Monthly Archives: April 2022

The real root of sex addiction is found in the essence of sin. Sin by nature is the failure to be dependent on God, and it comes from the corrupted hearts of human beings. After Adam rebelled against God, this natural human desire turned into evil. This was based upon man’s self-centeredness. People choose to worship substitute gods by suppressing the truth of God. In the same way, sex addicts are tempted by their own desire and are led astray by individual choice; thus, they should take responsibility for their sinful behaviors. James explains the consequences of man’s evil desire as such: “But each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death” (James 1:14-15). 

Even though sexual addicts take responsibility for their actions, their sinful conditions cannot be solved by personal willpower. Sin and sexual addiction are both uncontrollable and unmanageable. In Roman 7:21-25, Apostle Paul describes the despair of powerlessness and unmanageability as characteristics of sin. Sex addicts report that they cannot control their behaviors even though they desire to do so. By nature, they feel powerless, helpless, and worthless because of repeated uncontrollability and unmanageability.  

Christians must believe the believer has already been freed from sin because all Christians have died with Christ. In Rom 6:2, Apostle Paul maintains that Christians cannot live in sin any longer because they have already died to sin. Their death to sin is not the present or future tense but the past tense. Death to sin is not something hoped for or resolved upon by the believer. This process has already taken place.  

In Rom 6:11, Apostle Paul maintains that Christians must consider themselves dead to sin. What Paul presents is not Christians’ immunity to temptation but rather the fact that they are no longer slaves to sin. After Christians are crucified with Christ, buried with Him, and raised with Him, the old disappears, and Christians become new creations. However, their old nature still remains and seeks to dominate them. In Rom 6:11, considering oneself dead to sin is expressed through daily conduct, indicating a conscious effort to maintain the process of considering oneself dead to sin. Because of habituation to sin, the believer should not let sin reign over his thinking but should instead live with the help of the Holy Spirit. 

Apostle Paul emphasizes that the believer should make a choice for righteousness by stating, “do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin” (Rom 6:13). This is used as a present imperative, and it refers to an ongoing action to do right. On the contrary, he uses the phrase “presenting yourselves to God” in the aorist-imperative. To offer oneself to God as an instrument of righteousness means to make a one-time deliberate choice in that direction. Thus, freedom from sin is not automatic, but a conscious decision is needed as to whether or not the body will be allowed to become an instrument of service to God. There needs to be active and continuous obedience to God in order to live life in accordance with a new identity and status. By refusing obedience to sin’s power and authority, the believer can experience freedom from sin; therefore, sin cannot dominate the believer any longer.  

However, not all human beings who have a sinful nature have a sexual addiction. Sexual sin is not equal to sexual addiction. Those who commit sexual sin do not necessarily become sex addicts. The effect given to the body also must be considered very important in order to understand sex addiction because humans consist of both body and spirit or soul. The Bible does not see body and soul as separate from one another. Humans are unified beings. The neurological perspective considers sex addiction to be a method used to satisfy a neurological need. Repeated experiences of association between sexual behaviors and pleasure or relief from pain form a type of learning known as conditioning. This learning is so deep and automatic at the physical level, and it forms a stronghold that is difficult to break down.  

According to the psychological perspective, the root of sexually addictive behaviors is found in the dysfunctional family system. The addict desires to escape the helplessness and powerlessness that he experienced in the past. The addict seeks temporary and immediate relief by sexually acting out as a way to escape from emotional discomfort. In other words, sexual addiction is a destructive solution to regain control over helplessness and powerlessness. From a psychological perspective, the main root of sexual addiction is an abusive environment that provides the sex addict with emotional pain.  

One single perspective does not fully identify complicated issues of sex addiction. The root of sex addiction has multiple aspects. Thus, a holistic approach to sex addiction is necessary for a Christian counselor to help sex addicts to recover. Mind, spirit, and body are not undifferentiated. At the same time, these properties are interconnected and linked to each other as parts of a larger network. Any attempt to deal with a single condition apart from other conditions will not be successful in recovering from sex addiction. It is essential for Christian counselors to discern how these three properties work in each individual sex addict. The understanding of sex addiction as a human’s fall must be a fundamental foundation for dealing with sex addiction. Sinners cannot be freed from the power of sin without Christ. Regarding the biblical foundation, Christian counselors’ approach to sex addiction should consider how psychological and neurological aspects reinforce sex addiction within a world that is vulnerable to sin. 

---

Did you enjoy this blog? We think you’ll like the other blogs in this series, too! Be sure you check out what Dr. Lee has to say about the psychological and neurological perspectives on sexual addiction in his other posts.

---

References 

Anderson, N. T., Quarles, M., & Quarles, J. (1996). Freedom from addiction: breaking the bondage of addiction and finding freedom in Christ. Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books. 

Harrison, E. F. a. o. (1984). Romans through Galatians. In F. E. Gabelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 

Witherington, B., & Hyatt, D. (2004). Paul’s letter to the Romans: a socio-rhetorical commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans. 

A few months back I recall a presentation I did about the different functions of validation. I also remember the summer of 2020 and witnessing ongoing debates by clinical professionals over the idea that “all lives matter” versus “Black lives matter”. One particular comment stands out clearly; it was shared that both statements are true as both hold up valid points. Still, I also understand the hurt that one may perceive when they hear that their specific ethnic group, age group, religion, gender “does not matter”- because “they all matter”.     

The power of validation rang clear to me. In these conversations I saw both sides of the dialectic. Perhaps each end of the spectrum was feeling the tension that comes along with experiencing invalidation. Each polar end of the debate sought justice and goodness, yet perhaps their delivery could have used a little more validation.   

A study by Shenk and Fruzzetti (2011) found that controlling for personal skilled ability to regulate one’s emotions, individuals who experienced invalidation endorsed significantly greater levels of negative affect and heart rate compared to those who did not experience invalidation. It is no surprise to have read such passionate discourse about the statements, given the physiological and emotional responses to feeling invalidated.   

With this in mind, I think that one way we can seek to advance social justice is by the effective use of validation. Perhaps we may not always agree with each other politics or ideologies, however, maybe by adopting a validating communication style, we may more effectively land on agreeing to disagree. This in itself is better than split relationships due to opposing viewpoints. In another study between parent and child dyads, children who received validation from their parents were found to endorse significantly stronger/positive emotion regulation, less problem behaviors and relationship satisfaction compared to invalidating dyads (Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2014). Why then can’t we strive to adopt the same? I encourage us (speaking to myself as well), to explore the use of validation in conversations- especially around social just and social-political matters. At the end of the day, we are called to “love your neighbor as yourself”, Matthew 22:39. And personally, feeling validated as opposed to invalidated and unseen is something I would never want to experience.  

According to Dr. Marsha Linehan, the founder of dialectical behavior therapy (1993; 2014) there are six levels of validation: a) eye contact and paying attention, b) accurate reflection, c) stating the unarticulated, d) validating others using their past history, e) normalizing and looking for the kernel of truth, and level six, f) radical genuineness. Although upon first glance level one, providing eye contact and paying attention may seem trivial, we must not discount that in the midst of a heated conversation in which we may feel invalidating, it may be very difficult to give eye contact and basic respectful attention. As we move up the levels of validation towards the highest level, in radical genuineness we are asked to treat the other person as our equal (Linehan 1993; Koerner, 2011). This reminds me of the golden rule. Again, in Matthew 22:39, we are admonished to “love your neighbor as yourself”, which again, may be difficult if we are emotionally charged!  

On a different note, perhaps you asking yourself, “what if there is nothing to validate?” or “what if I cannot figure out what to validate?” Kelly Koerner (2011) reminds us that it is important to actively search for what is valid. Further, it may be helpful to assume that there is always something valid. Koerner (2011) describes how one can validate the other’s experience. For example, “If I were you, I would also feel upset” or “It makes sense to me that you disagree and if I were you, I likely feel similar.” Again, these are easiest said than done- especially in difficult conversations.      

So, in times of heated conversations and disagreements around social justice issues, I challenge us to see each other’s points of view and adopt a validating stance. Let’s love our neighbor as ourselves and choose humility. Let’s see each other!  

This blog is part of a two-part series, introduced here. You can read Part 1 here.

---

In today’s society, simply the word politics tends to make everyone’s hair stand up on end. It has been deemed a dirty word or forbidden territory at family gatherings and many social events. When I learned I was expected to take a policy class as a part of my education, my first reaction was dread as I did not initially pursue social work to engage in politics or policy, or so I thought. I soon learned that policy influences and impacts everything I do and all whom I interact and work alongside.  

Policies are the foundation of any micro, mezzo, and macro social work setting. Matthew 7:24-27 states,

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall” (Bible, NKJV).

This verse offers an analogy on the importance and value of having a solid foundation through pursuing wisdom, seeking, observing, challenging, and listening. Hence, policies must be analyzed through a lens of wisdom and curiosity to investigate and inquire into the causes and consequences of public policies to ensure their strong foundation (Segal, 2020).  

Policy, much less policy analysis, can be a daunting thought to many. It can be intimidating to search for, interpret and analyze policies. However, we are impacted by public policy every day. Whether you are traveling, in school, or at work, you are experiencing social welfare policies in action. Just think about all of the policies implemented in the past two years because of COVID-19.  

Policy, more specifically social welfare policy, refers to the well-being of society and is the collective response to social problems. Social welfare policy analysis informs and provides guidance and direction for many policymakers on a macro governmental scale (Segal, 2020). Even further, policy analysis provides a way for understanding how and why governments enact specific policies and their effects. As such, policy analysis provides researchers with a powerful tool to understand the use of research evidence in policymaking and generate a heightened understanding of the values, interests, and political contexts underpinning various policy decisions (Browne et al., 2018).  

In social work, we work to address the grand challenges such as advancing long and productive lives, ensuring healthy development for youth, eradicating social isolation, and ending homelessness throughout our practice (Grand Challenges for Social Work, 2021). Grand challenges must be grand in scope, inspiring, meaningful, and compelling. Moreover, scientific evidence should suggest how a grand challenge can be solved. It is said that meaningful and measurable progress in addressing a challenge should be feasible within a decade, which can sound daunting but not impossible. Grand challenges should generate interdisciplinary or cross-sector collaboration in addition to creativity and innovation (Barth et al., 2014). A final motivation to promote national and local social policy development incorporates the social work perspective, supporting social work progress and social and economic justice through adherence and incorporation of the grand challenges (Barth et al., 2014). 

Now that we have gained an understanding of what specifically social welfare policy is, as well as the importance of social welfare policy analysis, how does one analyze policy, you may be asking? There are multiple approaches to the analysis of policies that can differ depending upon the policy and its context. One general approach includes identifying the social issue or problem, understanding what the public reaction is to the issue, what policy or legislation was developed in response to the issue, how the policy was implemented, identification of the public expectations and perception, and assessment of the policy effects and intended impact. Finally, assessing if there were unintended outcomes, and if so, asking what could be done to remediate the unintended consequences (Segal, 2020).    

One example of policy analysis in action was in 2014 when Tennessee passed SB1391, a fetal assault law allowing a woman to be prosecuted for using a narcotic while pregnant. The policy was created to reduce the prevalence of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS), a condition where newborn babies experience withdrawal and other effects from opioids and other drugs. As a result of this bill, women arrested and charged would face a penalty of up to fifteen years in prison and the loss of child custody. However, the bill allowed women enrolled and participating in a long-term addiction recovery program to be exempt from prosecution. July 1, 2016, the law ceased to be in effect due to effective policy analysis. Unfortunately, the law negatively affected prenatal care and had little to no impact on the prevalence of NAS diagnoses across the state. Hence negative consequences of the law identified included a decline in prenatal care, an increase of in-home births, an increase in out-of-state births, an increase in fetal mortality, and an increase in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions. While the law was enacted with the best intentions, it ultimately resulted in numerous unintended consequences.   

Phew! Now, if this feels overwhelming, or you feel as though you are now cross-eyed after reading this, know you are not alone. So simply ask yourself this, what policies are affecting you on a daily basis? Have you ever stopped to wonder if these policies are beneficial or harmful? The policies that come to mind, how are they affecting you and others? Understandably so, it can be intimidating to ask ourselves these questions. However, suppose we begin to ask ourselves these questions on a micro level and utilize the approach listed above. In that case, we will naturally transfer these skills to a macro level and begin to secure firm, strong foundations so desperately needed.  

So don’t be like me and think that policy has nothing to do with social work because it has everything to do with social work and social work practice. 

This blog is part 1 of a two-part series, introduced here.

---

What do baking bread and program evaluation have in common? More than you might think. During the pandemic, we started a new family tradition, baking homemade bread on Sundays. One Sunday, I pulled out the recipe and ingredients like I had done dozens of times before. I read through the recipe, mixed the ingredients, and put the bread in the Dutch oven. However, much to my surprise, instead of the delicious tender bread my family had grown to expect, all I had to offer them was a dense, flat, slightly burnt loaf. I immediately set to work analyzing where I went wrong. I checked the ingredients in the recipe and walked back through the steps I had taken. Based on the less than impressive outcome, I hypothesized and subsequently confirmed that I was missing an ingredient to the whole process, the yeast. Now that I had identified the errors in the baking process, I followed the same steps, ensuring that I used the right ingredients, resulting in the expected outcome, delicious fresh bread. However, examining the outcomes of a social program or treatment intervention may not be as apparent as tasting burnt bread.  

Although seemingly complicated on the surface, program evaluation is very similar to the scientific method you have been engaging in throughout your undergraduate career. The scientific method requires us to ask a question, form a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, come to a conclusion, and finally evaluate the conclusion. Social research methods follow the same steps but focus on answering questions that pertain to individuals and society. Program evaluation is when we implement social research methods to analyze the effectiveness of a program. (Rossi et al., 2019). Program evaluation allows us to apply research for a specific purpose and answer the question, “How do you know you are doing any good at all?” Using program evaluation, we can analyze several aspects by conducting focused evaluations like process and outcome evaluations. Program evaluations can identify ways to improve a program, support the program’s effectiveness or ineffectiveness, and provide more information about a program’s implications. 

Program evaluation can be broken into two parts process and outcome. Process evaluation is when we evaluate to determine if a program is being implemented as designed. However, outcome evaluation evaluates whether the program achieved its intended goals. If we revisit the bread-making example, seeing the burnt bread was the outcome evaluation, but reviewing the steps and ingredients was the process evaluation. It is essential to conduct both process and outcome evaluations when implementing social services and behavioral interventions because the information they provide is complementary and gives a complete picture of a program’s overall effectiveness and health. For example, a process evaluation can monitor implementation and help offer alerts to problems that might negatively impact the outcome. Outcome evaluations can provide the data to determine the overall program effectiveness. If the outcome evaluation proves that the program did not meet its intended goals, a process evaluation can help identify implementation issues. Alternatively, if the outcome evaluation reveals positive outcomes, the process evaluation provides information for program replication. Had I been proactively engaging in program evaluation, I could have adjusted to avoid the bad outcome before it was too late. However, in social science and behavioral interventions, the result can be bad outcomes for families.   

While the results of my burnt bread were disappointing, no one was harmed (except maybe my ego). However, the consequences could be devastating when we deliver social services or behavioral interventions that result in unintended outcomes. Children could stay in unsafe homes and continue to be abused, and parents might not get the help they need to reunify with their children; veterans could experience additional trauma while seeking care.  

Using program evaluation, we can analyze several aspects by conducting focused evaluations like process and outcome evaluation that all go hand in hand to provide a comprehensive picture of a program’s overall function and health. Program evaluations can identify ways to improve a program, provide support for the program’s effectiveness or ineffectiveness, and provide more information about a program’s implications.  

Another critical aspect of program evaluation is that it provides external validity and allows us to distribute our findings to funders and stakeholders with greater confidence (Moye, 2016). Social service programs need to demonstrate positive outcomes, and external validity is important because funders require it. Funding for programs is data-driven and will require evidence. As demand for social services increases, securing ongoing funding has grown more complicated. Grant funding to address the grand social challenges has become more competitive, and accountability measures are stricter. With financial demand often outweighing the supply, social workers must continue demonstrating their effectiveness. It is essential to articulate the need for social service programs and interventions to stakeholders, which is done through evidence. What theory and design is the program grounded? What are the program’s processes, impact, and outcomes? Program evaluations can produce practice-based evidence that leads to evidence-based practices. (Fynn et al., 2020).  

Program evaluation is not just limited to social services programs in the macro setting focusing on system-level interventions and mezzo settings that focus on the community-level interventions. Program evaluation can be used on the micro-level to determine if clinical interventions are serving their intended purpose. Program evaluation should matter to all academic scholars because it allows us to determine if the programs, we are providing are doing any good all. Because at the end of the day, nobody wants to eat burnt bread. 

Check out part 2 of this series here.

As social workers, we engage in research and apply scientific research methods in many ways. Two important ways we use research methods are in program evaluation and policy analysis. As practitioners, it is incumbent upon us to know what types of policies, programs, services, and interventions are most effective for our clients. Well researched interventions that demonstrate efficacy are referred to as evidence-based practices or best practices. However, when we implement these evidence-based interventions, variables or extraneous factors (known and unknown) may interfere with our ability to replicate the types of results the intervention had produced in the published literature. For this reason, we need to engage in program monitoring, or what we call program evaluation.  

Program evaluation ensures we produce the intended results and do not create unintended consequences. Additionally, funders typically require program evaluation and data reporting. There is increasing oversight and accountability for social and behavioral services practitioners and the need to demonstrate positive outcomes. Program evaluation helps ensure quality service and continued funding.  

Another important way social workers apply research methods is in policy analysis. Policy analysis involves understanding why the policy was created, who it was intended to affect, how it was implemented, and ultimately, what the policy’s outcomes were. Policymakers need to know if the policy had the intended outcomes and if there are any unintended consequences? Researchers use the results of policy analysis to advocate for support, needed changes, and new policy.   

At CBU in the Department of Social Work, we recognize the importance of both policy analysis and program evaluation. All MSW students spend a semester studying each of these subjects. In this two-part series, I worked with two of my MSW mentees* to write about their understanding and experiences with program evaluation and policy analysis. In the first part of this blog series, Natasha Alsobrook relates program evaluation to breaking bread in her article “How do you know the bread is any good?” In the second part, Bailee Ann Cameron discusses the value of policy analysis and the real-life impact on our children and families in her article “Policy: Irreverent and Irrelevant or not?” 

*In the Masters of social work program at CBU, all students are assigned a faculty mentor. Faculty Mentorship is a distinctive feature of the CBU MSW Program. The purpose of the Faculty Mentor is to: 

• Model social work values  
• Model Christian faith and ethical social work practice  
• Help students set proactive patterns of self-care   
• Help students select a social work track that is best for them (generalist year) 
• Help students choose a Capstone Project topic (specialization year)  
• Empower students to Live their Purpose  
• Communicate student feedback into the program  
• Help students access all the CBU resources (i.e., counseling center, student services, writing support, financial aid, campus ministries, career center, recreation center, global service opportunities, etc.) 
• Guide students on their faith and professional journey 

Yesterday someone asked me, “What are you doing more of lately to be more effective?” … Initially, I wanted to share that I have tried to be more organized and stick to my to-do list or that I have reorganized my filing system.  Still, what I ended up sharing was my desire to get better sleep and prioritize sleep hygiene.  It is so extremely hard to do this when we live in a society in which we may feel pressure to “be a winner”, “get things done” and “there is no time to sleep”.  

Unlike my partner, I am a night owl and love the quietness and solidarity of the night where I can sneak away into my office and have complete uninterrupted time to be super productive.  These evenings often end up creeping into my bedtime and before I know it, its 11:45pm!  The reinforcer is being able to check off my to-do list and the sense of accomplishment.   At the same time, after a productive late night I notice that sometimes I have a hard time falling asleep.  I find myself up worrying about things I may need to go back to and edit (on the work I just completed!) or continuing to add items on to-do list.  Unfortunately, my body also experiences consequences as a result.  As they say, “no pain, no gain”.   After a long night working spree, I find myself showing up the next day feeling less energetic and a need for an extra cup of coffee.  

If you relate, I think it is important to become educated or remind ourselves about what the lack of sleep may be doing to our bodies.  Research shows that related to lack of sleep, our attention can be altered in that there are lapses in which we fail to pay attention (Lim & Dinges, 2010), and we may experience a more difficult time making decisions (Killgore, Balkin, & Wesensten, 2006).  We may also experience delayed cognitive performance and effects on mood (Ferrara & De Gennaro, 2001).  Interestingly, we do see differences when we take a closer look and consider diversity variables such as gender and age.  For example, on average, men appear to sleep less than women and sleep duration appears to decline with age (Jonasdottir, Minor, & Lehmann, 2021).  Regardless of these differences, the literature is strong in the negative outcomes associated with chronic sleep deprivation (Jonasdottir, Minor, & Lehmann, 2021; Pourmotabbed et al., 2020; Short, Booth, Omar,Ostlundh, & Arora, 2020).  

So, now what do we do with all of this? Are there any do-able interventions besides forcing yourself to try to get to bed at an earlier time?  There is hope friends!  A recent meta-analysis found that cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) has shown positive outcomes in addressing unhelpful and worry thoughts that may be the culprit to keeping some of us up at night.  The study found that CBT-I targets repetitive negative thinking (RNT) which are unhelpful thoughts such as, “this is horrible, I am never going to catch up on work, and now I can’t even fall asleep” (Ballesio et al., 2021).  The study notes that rumination and thoughts about not being able to fall asleep are often associated with insomnia.   

Research related to accessible telephone app interventions of CBT-I is fairly new and growing.  The good news is that there are phone apps within our reach and that they may help us help ourselves!  To learn more about some of them, check out a short story on National Public Radio https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/10/08/654883409/some-apps-may-help-curb-insomnia-others-just-put-you-to-sleep.  The question now is…are we willing to put our work away and instead explore interventions such as CBT-I and prioritize our sleep health? 

References 

Ballesio, A., Bacaro, V., Vacca, M., Chirico, A., Lucidi, F., Riemann, D., … & Lombardo, C.  

(2020). Does cognitive behaviour therapy for insomnia reduce repetitive negative thinking and sleep-related worry beliefs? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 101378. 

Ferrara, M., & De Gennaro, L. (2001). How much sleep do we need?. Sleep medicine  

reviews, 5(2), 155-179. 

Jonasdottir, S. S., Minor, K., & Lehmann, S. (2021). Gender differences in nighttime sleep  

patterns and variability across the adult lifespan: a global-scale wearables study. Sleep, 44(2), zsaa169. 

Killgore, W. D. S., Balkin, T. J., & Wesensten, N. J. (2006). Impaired decision making following  

49 h of sleep deprivation. Journal of Sleep Research, 15, 7–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2869.2006 .00487.x  

Lim, J., & Dinges, D. F. (2010). A meta-analysis of the impact of short-term sleep deprivation on  

cognitive variables. Psychological bulletin, 136(3), 375. 

National Public Radio (2018, October 8). Some Apps May Help Curb Insomnia, Others Just Put  

You To Sleep. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/10/08/654883409/some-apps-may-help-curb-insomnia-others-just-put-you-to-sleep.   

Pourmotabbed, A., Boozari, B., Babaei, A., Asbaghi, O., Campbell, M. S., Mohammadi, H., … &  

Moradi, S. (2020). Sleep and frailty risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep and Breathing, 1-11. 

Short, M. A., Booth, S. A., Omar, O., Ostlundh, L., & Arora, T. (2020). The relationship  

between sleep duration and mood in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep medicine reviews, 52, 101311.