offered on the
questionnaire, students expressed appreciation for portions of the
curriculum that were tailored to their personal lives and provided
flexibility to engage in spiritual formation on their own terms. They
noted that spiritual formation is intensely personal, and they
appreciated when assignments allowed enough flexibility to maximize the
experience. Assignments that provided room for personalization,
experiential practice, and space for open discussion and growth were
highly valued. Some students expressed a desire to take the individual
aspects of spiritual formation further, suggesting that providing
one-on-one spiritual guidance, possibly through spiritual directors,
would be valuable to the curriculum.
Whose Responsibility is Spiritual Formation?
Other students expressed concern that spiritual formation sometimes
felt forced, citing credit costs, time demands, and workloads as
interferences to participating in the process of spiritual formation.
Students wrestled with the notion that spiritual formation was being
prescribed through coursework rather than being sought out by
individuals within their own religious tradition. Some students stated
that coursework assignments often felt like busywork to be completed for
a grade rather than work that was spiritually forming. Others questioned
whether spiritual formation should be the responsibility of the program
at all.
Students with this perspective raise some interesting questions for
ongoing conversation. The academic classroom has historically been an
efficient way to educate groups of people and provide this with
professional skills and expertise, but perhaps some types of formation
do not lend themselves well to classroom learning, academic credit,
tuition, and so on. This is reminiscent of the perhaps prophetic words
of Nouwen (1972) several decades ago:
But here we must be aware of the
great temptation that will face the
Christian minister of the future.
Everywhere Christian leaders, men
and women alike, have become
increasingly aware of the need for
more specific training and formation.
This need is realistic, and the desire
for more professionalism in the ministry
is understandable. But the danger
is that instead of becoming free
to let the spirit grow, the future minister
may entangle himself [sic] the
complications of his own assumed
competence and use his specialism
as an excuse to avoid the much more
difficult task of being compassionate.
The task of the Christian leader is to
bring out the best in man [sic] to lead
him forward to a more human community;
the danger is that his skillful
diagnostic eye will become more an
eye for distant and detailed analysis
than the eye of a compassionate partner.
(p. 42)
The role of the academy in spiritual formation seems an important
topic to discuss and consider in the GDCP community in the months and
years ahead. Whatever comes of these conversations, it seems important
to still find ways to encourage and foster spiritual formation in
Christian graduate programs, even if the means of accomplishing this
formation is less dependent on curriculum than it currently is.
Future Directions
The frankness of this article may be disarming to some readers. We
began by describing the faculty's noble intentions for how we do
spiritual formation training in the George Fox University GDCP, which
was to be expected. But then we reported the candid and
not-too-flattering impressions of students and alumni who recently
participated in a program evaluation. Though the program evaluation
results are not dismal, they are disappointing. We include the program
evaluation results in this article for several reasons. First, the topic
of this special issue is spiritual formation training in
explicitly-Christian doctoral programs in psychology. This, it appears,
is a difficult task. The difficulty of this work ought to be considered
and discussed, both within doctoral programs and in forums where faculty
and students from various programs gather together. Perhaps this article
will foster helpful conversation. Second, we train psychologists to
believe in systematic appraisal and to boldly speak of the results they
find, however unsettling they may be. Having recently completed this
program evaluation, it would be disingenuous to mask it when writing
this article describing spiritual formation training at George Fox.
Third, Quaker spirituality calls for simplicity, and part of simplicity
is speaking the truth clearly (Matthew 5:37), so we desire to be
forthright about our process and outcomes in this article. Finally, we
see the potential outcome of honest appraisal to be growth. In their
text on program evaluation, Posavac and Carey (2003) suggest that,
"there is only one overall purpose for program evaluation
activities: contributing to the provision of quality services to people
in need" (p. 13). Accordingly, we are seeking ways to grow amidst
the concerns students expressed in the 2013 program evaluation.
Currently, we are making changes related to the concerns raised by
students and alumni in the program evaluation. First, beginning in the
2013-14 academic year we are requiring a year of individual spiritual
direction for all doctoral students, and encouraging a second year of
direction. By spiritual direction, we mean a monthly meeting with a
qualified spiritual director who has both academic preparation and the
personal insight and wisdom necessary to help doctoral students from a
variety of theological and religious backgrounds to explore the faith
dimensions of their personal development. The spiritual directors
students will be working with have been vetted through a knowledgeable
seminary professor who educates spiritual directors and is herself a
credentialed spiritual director. Though we will retain the academic
infrastructure for parts of the experience (i.e., required course with
tuition charge, passing the course contingent on attending meetings with
the spiritual director), the content of the students' meetings with
the spiritual directors will be completely private. Our hope is that
meeting with a qualified spiritual director under these circumstances
will serve several purposes: help students clarify their expectations,
set personally meaningful goals, process their training experience, and
promote growth and well-being. It goes without saying that spiritual
direction will be collaborative and inclusive, allowing students to
develop their spiritual lives in ways that fit their religious
traditions.
Second, we are striving for ways to better distinguish the
experiential process of spiritual formation from the more cognitive
processes of interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary integration
(Bouma-Prediger, 1990). To this end we have assembled a team of students
and faculty to articulate and communicate a mission for our monthly
community worship meetings. Faculty readily discuss research results
regarding spiritual formation among graduate students (e.g., Fisk et
al., 2013) and encourage students early in training to carefully
consider their own spiritual trajectory. We now have an integration
orientation meeting for new students where we distinguish between
experiential and cognitive forms of integration and discuss the
importance of both. All of our spiritual formation courses are being
reconsidered and adjusted accordingly.
Third, the 2013 evaluation has increased our awareness of how
important it is to help students maintain their spiritual well-being.
Whereas most of our students begin training with a desire to keep an
active spiritual life, the rigors and strains of doctoral training in
clinical psychology and the periodic sense of exhaustion associated with
it can lead to depleted motivation for spiritual development. Rather
than taking the commitment to spiritual formation as a given, it will be
important to be more intentional about communicating the intent and
rationale of spiritual formation frequently and to connect it with
students' everyday learning experiences.
Fourth, spiritual formation, though intensely personal, also takes
place in the context of a community. A trait that the GDCP seems to
foster well, perhaps because of its Quaker heritage, is an open and
listening community. With an eye toward personalization, the GDCP needs
to continue fostering an atmosphere of respect for diverse voices. At
times this may feel too open for some students, especially those coming
from relatively conservative Christian traditions, so we need to
continue our efforts to balance an emphasis on personal spiritual
development with a community ethos of acceptance and kindness toward one
another, and a recognition that there may be multiple pathways of
spiritual growth (Foster, 1998).
Finally, we are reminded of the importance of taking into account
the diverse spiritual roots of our students. Making room for a variety
of perspectives can be accomplished by featuring potential role models
from various Christian traditions as guest speakers, asking them to
expound on how they integrate their professional and spiritual
identities. Another facet of rootedness is the connection to a local
church. We are increasingly aware of how being connected to a church or
spiritual community helps students remain spiritually active. Being more
intentional about assisting incoming students manage this aspect of the
transition to life in the Newberg area may be helpful in their long-term
spiritual development. In all these ways, and more to come, we hope to
sharpen the focus of our training as well as our students'
expectations.
A clergyperson once asked Mother Teresa over tea, "What is
your greatest problem?" To his shock, she answered that her
greatest problem was professionalism. She went on to explain:
I have five sisters getting their MD degrees and far greater
numbers getting RN, LPN and MSW degrees. But a funny thing happens. They
come back from their education and they are concerned about titles,
offices, and parking privileges. So i take all that away from them and i
send them to the hospice of the dying. There they hold people's
hands, pray with them, and feed them. After six months of that, they
typically get things straight again and remember their vocation to be a
spiritual presence first, and a professional presence second. (Bausch,
2001, p. 254)
Perhaps the dichotomy between professionalism and spirituality is
stated more strongly than necessary, but the point Mother Teresa made is
worth considering. At times professional education may hinder spiritual
formation more than we imagine. This complicates how we construe
education in our explicitly-Christian doctoral programs, and it calls us
to pray often for our students and ourselves so that we may keep first
things first.
References
American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical Principles of
Psychologists and Code of Conduct. from
http://apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
Bausch, W. J. (2001). Brave new church: From turmoil to trust.
Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications.
Bill, B. J. (2005). Holy silence: The gift of Quaker spirituality.
Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press.
Bouma-Prediger, S. (1990). The task of integration: A modest
proposal. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 18, 21-31.
Fisk, L. K., Flores, M. H., McMinn, M. R., Aten, J. D., Hill. P.
C., Tisdale, T. C. , Maclin, V., Reimer, K. S., Seegobin, W., &
Gathercoal, K. (2013). Spiritual formation among doctoral students in
explicitly Christian programs. Journal of Psychology and Christianity,
32, 280-292.
Foster, R. J. (1988). Celebration of discipline: The path to
spiritual growth (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins.
Foster, R. (1998). Streams of living water: Celebrating the great
traditions of the Christian faith. San Francisco, CA:
HarperSanFrancisco.
Hill, P. C., & McMinn, M. R. (2004). Research training in
explicitly Christian doctoral programs. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity, 23, 293-297.
May, G. M. (1982). May's Care of Mind, Care of Spirit. New
York, NY: Harper
McMinn, M. R., Bufford, R. K., Vogel, M. J., Gerdin, T., Goetsch,
B., Block, M. M., Mitchell, J. K., Peterson, M. A., Seegobin, W.,
Taloyo, C., & Wiarda, N. R. (in press). Religious and spiritual
diversity training in professional psychology. Training and Education in
Professional Psychology.
McMinn, M. R., & Hill, P. C. (2011). Clinical training in
explicitly Christian doctoral programs: introduction to the special
issue. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 30, 99-100.
Merton, T. (1970). The wisdom of the desert. New York, NY: New
Directions
Nouwen, H. J. M. (1972). The wounded healer. New York, NY:
Doubleday.
Nouwen, H. J. M. (1981). The way of the heart: Desert spirituality
and contemporary ministry. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Posavac, E. J., & Carey, R. G. (2003). Program evaluation:
Methods and case studies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mark R. McMinn
Joshua Borrelli
Jessica L. Lee
Marie-Christine Goodworth
Brian Goetsch
Jens Uhder
George Fox University
Correspondence concerning this article can be sent to Mark R.
McMinn, 414 N. Meridian St., #V104, Newberg, OR 97132;
mmcminn@georgefox.edu
Mark R. McMinn (PhD in Clinical Psychology, Vanderbilt University)
is Professor of Psychology at George Fox University (OR). His research
interests include psychology-church collaboration, technology and
practice, and a positive psychology of food.
Marie-Christine Goodworth (PhD in Counseling Psychology, Arizona
State University) is Assistant Professor of Psychology at George Fox
University (OR). Her research interests include health psychology,
promoting health behaviors and patient activation in persons with
chronic illness and their caregivers, and mentoring.
Joshua Borrelli (MA in Clinical Psychology, George Fox University)
is a fourth year doctoral student in Clinical Psychology at George Fox.
His research interests include predictors of marital satisfaction and
potential effects of technological devices upon social and romantic
interactions.
Brian Goetsch (MA in Clinical Psychology, George Fox University) is
a fourth year doctoral student in Clinical Psychology at George Fox. His
research interests include spiritual dimensions of hope, clinical
applications of spiritual practices, and multicultural perspectives on
psychotherapy.
Jessica Lee (MA in Clinical Psychology, George Fox University) is a
fourth year doctoral student in Clinical Psychology at George Fox. Her
research interests include hope and resilience, cross-cultural work with
at-risk children and adolescents, and program development.
Jens Uhder (Dipl. psych. Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universitaet,
Frankfurt (Germany), MS in Clinical Psychology, Eastern Washington
University) is a doctoral student in Clinical Psychology at George Fox
University. His research interests include applied psychology in
ministry settings, spiritual transformation, and positive psychology.