Tag: Integrating Christianity and Psychology

Integrating Christian Theology and Psychology: Part Five

Steven Barto, B.S., Psy, M.A. Theology

WE LEARNED IN THE previous installments of this series that psychology is a discipline with a rich history. Plato and Aristotle, for example, created elaborate theories that attempted to account for a myriad of developmental issues: memory, perception, learning. Initial philosophers and theorists took an eclectic approach, exploring matters such as determinism, responsibility, mind versus body, empiricism, harmony, rationalism, and self identity. This tended to pull early theorists in many directions. When psychology emerged as a separate discipline, the initial impact tore in two the early influences of philosophy and religion. Today, psychology consists of a number of disciplines and concentrations. For the Christian, psychology must be infused with theological beliefs about our place in God’s world. Many evangelicals and other denominational Christians see no place for psychology or secular counseling in the church. In this installment, I will discuss free will and the personality. In the final installment, I will present the concept of “religious” or “Christian” counseling.

Free Will

Free will has been considered countless times by theologians such as Augustine, Martin Luther, Alvin Plantinga, C.S. Lewis, and Wayne Grudem. Admittedly, it is the concept of free will that muddies the water most when discussing religious faith and psychology. Christianity teaches that man has the freedom to choose or reject God. Everyone is free to choose A or not-A. This designation is different than choosing A or B. If you’re offered a choice of A or B, then you are being given a choice between, Do you want an apple or an orange with your lunch? In this scenario you cannot choose something other than an apple or an orange. You are not free to pick anything you want, but rather to make your selection from the choices offered. If you’re just offered A, then it’s still a choice. In the example of A or not-A you must choose God or not God.

Augustine’s definition of free will is built on Plato’s “seeking of the good principle.” Augustine addresses man’s choice between good and evil (right and wrong). He said we are also free to accept or reject the love and grace of God. Luther said, “God… foresees, purposes and does all things according to His immutable, eternal and infallible will” (1). When asked why we perform evil deeds, Luther replied, “The human will is like a beast of burden. If God rides it, it wills and goes whence God wills. If Satan rides it, it wills and goes where Satan wills” (2). This is not the same as believing a benevolent God rides us to do good, while an evil devil rides us to do evil. We choose whom to allow in the saddle, so to speak. Plantinga writes, “…belief in God is not the same thing as belief that God exists, or that there is such a thing as “god” (3).

The drive of philosophy to get the “big picture” has heavily influenced the understandings of Christian theology. Consider the problem of evil in a world created by a loving and caring God. Atheists and skeptics claim this dichotomy either proves God does not exist, or He does exist and is unable or unwilling to abolish evil. Plantinga puts the argument of skeptics this way: “If God is benevolent as Christian theists claim, He must be just as appalled as we are at all this evil [in the world]. But if He is also as powerful as they claim, then presumably He is in a position to do something about it. So why does He permit it?” (4). Plantinga cites the free will defense, which claims we are free with respect to an action. He explains, “If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing it” (5).

A world containing individuals who are capable of both good and evil simply indicates such individuals are free to choose how they will behave. God created man with free will; He cannot cause them to do only what is right. Plantinga reminds us that what God created “went wrong” when our First Parents exercised their free will to disobey God. It might sound as though this contradicts man’s freedom to choose, but it does not. We are free to obey or disobey, but we are not free to choose the consequences of our decision. Frankly, free will must involve moral agency.

Theories of Personality

Questions regarding mind versus body, nativism versus empiricism, nature versus nurture, and genetic components of behavior have been examined over the decades in hope of understanding the human personality. The goal has been to arrive at a unifying theory of human nature. For example, are we inherently aggressive? Freud said yes; humanists like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow said no. Sigmund Freud believed aggression and emotional traps are rooted in a person’s early childhood experience—especially the dynamics of one’s relationship with a parent or primary care giver. B.F. Skinner described a form of learning in which a voluntary response is strengthened or weakened depending on its association with either positive or negative consequences. The strengthening of a response occurs through reinforcement. Skinner called this theory “operant conditioning.”

Maslow created a visual, which he termed the “hierarchy of needs.” This pyramid depicts various levels of physical and psychological needs that a person progresses through during their lifetime (6). Frustration at any level of “actualization” makes it nearly impossible to move to the next level. For example, if a child’s physiological needs are not met, developing a sense of safety and security is difficult to achieve. Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory states that virtually all forms of behavior can be learned (good traits and bad) simply through observational learning. Although he did not believe man precisely mimics those whom he or she observes, he believed man makes a deliberate, conscious decision to behave in the same way. This is crucial for understanding why violent men often come from a violent home (7).

Personality is one of man’s most important assets. It shapes our experiences from birth and will do so as we get older. It impacts our accomplishments, expectations, health, options, and behavior. For example, someone with a terrific personality is affable, pleasant, nice to be around, easy to get along with. Someone with a terrible personality may be aloof, hostile, aggressive, unfriendly, dominating, difficult to get along with. Many forces and factors shape personality during childhood and young adulthood. After that, our personalities stay pretty much the same throughout our lives. A new study shows a correlation between personality traits observed in children (as young as first graders) and adult behavior. Does the child share? Is he or she aggressive or demure; sociable or shy? Christopher Nave says, “We remain recognizably the same person” (8).

I believe it is unwise to resign people to “fate,” especially through such a glib and simplified approach as above. Personality is complex and changeable in different situations and with different people. I find myself vacillating at times depending on the social setting. I might drop an f-bomb in certain circles, but it is not likely I will do so while in church or while interacting with fellow believers or church leaders. I was often told during active addiction that I was a “Jekyll and Hyde.” Take a moment to consider how we hold many traits. Try writing down as many adjectives as you can think to describe what you are really like. If you do not hold yourself in high regard, whatever the reason, your list may present a dark and unhappy personality. The opposite will be true if you think well of yourself. Our personality is a collage of feelings we’ve adapted over the years in response to our environment—forces and factors that shape who we are. Personality refers to enduring characteristics, but these may change over time in response to new and forceful stimuli and circumstances.

Personality and Religion

Religion teaches that individuals are responsible for their actions, and identifies bad behavior as transgression. Schnikter and Emmons believe religion is overlooked and marginalized in personality psychology, despite the fact that religion was of great interest to the founding theorists of the field. Schnikter, et al. write, “Because of the recent surge in empirical research on religion from a personological perspective this claim is no longer convincing. One of the hallmarks of personality psychology that distinguishes it from other fields is its focus on a comprehensive understanding of the person. Accordingly, personality psychology should have a distinctive relationship with the psychology of religion” (9). Because religion and spirituality are concerned with our transcendent self, Schnikter and Emmons believe personality psychology is a worthy study subject.

René Descartes viewed human personality as the product of an interaction between divine and primal forces. Jean-Paul Sartre theorized that personality traits are developed through the projects we choose in life, and because we can choose what we devote our lives to we can change our character traits. Webber writes, “An individual’s character is that person’s collection of character traits, and these can be defined as relatively stable dispositions to think, feel, and behave in certain ways in certain situations. Two traditional examples are bravery and cowardice, the dispositions to think, feel, and behave in a brave or cowardly manner in the face of real or apparent danger” (10). Consider, then, the generous man or woman. He or she frequently offers aid to neighbors, has several favorite non-profit organizations or charities, and tithes unselfishly at church. And there’s the alcoholic or drug addict who comes to know Jesus and experiences a radical change in character. He stops abusing alcohol or drugs and joins a church. Through his transformation, he begins to give generously to the church and volunteers his time for groups and programs. He passes the message of transformation along to newcomers.

When a person visits a psychologist or a psychiatrist, that person’s problems or concerns are being understood and addressed through the lens of the practitioner, also known as his or her theory of personality. Most psychological theories deny spirituality or downplay it at best. Secular counseling typically denies the spiritual dimension of humanity. Many of today’s personality theories have roots in the Enlightenment philosophy begun by Descartes. While these theories give us helpful insight and understanding, their philosophical foundations tend to be rationalistic, materialistic, and evolutionary in nature. Enlightenment theory lends itself to doubt and skepticism, limiting what they assign to a belief in God, a created world, and the concept of right versus wrong.

From a Christian perspective, Ladd (11) outlines three ways in which scholars have interpreted what can be called the anthropology of Paul:

Scholars of an older generation understood 1 Thessalonians 5:23—where Paul prays for the preservation of the spirit, soul, and body—to be a psychological statement and understood Paul in terms of trichotomy… spirit, soul, and body are three separable parts of man. Other scholars have seen a dichotomy of soul and body. Recent scholarship has recognized that such terms as body, soul, and spirit are not different, separable faculties of man but different ways of viewing the whole man.

Generally, psychology says man cannot change his personality. Christianity agrees in part. When an individual accepts the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and identifies with His death, burial, and resurrection, his or her character begins to change. Paul said, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Cor. 5:17). Paul further tells us to put off our old self, which belongs to our former manner of life, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, putting on the new self (see Eph. 4:22-24). Henry speaks of this transformation: “By the new man, is meant the new nature, the new creature, directed by a new principle, even regenerating grace, enabling a man to lead a new life of righteousness and holiness” (12) (italics added). This is what Paul meant by “all things.”

Isaiah said we must forget “the former things” and instead “do a new thing” (see Isa. 43:18-19). We should walk in a manner worthy of our calling in Christ (see Eph. 4:1). Yet, we are not left to our own (human) devices. Paul provides us with the necessary spiritual guidance. In the Book of Romans, he presents perhaps the closest thing in the New Testament to systematic theology. Chapters 6, 7, and 8 present the core of Christian doctrine, and as such is one of my favorite sections of Scripture. Paul changes the focus of his teaching in Romans 12 from theological to practical. Now, we are instructed to present our bodies as a “living sacrifice,” which is considered reasonable (do this at the very least) given the cost of our redemption. Practically speaking, our service requires a reorientation of our thinking: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (see Rom. 12:2). Henry writes, “Conversion and sanctification are the renewing of the mind; a change, not of the substance, but of the qualities of the soul” (13).

Concluding Remarks

For millennia religion and psychology stood in staunch opposition. The early theorists of psychology, however, were theists and philosophers. They remarkably shared a similar quest to understand the whole man: body, mind, spirit. It is not surprising that this centuries-old search passed through stages such as determinism, empiricism, rationalism, good versus evil, and self identity. In order to grasp the existence and attributes of God, we must move from knowing about God to knowing God. This is how we come to grips with who we are in Him, and who we are without Him. In so doing, we are in a better position to accept His forgiveness, grace, mercy, and salvation. It is through accepting that we become “a new creature.” However, we do not loose our personality; nor are we magically rendered immune to “being human.” Instead, transformation begins in the heart (spiritual) and proceeds through the mind (renewal of thoughts). The “old us” that dies with Christ is our unregenerate sinful self. The “new us” is our regenerate self that rises with Him in righteousness. Through spiritual growth, we move from “spiritual” to “practical” change—newness of character. Transformation, regardless of its impetus, necessarily requires a belief (faith) in the potential for change, and must be followed by action steps (practical) that allow us to begin “walking the new walk.”

References

(1) Hergenhahn and Henley, An Introduction to the History of Psychology, 7th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Publishing, 2014), 97.
(2) E.F. Winter, Erasmus & Luther: Discourse on Free Will (New York, NY: Continuum, 2005), 97.
(3) Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 1.
(4) Ibid., 9.
(5) Ibid., 29.
(6) Duane P. Schultz and Sydney Ellen Schultz, Theories of Personality, 11th ed. (Boston, MA: Centage, 2017), 250-251.
(7) Schultz, Ibid., 343-350.
(8) Christopher Nave, “Personality Set For Life by First Grade,” Live Science (Aug. 6, 2010). URL: https://www.livescience.com/8432-personality-set-life-1st-grade-study-suggests.html
(9) Sarah H. Schnikter and Robert A. Emmons, “Personality and Religion” in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, O. P. John & R. W. Robins, ed. (New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2021), 707–723.
(10) Jonathan Webber, “Sartre’s Theory of Character,” European Journal of Philosophy (2006), 94-116.
(11) George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.), 1974.
(12) Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1997), 1150.
(13) Henry, Ibid., 1087.

Integrating Christian Theology and Psychology: Part Two

By Steven Barto, B.S., Psy., M.T.S.

A NUMBER OF PHILOSOPHERS of the Enlightenment began publishing their thoughts in the late 1600s to early 1700s, and detractors almost immediately took on the task of stating their objections. Public debate began in Europe and Western Civilization whose echoes can be heard today. Enlightenment was characterized by skepticism toward religious dogma and other forms of traditional authority. Consensus was that principles governing the universe were discoverable, and could be applied to the betterment of mankind. Some of the Enlightenment’s key philosophers include Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes; key natural philosophers of the Scientific Revolution include Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.

In contrast, Isaiah Berlin established a movement called Counter-Enlightenment. His theory became a movement in the late 18th- and early 19th-century. This school of thought stood against rationalism, universalism, and empiricism (typically associated with the Enlightenment). Berlin’s essay “The Counter-Enlightenment” was first published in 1973, and later reprinted in a collection of his works, Against the Current, in 1981. Much of Berlin’s thought was linked to his philosophy of “value pluralism” which holds that moral values can be equally valid and yet mutually incompatible, creating conflicts that can only be reconciled pragmatically. He is noted for stating, “Those who have ever valued liberty for its own sake believed that to be free to choose, and not to be chosen for, is an inalienable ingredient in what makes human beings human.”

Isaiah Berlin wrote, “Opposition to the central ideas of the French Enlightenment, and of its allies and disciples in other European countries, is as old as the movement itself. The proclamation of the autonomy of reason and the methods of the natural sciences, based on observation as the sole reliable method of knowledge, and the consequent rejection of the authority of revelation, sacred writings and their accepted interpreters, tradition, prescription, and every form of non-rational and transcendent source of knowledge, was naturally opposed by the churches and religious thinkers of many persuasions” (1).

Philosophies inherent in the Enlightenment (empiricism, sensationalism, and rationalism) depicted humans as complex machines; products of experience; highly rational beings operating in accordance with abstract principles. Leaders in romanticism emphasized inner experience, and distrusted both science and the philosophy which pictured humans as products of experience, as machines, or as totally rational beings. Obviously, no one can be 100 percent “rational.” Rational beings are capable of logical thought with the ability to reason toward sound conclusions based on facts and evidence, draw inferences from situations and circumstances, and make sound well-reasoned judgements based on factual information. Read that again, and notice it is missing a reference to man’s emotions. I do not know a single human who is capable of Spock-like reasoning: logical, not emotional (2).

Early Approaches to Psychology

Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) opened the Institute for Experimental Psychology at the University of Leipzig in Germany in 1879. This was the first laboratory dedicated to psychology, and its opening is usually thought of as the beginning of modern psychology. Accordingly, Wundt is often regarded as the father of psychology. He believed that experimental psychology could be used to grasp an understanding of immediate consciousness, but said it was useless in attempting to understand higher cognitive function. Wundt stood in bold contradiction to Galileo, Comte, and Kant who claimed that psychology could never be a science. Wundt identified sensations (which occur whenever a sense organ is stimulated and the impulses reach the brain), adding that they are are always accompanied by feelings. He also developed the principle of contrasts. For example, if we taste something that is very bitter or sour, something sweet tastes even sweeter.

Early German psychology led to establishment of various clinics and experimental psychology labs. This era included the study of judging, recalling, expecting, inferring, doubting, loving, hating, and hoping. Looking at the previous listing, it is clear that experimental psychology was chasing mental abilities and processes at the same time it was seeking to explain emotion. Persistent questions in psychology over the centuries have included mind/body, mechanism versus vitalism, nativism versus empiricism, rationalism versus irrationalism, objective versus subjective reality, universalism versus relativism. Traditionally, “science” involves empirical observation, but the issues usually start with a problem that needs solving.

Not surprising, some aspects of psychology are scientific, and some are not. Nondeterminists assume that human behavior is “freely chosen,” and therefore not amendable to traditional scientific method. The indeterminist believes human behavior is determined, but say determinants of behavior cannot always be known. To what extent are humans free, and to what extent is their behavior determined by knowable causes? What is the nature of human nature? How are the mind and body related? And what of the spiritual element of human behavior? What is the origin of human knowledge? Is there a difference between what exists physically and what is experienced mentally? Are there knowable universal truths about the world in general, or just about people in particular? This is where psychology, philosophy, and theology began to ask similar questions.

I had intended to move on to David Entwistle (Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity), and the concept of worldview (David Sire, John Stonestreet, Nancy Pearcey, Lee Strobel). Instead, in Part Two I have presented an introduction to the history of psychology, and the many tough questions that come with exploring philosophy, psychology, and theology. Integration of these grand schemes is of vital importance. Naturally, some schools of thought overlap. Of course, others are diametrically opposed. In Part Three, we will explore the underpinnings of worldview from a secular and Christian perspective and show the overall importance of integrating psychology and Christian theology.

References
(1) “Archived Copy” (PDF). Archived from the original on Sept. 3, 2013. Retrieved 2013-08-03. URL http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/published_works/ac/counter-enlightenment.pdfi
(2) The character Spock is a character in television and movies as science officer of the U.S.S. Enterprise on Star Trek and related spinoffs.

Integrating Christian Theology and Psychology: Part One

By Steven Barto, B.S., Psy., M.T.S.

I have heard it said that since the cultural revolution of the 1960s the emotional and mental needs of the American people have increased dramatically. When psychiatric epidemiology emerged in the early 20th century, social scientists rather than psychiatrists determined its basic character. This practice eventually led to the unfortunate trend today in addressing mental illness: psychiatrists schedule 15 minute exams for their patients, usually a mere 4 times a year (every three months). “Talk therapy” has been bifurcated from psychiatrists and placed under the umbrella of psychologists and social workers. Because most social scientists are not trained in medicine, they had little concern for the formidable problems posed by a nosology (scientific study and classification of diseases and disorders, both mental and physical) based on symptoms rather than etiology.

Psychiatry was defined and promulgated by a group of statistically oriented social scientists concerned with problems relating to poverty, dependency, and welfare. Certainly, this is an impetus for what is now called “social science.” But it also led to the advent of social justice issues, especially along the lines of “identity politics.” Psychologists and social workers realized that institutional populations were notoriously poor sources for epidemiological inquiry. Socioeconomic and environmental factors are key components of personality formation. At a more fundamental level, psychiatric nosologies (with few exceptions) rested on symptoms (“descriptive”) rather than cause (etiological) evaluation of the mental illness.

Additionally, philosophy and theology have found their way into medical and psychological diagnosis and treatment. St. Anselm (AD 1033-1109) argued in Faith Seeking Understanding that perception and reason can and should supplement Christian faith. This represents one of the earliest major departures from Christian tradition, which emphasized faith in God as the source of salvation, wisdom, knowledge, and physical and mental illness. St. Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God promoted using reason within theology. Simply stated, if we think of something then something must be causing that thought. In a sense, faith preceded efforts to understand. Frankly, the believer has nothing to fear from logic, reason, or even the direct study of nature. All truth is God’s truth. William of Occam (1285-1349) believed extraneous assumptions should always be kept as simple as possible. He said, “It is futile to do with many what can be done with fewer,” and “Plurality should not be assumed without necessity.” He said all miscellaneous details must be “shaved” from explanations or arguments. This has been affectionately labeled as Occam’s Razor.

Interestingly, William of Occam changed the question concerning the nature of knowledge (epistemology) from a metaphysical to a psychological problem. He rejected sole reliance on abstract reasoning or intense “introspection.” Instead, he placed emphasis on how the mind classifies experience; he said we habitually respond to similar objects in a similar way. Sensory experience provided information about the physical world only. Occam’s views are said to be the beginning of empiricism. Turning to St. Thomas of Aquinas (1225-1274), we find a man of God furiously dedicated to Christian theology. He turned his back on family (and a life of wealth and power) to focus on theology. Aquinas, in the same vein as Aristotle, said that the senses would provide information only about particulars, not about so-called “universals.” His work in this regard made it possible to bifurcate reason and faith, making it possible to study the two separately. Plato’s Theory of Forms asserted that the physical realm is only a shadow, or image, of the true reality. Plato’s Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space.

Rene Descartes’ (1596-1650) search for ultimate truth showed him that nothing in philosophy is beyond doubt. He was, of course, an empiricist, who invented analytic geometry. In fact, he concluded that the only thing of which he could be certain was the fact that he was doubting; but we know doubting is thinking, and thinking necessitates a thinker. This is how Descartes arrived at his much-celebrated conclusion, “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). He included among the innate ideas those of unity, infinity, perfection, the axioms of geometry, and God. His methodology consisted of intuition and deduction. Intuition is the process by which observation leads to analysis, before becoming a “theory.” Observation should be from an unbiased and attentive mind arriving at a clear and distinct idea; an idea whose validity cannot be doubted. Deduction starts with an idea, then observation is made before it is given the identity of theory or idea. Decartes’ psychology heralded a mechanistic explanation of bodily functions and of much behavior. His mechanistic analysis of reflexive behavior can be seen as the beginning of both stimulus-response and behavioristic theories.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) also supported empiricism, suggesting “evidence of the senses” as the primary data of all knowledge; that knowledge cannot exist unless evidence has first been gathered; and that all subsequent intellectual processes must use this evidence and only this evidence in framing valid propositions about the real world. After visiting with Galileo in 1635, Hobbes became convinced that the universe consisted only of matter and motion and that both could be understood in terms of mechanistic principles. He saw humans as machines functioning within a larger machine (the universe). Hobbes also believed humans were naturally aggressive, selfish, and greedy. Incidentally, Hobbes thought democracy was dangerous because it gives too much latitude to man’s negative natural tendencies. He said fear of death is what motivates humans to create social order. Civilization is created as a matter of self-defense; each of us must be discouraged from committing crimes against the other.

Alexander Bain (1818-1903) has been referred to at the first true psychologist. He published two seminal works: The Senses and the Intellect (1855) and Emotions and the Will (1859). These books are heralded by some as the first systematic textbooks on psychology. He followed with Mind and Body (1873). Bain was the first in his field to attempt relating real psychological processes to psychological phenomena. For Bain, the mind had three components (or “functions”): feeling, volition, and intellect. Many Christian theologians and pastors believe man is made of three components: body, soul, and spirit. The soul is said to be comprised of mind, will, and emotions. Yet, to say that humans are morally superior to non-human animals is to overlook (at least to some degree) the seamier human activities like cannibalism, infanticide, and wars. The mere aspect of “religion” has certainly not improved the human condition. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) rejected Descartes’ contention that God, matter, and mind were separate entities. Instead, Spinoza proposed that all three were simply aspects of the same substance, which formed the basis of his theory on life that was both ethically correct and personally satisfying. He believed God, nature, and the mind were inseparable. Spinoza said God was not relegated to the realm of monotheists; rather, He was in everything. This is pantheism.

The practice of establishing categories of thought was proffered by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He disagreed with Hume by demonstrating that some truths were certain, not based on subjective experience alone. He did not deny the importance of sensory data, but he believed the mind must add something to that data before knowledge could be attained. He said that “something” was provided by a priori (innate) categories of thought. He listed the following in his breakdown of pure concepts or categories of thought: unity, totality, time, space, cause and effect, reality, quantity, quality, negation, possibility/impossibility, and existence/nonexistence. For Kant, a mind without concepts would have no real capacity to think; however, it can also be said that a mind loaded with concepts, but with no sensory data to which they could be applied, would have nothing to think about!

Philosophers began to argue that humans consist of more than an intellect and ideas derived from experience. We possess a wide variety of irrational feelings (emotions) that cloud meaning and tantalize or betray us. We also operate on an intuitive and instinctual platform. Romanticism was a predictable challenge to empiricism. After all, empiricism reduced people to unfeeling machines. Theologians talk of us possessing the imago Dei (the image of God). This seems to be contrary to the believe that emotions are found on the pleasure/pain continuum. Spinoza taught that emotional experience is often destructive if not controlled by rational processes. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) said, “Man is born free and yet we see him everywhere in chains.” Christian theology benefited, however, from Rousseau’s feelings vs. reason tenet because it supported the idea that God’s existence could be defended on the basis of individual feeling and did not depend on the dictates of the church.

I have decided to break this topic into a series. There is simply too much to cover in one blog post. Part One is designed to give you fairly deep background on how Christian theology interacted with philosophy. A great deal of psychology is built on the shoulders of early philosophers. Part Two will move a little faster, starting with David Entwistle’s thoughts on integrative approaches to Psychology and Christianity. Also, I will present the theology, philosophy, and worldview of David Sire, John Stonestreet, Nancy Pearcey, and Lee Strobel.

Regarding Christian Theology and Psychology in Treating Mental Illness

The place God calls you to is the place where your deep gladness and the world’s deep hunger meet. —Frederick Buechner

GOD CALLS PEOPLE. It might not be the calling of Abraham to leave the land of Ur and go forth into wilderness he knew nothing about, or the calling of Moses, confronted with the command of the burning bush, or the calling of Isaiah who encountered the glory of God, or the calling of the apostle Paul to bring the message of Christ to the Gentiles—but an awareness of “call” is both mysterious and powerful. And it is always a demonstration of love and an initiative from God.

god banner

Certainly, it is helpful to understand that God calls the Christian in three distinct ways:

  • First, there is the call on your heart to be a Christian. The God  of creation invites us to respond to His love in numerous ways. This call comes through His Son Jesus, who invites us to be His disciples. This tends to open the door for our service to others in His name. Everything about us is understood in light of this primary call on our life. Every aspect of our lives flows out and finds meaning in light of the fact that we are a called people. The entire body of Christ is made up of the called.
  • Second, for each individual there is a specific call—a defining purpose or mission, a raison d’être. Every individual is called of God to respond through service in the world. Each person has a unique calling in this second sense. We cannot begin to understand this second calling except in the light of the first. In other words, when we fulfill our specific vocation, we are living out the full implications of what it means to follow Jesus.
  • Third, there is the call that we face each day in response to the multiple demands on our lives—our immediate duties and responsibilities: the call to be present to our children when they are in a high school musical, or to help our local church when they host a baseball camp featuring retired greats from professional baseball. Or to take a homeless veteran to Denny’s for a hot lunch and talk to him about the Gospel and options for getting him off the street. These activities represent the immediate tasks placed in front of us by God—our tasks for the day, if you will.

We are all called to work. We want that work to be meaningful, joyful, and significant. We want to know that the work we do is good; that in word and deed we are doing something that is fundamentally positive and worthwhile. Each person brings beauty, creativity, and significance to the table. We all add to the community. It does, indeed, take a village, but we speak here of a village of believers—the Body of Christ. And yet we must never lose sight of the inherent value and potential of the individual person who is loved, called, and empowered by God to do good work.

Older notions of vocation and career development assumed that people wrestled with matters of vocation as early as young adulthood. It has been commonly assumed that vocational counseling was provided in high school for those seeking to pick a career. But in a more accurate understanding of vocation, we learn that vocational questions follow us throughout the course of our lives—and that perhaps vocational counseling needs to be presented to us at each transition throughout our lives. The questions remain the same: Who am I? Who has God called me to be? What should I do next? Of course, our answers to these questions can change at different stages of our lives. We naturally think differently during adolescence than early adulthood; likewise during early-to-mid adulthood, and mid adulthood into our senior years.

ORIGINS OF PSYCHOLOGY

Clearly, psychology did not emerge directly as science. This presents a rather challenging problem: Where to start? Ancient civilizations surely studied one another to determine who was reliable and trustworthy, and evidence suggests they attempted to record and interpret dreams, mental illness, and emotions. Was this an early form of psychology? Or did psychology start with the first systematic explanations of human cognitive experience, which can be traced back to the early Greeks? Plato and Aristotle, for example, established elaborate theories that attempted to account for memory, perception, and learning. Maybe this was the starting point?

Early adherents understood it was difficult to consider psychology a hard science in the traditional sense given that experimenters cannot “observe” the workings of the mind or “measure” emotions. Many initially considered psychology to be a specialized branch of philosophy—a sentiment still held by some. They based their conclusion on several factors. First, they had a difficult time accepting subjective reports as evidence. Second, can unconscious inference be considered a coherent—logical and consistent—concept? Rene Descartes gave us the concept of dualism—the position that mind and body are in some categorical way separate from each other and that mental properties are in some respects non-physical in nature. Certainly, this concept plays at least a part in the idea of nature versus nurture.

Physiology and brain research led to applying scientific methodologies to the study of human thought and behavior. Wilhelm Wundt began applying experimental methods. Edward B. Titchener founded psychology’s first major school of thought, which he applied to studying human consciousness. William James outlined his theories in his classic textbook The Principles of Psychology. He focused on how we interact with one another in our everyday lives, using methods such as direct observation, feedback, impression management, and body language  to study the human mind and behavior.

Prior to the psychology of Sigmund Freud, early psychology stressed conscious human experience. Freud changed the face of psychology by proposing a theory of personality based upon the unconscious mind. Although Freud’s theory had a huge impact on psychology, social science, art, education, and business, skepticism eventually set in. Admittedly, it has many followers to this day. Psychology changed dramatically, however, with the advent of behaviorism, which rejected abject reliance on the conscious and unconscious mind. In a nutshell, behaviorism looked at classic conditioning and reward versus punishment.

 PSYCHOLOGY VERSUS THEOLOGY

Many are surprised to hear that Christian Theology and psychology are compatible. In his book God’s Psychiatry, Charles L. Allen notes that the word psychiatry comes from two Greek words: psyche and iatreia. The word psyche really means “the person,” and is translated as “breath,” “soul,” “mind,” “reason,” and the like. The word iatreia means “treatment,” “healing,” “restoration,” and so on. If we put the two words together, we get the term “the healing of the mind,” or, perhaps more specific to Allen’s intention, “the restoring of the soul.” This can mean medical treatment per se, or it can refer to ministering to the soul. Allen wrote, “…the very essence of religion is to adjust the mind and soul of man, and we have long ago learned this…”

Psychology and theology are both concerned with philosophical anthropology. It draws its name from the root psyche, a Greek word whose use can encompass the physical, the psychological, and the immaterial aspects of humanity. In both clinical and experimental expressions, the nature and functioning of human beings in the central concern of psychology. Theology is concerned with the nature of God and with God’s relationship to the world. Psychology may be able  to describe human beings as they are, but only Christian theology can describe them as they were intended to be—questions of ultimate concern, such as how did we come to be, what is our purpose, what is our destiny?

“The biopsychsocial model is both a philosophy of clinical care and a  practical clinical guide. Philosophically, it is a way of understanding how suffering, disease, and illness are affected by multiple levels of organization, from the societal to the molecular. At the practical level, it is a way of understanding the patient’s subjective experience as an essential contributor to accurate diagnosis, health outcomes, and humane care.” —Borrell-Carrio, Suchman, and Epstein

Sarah Rainer, PsyD (2014), said in an article for Christianity Today, “Pastors largely feel unequipped to address mental illness, and mental illness is still taboo in many ways.” Rainer further notes that in recent years psychologists have begun recognizing that our spirituality impacts our lives, but have yet to buy into the idea that it is imperative for life. Of course, not all secular psychology is wrong. We cannot just throw the baby out with the bath water. Indeed, there are many helpful and positive aspects of psychology to consider when diagnosing and treating a patient. This is precisely why there is a need for integrating psychology and Christian theology.

Entwistle (2015) notes that although psychology has much to teach us about human behavior, it cannot provide the larger context that gives meaning and direction for life itself. Pope Benedict XVI said, “Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is.” It is theological reflection that often sets the stage for poor self image that leads to malaise and self-doubt. Consider the many levels at which we exist: social, psychological, physical, systemic, economic, spiritual, sexual. It is through these many lenses that we ask ourselves Who am I? Does my life really matter? How can I change my circumstances when I feel stuck? What is the meaning of life? Where is God in all this mess?

ON INTEGRATING CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said,”We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience.”

Unless you’re an atheist, you probably believe the world we live in is not the only plane of existence. Accepting that reality is only temporal is paramount to understanding spirituality and how it relates to mental health. 2 Timothy 3:7 says man is “always learning but never able to come to a [full] knowledge of the truth” (NIV). Countless books have been written by psychologists over the years that attempt to describe our personalities, the boundaries within which we must operate, our dysfunctional development, interpersonal relationships and their inherent problems, how our children should be raised, and so on. This has caused an intellectual/spiritual crisis, causing believers—indeed our very clergy—to often treat human beings in a manner that differs from how we were instructed by Jesus through Scripture. To me, this is where integration of Christian theology and psychology may prove helpful.

Naturally, Christians have always been intrigued by God’s creation. We’re well-aware that as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God’s ways higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts (see Isaiah 55:9). We cannot begin to understand the intricacies of creation—from as far outward as we can see to as far inward as we can see—let alone the subtleties of brain chemistry and mood, or the machinations of memory and learning. And don’t get me started on quantum physics and black holes or old age versus young age earth.

What does fascinate me is how Christian interest in psychology has exploded over the past fifty years. Countless books have been written by Christians that describe how our brains have developed, what constitutes our fight or flight response, how we fall in love, why we become addicted to drugs or food or shopping, or why some of us isolate while others love to stand in front of a congregation and preach or sing. Most publications on psychology are secular in orientation, which makes for fascinating dinner conversation to say the least. Naturally, there are as many disagreements about psychology as there are schools of thought. Fundamentalism still speaks more often than not about “psychoheresey.” One of the reasons my first wife divorced me was my interest in psychology. Granted, at the time I began studying philosophy and psychology I was in the midst of an identity crisis as a believer. Today, I see the need for a healthy integration of the two schools of thought, and am pursuing a master’s degree in support of a faith-based counseling career.

“CHRISTIAN” PSYCHOLOGY?

The field of psychology has been retooling itself over the years. Initially, it was concerned solely with what makes people mentally ill. Today, much focus is on what makes people mentally healthy, positive, joyful, happy to be alive. Studies show that those who believe in life after death, for example, are happier than those who do not. Sociologist Christopher Ellison of the University of Texas at Austin says, “Religion provides a unifying narrative that may be difficult to come by elsewhere in society.”

Christian psychologist Paul Vitz says the work of Martin Seligman, former president of the American Psychological Association and professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, is the catalyst for what he terms positive psychology by emphasizing mental health instead of mental illness. Seligman said, “What is needed to balance our understanding of the person is recognition of positive human characteristics that can both heal our pathologies and help to prevent psychological problems in one’s future life.” And what are these positive human characteristics? Virtues such as wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence. These core virtues are quite similar to the fruit of the Spirit (see Galatians 5:22-23).

I admit we need to stay alert as Christians to so-called “self-help”  or “self-potential” psychologies that often seem faddish and change with the wind. Any “psychology” that suggests we can only be happy, healthy, or spiritual when we forget the past and “live in the moment” must be avoided. The truth is “self-help” is an oxymoron because the individual who uses such an approach always arrives at a solution to his or her problem either with the help of a therapist or by following the formula of the self-help book.

Christians understand that for 2000 years there has been a relationship between an individual’s mental outlook , his or her belief about God, Christ, salvation, and how he or she fits in the whole scheme of things. I think Christian psychology has ample incentive to focus on core virtues and what it means to be a human being with a substantive center of soul, spirit, heart, mind, and consciousness—rather than on self-improvement—because of Christianity’s foundation on Scriptural principles. It is God who forgives our sins, heals our sinful human nature, and replaces our guilty conscience with the fruit of the Spirit—it is nothing that we do in our own strength. 

References

Entwistle, D. (2015). Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity, 3rd Edition. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

Rainer, S. (September 25, 2014). “The Integration of Christianity and Psychology: A Guest Post by Sarah Rainer.” Christianity Today. Retrieved from: https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2014/september/concerning-psychology-and-christianity-guest-post-by-sarah-.html

Seligman, M. Ph.D. (2002). Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential For Lasting Fulfillment. New York, NY: Free Press.