Models of Integration Part 2

Last time, we looked at the different models, or ways, of integrating Christian theology and modern psychology together on the topic of human behaviour. I continue here on why I don't quite buy Entwhistle's chosen model, and propose a possible tweak to his model.

The two books of Revelation and Nature were given to us to understand God and ourselves, but it seems to me that they shed light on some very different aspects of human behaviour.

The book of Nature was written to display the glory and power of God. (To paraphrase C S Lewis) I would not have known what splendour was if I had not seen, amidst biting cold winds, the labyrinth of Tasmanian valleys stretched out below a high vantage point. I would not have known beauty if I had not met Ukrainians. I would not have known dread and terror if I had never skied blizzard-blinded down the French Alps, unable to see the snow between my boots. I would not have known glory if I had never watched a copper-green hailstorm unleash its anger over rural Sydney. The book of Nature gives expressions and definitions to theological words - splendour, beauty, fear, glory. From the beginning, the invisible attributes of God have been clearly seen through what has been made - his eternal power and divine nature.

The book of Revelation (the whole Bible) was written to teach us everything we needed regarding obedience, holiness and righteous living. Its words are legible and intelligible whereas the book of Nature paints in vague and broad strokes, requiring much reflection and discretion to decipher correctly. If we start to draw our theology more from the vague brushstrokes of Nature than from the precise and explicit propositions found in the Bible, we not only get a lousy picture of God, but our thinking about how to learn more about God also goes astray. Logically, this occurs (gradually) because our own mind and notions  become the final critic if what may be known about God rather than asking him directly and discovering the answer in the Bible. It would be like having a preconceived notion about the plight of exploited sex workers but never bothering to engage with then to discover the real problem. Such an approach would immediately reveal to the discerning onlooker the inflated sense of self that must necessarily accompany such an approach. Theologically, one might say that the mind controlled by merely the human nature is hostile toward God and cannot please Him and hence cannot formulate pleasing thoughts about Him. 

So we see that regarding matters of salvation and doctrine, the book of nature can only be read under the light of and through the lens of the book of revelation. 

This is groundwork. The real question I now ask is whether this "lens of revelation" approach also holds true regarding matters of human behaviour and psychological understanding of the human mind. I will address this in the next post! 

Models of Integration - Part 1 (Jan 2014)

My apologies for the short absence, as I've been away on a whirlwind of a November, finishing up a big report (possibly the most serious one I've ever written to date), had an adventure in North Carolina, attended a Glycobiology conference in Florida, and went deep-sea fishing in the Maldives! And yes, you've guessed it, I don't quite have any more leave for Christmas!

This is actually the fourth or fifth time I've attempted to put pen to paper, and is the only successful one (the other three posts were too ambitious for this piece-meal format). I've decided to make about 5 more posts on this topic, so I can move on to other topics. As before, I completely welcome any comments or discussion.

If everything before was just entrées, today we turn to the meat of the book.

These are models of how "psychologically committed" proponents and "religiously committed" proponents can decide to agree or disagree on their viewpoints. The list seems to be quite comprehensive, covering what seems to be most of the actions that two parties might make towards each other - fight, steal, conquer, ignore, unite. Have a read through the list...which group do you fall under?

This has been one of the more interesting...and personally more controversial chapters in the book. This is because the author was clearly pushing the argument towards "Allies", and I sometimes felt overselling it a bit too much. In fact, I found myself disliking what I felt was a snobbish disdain of the four other models. This disdain felt like something akin to two women watching some children disagreeing over toys, and whispering to each other, "oh look Martha, the two are at it again - a pity they can't get along like us; oh no, they're far too silly to ever play peacefully". Note again how the only real positive terms are awarded to his favourite model, Allies, and to the easiest one to debunk, Neutral Parties. I am probably being terribly unfair, because, surprise of surprises, I don't fall into the "Allies" model! 

I stress here that he is not addressing Christianity in its entirety, but the Christian theology of human behaviour. The Allies model sees both theology and the scientific field of Psychology as equals, with each one considering the data from BOTH fields, with appropriate methodology, in order to make increasingly accurate conclusions about the truth behind human behaviour. The ancients called this something like "reading aright from the two Books of Revelation and of Nature". 

I love that Entwhistle points out, rightly so, that theology is not the same as truth, and likewise the theology of human behaviour is most definitely not the same as God's truth about human behaviour. This guards us from picturing our theological understanding as an unassailable fortress - the first step, always in the name of dogma, towards heresy. 

But here is where I depart from his reasoning. I find my feet more firmly planted in the Colonialist camp - where theology dominates psychological understandings, and the only way to meet is by "conquering". Conquering by capturing psychological findings and transforming them by re-interpreting through a theological framework. Entwhistle diagnoses me well here, rightly blaming my stance as due to the twins of lack of working knowledge of psychological methods, and having no intention to contribute to psychological research. And so I find myself being labeled a "pilferer" and "Colonialist", which of course nobody born after Queen Victoria, in their right mind would ever want to wear such a title. Do you see how Entwhistle's use of emotive terms now work against him?

I find that my biggest pickle with his proposed Allies model is that, as data sources, the book of Revelation is put on equal footing with the book of Nature. Yes, his point is valid that they are both written by the same Sovereign. But just as one would hesitate to equate the biographical value of "An Autobiography of a Fireworks Technician" to his/her million dollar fireworks display on New Years' Eve, I likewise would hesitate before equating the books of Revelation and of Nature as to their informative value on behaviour. 

I strongly believe that the two books were written for two separate purposes (and now I reveal again my Colonialist colours), and hence have different value for the investigator seeking answers to human behaviour. But more on why I think this way...next time!

Dividing Church and Psychology - A Case of Reductionism?

Galileo Before the Holy Court - c1900 Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury

Entwistle, I believe, correctly diagnoses the divide between secular psychology and Christianity. The divide is a problem of historical polarisation due to knee-jerk reactions against "unchristian" assumptions. What assumptions? Psychologists, in their search for the natural causes of diseases of the mind, went a bit too far and begun to assume that ALL problems of the mind have merely natural causes. This was probably born out of modernism, the wide spread assumption that a merely scientific understanding could solve all man's ills. Furthermore, psychologists began to become skeptical of ALL religious experiences and explanations for certain mental states. On the wave of Darwinism, they began to believe that the universe and life spontaneously generated, and left with only the material world, Entwistle says they began to see their "scientific method as the only legitimate and reliable method for pursuing knowledge". And this is where the dichotomy begins. The dichotomy caused the split on the level of epistemology and origins. Since orthodox (lower case "o") Christians cannot accept these naturalistic assumptions, therefore they began to reject the theories, followed by rejecting the psychologists, and eventually rejecting the whole field of psychology. Of course, Christians do not have a monopoly on this kind of reductionist logic - this way of viewing the world appears to be inbuilt into the human psyche (a psychologist probably has a term for this).

As a side note, this pattern is of course a repetition of the Christian fundamentalist's tendency to disengage from the rest of world. E.g. Some movies are morally repulsive therefore all movies are morally repulsive therefore don't watch movies (told to my parents in the 70s); Some scientists use natural selection as an argument for naturalistic evolution, therefore reject all theories of natural selection (I read many of these books in the 90s). The converse approach would be to engage: evaluate the assumptions, understand the method, consider the conclusions proposed, then decide on a real response to the real issue. E.g. Some movies are morally repulsive, but not all movies are. But people can improve their quality of life by enjoying healthy movies (e.g. for the Christian, the biographical "Jesus film") while avoiding unhealthy ones, therefore raise awareness of danger of the flawed assumptions and the idyllic representation of life in the movies, and teach people how to distinguish between what is healthy and unhealthy for them.

Is this segregation of church and psychology in the past now? After all, a whole stream of books from Christian psychologists and counsellors have flooded our shelves, swelling both the "Christian Living" and "Self-Help" sections in both Christian and Normal bookshops. As Entwistle explains, there has been a huge effort by many Christians to integrate the Christian faith and worldview with modern psychological research and theories. They have tried to build on the firm foundations - of a biblical gospel and a biblical Jesus - with the treasures of knowledge uncovered from the science of psychology. They appear to have been successful in never out-stepping the orthodox boundaries set by the Bible, and are able to draw from the deep epistemological foundations of the Christian worldview to make more justified conclusions. Their work, whether packaged in churched or unchurched terms, have helped many people remove the emotional and mental blocks preventing them from receiving God's love - in one sense, "demolishing arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor 10:5; of course not exactly fighting with divine weapons as in the original passage, but the action is quite similar.)

In summary, while for many people the historical divide still exists between a Christian's faith and psychological research, the divide does not need to remain. I am not referring to a wholesale acceptance of modern psychological research, of course. Sure enough, much of the naturalistic assumptions underpinning that science render it quite useless to a Christian (e.g. work trying to show morality as an emergent dynamic from social interactions), but there still exists a vast area of useful information and tools for the discerning Christian. Excellent books that have helped many Christians including myself are plentiful (these are books written with a distinctly Christian flavour):

By Clinton (counselor) and Sibcy (clinical psych PhD) - Attachments: Why You Love, Feel, and Act the Way You Do.
 http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/726510.Attachments?from_search=true

By Cloud (clinical psych PhD) and Townsend (clinical psych PhD) - Boundaries, How People Grow, Safe People.

By Loder - The Logic of the Spirit. (This is a seminal work, elegantly merging developmental theories with theology).

Psycho-Clergy?

A bit of fiction...

The sweat dripped from the General's helmet. Black, sooty tendrils curled around his horse's legs and clung to their leather strappings. Just before dawn, the wind had changed, and his scouts had caught a whiff of the fires. Now the sun was high overhead and, driven by a dry wind, the snaking lines of grass-fire had quickly encircled the hill where his army stood in battle columns. They had drank the last of the water early yesterday, and now the heat and smoke was pushing them to the brink of dehydration. 

His chestnut warhorse shuffled nervously. Gereral Ma Su squinted, his eyes stinging from the acrid air. The humiliation now seemed inevitable. He had been sent to defend Jieting, the key supply center for the Northern campaign. Against the advice of his trusted friend, he had chosen to take the high ground instead of fortifying the walled city in the nearby valley. He had been so sure of himself, so hungry for glory that he had not even entertained the idea that the victory would take more than a day. The enemy had shown more cunning, choosing to surround them at the plateau just below the only approach to the hill. Then, if he had chosen to attack, the plateau would have nullified the high ground advantage and caused his men to be fighting on three sides as they spilled out from the ridge lines. The few skirmishes he had ordered to try to break the enemy lines had confirmed this, and now they were penned in like sheep. If only he had listened to his advisor! The valley had plentiful fountains and, with the open plains around the walled city, it was not difficult to defend. But he had severely misunderstood the terrain. 

Sighing, he tightened the straps on his helmet, and twisted in the saddle to the line of grim-faced veterans behind him. He narrowed his eyes, scanning up and down the lines of fire. There! There was a gap in the blackened earth! He nudged his mount forward and nodded to the signallers. One last charge...

The Aftermath:

In the decisive defeat that ensued in AD 228, General Ma Su was captured and returned to the capitol in shame. Eventually, it emerged that due to his insistence on taking the textbook "high ground advantage", he failed to defend the supply center, which in turn caused the collapse of the whole Northern campaign. The Emperor had no choice but to order his execution.

Fighting the Battle and Knowing the Battlefield:

Understanding the battlefield and fighting the fight are two separate things, but they cannot be separated. It seems to me that, with psychology alone, I might understand facets of the battlefield of your mind (although without the Bible, I am unable to define absolute normality or even identify the sides). Indeed, I might perhaps begin to grasp the the terrain and the natural obstacles, the high ground and the water supply points for my army. But knowing the lay of the land is not on the same dimension as winning battles - information is not application.

I think you still need the bible to carry out the actual warfare - the day-to-day trial of displacing the defeated but yet entrenched army of sin, relying on the Holy Spirit to burn the dross from your desires, and re-calibrating your thoughts to reflect the mind of Christ, etc.. But perhaps psychological understanding and tools help us understand the battlefield of the mind?

Conversely, can one do with the Bible alone? Yes, it seems. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate,equipped for every good work." - 2 Tim 3:16-17 NASB. Therefore, the application of biblical principles under the expert blade of the Holy Surgeon must be enough for righteous living. So is there any scope for extra-biblical helps?

David Entwhistle does shed some light here. He brings up the fact that people were "doing" psychology before Psychology (the formal academic field) was invented (in the 19th Century). And more so, he continues to press, that it was the pastors using their bibles to improve the emotional and mental health of their parishioners! I can agree with his observation because in my reading of a couple of older texts, like Augustine's Confessions and Richard Foster's "Spiritual Life as Journey" (he's not dead but he reviews a selection of the contemplative/mystic saints), I do notice that great Christian thinkers from all ages seem to have been, in one sense, psychologists - in that to some extent they were seeking to unravel the workings of the human mind. An immediate example to memory is that of Evagrius (8th Century). He was a prominent clergy but fell into an affair with a married woman. Afraid of discovery and torn by guilt, he eventually found solace as a monk in a monastery. In what seemed like his attempt to understand his own sin and how subtly he fell into it, he penned the 8 Deadly Thoughts that eventually became the 7 Deadly Sins. You could say that it was his attempt to model and categorise the mental, emotional and spiritual processes that governed behavior, identifying the root causes and the visible presentations. Perhaps his view was to identify the root cause early so as to nip it in the bud before it can manifest in destructive behavior. He sounds like he could write a psych textbook! 

So Entwhistle has a very interesting observation - that clergy were psychologists long before Psychology emerged as we know it. He seems to conclude that when it comes to the pastor caring for church members, psychology does indeed overlap heavily with the Scriptures. Perhaps then, a very careful study of Scripture (with insight of course) might do much more for the Christian seeking to help others than a primer on psychotherapy!

But, why does it seem that psychological tools been rejected by many Christians? I do actually have friends who look at you suspiciously when you bring up counselling books (although they tend to be the older folk).

Next post - the apparent gulf between Psychology and the Faith...

Psychology and Jesus

Background:

Triggered by a friend asking about how psychology and the faith might integrate, it got me thinking about this book on my shelf. Looks like a dry read (it's a pretty exhaustive-looking textbook), but might be useful in applying to other areas of scientific discovery (e.g. neuroscience, biology, engineering, etc.). On p11 a quote caught my eye, from Tertullian (a bigshot in 3rd century Christendom): "what concord is there between the Academy and the Church? With our faith, we desire no further belief."

Provocation:

Understanding a smidgen of Psychology, or how my brain tends to work, has helped me to become more aware of my own mind - how easily I twist things to suit what I want, or how difficult it is to see things that I am not prepared to see. This has in turn helped me to fight the battle of the mind (Romans). This has not been apart from the Bible, for it is mainly the Bible that shows me the effects of an entrenched sin trying to worm its way into control of the mind, and it is mainly the Bible which gives me the various tools to weed it out.

Tensions:

Should a follower of Jesus use extra-biblical tools in his sanctification? Is it dishonouring to God if we use extra-biblical helps along the way, mixed in with a majority dose of bible marination? And, is there such a thing as true extra-biblical effectiveness? Or what role do extra-biblical helps play in the sanctification process? Do they hurt or help?

Definitions:

• Sanctification is the process of a follower of Jesus becoming increasingly alike to Jesus. "[God] predestined them to be conformed to the image of His Son." - Rom 8. It is a dual partnership between the follower and Jesus. "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purposes." Phil 2:13
• Psychology is the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.
• Biblical refers to principles or mandates either directly or indirectly derived from the Bible.

You:

This is the first of a set of posts on the topic of psychology and faith. What do you think?