Family Therapy Schools: Bowenian And Structural Writing Sample

The early communications theory is a source of several concepts fundamental to family therapy. It is focused on improving relationships within a family by studying verbal and non-verbal exchanges between family members (Nichols & Davis, 2020). The first concept is the attention to actions that lead to conflicts (Nichols & Davis, 2020). One cannot solve an issue if one does not identify its root. The second idea is that each family is unique and needs a specific therapy strategy (Nichols & Davis, 2020). The diversity of human interaction models and environmental factors is infinite and not universal. Thus, communications theory has significantly contributed to the general perspective on efficient family therapy.

Two prominent family therapy schools that also adopted these ideas are Bowenian and Structural. Bowen family therapy looks at the family as an “emotional unit” (Yarhouse & Sells, 2017, p. 63). It implies that all the emotional responses are originated from family and the quality and quantity of interactions with them (Yarhouse & Sells, 2017; Nichols & Davis, 2020). For efficient family relationships, one should balance individuality and togetherness (Nichols & Davis, 2020). It means that one must have enough time both for personal and family needs.

Structural family therapy also looks at the quality of communication within the family to identify the roots of the problems. However, unlike the Bowen theory, which mainly considers the amount of time spent with the family members, the Structural approach is focused on the interactions’ structure itself (Yarhouse & Sells, 2017). The therapist has to identify the rules and principles of communication established in a particular family and find patterns that cause problems (Yarhouse & Sells, 2017). Thus, Structural therapy focuses on the quality of contact with relatives rather than quantity, as Bowen’s theory.

Relationship within marriage plays an important role in the Christian worldview. According to Lobnibe (2019), solid marriage in Christianity can symbolize virtuous behavior (p. 673). Christians disapprove of divorce when spouses have conflicts (Bobyreva & Dmitrieva, 2018). On the one hand, it fits the Bowen and Structure theories in terms of the need to improve the quality of communication before considering divorce. On the other hand, such disapproval of divorce as a possible option may create unnecessary pressure on people that can become a barrier in the therapy. Thus, these family therapy theories do not fully align with Christian beliefs.

References

Bobyreva, E.V., & Dmitrieva, O. A. (2018). Place of family and family values in worldbasic religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 198, 19-22. Web.

Lobnibe, I. (2019). Review of the book Faith, power and family. Christianity and social change in French Cameroon, by C. Walker-Said. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 70(3), 672-673. Web.

Nichols, M.P., & Davis, S. D. (2020). The essentials of family therapy (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

Yarhouse, M.A., & Sells, J.N. (2017). Family therapies: A comprehensive Christian appraisal. InterVarsity Press.

Negative Impact Of Media Attention To School Shooting

Schools are anticipated to provide children with maximum physical and emotional safety and foster their full-fledged development. Thus, school shooting incidents are taken as unbearable tragedies, leading to substantial media attention. From my perspective, active attempts to rationalize and explain mass murderers’ behavior by attracting attention to their personal lives are not always productive. By this, mass media sources can unintentionally romanticize these lonely and rejected individuals whose mental instability eventually takes such terrible forms.

On the one hand, media coverage of the Columbine shootings, Sandy Hook shootings, and similar events can lead to positive social changes if the accents are placed on learning from the incident. As Kendall (2018) explains, aside from informational purposes, media attention to the Columbine Massacre was aimed at starting a productive dialogue and reporting research on the predictors of school violence, such as the number of enrolled students. This might exemplify crime prevention authorities’ genuine desire to take an objective look at such tragedies and explore factors and security systems’ deficiencies that support offenders in fulfilling their goals.

On the other hand, news article writers’ and reporters’ focus is sometimes narrowed to the offender’s personality traits, mental issues, acquaintances’ memories, and other personal facts. As I believe it can spark other mentally unstable people’s interest, encouraging them to develop a philosophy of mass murder and form groups to copy their idol’s violent behaviors. According to Kendall (2018), each school killing only “intensifies our fright and heightens our concern” regarding schools’ actual safety (p. 395). If the media attention to Columbine-like crimes is ubiquitous and emphasizes society’s uncontrollable fear, it might further provoke potential offenders to play on their community’s feelings and take vengeance for something. Based on psychotherapy research, the cases of obsession with mass murderers, including Columbine shooters, are not uncommon and can be correlated with the desire to join organized Islamic extremist movements (Suit, 2017). Therefore, my position is that extensive personality-centered media coverage can give people with mental illness or aggression control issues an idea that they have like-minded people, thus leading to links and communication between violent individuals and further crime.

References

Kendall, D. (2018). Sociology in our times: The essentials (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Suit, M. (2017). Dreaming of Columbine: Exploring an offender’s preoccupation with the Columbine Massacre. Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 31(4), 355-366. Web.

Matthew’s And Mark’s Gospels: The Main Differences

Introduction

The Bible is a sacred book filled with numerous contradictions since many people have influenced its content. Reading several Gospels, Matthew and Mark can prove the inconsistencies because every individual account describes the same events but pays attention to diverse details. It means that they perceived the teaching of Jesus in different ways. This paper aims to analyze how Matthew edited Mark’s Gospel and disclose main differences.

Mark 6:45-52 vs. Matthew 14:25-27, 32-33

Matthew’s Gospel seeks to narrate about Jesus Christ to the Jewish audience. Its primary goal is to assure the devoted Jews that Jesus is the Messiah of God. Meanwhile, Mark’s Gospel appeals to Greek and refers to a sermon calling for action. It revolves around one’s implicit desire to act rather than around specific details. Yet, these Gospel’s purpose is not the primary aspect that distinguishes them.

Matthew 14:25-33 and Mark 6:45-52 come from the same Gospel book and are even similar in their message. However, Matthew edited the Gospel of Mark, altering particular quotes. The chapters follow the same order and suggest the resembling description of the events, for instance, how Jesus strolls on water. Jesus Christ sends away the crowds, goes up to the mountainside to pray, and then sees his supporters floating with the flow. The disciples were petrified to witness him hovering above the water.

In addition, here, the primary difference is that Matthew’s Gospel specifies some details. For instance, Matthew claims that Christ called on his follower Peter: “Jesus said, “Come!” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water toward Jesus” (The Bible, Matthew 14:29). Peter goes to Jesus but, doubting his faith, begins to drown: “But when he noticed how strong the wind was, he became afraid and started to sink” (The Bible, Matthew 14:30).

After the incident, Christ scorns Peter for having no faith in God. Meanwhile, this part is omitted in the Gospel of Mark, and there is no concretization that one of Christ’s apprentices leaves the boat. Despite that this fragment does not appear in the book of Mark, both chapters provide the idea that Jesus comes to his supporters to help (The Bible). In general, Matthew’s point of view was more lengthy and abundant with details.

What is more, another distinguishing detail can be observed in what Jesus tells his people. In Mark’s Gospel, they refer to Christ as a “ghost,” while he assures them in the vitality of being brave (The Bible, Mark 6:49). Meantime, Matthew suggests that Jesus only cheers the crowd up by commanding them not to be afraid (Martin 107). It means that Jesus is seen differently in both stories.

Mark 9:2-10 vs. Matthew 17:1-13

Mark 9:2-10 and Matthew 17:1-13 are placed in the same two chapters and narrate about the transfiguration of Jesus Christ. Despite the fact that they tell a similar story, they have several inconsistencies that distinguish them from each other. In Matthew’s Gospel, it is stated that “Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John” (The Bible, Matthew 17:1). At the same time, Matthew adds that John is James’ brother. Even though it is not significant, these specifications prove that Matthew edited Mark’s Gospels.

Besides, some other astonishing details differentiate Mark and Matthew’s books. For example, while describing Jesus, Mark portrays him in white clothes while Matthew also depicts his face mentioning that it “shone like the sun” (The Bible, Matthew 17:2). Here, it is also notable that the color white is attributed differently “as white as the light” and “dazzling white” (The Bible, Mark 9:3). The portrayal of Jesus in both gospels creates different perceptions of him.

Additionally, it may be noted that in both gospels the character Peter calls Jesus using different names. For instance, Matthew appeals to him as Lord, while Mark calls him Rabbi. What is more, the sequence of events slightly differs in both stories, particularly at the moment when the disciples got frightened. Mark suggests that it occurred before the voice and the cloud emerged, whereas Matthew claims it happened only after they appeared (Muddiman and Barton 56). In the final lines, Mark omits the fact that the apprentices understood the idea about Elijah coming first.

Conclusion

Hence, even though there are many similarities between these two gospels, one may observe specific events distinguishing one story from another. This indicates a possibility that Matthew could have just copied Mark’s Gospel adding extra details to make his narrative more vivid. It is evident that once again, Matthew only slightly altered the story itself, changing the events’ sequence; however, the idea transferred remained the same.

Works Cited

Martin, Dale B. New Testament History and Literature. Yale University Press, 2012.

Muddiman, John, and John Barton. The Gospels. Updated selection., Updated selection ed., Oxford University Press, 2010.

The Bible. Edited by Susan Jones, Doubleday, 1985.