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
1
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
1
Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, (1964), 3.
2
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 person3 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
2
3
Niebuhr, 13.
Niebuhr, 3.
3
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 times when there may be reversals in the
process. Other types of traumatic events may cause reversal, which can frequently be rectified
4
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 sinful humanity 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
5
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.
4
5
Richard J. Pendergast “Evil, Origins or Sin, and Evolution,” HJ, 50 (2009), 833.
Pendergast, 834.
6
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.
6
J Harold Ellens, “Sin or Sickness?” in Seeking Understanding (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001,) 447.
7
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 models representing a
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 to
contribute 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
7
Niebuhr, 242.
Ellen Charry “Positive Theology: An Exploration in Theological Psychology and Positive Psychology”
JCP 30(2011), 286.
9
David Meyers, “A Levels-of-Explanation View,” in Psychology & Christianity: Five Views (edited by
Eric Johnson, Downers Grove: Caps, 2010) 43.
10
Stanton Jones, “An Integration View,” in Psychology & Christianity: Five Views (edited by Eric
Johnson, Downers Grove: Caps, 2010), 101.
8
8
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
Robert Roberts and CJ Watson, “A Christian Psychology View” in Psychology and Christianity: Five
Views (Edited by Eric Johnson, Downers Grove: Caps, 2010), 149.
11
9
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.
The view identified as the “Transformational psychology”12 has tremendous amount of
potential for positives. The premise behind this view is that Christianity provides the motivation
for a Christian psychologist. In this view Christian do psychology out of an expressions of love
for those whom he or she counsels. This love is motivated by the Spirit of God. This view
focuses on the Spirit’s role in everything. A potential shortcoming for this model is that it may
not be able to address adequately non-believers. It has an advantage over the Christian
Psychologist view because it is more able to address non-spiritual issues. However, for those
who do not believe in Christ, it may have limited effect. This model does allow for the full
practice of psychology and Christianity with a good amount of dialogue between the two. This
contrast the levels of integration view because they are allow to work in harmony rather than just
addressing the same issues.
The “Biblical Counseling”13 model is a very weak model. It does not allow psychology to
give any input into the way a counselor counsels. In reality, this is not a view of integrating
psychology and theology as it completely discredits anything that psychology has to offer. This
means that it cannot draw any insight from psychology. While this model is not very productive
for counseling in general, it does have some strengths. A primary strength is that it takes
scripture very seriously. It tries to apply accurately what scripture says without hearing
conflicting or detracting voices. That can also be a weakness. Frequently, one needs to hear both
sides to an argument to discover the best solution. Another strength to this view is that it does not
have to make decisions between competing voices, and thus it has clear direction. There is a
clear definition of what the desired outcome for the counselor and for the counselee.
John Coe and Todd Hall “A Transformational Psychology View” in Psychology and Christianity: Five
Views (Edited by Eric Johnson, Downers Grove: Caps, 2010), 199.
13
David Powlison, “A Biblical Counseling View,” in Psychology and Christianity: Five Views (edited by
Eric Johnson, Downers Grove: Caps, 2010), 245.
12
10
A movement in both pastoral ministry and in counseling that brings a greater degree of
overlap is the concept of the minister or therapist. In the counseling world, the therapist is no
longer considered the expert, but guides the client on his or her journey. In the same way, the
model where the pastor is the interpretive guide is becoming more prevalent.14 This model
promotes humility on the part of the minister or therapist. When the minister or therapist is there
to guide the individual through the process of discernment rather than telling the counselee or
church member what to do, both parties are able to benefit and learn from the situation. This
model works well with the “Transformational Psychology”15 view. Love is the primary
motivation for this model of psychology and that is why it is highly productive and allows
multiple voices to contribute to the discussion. The true form of this view does not have any
hidden agenda and ought to be wholly concerned with the well-being of the person.
CONCLUSION
There is certainly much overlap between psychology and theology. They are both
interested in how the human operates and how to reach optimal existence. However, the
integration of the two perspectives can be difficult. Christianity has frequently felt that it was its
duty to oppose the different perspective of the world rather than learn to incorporate them, and
this view continues to the present. Although the integration of the two perspectives may be
difficult, it will allow for greater clarity and insight. The Transformational Psychology view best
protects the integrity of both perspectives while allowing them to work in harmony with one
another for the greater understanding and good of the client or church member.
14
15
Richard Osmer, Practical Theology: an Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 18.
Coe and Hall, 199.
11
BIBLOGRAPHY
Ellen Charry “Positive Theology: An Exploration in Theological Psychology and Positive
Psychology” pages 284-93 Journal of Christian Psychology 30(2011), 286.
Coe, John and Todd Hall “A Transformational Psychology View” Pages 199-226 in Psychology
and Christianity: Five Views Edited by Eric Johnson, Downers Grove: Caps, 2010.
J Harold Ellens, “Sin or Sickness?” Pages 443-66 in Seeking Understanding, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001.
Jones, Stanton “An Integration View,” Pages 101-26 in Psychology & Christianity: Five View,
edited by Eric Johnson, Downers Grove: Caps, 2010.
Meyers, David “A Levels-of-Explanation View,” pages 43-78 in Psychology & Christianity:
Five Views, edited by Eric Johnson, Downers Grove: Caps, 2010.
Niebuhr, Reinhold, The Nature and Destiny of Man, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, 1964.
Osmer, Richard, Practical Theology: an Introduction, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Pendergast, Richard J. “Evil, Origins or Sin, and Evolution,” pages 833-45 Heythrop Journal 50
(2009).
Powlison, David “A Biblical Counseling View,” Pages 245-73 in Psychology and Christianity:
Five Views, edited by Eric Johnson, Downers Grove: Caps, 2010.
Roberts, Robert, and CJ Watson, “A Christian Psychology View” Pages 149-175 in Psychology
and Christianity: Five Views, Edited by Eric Johnson, Downers Grove: Caps, 2010.