Chapter 8 8 Understanding and Making Models The proponents of competing paradigms practice their trades in different worlds … Practicing in different worlds, [they] see different things … Before they can hope to communicate fully, one group or the other must experience the conversion that we have been calling a paradigm shift. —Thomas Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions, 150 When I was a boy, I loved to make models of airplanes, automobiles, ships, and even of the Starship Enterprise. My earliest efforts were of the “snap-fit” variety—I simply had to snap the pieces together—no glue required! Over time, I graduated to more complex models, with decals and paint. I remember, in particular, a beautiful model of an SR-71 Blackbird. The real SR-71 was a military aircraft whose length was in excess of 107 feet, with graceful, sweeping wings that spanned over 55 feet. With distinctive black paint and two huge Pratt and Whitney J-58 engines, the SR-71 is breathtaking, able to travel at Mach-III—three times the speed of sound. When I finished my model, I “flew” my model around the room, making all the requisite sounds, imagining myself commanding the plane through sunlit skies. Yet, for all my enthusiasm, it was a model. It represented the original, reflecting crucial details in miniature, made of different materials, and without working engines or instruments. Had I thrown it in the air, the result would have been disastrous. No one would mistake my model for a real SR-71, but it clearly, though imperfectly, represented the real thing. We make extensive use of models as we try to understand our world. As children, we create mental representations of our parents. As we grow we begin to use language to symbolize concrete objects, and later on, we use language to describe abstract concepts. We use symbols to represent sounds and numbers. We use maps to represent geographical features of the natural world and clocks to represent the passage of time. Without models, our ability to understand our world would be severely limited. Every scholarly discipline makes use of models. We make theological models to represent the truths found in God’s Word and His Works. We make biological models of the anatomy and physiology of kidneys and the transport mechanisms of chloride ions. We make psychological models of memory and depression, and economic models of how people accumulate wealth, what they do with their money, and the factors that contribute to economic inequity. Sometimes our models are more descriptive than illustrative, like those of Keynesian or Marxist economic theories. Sometimes the models are physical, like the anatomical models found in doctors’ offices and science classrooms. Whenever human beings try to understand their world, though, they create models of reality that imperfectly represent the objects of their interest. Such models may be useful, and they are often accurate in many details, but they are inevitably imperfect. When we look at the relationship of psychology and religion (or Christianity), we are concerned with models based on models; that is, we express our understanding of religion, Christianity, and Christian theology in various models, we express our understanding of psychology in other models, and we then conceptualize their relationship in yet more models. Thus, to understand a theorist’s model of the relationship of psychology and theology, we must first understand his or her conceptualization of psychology and theology. Take a minute to think about how often you use models—clocks, diagrams, language, maps, theories, and so forth. Are your maps always accurate? How much does their accuracy affect their usefulness? What would be life without such models? Asking the Right Questions As we saw in chapter 4, worldviews focus our perception of the world, but they also distort our perception inasmuch as the world is seen through the lenses of our assumptions. Similarly, people have different beliefs about psychology and theology, and these differences are reflected in their models of how the two disciplines relate to one another. As we explore different models about the relationship of psychology and Christianity in the next several chapters, we need to remember that these models emerge in part from different assumptions about psychology and Christianity. Sometimes a theorist will explicitly state his or her assumptions and goals. Often, though, we will find that assumptions exert their influence in the subtleties of how things are phrased, evidence that is admitted or overlooked, the way that terms are defined, and so forth. In a similar way, the goals of a model may be explicitly stated, but sometimes the goals are subtle, unacknowledged, or even deliberately hidden. It is extremely important for us to be aware of—and to evaluate—the presuppositions that we bring to any subject. In the words of Mr. Pond, the main character in G. K. Chesterton’s short detective stories, “Once assume the wrong beginning, and you’ll not only give the wrong answer, but ask the wrong question.” Different presuppositions cause us to ask different questions. As we begin to explore different models of the relationship of psychology and theology, we must carefully examine our presuppositions and those of the theorists that we will consider. Models of the Relationship of Psychology and Theology In the late 1990s, Brian Eck identified and critiqued twenty-seven models for relating psychology and theology. Perhaps the most influential models of the relationship of psychology and Christianity were developed by Carter, and expanded upon by Carter and Narramore. The models were loosely based on Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture models. Attempting to create a framework for understanding the various ways in which psychology and religion can be related, Carter defined four secular models (Psychology against Religion, Psychology of Religion, Psychology Parallels Religion, and Psychology Integrates Religion) and four sacred models (Christianity against Psychology, Christianity of Psychology, Christianity Parallels Psychology, and Christianity Integrates Psychology). In the next three chapters, I will develop a framework composed of six models: Enemies, Spies, Colonialists, Rebuilders, Neutral Parties, and Allies. For the most part, four of these categories build on Carter’s ideas while reframing them in a different metaphor. The models that I am developing are analogous to the ways that nations interact with each other. Psychology and theology obviously differ in the source materials that they consult, as well as the methodologies that are appropriate to study those materials. Theology utilizes Scripture as its primary source, though it also uses linguistics, philosophy, history, archeology and many other sources of knowledge as it tries to understand Scripture. Psychology, like many other extrabiblical disciplines, utilizes reason and observation of nature as its primary source, but like theology, it must rely on many other disciplines as it attempts to understand the natural world. These two different source materials—Scripture and nature—are not completely separate. Historic, orthodox Christianity holds that both Scripture and the natural world have their origins in God’s creativity and revelation. One of the earliest scientists, Francis Bacon, described these two different sources as two books authored by God. “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the book of God’s Word, which reveals the will of God; and the book of God’s Works, which express His power.” In Bacon’s terminology, the book of God’s Word referred to the Bible, and the book of His Works reflected His deeds written throughout creation. The models that we will explore represent how different people think about the book of God’s Word and the book of God’s Works as means of learning about human beings. The six models also differ in their telos: the ends, purposes, and goals that they hope to achieve. Imagine that you are at a train station. It is not enough to know how the train works; you also want to know where the train is going. Although the trains are similar in many respects, they are headed to different places. Similarly, the six models will have many things in common—for instance, they all make assumptions, use logical arguments, and accept or reject various propositions. However, they have different goals in mind as to what they want to accomplish. As a result, they conceptualize and use theology and psychology in different ways. The six models will be introduced in this chapter, and explored in more detail and illustrated with examples in the next three chapters. Before we begin our exploration of these models, we need to make a distinction between models and the procedures used within the models. The six models represent different ways of conceptualizing the relationship between psychology and religion in general, or psychology and Christianity, in particular. Procedures are the specific techniques that are used in constructing the models. Different model builders may begin with different conceptualizations, but they often use the same procedures (cutting things away, gluing things together, etc.), but to different degrees and for different ends. Thus, the models that we consider will diverge much more at the conceptual level, and less at the procedural level. Their procedural differences reflect the larger paradigmatic designs toward which they aim. Finally, in exploring models about the relationship of psychology and Christianity, keep in mind that they are abstractions of general trends. Reality does not always afford clear-cut categories; sometimes people will vacillate between different models or blend their elements in such a way that singular categorization is not possible. Nevertheless, the models are useful if they accurately reflect the procedures and goals that different people employ. A mnemonic device that may help you remember the six models for relating psychology and Christianity: Ending Spurious Conflict Requires New Alternatives (Enemies, Spies, Colonialists, Rebuilders, Neutral Parties, Allies). Enemies Antagonistic models are based on the belief that psychology and theology are mutually exclusive. They are adversaries that are always in skirmish and never far from an all out war. They are sworn enemies, and the adversary must be vigorously attacked to protect truth. Historically, the Enemies model emerged with force during the Enlightenment. Ecclesiastical authority, which had been paramount throughout the Middle Ages, was largely rejected by Enlightenment thinkers, who sought to establish reason as the principal epistemic authority. They cherished the ideals of individuality, liberty, and the right of self-governance. Truth claims based on religious proclamation were of dubious merit to Enlightenment thinkers. As we saw in chapter 2, the Enlightenment gave rise to the fundamentalist-modernist controversy within the Church. Those who adopted the fundamentalist stance retreated from serious academic inquiry and expressed suspicion of most extrabiblical sources of knowledge. For much of the past two hundred years, modernists and fundamentalists have taken a stance of mutual rejection. Holders of the Enemies model take an either/or position on the psychology of human beings versus the theology of human beings. Such model builders seemingly grasp either a mechanistic view or a spiritual view, but not both. People who depict the relationship of Christianity and science (or Christianity and psychology) through the Enemies model primarily employ procedures that sever and segregate the parts of one discipline from those of the other. Those who follow an Enemies model either neglect or disregard the book of God’s Word or the book of God’s Works. In less extreme cases this may simply be a matter of neglect. In more extreme cases the animosity of this model can erupt into the flames of book burning by those who wish to suppress other points of view. There are two versions of the Enemies model: Secular Combatants and Christian Combatants. People who are committed to the field of psychology and who have a worldview that is antagonistic toward religious belief are Secular Combatants. The telos of the Secular Combatants is rooted in the modernist rejection of authority in general, and of religious authority in particular. Their aim is thus to exalt the autonomous exercise of human reason. In direct opposition to this are the Christian Combatants, whose worldview makes them suspicious of all human reason. Their telos is to protect religious authority and religious pronouncements against corruption by human reason. Secular Combatants and Christian Combatants are more alike than they are different in terms of how they approach the interface of psychology and Christian theology. They each begin with the assumption that the relationship between psychology and theology can only be seen in inimical terms, a state of affairs that is as irreconcilable as it is inevitable. The adherents of these models construe the foundations and teachings of the two disciplines as antithetical to one another. Thus, Secular Combatants see religion as incompatible with mental health and honest intellectual discourse. Meanwhile, Christian Combatants see psychology as an enemy which is opposed by sound doctrine, and they see the use of psychotherapy (and sometimes psychotropic medication) as incompatible with (and unnecessary for) those who live victorious Christian lives. The difference between these two versions of the Enemies model is simply a matter of which discipline is seen as the bearer of truth and which is seen as heretical. The public voice of the Secular Combatants has become less volatile in recent years. This may reflect two incongruent trends. The first trend, taking place within clinical psychology and a larger culture that increasingly values tolerance, reflects recent findings that support the contention that there may be psychological benefits of religious belief and practice. Additionally, the American Psychological Association’s Code of Ethics explicitly recognizes the need to respect the religious beliefs of clients and to attempt to eliminate religious and other bias from psychological practice and research. Further, there has been a resurgence of interest in spirituality among psychologists themselves, which has resulted in an increase of pro-religious literature and research within mainstream clinical psychology. This shift, while in large measure pragmatic, is remarkable, given that it could hardly have been imagined a few decades ago. The second trend, which is seemingly the reverse of the first, is that in other contexts, religious bias has gone underground or, in some cases, is simply so unquestioned that it is merely presumed that religious belief and scientific progress represent rival worldviews. This trend appears to be more prevalent in the nonclinical areas of psychology, as well as in the way overtly committed Christians are regarded in both clinical and nonclinical settings. Within Christian circles, the Christian Combatant view is less pervasive than it was a decade or two ago, but it is still very entrenched within some circles, as we will see in chapter 9. While the antagonism of the Enemies model may not be as pervasive as it was a few years ago, it is still influential. Central to this approach is the rejection of anything that comes from the domain of the “enemy camp.” Eck classified models of this type as being nonintegrative paradigms that utilize a process of rejection; psychology rejects religion or theology rejects psychology. The Enemies model precludes meaningful dialogue because it presupposes a mutual exclusivity and repudiation. As we noted earlier, different presuppositions lead us to ask different questions, which in turn leads us to different answers. We could summarize this model and some of its representative questions as follows: Enemies—General assumption: Psychology and Christianity (or religion in general) are fundamentally opposed to and incompatible with each other. Secular Combatants: Psychological health is incompatible with religious practice. Enlightened people cannot believe in religious nonsense. Telos—Secular combatants, reflecting their commitment to modernism, reject authority in general, and religious authority in particular. Their aim is to exalt the autonomous exercise of human reason. • Why do religious people have higher rates of mental problems than nonreligious people? • In an age of reason, how can people still believe in religious myths and superstitions? • How does a religious upbringing harm children? • How does religion foster and trap people in unhealthy marriages and abusive relationships? • How can we help people who have been harmed by the restrictive and repressive sexual mores of religion develop views that are more enlightened? Christian Combatants: Christians who turn to psychology for help are denying the sufficiency of Christ. Only Christians can fully understand the soul and only Scripture can provide the true remedy to the human condition. Psychologists are misleading people and undermining their faith through their theories, methods, and so-called therapies. Telos—suspicious of all human reason, the Christian Combatants aim to protect religious authority and religious pronouncements against corruption by human reason. • What are the secular, antireligious foundations of modern psychology that make it incompatible with Christian faith and practice? • Why are Christians embracing a field that is and always has been antithetical to Christianity? • What sinful actions or beliefs cause people to have personal and interpersonal problems? • How can the Bible and Christian practices be used to bring people to truth, repentance, reconciliation and restoration? Many of the questions listed above are legitimate and useful. However, note that the framework from which the questions are asked tend to lead toward particular answers to those questions. Likewise, the models themselves have different goals. As we look at the remaining models, we will note that similar questions may sometimes be asked by holders of different models, but often with a different emphasis, although they will often ask quite different questions. The next model that we will explore recognizes that truth can be found in both psychology and religion (broadly construed), but followers of this model will hold a primary commitment to one camp, while reconnoitering in the territory of the other camp in order to identify things that might be useful for their own ends. Although most individuals who adopt this approach do not intend to be subversive, the net result of their approach is to remove from one of God’s books only that which they see as useful based on their “scientific” or “theological” commitments. Spies Religious systems inevitably contain psychological content. As people gather in faith communities, they forge social connections, they find existential meaning, they seek forgiveness and comfort through prayer, and so forth. The potential psychological benefits of religious belief and behavior are considerable, and of considerable interest. For most people, these benefits are byproducts of the religious system. Other people, either from outside of the religious system as researchers, or from within the congregation itself, become interested in harnessing the power of the religious system to foster psychological benefits as an end in itself. Religion, on one level, is an expression of human belief and activity. Religious beliefs and behaviors contain elements that may be useful (or harmful) psychologically. When someone becomes more interested in the effects of religion independent of the doctrinal teachings of religion, they have, in effect, participated in espionage. They either reject or minimize many of the tenets of religious belief, focusing their efforts instead on how religious belief can assist people with coping, happiness, prosperity, or other tangible benefits. This can be done from the perspective of foreign spies (psychologists who pragmatically seek to identify religious elements that have psychological benefits), or of domestic spies (those who practice a watered-down religion and are interested in proclaiming its psychological benefits). In both cases, those who followed the Spies model are more interested in uncovering the psychology of the religious system rather than holding on to orthodox theology. The telos of the Spies models is a pragmatic desire to use any means at their disposal to aid human well-being. People who depict the relationship of religious belief and science (or psychology) through the Spies model primarily employ procedures of severing what they see as “useful” or “beneficial” aspects of religion from the beliefs or practices that they see as incidental to mental health. Using this approach, one can peruse religious teachings or practices in an attempt to extract their embedded psychological content. The Spies model, unlike the Enemies model, does not reject religion, but its primary focus is on religion as a repository of psychological truths dressed in priestly robes; thus, this model is not characteristic of orthodox belief. Using this approach, “theological findings [are revised] from the perspective of psychological findings …” Eck classified models of this type as manipulative integration paradigms that utilize a reconstruction process. This reconstruction is manipulative in that it is premised on a belief “that the truth from the other discipline is [not] directly admissible into the integration process” and “must be altered to become acceptable … for the process of integration” to proceed. They do not represent real integrative efforts in that they fail to recognize the integrity of each discipline. Implementing this approach involves a process of reconstruction in which either the supernatural elements of religion are expunged (psychology reconstructs theology), or psychology is construed as an expression of theological truths (theology reconstructs psychology). When the Spies model is applied by foreigners (psychologists who pragmatically seek to identify religious elements that have psychological benefits), it proceeds without (or, at least, does not require) religious commitment. When domestic residents employ this model, religious teachings are watered-down in order to harvest psychological benefits. This can be done from a liberal or neo-orthodox perspective in which theology is seen as valuable but in need of modernistic or scientific reformation. It also occurs among those whose general theological framework is more conservative, but who emphasize a gospel of health and wealth. The Spies model is summarized below, along with the types of questions that domestic and foreign spies might ask. Spies—General assumption: All religious systems (Christian and nonChristian) are psychological phenomena. The primary emphasis is not on the religious content of a religion as much as it is on its effects on human welfare. Religious systems may be helpful or harmful. Telos—Spies have a pragmatic desire to use any means at their disposal to aid human well-being. They may lack deep commitment to a religious system, or they may water down core doctrines as they seek to improve human well-being. Domestic Residents and Foreigners differ in whether they are working from within a religious system or are observing it from the outside. Domestic Spies: In a liberal version of this model, the specific content of one’s own religion may be seen as largely mythic, useful for illustrating things about human nature and human needs. In a conservative version of this model, one may acknowledge core doctrines of the faith, but the bulk of one’s efforts focus on personal well-being. The primary purpose of faith is to offer tangible benefits to those who practice the religion. • How can the religious beliefs of my tradition help people cope with the problems of life? • How can belief in God’s love be harnessed to help people feel good about themselves, to bring about positive thinking and selfesteem? • How can I affirm the truth of my religious system without taking its teachings (especially about supernatural or miraculous claims) literally? (liberal version) • How can I use the teachings and stories of the Bible to help people find health and happiness in the here and now? (conservative version) • What things in my religious tradition need to be challenged, deemphasized, or rejected so that its positive benefits can flourish? Foreign Spies: Religion, in general, can be useful or harmful. In the interest of advancing human welfare, the benefits of religion should be studied and harnessed; detrimental effects should be identified so they can be eliminated or minimized. • How can a person’s spirituality exert a positive influence on mental and physical health? • Are particular beliefs, practices, or modes of religious expression associated with detrimental psychological or physical consequences? • What mediating variables can be identified that can help explain the natural mechanisms through which religion and spirituality exert positive and negative influences on health (e.g., affiliation, hope, context for suffering, etc.)? Our next model, while sharing some similar characteristics with the Spies model, takes place from the perspective of someone who is openly committed to Christian orthodoxy, but who sees psychology as a foreign territory to be captured for Christ and brought under the flag of theology. Colonialists For much of human history, powerful empires arose that conquered other nations and forced them into subservience. During the Age of Exploration, explorers “discovered” new lands, and European countries scrambled to exert their economic and military power over these territories, often thinking that they were divinely appointed to rule these new lands. In 1494, Pope Alexander VI divided newly discovered lands between Spain and Portugal. Other European nations, especially Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany, joined in the lust for expansion. Colonial empires competed with one another to secure foreign lands. They did not own the territories by historic entitlement or by working the land; they simply claimed them as their own. A number of Christians have approached psychology from a similarly colonial mindset. Holders of the Colonialist model borrow selective findings from psychology, but they do so as outsiders and pilferers. Colonialists differ from domestic spies in that they adhere to a conservative or orthodox Christian theological system rather than a liberal, neo-orthodox, or more broadly “religious” position. The primary allegiance of the colonialist is to his or her theological system; while the colonialist sees psychology as valuable, it is foreign soil. Psychology can be useful only to the degree that it can be forced to conform to the theological system. Conservative Christians who have a passing interest in psychology often hold this model. Christians with training in psychology who embrace this model usually harbor deep suspicions about the field. Colonialists selectively accept, reject, or modify isolated findings from psychology based on their prior religious presuppositions, without adequately evaluating the evidentiary support for the psychological findings or the soundness of their theological commitments. The telos of the Colonialists is the appropriation of psychological methods or findings that can illustrate or buttress the claims of their theological proclamations. Most colonialists have no deep commitment to—or even understanding of—the discipline of psychology. As such, the interaction between psychology and theology is severely limited. Few colonialists invest their energies in reading psychological theories or studies outside of those that are popularly available. Nor do most of them attempt to pursue psychological training, much less contribute to the discipline of psychology in any meaningful way. Clinicians and counselors who adopt this approach typically work with Christian clients, write for Christian audiences, and attend Christian conferences, segregating themselves from mainstream psychology in their own enclaves. The word “enclave” is quite apt—it refers to an area that is surrounded by another area—much as Vatican City is completely surrounded by Italy. In this view “Christian psychology” could be its own little region surrounded by—but not truly engaged in—the discipline of psychology. Colonial powers profited from colonization by removing goods from the colony. In a similar way, the Colonialist model involves selectively including, rejecting, and relabeling psychological findings to reflect the theological perspective of the model builder. Psychology, as an independent discipline, is thus forced into theological categories and subjugated to theological dominion. The colonialist carries out no real psychological research or theorizing; he or she simply removes from psychology whatever seems to be of interest, rejects whatever he or she cannot bring into alignment with his or her theological assumptions, or tries to convert the discipline to reflect those assumptions. This is a hierarchical model that places the book of God’s Word over the book of God’s Works, and theology over psychology. It often results in psychological findings being accepted or rejected based on scattered scriptural prooftexting, with inadequate exegesis and insufficient attention to psychological data or methods. Eck classified models of this type as manipulative integration paradigms that utilize a transformational process. They presume that “psychological truth must either pass through a particular theological filter” or psychological truth must be “altered to stay in keeping with a particular theological worldview …” We can summarize this model and its questions as follows: Colonialists—Christianity embodies the true revelation of God to humankind about the human condition and God’s plan of salvation. Psychology, to the degree that it correctly understands human problems, can be useful to illustrate what Scripture tells us. The colonialist typically has a superficial acquaintance with psychological theories or findings. The colonialist does not exert significant effort towards understanding how psychology and Christianity can both express truth, or how the two can be used to gain a larger picture of human nature and functioning. Telos— Colonialists desire to appropriate psychological methods or findings that can illustrate or buttress their theological beliefs. There is usually no deep commitment to, or engagement in, the broader discipline of psychology, and they often prefer to segregate themselves in enclaves with likeminded people. • How can the Bible be used in counseling as a means of bringing truth, repentance, and reconciliation? • What psychological findings or theories should be rejected based on religious beliefs? • How can some psychological findings or theories be brought into conformity with religious beliefs? • How can statistics about marital satisfaction and its relationship to church attendance be used to illustrate the importance of a Christian understanding of marriage? • How can rates of depression and anxiety highlight our need for relationship with God? Rebuilders Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, was captured by Nebuchadnezzar after the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE. As a result, Judah had to pay tribute to Babylon. After four years, Jehoiakim, King of Judah, refused to pay the annual taxes which had been levied against it, leading to another siege of Jerusalem. Its defeat was followed by several waves of deportations of its inhabitants into captivity in Babylon. Many years later, Artaxerxes, who now controlled the empire, allowed captives to return to their homeland. In a series of repatriations, many Jewish people, including Nehemiah, returned to their ancestral homeland, only to find that Jerusalem, its wall and its temple, lay in ruins, and its current occupants had fallen into pagan practices. With God ordained favor and much effort, the returning exiles rebuilt the temple and the walls of the city, and reinstituted the proper worship of the God of Israel. In a similar way, Rebuilders look at psychology as something that belongs to God, but which has been overrun and occupied by people who do not acknowledge or serve God. They believe that Christians are at risk of compromising with the dominant secular values found in modern psychological paradigms. To counteract this, they believe that we must rebuild psychology—or at least, a particular type of psychology—on solid Christian assumptions while still interacting with mainstream psychology. Christianity is fundamentally psychological in nature, that is, Christianity tells us about who we are and how we ought to be. For the Rebuilders: Scripture is the normative and formative foundation for what Christian psychologists think and do. God’s view of reality, as presented in the Bible, is the ultimate perspective. Every theory, method, or understanding that is considered important with regard to psychology and soul care is held under the microscope of God’s illuminating Word. Calling their approach Christian psychology, those who follow this approach want to rebuild psychology on explicitly Christian assumptions. Their telos is to use the insights and practices of Scripture and Christian history and theology to create methods of soul care. That is, they are not simply content to relieve suffering, but they want to aid people in becoming the kind of people that God desires us to be. Unlike the Colonialists, however, Rebuilders have a great deal of respect for modern psychology, but they see it as severely truncated, and they offer a compelling critique of its secular and modernist philosophical underpinnings. In its effort to be scientific, modern psychology has often neglected its own philosophical roots. Much like a modern Ezra surveying the broken walls of Jerusalem, these rebuilders see modern psychology easily slipping into idolatry, especially in its emphasis on empiricism as the prescribed way to find truth, its rejection of divinely revealed truths, and in its adoption of modern sensibilities about self-determination of human morals. The Rebuilders want to draw on God’s proclamations as the starting point for a new, Christian psychology. With this accomplished, they proceed to develop methods of soul care, primarily for Christian clients. In regards to the larger academy, though, they aim to critique assumptions of secular psychology, and to offer alternatives based on explicitly articulated Christian beliefs. They can also conduct research on topics that draw on Christian theology and on the findings and methods of modern psychology. The attempt to transform psychology is not new. The current emphasis on rebuilding psychology in the Christian psychology movement, though, tends to be far more sophisticated in its critique of and engagement with modern psychology from a largely postmodern, post-structural perspective. Unlike the other models represented in this chapter, it is not comfortable following the modernist division of academia into discrete fields, but rather sees all forms of knowledge as interrelated. Thus, its primary aim is not to relate “psychology” and “theology” so much as to develop a theologically-informed view of persons and how to aid them in flourishing holistically. In essence, they want to recognize Christ as the Lord of psychology, and to discern the means by which we ought to be transformed into the kinds of people God desires us to be. Because their aims are quite different from those of the other models, they engage Christina theology, church tradition, and modern psychology much differently than other models. As we have seen, they draw deeply on Scripture and church tradition in forming their view of personhood and personal transformation. They are vigilant about the assumptions made by “secular” psychology, in theory and research. For the most part, they are conversant with contemporary psychology and willingly engage the field with a sophisticated understanding of philosophy, theory, and research. But their primary aim is soul care, shaped by Christian theology and Christian tradition. This approach is summarized below. Rebuilders—Christianity is fundamentally psychological—Christianity tells us about our origins, our nature, about how we ought to be, and about soul care that transforms us into becoming more Christ-like. Modern psychology neglects its philosophical roots, and often operates under assumptions and values that run counter to those of Christianity. Telos— Rebuilders want to rebuild psychology, recognizing the Lordship of Christ, on a firm foundation of Christian assumptions about human beings: our creation, our fallen nature, our ultimate purpose, mechanisms of change, and so forth. Christian psychology, as it currently exists, rejects modernist distinctions between disciplines but encourages dialogue with contemporary psychology, desiring to express Christian viewpoints within the academy. • What does Scripture tell us about the origin, nature, and value of persons? • What does Christian tradition tell us about soul care, how to be transformed into the kind of people that God wishes us to be? • In what ways has contemporary psychology rejected foundational assumptions that Christians hold to be true? How can we win a hearing for Christian perspectives within the modern academy? • How can Christians be faithful to their tradition and engage contemporary psychology theory and research? Neutral Parties To this point, all of the models we have considered breach the boundaries of one of the disciplines involved either by trying to annihilate it, to remove its fundamental character, or to force it into subservience. A fifth approach represents a truce between the two disciplines. It is prefaced on the idea that the two do not need to be in conflict as long as they simply respect each other’s territory. Christians who follow the Neutral Parties model have as their telos the accumulation of knowledge and the protection of disciplinary sovereignty. They typically acknowledge the influence of worldviews on the pursuit of knowledge, but they also tend to accept the modernist division of knowledge into discrete disciplines that are relatively autonomous. In a sense, they attempt to follow two masters—when in Athens, they do as the Athenians, and when in Rome, they do as the Romans. Like a person with dual citizenship, they see themselves as obligated to the laws of whichever country they happen to be in at the moment. They may gladly tell their Roman neighbors about how things work in Athens, and they may willingly share Roman insights with the Athenians. But they are always obligated to follow the sovereignty of the territory that they happen to be in at any given time. People who depict the relationship of Christianity and science (or Christianity and psychology) through the Neutral Parties model primarily employ procedures that serve to segregate the parts of each discipline from each other, and—perhaps—to compare the findings of the one model to the findings of the other model. The Neutral Parties model follows the tactic of noting the distinctiveness of psychology and the uniqueness of theology, while identifying their similarities of content or function. Because it focuses on finding similarities between psychology and theology, Carter and Narramore designated this approach to the relationship of psychology and Christianity the parallels model. The Neutral Parties model allows psychological theories and findings to exist on their own merits. One version of this model emphasizes the need to keep all psychological and theological reflection completely separate in order to protect the disciplines from being contaminated by ideas or beliefs from the other discipline. In essence, they are trying to protect disciplinary sovereignty. In this version, psychology and theology are seen as nonintersecting perspectives from which a subject can be viewed; psychological and theological reflection are carefully segregated from one another through disciplinary isolationism. The second version of this model also insists on disciplinary sovereignty. However, once the disciplines have been allowed to run independently, it recognizes that they may have independently come to some conclusions that can be compared, correlated, or seen in parallel terms. This version allows someone “to correlate or align certain psychological and spiritual concepts” (isolated correlationalism). Eck classified such approaches as non-manipulative integration paradigms that use a correlates process. Adherents of this view accept “the legitimacy of truth from both disciplines” without needing to alter their data prior to relating the two. The Neutral Parties model and the questions it gives rise to is summarized below. Neutral Parties— Psychology and theology are completely independent disciplines, with their own sources, methodologies, and findings. They need to be carefully segregated to keep either from infecting the other (disciplinary isolationism). However, there may be parallels between the findings of psychology and theology that can be discerned (isolated correlationalism). Telos—people who follow the Neutral Parties approach seek to accumulate knowledge and protect disciplinary sovereignty. They typically acknowledge the influence of worldviews on the pursuit of knowledge, but they also tend to accept the modernist division of knowledge into discrete disciplines that are relatively autonomous. Thus, they are always obligated to follow the sovereignty of whichever discipline they are operating in at a given point in time. • How can I make sure that my religious beliefs do not bias me in my scientific or clinical work? • If psychological and theological teachings appear to conflict, can the differences be explained as simply reflecting the different languages and methodologies of the two disciplines? • How does one determine if a problem is primarily a spiritual issue or a psychological issue? • In what ways do psychology and theology seem to be saying the same thing in different words? Allies as Subjects of One Sovereign The final model that we will consider recognizes the underlying unity of human nature and the legitimacy of both theological and psychological investigation. The Allies as Subjects of One Sovereign (Allies) model recognizes that all truth is known by God, who is Sovereign over all things. It acknowledges that various methods can be used to learn about the world in general, and human beings in particular. Compared to the other models, it has a stronger recognition that worldviews exert an enormous influence on human thinking, so it emphasizes the importance of forming a Christian worldview from which to approach all of life, including psychology. One proposition that undergirds this perspective is the unity of truth. From God’s perspective, all truth fits together cohesively. All truth is ultimately under God’s sovereignty. However, due to human error and human limitations, our understanding is imperfect, and sometimes flawed. Nonetheless, if something is true, it cannot contradict other things that are true. This does not mean, however, that all truths are equally important. For instance, I believe that the proposition, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16, NASB) is just as true as the proposition that—at the time of this writing—I own a red minivan. However, the truth of John 3:16 is far more foundational to my life than the fact that I own a red minivan. This perspective affirms that psychology and Christian theology are both subject to God’s sovereignty. God gave birth to the subject of psychology (human behavior) when he created human beings. God granted us the foundations of Christian theology when He gave us His Word. Psychology and theology are His subjects, both in the sense that He is sovereign over them and that they should serve His ends. “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever” (Rom 11:36, NIV). The Allies model acknowledges the sovereignty of Christ as the creator and sustainer of all things: “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:16–17, NIV). The christocentric nature of this model is one of its distinguishing features, as is its recognition of human error and finitude. Carter and Narramore called this the Integration Model, because it seeks to integrate psychology and theology by discerning their underlying unity. Discerning the underlying unity of truth and using it for godly ends are the chief disciplinary goals of the Allies as Subjects of One Sovereign model. However, its telos is larger than disciplinary integration alone. Instead, the Allies model recognizes that human purpose is ultimately expressed when we see ourselves in proper relationship to God. This includes, for example, recognizing and submitting to God’s sovereignty, serving him completely with heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30), giving him praise and thanks in all things (Col 3:17), and loving our neighbor (Mark 12:31). The telos of the Allies model aims at being faithful to God in all of our lives, including studying the book of His Works and the book of His Word as we attempt to discern the underlying unity of truth, serving and praising God, and loving our neighbor. Eck classified such approaches as utilizing a non-manipulative paradigm with a “unifies process.” In his words, the truth to be integrated from each discipline is brought together to create a unified set of truths that mirror the wholeness and unity of God’s created and revealed truths. This process seeks to use the data gathered through the best methods each discipline has to offer while recognizing that we are “looking through a glass darkly” (I Cor. 13:12, NIV). This approach recognizes the limitations of human understanding that impact our ability to know and understand the truth from both disciplines, yet seeks to live out a unified set of truths in one’s life and practice of psychology. Psychology and theology, rightly understood, are thus seen as allies, both of which are subjects of One Sovereign God. For those of us who follow this model, we will respect the “laws” of Jerusalem and Athens, but our ultimate allegiance is to the God who is Sovereign over all things. The Allies model will use many of the same procedures utilized in the other models, but its goals are uniquely shaped by acknowledging God’s sovereignty. It will utilize segregation, but only for the purpose of disciplinary distinctiveness and methodology. It will be interested in looking at the psychological functions of religious belief and practice, and the theological soundness of psychological concepts and assumptions. It will be concerned with comparing and contrasting psychological and theological concepts and findings. In seeking to understand the holistic and unified nature of its subject—human behavior—those who use the Allies model will sometimes find that parts of one model or the other are incompatible, and we will undertake a more thorough analysis to discern which model is more accurate and which is in need of correction. Above all, however, the Allies model recognizes God’s sovereignty. In this model, our allegiance is neither to psychology nor to theology, but to God who reigns over all spheres of which we are subjects. It is our Christian duty to engage psychology in such a way that we are faithful in discerning truths about God’s world, utilizing and applying the unique methods of psychology in full recognition of their limitations. It is our Christian duty to study Christian theology in such a way that we are faithful in seeking and following the truths of God’s Word, utilizing the unique methods of theology in full recognition of their limitations. It is important to highlight that this is not just an intellectual exercise: psychology and theology are not just about abstract beliefs—they are also about how we live. Finally, by being aware of the human limitations of finitude, frailty, and fallenness, and of the methodological limitations of our disciplines, we can proceed to seek a holistic and unified understanding of humanity, and to apply our knowledge in ways that honor God and minister to the needs of our fellow human beings. We can summarize the Allies as Subjects of One Sovereign model and the kinds of questions it asks as follows: Allies—God is the author of all truth, and all things are “by him, for him” and “hold together” in Him. Although psychology and theology are separate disciplines, with their own sources, methodologies, and findings, they both express truth about human nature and functioning. They are both dependent, to some degree, on human thinking, and to the degree that human thinking is errant, our psychological and theological conclusions can be wrong. Apparent contradictions between psychology and theology suggest that we need to reconsider our reasoning and data to see if we can identify logical, methodological, interpretive, or other errors in our thinking. Telos—Allies strive to be faithful stewards of all that God has entrusted to us, including studying the book of His Works and the book of His Word. Our ultimate goals include serving and praising God with all of our being, and fulfilling our call to love our neighbor. At the disciplinary level, the Allies model aims to discern the underlying unity of truth and to use it for godly ends. • How can we discern the nature of human beings using both psychology and theology? • How can a Christian worldview help us evaluate fundamental assumptions about our place in the world, especially as they are reflected in academic disciplines? • How can we maintain the disciplinary distinctives of psychology and theology as we seek to understand human nature holistically? • How can psychology and theology help us to minister God’s love to the many needs that people have? • How can all that we do be an expression of love of God and love of our neighbor? Apparent Conflict and the Six Models: An Example Let us turn our attention to a situation in which a theological teaching seems to be at odds with contemporary psychology. A significant amount of psychological research highlights the destructive potential of anger, but modern psychology also suggests that anger has adaptive value. It is often noted that forgiveness is a process that involves dealing with anger and other reactions to having been harmed. Forgiveness might be defined psychologically as a process that “takes place over time,” and involves the choice to release an offending person from resentment by the extension of compassion and generosity. In contrast, some contemporary Bible teachers proclaim that it would be sinful to go to bed with unresolved anger since the Bible says, “Do not let the sun go down on your anger” (Eph 4:27a). An example of this is seen in the following advice. “Develop ways of dealing with anger. Chief among these is the old Biblical injunction, ‘do not let the sun go down on your wrath.’ In other words, if you have to stay up all night talking in order to resolve differences, do so. Do not go to bed angry.” On similar grounds, some pastors teach that forgiveness is a decision made once for all, and that once forgiven, an offense should be forgotten. Some psychologists teach that forgiveness is best conceived as a process rather than a point-in-time decision, and that the offense may still need to be discussed and worked through even after the offender has been forgiven. How ought we to understand the apparent conflict between these claims? Holders of the Enemies model would view this apparent conflict as solvable by rejecting the claims of one discipline or the other; Secular Combatants would reject the religious claim, and Christian Combatants would reject the psychological claim. Individuals who adhere to the Spies model would ignore data that does not fit with their preexisting assumptions, and borrow only data that support their beliefs. Colonialists would attempt to reform psychology by filtering secular concepts through religious categories (thus rejecting the psychological viewpoint on this issue). Rebuilders would attempt to reorient the field of psychology by infusing it with Christian values. The Neutral Parties approach would be to admit that there was an apparent discrepancy, but to either relegate this discrepancy to differences of perspective (disciplinary isolationism), or to look for other areas where parallels between theological teachings and psychological findings are more compatible (isolated correlationalism). Finally, believing that the apparent conflict was based on misunderstanding or misinterpretation, the Allies model would suggest that we need to revisit our interpretations of Scripture and of the psychological data, as we will see in the following paragraphs. TABLE 8.1: Models of Disciplinary Relationship Model Telos Description Enemies Secular Combatants Christian Combatants Allegiance to a worldview that excludes (or greatly restricts) either religious belief or the insights of human reason. The autonomous exercise of human reason. Protection of religious authority and religious pronouncements against corruption by human reason. Rejection of one perspective or discipline. Non-integrative paradigm, Rejects process Spies Foreign Spies Domestic Spies Pragmatic desire to use any means to aid human well-being. They lack deep commitment to any religious system, have little investment in religious doctrine, or tend to water down doctrine in favor of promoting their vision of temporal well-being. Selective rejection and selective plundering. Rejection of orthodox theological perspective, but recognition of the potential for religion to promote well-being. Manipulative Integration paradigm; Reconstructs Process Colonialists Biblical Psychology Primary allegiance to a religious system that accepts the importance of Christian doctrine and behavior; appropriation of psychological methods or findings that can illustrate or buttress the claims of their theological proclamations. Primary allegiance to a religious system that accepts the importance of Christian doctrine and behavior; appropriation of psychological methods or findings that can illustrate or buttress the claims of their theological proclamations. Manipulative Integration paradigm; TheologyTransforms Psychology Rebuilders Christian Psychology Recovery of psychological views from Christian scripture and tradition, especially in terms of wise counsel for living; interaction with contemporary psychology with an aim towards building a unique Christian psychology perspective. Criticism of modernist definition of psychology and its claims of objectivity. Primacy of Christian framework and perspective. Recognition of the value of empirical approaches to psychology. Postmodern, post-structural paradigm; Theology Transforms Psychology Neutral Parties Levels of Analysis Accumulation of knowledge, and the protection of disciplinary sovereignty. They tent to accept the modernist division of knowledge into discrete disciplines that are relatively autonomous. Accumulation of knowledge, and the protection of disciplinary sovereignty. They tent to accept the modernist division of knowledge into discrete disciplines that are relatively autonomous. Non-Manipulative Integration Paradigm, Correlates Process Allies Recognition that human purpose is ultimatelyexpressed when we see ourselves in proper relationship to God. Discerning the underlying unity of truth and using it for godly ends are the chief disciplinary goals of the model. Psychological and theological methods are used to gain a more holistic and unified understanding of truth. Non-manipulative Integration Paradigm, Unifies Process Following the approach of the Allies model, we might first note that the advice that Christians should not to go to bed angry is not an easy fit with the context of the verse (Ephesians 4). The first theme of the surrounding verses highlights the importance of unity within the body of Christ; anger that is not resolved over time will destroy unity. The second theme of the surrounding verses is the need to mature into a Christ-like image. Children do not manage their anger well, but—ideally—through socialization and development we gradually learn to restrain our anger and express it appropriately. In a similar fashion, Christians are to “grow up” so that their behavior is more mature and Christ-like. The language employed by the biblical author appears to have two sources: Psalm 4:4 and an ancient social custom. The first source is a psalm in which David cries out to God in distress, but then interrupts his lament with the phrase, “In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent” (Ps 4:4, NIV). In its original context, the injunction appears to function as a warning to be silent before God and circumspect in judgment. It also appears that the apostle Paul might have drawn upon a common saying, attributed to Plutarch, that men who were angry at each other should “shake hands before the sun set.” Paul may thus be using an ancient, sacred teaching and attaching it to a contemporary maxim to illustrate the need to resolve anger appropriately, not necessarily intending a wooden interpretation of doing so before going to bed. A final question is what is to be put aside. The words for “anger” in Ephesians 4:26, while related, are not identical. Most modern translations treat the words identically: “In your anger do not sin: Do not let the sun go down on your anger.” However, the second word for anger includes a preposition that could alter its meaning; the King James Version recognized this by translating the second word as wrath. Marvin Vincent suggested that Paul’s injunction was against the passionate impulses of exasperation. Another commentator believed that “the term used in the second clause suggests the idea of embitterment or exasperation … The injunction not to let the sun go down on your wrath signifies irascibility rather than ire.” Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown concurred: “Our natural feelings are not wrong when directed to their legitimate object, and when not exceeding due bounds … The sense is not, Your anger shall not be imputed to you if you put it away before nightfall; but ‘let no wrath (that is, as the Greek, personal ‘irritation’ or ‘exasperation’) mingle with your ‘anger,’ even though, the latter be righteous.” Thus, anger itself is not the problem, but rather anger that is nursed, vengeance that is cultivated, or conflict that breeds contempt. When faced with such apparent conflicts, we need to allow our interpretation of Scripture to serve as a touchstone for reevaluating our psychological conclusions in the light of scriptural and psychological data. If a psychologist were to argue that giving full reign to one’s anger was good, or that there is no need to try to resolve interpersonal conflict, we would certainly have some theological objections to these claims. We would also find that the psychological data would not support such claims. A comparison of these perspectives allows for a process of mutual critique that may help us identify errors in psychological interpretation or theological interpretation. In this case, it may be that a rightly understood psychology of forgiveness could here provide a corrective impetus to a wrongly understood theology of anger. While well intentioned, the advice to never go to bed with anger (that is, with interpersonal tension) may actually be counterproductive in some circumstances. Such advice has the potential to promote repression of emotion and suppression of conflict, all in the name of harmony that it does not necessarily achieve. There are times when an issue must be addressed immediately, but there are also occasions when a temporary impasse in a relationship is better served by a good night’s sleep and calm reflection and discourse the next day. The theological data, however, serve as a strong caution that interpersonal wounds and conflicts ought to be resolved in a reasonably brief period of time and should not be nursed or allowed to fester indefinitely. As the forgoing example illustrates, the six models bring about different ways of thinking about apparent conflicts between psychology and theology. In the next three chapters, we will gain a deeper understanding of these models. Summary When we look at the relationship of psychology and theology, we are concerned with models based on models; that is, models of how to understand the model of psychology and the model of theology that a theorist has constructed, and the realities that they represent. Six models for various ways of relating psychology and theology were proposed (Enemies, Spies, Colonialists, Rebuilders, Neutral Parties, and Allies as Subjects of One Sovereign), and comparisons were made to other models that have been proposed. Table 8.1 summarizes each of the six models and provides a comparison to previously proposed models. In the next two chapters, we will explore examples of these models and elaborate on them conceptually. David N. Entwistle, Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity: An Introduction to Worldview Issues, Philosophical Foundations, and Models of Integration, Third Edition. (Cascade, 2015), 165–189. Chapter 9 Antagonistic Models of Disciplinary Relationship: Enemies Indeed, it is a strange-disposed time: But men may construe things after their fashion, Clean from the purpose of the things themselves. —William Shakespeare People suffer and die every day because of territorial conflicts. Combatants wage war with each other while innocent bystanders suffer. Western news media often fail to report these conflicts even though they occur on a massive scale. Ethnic and religious conflicts lead to bloodshed in places as diverse as Afghanistan, Chechnya, China, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, Palestine, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Somalia, and Sudan. In many of these conflicts, the core issue is territory. The Enemies model of the relationship of psychology and Christianity (or religion) is largely a territorial dispute. Like all such disputes, territory often becomes a background issue once hostilities break out. One group of people identifies another group as dangerous infidels, “unfaithful ones.” The warring sides perceive each other as hostile and combative. Each side sees its own attacks as justified by the antagonistic behavior and infidelity of the other side. After several rounds of self-justification and escalating assaults, both sides become convinced that the other side started the conflict, and that their own side is the only one that has merit. Unfortunately, such conflicts cause untold suffering among the people that are caught between the warring factions. To understand the roots and supporting factors of any conflict, it is necessary to comprehend the worldviews of the adversaries, and to understand the history of the conflict. We have already discussed some of the issues that created antagonism between psychology and religion in chapters 2 and 3. Having introduced the Enemies model in chapter 8, the way is paved for us to continue to develop an understanding of this perspective. People who subscribe to the Enemies model assume that psychology and religion (or Christianity) are fundamentally incompatible with each other. This model is carried out through rejection and eradication. On the one side, there is a wholesale rejection of the system to which one is opposed. On the other hand, efforts are exerted to eradicate anything in one’s own system that has its roots in the external system. Two versions of the Enemies model exist. In the first version, religion is seen as the enemy of psychology; this is the perspective of Secular Combatants. In the second version, psychology is seen as the enemy of Christianity; this is the perspective of Christian Combatants. We will explore each of these in turn in this chapter. Religion as the Enemy of Psychology: Secular Combatants Christians who are opposed to psychology often single out Sigmund Freudas the central figure of psychology and as the epitome of its antireligious bent (both of these propositions are debatable). Freud is an enigmatic and complicated figure. As the recipient of anti-Semitic prejudice, and as a member of an ethnic group long persecuted by Christians, “he was bound to feel prejudiced against Christianity in general, the religion that had inflicted such untold suffering on his people through the centuries.” Freud personally encountered anti-Semitic discrimination as a child and in his adult life. As a young child he lived in a largely Catholic area where anti-Semitism was rampant. His family employed a Catholic nanny for him, and she often took him to mass. Samuel Slipp provided an interesting interpretation of this event: An added confusion beclouded young Sigmund’s first two years of life. He was raised by two mother figures. Besides his biological mother, Amalie, he was cared for by an elderly Czech nanny named Resi Wittek (also called Monika Zajic by other writers). To add to the confusion, Resi, who was Catholic, was allowed to take little Sigmund to church with her. At Catholic church he learned about sin, heaven, and hell. Amalie was clearly aware that the nanny was taking Sigmund to church with her, but she expressed a cavalier attitude about it. Amalie related with amusement how Sigmund would come home from church and preach to the family. Why was this Jewish mother amused that her son was attending church? Was she encouraging Christian assimilation as a way of dealing with anti-Semitism? Assimilation was not an uncommon path followed by many Austrian and German Jews. Was she angry at her religious Jewish husband who had gone bankrupt? Allowing Sigmund to go to church might have been her way of acting out her defiance and her anger against her husband. “Because of our commons roots, a true Christian cannot be anti-Semitic.” —Pope Francis “Every day, I pray with the Psalms of David. My prayer is Jewish, then I have the Eucharist, which is Christian.” —Pope Francis “Looking to the future of relations between Jews and Christians, in the first place, we appeal to our Catholic brothers and sisters to renew the awareness of the Hebrew roots of their faith.… At the end of this Millennium the Catholic Church desires to express her deep sorrow for the failures of her sons and daughters in every age. This is an act of repentance …” —We remember: A reflection on the Shoah; Vatican archives, 1998 The nanny was dismissed for stealing from the family, and one wonders if this event colored Freud’s view of religion. In any event, the anti-Semitism he and his family experienced created much bitterness. For many years building up to the holocaust, anti-Semitism was rampant throughout Europe. Jacob Freud tried to console Sigmund by sharing his own experiences. Sigmund, however, seems to have reacted with disappointment that his father tolerated the abuse to which Jews were regularly exposed. He recounts one particular incident that left an indelible impression on him. I might have been ten or twelve years old when my father began to take me with him on his walks, and in his conversation to reveal his views on the things of this world. Thus it was that he once told me the following incident, in order to show me that I had been born into happier times than he: “When I was a young man, I was walking one Saturday along the street in the village where you were born; I was well-dressed, with a new fur cap on my head. Up comes a Christian, who knocks my cap into the mud, and shouts, ‘Jew, get off the pavement!”—“And what did you do?”—“I went into the street and picked up the cap,” he calmly replied. Freud related this story while explaining that he never intended to study medicine. He had wanted to study law and enter government service, but as a Jew, this path was not open to him. When he was compiling his autobiography at the age of sixty-nine, Freud recounted his experience as a university student: “Above all, I found that I was expected to feel myself inferior and an alien because I was a Jew. I refused absolutely to do the first of these things.” While his personal experiences may have left him jaded toward religion, and especially Christianity, his chosen profession also played a role in his anti-religious sentiments. Medicine in the late 1800s was influenced by the mechanistic physiology of a German school of medicine that sought to reduce the human being to chemical and physical forces. “In this way physicalist physiology … eliminated all traces of ‘vitalism’ of the Aristotelian and Scholastic tradition, which assumed that organisms had been endowed by the Creator with immaterial factors …” Despite these forces impelling Freud’s antagonism toward religion, he was very well educated in Judaism as a child and very familiar with other religions as an adult. Freud was unusually well read in the religious literature not only of Jews and Christians, but also of the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese, and he could quote at will from the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. His theological views are largely revisionist, offering psychological explanations for religious phenomena. Freud clearly viewed religion itself as having neurotic origins that ought to be outgrown: “Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis, and [a psychologist who does not deceive himself ] is optimistic enough to suppose that mankind will surmount this neurotic phase, just as so many children grow out of their similar neurosis.” While Freud correctly noted that some religious practices may serve neurotic functions, his contention that neurosis created religion is clearly speculative. Furthermore, as the theologian Hans Küng pointed out, Freud’s conclusion was based on a logical error. Even if religious belief expresses wish fulfillments, it does not mean that God does not exist. “For psychological interpretation alone, from its very nature, cannot penetrate to the absolutely final or first reality … the existence of God remains an open question.” In Freud’s view, though, psychological and sociological forces are responsible for our belief in God, who is “nothing but an exalted father.” For Freud, the only god that existed, the only god worth serving, and the only one who offered hope or “salvation” was truth, or, as he put it, “our God, logos.” For Freud, truth could relieve some of our anxieties and offer us a sense of earthly hope and comfort. In his view, though, truth is a cold reality. We cannot hope for the loving arms of God, or for justice or mercy. “Our God, logos, is perhaps not a very almighty one, and he may only be able to fulfill a small part of what his predecessors have promised.” The only realistic hope, in Freud’s view, was for humans to overcome the superstitions and empty promises of primitive religious belief. Toward this end, Freud viewed psychoanalysis as a means to a more scientific understanding of reality: The final judgment of science on the religious Weltanschauung, then … [is that] it cannot achieve its end. Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the times in which they originated, the ignorant childhood days of the human race … The ethical commands, to which religion seeks to lend its weight, require some other foundation instead, since human society cannot do without them, and it is dangerous to link up obedience to them with religious belief. If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it seems not so much a lasting acquisition as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity. Freud’s faith in scientific progress, though, was misplaced. Modernism was unable to deliver on its promises. Freud’s god, logos, “turned out to be an idol.” Human rationality and the hope of scientific advancement have not changed human nature, and they can as easily cause human suffering (e.g., creating “better” weapons, destroying the environment) as relieve it (alleviating famine and lessening psychological distress). Surprisingly, Freud’s antagonism toward religion did not prevent him from collaborating with religious individuals, such as Oskar Pfister, a Swiss pastor. Nor did Freud consistently see his method or theories as necessarily opposed to religious belief or practice; in one letter he wrote, “In itself, psychoanalysis is neither religious nor the opposite, but an impartial instrument which can serve the clergy as well as the laity when it is used only to free suffering people.” One might legitimately challenge how “impartial” any therapeutic approach can be. It is widely recognized that—even if we strive for “technical” or “therapeutic” neutrality—our own values are inevitably expressed in the psychotherapeutic situation. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Christians can benefit from the insights of secular individuals. While some techniques or admonitions may clearly violate Christian values, there are others, which, stemming from a discernment of the workings of God’s creation, are equally applicable to Christians and non-Christians alike. Thus Freud was personally committed to atheism while maintaining a warm dialogue with religiously committed people. He saw religion as based on infantile needs that could be supplanted by science and truth, and yet did not see his method as requiring or encouraging an atheistic bent. Closer to the contemporary scene, one of the most outspoken critics of religious belief has been Albert Ellis. Some of Ellis’s more dogmatic statements against religion include the following: If religion is defined as man’s dependence on a power above and beyond the human, then as a psychotherapist, I find it to be exceptionally pernicious. For the psychotherapist is normally dedicated to helping human beings in general, and his patients in particular, to achieve certain goals of mental health, and virtually all these goals are antithetical to a truly religious viewpoint. In most respects religion seriously sabotages mental health. In the final analysis, then, religion is a neurosis … What then is the role of psychotherapy in dealing with the religious views of disturbed patients?… [T]he sane and effective psychotherapist should not … go along with the patients’ religious orientation and try to help these patients live successfully with their religions, for this is equivalent to trying to help them live successfully with their emotional illness. Ellis’s assumptions clearly reflect the Secular Combatants version of the Enemies model. In 1980, the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology published an article in which Alan Bergin proposed that psychology needed to take a more inclusive stance toward religious belief. Ellis continued his diatribe against religious belief in response to Bergin’s article, proposing that “devout, orthodox, or dogmatic religion is significantly correlated with emotional disturbance,” challenging religious assumptions about the value of “fidelity or loyalty to any interpersonal commitment, especially marriage,” and suggesting that people would be better off “without their belief in the intervening variable of religion or god.” While Ellis claimed that agnosticism was the healthiest choice, he believed that people who couldn’t give up the crutch of religion could live comfortable and reasonably healthy lives with suitably undogmatic religious beliefs. In his later writings, Ellis softened his rhetoric considerably, and even coauthored Counseling and Psychotherapy with Religious Persons, a book on adapting his techniques for use with religiously committed clients. Are the negative views of psychology expressed by Freud and Ellis based on empirical evidence? To what degree are their conclusions the result of their assumptions? Where did these assumptions come from? The approach taken by Ellis and his coauthors in Counseling and Psychotherapy with Religious Persons seems strangely incongruent with most of Ellis’s previous statements about the supposed harmful effects of religious belief. For instance, the authors admonish therapists to guard against antireligious sentiments that could impede therapeutic success: Antireligious sentiments could lead psychotherapists to discount or disparage client religious beliefs. Psychotherapists may assume that religious beliefs and practice cause psychopathology. No such link is supported by research. Rather, a growing body of research reveals a positive relation between religious commitment and physical health; summaries of studies examining a link between mental illness and religion find that religion is either a neutral factor or there may be a positive relation between mental health and religious commitment … This view of religion is completely at variance with many of Ellis’s former statements, and his essential stance has remained at odds with the idea that one may benefit psychologically from strongly held religious beliefs. Shortly before his death in 2007, Ellis issued another attack against religious commitment. Ellis argued that survey results that find that religiously committed people express higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction than nonreligious people are simply artifacts of self-deceit or social desirability bias. He claimed that “moderate” religious belief may be benign, so long as the believers “mainly run their own lives and rarely damn themselves (and others) for nonreligious observance.” He ended with the admonition: “Try to avoid a doctrinal system through which you are dogmatically convinced that you absolutely must devote yourself to the one, only, right, and unerring deity … Otherwise, in my view as a psychotherapist, you most probably are headed for emotional trouble.” Ellis, one might say, concluded that we are better off without religion, but religious belief can be benign as long as you aren’t too sure about it, you don’t care whether anyone else believes it, and it exercises relatively little influence in your life. Freud and Ellis should be commended for having stated their beliefs about religion explicitly. At the very least, by putting their cards on the table, they were honest about their assumptions and they created a possibility for dialogue. On the other hand, when someone is largely unaware of his or her assumptions, honest dialogue is impeded. This situation is, unfortunately, very common in psychology. People in general tend to be largely unaware of the degree to which the prevailing Zeitgeist shapes their worldviews. Psychologists are particularly at risk of this trend because the modernist mindset that underlies empirical psychology is largely unacknowledged. Psychological training tends to be extremely weak regarding philosophy generally, and metaphysics and epistemology specifically (other than training in the scientific method). Furthermore, every counseling theory makes assumptions about human nature and the ideals towards which we should strive (e.g., happiness, personal satisfaction, autonomy, etc.), many of which are infused in the broader culture. Although these assumptions are unacknowledged, they nonetheless exert incredible influence in how psychology is carried out and the goals toward which it is directed. An even more dangerous situation exists when someone deliberately conceals his or her antireligious bias. Perhaps no clearer example of this can be found than Abraham Maslow. Throughout his life Maslow kept a journal of his private thoughts, many of which are startling to anyone who is familiar only with his published work. The following quotations, taken from his posthumously published journal, are illustrative of the carefully concealed views that lurked beneath the façade of his public pronouncements. The first quotation is in reference to a presentation he gave at Brandeis University. First time I ever spoke qua atheist in public … I didn’t dare mention my elitist conception that educated people need “churches” far less than average & low-IQ people. Maybe morons need rules, dogmas, ceremonies, etc., as Eleanor Wembridge claimed long ago—that her feebleminded clients behaved much better and felt better being Catholic and following all the rules. It’s possible now to make a completely coherent & comprehensive psychological & naturalistic theory of religion—far more clear and real than any theology or religion has ever been … I think we can save everything worth saving in religion, everything real and true, without swallowing any of the crap. A new, true religion would certainly change things. Something really good to harness all the good impulses now wasted on nunneries & churches & Bibles. Very “successful” lecture last night before hundreds of Catholics. Left me exhausted & weary. They shouldn’t applaud me— they should attack. If they were fully aware of what I was doing, they would. But maybe not. Maslow’s views on sexuality, dominance, eugenics, and other topics were sequestered in his private journals, but obviously flowed from assumptions that influenced his theories. In evaluating any psychological theory, it is imperative that we examine the underlying assumptions—explicit and implicit—that shape the theory and the ideals toward which it directs us. The influence of assumptions may be of crucial importance if the theorist is ignorant of them or if he or she is deliberately concealing them. The explicit assaults upon religion by Freud, Ellis, and others have clearly been a setback to the relationship of psychology and Christianity. The attacks themselves are based on a dubious presupposition of the incompatibility of “scientific” thinking and religious commitment. More subtly and more profoundly, any implicit assumptions that deny the legitimacy of a Christian worldview must be addressed for fruitful dialogue to occur between psychology and Christian theology at a disciplinary level. Some people, including several psychological theorists, reject religion because of bad personal experiences with religiously committed individuals. A prime example is Freud’s personal experience and his awareness of historical “Christian” anti-Semitism. Yet, in fairness, we must admit that any religious system can be hijacked by people who endorse errant doctrines that cause physical, psychological, and spiritual problems. Regardless of how far out of the mainstream they are, religious teachings (such as, that true believers should forgo medical care; raise their children with callous, iron-fisted discipline; or practice extremes of asceticism) give nonreligious people a very skewed view of religion. My own experience suggests that people raised under the influence of rigidly authoritarian religious practices disproportionately come to the attention of medical and mental health professionals. For whatever reasons, though, the fact is that a psychology against religion view is alive and well, even if the assumptions upon which it is based are neither compelling nor productive. Looking Back: What are some of the reasons that some psychologists might see religion as an enemy of psychology? Psychology as the Enemy of Christianity: Christian Combatants The animosity of some Christians toward psychology is easy to document, such as the Catholic notion at the outset of the twentieth century that practicing or undergoing psychoanalysis was a mortal sin. The acrimony of the Enemies model within the church has a long history, and it continues to attract a committed following in some circles. The idea that mixing psychology and theology together is heretical has many roots, including the fundamentalist–modernist controversy that we have previously discussed. Understandably, Christian Combatants have reacted against the antireligious sentiments of some secular psychologists. Christian Combatants are also concerned that advice given by secular mental health professionals may diverge significantly from scriptural views, a concern that is not unwarranted. Some Christian Combatants are opposed to psychology as an academic discipline but more commonly, they focus their opposition on clinical psychology. The Christian Combatants view is typified by the condemnation leveled by Jay Adams: the psychiatrist has usurped the work of the physician, but mostly the work of the preacher. And he engages in this work without warrant from God, without the aid of the Scriptures (in almost every case), and without regard to the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus he seeks to change the behavior and values of people in an ungodly manner. Insofar as he succeeds, the results may be feared. The work of changing men’s lives belongs to the Christian ministry in particular and to Christian people in general; not to some self-appointed caste of humanistic priests that has moved into the Church’s territory … Adams clearly perceived psychology as the enemy of the church in a territorial dispute. While Adams included some in-house psychological critique by referencing Thomas Szasz and Hans Eysenck, (both of whom have expressed views that are clearly outside of mainstream psychology), his critique was largely polemical and presuppositional. The nature of his critique requires us to evaluate the bases for his theological argumentation and his presuppositions, and the merits advanced in their favor. Adams’s beliefs were formed in a cauldron in which, as a pastor, he had “learned little about counseling in seminary” and began pastoral ministry “with virtually no knowledge of what to do.” He tried to provide impromptu counsel, sought to explore the counseling literature (which at the time was primarily Freudian and Rogerian), and finally became convinced that “the more directive I became (simply telling counselees what God required of them), the more people were helped.” His conviction was reinforced when, after spending a summer studying patients in psychiatric hospitals with psychologist O. Hobart Mowrer, Adams became convinced that most of the patients “were there … not because they were sick, but because they were sinful.” Following his study with Mowrer, Adams began a study of scriptural references to “counseling” and developed “Nouthetic Counseling,” the conclusions of which “are not based upon scientific findings. My method is presuppositional. I avowedly accept the inerrant Bible as the Standard of all faith and practice.” While the Bible clearly is the standard of Christian faith and practice, stretching this concept to mean that Scripture contains all information relevant to psychological health is a dubious assertion. Furthermore, Adams’s hermeneutical case for “Nouthetic Counseling” is contestable. Carter, in a theological and psychological critique, offered this criticism: The biblical rationale of choosing “noutheteo and its cognate nouthesia as a model of counseling” is never provided by Adams, despite the fact that it is an infrequent word, occurring only thirteen times in the New Testament. Furthermore, While Adams links noutheteo to preaching and discipline, its position in the network of biblical concepts is neither basic nor central. On the other hand … parakaleo and its cognate paraklesis make a much more adequate model of counseling from a biblical perspective. These words or concepts are more central biblically. Together they are translated in the King James Version 29 times as ‘comfort,’ 27 times as ‘exhort,’ 14 times as ‘consolation,’ and 43 times as ‘beseech,’ and infrequently as ‘desire,’ ‘entreat,’ and ‘pray.’ Furthermore, and perhaps of greater import, paraklesis is listed as a gift to the church (Romans 12:8) … The concept [of paraklesis, calling or coming beside] is broad enough to support a variety of therapeutic techniques from crisis intervention to depth therapy, and it is a gift given to the church which is clearly different than the gift of prophet or teacher. On the other hand, nouthesia represents a rather narrow range of functioning which Christians are to engage in but does not have the status of a gift to the church and does not have the centrality that Adams wants to give it. Thus, while premised on a reading of Scripture, Adams’s Christian Combatants approach is not above theological critique. The tradition of Jay Adams’s nouthetic counseling has been sustained and modified by David Powlison and others through the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors and the books and journal articles generated by its devotees. (Powlison has moderated some of Adams’s antagonism, as we will see in the next chapter.) Many conservative pastors share Adams’s opposition to psychology. For instance, one pastor indicated that he became concerned that his own ministry had allowed psychology to seep into his preaching. While comparing a popular Christian self-help book to Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, he concluded that he needed to repent of Christian Psychology. I have grown more certain of the evil of blending Christianity and psychology. Just as in Israel of old, men both ‘feared the Lord and served their own gods according to the custom of the nations’ (2 Ki. 17:33), so I believe many American Christians have fallen into a synchretistic blending of Christianity and worldly psychology. But the two do not mix. In his view, the use of psychology is essentially idolatrous. Because it has infected the church, we must repent of it and eradicate it wherever it is found in our churches. Lay authors Martin and Deidra Bobgan have written numerous selfpublished books in which they attack psychology within the church. The Bobgans coined the term “psychoheresy” to refer to any admixture of psychological theory and scriptural views. Their website, psychoheresy-aware.org/, features a logo of a snake with a ψ as its head (representing psychology) twisted around an open Bible. They have published diatribes against integrative efforts in general, as well as against James Dobson, Larry Crabb, 12-Step programs, and others. By far the most influential and recent popularizer of the Christian Combatants movement is John MacArthur. MacArthur is the pastor of a non-denominational church in Southern California, which was once ranked in the top 70 largest churches in the United States. He hosts “Grace to You,” a radio ministry that broadcasts his sermons up to a thousand times per day in English and 900 times in Spanish per day in twenty-three countries. He has published over 400 study guides and books. MacArthur’s influence among some conservative Christians is farreaching and significant. MacArthur is a fierce defender of what he sees as Christian orthodoxy, and he has taken aim against the charismatic movement, Roman Catholicism, egalitarian gender roles in church leadership, as well as secular forces that he sees as dangerous to the church, including psychology. In his view, psychology is dangerously subversive to true Christian faith. Consider the following quotation: “The rush to embrace psychology within the Church is frankly mystifying. Psychology and Christianity have been enemies from the beginning.” Note that MacArthur began with a presupposition—a statement that is presumed to be true, but for which no evidence is offered. Even if his contention were historically true, it would not logically follow that psychology and theology are necessarily enemies. Absent in his reasoning is the possibility that a Christian worldview could ever allow for, or even offer a corrective to, psychology as a science or psychotherapy as a discipline. Another of MacArthur’s presuppositions mirrors Adams’s contention that the care of the soul belongs solely to the church, and that psychology is a mere trespasser in its territory. The word psychology is a good one. Literally it means “the study of the soul.” As such it originally carried a connotation that has distinctly Christian implications, for only someone who has been made complete in Christ is properly equipped to study the human soul. But psychology cannot really study the soul; it is limited to studying human behavior. There is certainly value in that, but a clear distinction must be made between the contribution behavioral studies make to the educational, industrial, and physical needs of a society and their ability to meet the spiritual needs of people. Outside the Word and the Spirit there are no solutions to any of the problems of the human soul. MacArthur’s proposition regarding the definition of psychology is both simplistic and etymologically and historically inaccurate. Given his view, MacArthur proceeded to offer a dualistic proposition that psychology can only be done by Christians and that specifically Christian resources are sufficient to do such work. “True soul-study cannot be done by unbelievers. After all, only Christians have the resources for comprehending the nature of the human soul and understanding how it can be transformed.” “It is inane and dangerous to believe that any problem is beyond the scope of Scripture or unmet by our spiritual riches in Christ.” Similarly, in the preface to Introduction to Biblical Counseling, MacArthur and Mack identified their presuppositional commitments, including the conviction that “God’s Word should be our counseling authority.” Mack makes this point even more explicitly in another book in which he makes the following claim: “Secular psychology has nothing to offer for understanding or providing solutions to the non-physical problems of people. When it comes to counseling people, we have no reason to depend on the insights of fallen men.” This perspective is problematic at three points. First, it presumes that the effects of the Fall are so drastic that non-Christians cannot have any insight into the problems or solutions of human suffering. Secondly, it assumes that the Christian resources sufficient for faith and practice include all that is necessary for psychological well-being, and for which Scripture functions as a counseling authority. Thirdly, it engages in theological reductionism by viewing the psyche primarily as immaterial (“soul”). MacArthur’s contention that Christian faith is sufficient for psychological well-being is premised on the belief that “Scripture itself claims to be a sufficient resource for meeting emotional and spiritual needs” and that “those who are saying it is not are in serious error.” While MacArthur provides numerous Scripture citations, none of them actually make the claim that Scripture is a sufficient resource for meeting all of our emotional and psychological needs. An examination of two texts cited by MacArthur is instructive. First, a common element in MacArthur’s approach is to cite a portion of Scripture, out of context, and to read into it broader implications than the context allows. Examples of this can be seen in the three times that he cited 2 Corinthians 12:9 in Our Sufficiency in Christ. The first time he simply wrote, “His grace is sufficient for every situation (2 Cor. 12:9).” Two pages later he wrote, “ ‘My grace is sufficient for you,’ the Lord said to the apostle Paul (2 Cor 12:9),” following which MacArthur chastised people for turning away from God’s resources and toward “hollow human teachings.” Finally, he quoted the verse in its entirety on the facing page of a chapter. On three other occasions MacArthur elaborated on the verse in context, in which Paul related that God’s grace was sufficient when He chose not to remove Paul’s thorn in the flesh. When put in context, MacArthur largely limited his claims to those that fit the text (e.g., the need for humility and dependence on God, recognizing that God does not always choose to remove suffering but is present and sufficient in our suffering, the need for contentment, recognition of God’s power, etc). Yet elsewhere, he construed the verse in terms that do not fit the context Does MacArthur’s interpretation of the passages noted here reflect careful use of sound hermeneutics? Why or why not? To what degree are his conclusions the result of his assumptions? Where did these assumptions come from? As a second example, MacArthur recounted 2 Corinthians 9:8– 11, used as a proof-text, which he abbreviated as follows: “God is able to make all grace abound to you, that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed … You will be enriched in everything for all liberality, which through us is producing thanksgiving to God.” The meaning of the passage is skewed by the adjectives that MacArthur chose to italicize, and by the material deleted within the ellipses. While the larger passage emphasizes the purpose and context of God’s sufficiency, MacArthur’s emphasis forced it to be incorrectly read as a scope of sufficiency that does not fit the text. If we look at the context, it is clear that Paul was concerned with encouraging the Corinthian churches to be generous in their financial giving, and his message essentially served as a reminder that their giving to support his ministry was in response to God’s provision for them. Furthermore, the point of the passage does not revolve around emotional sufficiency; rather, it builds to a crescendo in proclaiming that we are given sufficiency to accomplish good deeds that culminate in thanksgiving. Read in context, Paul simply could not have had in mind the implications that MacArthur forced upon the text. In their extensive critique of MacArthur’s view, de Oliveira and Braun concluded that the “rejection of psychology on the grounds of biblical sufficiency reflects poor exegesis, theology, and logic.” Similarly, MacArthur’s assumption that Scripture can effectively function as a counseling text is premised on an unorthodox understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture in matters of faith and practice. The term “faith and practice” is not itself a biblical one, but it is a concept that is biblical. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16–17, NIV). The concept is that a…
Purchase answer to see full attachment