Psychology and Christianity, Essay Example

Basic Concepts: Psychology and the Christian faith fit together quite nicely in the levels of explanation model as elaborated by Myers (2010). The basic concept is that to describe or understand anything, one should consider the levels at which it is to be explained or understood: romantic love, for example, can be described by physiologists, social psychologists, poets, and theologians, each in their own particular way, with all the explanations speaking to some aspect or level of romantic love (p. 51). With the proper humility, faith in God, and open-mindedness, faith and science can work together, rather than at odds: they can describe the same things at different levels of experience or understanding, and their findings are often complementary (p. 52).

For Myers (2010), one of the most important things to bear in mind is the need to be honest about one’s own preconceptions and biases: although no one can be perfectly objective all of the time, it is an important ideal to adhere to (p. 53). In the context of any discussion about such a loaded and opinion-driven topic as faith and science, it is especially important to consider the influence of personal beliefs, values and biases, the more since the science in question is psychology (p. 53). Myers concedes to critics of psychology that experiments have demonstrated that “belief guides perception”, with such notable examples as “’confirmation bias,’ ‘belief perseverance,’ ‘mental set’ and the ‘overconfidence phenomenon’” (p. 54).

This is very important to bear in mind when talking about psychology and the Christian faith, and it is applicable both to how one does psychology, and to how one practices one’s faith (Myers, 2010, p. 54). Examples of the influence of values can be seen all over the psychological discipline, from the research topics selected to value-laden terminology: “Should we call sexually restrained people ‘erotophobic’ or ‘sexually conservative’?” (p. 54). Keeping all of this in mind is an essential part of the model: being aware of one’s biases and values, both with regard to faith and with regard to psychology (pp. 54-55). By so doing, the believer can recognize the importance of both the Christian faith and the psychological discipline, without wedding themselves to a particular interpretation of how things ‘must’ be: in other words, they can remind honest, humble, and open-minded.

With this mindset, there is no reason whatsoever that people of faith cannot use the psychological discipline and the insights it provides (Myers, 2010, p. 55). Far from undermining the Christian faith and its teachings, psychology can offer new perspectives and new information, and in so doing challenge our preconceptions (p. 55). Like other sciences, psychology provides us with ways to test our ideas against reality: to see whether they can pass the test and make the cut, or not (pp. 54-55). If all truth is God’s truth, then surely we have nothing to fear: the psychological discipline can provide us with information and knowledge that can bring us new insights on God’s world as well as God’s word.

Expanding upon this, Myers (2010) suggested that in fact, science and the insights that it brings can inspire in the believer “a sense of awe and wonder”—much like the one that lies at the heart of the religious impulse (p. 55). For Myers, there is a kind of mysticism of the aesthetics of our very ordinary lives, specifically the sensory processes by means of which we perceive and thus understand the world around us (p. 55). Our eyes absorb particles of light through receptor cells, which in turn convert these to “neural signals that active neighboring cells, which, down the line, transmit a million electrochemical messages per moment up to your brain” (p. 55). Science has enabled us to understand this in the empirical sense, has enabled us to piece together this complex process, and yet, through the eyes of faith, it can still be seen as something extraordinary and precious and yes, a God-given blessing for that (p. 55).

Strengths of the Model: Myers’s (2010) model has much to commend it. Some of the strongest points are found in the model’s strategies for relating faith and psychology: the first, for example, draws on the concept that “all truth is God’s truth”, specifically expressed in the form “faith motivates science” (p. 57). Since all of creation is God’s creation, believers should feel free to honor Him by searching His creation and seeking to understand it (p. 57). Although Myers advocates recognizing the limits of science, his second strategy is that of applying skeptical scrutiny to claims that pertain to faith: claims about intercessory prayer and faith healing, for example, should be put to the test (p. 57).

And although the believer should subject their biases and values to scrutiny, Christian psychologists can also feel free to express the values of their faith in their practice, with how they deal with others (Myers, 2010, p. 57). Similarly, Christian psychologists can merge the insights of the psychological discipline and the Christian faith (p. 57). A good example of precisely this kind of thing comes from Cheong and DiBlasio (2007), with their analysis of love and forgiveness from an integrated biblical and psychological perspective. Biblically, believers are commanded by Christ to love God and to love others as ourselves: this is the “two-fold commandment to love” (p. 15).

Although this command to love may seem so acerbic as to be actually repellant to individuals who have suffered from abusive and hurtful relationships, familial or marital, in fact there is a far more profound theological reality, one that reveals the commandment to be freeing rather than burdensome (Cheong & DiBlasio, 2007, pp. 15-16). The commandment to love God and others as one’s self is, plainly and beautifully, the command to realize one’s own God-given potential for love: it is the command to turn to love, to experience love (pp. 15-16). And one can only do this by the grace of God, because it is by God’s grace that His spirit of love enters our hearts (Rom. 5:5, ctd. in Cheong & DiBlasio, 2007, p. 16).

From the commandment to love flows the biblical concept of forgiveness: one must be prepared to love even one’s enemies, seeing them and one’s grievances with them through the eyes of eternity and trusting God in faith (2 Cor. 4:17; Rom. 12:19, ctd. in Cheong & DiBlasio, 2007, p. 19). God forgives us of our sins, and commands us to spread the Good News of forgiveness to others—and, along the way, to be prepared to forgive them (p. 20). In forgiving us, God shows us the example for how we are to forgive others: He has made us capable of following Him in this matter (p. 20).

As Reichenbach (2006) explained, one view of Christ’s atonement for our sins upon the cross is the healing view: Christ as our spiritual physician, who took upon himself the task of healing us from our sinful condition in order to restore us to a right relationship with God (pp. 118-119). Scripturally speaking, the human condition is fallen and marred by sin, characterized by an utter lack of righteousness (p. 119). This spiritual sickness is at the root of the human condition, and thus of every economic, political and social system we construct: it defines all of human behavior, and as such it must be recognized as one of the central facts in a Christian psychological practice. The other central fact, of course, is Christ’s healing work of atonement: salvation as spiritual healing from our sinful and fallen state (p. 120).

This biblically-based view of the human condition and the love and forgiveness of God has much to offer the Christian counselor, and speaks to Myers’s (2010) model of levels of explanation. As Cheong and DiBlasio (2007) explained, this perspective is of great value in a biblically-based counseling practice: the ability to feel ‘enemy love’ and to forgive others has helped many clients to resolve their anger and hatred towards those that have wronged them, especially family members and marriage partners (p. 23). In one case study, a client came to an important spiritual realization: “the love of God and her hatred and unforgiveness toward her father were incompatible” (p. 23). This ultimately led to a reconciliation with her father, one that involved both parties taking responsibility, devising plans for changing their problem behaviors, and ultimately declaring forgiveness (p. 23). This in turn led to many positive effects for the client in her day-to-day life with her own family: she got over her depression and her anger towards her family (p. 23).

Fundamentally, believers can forgive because God can forgive, and God can forgive because God is open to doing so (Dorff, 1998, p. 32). As Dorff observed, the fact that it is often quite difficult to ask God for forgiveness, even though He desires us to return to a right relationship and fellowship with Him, then it stands to reason all the more that it would be difficult for us to ask this of another human being (p. 32). Here, too, one can see Myers’s (2010) levels of explanation model at work: the psychological discipline can help us to understand the importance of forgiving others and asking them for forgiveness, as well as the obstacles to doing so, and the Scriptures can help us to understand how it is that we are able to forgive at all, and with that, the means and the importance of doing so. We can forgive others because God has forgiven us, and we should do so for the same reason—and because God, our creator and savior, knows that it is the only way to experience truly abundant life. Following the Scriptures and forgiving others for the wrongs that they do us often requires surrendering our claims on ‘justice’, and the idea that those who wronged us owe us something (p. 33).

The reasons Dorff (1998) gives for forgiveness further attest to the essential harmony of the levels of explanation model, and with it the Christian faith and the psychological discipline: we ourselves often need to be forgiven for our trespasses against others; we often want a restored relationship with the offender; we want to get on with our lives and move forward, and, importantly, we want to do the right thing (p. 34). This is, again, good psychology as well as a fine example of righteousness, as Cheong and DiBlasio (2007) explained: we forgive others by the grace of God and in accordance with His commandments; by so doing, we can experience a vastly better and more liberated lifestyle from a psychological perspective as well as a spiritual and theological one.

These considerations bring us full circle to Myers’s (2010) model. Using psychology and other sciences, we should be skeptical of claims and test them against reality. Through the eyes of faith, we can better appreciate the reality that we do find through science, because it is the creation of God and therefore wonderful (p. 58). We should be humble, aware of our own self-serving biases and value judgments: by so doing, we can be good Christians as well as good scientists (p. 59). Faith can motivate action: it should motivate us to act in ways that glorify God by living our lives and using our talents to improve ourselves and to bless others (p. 60). And, too, by obeying God’s commandments to love and forgiveness, our faith can grow as a result of action (p. 60). Consequently, faith and the psychological discipline can be made to work together in a complementary manner, one in which they reinforce and strengthen each other continuously, to the benefit of the Christian counselor and their clients.

Potential Weaknesses: According to Jones (1995), however, the church has fallen into captivity to psychology and the therapeutic mindset: as a nontheological mode of “thinking, feeling, and acting”, Jones contended, the psychological therapeutic mode has become too influential in the church (p. 36). While Jones does not deny the efficacy of psychological therapies in helping many people to overcome tragedies and terrible life circumstances, the problem is that psychotherapy is not, in his view, what the Church is for: specifically, Jones argued, the Church has compromised the centrality of integral Christian beliefs and doctrines, trivialized them with a reliance on psychology (p. 36). Jones critiqued the spread of “therapeutic” psychotherapy-type groups in the Church, on the grounds that they promote a cheapened version of forgiveness that is unscriptural, and that involves a great deal of blame-laying on others (p. 45). Rather than individual responsibility, participants are encouraged to view “society, or my parents, or my disease” as the source of their problems: this is the central premise of the cult of victimhood that has become so popular in contemporary culture (p. 45).

Let us start by granting Jones (1995) his point about the cult of victimhood and blame-laying: biblically speaking, God calls us to repentance for our sins in the blood of Christ Jesus (John 14:6; Rom. 8:1-2). However, Jones’s points have already been addressed by Dorff (1998), as well as Cheong and DiBlasio (2007): Christ paid the penalty for our sins, but we are responsible for seeking God’s forgiveness and the forgiveness of others. In other words, scripturally speaking, we are responsible, and this conception of personal responsibility and the need to abandon one’s ego in order to love and forgive others is integral to the vision of both Dorff and Cheong and DiBlasio.

A second possible objection is that Myers’s (2010) emphasis on using faith and psychology might lead to an impossible bind: the findings of psychology blatantly contradicting God’s word. However, this objection is surprisingly easy to answer, because it has already been answered by generations of visionary scientists who were also devout believers: all truth is God’s truth, and our human intuitions can be mistaken (Myers, 2010, p. 50). If our understanding of science and our understanding of Scripture are in conflict, it is not God who has the problem but us: we must be humble and recognize that we do not always rightly understand the book of God’s word, and be amenable to correction from the book of God’s works in His creation.

References

Cheong, R. K., & DiBlasio, F. A. (2007). Christ-like love and forgiveness: A Biblical foundation for counseling practice. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 26(1), pp. 14-25.

Dorff, E. N. (1998). The elements of forgiveness: A Jewish approach. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological research & theological perspectives (pp. 29-58). Radnor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Jones, L. G. (1995). Embodying forgiveness: A theological analysis. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Myers, D. G. (2010). A levels-of-explanation view. In E. L. Johnson (Ed.), Psychology and Christianity: Five views (2^nd ed.) (pp. 49-100). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Reichenbach, B. R. (2006). Healing view. In J. Beilby & P. R. Eddy (Eds.), The nature of the atonement: Four views (pp. 117-156). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.