![]()
CHAPTER 1
Resetting the Agenda
WHAT SORT OF PSYCHOLOGY ARE WE SEEKING TO RELATE TO CHRISTIAN FAITH?
WHY Psychological Science and Christian Faith? Why not simply Psychology and Christian Faith? There is a substantial literature on the relationship between psychology and Christian faith that expresses a wide range of views about the nature and scope of contemporary psychology. For example, two influential edited volumes on this topic are Psychology and the Christian Faith: An Introductory Reader (S. Jones 1986) and Psychology and Christianity: Five Views (E. Johnson 2010). Although these two books were published almost twenty-five years apart, both have guided discussions of the relationship between psychology and Christian faith in North America. What is striking about the content of these volumes is that they barely mention several areas of contemporary psychological research that have been among the most intensively researched, widely reported, and generously funded over the past six decades, including
- Cognitive psychology
- Neuropsychology and cognitive neuroscience
- Evolutionary psychology
Why are these omissions regrettable? Howard Gardner has documented the crucial role of the cognitive revolution in modern psychologyâas the foundation for a large segment of contemporary research, as well as the entire field of artificial intelligence (Gardner 1985). The importance of cognitive neuroscience was emphasized by the US government in its declaration that the last decade of the twentieth century should be labeled the âDecade of the Brain.â Likewise, the first decade of the twenty-first century has been labeled the âDecade of the Mind.â The impact of evolutionary psychology is evident from the explosive growth in research funding and publications in this field. The minimal coverage of these research areas in the two widely read volumes mentioned above demonstrates a serious mismatch between what is happening at the cutting edge of psychology and what is included in the typical science-faith discussions. We believe that any current and future discussions of psychology and Christian faith should take note of psychology as it is today and as it is taught to todayâs college and university students.
One way of finding out what contemporary psychology looks like is to examine the contents of a current standard textbook. For the past three decades, the most widely read textbook of psychology in North America is the one written by David Myers, now in its twelfth edition (Myers and DeWall 2018). In this book, the prologue and chapter 1 deal with the story of psychology and research methodology. The headings of the remaining chapters are as follows:
Chapter 2 The Biology of Mind
Chapter 3 Consciousness and the Two-Track Mind
Chapter 4 Nature, Nurture, and Human Diversity
Chapter 5 Developing through the Lifespan
Chapter 6 Sensation and Perception
Chapter 7 Learning
Chapter 8 Memory
Chapter 9 Thinking and Language
Chapter 10 Intelligence
Chapter 11 What Drives Us: Hunger, Sex, Friendship, and Achievement
Chapter 12 Emotions, Stress, and Health
Chapter 13 Social Psychology
Chapter 14 Personality
Chapter 15 Psychological Disorders
Chapter 16 Therapy
Given this listing of major topics in contemporary psychology, it is interesting to examine the academic specializations of the contributors to the two edited volumes mentioned above. The Stanton Jones (1986) volume contains chapters from eleven contributorsâone distinguished brain scientist (Donald MacKay), three social psychologists, two psychotherapists, and four philosophers or theologians. Even on the most generous assessment, that volume cannot claim to be covering the current issues at the interface of contemporary psychology and Christianity. To put it bluntly, the book ignores more than three-quarters of contemporary psychology, in the sense that those topics are not represented by contributions from researchers or practitioners actively involved in these areas.
The more recent book edited by Eric Johnson (2010) fares little better. It has seven chapters; the first is a brief history of Christians in psychology and the final chapter discusses the five views offered in the intervening chapters. The five substantive chapters have a total of seven contributorsâa social psychologist, a physiological psychologist (now studying personality and religious coping), a clinical psychologist, two counseling psychologists, a philosopher, and a theologian. Once again, if we compare the content of a general psychology textbook with the academic specializations and research areas of the contributors, it appears that about 80 percent of contemporary psychology is not represented. This failure to engage with psychology as it is today is highlighted in David Myersâs response to the chapter titled âA Christian Psychology Viewâ written by Robert C. Roberts and P. J. Watson. In that response, Myers lists some important findings of psychological science that are not addressed in scripture or the writings of Christian theologians, such as:
- The functions of our two brain hemispheres
- The quantified heritability of a multitude of traits
- The remarkable cognitive abilities of newborns
- The extent to which peer influences trump parental nurture in shaping childrenâs language, smoking habits, and lifestyle choices
- The effects of experience at different ages on the brainâs neural networks
- Changes in mental abilities with aging
- How eyewitnesses construct, and reconstruct, memories
- The powers and perils of intuition
- The components of intelligence
- The effects of stress on the bodyâs immune system
- The ways our self-concept guides our information processing
- The effects of aerobic exercise on mild depression and anxiety
- The things that do and donât predict human happiness
Myers then adds, âIf establishment psychology is indeed where significant discoveries and new understandings are emerging, do we really want to run off into the corner to create our own Christian psychology? By doing so, do we not risk irrelevance?â (Myers 2010b, 180â81). To restate our rationale for the title of this book, we believe that discussions of psychology and Christian faith should engage psychology as it is today and as it is taught to todayâs college and university studentsâconsidering the full range of topics within psychological science.
CHANGING VIEWS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN FAITH
One common response to the question, âWhat is the relation between psychology and Christian faith?â is to point to ongoing conflicts between the two. This response is understandable, given the legacies of very influential figures in twentieth-century psychologyâsuch as Sigmund Freud and B. F. Skinnerâwho considered religion to be incompatible with science. In addition, the antireligious perspective of well-known contemporary scientists such as distinguished evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins may suggest that there is a necessary and fundamental conflict between psychological science and Christian belief.
The conflict motif is not the only one being used today to describe relations between psychology and faith. Another motif might be called the concordism motif. This takes a variety of forms, being described as a âharmonizationâ of psychology and religion, or even as an âincorporationâ of psychology into Christian theology. The basic goal of concordists is to show that glimpses of human nature found in scripture âfit togetherâ neatly with descriptions of human nature presented by some psychologists. There is nothing new in this. As we shall document in later chapters, more than a century ago some leading Christian thinkers were championing a brain-mind theory called phrenology because of the way it seemed to âfit togetherâ with some Christian beliefs.
But there is another part of the psychology-religion story that is often overlooked. If we look back across the past decades, we find that some Christian psychologists managed to avoid the strident notes of conflict while at the same time keeping well away from the comforting siren voices of concordism. Their approach was characterized by a focus on the insights and enrichments to their faith from their science, and from their science to their faith. For example, David Myers wrote:
The natural and biblical data are both viewed through human spectacles and are therefore subject to bias and distortion. We should consequently be open to insights that come through either nature or Scripture (recognizing God to be the common source of both), while remembering no oneâs interpretation of nature or Scripture is final truth. This being the case, we may view with some skepticism any attempt to subject theology to scienceâor science to theology. (Myers 1986, 218, emphasis added)
In a later section, he makes this focus even clearer, tying the insights-enrichments model to a broader approach called complementarity or complementary perspectives:
In this essay we will describe how some of the modern insights of social psychology (which are drawn from two research areas) illuminate the ancient biblical revelation of our human nature. Social psychologists have their own special insights into human nature. Other insights into human nature have been independently discerned by biblical scholars. How well do these two realms complement one another? My overall answer is that while there are points of tension which deserve our attention, the ancient biblical view of human nature comes home with renewed force as we review the relevant findings of social psychology. (Myers 1986, 218, emphasis added)
As the author of a general psychology textbook, Myers was well aware that textbooks must cover the whole range of psychology, not just a portion representing a few favorite areas of specialization. In the same way, although it might be possible to take one small area of psychology and find ways of harmonizing it with some aspects of Christian faith, that approach severely limits the impact and applicability to todayâs psychological science in all its scope. For example, someone specializing in personality theory or the study of individual differences may well find that the language they use to describe their research findings is very similar to the ordinary descriptive language used in scripture passages about peopleâs behavior or about human nature. Because of the superficial similarities in language, there would be a strong and understandable temptation to âharmonizeâ or âintegrateâ the concepts used in both domains. However, a researcher in neuropsychology, evolutionary psychology, or neuropharmacology would likely use technical language with very clear, precise, and specialized meanings that are only understood in the context of the scientific research being conducted. In that case, there would be little temptation to try to make findings from this kind of research âharmonizeâ with descriptions about cognition and behavior in everyday language, such as the kind used in scripture. Instead, it would be more natural to adopt an approach based on complementarity or complementary perspectives. We describe that approach in detail in a later chapter, but here we merely remind the reader that the insightsâenrichments motif is closely connected to complementarity.
To return to the insights-enrichments motif, the possibility of gaining theological insights from psychological research has been helpfully clarified by Everett Worthington. In a pair of chapters titled âPsychological Science Strengthens Theological Claimsâ and âPsychological Science Adds New Ideas to Theology,â Worthington (2010) identifies several areas in which psychological science affords new insights into theology and enriches our understanding of some traditional theological doctrinesâsuch as the reality of human evil, the dangers of pride and anger, and the benefits of forgiveness. Another person who has supported the insights-enrichments model is Fraser Watts, who points out that enrichment is not a one-way process. Summarizing Wattsâs approach, Peter Harrison writes:
Fraser Watts suggests that in the case of psychology and theology a different model is possible. Theology, he contends, can offer special insights into the nature of the human person and can thus both critique and enrich psychology. It does so on the first count by contesting overly reductionist explanations of human persons, and on the second, by making contributions that arise out of its special familiarity with such features of human experience as guilt and forgiveness. Watts also demonstrates ways in which psychology can make positive contributions to theology. Here the discussion extends to theological anthropology, biblical hermeneutics, religious experience and glossolalia. The general model he offers, then, is one in which theology and psychology can be mutually enriching. (Harrison 2010, 10, emphasis added)
There is a wealth of literature on the relations between psychology and religion, and it comes as somewhat of a surprise to realize that this literature provides little support for the conflict motif and rarely shows attempts at concordism. In the next section, we summarize some of the important developments. For additional details, see Jeeves (2013).
LEARNING FROM THE PAST:
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION
Converging Influences
In the continuing story of the relationship between psychology and faith, the academic study of the psychology of religion stands out because it illustrates both the possibility of conflict between psychology and faith and the possibility of friendly cooperation between psychology and religion as shared partners in a mutual endeavor. Broadly speaking, psychologists who study religion have concentrated their research on what might be called the ârootsâ of religion (how religious beliefs and behaviors emerge) and the âfruitsâ of religion (what impact religion has on cognition and behavior).
What are the ârootsâ of the psychology of religion itself? Leslie Hearnshaw identified four influences that converged at the end of the nineteenth century to provide the basis for this field of psychology (Hearnshaw 1964). These were Sir Francis Galtonâs studies of the manifestations of religion (e.g., prayer); studies by anthropologists, such as Sir James Fraser, of comparative religion and the origins of religions; the writings of theologians, such as W. R. Inge, on mysticism and religious experience; and finally, the beginnings of the systematic study of religious behaviors, best illustrated by Edwin Starbuckâs book The Psychology of Religion (Starbuck 1899).
Positive Beginnings
The lines of research mentioned by Hearnshaw laid the groundwork for the psychology of religion, but the field was popularized by the publication of William Jamesâs classic work, The Varieties of Religious Experience (James 1902). As the title suggests, this book draws attention to the wide range of human experiences of religion and of the life of faith. It reminds us that each person is unique. Any attempt to fit everyoneâs experience and practice of faith into one mold fails to recognize the wide variety of religious behavior, and also fails to recognize the variety of spiritual experiences of the people described in scripture.
One of Jamesâs lasting contributions was his classification of religion into âhealthy mindedâ and âmorbid mindedâ religion. These, he thought, were related to factors of temperament and personality. Paradoxically, the presence of religious faith could energize some individuals to perform acts of care and compassion, while in others the impact of religion could be more negative, producing guilt, depression, and hatred.
William James called attention to individual differences in religion and spirituality. In contrast, James Pratt focused on common themes across religious people and across religious traditions. Prattâs book The Religious Consciousness identified stages of religious development from the primitive to the intellectual and the emotional, arguing that these stages were present in all religions (Pratt 1920).
Cambridge psychologist Robert Thouless, a practicing Christian, broadly followed the example set by William James. As set out in An Introduction to the Psychology of Religion (Thouless 1923), Thoulessâs views toward religion were entirely positive. The book examines the factors involved in religious belief, including both unconscious and conscious processes, and devotes special attention to prayer, con...
