Some Thoughts About Jay Adams’ Statement
In a Mirror Dimly…
As I consider my responses to the two DB questions, I am, at once, keenly aware that
everything I think or write is being filtered through my personal worldview (Gaede
(1985), as cited in Entwistle , 2010, p. 62). All of my experiences and training—from
parents, teachers, friends, and life in general—have served to weave the fabric of my
worldview, and, undoubtedly, not all of these influences have been truthful, accurate, or
dependable. To provide the reader with at least a partial glimpse of the people and events
that have shaped my beliefs and thinking, I offer the following snapshot of my own little
universe.
I was raised in a Christian family. I regularly attended a Presbyterian church and sang in
the choir. I grew up in the 50s and 60s, and I was a conscientious objector during the
Viet Nam war. I studied psychology in Scotland, and was a professor of clinical
psychology in a secular university for 10 years. I have been married 35 years and have
three children and five grandchildren. I have been a Christian counselor for over 20
years. I am a “born again” Christian and currently attend a non-denominational
evangelical mega church.
Now that you know at least some of the facts about me, I would challenge you to STOP!
…and think for a moment about your own worldview. I want to bring to your awareness
that you, too, have undoubtedly started the process of filtering my words through your
own private worldview. After all, you too have been influenced by your personal unique
upbringing and experiences; because of this, you may be inclined, or disinclined, to
believe the arguments that I am going to raise in the paragraphs that follow. With all of
this said, we can now both proceed with caution to the discussion board questions.
At first glance, I took great umbrage at Jay Adams’ statement that “Psychology is just
sinful human beings sinfully thinking about sinful human beings.” Because I am a
psychologist, I bristled and thought, “Who is he to be making such a condemnationloaded, all-encompassing, “bottom-line” statement?” I immediately sought help from
Google, and did a search on Jay Adams.
I was looking for something very important…and it wasn’t long before I found it. I
discovered that Jay Adams was never trained as a psychologist. Once again, the topic of
“worldview” raised its ugly head. This time, I started to question Jay Adam’s personal
worldview, and contemplated how his experiences may have influenced his negative
opinions of psychology. After a few brief moments of reflection, I decided to go on the
offensive…
I re-read Jay Adam’s statement, and started formulating my logical counter-attack. My
thoughts were initially drawn to the following axiom: “People in glass houses, shouldn’t
throw stones.” After all, Jay Adams’ statement appears to imply that because
psychologists are all sinners, their attempts to “find truth” and help other sinners are
inherently flawed. However, I would like to point out to Dr. Adams, that theologians are
also sinners; therefore, the same argument he uses to “cast aspersions” on the profession
of psychology can be used to call into question the work of theologians—after all, they
also seek truth through sinful (“fallen”) bodies and minds.
Adams who has a background in theology, clearly favors a theo-centric approach to
counseling (as cited in Brewer & Peers, (n.d.), “World Views and Christian Counseling”)
and to discovering truth through the method of hermeneutics. In contrast, psychologists
seek truth by using the scientific method. Both professions seek truth, but both are
inherently flawed because of the fall of all mankind, and the introduction of “original
sin.” Therefore, in response to Jay Adams’ bold and controversial statement, I would
offer the following counterstatement and revision:
“Theology is just sinful human beings sinfully thinking about sinful human beings.”
Now, having established that both psychology and theology are flawed (by man’s sinful
nature), a fundamental question emerges. Is the integration of these two disciplines
possible? I would argue in the affirmative, and offer the following reasoning for
integration.
The commonality between psychology and theology is that they both seek truth. Because
of Adam’s fall (original sin), the pursuit of truth (as Jay Adams rightly concluded) is
inherently flawed; but this does not mean that we should abandon our efforts. After all,
according to the now famous statement by Carter and Narramore, “All truth is God’s
truth” (as cited in Brewer & Peters (n.d.), “Integration of Psychology”).
We can find truth in the workings of the frontal lobes of human beings (the “textbook” of
psychology) or in the inspired Word of God (the Bible)—knowledge of one of these
sources is not antagonistic or inherently contradictory to the other. As the distinguished
scientist, Francis Collins, eloquently stated: “The God of the Bible is also the God of the
genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory” (as cited in Entwistle,
2010, p. 31).
In conclusion, it is my opinion that psychology and theology can, and should, be
integrated. Both disciplines offer unique methods and techniques that, when applied to
the natural world (the scientific method) or to the Bible (hermeneutics), bring us
knowledge and insights into the source of all wisdom and truth—the Lord God Almighty.
Until we see our Creator face-to-face, we must be content with the marriage of
psychology and theology imperfect knowledge that the union will bring.
“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I
will know fully just as I also have been fully known.”
(1 Corinthians 13:12)
References
Brewer, G., & Peters, C. (n.d.). Integration of Psychology. Coun: 506: Integration of
Psychology and Theology, Liberty University.
Brewer, G., & Peters, C. (n.d.). World Views and Christian Counseling. Coun: 506:
Integration of Psychology and Theology, Liberty University.
Entwistle, D. N. (2010). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity. (2nd Ed)
Oregon: Cascade Books.