Diversity and Cultures

133

Relational Spirituality, Gender, and Power: Applications to Couple Therapy

Elisabeth Esmiol Wilson

© American Family Therapy Academy 2015 C. Knudson-Martin et al. (eds.), Socio-Emotional Relationship Therapy, AFTA SpringerBriefs in Family Therapy, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-13398-0_11

A growing body of research links relational spirituality to health and well-being (Peterman et al. 2002). Additionally, recent studies cite relational spirituality as an important aspect of healthy couple relationships (Esmiol et al. 2014; Mahoney 2010; Mahoney et al. 2009; Sandage and Williamson 2010). Interestingly, a relational spir- ituality seems to draw on some of the same relational competencies promoted by relational feminism (Esmiol Wilson et al. 2014; Knudson-Martin et al. 2014). My interest in spirituality and feminism began early: I was raised in Hawaii by a single European American mother in a predominantly Asian community with a rich native Hawaiian heritage. Spirituality has long been an important part of my life, evolving over time with experience in different spiritual contexts. Training in Socio-Emotional Relationship Therapy (SERT) helped me see that gendered power between cou- ples can surface in spiritual styles. Drawing on recent research as well as examples from my own clinical practice and supervision of clinicians in training, this chapter explores the connection between gendered power and relational spirituality and the clinical implications of a relationship-friendly spirituality on couple relationships.

Intersection of Gendered Power and Relational Spirituality

A relational feminist perspective is grounded in the practice of mutuality between partners (Fishbane 2011; Jordan 2009). Mutuality involves power sharing and egali- tarian ideas demonstrated through reciprocal interactions. According to SERT, four key practices referred to as the Circle of Care are necessary for mutuality: (1) shared

E.E. Wilson (*) Department of Marriage and Family Therapy, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, WA, USA

134 E.E. Wilson

vulnerability, (2) mutual attunement, (3) shared relational responsibility, and (4) mutual influence (Esmiol Wilson et al. 2014; Knudson-Martin and Huenergardt 2010, “Bridging Emotion, Societal Discourse, and Couple Interaction in Clinical Practice,” 2015). The practice of relational spirituality also involves mutuality—between the Divine and human (Idel 1990; Ladinsky 2006). While different religious beliefs and traditions uniquely contextualize how people connect with God, relational spiritu- ality transcends religious lines even while being more in alignment with some reli- gious contexts than others. From Christian and New Age spirituality to the mysticism of Jewish Kabbalah and Islamic Sufism, relational spiritual practices share a focus on intimate union with a relational God (Bagasra 2004; Idel 1990; Lahood 2010; Sandage Hill and Vaubel 2011). What is of interest here is how relational spirituality impacts gendered power in couple relationships.

A Relationship-Friendly Spirituality

Gender and power dynamics influence all aspects of our lives from our spirituality to our human relationships (Fishbane 2011; Mahoney 2010). In the context of two gen- ders, some couples share relational power and connect in non-gendered, mutually reciprocal interactions, while others seem unable to reach these ideals (Jonathan and Knudson-Martin 2012; Knudson-Martin and Mahoney 2009b). This gap between belief and action occurs when some couples talk about ideals of relationship equal- ity yet deny the influence of gender and power on their actions and decision-making (Knudson-Martin and Mahoney 2009a).

Relational patterns with the Divine can mirror relational patterns with one’s partner (Esmiol Wilson et al. 2014; McDonald et al. 2005). Couples practicing mutuality versus those struggling to practice mutuality seem to engage with both God and each other in (1) more intimate versus obligation-based relational patterns and (2) more mutually reciprocal versus non-reciprocal directions of dialogue (Esmiol Wilson et al. 2014). Thus, some forms of spirituality are more relation- ship-friendly than others. In the examples that follow, I illustrate how the obliga- tion-based, non-reciprocal dialogue relationship patterns demonstrated by Rachel and Tom limit their mutuality and contrast this with Lisa and David, whose inti- mate and reciprocal patterns promote each aspect of the Circle of Care (Fig. 1).1

Obligation-Based and Non-reciprocal Dialogue

Rachel and Tom came to counseling seeking premarital therapy. Their obligation- based interactions focused on duty to God and each other, demonstrating a lack of mutuality, while their non-reciprocal dialogue privileged the male perspective and revealed a gendered power disparity. A European American couple in their early

1 All names and identifying information have been changed to protect confidentiality.

135Relational Spirituality, Gender, and Power …

thirties with no children and no prior marriages, both expressed a deep faith in God and were active members of their local Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church. While not SDA myself, the couple was referred to me due to my background stud- ying Christian spirituality, which they stated was a significant reason in their seeing me as a clinician.

Spiritual patterns. For Tom “going to church every Sabbath shows God that I’m doing what God expects of me.” Such statements seemed more focused on a dutiful obligation to the Divine. Rachel described a spiritual relationship based more on intimacy and connection, yet she seemed vulnerable to Tom’s influence and prone to silencing her voice in favor of his obligatory way of practicing spirituality.

I know I should, but I don’t read my Bible every day like Tom. I feel close to God in my everyday life, like at random times driving my car and a song comes on that speaks to me, but I should read scripture more.

Rachel’s dialogue with God tended to be marked by moments of intimacy fol- lowed by minimizing and silencing the significance of her own experiences. Tom’s dialogue with God included “listening to God’s voice in scripture,” feeling guilty, and then “confessing my sin and asking for forgiveness.” The dialogue seemed one-sided with Tom’s view directing how “best” to converse with God.

Similar couple patterns. The couple demonstrated similar patterns in their relationship with each other. Tom shared: “I end dates early if I feel we’re being sexually tempted” and “I tell Rachel her clothes and posture lead to more tempta- tion and frustration.” Notice the one-sided, non-power-sharing direction of com- munication from Tom to Rachel in these statements. Tom seemed to direct their

Fig. 1 Spiritual and couple relational patterns

136 E.E. Wilson

dialogue about sexual purity, making decisions about when and how to spend time together, instead of engaging in mutual dialogue about their shared relational and spiritual struggles to stay sexually “pure.” This one-sided pattern of communica- tion, with Tom holding more power than Rachel, was similar to the non-reciprocal communication Tom experienced in his spiritual life with God. Rachel felt Tom silencing her and struggled to tell him, “I just want sometimes to be able to sit together and hold hands and tell each other ‘I love you’ without feeling guilty about it becoming a sexual purity thing.”

Non-mutuality in the Circle of Care. Couple relational patterns impact every aspect of the Circle of Care, in this case limiting Rachel and Tom’s practice of mutuality. Both Rachel and Tom struggled with shared vulnerability, though in different ways. Rachel invalidated her expressions of vulnerability with God and with Tom, while Tom avoided his vulnerable feelings through rigid patterns of spir- itual practice. For example, he prayed, “God, I’m sorry, I need to pray and con- fess more,” instead of more openly admitting “God, I love Rachel and sometimes my body responds so strongly I don’t know what to do.” Preoccupied with his guilt and shame, he struggled to feel mutually attuned to God or to Rachel’s love and forgiveness. Rachel seemed more able to feel God’s love for her and similarly seemed able to attune to Tom’s feelings of shame, although she was unsure how to help him. Tom’s difficulty attuning to Rachel was a source of pain, highlighting their gendered-power imbalance (see Knudson-Martin, “When Therapy Challenges Patriarchy: Undoing Gendered Power in Heterosexual Couple Relationships,” 2015). They lacked shared relational responsibility, as Rachel carried the burden of noticing their lack of connection and the negative impact on their relationship. Yet she had little room to voice her concerns and even less ability to influence Tom. He held much more power in their relationship, influencing Rachel’s view of her- self and their relationship, as well as her relationship with God. Similarly neither experienced mutual influence with God, as both felt somewhat powerless and more prone to accepting spiritual blame than proactively asking God for help.

Intimacy-Based and Reciprocal Dialogue

In contrast, Lisa and David demonstrated more relationally mutual patterns of inter- action. Their intimacy-based interactions focused on connection with God and each other, demonstrating relational mutuality, while their reciprocal dialogue made space for mutual understanding and revealed a sharing of power. They were a recently married Hispanic couple in their early forties, with one child between them and two children each from former marriages. The couple came to counseling to find bet- ter ways of coping with increasing stress due to conflicts with David’s teenage son and Lisa’s ex-husband. Having a clinician who respected and could integrate their Catholicism into therapy was important to both of them and especially to Lisa.

Spiritual patterns. While expressed differently, both Lisa and David described an intimate spiritual connection with God marked by different degrees of

137Relational Spirituality, Gender, and Power …

reciprocal dialogue. When asked how she experienced God, Lisa shared, “I talk to God all the time, out loud, in my head, when cleaning the house, it doesn’t matter. He’s always listening and sometimes talking back, reminding me he’s got my back.” Lisa experienced deeply intimate, reciprocal dialogues with God, while David’s relational spirituality was harder to assess. I was careful to distin- guish between David’s more private expressions of faith (e.g., “I don’t talk about it much, not like Lisa”) and his less verbally developed relational connection with God (e.g., “God’s always there; I don’t need to say much”). Lisa’s experiences of reciprocal communication with God and David’s experiences of implicit, mutual understanding seemed similar to their couple relational patterns.

Similar couple patterns. Lisa constantly talked in therapy, openly sharing her feelings with David, yet added, “Sometimes I just don’t know what he’s thinking or feeling.” David seemed open to hearing Lisa and enjoyed her sharing, yet often felt he did not have much to add. When I invited David to process, he could express feeling a secure connection with Lisa as partners, lovers, and parents. My concern was supporting David in formulating his words, even if in a simple statement of “I hear you and agree.” This meant Lisa might also need to leave more space for David to find his words. Despite these needed changes in their communication, their cou- ple relational pattern, like their spirituality, seemed based on an intimate connection.

Mutuality in the Circle of Care. Lisa easily and openly expressed shared vulner- ability with God and with David. With encouragement, David expressed more vul- nerable feelings of concern for his teenage son and sadness around Lisa’s stress. I wondered how a spiritual practice of sharing his vulnerable feelings with God might impact David’s ability to share with Lisa. The couple also experienced mutual attune- ment, though David seemed more able to feel what Lisa was feeling. She needed to remind herself to “slow down and listen, because that’s when I start realizing what he’s thinking and feeling.” Her experience with God was similar as Lisa predomi- nantly talked in prayer, yet spent less time attuning to God. Together they shared relational responsibility for their couple needs. David said, “I want to be able to say ‘we need to talk,’ even if it’s hard sometimes for me.” And as Lisa reciprocated by giving David “space and time” to share, his ability to share facilitated their mutual attunement. Lisa and David also shared, “We’ve seen God answer prayer and seen Him act in our life,” demonstrating mutual influence on a spiritual level. They also took turns influencing each other, such as David responding to her requests for more emotional conversations despite the challenge of verbalizing his feelings.

Relational Spirituality and the Implications for Clinical Practice

As we begin to see how specific spiritual practices and ways of interacting with God directly intersect couples’ attempts at mutuality (Mahoney 2010; Sandage and Williamson 2010), the importance of attending to relational spirituality in clinical practice becomes apparent. Clinicians are increasingly open to and even recommend

138 E.E. Wilson

incorporating spirituality in couple therapy (Carlson et al. 2002; Richards and Bergin 2005). Attending to relational spirituality has particular relevance for supporting couples struggling to live out relationally mutual patterns of interaction. The following clinical recommendations outline how to address these dynamics at both the divine and human levels. Additionally, each is illustrated with a brief clinical example and linked to the SERT competencies outlined in the chapter “Bridging Emotion, Societal Discourse, and Couple Interaction in Clinical Practice” (Knudson-Martin and Huenergardt 2015; Knudson-Martin et al. 2014).

Identify Enactments of Cultural Discourses: SERT Competency 1

In my own clinical practice and supervision of clinicians in training, identifying enactments of cultural discourses includes assessing religious and spiritual mes- sages and listening specifically for relational spirituality dynamics. While lack of familiarity or comfort with various spiritual practices may lead some clinicians to shy away from addressing spiritual issues (Walsh 2008), spirituality is an impor- tant cultural and relational issue. Specifically, I encourage clinicians in training to reflect on similarities between addressing couple relational interactions and the divine–human interactions in relational spirituality. It is helpful to specifically lis- ten for (1) more intimate versus duty-bound, obligation-based relational patterns and (2) more mutually reciprocal versus hierarchical, non-reciprocal directions of dialogue (Esmiol Wilson et al. 2014).

When working with Michelle and Jill, a Latina and European American lesbian couple in their mid-30s, assessing spiritual relational patterns involved acknowl- edging their spiritual hurts. Specifically, I helped the couple differentiate painful experiences in leaving their Evangelical community from their fledging attempts at connecting with God in new spiritual contexts. Larger cultural discourses around spirituality and sexuality were incorporated into therapy as both women explored how these messages impacted their faith practices and their couple relationship. Expanding conversations to include how couples think about God, what they talk to God about, and how they experience themselves with God are all important in understanding the larger sociocultural context.

Attune to Underlying Sociocultural Emotion: SERT Competency 2

As clinicians assess spiritual contexts, they need to understand that changing couple relational patterns can actually alter how couples interact with God (Cattich and Knudson-Martin 2009). Clinicians can also guide couples to see how these

139Relational Spirituality, Gender, and Power …

larger spiritual discourses can influence their couple relationship. Seeing the inter- section between their spiritual experience and their couple relationship occurs as clients begin to attune to underlying sociocultural emotion. For example, only when Tom began to hear the pain behind Rachel’s desire for more intimacy was he able to connect the effect of his shame-based, spiritual obligations with Rachel’s distress. A possible question to help explore this intersection is, “How does your sense of ‘how God views you’ impact your couple relationship?” Tom’s answer became, “I can see that my guilt and struggle to accept God’s love, and even the fact that He made my sexuality, makes Rachel feel like I push her away from me and hurts our relationship.” Attuning to the emotional aspect of spiritual experi- ences helps make the influence of the larger context visible in their everyday cou- ple interactions.

Identify Relational Power Dynamics: SERT Competency 3

Research supports the need for clinicians to identify relational power dynamics and help couples become aware of discrepancies in their struggle to practice mutu- ality (e.g., Fishbane 2011; Knudson-Martin and Huenergardt 2010; Williams et al. 2012). While this intervention often feels more confrontational, helping couples see their power imbalances and the lack of reciprocity in both spiritual and couple interactions is key to changing patterns. With Genelia and James, an East Indian Catholic couple grieving multiple miscarriages, I began by exploring the complex power dynamics around gender and spirituality.

James came into therapy saying, “We believe miscarried babies are in Heaven, so there’s no need to keep grieving, and besides we have one healthy child. But my wife is having trouble moving on with the life God’s given us.” Genelia seemed silenced and even reprimanded by her “more holy” husband, withdraw- ing further from him and increasing his frustration that she was not able to “trust God.” I made their power structure visible by highlighting their pattern.

James, it seems like your faith in God helps you with the loss of your babies. Yet when you try to use God to comfort Genelia, she feels like you’re saying she’s not a “good Catholic” and shouldn’t share her hurt with you. It seems like you’re using your faith to put her down, even if this isn’t at all what you want. Then you feel her pulling away instead of you being able to comfort her and feel close to her like you want to.

In identifying the couple’s relational power dynamics, I highlighted that James’s use of spiritual power over Genelia may not be intentional but nevertheless hurts her and silences her. I was also careful to frame their power dynamics in terms of their relational goals: James wants to “comfort her” and “feel close to her” and she wants to “share her hurt” with him. By recognizing James’ relational desires to comfort his wife, I set the stage to help James, the more powerful partner, move toward vulnerability and the next SERT competency.

140 E.E. Wilson

Facilitate Relational Safety: SERT Competency 4

Once couples see their power discrepancies, I facilitate relational safety by sup- porting the less powerful partner’s voice and encouraging vulnerability from the more powerful partner. Intervening according to discrepancies in gendered power is essential, regardless of which partner the couple views as more spiritual. In cer- tain spiritual contexts, faithfully pursuing the Divine and being perceived as “close to God” may lead to a privileged role (Ladinsky 2006; Lahood 2010). However, for couples struggling to practice relational mutuality, being male seems to carry an even stronger level of privilege and power than being spiritual.

Adam and Sarah, a European American Mormon couple in their early thirties with five children, both considered Adam more spiritual. In contrast, Youssef and Shereen, a Sunni Muslim couple in their mid-thirties with one child, both considered Shereen more spiritual. Yet for both couples, male privilege seems to disempower the wives. While addressing parenting issues in couple therapy, Adam used phrases such as “God revealed to me” and “as the spiritual leader of the home” to dismiss Sarah’s views. Youssef similarly dismissed Shereen’s belief that “Allah has a plan for us,” calling her “naive” during therapy sessions addressing their financial crisis. Regardless of which partner has more spiritual status, I facilitate relational safety by first encouraging vulnerability in the part- ner with more gendered power.

As Adam described his experience of parenting with Sarah, I helped him move from criticism to vulnerability saying, “I imagine it’s almost a powerless feeling not being able to work together no matter how hard you try.” Adam’s ability to show Sarah his feelings of powerlessness and even loss around wanting a closer parenting relationship helped him shift from the spiritual expert discrediting her views to a partner open to new ways of parenting together. To similarly access Youssef’s vulnerable emotions, I asked him, “What is it like seeing how close Shereen is to Allah?” I searched for the vulnerability behind his dismissive com- ments, stating, “I wonder if you ever feel on the outside, separate from her special bond with Allah?” Gradually, Youssef identified feeling isolated from an impor- tant part of Shereen’s life that he did not understand and feeling fear of her trying to assert power over him. I then supported Shereen in voicing her desire to “face this financial mess together,” stressing her desire for power with him, rather than power over him (Fishbane 2011).

Foster Mutual Attunement: SERT Competency 5

The benefits of egalitarian power dynamics (e.g., Day and Acock 2013; Fishbane 2011; Knudson-Martin 2013) strongly support the need for clinicians to facili- tate mutually supportive relationships. The task in helping couples aspiring to a relationship-friendly spirituality involves fostering the Circle of Care in both their

141Relational Spirituality, Gender, and Power …

spiritual and couple relationships. This proves challenging, however, when stark power differences exist, for example, as occurred between Genelia and James, the second-generation East Indian Catholic couple. They described holding egalitar- ian ideals, yet at the start of therapy, James appeared to hold more spiritual power as the “holy one” and he had difficulty being vulnerable and attuning to Genelia’s grief. Yet helping them foster mutual attunement allowed this couple to experience exceptions to their traditional gendered stereotypes and see how mutuality actually benefited them.

James had difficulty both sharing his own feelings and being able to feel Genelia’s deep loss around their multiple miscarriages. He was also unable to see the impact of his spirituality on Genelia, who seemed more shamed into silence, believing “I’m not being faithful enough, I suppose.” James’s inability to experi- ence mutuality with God, and to sense God’s sadness with them in their loss, only compounded Genelia’s grief. To help James attune to his wife, I helped him iden- tify with her pain (SERT Competency 3) and then fostered his attunement to her (SERT Competency 4) through encouraging him to initiate dialogue and under- standing. He learned to ask her, “Can you tell me more?” and emotionally identify with her many-layered losses associated with unmet hopes and longings, changes in gendered and cultural identity, and the hardship of physically bearing and losing each baby.

Create a Relationship Model Based on Equality: SERT Competency 6

As therapists modeling mutuality to our clients, our clinical work needs to include both their couple and spiritual experiences. I do not shy away from helping cli- ents engage in more relational spiritual practices, yet I maintain a respectful and collaborative approach, following clients’ lead as spiritual “experts” in their own lives. For Lisa and David, the Latin American couple in their early forties, one therapeutic goal was helping David verbalize his private and vulnerable emotions with Lisa. Through in-session enactments, I asked Lisa to sit quietly, validating David’s desire to share and encouraging him to focus on his emotions and tell Lisa what he was experiencing. However, I also invited David to notice similar pat- terns in his relationship with God. I suggested that David experiment with spiritual practices of mutuality, such as focusing on his emotions and sharing these with God to foster a more vulnerable connection with God.

Research indicates that increased mutuality with God positively impacts rela- tional spirituality as much as a lack of mutuality negatively impacts relationship with God (Gardner et al. 2008). Using relational spiritual practices identified by clients and consistent with their faith traditions is critical. David shared his assumption that “God already knows what I’m feeling,” while acknowledging “I guess I feel kind of closer to God when I share my feelings with God in these new

142 E.E. Wilson

ways.” With Lisa, I asked her to identify spiritual exercises which helped her slow down and listen to God, similar to her goal of listening to David. These parallel couple and spiritual experiences helped both Lisa and David embrace the positive aspects of increased mutuality, not only with each other but also with God. As they engaged more consistently in spiritual relational practices, they were able to create a relationship model based on equality that included both their couple and spir- itual relationships.

Facilitate Shared Relational Responsibility: SERT Competency 7

Solidifying a relationship model based on equality requires that couples share responsibility for the well-being of their relationship with God and each other. I intentionally highlight the moments of mutuality. For example, with the East Indian Catholic couple I stated, “James, I see when you talk about all the differ- ent parts of Genelia’s loss, you begin to share what’s been hard for you too.” As he began to express shared vulnerability, I also asked questions to deepen his rela- tional responsibility, such as “How do you think it impacts her when you share some of the reasons why her loss is so big and hurts so much?” In these moments, James began to recognize the impact of his actions on Genelia stating, “When I share my hurts she doesn’t feel so alone, and realizes I hurt too” and “I think talk- ing about her hurt feels like I understand her and she’s not crazy for still being so sad.” I purposely focused on working with James first, identifying him as the partner holding more power and therefore the one to take the first steps toward facilitating shared relational responsibility. As James realized he was equally responsible for dealing with the relational impact of their miscarriages on their marriage, he was able to better attend to Genelia’s well-being and I began to see more evidence of the Circle of Care between them. I similarly invited both Genelia and James to examine how taking responsibility for mutually engaging with God, such as being vulnerable about their loss in prayer, positively impacted their con- nection with God. James shared, “Its hard feeling the hurt but when I take the ini- tiative and pray about it, I feel God’s closeness in a new way.”

Final Thoughts: Modeling Mutuality

Attending to the nuances of gender, power, and spirituality in couple dynam- ics poses many challenges. Gender and power issues are deeply embedded in the larger societal context and easy for clinicians to overlook, while spirituality some- times has therapists feeling out of our depths of clinical training (Walsh 2008). Simply navigating the complex and multilayered issues inherent in the intersection of all these dynamics can be daunting. I often remind myself and my supervisees

143Relational Spirituality, Gender, and Power …

that even when we are not sure of where these intersections will lead us or what mistakes we may make along the way, ignoring these issues would be a greater disservice to our clients. Part of helping couples achieve a relationship-friendly spirituality involves modeling mutuality, embracing our own vulnerability, and being influenced by the specific needs unique to each of our clients.

References

Bagasra, A. (2004). Psychology of the sufi mystics of Islam. Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa, 28(1), 16–31.

Carlson, T. D., Kirkpatrick, D., Hecker, L., & Killmer, M. (2002). Religion, spirituality, and mar- riage and family therapy: A study of family therapists’ beliefs about the appropriateness of addressing religious and spiritual issues in therapy. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(2), 157–171.

Cattich, J., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2009). Spirituality and relationship: A holistic analysis of how couples cope with diabetes. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35(1), 111–124.

Day, R. D., & Acock, A. (2013). Marital well-being and religiousness as mediated by relational virtue and equality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(1), 164–177. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01033.x.

Esmiol Wilson, E., Knudson-Martin, C., & Wilson, C. (2014). Gendered power, spirituality, and relational processes: Experiences of Christian physician couples. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 13(4), 312–338.

Fishbane, M. D. (2011). Facilitating relational empowerment in couple therapy. Family Process, 50, 337–352.

Gardner, B. C., Butler, M. H., & Seedall, R. B. (2008). En-gendering the couple-deity rela- tionship: Clinical implications of power and process. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 30(3), 152–166.

Idel, M. (1990). Kabbalah: New perspectives. New York, NY: Yale University Press. Jonathan, N., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2012). Building connection: Attunement and gender equality

in heterosexual relationships. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 11, 95–111. Jordan, J. (2009). Relational-cultural therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Knudson-Martin, C. (2013). Why power matters: Creating a foundation of mutual support in cou-

ple relationships. Family Process, 52, 5–18. Knudson-Martin, C. (2015). When therapy challenges patriarchy: Undoing gendered power in

heterosexual couple relationships. In C. Knudson-Martin, M. A. Wells, & S. K. Samman (Eds.), Socio-emotional relationship therapy: Bridging emotion, societal context, and couple interaction. (pp. 15–26). New York, NY: Springer.

Knudson-Martin, C., & Huenergardt, D. (2010). A socio-emotional approach to couple therapy: Linking societal context and couple interaction. Family Process, 49(3), 369–384.

Knudson-Martin, C., & Huenergardt, D. (2015). Bridging emotion, societal discourse, and couple interaction in clinical practice. In C. Knudson-Martin, M. A. Wells, & S. K. Samman (Eds.), Socio-emotional relationship therapy: Bridging emotion, societal context, and couple inter- action. (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Springer.

Knudson-Martin, C., Huenergardt, D., Lafontant, K., Bishop, L., Schaepper, J. & Wells, M. (2014). Competencies for addressing gender and power in couple therapy: A socio-emotional approach. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy.. doi:10.1111/jmft.12068 (Advance online publication).

Knudson-Martin, C., & Mahoney, A. R. (Eds.). (2009a). Couples, gender, and power: Creating change in intimate relationships. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Knudson-Martin, C., & Mahoney, A. R. (2009b). Gendered power in cultural contexts: Capturing the lived experiences of couples. Family Process, 48, 5-8.

Ladinsky, D. (2006). I heard God laughing: Renderings of Hafiz. London: Penguin Books.

144 E.E. Wilson

Lahood, G. (2010). Relational spirituality, part 2: The belief in others as a hindrance to enlighten- ment: Narcissism and the denigration of relationship within transpersonal psychology and the new age. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 29(1), 58–78.

Mahoney, A. (2010). Religion in families, 1999–2009: A relational spirituality framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(4), 805–827.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K., & DeMaris, A. (2009). Couples viewing marriage and pregnancy through the lens of the sacred: A descriptive study. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 20, 1–45.

McDonald, A., Beck, R., Allison, S., & Norsworthy, L. (2005). Attachment to God and parents: Testing the correspondence versus compensation hypotheses. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24(1), 21–28.

Peterman, A. H., Fitchett, G., Brady, M. J., Hernandez, L., & Cella, D. (2002). Measuring spir- itual well-being in people with cancer: The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy– spiritual well-being scale (FACIT-Sp). Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24(1), 49–58.

Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (2005). A spiritual strategy for counseling and psychotherapy (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sandage, S. J., Hill, P. C., & Vaubel, D. C. (2011). Generativity, relational spirituality, gratitude, and mental health: Relationships and pathways. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21, 1–16.

Sandage, S. J., & Williamson, I. (2010). Relational spirituality and dispositional forgiveness: A structural equations model. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38(4), 255–266.

Walsh, F. (2008). Religion, spirituality and the family: Multifaith perspectives. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Spiritual resources in family therapy (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Williams, K., Galick, A., Knudson-Martin, C., & Huenergardt, D. (2012). Toward mutual sup- port: A task analysis of the relational justice approach to infidelity. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39(3), 285–298. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00324.x.