Institute for Christian
Teaching
Donna J. Habenicht
410-00 Institute for
Christian Teaching
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904 USA
Symposium on the Bible and
Adventist Scholarship
Juan Dolio, Dominican
REpublic
March 19-26, 2000
Modern scientific psychology is a relatively young, multifaceted
discipline devoted to the study of the mind, with its related processes, and
human and animal behavior. The science
of psychology can be investigated from many different perspectives, including
such diverse areas as visual perception, computer models of the brain,
chimpanzee speech, mental health issues, learning theory, parenting practices,
moral character, human development, or social psychology.
Psychology also speaks to many aspects of everyday living. Psychologists are often called upon to
answer questions such as: Is my child's
development normal? How should I
discipline my child? What can be done
about the AIDS problem? What causes
dyslexia? Do you think my child might
have been abused at the day care center?
What is the best way to help people stop smoking? How can I train my dog to be more obedient?
Psychologists are called upon to consult in all manner of situations,
from setting up programs for residential facilities for delinquent teenagers,
to prison reform, youth groups for churches, Head Start programs, schools who
have experienced violence, and churches reeling from the discovery of sexual
abuse in their midst. The almost
endless list mirrors the woes of end-time humanity. These woes have driven much of the research.
Psychology
and the Search for Truth
Psychology considers itself a scientific discipline, strongly based on research. However, many areas are really a "soft science" because human beings are very complex and relationships dependent on many variables, some of which are difficult to control and to measure. Psychological data related to human beings are rarely as clear or definitive as mathematical or chemical data.
The search for scientific truth has guided psychology since its
infancy. What does the research
say? Decisions of school psychologists
and counseling and clinical psychologists are, as often as possible, based on
the research findings related to the problem.
Clinicians are expected to have a good grasp of research methods and
data analyses. A significant number of
research questions appear on the national licensure examination.
As a Christian psychologist, I find two Bible verses appropriate to
this search for truth: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make
you free." (John 8:32) "I am the way, the truth, and the life." (John 14:6) No doubt the original meaning of these verses did not relate to
psychology, but I think they can legitimately be extended to the psychologist's
search for truth.
In my study of psychology I have discovered the truth of the following
statement from the pen of Ellen White in the book Education: "It is
a fact widely ignored, though never without danger, that error rarely appears
for what it really is. It is by
mingling with or attaching itself to truth that it gains acceptance...."
(1903, p. 231). The field of psychology
presents numerous opportunities for the mingling of truth and error. A Christian psychologist must be constantly
on the alert for this blurring of truth.
I believe the Christian psychologist must have a solid foundation of
biblical knowledge in order to discern the whereabouts of this fine line
between truth and error.
I believe that all truth originates with God. He is the source of truth about the natural world, including
human beings, as well as truth about the soul and the hereafter. Again, another statement from the book Education
is instructive: "As the moon and the stars of our solar system shine by
the reflected light of the sun, so, as far as their teaching is true, do the
world's great thinkers reflect the rays of the Sun of Righteousness. Every gleam of thought, every flash of the
intellect, is from the Light of the world" (White, 1903, p. 14).
As psychologists, and other scientists, discover truth about the
natural world, including human beings, they are discovering rays of light from
God. These rays of light–discovered
truth–can be used to illuminate our knowledge of human beings. Our task is to discern which discoveries
reflect the Sun of Righteousness.
All discovered truth needs to be compared with revealed truth in God's
Word. Generally the scientific
discoveries of psychology illuminate details about the development and
functioning of human beings which are not found in God's Word, the Bible. For example, how infants become attached to
their care givers, the details of how children learn, how stress affects the
body, and FMRIs which track the functioning of the brain comparing how
dyslexics and normal children process reading.
This information has practical application in helping people live more
productive and healthful lives. The
Bible does not speak to these details.
Rather, it focuses on the story of God's dealings with human beings
throughout history, especially as
related to the resolution of the sin problem.
Psychology gets into trouble, from a Seventh-day Adventist (SDA)
viewpoint, when it attempts to explain why humans develop and change as they do. Evolution undergirds the focus of mainstream
psychology. The sin problem does not
figure in any explanations for behavior or human development. Neither does the need for a Savior who might
renew an individual's mind enter into discussions of behavior change or therapy
for psychological problems. Thus, the
Christian psychologist senses a need to integrate his or her knowledge from
psychology and from theology. How do
they fit together?
Integration
of Psychology and Christianity
During the last several decades, Christian psychologists, recognizing
that truth and error comingle in psychology, have wrestled with the issue of
the integration of psychology and Christianity. Because of the diversity of psychological studies, it is
impossible to consider a single model for the integration of faith and learning
in psychology. Psychologists interested
in counseling or therapy have been the most active in the integration dialogue,
with a few voices emerging from other areas of psychology.
This period of integration activity can be divided into three distinct
eras: unsystematic activities until the early 1970s; a period of intense model
building during the late 70s and the 80s; followed by a relatively stagnant
period during the late 90s. The
Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS) was organized 25 years
ago for the purpose of pursuing the integration dream. Their Journal of Psychology and
Christianity and the Journal of Psychology and Theology from Biola
University have provided formal vehicles for this dialogue.
A number of significant books on the topic of integration were
published during the 80s and early 90s, such as: The Person in Psychology: A Contemporary Christian
Appraisal (VanLeeuwen, 1985); Psychology Through the Eyes of Faith (Myers
& Jeeves, 1987); Marriage Counseling: A Christian Approach to Counseling
Couples (Worthington, 1989); Modern
Psycho-therapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal (Jones & Butman,
1991); Christian Perspectives on Human Development (Aden, Benner &
Ellens, 1992); A Christian Theory of Personality (Vitz, 1994); Psychology in Christian Perspective: An
Analysis of Key Issues (Faw, 1995).
Some of these books are intended as readers to accompany psychology
courses, such as introductory psychology, human development, and different
types of therapy.
Is there agreement today on the integration of psychology and
Christianity? No. There is not even agreement on the meaning
of the term integration, let alone the process or content of such a model or
models. Does that mean we give up? No, again.
The Summer, 1996, issue of the Journal of Psychology and Christianity
was devoted to the topic: Integration Revisited. It provided a historical overview of the endeavor.
Six Christian psychologists who have been prominent in the dialogue
were asked to contribute to this special issue. Each was asked to discuss the following topics: Personal background and development as a Christian psychologist,
the relationship between Christianity and psychology, changes in Christianity
and psychology, evidence of progress in the integration dialogue, and future
directions. Their reflections
accentuate the differences inherent in the dialogue. Some express optimism about what has been accomplished and about
the future, while others lament slow progress.
All comment about the disintegration of psychology in general, largely
because the influence of postmodern thought has diluted or denigrated the
search for truth.
The urgency of the integration dialogue may also have been diluted a
little by the new interest in religion
and spirituality in clinical and counseling psychology. While I would not suggest that a majority–or
even a significant minority--of psychologists are actively involved in this new
area, enough has been published to temper the prevailing dictum that "psychologists
are not interested in religion".
Some of the titles I have seen include: Religion and the Clinical
Practice of Psychology (Shafranske, 1996); A Spiritual Strategy for
Counseling and Psychotherapy (Richards and Bergin, 1997); Integrating
Spirituality Into Treatment: Resources for Practitioners (Miller,1999); Spiritual
Resources in Family Therapy (Walsh, 1999); Handbook of Psychotherapy and
Religious Diversity (Richards and Bergin, 2000). All except Walsh were published by the American Psychological
Association.
How much the Christian psychologists, in particular CAPS and the
graduate programs at Fuller, Biola, and Wheaton, have contributed to this
interest is difficult to assess. I
suspect that their writings over the past three decades have had some impact,
but that the New Age movement and multiculturalism have probably had a greater
influence on the current thinking about religion and spirituality in mainstream
counseling and clinical psychology.
Suffice it to say, it is no longer taboo to talk about religious and
spiritual interventions in client work.
While our definitions of "religious" and "spiritual"
may differ, this is certainly a great step forward.
During the last couple decades psychologists have also discovered some
areas which sound distinctly religious–forgiveness, altruistic service instead
of self-centeredness, self-respect instead of self-esteem, for example–and have
altered their thinking in other areas so they are closer to a Biblical viewpoint–-a
reconsideration of how to deal with anger and the role of guilt in mental
health, for instance. Not everyone
agrees with the new ideas, but the good news is that the ideas are present in
the literature and recognized by practicing and theoretical psychologists.
The
Bible and Psychology
Psychology has come a long way since Freud. Even so, mainstream psychology today is definitely not biblically
based, never has been, and probably never will be. Even though some ideas may resemble biblical thought, the
psychological version did not originate in the Bible nor is the Bible the
source for evaluating psychological theory and practice, as it might be for the
Christian psychologist. The Bible was
not written as a psychological treatise.
It does, however, provide many stories and instructional materials,
which illuminate God's way of dealing with human beings–God's psychology in
action, if you please.
Which brings us to the main question to be addressed in this
paper: What can the Holy Scriptures
contribute toward teaching and scholarship in the field of psychology?
My thoughts on this question will be divided into four main sections:
(1) Integration models, (2) Christian presuppositions and fundamental
psychological issues, (3) Theoretical models and Christian presuppositions, and
(4) Biblical examples of psychological principles. Finally, I will end with some thoughts on how the study of
psychology has enriched my understanding of God and strengthened my faith in
His revelation. My comments will reflect
the areas of psychology with which I am most familiar: Counseling, moral
character and religious development, and lifespan human development.
Many different models for the integration of psychology and theology
(Christianity/the Bible) have been proposed.
Each approaches the integration process with different assumptions and
goes about the process differently, naturally with different end results.
Eck (1996) proposed an organizing framework for a multifaceted process
of integration, which could be a starting point for thinking about the issues
of integration. Table 1 is an adaptation of his chart. Note that the paradigms propose five main
models for integration: In the first, Psychology and Theology reject each
other, making integration impossible.
In the second model, Psychology and Theology reconstruct each other,
rejecting either the supernatural or the natural scientific in the
process. In the remaining three models,
Psychology and Theology each consider the other legitimate, but relate to each
other through transformation, correlation, or unification, depending on the
model. Eck (1996) also provided
suggested representatives for each of these models, except for the unified
process, for which he did not find a representative.
Eck proposed his models after the fact. The models were developed from a study of the integration writing
in existence at that time. Some
psychologists disagree with Eck's proposed models and his classification of
representatives. This is part of the integration
dialogue.
Some well known psychologists completely reject theology as a source
for truth. Among them are Freud,
Skinner, Watson, and Ellis. Since their
theories are so well known, many people believe that all psychologists reject
the Bible. Jay Adams outspokenly
rejects psychology as a source for truth.
These extremists cannot be part of the integration dialogue because they
have rejected one side or the other.
As I review the integration literature, I find it relatively easy to
discover which model different proponents of integration seem to be
following. But this might be a much
more difficult mental exercise for psychology students who are novices to
dissecting integration models. I
believe it is a very worthwhile activity to assign readings, asking students to
analyze the author and discover the integration model used. Naturally, this assignment is preceded by a
discussion of the integration issues and the proposed models for integration.
My graduate students in psychology have generally been intrigued by the area of integration and have produced some very interesting models for learning theory, counseling theory, and moral character development theory. Attempting to integrate psychology and the Bible is not an easy task. The transformation and correlation models have been most popular with my students, although we have also attempted unified models.
Table 1
Organizing Framework for Integration Process
|
Paradigms |
|
Integration Models |
Conceptual Relationship |
NON-INTEGRATIVE |
|||
|
Rejects Process |
|
Psychology rejects
Theology as source for truth. |
No integration possible. |
|
|
|
Theology rejects
Psychology as source for truth. |
No integration possible. |
|
MANIPULATIVE INTEGRATION |
|||
|
Reconstructs Process |
|
Psychology reconstructs
Theology. Eliminates the
supernatural. |
Integration produces a
theologically informed psychological system. |
|
|
|
Theology reconstructs
Psychology. Eliminates the natural
scientific. |
Integration produces a
psychologically informed theological system. |
|
Transforms Process |
|
Psychology transforms
Theology. Both legitimate. |
Both legitimate. Integration involves first filtering or
altering world view of theological data. |
|
|
|
Theology transforms
Psychology. Both legitimate. |
Integration involves
first filtering or altering world
view of psychological data. |
|
NON-MANIPULATIVE
INTEGRATION |
|||
|
Correlates Process |
|
Psychology correlates with
Theology through levels. Both
legitimate. |
Integration involves deepening one's awareness
through multilevel analysis of the data. |
|
|
|
Psychology correlates with
Theology through linkages. Both legitimate. |
Integration involves
creating linkages between related data from each field. |
|
Unifies Process |
|
Psychology unifies with
Theology. Both legitimate. |
Integration involves
seeking unified concepts and living them out in the world. |
To my knowledge, no one has developed a widely accepted, completely integrated, model of psychology and the Bible. Mini-models exist, but not a major model. Psychology is a very complex discipline. Few, if any, major models are being developed today for any area of psychology. The mini-model is the trend. A major integration model may not be possible. At least, this area deserves the attention of Adventist scholars, who have not yet contributed very much to the integration dialog among Christian psychologists.
Psychological Issues
As we attempt to look at psychology through the eyes of the Bible, our
first task is to identify the presuppositions of a Christian (Seventh-day
Adventist) world view. As Blamires
(1963) so clearly stated, the Christian mind sees everything differently
because of these presuppositions.
Since an entire paper in this series has been devoted to the Christian worldview,
I will only briefly review the Christian (SDA) presuppositions, which seem most
important for the interface with psychology.
We need to have them fresh in our minds so we can examine the
fundamental psychological principles through Christian eyes. I am indebted to Pascoe (1980) for
inspiration for this section.
God is central to all truth. All truth
comes from God, the Creator (Gen 1:1; Ex 20:2; Ps 24:1-2). God's truth comes through revelation (2 Tim
3:16; 2 Pet 1:21) and is discovered through serious inquiry into His Word (Heb
11:6; John 5:39). God's truth is
authoritative (2 Tim 3:16). It is
truth because God is truth (John 1:14;14:6;1 John 5:20). The Christian accepts the reality of God
through faith (John 1:12; 1 Cor 1:20-21; Heb 11:1,2,6). No absolute, incontrovertible proof can be
offered for the existence of God. God
is, always has been, and always will be (Isa 46:9-11; John 5:26; Heb 13:8; Rev
1:8). The Christian believes that truth
exists and it can be discovered through God's Word (Ps 119:142; John
17:17). Truth is essential. Truth gives focus to human life; it provides
an anchor in a chaotic world (Ps 119:105,130; John 8:31,32).
Jesus Christ is the truth (John 14:6) to which all Biblical truths are
connected. He is the primary focus of God's revelation
of truth to humankind (John 5:39,46).
Jesus is the answer to the sin problem (John 3:16; Rom 5:18-21). He provides redemption and the power for
change (2 Cor 5:17). Through Christ, we
can better understand our present life, and we can look forward to eternal life
(John 6:35,47; 7:38).
God supernaturally intervenes in human history. All human history must be viewed in light of the supernatural
intervention of God (Dan 2:28). He
existed before the creation of the world and will always exist (Ps 90:2; Col
1:17; Heb 13:8; Rev 1:8). God sustains
the world (Acts 17:25,28;Col 1:17) and He also intervenes supernaturally in the
lives of individuals (Dan 2:-27; Acts 9:4-18; 12:6-11), often through the work
of the Holy Spirit and angels (Acts 2:4; 13: 4;16:6,7; Ps 91:11,12; Heb
1:14). God will intervene to put an end
to the sin problem and to restore this world to its original perfection (Rev
7:17; 21:1-4).
Human beings were created in the image of God (Gen 1:26,27). Man and woman were created with individuality,
power and freedom to think and to act (Gen 1:26-28; Deut 30:19; Ps 8:6; Eph
2:10). They are not machines set
in motion and left to function mechanistically. Human beings were created different from
animals (Gen 1:26-28; Ps 8:6-8; Matt 10:29-31), with the ability to communicate
with God (Gen 3:8-13; 18:16-32; Ex 33:11; Matt 6:5-13; Acts 27:23-25). They were also created in God's image, free,
with an indivisible unity of body, mind, and spirit (Gen 1:26; 1 Thess 5:23;
Rom 12:1,2; Matt 10:28; 1 Cor 7:24).
They were created completely
dependent upon God for life and breath and everything else (Gen 2:7; Acts
17:25,26,28). Human beings were created
to live in community as the body of Christ (Gen 1:26-28; Gen 2:18; 1 Cor
12). Three aspects of humanity–creation,
fall, redemption–must be considered to achieve our complete personhood in
Christ. For the Christian, all true
identity comes from the person's relationship with God (John 15:4-6). Only in that relationship can we attain
perfection through Christ (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 4:13; James 1:4). Without God, the self is incomplete.
Human beings chose to rebel against God. Humans were created perfect moral beings, capable of choosing
between good and evil (Gen 2:16,17).
Adam and Eve, when tempted by Satan, chose to disbelieve and disobey God
(Gen 3:1-13), thus breaking their relationship with God and changing their
perfect nature to one with a bent toward evil (Rom 5:12; Rom 3:23). They
brought the curse of death upon themselves and
their descendants (Gen 3; Rom 6:23).
Human beings are involved in a constant struggle between good and evil. Because of Adam and Eve's choice, Satan dominates the world at
this point in human history (Gen 3:16-19,22; Rom 1:28-32; 1 John 5:19). All of us are guilty of choosing evil (Rom
3:10-18). We are naturally inclined
that way (Rom 7:14-24; 8:7-8). Only
Christ can rescue us from Satan's grasp (Rom 7:24,25; 8:1; Gal 1:3-5; 1 Cor
6:9-11; 1 John 5:18). The Christian's
moral order centers in God, not humanity.
The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) and Jesus' two "greatest
commandments" (Matt. 22:37-40)–not human reasoning–should form the basis
for moral and ethical decisions and everyday living.
The knowledge of God provides purpose and meaning for life. Without a knowledge of God and His Word, life on planet earth
becomes purposeless, meaningless, and disheartening (John 12:46; 15:5-7). With God there is purpose and meaning to
life (John 8:12; 17:13;Rom 5:2; 8:28; 1 Pet 1:8). Events are moving toward God's climactic intervention to
eliminate evil (2 Cor 4:17-18; 1 Cor 15:24-26,53,54; 2 Pet 3:7; Rev 21:3-5) and
restore perfection (2 Pet 3:13,14; Rev 21:3-5). Death is only a brief interlude between now and the resurrection
(Eccl 9:5; Job 19:25-27; John 11:11-43; 1 Cor 15:42-44, 51-54; 1 Thess 4:15-17;
Rev 20:6) when Christ comes to take His loved ones home (John 14:2-3). Trials and suffering have purpose in the
life of the Christian (1 Pet 4:12-16; James 1:2-4)–they lead us to know God
better (Rom 8:17,28). They are a part
of the process of restoring God's image in us (Job 5:17;23:10; 2 Cor
4:17,18). As part of God's great plan
for the redemption of this fallen world, our lives have purpose and meaning as
we share God's love with everyone in our sphere (Matt 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18;
Acts 1:7-8).
These presuppositions undergird the Christian's thinking about
everything in the world. How do they
affect what we think about psychology?
Almost thirty years ago, Wertheimer (1972) proposed eight fundamental
psychological issues which every theory must address. Each is central to understanding how a psychological theory views
human beings. Each foundational issue
may be viewed as a continuum or as two opposing ends, with theories aligning
themselves anywhere on the continuum or ends.
Psychological theories describe their views of human beings and how they
develop and change, while the Christian
presuppositions describe how God views human beings, as understood through His
Word. As we examine the eight
fundamental psychological issues in the light of the Christian presuppositions,
we will better understand the task of the Christian psychologist who wishes to
integrate her professional and religious knowledge.
The
Individual as Master or Victim of Fate
The individual is viewed as purposive and active in searching for goals
and creating personal meaning in life (free will) OR the individual is seen as
the behavioral product of accidental forces and experiences, which shape
existence through chance (determinism).
When approached from the Christian
presuppositions, this one seems quite clear.
God created human beings with free will--the ability to think, to make
choices, to search for goals, and create meaning in life (Gen 1:26,27). Certainly God did not intend human beings
to be victims of fate. Rather He
intended them to master circumstances and make wise choices.
The original behavioral approach (à la Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner),
which clearly states that human beings are, indeed, shaped by the conditioning
they have experienced, seems to be predicated on the belief that human beings
can best be described as mechanistic.
They have little free choice and are the product of the conditioning
they have experienced. More recent
learning theorists (Bandura, for example) have attempted to bridge the gap by
introducing elements of individual choice into the conditioning paradigm.
The Bible seems to be full of illustrations of the behavioral approach
(Deut 6 & 7; Ex 20:5; Gal 6:7), just as it is also full of free will and
choice (Josh 24:15; John 7:17). Could
it be that the human beings God created are both subject to being conditioned
and able to exercise free will and choice?
If we do not get hung up on the issue that humans are solely mechanistic,
in order to accept some behavioral principles, we can accept the whole
view. Human beings were created to
exercise free will and personal choice (Gen 1:27). That is their primary mode, we might say. But present day human beings are also
subject to the laws governing conditioning.
We can acknowledge this without believing that they are solely
mechanistic in nature.
Is this conditioning effect a product of sin? Was it present before the fall?
I do not know. I do know that it
is present today and can be of great use in child rearing, changing habit
patterns, and many other aspects of life.
Behavioral principles are the reason we tell people participating in the
Breathe Free program to avoid their favorite chair where they smoked before and
to go for a walk after dinner instead of sitting down to relax. It's a principle of classical conditioning.
I also believe very firmly in the exercise of free will and individual
choice. Interestingly,
sometimes-behavioral principles can be used to make choices easier. God is committed to choice and free
will. It is His modus operandi. But He also used behavioral principles in
His dealing with human beings. Can we
be wise and use both to help people choose God's way?
Human
Nature as Good or Evil
Simply stated, psychological theories view the moral nature of human
beings as inherently good, or evil, or neutral (as in tabula rasa). Those who view human beings as evil believe
people are born thoroughly depraved, egocentric and inalterably evil. They constantly pursue their own selfish
needs. The child has inborn antisocial
impulses that adults must teach him to curb. Those holding the "good"
view, believe human beings are born noble, naturally attracted to the good,
creative, compassionate, and generous.
Moral development occurs quite naturally, if the child is shielded from
the evil in society and draws from his own inner resources of goodness. Then there are those who use none of these
words, but describe human beings as a tabula rasa, or blank slate, at
birth, neither good nor evil. Each
person becomes what life writes on his or her slate, or what their environment
causes them to become.
Psychological theories also speak of an actional nature. People are active, passive, or interactive
in relationship to their world. They
perceive the environment as having an effect on humans and their moral
natures. The active theorists believe
that people reach out to influence their world, while the passive theorists
describe people as being acted on by their world. The interactionists believe that people interact with the
world–their world influences them and they in turn influence their world.
The moral and actional natures combine to describe human nature. None of the major theoretical schools of
thought agree on both the moral and actional nature of human beings. Psychoanalytic theory (Freud) views human
nature as evil and passive, while the behaviorists (Skinner) view it as neutral
and passive. Cognitive theorists
(Piaget and Kohlberg) view human nature as good and interactive. Social learning theorists (Bandura) believe
human nature is neutral and active, while the humanists (Maslow, Rogers) view
human nature as good and active.
Again, we do not have an exact match between the Christian (SDA)
presuppositions and a particular theory's view of human nature. My graduate students in character
development have generally concluded that we believe human nature is some
combination of good and evil and it is probably interactive with its
environment.
They
appear to be in good company. I quote
from Seventh-day Adventists Believe...
"Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do.... When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil" (1988, p. 78).
Later in the same book, another comment appears: "In spite of the Fall, there remains a sense of human dignity. Although marred, the divine likeness was not completely obliterated. Though fallen, corrupt, sinful, man is still God's representative on earth" p. 93.
I am especially fond of the clarifying statement about the nature of human beings on
page 29
of Education:
"As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for goodness, exists in every heart. But against these principles there is struggling an antagonistic power. The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man's experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist. To withstand this force, to attain that ideal which in his inmost soul he accepts as alone worthy, he can find help in but one power. That power is Christ" (1903).
These statements do not agree with the descriptions of either good or evil moral nature as described by psychological theory. The perfection, fall, restoration sequence is not present in psychological theory, nor is the image of God. The humanists and the cognitive theorists seem to give the most dignity to human beings, while the psychoanalysts believe them to be totally depraved, with no hint of or desire for goodness. No theory describes restoration in the biblical sense.
This is a crucial area for the interface between the Bible and Psychology. The Christian psychologist must be very careful here, especially as he or she works with people to effect change in their lives. What the psychologist believes about the moral and actional nature of human beings vastly influences the manner in which he or she approaches therapy.
I have heard Seventh-day Adventist counseling and clinical psychologists state their position thus: "I am a Christian who is a psychologist, not a Christian psychologist." In effect, they are separating psychology from theology, living their lives on two separate tracks–their professional life and their religious life. A prospective teacher once told me, in response to my question about his views on the integration of psychology and religion, "I don't see where they interface. One is religion, the other is psychology. They don't have anything to do with each other." I respectfully disagreed. Psychology and religion both describe the moral and actional nature of human beings. If we consider that the nature of human beings is a foundational issue for selecting counseling methods and for child rearing practices, then religion and psychology have a great deal to do with each other.
Parts
vs. Whole
Psychological theories tend to fall into either the parts or the whole
camp. The parts, or andsummative,
approaches try to understand any phenomenon by looking at the sum of its known
parts. The parts do not
interact or influence each other. They are
simply analyzed separately. The whole, or
transsummative, approaches believe that the whole is something different from
the sum of its parts. The parts
interact and influence each other, creating a new whole. The parts have influenced each other to make
the whole. Music provides a enlightening
example. The "Moonlight Sonata"
is much more than the sum of the notes on the pages. The total effect includes the way the notes are influenced by
rhythm, harmony, and expression to create a whole musical experience.
A human being, created by God, is much more than the sum of its
parts–eyes, ears, cells, heart, mind, etc.
The parts create the whole as they influence each other and interact to
make the living being, created in the image of God . The parts are understandable only as they contribute to the
whole.
Truth is not decided by putting together smaller pieces to make the
whole. Truth is more than the smaller
pieces–it is the whole. The whole
actually gives meaning to its component parts.
Likewise, God's view of human beings includes the totality of their
experience (Ps 139; 1 Thess 5:23), all that they are, have been, and can
become. An isolated experience does not
define the person, in God's eyes.
Christ calls us to wholeness and unity in love (1 Cor 1:10; Phil 1:27;
2:2; Eph 4:1-6, 1 Cor 13). We grow in
completeness in our relationship to Christ.
God's Word very clearly indicates that we must bring the totality of
ourselves into this relationship (Deut 6:5).
If we keep parts of ourselves outside of the relationship, we cannot
experience the transsummative nature of being one with Christ. We restrict our personhood. The redemptive relationship helps us mature
in wholeness (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 4:12-16).
God is also interested in the small parts of his human subjects. He knows infinite details about each
person–when they were conceived (Ps 22:9-11), the hairs on their head (Matt
10:30), their thoughts (Ps 139:2), and their architectural preference for a
heavenly home (John 14:2,3)–more than any human can ever know. But the details do not define the
person. God's redeeming grace brings
about the transformation of the parts into the whole, a creature made in God's
image.
Mind
vs. Body
This issue is so central to psychology that theorists can be classified
according to the emphasis they place on the study of the mind or the study of
the body. Is human behavior explained
by the mental events inside the person or by the underlying neurophysiological
events? Psychology has dealt with this
issue in various ways. Materialistic
views look at the body and use objective measures. Idealistic views tend to be phenomenal and use subjective
methods, such as introspection.
Parallelistic views hold that mental and bodily processes occur in
parallel fashion, but do not necessarily influence each other, while the
interactionist view believes that the body influences the mind, and the mind
influences the body.
Seventh-day Adventists believe that each human being is an indivisible
union of the body, soul, and spirit, which "function in close cooperation,
revealing an intensely sympathetic relationship between a person's spiritual,
mental and physical faculties.
Deficiencies in one area will hamper the other two" (Seventh-day
Adventists Believe... 1988, p. 84).
The current emphasis in psychology on the study of the brain and on
cognitive psychology may eventually pose a serious threat to the Christian
psychologist and the integration process.
Cognitive psychology is interdisciplinary, including neuropsychology,
computational cognition, neural networks, evolutionary psychology, and
contemporary approaches to consciousness.
The literature combining these areas suggests that the complexities of
the human mind and human experiences can be explained by purely physiological processes,
using rational/empirical methods. These
views are based on an evolutionary axiom: The purpose of the evolution of human
beings is the urge to survive, to reproduce the species. In contrast, the Christian axiom might state
that one important reason for the creation of the mind involves our
relationship with God, who speaks to us through our minds.
"Cognitive science promises a purely natural explanation for the
origin, development, organization and construction of all the complexities of
human minds and consciousness, ultimately resting only on physical law"
(Brand, 1997, p. 238). This would
include conscience and moral decisions.
If this becomes reality, then the Christian psychologist must decide
between the more complex biblical
explanations of the mind or the law of parsimony urged by scientific endeavor.
Subjectivity
vs. Objectivity
Some psychologists study people from a subjective viewpoint using
cognitive, introspective, experiential, and phenomenological methods. Others use
purely objective methods–the study of observable, external
behavior. Thought processes are not
considered appropriate for study because they cannot be observed externally.
The Holy Scriptures suggests that the internal matters more to God than
the external (1 Sam 16:7; Prov. 23:7).
Our thoughts and motives are primary, although our actions are not
discounted (Mark 12:43,44; Matt 25:31-46).
The right actions for the wrong internal reasons become wrong actions,
too. The whole picture becomes
wrong. Right actions for the right
reasons–help the hungry because you are helping Me (Matt 15:1-9; 25:45)–are God's
way toward wholeness. The Christian
strives to know the mind of God, to think His thoughts and to translate those
thoughts into every day actions (Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 2:6-8).
Past
vs. Present
How much does past experience account for present behavior? Explaining the meaning of a psychological
event can place strong emphasis on what a person has learned and how he or she
was conditioned, or on ahistorical insight as an avenue to understanding the
event. Present oriented views emphasize
freedom of choice in the immediate situation.
Past oriented views are mostly concerned with the person's history of
reinforcement and learning.
It seems to me that the Bible supports the present oriented view more
than the past oriented one (Isa 1:18; Acts 17:30). Grace can wipe out all the evil of the past and give the person a
new beginning without the tendencies of the past, although the scars of past
experiences may remain. God looks at
the person as he is now, not as he was in the past (Acts 3:17-20; Rom 5:9; 1
Cor 12:27). Although God does consider
the person's past–where she was born–when deciding what would be best for her
future, He also wipes away that past–"neither do I condemn you"–and
focuses on the future–"go and sin no more" (John 8:11).
Nature
vs. Nurture
Contemporary psychology does not ignore the influence of either nature
or nurture on the person. The debate
consists in the extent to which an individual's behavior is determined by his
genetic makeup or his past learning experiences. Are people's lives determined by their genes, or do they have
some say about the matter through how they deal with life's experiences?
I believe God's Word stresses the importance of nurture–any tendency to
evil can be overcome through the grace of Christ. Our individual genes are not an excuse for wrongdoing. Certainly we are creatures with a genetic
makeup, made this way by the Creator.
But we are more than pawns of genes–we have choices to make (Josh
24:14,15) and Divine assistance available at any moment to help us live with
our genes and our human tendency to sin (Heb 2:17,18; 4:14-16).
Simplicity
vs. Complexity
Psychological theories tend to focus on simplicity or complexity--a few
general laws that are easy to understand, or many complex explanations for
psychological events. The simple
explanations focus on sensation, learning, perception and motivation, while the
more complex explanations look at psychopathology, affect, and the unconscious.
Again, we might explain God's view as a combination of simplicity and
complexity. Certainly, salvation has a
simple directive–believe and be saved (John 3:16; Mark 16:16; Acts 16:31). But explaining how the person came to
believe or disbelieve is certainly complex.
Overall, the Bible probably leans toward the complexity of human beings,
considering their genetic makeup, life experiences, cultural background, sin
tendency, and the influence of the Holy Spirit and God's grace on their
ultimate choices.
Our examination of the Christian presuppositions and the fundamental
areas of psychology has highlighted some of the issues the Christian
psychologist must face as she tries to integrate her professional training with
God's Word. How does this work out when
evaluating learning theories, therapy models, parenting styles, personality
theories, or moral development stages?
Theory is fine, but what happens in a real-life helping situation? How do the Bible and psychology combine in
the work of the Christian psychologist?
The
Bible and Psychological Theory and Practice
In this section I will look at a few selected areas of psychological
theory and practice and briefly discuss how the Bible might inform each
area. Within the limits of this essay,
it is not possible to examine any area in depth. Rather, I will briefly summarize some important issues and make
suggestions for further thought and exploration.
As mentioned earlier, counseling and clinical psychologists have
written the most about the integration of faith and practice, so it seems
appropriate to begin with this area. I
would like to suggest that the Christian psychologist must be aware of at least
four different questions impinging on the practice of psychotherapy: (1) How
might the Christian presuppositions inform the choice of a therapeutic
model? (2) What might a comprehensive
Christian counseling approach include?
(3) How is it possible to select therapeutic modalities responsibly and
be true to the Christian presuppositions?
(4) What is the role of the Christian psychotherapist in a spiritual
venue? I am greatly indebted to Jones
and Butman (1991) for their insights on all four of these questions.
The first responsibility of the Christian psychologist is to acquire a
Biblical view of the nature of human beings and how God intervenes to help
people in trouble. Having done this,
the Christian psychologist must next examine each proposed psychotherapy model,
comparing its philosophical assumptions and its models of personality, health,
abnormality, and psychotherapy with the Christian presuppositions and God's
total view of human beings.
This step requires a great deal of clear thinking and evaluating of
each aspect of a therapy model.
Ideally, this evaluative process would occur at the graduate school
level, but most Christian psychologists are not trained in programs with a
Christian world view. Those who are
have a distinct advantage in this process, although some Christian schools are
more intentional than others about helping their students work through this
evaluative process. Most psychologists
come to grips with their psychotherapy model after they have confronted the
realities of practice. Their previous
experience of evaluating models could be very useful at this point.
Jones and Butman (1991) have done just such an appraisal of
psychotherapy models. Each major model
is carefully and thoroughly compared with the Christian presuppositions. At the end, they conclude that "none of
the theories can be rejected out of hand, but none can be wholeheartedly
endorsed by the Christian counselor" p. 380. Each theory is lacking when compared with God's view of
personhood, but some come closer than others to the Biblical viewpoint. One of my graduate students (Leader, 1994)
summarized Jones' and Butman's 417 pages of appraisal in a succinct and
informative 14-page chart, which is very useful for a quick, look at the most
important issues.
While God's Word has a great deal to say about personhood, it does not
propose a specific psychology, as we speak of it today. We need the specificity of a comprehensive
model of psychology in order to best help hurting people. What would such a model include, if there
were one? Jones and Butman (1991, p.
397-8) suggest the following:
A deep appreciation of the
value of being human and of individual human beings;
A vision of our need for a
love relationship with our Creator, attainable only through the forgiveness
offered through the death of Jesus Christ;
An understanding of the
essential place of the work of the Holy Spirit in ultimate healing;
An understanding of our
fundamentally relational natures and need for love and acceptance, including
the importance of family and community for us all;
A balance of emphasis on
thinking, feeling and behaving, as each has a clear and important place in
human life;
An appreciation of the power
of sin and evil;
An understanding of the
influence of a spiritual world on day-to-day human functioning;
A respect for human freedom
and agency, yet one which recognizes limitations to human choice s well;
An appreciation of habit,
skill and learning;
A balanced attention to
within-the-person and external-to-the person influences on human action;
A vision of life that
suggests there can be meaning to suffering and that we are called to pursue
something more than our personal gratification;
A respect for individuals
that is grounded in God's love for each person, yet without a worshiping of the
individual disconnected from others;
A commitment to holism in
understanding the person, but with a sufficiently developed set of specific
postulates about molecular processes in personality to guide actual
intervention and the change processes;
A respect for our intrinsically moral natures and the value of obedience to appropriate authority, pre-eminently to God and his Word;
A respect for physical and
nonphysical aspects of existence;
An appreciation but not a deification of rationality, balanced with an equally appreciative understanding of our 'transrational' aesthetic, symbolic and story-telling natures;
A recognition of our need to
worship and be committed to the one who transcends all that we can know or
imagine; and
A love for Christ's body, the church, and a commitment to furthering the church's work in this world.
Such a model does not exist, may never exist. So the Christian psychologist is faced with the task of evaluating the existing models and constructing a working model which will include the most important imperatives of Biblical thoughts about personhood and the change process.
Psychological eclecticism holds promise for this endeavor. Eclecticism was defined in 1958 by
English and English as the "selection and orderly combination of
compatible features from diverse sources, sometimes from otherwise incompatible
theories and systems; the effort to find elements in all doctrines and theories
and to combine them into a harmonious whole" (p. 168).
Until the eighties, psychologists viewed eclecticism negatively--a
sloppy and undisciplined approach to therapy.
However, research has not affirmed that any one theoretical approach is
best for helping people change in all situations. Some approaches have been affirmed for specific disorders, but
not for all. This has been humbling to
proponents of particular theories. In
the process of all this emphasis on the research outcomes of different
therapies, eclecticism has become much more respectable. By the late eighties one-third to one-half
of all practitioners identified themselves as eclectic in orientation (Norcross
& Prochaska, 1988). The Christian
psychologist can now pick and choose with respectability.
Pragmatic eclecticism proposes to pick and choose by what is "best
for the client" with no regard for theoretical orientation. This is the approach most often endorsed by
practitioners. However, it has some
significant problems. It provides very
little direction for the therapist.
Well designed research studies which confirm the "best approach"
are still relatively scarce, while very few clients present with one discrete
problem, as in research studies. Most
practitioners cannot be competent in all theoretical approaches.
Metatheoretical or transtheoretical eclecticism seems to be the
approach most often endorsed by researchers and authors. This approach tries to "get behind the
theory" and looks for theories or practices common to many approaches,
such as common stages in therapy or the verbal and nonverbal counseling
responses which all approaches use.
Most of this work has focused on the relationship between therapist and
client as an explanation for the effectiveness of various theoretical
approaches. Certainly this rings true
for the Christian therapist. We believe
in the centrality of relationships, with God and with people.
Theoretical integrationism (or pluralism) begins with one theory as a
foundation and reaches out to one or two other models which can be assimilated
into the major model to help enrich and expand its approach. The best known "success story" of
this approach is cognitive-behavioral therapy, a well accepted and frequently
used model. A further "marriage"
of cognitive-behavioral and Adlerian therapy has been suggested and there might
be merits to this combination for the Christian psychologist. But it would not be complete and probably
would need enhancing from aspects of several other models.
The final step in this process involves examining the role of the
psychologist as a committed Seventh-day Adventist. How might this impact on the vocation of psychology?
I would like to suggest that psychologists have an opportunity to help
people deal with inner issues of great concern and that the line between
religion/spirituality and personality/emotions is often rather blurry. In many ways the psychologist deals with
sensitive issues similar to those addressed in pastoral counseling, but with
the added complication that some clients have no overt interest in
religion. The practicing psychologist
must function as a competent professional who does not "force" his
viewpoint on clients, but rather is sensitive to the client's needs, while
working within the framework of his or her Christian presuppositions. This is a delicate balance, but an
achievable one, as demonstrated daily by many Seventh-day Adventist
practitioners who complement the work of the church, rather than offering an
alternative.
The psychologist who takes her Christian vocation seriously will want
to examine how she models God to her clients, for she is in a god-like position
to many of them. This is a serious
responsibility, which cannot be ignored.
Careful study of God's characteristics and how these play out in His
relationships with human beings will bring to focus many aspects of God's
character which sound like "good therapy": gentle, patient,
compassionate, healer, nurturer, reconciler, and servant, for starters. Jones and Butman (1991) provide an excellent
discussion of these issues.
How does a Seventh-day Adventist psychologist's commitment to take the
gospel to all the world impact on his practice of psychology? The therapy hour is obviously not an
evangelistic campaign, but it is a sharing of the god-like characteristics of
the committed Christian with a hurting person.
No ethical psychologist would impose his religion on a vulnerable
client. His respect for the client
directs him to be open about the therapeutic methods he proposes to use and to
always offer the client informed choices.
The therapist-client relationship is a delicate balance. The responsibility for this relationship
rests squarely with the professional.
He will evaluate every nuance of each therapeutic encounter and will
always be tuned in to discover a seeker for truth. If he senses that his client wants to learn more about the
Seventh-day Adventist church–as in Bible studies–and the therapeutic
relationship still needs to continue, he could refer his client to a minister
or active layperson for actual Bible studies.
This does not rule out using the Bible and prayer as appropriate during
therapy, nor does it rule out leading a person to Christ for forgiveness and
salvation. But an extended series of
Bible studies might bring about conflicts between the therapeutic relationship
and the proselyter role. If therapy has
concluded, the psychologist might feel free to give Bible studies himself.
Every committed Christian yearns to bring the Good News to people who
do not know Jesus Christ. The
psychologist has many opportunities to find people with such needs. She can bring the Good News to many people,
if handled discretely and within the context of responsible therapy (Wilson,
1984).
Obviously, the questions I have attempted to address in a limited way
in this section provide a great challenge for the student of psychology and the
Seventh-day Adventist practitioner.
Much serious thinking needs to be done.
Even though there may never be a "Seventh-day Adventist therapy"–and
it might not even be desirable to have one–colleges and universities where
psychology is taught have a responsibility to help their students gain a
thorough understanding of the Biblical foundations for thinking about and
helping persons. Furthermore, their
students need to be skilled in evaluating and integrating therapy models. As these students move on to graduate school
in secular universities, this knowledge will serve them well.
Graduate programs in psychology sponsored by SDA universities should provide their students with many opportunities to evaluate and in