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?