“WHAT IS MAN THAT THOU ART MINDFUL OF HIM” (Psalm 2)
The Christian World View of Psychology and Counseling
The decade of 2005 continues to be an era of crisis and despair, both personally and internationally. Contemporary man is fragmented. He knows more than ever before and yet has no organizing center (cf. Colossians 1.17 and Ephesians 1.10).
A major effort to resolve man’s social psychological crises is visible in the present intensification of studies in counseling individual and social psychological studies. (See The Journal for Scientific Studies of Religion; The Journal of Counseling Psychology; Psychology Today; The Journal of Pastoral Practice; and The Journal of Psychology and Theology)
This study guide will trace the transition from Freudian to Christian counseling concerns. (See my essay, “Rationality, Scientific Progress and Freudian Theory of Scientific Knowledge) First, Christian presuppositions will be affirmed. Next, a brief history of the demise of the Christian paradigm will be described. Secondly, the liberal Protestant counselor models from the 1920s/1930s will be examined. Thirdly, the increased evangelical preoccupations will be stated.
Throughout this study guide, Christian presuppositions will be maintained, but in awareness of the radical shifts of thought beginning with the first Scientific Revolution of Galileo and Newton. (See my essays, “Christian Faith and the Development of Physical Sciences;” “The Christian Faith and the Development of the Behavioral Sciences;” “Christian Faith and Development of Biological Theories of Evolution;” “Idolatrous Absolutes’” and “The Making of the Contemporary Mind: Naturalistic, Secularistic, and Humanistic.”)
Also make note of these important books: Mary S. van Leeuwen, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: A Christian Looks at the Changing Face of Psychology (IVP, 1982); Paul C. Vitz, Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship (Eerdmans, 1977); Sigmund Koch, “Psychology and Emerging Conceptions of Knowledge as Unitary,” in Behaviorism and Phenomenology: Contrasting Bases for Modern Psychology (University of Chicago Press, 1964), pgs. 4,5; Fred McKinney, “Fifty Years of Psychology,” American Psychologist 31 (November 1976): 834-42.
I. Biblical Presuppositions: God and the Modern Mind
Christian presuppositions dominated most of the western world up until the end of the seventeenth century. Although men claimed to be followers of various traditions, there was a central corpus of beliefs they shared in common. Western man believed in the existence of God as revealed in the Bible, and that this God had revealed himself in a manner which was comprehendible by man. The universe was looked upon as the creation of this Biblial God, and man himself was the highlight of creation. It was from this foundational view, says James Sire, that all other world views that developed between 1700 and 1900 got their origin (James Sire, The Universe Next Door (IVP, 1975), p. 23).
With the Age of Enlightenment came a questioning and doubting of these presuppositions. From Descartes forward reverence to an all-powerful God became less acceptable. Descartes, though he started out trying to prove God’s existence (as well as man’s), represents a shift away from the acceptance of God’s existence. His rational endeavors were being accepted in Europe, but not his God. (Colin Brown, Philosophy and the Christian Faith (IVP, 1973), p. 52) In numerous intellectual circles God lost his immanence and personality, and was replaced by a deistic conception of God. Man came to have more and more trust in his own reasoning abilities. The discipline of science was growing and often the Church represented a hindrance to this growth rather than an aid. Man was coming to be able to explain more and more things by use of his own reason, and the Church too often refused to examine the new findings, and labeled the scientists as heretical. God, because of this, went from the all-powerful, transcendent and immanent being to the God of the gaps, and finally to be in officially declared dead in the nineteenth century by Friedrich Nietzsche (Ibid., p. 139).
The modern mind declares the ultimate reality of nature and the ultimate animality of man. In the universities and other major centers of learning, this is the predominate message. The modern mind has left no room for supernatural revelation, or any reference to the Biblical conception of God. Modern man has no basis for any type of moral order, morals as well as law have become arbitrary (H.W. Paul, The Edge of Contingency (University of Florida, 1979).
From Descartes to Dewey one finds the same confidence in man’s rational ability that man apart from any reference to the supernatural can solve all his problems. Naturalism made the break complete, discarding the notion of any absolutes as vigorously as it had discarded the idea of divine revelation. In almost every realm of existence the modern mind is taught that nature is the ultimate reality and that man is only an animal. (Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Harper & Row, 1966) To a great degree the widespread acceptance of this type of thinking has hastened the breakdown of western culture to the depths of despair in which it now wallows. Yet Christian theism was abandoned, not because of its inner inconsistency or failure to explain the facts, but rather because it was inadequately understood, forgotten completely, or not applied to the real issues at hand.
God: The Biblical View
The personal aspect of God which was lost in the Enlightenment is one of the most important parts of the Biblical conception of God. Both Old and New Testaments affirm that God is one and He is personal. God is not just some abstract power floating through the heavens. He has a personality which is self-reflective and self-determinative. He is portrayed in the Bible as having attributes or characteristics. God is seen as the first and the last and knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 41.4, 44.6, 48.12; Revelation 22.13). He is an infinite being beyond man’s total comprehension; He is the only self-existent being. Just as YHWH himself spoke to Moses, ‘I Am Who I Am.’ (Exodus 3.14) The Biblical view of God is that He is the source of all reality, the eternal and the almighty, the creator of heaven and earth (Genesis 1.1, 2.4). Throughout the Old Testament YHWH leads and guides Israel and gives to her the Promise, and when Israel is rebellious His judgments fall upon her. God is just and good and His goodness is expressed through His holiness and love. Because God is good, there is a standard of righteousness for man to model himself after. God, the standard of righteousness, condemns the wicked and is the one to whom all men have to answer. But God is not just a judge in the Old Testament; He is also seen as gracious and compassionate (Exodus 34.6,7; Psalm 103.8). To those who live according to His desires He shows love (Exodus 20.5,6; Deuteronomy 8.10).
God, as revealed in the New Testament, is the same as the God of the Old Testament. The New Testament is grounded in the Old Testament. The Old Testament speaks of promise and the New Testament represents fulfillment. God is the transcendent one, and yet He is immanent, He is ‘Immanuel,’ (Matthew 1.23) who is with us and actively involved in the world which He called into being. God is seen as the father of Jesus Christ, and so our Father also, who freely justifies His people by His grace. In the New Testament God’s action in election bursts all claims to exclusiveness; salvation is open to everyone (Acts 28.28). The organizing center of the New Testament is Christ who makes it possible for all people to know what God is like (John 1.14, 14. 6,7).
The key factor to the entire Biblical account is that there is a personal, all-powerful God who can and does communicate with His creation, man. This communication takes place through either special revelation as the God who spoke through the burning bush to Moses and who spoke to the prophets, and the ultimate disclosure which came through Christ Himself (Hebrews 1.1-3); or through the Holy Spirit. Through the Spirit of Christ, the Comforter, God directs those who claim the Lordship of Christ (John 14-17). In summary, the important point is that God can and has communicated with man, and because of this communication man is responsible for knowing who God is and what His expectations are.
What Happened to Man?
After God was eliminated, it wasn’t long before man, the most rational of all beings, became the object of reduction. The rise of the philosophy of empiricism highlights the beginning of the reduction of man. Though empiricism as a way of thinking had been around since the Greeks, it really came to the fore during the Enlightenment through the help of such men as Hume, Locke, and Berkeley. This represented a major shift away from Descartes’ type of thinking. The basic thrust of empirical thinking was that one could know only that which was discernible by the physical sense, then the part of man known as the mind is done away with, as it is not discernible via the senses. In some circles this completely eliminated and mind as an object worthy of investigation. As a whole, it fostered what is known as the mind/brain controversy. With the mind and body separated by this type of thinking, when psychological research on the nature of man became popular, the mind was left out of such research (see my essay, “Imago Dei: Man Incarnation Subject”).
Empiricism denies that the immaterial exists; therefore, man is only matter. If only the material exists, then every effect of man’s life has a material and fatalistic cause. So man becomes mechanical and determined. Enter the theory of evolution—if empiricism made man just physical, then evolution helped make him just an animal. If men are only material, and men and animals share the same material, then men are only animals. Due to evolutionary commitments, modern psychologists have felt great freedom in studying animal subjects and then transferring the results to human nature (Mark P. Cosgrove, The Essence of Human Nature (Zondervan, 1977), pg 20; also S. Jaki, Apes, Angels and Men (1983). What has been lost in this process is all those views of man that argue for his immaterial essence: his self-consciousness, his free choice, his rational thought, his unique culture, etc., (or basically the Imago Dei).
This combination of empiricism plus an evolutionary view of man gives us reductionism, i.e., a way of viewing man that reduces him to an explanation of his parts. Man is equal to a collection of individual biochemical processes. Yet reductionism is unable to answer why the whole man seems to be more than just the sum of his physical parts (Ibid., p. 29).
Probably the most popular modern view of man is that he is a biological machine, complex and intelligent, but still a machine. Not only is this the view held by those involved in psychological research, but it is also seen in the daily routine of the average man on the street. Not only is he considered a machine but his value and his contribution in society hinges on how well he can identify with the machine eight hours a day. In the modern technological society man has lot his value and is relegated to the level of a machine.
The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes
The peculiarities of human nature are too substantial to accept a view of man that labels him as an animal, a machine, or just matter. To borrow a concept from Mortimer Adler, the difference of man is a difference in kind, not just degree, from the other species that co-inhabit the earth (M. Adler, The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes (World Pub. Co., 1971).
Man’s behavior confirms that he is self-conscious, has complex motivation and purpose, and is able to transcend his present moment in time. Man does not merely think objectively, but is capable of abstract thinking. Man is a being capable of stepping outside of himself and reflecting upon the meaning and worth of his own existence. This ability, i.e., conceptual transcendence, is peculiar to man; animals lack this ability. Man can distance himself from his own existence to a certain degree. He continually calls his own actions into question. He has a self which he experiences as a ‘could be’ or ‘ought to be,’ and he has a self which he experiences as ‘actually is.’ Yet both of these are together in the one self.
Conceptual transcendence is a key aspect of the difference of man. Man is radically different from animals in regard to concept formation and the use of language. Man’s self-reflective thought enables him to analyze his conscious experience and to use it as a source of abstract knowledge (Cosgrove, p. 55). This can be manifested in man’s use of speech. In human speech words are genuine symbols which may or may not have physical representations. Man can draw on his abstract knowledge and transmit a meaningful message via a grammatical structure. Man is able with a finite set of referents to transmit an infinite number of possible meaningful sentences.
Another great difference of man is that only he is a consistent user of tools. Monkeys can be taught to use a stick to knock down bananas, but will rarely do so unless rewarded for the action. Animals will use tools only when consistently rewarded. The animal kingdom lives today as it did thousands of years ago—with no progress or change. Only man has the intelligence to use tools and to make tools with this intent of future use.
Man is the only creature with a sense of a fear of death. Animals may struggle to live, but there is no indication that they fear death. Along with this is the fact that only man thinks of burying his dead.
Only man is a worshipper. Animals may howl at the moon, but only man displays a reverence of the unseen or an inner awareness that it exists. Man’s intelligent worship defies the category of superstition. This worship not only points to his ability of conceptual transcendence, but also to certain feelings that he was meant to relate to God as well as other people (ibid., p. 61).
What is at stake in all of this is the notion of personhood and dignity. What is a person? Important concepts are: actions, choices, consciousness, values, freedom, reasons, responsibility, sociality, unity; all go together to define for us a conceptual framework of man that we refer to as the person. Without these man is as an animal and there is no reason to give to him value or dignity. But man is different in kind from the animals, and the difference it makes is that he has value and is deserving of dignity. But a Christian view sees value in man coming from a greater reason than any of the above. The greatest reason for man’s value is the Imago Dei, that man is made in the image of the creator God.
The Biblical View of Man
In the creation accounts the key phrase in reference to man is the ‘image of God.’ That man shares certain of the characteristics of God is what man ‘in the image’ means. Man is personal because God is personal. Man is capable of acting within his environment according to his own character; he is not environmentally determined. Man is capable of transcending the cosmos and acting significantly to change the course of events. God has made the system open to reordering by man. Neither God nor man is locked into the system (Sire, pg. 30).
In both accounts of creation (Genesis 1.1ff., 2.4ff.) the creation of man is the high point. In Genesis 1, man is the crowning culmination; in Genesis 2, the special nature of man is elaborated. God deems him worthy enough to speak to him (Genesis 2.16-27); he responds to man’s need for companionship (Genesis 2. 18, 21,22); and he permitted man to have a share in the process of creation (Genesis 2.19).
Man, in his attempt to be autonomous of the creator God, rebelled. This rebellion fractured man’s relationship with God; it caused him to suffer alienation—alienation not only from God, but also from himself, from other men, and from nature. So man has the need for restoration and God has provided the means through the incarnation. God has given man freedom, and man with that freedom must choose to restore or not to restore the relationships that he has altered.
The New Testament is not so much concerned with setting out an anthropology as it is with referring to man as he relates to God. Man is viewed as a whole being in the New Testament; he is not reduced to any ‘basic’ parts and then analyzed. The Gospel addresses the whole being. The Biblical view is in conflict with any modern view that sees man as a bundle of biochemical responses or as an advanced animal. One must see man as a personality who responds to the world of time and sense with the body and brain as one unit. Man is capable of responding to mental, aesthetic, and spiritual concepts even though they are beyond the reach of the physical sciences.
Man’s ultimate destiny is beyond our measurements of time and space. Man’s destiny is complete conformity to Jesus Christ, and so complete restoration of his relationship to God; or eternity in separation from God. But God views man as a responsible being; therefore, for man to continue existing in a state of alienation is by man’s responsible choice and not by some type of determinism. The New Testament sees eternal life as the goal for man; because of this, man is given hope.