If we take Frankl’s premise of an unconscious relationship to God as a given, what then is the role of the psychotherapist regarding religious issues? Is there any justification for bringing religious issues into the discussion in therapy?
Frankl takes a clear stand against this.
Just as unconscious psychic material can come spontaneously into conscious awareness, similarly unconscious religious material can come spontaneously into conscious awareness. When religion does come up spontaneously in the client’s mind it is genuine and can be a subject for discussion. In contrast, religion forcibly brought to the client’s attention would only indicate the therapist’s religiosity, not the client’s.
Secondly, psychology has to be independent and autonomous. It has to be free even to contradict religion. So the realms of therapy and religion must be clearly separated for their own sakes, to avoid disturbing the integrity of each.
More importantly, the realms must be clearly separated because religion and therapy have different goals. Although religion can promote mental health, positive therapeutic outcomes are not the aim of religion.
Therefore, the therapist should not use religion as a useful ‘tool’ with which to manipulate the client into mental health, as a doctor would use a pill.
I agree with Frankl’s cautionary words about manipulating the client and I agree that religion should not be used as a tool for therapeutic aims. I also agree that the goals of therapy and religion are different. However, in spite of their separate goals there is an invisible goal that religion and therapy share in common
Frankl writes about the goal of religion thusly: “Although religion might secondarily promote such things as mental health and inner equilibrium, its aim does not primarily concern psychological solutions but, rather, spiritual salvation. Religion is not an insurance policy for a tranquil life, for maximum freedom from conflicts, or for any other hygienic goal. Religion provides man with more than psychotherapy ever could – but it also demands more of him.” (pp. 74-75)
It is certainly true that religion is not an insurance policy for a tranquil life, but is a tranquil life the goal of therapy? Generally, Frankl does not take a liking to “homeostasis,” which is what “inner equilibrium” sounds like. Life provokes you to reach higher, to rise above your circumstances and weaknesses and attain full human stature. Religion is demanding, but so is therapy.
Therapy aims to promote mental health; religion aims to instill commitment to God. Where does logotherapy stand? Logotherapy, more than any other therapy, sets as a goal the awareness of responsibility. So while the goals of therapy and religion differ, logotherapy and religion meet at a critical juncture or interface: the goal of rising to full human stature.
Therefore the question of religion in therapy is not a simple one precisely because the goals overlap.
For this reason, Frankl’s explanation is incomplete without understanding the “interface goal” that religion and logotherapy share in common. True, the therapist should not put himself into the role of telling the client what is right or wrong based on one religious paradigm or another, but the logotherapist can and must challenge and stimulate the person to himself discern right from wrong.
As in other therapies, the aim of logotherapy is to promote mental health. But unlike other therapies, logotherapy includes responsibility as a sign of what is considered to be a positive therapeutic outcome.
The role of the therapist lies not in telling the client what to do but in getting him to question himself. Do my goals match my values? Where is one particular voice or another in my head coming from? What is my inner voice saying? What is this situation all about? What kind of challenge is it giving me? What meaning can I squeeze out of it?
As in other therapies, the goal of logotherapy is a “positive therapeutic outcome.” But the outcome is evaluated as “positive” if it meets the interface-goal of becoming a deciding, responsible being. (based on The Unconscious God, Chapter 7)