Vol. 70, No.

2, Fall 1996

Counseling in the Church: A Biblical

Critique of Structural Family Therapy
Ron L Deal

A growing number of churches are employing family ministers and thera-

pists to counsel with congregational and community families. Holistic
clinical work with families integrates scriptural teaching and biblically
consistent theoretical notions of family therapy. This article reviews the
foundational constructs ofstructural family therapy and critiques them
from a biblical, theological perspective.

The task of integrating models of therapy and theology is a con-

tinual, necessary process for family ministers and therapists who conduct
therapy in a congregational setting. It is the responsibility of the practic-
ing Christian clinician to critically analyze the models of therapy he or she
employs to evaluate if they are consistent with Christian values, both
those belonging to the clinician and to the client. Structural family thera-
py, one of the most widely used conceptual models in the field of family
therapy, provides a blueprint for analyzing the process of family interac-
tions and brings order and meaning to those transactions (Nichols, 1984).
This article presents a biblical critique of structural family therapy. Theo-
retical underpinnings, including general systems theory (GST), cybernet-
ics, and communication theory ... lay the groundwork for a review of
structural theory' and technique and are followed by a biblical critique of
the major suppositions of the model.

Theoretical Foundations of Structural Family Therapy

General Systems Theory
According to Bertalanffy ( 1968), a system is "a set of elements
standing in interaction" (p. 38). How individuals interact within their
family and how the family organizes itself as a whole creates a system of
interaction (Nichols, 1988). It is this system of interaction with which
family therapy is concerned.
General systems theory represents a paradigmatic shift from
mechanistic to systemic thinking and from linear to circular causality
(Broderick & Schrader, 1991; Nichols, 1984). Systemically, A is both
stimulus and response to B, which in turn is both stimulus and response to
A; the two are in dynamic interaction (Becvar & Becvar, 1982). Thus, the
notion of circular causality maintains that no single event is said to cause
Journal of Family Ministry
another's behavior (Nichols, 1984).
Systems are characterized as nonsummative, homeostatic, and
hierarchical. The construct of wholeness or nonsummativity declares the
whole as greater than the sum of its parts (Jackson, 1965). Becvar and
Becvar (1982) illustrate the concept by saying that within a system,
1+1=3. The third element in the equation is the dyadic relationship. Con-
sequently, any change between the relationships in a system, no matter
how small, will produce a change in the whole system. The behavior of
every member in the family is related to and dependent upon the behavior
of all the others (Nichols, 1984).
The construct of homeostasis describes a system's tendency to-
ward stability (Becvar & Becvar, 1982) and is similar to the theory of cy-
bernetics which will be discussed in the following section. Bloch and La
Perrière ( 1973) defined homeostasis as the inclination of a system to
maintain a dynamic equilibrium around some central tendency, and to
undertake operations to restore that equilibrium whenever it is threatened.
Systems are ever engaged in a process of maintaining stability through the
management of change and/or achieving change through the management
of stability (Keeney & Thomas, 1986). Just as a thermostat maintains a
constant temperature in a home, couples, for example, will manage the
amount of intimacy in their relationship through "hot and cold" behaviors.
The result is an acceptable, stable range of intimacy, managed by oscillat-
ing closeness-distance interactions.
Hierarchy refers to the function of power and its structures (Si-
mon, Stierlin, & Wynne, 1985). Parents, for example, need to maintain a
role of authority and power in regard to their children (a superordinate-
subordinate relationship) in order to establish healthy boundaries between
generations (Nock, 1988). Just as family systems have hierarchies, the
larger suprasystem has a hierarchy (Becvar & Becvar, 1982); subsystems
are nested into the larger system, which in turn is nested into an even larg-
er encompassing suprasystem (Nichols, 1988). One family, then, may be
part of a youth ministry subsystem and the larger church system, which is
a subsystem of the larger local community, which is a subsystem of the
larger societal system.

Cybernetics
Structural family therapy is also founded in cybernetics, a term
coined by Norbert Weiner (1948) to describe systems which regulate
themselves by means of feedback loops. Keeney and Ross ( 1983) define
a cybernetic system as one "which encompasses a recursive, complemen-
tary relation between processes of change and stability" (p. 377). The
system maintains dynamic equilibrium or stability through processes of

6
 Vol. 10, No. 2, Fall 1996
change (Keeney & Thomas, 1986). Information is fed back into the sys-
tem in a recursive manner as either positive (deviation amplifying) or neg-
ative (deviation dampening) feedback (Broderick & Smith, 1979). Posi-
tive feedback, for example, characterizes much of the autonomy-seeking
behaviors of adolescents. A 16 year old arguing for a later curfew could
be viewed as one attempt to alter the homeostatic balance of the system to
make room for increasing needs of adolescent independence. A father's
rigid and punitive response would be seen as negative feedback; the frus-
trated teenager's decision to skip school and "do his own thing" would be
an escalating positive feedback loop. In this case, the war is on, unless a
new homeostatic balance, which appropriately broadens family rules to
empower the adolescent's autonomy, can be negotiated.

Communication Theory
While general systems theory and cybernetics provide the prima-
ry framework in which structural family therapy is founded, it also utilizes
communication theory as a commentary' on the structural organization of
the family. Structural therapy emphasizes the process level of communi-
cation in terms of effecting and stabilizing family structure. Whether ver-
bal or behavioral, repeated transactional patterns within a family establish
patterns of how, when, and with whom one relates; these patterns main-
tain the system structure (Minuchin, 1974). In one case, a mother and 13-
year-old daughter began to argue over her study habits. After a few min-
utes, the daughter looked at her father as if to draw him to her rescue. Be-
ing himself dominated by an overbearing wife, the father felt sympathy
for his daughter and took her side. This communicative process maintains
a problematic father-daughter coalition against the mother and ultimately,
shifts the focus of the argument away from the mother-daughter dyad to
the mother-father marital dyad.
Structural therapists are also interested in communication from
the standpoint of information exchanges with the outside world (external
family boundaries) and the resulting greater social context with which the
family is embedded. For example, a husband's domineering and disen-
gaged style of family interaction may be supported by patriarchal teach-
ings within the local church. Recently, one client reported a sermon illus-
tration gi\ en by his preacher that stated a wife's submission to her hus-
band (Eph. 5) meant that if at midnight he asked her to make him a sand-
wich, she had no choice but to do so. If such words are heeded by the
client, the larger church context will have significant influence on this
couple's marital and family structure.

7
Journal of Family Ministry

Major Tenets of Structural Family Therapy

Family Structure
Structural therapy is founded upon the assumption that there is
structure to the way families interact and relate to one another. Structural-
ism, resting on certain principles of structural functionalism (Luepnitz,
1988), assumes patterns or codes that regulate human relationships (Carl-
ton, 1987). According to Minuchin (1974), "family structure is the invisi-
ble set of functional demands that organizes the ways in which family
members interact" (p. 51). It is the repeated transactional patterns within
the family context that underpins the system. Transactional patterns regu-
late family members' behavior with generic, universal rules of family or-
ganization and through idiosyncratic constraints, involving the mutual
expectations of particular family members (Minuchin, 1974).
Among the basic concepts of structure are (a) families as sys-
tems and subsystems, (b) rules and roles, (c) boundaries, (d) power, and
(e) hierarchy (Aponte & Van Deuson, 1981). Figle> and Nelson (1991)
describe functional families as having clear boundaries between individu-
als and subsystems, facilitating growth of individuals and preventing in-
trusion. Functional families also have generational hierarchies with rules
and roles that allow flexibility and adaptability to changes (internal and
external) as the family evolves over time.
Subsystems and boundaries are two key concepts in structural
family therapy. Indi\ lduals, dyads, or larger groups (holons) are sub-
systems within a family; the three most commonly delineated subsystems
are the sibling, executive (parental), and marital subsystems. It is through
these subsystems that a system carnes out its functions (Minuchin, 1974).
Subsystems are differentiated by boundaries, the rules defining who par-
ticipates and how. These invisible barriers which surround subsystems,
regulate the amount of contact with others and function to protect the dif-
ferences of the system. According to Minuchin ( 1974), boundaries must
be clear for healthy family functioning to occur. In fact, how subsystems
are organized within a family is not as significant as the clarity of sub-
system boundaries. Interpersonal boundaries range from ngid to diffuse.
Rigid boundaries are overly restrictive, resulting in disengaged, isolated
subsystems. Diffuse boundaries result in enmeshed subsystems that offer
a heightened sense of mutual support, but at the expense of independence
and autonomy.

Dynamics of Change and Therapy Goals

Families are subject to many types of stress, some internal (e.g.,
a child reaches adolescence) and some external (e.g., job loss). These

8
 Vol. 70, No. 2, Fall 1996
stressors demand that families accommodate and adapt their structure so
as to adjust adequately (Minuchin, 1974). A dysfunctional system (pa-
thology) results when families, faced with such stress, "increase the rigidi-
ty of their transactional patterns and boundaries, and avoid or resist any
exploration of alternati ves" (Minuchin, 1974, p. 60).
Therefore, the primary goal of structural family therapy is
changing the structure of the family so they can grow while the family
system maintains continuity (Minuchin, 1974; Melito, 1988). By altenng
boundanes and realigning subsystems, the therapist changes the behavior
and experience of each of the family members. For example, the marital
subsystem boundary needs to be clear so that children do not interfere
v\ ith marital issues and functions. Furthermore, a clear hierarchical
boundary betw een parents and children is important so that parents are in
charge and use their authority to guide, nurture, and protect their children
(Minuchin, 1974). It is important to note that the therapist does not solve
problems. He or she modifies the family 's functioning so that they can
solve their own problems (Nichols, 1984).

Structure of Treatment
Assessment
The principle data used in structural therapy to assess or diag-
nose the family comes from observ ations of family behav lor during the
interview (Umbarger, 1983). It is important, then, that as many family
members attend therapy as possible. Structural therapy, without the pres-
ence of all relevant members, is not impossible but the therapist will be
handicapped in gaining a comprehensive understanding of the underlying
farmi} dynamics (Colapinto, 1991).
Minuchin (1974) has outlined six areas in assessing the family's
interactions: First, the therapist should consider the family structure, in-
cluding its key transactional patterns and preferred behaviors. Second, the
therapist evaluates the system's flexibility and its capacity to restructure
alliances, coalitions, and subsystems. Third, the therapist examines the
farmi} 's resonance or cohesion. This would include relational distance
between famil} members, subsystem boundanes, and even the hierarchi-
cal distribution of executive power (Umbarger, 1983) Fourth, the thera-
pist reviews the family life context, its sources of support and stress.
Fifth, he or she examines the family's developmental stage and the rele-
v ant tasks conironting the system. Sixth, the therapist should explore the
function of the identified patient's symptoms in maintaining the family's
preferred transactional patterns (Minuchin, 1974).

9
Journal of Family Ministry
Techniques of Structural Family Therapy
Structural therapy proceeds as a senes of intervention strategies,
the first of which invol ves joining. "Joining is letting the family know
that the therapist understands them and is working with and for them"
(Minuchin & Fishman, 1981, p. 31-32). Joining is earning the nght to
lead the family. Joining may occur from a relatively disengaged position,
as when the therapist directs the family in some enactment, or from an
accommodative position which shows sympathy and understanding to the
family's structural preferences (Minuchin, 1974; Umbarger, 1983). Upon
joining the system, the therapist is able to assess and map the famil} struc-
ture, determining its strengths and weaknesses (Colapinto, 1991).
Generally, families enter therapy having identified one patholog-
ical member on whom they wish the therapist to concentrate The thera-
pist, however, will want to alter the dysfunctional family transactions that
are maintaining the problem (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981). Thus, early m
therapy the therapist will want to redefine the problem in family terms;
such a restatement broadens who is involved in the problem and shifts the
focus of therapy off the identified patient (Umbarger, 1983)
Enactment is the structural technique of inviting the family to
interact in front of the therapist so that he or she can first assess the family
patterns and then intervene at the appropnate time and in the appropnate
manner (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981). Boundary making, a restructunng
technique, is a form of enactment and regulates the permeability of
boundanes separating holons (Colapinto, 1991 ; Minuchin & Fishman,
1981). Here the therapist modifies patterns of interaction by allowing
some members, but not others, to participate in a transaction For exam-
ple, the therapist ma} ask the incompetent parent to handle their child in
the session while restraining the competent parent from rescuing. Anoth-
er example would involve changing the spatial arrangements in the room
to indicate psychological distance between family members (Minuchin &
Fishman, 1981)
One of the most valuable interventions for the structural thera-
pist is reframing. This technique alters the family's view of a situation,
thereby changing its entire meaning (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981, Wat-
zlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). Reframing or relabeling requires a
change of context and, therefore, requires a new perspective and potential -
1} new behavior, when entering the transactional field (Umbarger, 1983)
In order to be heard b} the family, a therapist may alter the in-
tensity of system interactions as a means of restructunng. Changing in-
tensity may be done by increasing the affective components of the trans-
action, repetition of messages, and changing the time involved and dis-
tance between people in a transaction (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981) Un-

10
 Vol. 10, No. 2, Fall 1996
balancing, another technique, attempts specifically to change the hierar-
chical relationship of subsystem members. A therapist, for example, may
become a protagonist of family transactions by entenng a coalition with a
particular family member, ignonng the present system of interaction.
Such a position empowers the family member to operate in unaccustomed
ways, potentially creating new possibilities for interaction (Minuchin &
Fishman, 1981).

A Biblical Critique of Structural Family Therapy

Assumptions of General Systems Theory and Communications Theory
The notions of circular causality and the intenelatedness of parts
stand epistemologically separate from linear causality and other notions
held by individual ps}chotherapies (Bateson, 1972). Within the develop-
ment of a Christian model the question, then, becomes whether we should
allow indi\ ldual psychologies or systemic family therapies to influence
our thinking. Anderson and Guernsey (1985) suggest that contemporary
Chnstian approaches to the study of the family have been naively influ-
enced b} indi\ ldual psychology. Viewing the family as an institution that
is best understood as a relational or social phenomenon leads them to con-
clude that the secular disciplines of sociology and GST might be useful in
understanding Scnpture and developing a theology of the family (Ander-
son & Guernse}, 1985).
It would appear that a systemic framew ork for therapy is in
keeping with the relational nature created in humankind. This relational
nature can be seen from the beginning as Adam was "alone" without
someone with whom he could share life and lo\ e. Furthermore, the com-
mands to love God, }our neighbor, and self appear to be systemically and
inextricably linked (Anderson & Guernsey, 1985). Each command be-
comes an integral part of the other two, but w ould be futile in their pur-
pose if God did not first love us. It is this relational context that systems
theory is able to descnbe and provide a framework for understanding.
GST and structural family theory are not without their shortcom-
ings, however, especiall} within the area of moral responsibiht}. Accom-
panying the notion of circulant} is the idea that responsibiht} for patholo-
g} and change belongs to the system. However unintentional, this seems
to free the identified patient, for example, from being morally responsible
for his or her actions as they relate to family functioning. For example, a
farmi} may enter counseling with a defiant and disrespectful 14-year-old
son. From a structural therapy perspectiv e, the son is not the problem; the
family structure is responsible for the unhealthy beha\ ìor and change is
sought in the interactional patterns of the family as a w hole (Minuchin &

11
Journal of Family Ministry
Fishman, 1981). How ever, from a biblical perspective, the son is ulti-
mately responsible for his sinful behavior (before God).
The Chnstian therapist should be cognizant of this diffenng
view of accountability, but it does not appear, however, that theology and
structural theory cannot be complementary. Pragmatically, it is beneficial
to treat the family system while reserving the nght to hold each member
accountable for personal actions w hich occur as partial arcs in the overall
circular patterns. For example, the Jone's family (not their real name)
presented for therap} with a rebellious 15-year-old daughter. The daugh-
ter's behavior, from a structural framework, was thought to function as a
detounng mechanism, draw ing the parents' attention away from their co-
v ert mantal hostility to her overt refusal to be obedient. Mutual causation
is demonstrated in that the misbehav îor functioned to bring the parents
together in an otherw îse disengaged mantal subsystem, and the disen-
gaged marnage contnbuted to the maintenance of the daughter's opposi-
tional behav îor. The therapist's first intervention in this activ e Chnstian
family, was to use the parents' concern for their daughter's spintual con-
dition as leverage to encourage them to better cooperate as a parental
team. This enabled the executive subsystem to be strengthened and even-
tuali} allowed the therapist to address the covert mantal issues. "Calling
the daughter into repentance" was a useful first move in joining with the
parents and reminding the daughter of her personal moral responsibilities.
It was not, however, an effectiv e s}stemic solution as it did not address
the context w ithin w hich the symptom behav ìor onginated. After restruc-
tunng the system (i.e , strengthening the executive and mantal sub-
systems, and negotiating dev elopmental rule changes to empower the
daughter's emerging autonom}), the adolescent's symptomatic behav ìor
w as no longer necessar} and dissolved.
Cybernetic and communication theor}, also, seem to be comple-
mentar} to biblical notions of interpersonal communication. While com-
munication theor} is concerned with the anal}sis of how communication
takes place and the structural meaning therein, the Bible admonishes
Chnstians as to the content of their speech. "Do not let any unwholesome
talk come out ot }our mouths, but onl} w hat is helpful tor building others
[}our lamil}] up according to their needs ." (Eph. 4:29). Furthermore,
Paul exhorts us to "get nd ot all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and
slander, along w ith e\ eiy form of malice Be kind and compassionate to
one another. " (Eph. 431,32). Thus, biblical pnnciples of communica-
tion exhort families as to the content or manner of their interaction, while
cybernetic and communication theory gi\ e therapists a model for under-
standing the s}stemic impact of such communication

12
 Vol. 10, No. 2, Fall 1996
The Presupposition of Structure
Structural farmi} therapy assumes patterns or codes that regulate
human relationships (Carlton, 1987) ; this presupposes that a person's ex-
penence is determined by his or her interaction with the environment
(Bateson, 1971). From a theological standpoint, can we assume that God
created a urn versal family structure? In describing the natural or created
contingent orders, Anderson & Guernsey (1985) conclude that there is a
quintessential order for the family as a social structure.
The quintessence of the social structure we call family
is rooted in the creative Word of God and its purpose,
which expresses itself through the order of creation.
The creative Word gives form and stability to the natu­
ral order as the context for the formation of the human
family. Yet the form of the family as a social structure
is always contingent upon that essential order which
belongs to God as the Creator.... (p. 17)
Anderson and Guernsey ( 1985) continue by identifying love as a quintes­
sential structure of relationships noting that the structure of social relation­
ships remain normative even though roles, which express that structure,
change.
Furthermore, Salinger (1979,1987) points out that the basic con­
cepts of structural family therapy are consistent with biblical concepts of
famil} functioning. For example, structural family therapy emphasizes
the importance of the mantal dyad ("as goes the marnage, so goes the
family") as does the Bible, which has much to say about mantal relations
and provides numerous examples of the mutual submission, respect, and
commitment necessary for satisfying relationships ( 1 Cor. 7,13; Eph. 5).
Peter adds that couples are to relate to each other as equals, participants in
the grace of God (1 Pet. 3:7).
In Ephesians 5:22—6:4 and Colossians 3:18-21 Paul lays out,
through the inspiration of the Spint, God's intended structure for families
(note how consistent structural theory is with these main concepts). The
instruction for a family hierarchy and a functional executive subsystem is
given in both Scnptures. First and foremost, husbands are directed to
serve as the servant leaders of the household, loving their wives as Chnst
lov ed the church. Furthermore, parents are to have authonty over their
children in discipline and in love w hile children are to respect and obey
their parents. But the "power" that is afforded men and parents here is not
to be understood as lording it ov er others. Rather it is a call to empower
others in the family. It is to follow Chnst's example. "Jesus rejected the
use of power to control others, and instead affirmed the use of power to
serve others, to lift up the fallen, to forgi ν e the guilty, to encourage re-

13
Journal of Family Ministry
sponsibility and maturity in the weak, and to enable the unable" (Balswick
& Balswick, 1989, p. 29). Successful empowerment by husbands, then,
results in honor being given to their wives; successful empowerment by
parents grants children the gift of a sense of personal power, self-esteem,
and wholeness.
Worthy of comment here is the feminist argument that structural
family therapy oftentimes supports male domination or patriarchy leaving
women in a subordinate position (Luepnitz, 1988). This dynamic is often
true in religiously fundamental homes who believe that as "head of the
house," men are entitled to special privileges of power. As illustrated ear-
lier, men oftentimes assume headship gives them the right to insist that
their wife cater to their needs or desires. This author firmly believes that
such understanding is inadvertently, and at times, overtly supported by
structural therapists and ministers who misunderstand the use of interper-
sonal power within Scripture. The model of power Paul teaches men to
imitate in Ephesians 5: 22-33 is that of a suffering servant (Savior) who
gives himself up in love for his wife the church. As Christ loved the
church, men are to nourish and cherish their wives, and love them as they
love themselves. The therapist who confronts a mother, for example,
about her nagging behavior, but passively overlooks the husband's lack of
service to his family supports his male privileges. A second example
would be a male therapist who frequently intenupts females in a family,
but allows the males to speak to completion or a young female therapist
who allows herself to be so intimidated by an older man that she becomes
ineffective in restructuring the family. The structural notions of power
and hierarchy do not have to be oppressive toward women. However, a
proper biblical understanding of how pow er is used is needed in order to
properly apply the constructs in therapy.
The notion of hierarchy also identifies differences in tasks as-
signed to each subsystem. The marital subsystem provides stability for
the family structure (Glick & Kessler, 1974) and models the love of Christ
for His church (Eph. 5:25-33). The executive subsystem is given the task
of socializing and teaching moral values to children (Deut. 6:4); this pro-
vides a sense of belonging and personal value to children as they grow
and mature (Salinger, 1987). Children (sibling subsystem) are to honor
their parents as they grow in the Lord (Eph. 6:3).
Finally, the notions of subsystems and hierarchy support the idea
of boundaries which differentiate subsystems and individual holons.
Boundaries between subsystems and individuals must be clear so as to
allow for the fulfillment of their God-given tasks and spiritual growth of
indiv iduals. Additionally, the Bible calls people to a personal integrity in
the midst of intense family pressures (Jn. 19:25-27) and, if necessary, to

14
 Vol. 10, No. 2, Fall 1996
establish firm boundanes between family and God (Lk. 14). "One must
be willing to accept the possibility of conflict in order to be faithful to the
call of God" (Matt. 10:34-39; Salinger, 1987, p. 303).

Therapeutic Applications
The integrative therapist who works with religious families
should be mindful that "religious beliefs and practices are interwoven in
the nature of the individual and in transactions in which the individual is a
participant" (Di Biasio, 1988, p. 127). Since structural family therapy is
generally biblically consistent, it affords one key advantage to the family
minister or therapist working in a congregational setting. Interventions,
such as restructunng tasks, boundary making, and supporting the execu­
tive subsystem, emphasize biblical concepts that are consistent with the
ν alue framework of the client family. Furthermore, the larger church sys­
tem is likely to support such notions through the religious education pro­
grams of the church. Thus, the larger church system and the therapeutic
system isomorphically intervene in ways that are consistent with the reli­
gious practice of the client family (Deal & Pansh, 1996).

Conclusion
Well-grounded in GST, cybernetics, and communication theory,
structural family therapy is a therapy of action designed to alter the basic
structure of dysfunctional systems Structural family therapy is consistent
w ith the biblical concepts of hierarchy, subsystems, boundanes, indiv ldu-
ation, and the importance of mantal relations. Thus, it is extremely rele-
\ ant for the Chnstian therapist who seeks to conform to biblical guide­
lines for family structure and function (Salinger, 1987).

Ron L. Deal is Family Life Minister, Southwest Church of Christ, and Ex­
ecutive Director of the Better Life Counseling Center, Jone sboro, Arkan­
sas. Ron directs the preventive and therapeutic efforts of the family life
ministry for the church and community. Special areas of interest include
family ministry methodologies, training lay counselors, and providing
family therapy in a congregational context.

References
Anderson R. S., & Guernsey, D. B. (1985). On being family: A social
theology of the family. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Aponte, H. J., & Van Deusen, J. M. (1981). Structural family therapy.
In A. S. Gurman & D. Ρ Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family
therapy (Vol. 1, pp. 310-360) New York· Brunner/Mazel.

15
Journal of Family Ministry
Balswick, J. O. & Balswick, J. K. (1989). The family: A Christian
perspective on the contemporary home. Grand Rapids, ML: Baker
Book House.
Bateson, G. (1971). The cybernetics of self: A theory of alcoholism.
Psychiatry, 34, 1-18.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York:
Ballantine.
Becvar, D. S., & Becvar, R. J. (1982). Systems theory and family
therapy. Lanham, MD.: University Press of America.
Bertalanff}, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: Guilford.
Bloch, D. Α., & La Perrière, Κ. (1973). Techniques of family therapy:
A conceptual frame. In D. A. Bloch (Ed.), Techniques of family
psychotherapy: A primer. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Brodenck, C. B., & Schrader, S. S. (1991). The history of professional
marriage and family therapy. In A. S. Gurman and D. P. Kniskern
(Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (Vol. 2, pp. 3-40). New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Broderick, C , & Smith, J. (1979). The general systems approach to
the family. In W. Burr, R. Hill, I. Nye, & I. Reiss (Eds.), Contempo­
rary theories about the family (Vol. 2, pp. 112-129). New York:
Free Press.
Carlton, B. L. (1987). Structural family therapy. In D. G. Benner
(Ed.), Psychotherapy in Christian perspective (pp. 347-349). Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House.
Chartier, M. R. (1978). Parenting: A theological model. Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 6, 54-61.
Colapinto, J. (1991). Structural family therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D.
P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (Vol. 2, pp. 417-
443). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Deal, R. L. & Parish, W. E. ( 1996). Family therapv in a congrega­
tional setting: Assessing and utilizing the impact of the larger church
system. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 15, 232-245.
Di Biasio, F. Α. (1988). Integrative strategies for family therapy with
evangelical Chnstians. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 16,
127-134.
Figley, C. R., & Nelson, T. S. (1991). Basic family therapy skills, II:
Structural family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
76,225-239.
Glick, I., & Kessler, D. ( 1974). Marital and family therapy. New
York: Grune & Stratton.
Jackson, D. D. (1965). The stud} of the family. Family Process, 4, 1-
20.

16
 Vol. 10, No. 2, Fall 1996
Keene},B. P., & Ross, J. M. (1983). Cybernetics of bnef family
therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9,375-382.
Keeney, B. P., & Thomas, F. (1986). Cybernetic foundations of family
therapy. In F. P. Piercy, D. H. Sprenkle, & Associates (Eds.),
Family therapy sourcebook (pp. 262-287). New York: Guilford.
Luepnitz, D. A. (1988). The family interpreted: Feminist theory in
clinical practice. New York: Basic Books.
Melito, R. (1988). Combining individual psychodynamics with
structural family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
14, 29-43.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambndge, Mass.:
Harv ard University.
Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family therapy techniques.
Cambndge, Mass.: Harvard University.
Nichols, M. (1984). Family therapy: Concepts and methods. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Nichols, W. C. (1988). Marital therapy: An integrative approach.
New York: Guilford.
Nock, S. L. (1988). The family and hierarchy. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 50, 957-966
Salinger, R. J. (1979). Toward a biblical framework for family
therapy. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 7, 241-250.
Salinger, R. J. (1987). Farmi} therapy: Overview. In D. G. Benner
(Ed.), Psychotherapy in Christian perspective (pp. 298-304). Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House.
Simon, F. B., Stierhn, H., & Wynne, L. C. (1985). The language of
family therapy: A systemic vocabulary and sourcebook. New York:
Family Process.
Umbarger, C. C. (1983). Structural family therapy. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of
human communication. New York: Norton.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles
of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: Norton.
Werner, Ν. (1948). Cybernetics, or control and communication in the
animal and the machine Cambndge, Mass.: Technology.

17
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.