Perspectives on the Integration of Psychology and Christianity
1
ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
PERSPECTIVES ON THE INTEGRATION OF PSYCHOLOGY AND CHRISTIANITY
SUBMITTED TO DR. JAIME GOFF AND DR. VIC MCKRACKEN
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF BIBM 696 THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN BEHAVIOR
BY KIPP SWINNEY
JUNE 1, 2012
perspectives on the integration of psychology and christianity
Christianity has usually had some difficulty relating to the rest of the world. Whether one discusses governments, militaries, cultures or science Christianity has frequently had difficulty in determining the correct approach to these various aspects of the world. In relation to psychology, Christians have had a particularly difficult time reconciling how faith may interact with this discipline. Some have denied any connection and determined that all of the findings of psychology are void and useless. Simultaneously, there many have taken opposite extremes and determine that the finds of psychology are always correct, even to the detriment of Christianity. Neither of these extremes is useful for the person professing Christianity and working as a psychologist or therapist. Many people have tried to reconcile Christianity and psychology, but they normally favor one over the other. The most productive model of integration must allow psychology and theology, or Christianity, to work in dialogue where neither supersedes the other. A model that would accomplish this feat would be the most productive and useful to both disciplines.
Human Nature
Understanding human nature is difficult, but is an essential to both psychology and theology. In reality, there is not one unilateral human nature controlling all people. Reinhold Niebuhr argues that the nature of humanity is a paradox because two opposing factors influence it.[1] The two forces that Niebuhr describes are “nature” and “spirit.” By “nature,” he means the natural world with all of its environmental and biological factors that influence the development and activities of people. By “spirit,” he means the part of a human that stands outside of the perceivable, tangible space and the intellect controls it.Niebuhr’s depiction of humanity in this way has some problems.
Platonism
Platonism greatly influenced Niebuhr, which draws sharp distinctions between flesh and spirit. Platonism teaches that flesh is bad and spirit is good. Niebuhr admitted that the platonic model of humanity is different than the one found in the Hebrew Bible,[2] but his argument represents a platonic teaching. Platonism has certainly greatly influenced the entire western world. However, intellect is not entirely good and flesh is not entirely bad. Nature is able to produce good results and reason is able to produce bad results. A good result from nature is the protection of children. It is mostly from natural forces that people protect their children and keep them from harm. One can easily recognize that animals act similarly. This is a very positive thing. Conversely, entirely rational people decide to do things that are bad or evil. Eugenics and purging society from less capable people are rational decisions, but these are unethical actions. While these two forces may frequently be in opposition, there are cases where they work in harmony for both the good and the bad, thus Niebuhr’s paradox becomes less paradoxical, and the platonic ideals breakdown.
The influence of the Spirit cannot be synonymous with the mind or the intellect. Referring to the Spirit of God, that spirit certainly stands outside the person[3] and is divine influence. This spirit always influences the person to do good or what is in line with the will of God. However, a person’s intellect most certainly exists within that person. People are only able to rationally think and make decisions when their brain physiology, chemistry and anatomy are in correct condition. People who have suffered various diseases or strokes frequently do not think rationally. Thus, the claim that the intellect can stand outside the person would be a false claim. Intellect somehow occupies a middle ground. It is neither fully in the realm of nature or spirit. People are able to make intellectual decisions based on nature and spirit. Thus, intellect does not belong to either nature or spirit.
Niebuhr’s Model and Christianity
Niebuhr’s model works for the majority of human life. The Paradox of the human being both the product of nature and the spirit accurately describes the Christian life and the person who desires to do good. However, it does not adequately explain the person who does not desire to do good. Nature influences some to a greater degree and the spirit influences others more, but there are many people living in the tension. The monastic mystics recognized this tension and sought for the spirit to be the only controlling element. To claim that some choose the factor that influences them more would be short sighted. As part of the nature versus intellect tension, is the discussion of freewill versus the determinism.Circumstances allow some people to appear to have control over these two factors, but this is likely a false perception and reality is that they are biased towards intellect. Some people seem to have more influence over which of these factors influences them more, but this is likely not the case. However, those whom intellect controls are not necessarily more sinful than those whom nature controls, thus one cannot make conclusion about a person’s intellect by how sinful that person is.
Human nature is not static. Nature and instinct are the factors that most clearly influence infants at birth; there is no influence from intellect. Intellect typically becomes a greater influence in the person’s life as he or she matures. However, there are times when these processes reverse. These reversals may happen either quickly or slowly. When people feel threatened, they are much more likely to react in ways that reflect natural instincts rather than intellect or the influence of the Spirit. One may argue that adolescence represents a time when individuals revert more towards natural instincts rather than intellectual ones, although adolescents represents a time when the mind develops quickly. However, both of these reversals of the process are temporary. These are not the only timeswhen there may be reversals in the process. Other types of traumatic events may cause reversal, which can frequently be rectified with counseling, but sometimes result in permanent reversal. Old age can cause reversals in the process, but the typical pattern reflects progression from nature to intellect.
It should be evident from the previous discussions that sin is not implicit in nature. Children who do not have highly developed minds are equally capable of sin and righteousness. Fully matured humans are equally capable of sin and righteousness. Thus, this paradox is not about the war between sinfulhumanity overlapping with righteous humanity. Rather the symphony of these two factors gives humanity a unique place in the world and explains the interesting condition of humanity.
sin and the implications of dysfunction
The problem of sin is a difficult topic because sin is only a problem for those who acknowledge that sin is a problem. If one acts purely out of selfish nature, the person may do things that are evil or wrong, but it does not ultimately affect him or her in a negative way. A few sins that a person may commit may negatively influence the person, but the fact that it was sin is still irrelevant. In reality, if self-preservation is the main goal, selfish acts are highly beneficial for individuals. A person who is very “sinful” may be completely functional in a psychological sense, thus the person may also be operating in a healthy way. Conversely, those who have little problem with sin may be very dysfunctional. Victims of rape and sexual abuse frequently deal with many issues of dysfunction, but many of these people are not exceptionally “sinful.” This is not postulate that there is no correlation between sin and dysfunction. Those who deal with sin frequently deal with related dysfunction, and those who are functional are usually more capable of dealing with sin.Some types of dysfunction lead directly to sin, but dysfunction and sin cannot be synonymous.
Understanding Sin and Evil
Niebuhr is correct in understanding the “fall” story from Genesis 3 as myth. This is does not mean that the story is untrue, but that it represents the conflict that is in every person. People will inevitably sin because all people have limitations and shortcomings. Sin produces a problem with the way one views God.[4] The Christian view is that God is both all-powerful and all good. These seem to be incompatible with the way the world works. The world is clearly not all good as there is an abundance of sin in the world, but the combination of an all-good and all-powerful God seems to imply that there ought to be a perfect world. One might conclude that God is either not all-powerful or not all good. In other words, God has some of the same shortcomings as humanity. The Christian view is that God made all things good and perfect, but sin entered and polluted them. The “fall”[5]narrative from Genesis 3 demonstrates how sin might enter each person’s life. Psychology is not as interested in the discussion of the origin of sin as it is the origin of dysfunction. However, if the Christian view of the origin of sin is correct, then it is likely that dysfunction stems from the same place.
Contrast Between Sin and Dysfunction
There is a distinction between the goal of psychology and theology in how they relate to sin and dysfunction. The goal for the psychologist or the therapist is to move a client to a functional place and then to terminate the relationship. The therapist does not do this in a hasty manner, but there is a precise attainable goal for psychology, and when the therapist and client have reached that goal, the therapist has finished. The work of the pastoral counselor may take a similar role for official counseling, but after the pastor and client or church member have resolved the presenting problem, they do not terminate the relationship. The true task for pastoral counseling and ministry is to make people more like Christ. Even if someone no longer sins, this does not mean that he or she no longer needs ministering. Christ calls the church to continue to pursue greater holiness, regardless of how holy the church already is. It would be improper for a completely psychologically healthy person to continue to see a psychologist. However, it is never improper for the most spiritually health person to continue to see a minister.
Dysfunction and sin are incongruent in other ways. For a psychological model, functionality is not necessarily implicit. Many people do not need the assistance of a counselor to be functional, but one should not assume functionality as constant for all people. In other words, dysfunction is default and function is a status one must achieve. Infants are not functional psychologically. They may have adequate functionality for their age, but if an adult had the functionality of an infant, most everyone would identify them as dysfunctional. Most will achieve functionality, but they do not have it to begin. Sin works the opposite way. To be sinless is the default status. However, very early on in the life cycle sin enters and corrupts the system. Thus, pastoral ministry tries to return the person to a state of not sinning, but psychology tries to move people to a place they have never been before. It is quite common for people to attain a level of function and then return to dysfunction. Therapists do work with these types of situations, but typically, the work of a therapist is formational, and the work of a pastor is reformational.
Overlap of Sin and Dysfunction
While it is clear that dysfunction and sin are not synonymous, they do have similar definitions. The ancient concept of sin is to “miss the mark.” For the Christian this has to do with the goal that God has set for each person. Thus is the failure to live in the manner that God has determined to be the best for humanity, or missing the mark that God set.[6] Dysfunction is the failure to operate within the parameters of functional activity. The main problem with this definition is that there no one person to define what functionality is. For the definition of sin, God sets the definition, thus there is a clearer picture of what sin is, but it is still not a clear picture. There are things that people can certainly point to as sin, and there are things that people can identify as dysfunction, but there will certainly be grey area in both. The grey area for dysfunction may be slightly larger than the grey area for sin.
One may also view both sin and dysfunction as a type of illness.[7] It is much easier to determine when one is physically sick than it is to determine if one is either psychologically or spiritually sick. This view of sin as being spiritual sick is how Augustine understood sin.[8]Sin and Dysfunction have many similarities that allow for greater understanding between psychology and theology.
models of integration
From the five views that Johnson presents in his book, one of the modelsrepresentinga productive approach is “Levels of Integration” view.[9]This approach does not bias towards either Christianity or psychology, but recognizes that both are able to address areas of counseling and therapy and should not interfere with each other. This approach is somewhat like a “tag team.” They are both able to work on the same problems, but it does not allow them to work in harmony. This does allow Christianity and psychology to play to their strengths. Each works independently of the other at the same time as the other, but each is able to address the areas where they are most capable. This view also allows for other sciences and disciplines tocontribute as well. This can be a strong positive, but does restrict the possibilities of synergy. In this view, the whole will not be greater than the sum of the parts. While both Christianity and psychology can focus on the same problem, the two will not be working in dialogue for a better understanding of the whole.
The view identified as the “Integration view,”[10] has the potential to be a very productive view. This view allows for psychology and theology to work together to produce the best good. The premise behind this approach is that one allows Christianity to shape everything that one does as a psychologist. The great weakness of this approach is that it favors Christianity too much. When psychology and theology come into conflict, which they certainly will, this approach privileges Christianity. While it is a good thing for someone to take Christianity very seriously, in this field, it is important not to always privilege Christianity. There are times when Christianity does not have everything correct. There are times when psychology has better explanations for the various phenomenon than theology, thus psychology is better suited to give remedies. Demon possession may be a good example of this. There are certain ailments that may represent demon possession, but psychology gives a different explanation for the ailment than divine activity. If one biases Christianity in this type of case, then the proscribed action is to pray or command the demon to come out. If there is no type of demon possession, commanding a nonexistent demon to come of a person will certainly accomplish nothing. However, if a psychologist can accurately diagnose a disorder, then he or she may be able to treat the disease or disorder more adequately. The great value in this system is that it does allow direct cooperation between the theology and psychology.
The “Christian Psychologist”[11] view is not radically different from the integration view.This view does not have many advantages over the integration view, but does have some stronger weaknesses. This view puts a greater emphasis on Christianity and the way it interprets the human condition than the integration view. The great problem is that the bias in the integration view is already too strong in favor of Christianity. This view does allow Psychology to inform the way a Christian does counseling, but the Christian tradition is a far stronger influence in the way this model works. This does have a great strength compared to the Biblical Counseling model, but it does not take seriously the findings of Psychology. This model may be acceptable for pastors to use within a church, but it is not suited for professional therapist or psychologist. This model may also be unhelpful for dealing with issues that are not spiritual. If the issue that a person is dealing with is very spiritual, this model may likely be very productive and useful, but otherwise the overly Christian jargon may impede the system.