Making the Church a Safe Place For Victims of Trauma


Free resource available here (filmed October 2013). (Overlook that maniacal looking pose from the image below)

2 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Training

Online Trauma-related (Cheap!) Continuing Education at BTS


[Note: the video-based training described below is available to anyone for free. The information below is for those interested in purchasing continuing education credits after watching the video. If any of the titles interest you, click the link below and start watching right away!

BTS is an NBCC approved continuing education provider. Just in time for those looking for last-minute CEs before renewing their LCSW or LPC this month, please check out our new online offerings. We offer three new trainings:

  1. Narcissism and the System it Breeds, By Diane Langberg, PhD
  2. Understanding and Responding to Dissociation, By Diane Langberg, PhD
  3. Making the Church a Safe Place for Trauma Victims, By Philip Monroe, PsyD

The videos are free for anyone to watch. If you desire CE certificate, the cost is quite nominal in comparison to the usual going rate. Check out the abstract and objectives and follow the links to pay for your CE quiz. Watch the videos, complete the quiz, and we will email you a certificate you can use to claim on your license renewal form.

7 Comments

Filed under Biblical Seminary, continuing education, counseling, Counselors, trauma

Free Counseling Journal For Counselors


For my counselor readers, I want to let you know of a free counselor journal. Click here for free access with search capacity. It is published by NBCC and is open access to anyone who wants to try to stay current on counseling literature.

Leave a comment

Filed under continuing education, counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, Counselors

From Protest to Process: Law Enforcement, Race, Trauma, and the Church


In the wake of Ferguson, NYC and many other struggles regarding race and law enforcement, BTS is hosting a free seminar on February 23, 2015 at Temple University to hear community leaders, law enforcement, and mental health discuss some of the struggles and look for ways the church can be a healing force. The hidden matter of urban forms of trauma and impact on the conflict will be the highlight of the night.

Here’s why you should sign up now!

  1. It is Free!
  2. Great speakers: Former Commissioner of Philadelphia Police, Sylvester Johnson, Mike Majors, community leader, Rev. Desiree Guyton, LPC, Dr. Shannon Mason, and Dr. Dan Williams. There may be even more!
  3. Opportunity to ask questions
  4. Though free, space IS limited.

Sometimes we complain and feel the conversation isn’t going in the right direction to solve these complex problems.  I encourage you to be a part of the solution.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Seminary

PTSD “A Disease of Time”


David Davies, part of the staff of “Fresh Air” on NPR, has conducted an 35 minute interview with David Morris, a journalist who was embedded in a unit in Iraq and who suffers from PTSD resulting from an explosion he survived. David has written a book, The Evil Hours: A Biography Of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. If you want to better understand the experience of PTSD and its impact on a person, you should listen to this show (or read the transcript). For therapists, Morris discusses his experiences with Prolonged Exposure (PE) and Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT). He also describes the use of propranolol when repeating trauma stories.

Here’s a couple of my take-aways:

  • PTSD is a disease of time.

“…in some ways, PTSD is a disease of time. And a lot of people – PTSD is many things, but one of the things it is a failure to live fully in the present. And I think what happens a lot of times with traumatic – survivors of trauma is they have these compulsive returns to awful events, and they are unable to live in the now.”

  • The best treatment never removes all symptoms of PTSD

“The best we can do is work to contain the pain. Draw a line around it. Name it. Domesticate it, and try to transform what lays on the other side of that line into a kind of knowledge, a knowledge of the mechanics of loss that might be put to use for future generations.”

  • Honest reflections of the impact of PE and CPT (and why so many dropout from PE treatment)
  • Honest admission about the most common “treatment” of PTSD–alcohol (and evidence why so many end up abusing it!)
  • War traumatizes far too many but rape is 5x more traumatizing

[in discussing how helplessness/lack of control is a significant factor in the development of PTSD] “Yeah, the helplessness is one of the main predictors of who’s going to end up with PTSD and who doesn’t. And the idea that you have absolutely no control over your environment is very hard for people to deal with because, you know, you are basically completely helpless and unable to control your destiny and your survival….and that’s one thing I discovered in the book is I thought – you know, we sort of assume that PTSD is sort of the realm of soldiers and veterans, when in fact, the most common and most toxic form of trauma is rape.

…a soldier may have some control over his or her environment. They have a weapon with them; they can move; they can take cover. But oftentimes in the cases of rape, the victim is completely overwhelmed and trapped and cornered. And from the moment the attack begins, they are rendered almost completely helpless, which is interesting. And you see that in the diagnosable rates of who gets PTSD and who doesn’t. Rape survivors tend to have it almost 50 percent of the time, whereas your average war veteran – particularly for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans – the rate of PTSD diagnosis is more around 10 to 12 percent. So a rape victim – rape is, in a manner of speaking, five times more traumatic than combat.”

 

1 Comment

Filed under counseling, counseling science, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Psychiatric Medications, Psychology, stories

How labels we use reveal self-deception


 

Someone sent me one of Ken Pope’s summaries of a recent essay about the differences in research findings when asking men if they have ever used force and held someone down during sex versus asking them if they had ever raped another person. You can read the original research he was discussing here, which is by some researchers at the University of North Dakota.

No, I’m not a rapist, but I have used force to make someone to have sex.

Let that previous line sink in a bit.  We’ll discuss it in a minute. But first, you might not want to read the article so let me tell you what the authors were interested in knowing. They wanted to know if there were differences between men who are hostile towards women and accept the label of rape and those who have used force but deny the label.

This allows us to test whether there are differences in men who do not identify with the “rape” label on sexual aggression surveys, although they have committed acts that would be defined as rape. Men who admit intentions to force women to have sexual intercourse only, but do not believe that this act constitutes rape, might not be primarily motivated by a desire to retaliate and overpower women. Their behavior could be guided by other factors in line with stereotypically masculine gender roles such as having a high desire for sexual activity, viewing sexuality as a competition and a way to gain respect among peers, and lacking consideration for women or viewing them as sexual objects. Therefore, we hypothesize that men do not endorse any intentions for sexual aggression will differ from the other two groups of men primarily on a dimension characterized by hostility toward women as the strongest loading factor. (emphasis mine)

What did they find?

As hypothesized, a sizable number of participants indicated that they might use force to obtain intercourse, but would not rape a woman. Men who indicate intentions to use force but deny intentions to rape exhibit a unique disposition featuring an inverse construct of hostility toward women but high levels of callous sexual attitudes (Check 1985). Given that hostility toward women involves resentment, bitterness, rejection sensitivity, and paranoia about women’s motives, we consider the inverse of hostility toward women in men that intend to use force to be indicative of an affable, trusting, and nonreactive affect toward women. When combined with callous sexual attitudes, we interpret this function as representing personality characteristics that might lend themselves to allowing men to not perceive his actions as rape and may even view the forced intercourse as an achievement. The primary motivation in this case could be sexual gratification, accomplishment, and/or perceived compliance with stereotypical masculine gender norms. The use of force in these cases might be seen as an acceptable mean to reach one’s goal, or the woman’s “no” is perceived as a token resistance consistent with stereotypical gender norms. While the ultimate outcome of either act constitutes rape, this pattern of results suggests that there might be different types of offenders with potential differences in underlying motivation, cognition, and/or personality traits.

So, not every rapist does so for the same motives (and therefore our interventions will need to be different). Some knowingly rape and are not self-deceived about their actions. Others who are willing to acknowledge “forceful intercourse” group reveal deceptions  (probably both in view of self and other) that enable rape to be considered something less than it really is.

Labels and what they may reveal

What labels do you use and what do they reveal about yourself and your proclivity to self-deceive? Here are some examples

  • I exercise (once in a great while)
  • I stand up for myself (I attack anyone who disagrees with me)
  • I used to struggle with porn (well, I look about once a month but I don’t think I will do it again)
  • I eat healthy (I’m obsessed with food labels)
  • I am good at doing my taxes (I underreport income)
  • I’m a Christian (I go to church but never really talk to God)
  • Let’s just call it sin rather than abuse (because I won’t accept my actions are abusive)
  • I need (I want/demand)

Leave a comment

Filed under Abuse, counseling science, deception, Psychology, Rape

DPW approved training for child abuse prevention at BTS


New child abuse reporting rules are now in effect in Pennsylvania. These rules not only make changes for licensed therapists and for those seeking licensure, but also clarify mandated reporting for volunteers who work with children. These changes directly impact both paid church staff and all volunteers such as Sunday School teachers, youth group leaders, and the like.

BTS will be offering a DPW approved training on child abuse reporting and prevention at our Hatfield campus on June 15, 2015, from 6pm to 9pm. To register, click the link above.

Sign up now for this incredibly cheap and important training. June may feel like a long way off but we know our space is limited and will fill up quickly. Only $5 for alumni and $10 for the general public.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abuse

Knowledge vs. information: When trauma stories change you


Last night in our Advanced Global Trauma Recovery Institute (GTRI) course web conference, we were discussing the weight of listening to trauma stories. This conversation spawned from our delving rather deeply into the systemic torture, trauma, and loss of identity occurring in post-WWII eastern Europe (specifically in Romania). We considered the question

What should we do when we are overwhelmed with the weight of trauma stories around the world? Especially, what are we to do when we can do little to nothing about the new stories we hear every day? How do we respond to temptations to despair?

Knowing or just information?

During the web conference, Diane Langberg pointed out the common phenomenon that sometimes we hear of atrocities but do not really know about them. We hear information on the news about various tragedies (e.g., ISIS, Boko Haram, shootings, suicides, etc.) and sometimes fail to process it. One of our students reminded us of a bit of dialogue in Hotel Rwanda between the hotel manager and an American journalist,

Paul Rusesabagina: I am glad that you have shot this footage and that the world will see it. It is the only way we have a chance that people might intervene.

Jack: Yeah and if no one intervenes, is it still a good thing to show?

Paul Rusesabagina: How can they not intervene when they witness such atrocities?

Jack: I think if people see this footage they’ll say, “oh my God that’s horrible,” and then go on eating their dinners.

Not far from the truth, right? However, when someone takes the time to really listen to trauma stories, something changes in that person; they are no longer able to go about their life as the did in the past. When we choose to sit with stories of pain, we gain knowledge that changes our view of the world. For example, when we take new individuals to Rwanda, we often hear, “I remember hearing about the genocide….but I didn’t know. I knew but I didn’t know what I know now.” The same thing happens when individuals are willing to learn about racism, domestic violence, gender based sexual violence and the like.

When you see something in detail, you can’t unsee it. You will be changed.

I know…now what?

Once you know, really know, the depth of suffering of a community, you are changed. That knowing often creates deep pain, especially when we can do nearly nothing about it. So, now what? What can we do? Here are a few things that may be overlooked as insignificant

  1. Listen. Wait, didn’t we already do that? What good is hearing more about the story if I can’t do anything about it? No, listening is part of the solution. Individuals and communities who are enabled to tell their trauma story benefit from repeated truth-telling. They benefit from “being seen and heard.” It matters that those from outside cared enough to come and hear of the pain. Do not underestimate how such listening may empower a trauma survivor to move towards healing.
  2. Lament. Laments are conversations with God about the brokenness before you. Whether done in private or in public, these laments help us to communicate to God what we find intolerable, to ask God to do what is impossible, and to look closely for his response. Laments hand the problem back to God. “Do something Lord!” Laments also tell victims that their pain is real and not merely an emotional weakness on their part.
  3. Look for seeds of healing. If you are hearing a story of tragedy, then you are also hearing a story of survival. While being careful not to dismiss losses and pain, we can also point out signs of life, of resistance, of resilience. These seeds do not deny the damage being experienced. Jeremiah’s plaintive sigh, “Yet this I call to mind and therefore have hope: because of the Lord’s great love we are not consumed…” does not undo his previous tears, “I remember my affliction and my wandering, the bitterness and the gall. I well remember them, and my soul is downcast within me.”
  4. Do one thing. If you are in direct contact with the person who is suffering, you can check in with them, find out what would be helpful. If you are not in direct contact, then do any number of “one things.” You can pray daily. Ask not only for restoration and justice but also for God to direct your response. You can tell one person about what you have learned. You can look for ways to identify how the seeds of the same tragedy might be in your own environment and not just “over there.” You can give an alternative points of view when you hear someone speaking naively about the situation. Start a conversation with friends.
  5. Remember. Look to find God’s view of the situation. How does He feel about injustice, whether minute forms in us or the massive ones we see on television? What reason might God have for waiting to bring all things under his control?

 

2 Comments

Filed under Abuse, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, trauma

Turn the other cheek? Does this apply to abuse victims?


The Christian Scriptures teach followers of Jesus to forgive as we are forgiven, to love our enemies, and to turn the other cheek rather than seek revenge when mistreated. Does this mean that victims of domestic violence and abuse need to, sometimes quite literally, take it on the chin without seeking protection or justice?

There are a good many resources out there right now that help teach Christians how we should respond to domestic violence and abuse. If you want some in depth argumentation why victims do NOT need to just take it, you can consider my top 3

  • Leslie Vernick (website and books)
  • No Place for Abuse (Book, and when you follow the link, notice the many suggested books on the same topic; books by Brancroft, Roberts, Crippen, and more!)
  • G.R.A.C.E (website with information about the moral requirement to report child abuse)

Rather than repeat the good advice in these resources–biblical foundations for protecting victims and calling out offenders–I want to point you to an older resource given to me in the past week. Older resource as in from 1840! Henry Burton, in chapter 22 (“The Ethics of the Gospel”) of his Expositor’s Bible: The Gospel of St. Luke discusses the application of Luke 6:27f to those inside the community of Christ as well as to “enemies.”

First he reminds readers to love enemies,

We must bear them neither hatred nor resentment; we must guard our hearts sacredly from all malevolent, vindictive feelings. We must not be our own avenger, taking vengeance upon our adversaries, as we let loose the barking Cerberus to track and run them down. All such feelings are contrary to the Law of Love, and so are contraband, entirely foreign to the heart that calls itself Christian. (p. 344-5)

I suppose his words capture most Christian teaching on what it means to love our enemies and to use the Golden Rule as our measure for how we respond. And yet, listen to his very next sentence:

But with all this we are not to meet all sorts of injuries and wrongs without protest or resistance. (p. 345)

Did you catch his point between the double negatives? We MAY and OUGHT to meet all injuries with resistance and protest. Burton goes on to answer why we should resist wrongs done to ourselves and to those around us,

We cannot condone a wrong without being accomplices in the wrong. (ibid)

There you have it. Complicity with evil, especially evil within the community of Jesus, is tantamount to approval and support of that evil act. Thus, telling a victim of abuse to “turn the other cheek” is essentially the same as abusing the victim yourself.

Burton extends his argument in the following way,

To defend our property and life is just as much our duty as it was the wisdom and the duty of those to whom Jesus spoke to offer an uncomplaining cheek to the Gentile [outsider] smiter. Not to do this is to encourage crime, and to put a premium upon evil. Nor is it inconsistent with a true love to seek to punish, by lawful means, the wrong-doer. Justice here is the highest type of mercy, and pains and penalties have a remedial virtue, taming the passions which had grown too wild, or straightening the conscience that had become warped. (ibid)

He completes his thoughts on this by reminding the reader that none of this justice seeking activity (to the point of excommunication if necessary) negates forgiving when the offender repents. We still love, we still forgive, we still treat others by the Golden Rule. But we do not avoid justice and protection seeking behavior, both for the sake of the one being harmed and for the one doing the harm. Both need rescue. The means of rescue differ for sure and may not be viewed as rescue when it comes in the form of sanctions and restrictions. But to look away from abuse and cover it up with “turn the other cheek” does not do right by the true meaning of love.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, biblical counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, Uncategorized

Why are Some Trauma Victims More Vulnerable to Re-Victimization


For those who have not suffered a chronic trauma reaction it can sometimes be hard to understand how a victimized person gets situations where re-victimization can happen. Wouldn’t one trauma at the hands of another cause you to be vigilant against any subsequent danger?

You might think so, but here’s how it happens in simplistic terms:

  1. Interpersonal Trauma leads to confusion, self-doubt (and hatred), loss of voice.
  2. Vigilance against one kind of victimization leads to making decisions to give up other values/interests to avoid the trauma
  3. That decision (or impulse) leads to opportunity for exploitation

Still doesn’t make sense? Consider how a societal trauma preps a community or country for re-victimization. Dave Zirin writes about the use of “Shock Doctrine” in his 2014 book, Brazil’s Dance with the Devil: The World Cup, the Olympics, and the Fight for Democracy. Shock doctrine is opportunist moves by governments interested in taking advantage of a traumatized population

Left to their own devices, people tend to vote for things that make their lives better, like sharing wealth and resources and ensuring quality health care and education for all. Nobody wins elections by promising to turn the country into a sweatshop zone. So in order to put neoliberal policies in place, the world’s elite need a strategy—some clever sleight of hand to get what they want before anyone can object. Enter the shock doctrine

The idea is simple: people who are traumatized are more likely to agree to authoritarian measures, to suspending democracy, to doing whatever it takes. The trauma can be unexpected, like a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, or planned, like a massive budget cuts or a military coup—anything that

‘puts the entire population into a state of collective shock. The falling bombs, the bursts of terror, the pounding winds serve to soften up whole societies much as the blaring music and blows in the torture cells soften up prisoners. Like the terrorized prisoner who gives up the names of comrades and renounces his faith, shocked societies often give up the things they would otherwise fiercely protect…’

While people are reeling, trying to figure out how to survive, corporations and the corporationist state walk through the open door and take what they please.” (p 73-4)

Zirin illustrates this by pointing to countries who take privacy rights or freedom of speech from citizens in the name of protecting the people (state) from outside attack. Or corporations who find ways to take land from poor citizens after a natural disaster—to use for their own benefit.

My point is not to attack political ideologies, corporations, or governments. Rather it is to show that trauma sets us up to give up rights and boundaries more easily in order to avoid a terror. That same willingness is more easily exploited by one who sees the vulnerability. The authority will protect us we think. But if the authority is only interested in its own protection, the victim is prone to re-victimization.

3 Comments

Filed under Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder